United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office 01
Emergency and.
Remedial Response
EP AIROD/R05-90/163
. March 1990

0(1 (
PE 12:- t:f6~ I Z 5
oEPA
Superfund .
Record of Decision:
u.s. 001 Sangamo/Crab
Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge, IL
u. S. Environmental Pt.
~egiO~ JIl Hazardous w~sr;tfOn Agency
8e4c1hnC'cal Information Center
hestnut Street 9th
Philadelphia. PA 19107 Floor

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1'. REPORTNO. 12-
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-90/163
3. R8c1pi8nta ~ No.
4. Tla. and SubIa.
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
U.S. DOI Sangamo/Crab Orchard NWR, IL
First Remedial Action
s.. A8part on.
03/30/90
I.
7. Author(a'
I. ''''''0111111111 OrpnIzaIIon A8pL No.
9. Fwfonnlng OrgainIDlion Name and Add-
10. Pro)IctIT88klWCIItI UnIt No.
11. ConIrac:t(C) or Gr8nI(G) No.
(C)
(0)
12. Sponsoring Organization ...... and Addreu
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report. PerIod CoftNd
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary No...
.
16. Aba"act (Umlt: 200 worda)
The U.S. DOI Sangamo/Crab Orchard NWR site is within the Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge, located near Carterville, Illinois. Within the 43,000-acre refuge, lakes and
adjacent wetlands support recreational activities on the western portion of the refuge,
while the eastern portion is used for manufacturing facilities. Site features in the
eastern portion include a plating pond, a drainage pool, and an industrial landfill.
The Department of Defense (000), the original administrator of the refuge, leased
portions to munitions and explosives manufacturers who continue to operate on site. In
1947, DOD transferred the administration of the refuge to the Department of the
Interior (DO I). DO I leased portions of the refuge to manufacturers of PCB-containing
transformers and capacitors, automobile parts, fiberglass boats, plated metal parts,
and jet engine starters. Solid wastes generated from these industrial activities were
disposed of in onsite landfills, while other liquid wastes may have been discharged
into nearby surface waters and impoundments. EPA has divided the site into four
operable units (OUs) for remediation. This ROD addresses OU1, and focuses on the
metal-contaminated soil, sediment, debris, and sludge in three areas of the site.
These areas are: the Area 7 Plating Pond (site 15), which is an inactive 45,000 gallon
17. Document ANlya'a L Deacrlptora
Record of Decision - U.S. DOI Sangamo/Crab Orchard NWR, IL
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, sludge
Key Contaminants: metals (cadmium, chromium, lead)
b. ldenliliera/Open-Ended Terma
c. COSA TI Reid/Group
19. Availability Statement
19. SecurIty CI... (1hla Report)
None

20. SecurIty CI..a (1h18 "'118)
None
21. No. 0' Pagea
92
I
22. PrIce
(See ANSI-Z39.tS)
&Ie /M/TucIlQM on Re-
(FCll'lll8lty NTI~)
D8pmment 0' ColIIIIIIII'ce

-------
EPA/ROD/R05-90/163
u.s. DOI Sangamo/Crab Orchard NWR, IL
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
pond containing approximately 280 cubic yards of contaminated material; the Old Refuge
Shop Drainage Pool and intermittent creek (site 22), which is a collection point for
run-off, and contains approximately 5,200 cubic yards of contaminated material; and the
Fire Station Landfill (site 29), a 350 by 300 open field containing approximately 14,600
cubic yards of contaminated material. At least three other OUs will be addressed by
future RODs, depending on site information collected in the future. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and sludge are metals
including cadmium, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating over 20,000 cubic yards
of contaminated soil, sediment, debris, and sludge, and temporarily storing the waste
onsite until treatment or disposal; treating approximately 9,000 cubic yards of soil,
debris, and sediment considered to be RCRA characteristic hazardous waste using
stabilization and fixation; disposing of the treated and non-treated soil, debris, and
sludge onsite in an industrial (RCRA Subtitle D) landfill; capping the landfill; filling
the excavated areas with clean soil; conducting environmental monitoring of ground
water, surface water, and leachate, and long-term maintenance of the landfill; and
implementing institutional controls, and continuing site access restrictions. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $2,700,858, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $54,371 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Cleanup goals for soil, sediment, debris, and sludge
are based on the risk assessment, a 10-6 excess cancer risk level, and a HI
-------
. --- - - .--.---....- -.
- -'. - -.. .... ...--
J:B:'DRATICif ftR 'DIE I
-------
cn-site d;,.-=-l of ~ hazarcb.Js stabilized/fixed material
am untreated residues ~;'1C) the clean up targets in II lan:lfill
meet:.inq the ~ of ~ SUbtitle D am 35 Illnois
Administrative 0:Ide Part 807;

Dwi.ralnenta1 Darl tor~ durin; am after remedial ccnstructioo to
ensure the effectiveness of the reae::lial IIctiOO.
IE:L\RATI~
'!he selected .U:II.edy is prctective of human health and the env:ira'ms1t,
attains Federal am State requirements that are legally 8R)licable or
relevant and Al=PIq)riate for this ~b' action, is ocst-effective an:l
o:nsistent with aauevin; II permanent l~Y. 'Ihis l~ satisfies the
stat:utmy preference for remedies that eaplay treatment that I"At'h~
toxicity, mobility or volUIE as a principle element and utilizes
permanent soluticrs am alternative treatment (or resoorce recovery)
tec::hnologies to the DBy;m1ln extent practicable for this Site.
Because this .L~.edy will result in hazarcb.Js substances remainirg a1-
Site above health-based levels, II review will be cxrducted within five
years after (;)..alaueilOcal.er1t of remedial action to ensure that the 1. OCIueJy
ocntinues to provide adequate protecticn of human health and the
environment.
Valdas V. ~
IBte J/? ~ 7D
~ t1{ _Ckn~/

/; _J..~ture
~ ' icnal Administrator, Reqioo V
U.S. EnvL.'.UI.eatal Pratection ~
-------
~CIf R'R 'DIE ICI!U.KI CI nrr~
~ CR::H1\RD NATICIW. tifT nr TIlE ~Uit',;
IEmIS ARFAS CM!RAB[B tIm'
SITE N1\ME AND I.OCM'I~

Sarqim:>/Crab 0rd1ard Natimal Wildlife RefU:Je
Carterville, nlimis
STATfME}fI' OF B\SIS MID PURPOSE

'!his decisim doc::ument presents the selected remedial actic:n for the
Metals Areas operable unit at the crab Orchard NaticnU Wildlife Refuge
Site near Carterville, Illinois, Wichwas chosen in aooordance with
~, as amerded by ~, an:! to the extent practicable, the Naticral
C::Intin::Jency Plan. '!his decision is based em the administrative record
file for this site.
'!he United States Department of the Interior, the current owner of the
site, cxnours an the selecte::1 l~.
'!be State of Illinois has rot cxn::urred on the selected .~.
ASSESSMrnr OF 'IHH SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances fran this Site, if
rot addressed by iltplerentm; the respcn;e actia'l selected in this R)D,
may present on inminent an:i substantial ~ to public health,
\Ielfare, or the erwi.ra1ment.
DESaUPI'IOO OF '!HE ~ frrED REMEm"

'!his operable unit is the first of several planned far the site. '!be
l.~edy for the first operable unit addresses three distinct sites 1Itbich
cart:.ain soil and. ~;1III'O!J1t ccntaminated primarily with metals such as
cadmium, d1rani.um am lead. A preferred alternative was selected by
U.S. EPA for a secx:n:i operable unit, a:ns~ of fa.zr distin::t sites
primarily oa1taminated with PCBs an1 lead. PUblic Q .'.'1CoI1t is alue1at.ly
bein3' evaluated a1 the seocn:l q:enble unit, and the final .~ will
be selected after the (u...~ are reviewed. '!he .--iJy selected for
the Metals Areas cperable unit addresses the principle threats posed by
the sites carprisi.n;J the operable unit. '!he major C>-~II..;]I81ts of the
selected t.:auc:r.ly in=lude:
Exl2vatic:n of ccntaminated soil and p,H~:
Treatment by stabilizatiaVfixatic:n of all excavated soil and
se:liment cx:ntaminated with metals that are CD1Si.dered RCRA
hazardous because of EP '1'cDd.city to remer them ncn-hazardcus;
-------
C&site "i~ of ~ hazardoos stabilized/fixed material
and untreated residues ~ the clean up targets in a lan:lfill
meet.ing the nqUrements of ~ SUbtitle D and 35 Illnois
Administrative o::de Ru:t 807:
nwL.l..lla..ental m:ni torirq durinq an:! after r--i;.' ccnstructicn to
ensure the effectiveness of the rBJ8tial actia1.
IB::IARATI~

'!he selected .L~ is protective of human health am the envUl..llaue1Jt,
attains Federal and State requirements that are leqally eq:plicable er
relevant and ~"¥.Liate fer this ~;.l actia1, is cxst-effective and
cxnsistent with achievinq a permanent lo:auedy. '!his l~ satisfies the
statutory preference fer remedies that sploy treatment that r-it-
toxicity, JllCbUity or volume as a principle element and utilizes
permanent solutia'lS and alternative treatJDent (er :re.sca.u:'Ce reccvery)
technologies to the maxUrUI'I\ extent practicable for this Site.
Because this .L~ will result in hazardoos substances remainiJ'g en-
Site above health-based levels, a review will be a:niucted within five
years after 
-------
-- _.. ---..
. .- - _.
tl!X:I.SICIf SOK\R!' - MEDIS AREAS
~ CR:s\RD K\TICIaL WIIJLIFE' ~
1MRItIf, nL1JGIS
I.
srm NNm, I.C:X:7a'ICIf AND ~J:~CIf
San:;JaDD/Crab orchard Natia'W. Wildlife Ref\I;Je
cart.erville, Illinois

'!he Crab Orchard Natiaal Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge) site lies near
Marien, cart.erville am CaJ:tx:n::Iale, Illinois, primarily within Will ;'-=-1
C:1Jnty, externin.:J into Jacksa1, unien am Jchnsa1 Counties, in 8CIUthem
Illinois (see Figure 1 in ~ A) . '!he Refuge cx:nsists of
approximately 43,000 acres of 1IL1ltiple-uge lam. '!be lam is used as a
wildlife refu:;Je, am also for recreatiaal, agrio.1ltural am industrial
p.n:poses .
'!he westem En! of the Refu:;Je around Crab Orchard lake is used far
recreatiooal p.u:pcsOO' while the eastern En! is used for mamfacb.1rin:J
facilities. ~'fJ to the eastern porticn is closed to the p.1blic,
except for liJnited access to workers at the industrial sites am
restricted aooess to hunters. '!be sb.xJy sites whid1 were the focus of
the Remedial Investigatim (RI) am Feasibility Stuiy (FS) are located in
the eastern, closed portion of the Refuge (See Figure 2 in ~ A).

'!here are twelve lakes, :in::lu:iirq crab Orchard lake located within the
Re~e. crab 0'r'd1ard lake SlJRX)rtS a l~ pc:p1latien of'sports fish am
is used as a dr~ water source for the Refuge am nea1i:Jy Marien
Federal Peni tenti.aJ:y. Wetlams are fc:urd in SaDe areas adjacent to the
lakes. Wildlife a1 the ~ inclu:ie many game and na~ species.
'!he Refu;Je has habitat suitable for one ~ speoies, the In:ti.ana
bat, am definitely hoIJs~ ancthe.r, with two active bald 8I!IIqle nests.
II. srm BIS1tR!r:'AR) ~~.AL:&:&.vl.I..~:
'!be crab 0It:ha.rd. Natimal Wildlife Refuge:- is CM"JII!Id' by tha°U.S.
govelTII81t and 1s.~.I._at1.y ~,by the U.S. P1aarxl-W'1t41ife
Sel'Vice (N;) a tureau of the Dep8rtment of the Interiar (lX)I). 'Jhe
Refuge was previcusly administered by the Department of Defense ([XX».
tUrin; the [XX) IdId.nistraticn portions of the Re1U}e went leased to
in:!ustrial tenants, primarily for the purpose of JDJnitia's md tDq1lcsives
maJ"lJfacturin;. At. the tnS of World War II the [XX) transferred the Ref\.J;Je
to the OOI. SewD:al ather imustries JIICY8d a'1to the site to cx::DIp'f
bJ.ilclin:Js formerly used by the wartime imustries. 'Jhe productien of
tDq1lcsives a:nt.irued to tie the principle 1mustzy en the-: R8fuge. Other
irDJst%y incl\Ded the 1IIU'11facturin; of PCB- transfc:n.~. and ~itars,
llUtaacbile parts, fiberqlass boats, conugated baxes, plat8d.88tal parts,
tape, nares and jet en;Jine 8tarters., "

a..~-, in passin)- the law that crw1ted the crab O%da%d Naticnal
Wildlife Ref\J;Je, IlliU'ldated a ~ industrial PI e g !lICe en Refuge
~~"ty. O:t~-s ~ that the lams 1IIJSt be used in a 8mer
ocnsistent with the needs of in:!ustry, as well as these of agria1lture,
-------
ha..il.aatia1, and wildlife ccnservatia1. '!he ac:xxmpanyin;J leqislative
histmy irdicates the 1n:Nstrial devel~ of Crab 0rd1ard Naticnal
Wildlife Ret\r;Je as ()auL.cal to the viability of the Refuge.

'!he Crab Orchard enabli11q l~islation (16 U.S.C. 666g) further provides
that no jurisdiction shall be ~ised by the SeI::retUy of Interiar over
that px'tion of sucb lan:is am the i1IpravElll!J1ts thereon utilized by the
Department of Ar4rj diIectly or in:1irectly, until deteJ:mined by the
Secretary of the Ar4rj, that utilizatia1 is no l~ required. '!he IX)[)
is respcnsible for the cleanup am envL.1..ll8Ul:lrt;.al restoratia1 of these
lands whid'1 have been urder its jurisdiction in accordance with the law.
D~ activities at the site ~y in::lu::led duapm; of waste
material in uru;ed areas of the site, am lardfilli11q of waste materials
in unlined lardfills whid'1 were a:wered with earth. Other r1i",--l might
have inchDed d.iscnarqe of liquid material to surface water bodies am
~. '!he types of materials r1i ~ of at the Refuge reflect
the broad range of sutstanoes ~ in the various in:lustrial am Refuge
activities. '!here are no good estimates of the tatal volume of r1i~
material.
'!he site was prqa;ed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1984 am
finalized on the NPL in July 1987. '!he relative roles am
respcnsibilities of other Federal Agen:ies am the united States
D1vira1ment:a1 Protectia1 1qercf (U.S. EPA) at Federal Facil~ties like
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge are prescribed in Section 120 of
CER::IA am Executive Order NlJd:)er 12580. OOI is respa8ible far ~i "'
action anj cxmpliance with the O:mprehensive Envul..II...eIatal Respoose,
0"'1 ensation anj Liability Act (c:::E1aA), as a1ueI ded. 'lhe U.S. EPA is
respa~ible for pravi~ assistance am oversight to OOI far acticns at
the site t.aJcen to amply with a1a.A. In additia1, u.s. EPA is
respa8ible for final ..---:ly selectia1 at the site.

In addition to the roles am responsibilities of the OOI am u.s. EPA at
the Refuge r1iCln18sed abaYe, IX)[) may have respc:nlibility far th8.bazazdous.
substances at the Site, in accordance with Sectia1 107 of aa::::tA am
under the Defense EnvL._....tal R8staratia1 P.L~CIIII. VariCIus other
private partiea..8)' have' re&pcnJ1bility far the hazardcua. ~ at
the Ret\.qe in aa:mdance with Sectian 107 of CDaA.
In February 1986, the u.S. EPA and NS entered into a Federal Facility
Initial Q:mpliaJat ¥--=a.t, 1IIhid'1 required the perfamlU1CB of a
~iA' ~a1 aid Feasibility Study (RI/!S). '1be NS, in
cx:njun::tion with sar~ West.a'1, Inc., a patentially ~ib1e party
(Pm») at the site, began a RI/FS at the Refuge in May 1986. In August
1988, an RI ~t. vas f~lbed and IIi!Ide aYJIIi1able to the pmuc. In
A1ZJUSt 1989 the JIS Report and ~"~ plans far the first two cperable
units at the .ite Wllr8111!1de 8VAi1~. to the public. 'DJa, U.8. EPA 8eJ:'V8Cl
'as the 8UR>' ~tin;J eqeIJCj durirI;J the RI,IFS, am was lMd IqaDf far the
devel~«. of the )0'1-" ~
-------
A dntt InteragenCy ~_It (DG), p.1I'SUaI1t to cm::tA Secticn
120(8) (2) .is OM.A.ently tIein;J dev8lcped bet:1ue8\. U.5. £PA, 001, and IEPA.
ta) 18 also potentially a party to the :rAG and is .involved in the
neqot.iaticns. NegDtiaticns CI'1 this DG wen! started in August 1989, and
are mcpected to be CXIIpleta:l in June 1990. 'Ihe:rAG, when finalized, will
delineate 1qn:f rol- and respc:nsibUities and will stipulate ec::hedules
far CXIIpletiCl'1 of the ~iA' act.iCl'1 specified in this Ja) and ~iA'
act.iCl'1 for other cpenble units.

In JUly 1989, oor i--' letters p.1I'SUaI1t to CDc:IA SectiCl'1 104 (e) , to
~ inf~cm.relatinJ.'to..t;he."idlBnt:ificatiCl'1;M nab.1re: and. cpmtity.. ..~ - .;-,:.-
of materials treated., 8tared ar di ~ at the Retur:)e', ar transparted to
the Aefuge; the. nature ar atent of any releases or threatened releases
of a hazardoJs substance at the Aefuge; and WOJ:1lBticn relatin;J to the
recipient's ability to pay for a clean.Jp. 001 and u.s. EPA are jointly
reviewin;1 the respons~ to these letters to determine 1I41ether any of the
respadents wculd be cxn;i.dered FRPs at the site. Special nctice
letters have net been is-9IM:It'1 to any FRPs at the site to date.
In. a::MUa1Y RE[M'ICH; au.:r~ud
Public participaticn requirements under aa:IA Secticns l13(k) (2) (B) an::}
117 were satisfied durin:J the rt!'--'h,' precess. U.5. EPA has been
primarily responsible for cx:n1uctin;J the CXIIIII.1nity relaticns PIU:JLaku for
this site, with the assi.stan::2 of NS. 'Ihe following milesta1e
act.i vi ties were ccnducted during the RIllS:

Establishment of an Administrative RaooId at the 5a1them 1llimis
university's Morris LibJ:m:y in OU:t:Icrdale, Illinois and at u.s. £PA,
Reqicn V Office in Olicago, illinois.
Establ.ishmmt of 8dditicnal infaDllltia1 repositories at MariCI'1
cameqie Public LibJ:m:y in Marien, Illinois; crab orchard Naticmal.
Wildlif.,~~'in cartEYille, Ill1rr::da; ani.Marian
Federal Penit.entiuy in Marien, Ill1rr::da.

D8Yelwa-u-£ of . -~ 1 ~;li8t::of, ~ citizsw, arganizat.ia1s,.
news JIIEId1a', and~81ect8d offici.'. ,in local, ccunty, 8tate and
federal~. Periodic JIBilin;s of Fact Sheets and other
infat1l8tic:n.
.. ,;.
Periodic J88.. nle--. anncun::inJ variaJS cn-site activities and
results of .inYestiga1:ic:na.
A Fact SheIIt in Au;ust'1988, e:xplainirr;. theresulta of the z--'b'
1nvestigatian. '!he p--'''.', Investigatic:n Report ws- alao re~aM
at this tiJIae,
t
Paid ._Jjj)8VT adYm:+i--.ta in anncun::inJ the m p1b1':1~ 88tinJ
and the rs and ~. 't--oeed plan availability . r icn and pi>}it'!.
hearirI1.
3
-------
A public JI88t.inq in August 1988, to meet cx::memed citizens and
~i-.- the results"of.the.1A'IA.~i.l,.-investigatien. ~tely
100 peepl. at:tended the meet.ir1g.

A Fact Sheet in Jamuy 1989, explrdnirxJ the Feasibility St1dy and
}A' t.I06ed plan ptooe5S, ~i 1Il"!I1CU:.in; :':'--' i "' tect1noloqies urder
cxnsideratien, and anncuncirxJ a tentative &eim.1le.
A Fact Sheet in August 1989, explainiJ'q U.S. £PA's prefernd
alternatives for two cpn-able units at the site, and ~i -=ntel::irxJ the
availability of the FS and p.~ plans for these q:erable units.
'Ihis Fact Sheet also c:utlined the other remedial alternatives,
anno.mced the plblic o....~J1t period and solicited ~'1t en the
alternatives.

An availability sessien in ~ 1989, to infol1llally answer
citizens' questicns about the FS and prqxJSed plans. ()Jesticns were
answered by representatives of U.S. !:PA, FE and IEPA.
A public hearirxJ en ~ 30, 1989, at the ~.'t--osed plans and the
FS. 0:mDents were taken at the record. ~tely 140 pec:ple
atten::led. ~ - entaticns were made, and questicns were answered by
representatives of U.s. !:PA, FE and IEPA.

A public c-lAlent peric:a of thirty days was originally planned,
~ fran August 18, 1989, to Sept.eIIt:Ier 16, 1989. 'Ihe public
CXIIIIe1'1t period was annamoed in the pl~ plan for the q:erable
unit, in the Fact Sheet of August 1989, and thrcu:Ih paid ~
advertisements in the SOUthem Illinoisian and the Marien bdly
RepJblic. ~.-, at 0< .....M'Jt taken at the public hearin:J en August
30, 1989, the ",,,.,..etlt peric:a far this operable unit was extemed for
an ackiitic:nal week, until septmber 23, 1989. 'Ihe extensien was
annamoed by lette:rs = the individt-' a and ~ en the 1IPti, in;
list, and by a iM--' nl--.
An availability lleSSien in 5ept-..I+.L 1989, to specifically ,.i-.,e.c:
the Metals AreIa cprable unit, and" to answer CJJSSticns abcut this
unit. ()JesticnJ were 8I'IS'W8Ied by 1~ E ( !J atatiWS'" of U.S. !:PA, FE
and IEPA. "
A ~siVeJIeS8 S--ry 6&h.~inq . '" ....-.ts and questia1S received
during the public 0-...-40 pericxI en the RIIPS and ~',"<088d plan is
included with thia Reocnd of DBcisien as the third aectian.

'!his decisien ~~ PI as Mats the 8elected ~illl' IICticn for the
Metals Areas q:erable unit at the crab O'~ Nat1cnal Wildlife Aefur;Je
~ site, in carteJ:ville, nlinois, c.haIen in acxxrdanoe with
CECA, as ameuded by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the Nat1c:n!l1
~ Plan. '1he deciaien far this cprable unit at th8 uta is
based en the AdadnistratiV8 ~d.
4
-------
')11
'N. SCDPE AND RK& ar ~""R un'1'
'D1e first step in the RI J&\oIOeSS. was a mview of 8VRn~'e RefuI)e files
an:! old analytical result8'"to ~ "study sites" to be inYestigated in
depth. 'Ibirty-'three sbJdy'''aites were investigated dur1n;J the Ja, with
seven of these carried inti) the ~ for evaluatia1 of ~b'
al tematives. .
;~
As with many SUperfurd. sitiBs, the prcblEIIB.at the. Retuge are cx:mp1ex.
'D1e results of the investigaticn; of the stud:y sites indicated that the
~ consists of several: ~athically distinct arMS. with. muitedly
diffezent ~ '1be88r-:inclur::a.diffeuiI.c! I' in..tb8.-
cx:ntami.nants, in the. part.tEs ftSpCnSible for the ccntaminatian, an:l in
the rerredial acticns an:! ~.edules that wculd be~~iate.
O:nsequently, the 1qn:f clBcided to addresS these- areas..1n:UvWtVII" y as
"~le units" of an CW8rall site .LGtISdy. . 'D1e follcwirr;J four cper8ble
units have teen created: "
.. .'~,
PCB Areas - thc8e areas ccntaminated with PCBs, which ..y also
be ccntam:inated with other materials, such as lead an:! cadmium,
includin;J st1X1y.ites 17, 28, 32 an:! 33.
.Jo
Metal Areas - t!Icse areas primarily ccntaminated with heavy
metals, incl\X1i8J sb.dy sites 15, 22 and 291
Explosive/ 'M.mid.cns Areas (formerly designated as "000 Areas")
- these areas ~ted with chemicals fran explosive or
nmiticns ~in:J, in::lu::linJ sb.dy sites 3, 4, 5 an:l19;
and ;v
~,;
Misota 11arsu; AI8as - these areas that are thcu;ht to rerJ1ire
no turther ~.,Cr that will need further investigatia1,
JII:I'1itcriJ'I;J or D8intenar12, inclu::linJ aitea-7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 11,
11A, 12, 13, 14~:: 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34,
an:l~35;- .

Under the Nat~) o:nt:.1nrj8ncy Plan, n.spanse. 8Ctiaw.-.y..tIe. ~V+-' in.
cper8ble units... ~~ units'.are~ccnsist8nt witb.aciU.erinJ a
permanent .L~ (40 CPR" J.OO. 68 (c) (1) ) . I'\zrther, iDplellll!lr1tatia\ of
operable units '8'f begin liefare 88lecticn of a final ~b'. ac:ti.a1 if
such ~c:tJreS are C08t~-=tive (40 CFR 300. 68 (c) (3». '1b88e. cxn:titicl1S
are satisfied in this ca8. First, the }I.L'~ operable units are
a:nsistent with 8Cttievirl) ~ permanent .L~ at the Site since..they will,
in fact, provide ~ r-_tHes for the designat8:S areas. Seccni,
pt~;'1; by cperable uni'ta is ccst1ffective .in this. casa:~..the
nature of the..prcb1-in ~;the;:different arMSv~ 8&pmIte ~4ec.
'Jbere cannot be cma~ .uuticn to the.site'. prcbl-- It is
therefore ~"¥I-1ate to ~ider ccst~fecti,V" -m an ~ unit
by unit basis, rather thaD far the Site as a whole. .
~
'Jhis ~d of Deoisim & U' ..tba. Metala Are8S- cperabl.:.unit. 'Jbe .
three sb.dy sites cxmprisin:J this cperable unit are: the Area 7 platiDJ
5
-------
.. .. ~ ~
FaU (site 15) 1 the Old Refuge Shcp Drainage Pool and creeJc (site 22) 1
and the File StatiC81 ~ill (site 29) (See Figure 2 in ~ A).
'Ihe h:lla:ly selected will ~ f8 thet prin:iple threats of 80il and
AM;~ CD1tami.natiCl'1at all three sites ~iain; the ~...rabl. unit
and will mitigate against tut::ure surlace water ar groundwater
CD1tami.natiCl'1.
'!he l.--iy for the Metals Areas operable unit is the first of at least
four operable units at the Site. '!he Metals Area operable unit fits into
the OIIerall Site strategy by addressin; the principle threats trca the
three sites CD1tami.nated with heavy metals. 'Ihe Agencies tA~ to
rem:JYe and treat the CD1tami.nated material and It;~ the residua - in an
cn-site landfill. Since the Metals Areas pose IIaD8 of the greatest
threats OlITel1t.ly identified at the Re~, the Agencies want to initiate
~iA' actiCl'1 for those areas as quickly as- possible.

Each of the other ~le units is CI'1 a separate sc:hedule. '!he
sd1edule for each ~le unit will be established in an '1[Y'-";YJq
revised Interagency Agl-=au=l1t bartween u.S. £PA, ooI and IEPA (and
potent.i.ally 000), which is ~ to be oaIpleted in June 1990.
Depen:iin:;J 00 additia-aaJ. infonnatioo, other operable units may be created
or CXI'IiJined, as ~rcpriate.
A Pl<-t->C6ed Plan for the R::B Areas operable unit was made available at the
same time as the PL' ~ Plan for the Metals Areas. '!be~. tJOS8d Plan
and required p1blicatiCl'1 of notice oc:au:red CXI'D.JI'rently for the FCB
Areas am Metals Areas operable units. Because of public cxn::mn about
the in:::ineratiCl'1 o..'IOIS1t of the preferred alternative, the JUblic
~'1t pericx1 for the R::B Areas was exten:Sed three times far a total of
a1e hun:lred am five (105) days of pJblic 0 ....~. A final l.auady
selectiCl'1 for the PCB Areas cperable unit is mcpect:.ed- by June 1990.
v.
Sl'I!: ~ .J~.I.'.I.CS
'!he RI/FS was caDJct:e:1 to identity the types, q.mnt.ities and lcx::atia1s
of CXJI'1t.!Iminan at the Site am to develop ways of solvin; the prcbleas
they ~ SMit. ~.. of the size-of the Site, the fir8t 1Itep- in the RI
~~ was a zwvi.,-of 8VRf1M\1e Retm)e-fU_.anr:l old analytical ~ts
to target "study sites" to be- invastigated in depth. '!be nature and -
extent of actual or potent.i.al CD1tami.natiCl'1 relat81 to the 8t:uI:ly sites
was det.eminId ~ a 88ries of field 1nvest1gatiaw, inclwtin;:

CJ8qi\yBical arJeyS 1
8.D:'face soil 8mIp1.inq 1
exploratory test pit installatiCl'1 am 8aIIp1.inq1
installatiCl'1 and Sllllplinq of groundwater 1DU.tarin; wells1
8Urface water ~in;1 and -
..rt;1nMJt Sllllplinq.
Soil and .-.;-n: ~lin; in the three areas ~isin; the Mst:a1a Areas
~le unit 1n1icate the ncn-unifarm pt !SlIace of chrcIDiUII, """'''\8,
cyanide and/ar 18llld, and the less ansistent p&- r!lace of oth8r CD:98Dic

6
-------
an1 inarganic a::I'1t:aminant. '1h8' threeo,areu. 8r8i-alL located in the.
partiCl'\ of the Ref\xJe 1Iiher8> 6(,.::- ! F- is restri.ctadr 8) l'uDan expo&Ur8 to.
the cx:ntaminants 1IICUld be sporadic an1 occasicnal. HcweYer, the areas
are ~ and it is likely that wildlife are OAneiatly exposed to the
cxntaminants.

'Ihe Ama 7 Platin;J Pord (stmy .ite 15) is ~tely 50 feet lCD1 an1
30 feet wide (See- Figures 3 an1 4 in ~A) . Water depth 18
estiated to be fcur feet, resulting in ~taly 45,000 gallcns of
water in the pad; ~;~ &aDPles frail the Are 7 Platin;J Pcn:i
indicate the pI e s :roe. of cbraDi\D, with other organic an1 inorganic
CXI'1tIIID.iMnt of--leserQQlacelJrt fcurD in: t:h8i-._u~; pzd~ watAa:. 8I'IL
grcurdwater. 'Ihere. is an estimated 280 cubic yuds of cr.:rftaminated pc:n1
s-'; 1IIAF1t ard urderlyin; 1IOil.
..~.~':I';:
'Jhe Old Ref\z;Je Shcp Drainage Pool (sbdy site 22) ~y collects
l"Un-<)ff fran an industrial area. 'Jhe water initially drains into a small
drainage PJOl an:! then flows in an intermittent stream towards crab
Orchard lake (See Figures 5 an:! 6 in ~ A). s-J;1nPI"Jts in the
drainage stream frail the Old Ref\z;Je Shcp are cr.:rftaminated with cadmium,
chraDium, cyanide an:! lead, with &alii! ~;1Mr1ts wm are hazardaJs
because of their characteristic to Ieam cadmium am;or chraDium
(Reswrce Q:ngetVatia1 an::l PBc;r:Nery Act ~) cnaracteristic of EP
TaKicity); an:! gramdwater in this area is cr.:rftaminated primarily with
cadmium. St:1xlies indicate that cx:ntaminants can be fcund al.DaIt the
entire downstream di,stan::)e of about 4450 feet, with an est.1:Iiiated 5,200
cubic yards of cr.:rftaminated sM;1Mr!t an1 soil.

'Jhe Fire Staticn landfill (sbdy .ite 29) ccnsists of a laIge cpen field
~tely 350 feet by 300 feet, located east of the Ref\qe Fire
Statia1 (see Figure 7 in ~ A) . IDm-slqe drainaqe areas were
also .investigated. soil saDplin;J at the Fire Statian landfill 8hcwed
BaDe localized spats with lead cr.:rftaminatia1. An estiJDated 14,600 aJbic
yaJ:ds of soil are cr.:rftaminated with lead, zinc, magnesium an:! merany.
In additia1, 8Oil.ard:~at.thia.8bdy;8ite.~,....otbez:. .
inarganic and- organic ~of: 188lJrt~-«n; ~CCI'It:ainants
will be.ill ~. dI.JriJq.ccnfirwttiort"P'T1ir1g, or as part of ~ia'
activities..
-
VI. ~aPsrm~
'!he'RI RqJort 1D:l\Dd a risk ."'-r-1t to define the actual ar
patential thrMt: that tbe~ Site-relat8S ccntaminants pose. to human bMlth
am;or the envi.ra'IDent. Sime the Site is a Naticnal Wildlife Ret\I:Je,
particular attentian was paid to the patential iJIpct CI'\ wildlife.

'1b8 001, as t:%ustee. far ~~an:t:.far'fisb and wildlife CI'\ these,
lands, DJSt ermure- that z-MieA. ~..tely protact an:! Z8tare. tha&e<-
trustee rescuroes. D::dJq 8), in JIJMf'j cases, requires stan:iards mre
8trin:fent than ar different frail these that -y aw!y primarily far human
bMlth reasa1S far BaDe cr::ntaminanta. ')he trustee can mly ~-- t.o a
a:M!n8J1t net to sue urder Sectian 122 (j) of CDC1A if a PRP 6qL T - to
7
-------
_....~ .-- .
un:Ierta)ce ~"¥kiate 8CtiC1'8 nec--ry to protect and restore natural
resources tb~ by 8Cbal ar threatened releases of ha.zarda.1s
substanc88.
'!he choice of an:ima1 species for a risk ~...---ent is depeI.JeIlt upc:m the
availability of info:t'D8tiem em taxicity, life history, ~ and
physiology. SUfficient infm:matiem is not always available far species
that u. ocnspicuous Departmental trust. resources. SIIIall JM1IWM 111 are
ot't8\ used in Jt- --m:s far 8IIIIIll CXI'1taminatad areas because th88e
-111 are frequently at CJI'Mt.eBt risk. '!heir limited haDe ran:J8 and
available toxicity infm:matiem reduce uncertainties in the resultant
....---~. 'Ihere- az.' no 8taJ'dards far wildlife ~ and wildlife
cx:nt:ami.nant residues, 80 risk 8~-~-'1ts DUSt be used and mrposures DUSt
often be ~ to taxicity informatiem em other species.

'!he results of the risk assessment cxn::Iucted as part of the RI indicate
that the followin;J problems pl as 11.t the CJI'Mtest threat to human health
anVor the envL.,--1UII:l1t !ran the three stmy sites that cxmpri.se the
Metals Areas cperable unit:
surface BOils and pM;ftII:W'Jts at the Old Refuge Shq) CDJld pose a
risk to bath !u1mans and wildlife by direct CDrt:act ~c:h
results in mrposures by ~m and inhalatiem:

SUbsurface BOils at the Fire Statiem Lm:1fill threaten
b.1rrcwing wildlife, especially via inhalatiem and in;Jestion
exposures: and
surface water. 1IIhic:h may be CXI'1taminated by :run-off or
-n; -Y1t:s at the Old Refuge Shq) and the Fire Statiem landfill
threatens wildlife thraJgh the ~em of water ar aquatic
organisa& and threatens humans indirectly thraJgh foocl chain
~_11atia1.
Al thcugh ccntaminmts wem. fcund in other ~iA (grcurdwater, ~4-a
at the Area 7 plat:ln;J PtInd) at the 8tudy sites ~ this c:perable
unit, the risk HE'T -it does not 1ndic:ate that these CD1t:aminants
c:utlently pose a thleat. to !uDan health and/or the envira1Dent. Hcw8vBr ,
actual ar potential tubJre ~ter CXI'1taminatiem is of grat a:n::mn
because the ~er 18 pat.enti.ally usable and -y dischaJ:ge to a
sensitive ecosy8t8D. '!be areas ~isin;J the Metals Areas c:perable unit
are within the pz'tiem of the Refuge Were human ~,. 18 Q,y..Lalltly
restricted. HaI_m:, if the 1'_L..ict1em is rel~ in the tutm:e, the
risks to b..1aIuw 
-------
1.
C:rltaminant Identificatia'l
Limited saq:>1in;J was dcne a'l the prl;~.11t, pcni water am
ground water. Results in::licated that the prl;mPrIt cx:ntained
chraI1ium at arcurd 500 milligrams per kilogram (Dg,Ikg). '!he
saDple was not haza.rda.1s by the JO{A c:haracteristic test for
leac:hable metals (EP Tc:Ddcity) . '!he pcni water cx:ntained i.ra1
at 1000 miW~La&16 per liter (ur;VL), ~c:h is abcYe the
secxn:Sary May; l1li1111 Ccntaminant Level (K:L). '!he gramd water
ocntained c::hranium am a trace of PCBs.
2.
Excosure Assoosment
'!he e>cposUre u<;"""'C!IftaPJt portia'l of the RI Report cx:ncl\.ded that
there is cun-ently no curplete rart:e of e>cposUre to the
CXI1taminants faD"d at this site.
3.
Toxicitv Ass-~
Ou-anium exists in two principle states, trivalent (+3) am
hexavalent (+6). Trivalent chranium is an essential rutrient
required at trace levels for prqer glucose met.abolism.
O'lranium's tarlcity is principally attr.i)::uted to the hexavalent
state, with potential ~ to the liver, kidneys, skin am
l~. Olranium is Jcncwn to be a human carcinogen by the
inhalatia1 route of ~, bIt it is not classified by the
in;JestiCl'1 route.
4.
R;!I;1{ O1aracterizatiCl'1
'!he RI Report fan:! no exmplete pathway of ~ to humans
£ran CXI1taminants: therefore, a risk ct1aracterizatiCl'1 CD1ld net
tie exmpleted. Withcut sud1 e>cposUre there is no risk to man
fran this site under existin:J cxnii.ticns. Althcugh
CXI1taminants were feud in BaDe JDBdia (qrcun1water , ....; 'IMI!rJts) ,
the risk U'~--1t in:ticates that these CXI1taminants do net
04Lently pose a threat to human health an:S/ar the envh\.duent.
'!he iron faJR:! in the pad water was net ti: -~ to tie a threat
because sec:adaIy K::Is are establishecl based en aesthetic
(taste am smell) rather than health reascns. '!here is CCI1Cem
that this 1a1d, unless it is closed, my am:ri.tIUte in the
future to envh\,jl~Jtal problems sud1 as grcunclwater
o:I'Itaminatien. Qramdwater, as a resc:m:ce to be protected bath
because of the potential for future use am because of the
likelihood of c1ischarge to a sersitive eccsyst:sD, is of great
caDm'1. Acoes9 to the Area 7 P1..at.inI) lad is ~.L~iUy
restricted. HcweYer, if . ~ fir restrictia'l is relaxed in the
future, the risks to humans ccW.d tie higher unless r--1;'"
actia1 has been taken.
'!he ~;1N=I!r1t analysis exmpleted for the RI was net
~ehenSive. '!he RI states that frcgs were ~iSMit en the
.
-------
site, bJt does not give an expc6Ure assOO'sr-nt for frogs.
Frogs CM!lWinter in -.iimPJ'It and have Dm'e penreable skin than
mat vertebrates. Deperrlin} en the cx:n:ti tions of expc6Ure, an
assessment for fro;r-; ovexwinterinq in the pan:! cculd shew that
they are ~ to toxic ~~ons~

Although the pan:! represents little risk to humans or the
envircnDent \D'1der current cx:n:titions, it is no lager active,
and ~iAl ~$I.J.reS for closure were evaluated as part of the
FS in order to mitigate f\Jt::ure CXI1CemS. F\Jt11re ccn:ems
izx:1uSe the potential . of grourdwater CD1ta:minatien nsul tinq
fraD ccnt:aminants in the Pt:n:l leacnin:J to the aquifer. Closure
of the Pt:n:l will prevent any patential f\Jt::ure problems.
B.
SITE 22: OID REFU;E SR:>P ~ RX>L
1.
O::rrtam.i.nant Identificatioo
~i1llA1'1ts in the drainage channel flowing towards Crab Orchard
Lake are CD1ta:minated with cadmium (ran;J8: less than 0.68 Dg/kg .
to 780 Dq/kg), c:hranium (10 to 889 Dg/kg), cyanide (130 to 392
Dg/Jcg), and lead (93 to 166 Dg/kg). In general, the levels of
cxntaminants are highest near the drainage SUIIp and decrease
downstream nearer to Crab Orchard lAke. '!he cadmium and
chrani.um levels are high enough that the '-'i~ waUd be
ocnsidered RCRA hazarda1s waste for the characteristic of EP
Toxicity. Also, grc:A.1Bi water in a1e well shewed elevated
levels of cadmium above the M:L (25 UVL) and cyanide above the
nlinois General Use Water Standards (70 ug,IL).
2.
ExDosure Ass---"-
'!he expc6Ure ....--~ CXI"duct:ed as part of the RI ccncluded
that several ~i 8 could be i:apactecl by the ccnt:aminants at
this site, and that there were IIeVeral potential t.ranspart
rcutes. Mean soil and aMi~ values far cadmium and cyanide
were used to cxntuct the risk ....----,t.
'Ihe presence of CD1t8inants in surface soils ard IIM;1MI!I'1ts
indicates that direct cxntact by wildlife cculd result in
e:HpCBUre thrcugh iDJestien of the 8Oil, 1UIW'1;~ ar water, and
thraq1 patential c:as.mpticn of CD1ta:minated vegetaticn and
prey because patent:.ial food dain mcpcsure is partiaaarly
likely with cadmium: thrcugh inhalaticn, espEK";."y by
~ 8T';1MIb:: and thrcugh in;festicn of pM;-a am
~ associated with aJr'face water as the ccnt:aminants
cxrJtinJe to migrate towards Crab Orchard Lake. To --V-""
patent:.ial wildlife mcpcsure, an ~a.9I1nf'ticn of cme taJr of
active tJUrrcwing per day was weighted with a resti.rq IDIpCSUt'e
estimate in:1\.1iin; brea~, feedinq and ~ activities.

A1 tl1cugh K'OeSS to humans is restricted, the mcposure
10
-------
~~~~ indicates that there is the potential for oocasic:nU
~-..oI.uaticnU. users to be exposed via .inhalation or in:Jestion of
the ocnt:aminants, and thrcu#l potential foed c:t1ain
~","11ation. '!he expoEPJre a"'-C!'pnAJ'It 8SSlmSd limited human
aooess of three visits per year for fQ1I' hcurs per visit. It
was also a5-9I-' that a human might. inadvertently c:xnJUIII8 100
JIg of ocntaminated soU or sediment per visit by . ilqesticn.
(In;Jestion of soU is a standard pathway for exposure .in humans
am wildlife risk assessments.) Inhalation exposure wculd be
c6IJre, as I'H~-"'-" abcve. Hcwever,
the risk c:tmracterizatim indicates that no c::hraU.c ar acute
systemic health effects to bm8nS wculd result fran exposure to
the ocnt:aminants at the site.
sira! the Qef\xJe ,... established to protect wildlife, the risk
as'-----'at also cxn;ider8i risk to wildlife, a pri:mary factor
in the 8e1ectim of the I.~. Small ~1A are used .in
~...-----.ts far 8I8l1 ocntaminated areas because these ~ 1 ~
are frecp!ntly at greatest risk, and their 8I8l1 haDe ~ and
available tcDcicity infOImation r-"- ~ .in the
resultant a~--~.
']he risk cbaracteri.zatim far wildlife ~1"'ed estJmated
~ to cadmium and cyanide for deer, ml:i:Iits.and mice to
data fraD laboratory tests. '!he cxn::lusion is that the
unrE!II81iated site 'mY pz:esent cxn:mT1S for repra:tuctive effects

U
-------
and other systemic tcDd.city in vertebrate species. A small
animal, such as a meuse, will oc:nsume a prcportimally very
high level of cadmium Wich cculd have adverse effects a1 the
individual. Al t:.haq1 the RI does mt address predators ar
aunivores, it is reasonable to assume that they cculd be at
greater risk, through cx:n9UIIptia1 of organisms with
bioaOC' I'n'l]] ated levels.
c.
SITE 29: FIRE S'mTI~ IANIFIIL
1.
O::nta:minant Identificatim
Analysis of soil a1 the surface and in test pits in this
landfill and in the down-slope drainage areas indicate that
lead (60 to 2,355 m:;VJcg), magnesium (1,472 to 40,268 JIg/JaJ),
meroJrY (23 to 290 ug,I)cg) and zinc (23 to 929 JIg/JaJ) were
elevated above badcgrc:und levels. '!he grcun::!water ccntained
i.ra1 (388 to 4,000 ug/L total, less than 25 ug/L dissolved),
~ (43 to 1,790 ug/L total, 24 to 1,770 ug/L dissolved)
and selenium (none detected to 41 ug/L total) above the
respective M::ts in SCIIIe of the sanples. Hcwever, the!Cs for
i.ra1 and ~ are seocn:Jary, based a1 cdor or taste, and
the dissolved levels of selenium are below the JCL (dissolved
levels may be more le:fll es~atative of cart:.aminant JIICIIE!IIIe1'J than
total levels). '!he gramdwater ccntained aoetme (23-11,500
ug/L) which was believed to be a result of laboratory
cart:.aminatia1, and benzene (4 ug/L) in a1e saDple a'1ly, below
the analytical detectia1 level.
2.
Exposure Ass-"""-'"
'!he ~ ~...--~ ccnducted as part of the RI an::luded
that for the ccntam:inants in the lardfill the major exposure
routes were inhalatia1 and in;Jestia1 of soil, IUIII1 i1Nl!7'Jt ar water
by wildlife. '!be calculatia1S indicated that rat;t)its had the
highest levels of ~, b.Jt intake rates far all other
wildlife species far which exposure was calculated (mallards,
deer and mice) also ~ c:hraU.c m-effect levels for lead.
'Ihe pt = !i~ of CCI'1taminants in -..:I;-.,ts resul tin; traD
ercsia1 traD the lanrHill indicates that direct CD1tact by
wildlife cxW.d result in exposure to lead through ~a1 of
the so11, aM;--.t and water: and through inhalat.ia1,
especially by burrcwing lIJ'\i1M1r::. '1\) 8~-"" patent:ial wildlife
exposure, an UF..,ua1 of a1e hcur of active burrcwing per day
was wighted with a restin; exposure estimate inc1~
brea~, feecUn:l and groani.n:} activities. A level of a1e
half of the highest detected lead level was used to estiJIBte
wildlife ~.

Al thc:u;h access to b.1mans is 1'bLL.i.cted, the exposuJ:e
....-C"--1t indicates that there is the patent:ial for I'WY'!AciCl1al
12
-------
recreational users to be exposed via inhalatien or in;Jestien of
the ocnt:aminants YUd'1 oculd be eroded fran the lardtill.
Vegetated areas are unlikely to cause sic;Jnificant expJSUre to
humans, b.Jt cx:ntaminated soils wili be exposed by ercsicm of
di t.d1e:s am areas with a steep grade. '!he exposure for humIms
cx:ncluded that the greatest potential ~ was associated
with the ~en ard inhalatien of eroded soils fraD these
areas. '!he ~ ~...-.......~ ~c:.c:I~ limited human I!IOOe8"I' of
three visits per year for foz ha1rs per visit. It was also
ass..uned that a human might inadvertently c:xrsume 100 JIg of
CXI'Itaminated soil or ~;mP.J'1t per visit. (IIgestien of 80il is
a staJ'Dard pathway for ~ in humans an::! wildlife risk
assessuents.) Inhalatien~ '-OJld be ~l&lIouly ~c:.c:I~
for ftIS persamel en worksites or for incidental visitors to
the cx:ntaminated sites. '!he highest level of lead detectecl at
the site was used to cala1late human ~ values.
3.
Toxici tv Ass.......c;ment
Lead has been sham to distribIte in the bloc:d of humans, an::!
can adversely effect the central neIVCUS system, the
gastrointestinal tract, the kidneys ard blood fol'1l1irq systems.
Grcwing children are particularly sensitive to its hpct upc:I'1
the central netVCUS system. U.S. EPA has not usoosed the
carcinogenicity of lead, ~er there are positive
carcinogenicity st:u:ties. .-
4.
Risk O1aracterizatia1
Usin; a c:hraUc, m-effect level of 0.32 Dq/kg/day for human
exposure to in;Jested lead, the unremediated site wculd :not
result in an ~ that '-OJld result in tacic effects. '!be
risk characterizatien indicated that no c:hraUc or acute
systemic health effects to humans '-OJld result fraD exposure to
the ocnt:aminants at this site.

Sic;Jnificant wildlife exposure is likely. Sin2 the Refuge was
established to protect wildlife, the risk "...-~~ also
cxnsidered risk to wildlife, a primary factor in the &elect.icm
of the ~~. ')he risk c:haracterizatien for wildlife ~
estimated d1raU.c lead mcpJSUreS for deer, -'1 arc! ducJcs,
rabbits am mice to U.S. EPA ctu:a1ic ~fect levels based em
rat stmies. '!he cxn::lusia1 is that the unremediated site
'-OJld pcse a risk for c:hraU.c, tccic effects of lead to
wildlife.
1IU.le potential adverse iJlpacts were identified, the RI did :not _mJre
any actual, Q.IU~it iDpacts a1 wildlife. Res-"1"Ch ~ by the JIE have
indicated the potential for adverse iJlpact:s a1 wildlife alxMt .the Site-
specific clMJ'IJP criteria established by the ftIS. '!here is ~1n;J
reg-~ by the JIE, Scuthem Illinois university an::! others to cantirue
to "...--... the iDpscts of c:x::.ntaminant at the Refuge to wildlife. ')he

13
-------
Refu;Je provides suitable habitat for an en:iargered species, the Indiana
bat. Also, the Refuge definitely haus9S another eJ"Idan:3ered species, the
bald eagle.

Actual or threatened releases of hazardaJs subst.aJ'D!s fran the sites
cxmprisin;J this cprab1e unit, if not addresSed by Up1ementinq the
respc.nse actia'1 selected in this Ja), may present an .iJIminent am
substantial ~ to p.1b1ic health, welfare, wildlife, or the
envL.w~.t.
VII. lXXI.ME1m\TIaf OF SIQaFICNf1' awa!S
'Ihe ~~ Plan for this ~le unit explicitly ,.H~1S'ged nine
alternatives and referenced twenty-twc site specific alternatives that
had been developed in the FS. 'Ihe preferred. alternative identified in
the PL.~ Plan was Alternative 2, which inc1\D3d the following
'--I~ 1el1ts:
Excavatia'1 of Soil and ~iJlP1'1t - O::1ntaminated soil and ~;~
wa.1ld be excavated usin;J conventicnal equi.pnent. 'Ihe exaavated
material wa.1ld be maved to a storaqe area Cl'Hiite, where it wculd be
stored until it was treated or ,.H~.

Stabilizatia1,l Fixatia'1 - Soils and sedi.me.nts whici1 are cx:nsidered
~ hazardaJs because of EP'Iad.city (the character~c to leaci1
metals) wculd be treated by stabilizatia1,l fixatia'1 until they no
1~ exhibit the characteristic of EP 'Iad.city and are rerr::Jered
rx:n-hazarc:b1S .
In:lustrial Ian:1fill - Excavated nc:n-haza.rdaJs materials which m:e
untreated or treated by stabilizatia1,l fixatia'1 wculd be placed in
an cn-si te landfill, meeting at a minim.m1, the Iq:plicable or
relevant and ~riate requirements of SUbtitle D of ~ and 35
DC Part 807.

Backfill Excavatia'1 - Clean soil wculd be placed in the areas where
a:ntaminated material had been 1"E!IDCMId.
MaUtorirI;J am Maintenance - GraJrdwater am arlace water
JllCnitorin;J 1«W.d be ccn1ucted around the aHlite landfill and.
excavated areas. Inspectia1 an:1 maintenance of the lan:1fUl walld
also be req.U.red.

No significant ~ have been made to the selected alternative fran
that rl; an,,,,,sed in the p~. tJOS8d Plan for the Metals Areas cprable unit.
VID:.
~~'~af OF AI.aEII04'.IYES
tUrin;J the PS, the ~ and SarJ;J2mD Westa1, 11'1:. identified and waluated
a list of alternatives that cculd be used to t!IId;h~ the threats lInVor
potential threats identified at the 8tudy sites within the q:erable unit.
'Ihe ~ and SarJ;J2mD Westa'1, 11'1:. narrcwed the list of altematiw!& b8!1U1Wi

14
-------
en their effectiveness (i.e. pratectia1 of bJman health em,tar the
eno/hu ~, reliability), 1:aplE!ll&1tability (i. e. technical feasibility,
OCI!Pliaroe with identified State and Federal regulaticn;) and relative
costs (i.e. capital, cperatia1 and maintenance). '!he ~ in::l\Ded
detailed analysis of twenty-two (22) site specific alternatives.
In the PL. ~.osed Plan, five ~i,,' ted1noloqies 1ItUch were iJ.cmpoated
.into the twenty-two (22) alternatives in the ~ were described. In
acklitia1, nine alternatives far ~i'" actia1 1ItUch inccIporated the
remeclial ted1noloqies were presented. '!he nine alternatives in::l\.Ded a
rarqe of acticn; fI"CIII ca1t.airDent of the waste in place to treatment to
the maxi1rum extent possible. Public V.'.'~ was solicited a1 the nine
alternatives Wich were presented in the PLqaMd Plan, a1 the twenty two
alternatives r1ic::ntlS'9""d in the ~, and a1 the ted1noloqies Wich were
c:x.mb:ined to create the various alternatives.. .
BelOlo1 is a brief descriptia'1 of the nine alternatives presented in the
Proposed Plan:
Alternative 1

FS Al t.ernati ves: Sectia1 2, 1A: sectia1 4, 1A: Sectia1 6, 1A
Estimated Total ~i,,' QJst: $5,463,787 present werth
Estimated Time to IDplement: 1 to 2 years
Al temative 1 '-'CUld aan-ess all of the study sites ~ isinq
the operable unit, and in::l\X1es the follOlo1in:;J 0< .'I.;nents:

Exx::avatia'1 of Soil and ~i1nPJ'ft - O::I'1taminated soil and
c:MimPJ'1t '-'CUld be excavated usiIq ccnventia1al equipDent. '!he
excavated material '-'CUld be JIICM!d to a storage area cn-site,
~ it '-'CUld be stored until treated em,tar r1iv-".
Stabilizatiav Fixatia'\ - Soils and cM;mP'1t:s ~ch are
c::msidered RCRA hazardous because of EP 'n:Ddclty (the
characteristic to leach metals) wo.1ld be treated by
stabilizatiav fixatim. Stabilizatia')/ fixatim is a
treatment process 1Ih!re cart:aminated 80ils and aar1imPl'Jts wo.1ld
be treated with b::n::1.in1 agents 1ItUch fix ca'1bIminants within
the stabilized waste. 'Jhis treatment makes the ca'1bIminants
DCre resistant to leac!U.rg. ~-based and l:iDe-based
stabilizatia1 lJl0:'-'-oo are o.,....rily used for fixatim of
metals. .

Industrial landfill - Excavated treated and untreated, nm-
hazardous materials wo.1ld be placed in an off-Site in:tustrial
lan1fill. '!his II In:lustrial landfill" wo.1ld be a solid waste
landfill as ngulated by SUbtitle D of the Resource
o:nservatia1 and RecaYery Act ~) and 35 Illinois
I.dministrative 0:Jde (IAC) Part 807. '!he landfill lUSt have, at
a minimJm, a ainqle oazpact.ed soil liner and drainage layer.
After plac~ of the cart:aminated soil and pni~, the
15
-------
lamfUl1i«:W.d be cawred with a cap c:x:n;trocted of OCIIpilcted
soil, a cSrain8ge layer, a barrier to prevent b.1rrowi1q aJ";1IUI1!:::,
soil fill an:S tq:ISoil. 'lhe final design will be deteImined by
site specific cbaracteristics, the ci;)ject bein;J to provide
adequate CD1tai.rarent of the waste material. Upon cxmplet.iCl1,
the landfill1i«:W.cl be vegetated. Grourxiwater and leaci1ate
JIDrltorinq, and routine maintenance 1i«:W.cl be part of the laq
term requirements.

Backfill Excavatia1 - Clean soil 1i«:W.cl be placed in the areas
where ccntaminated material had been removed.
Alternative 2: U.S. !:PA's Preferred and Sel--+Ar1 Alternative

FS Alternatives: Sectia1 2, lB: SectiCl't 4, 1B: Sectia1 6, 1B
Estimated Total P--ib1 CDat: $2,700,858 pIBSm.t worth
Estimated TiDe to IDplement: 1 to 2 years
'lhis Alternative was U.S. EPA's preferred alternative
identified in the PL' ~ Plan and is bein;J selected thrc::u;h
this decisia1 docI~. Alternative 2 includes all of the
c...&i.,aSTts inc:lu::Jed in Alternative 1, and would adh:ess all of
the study sites catprisin;J the operable unit. 'lhe a1ly
difference is the lc:catia1 of the imustrial landfill. In
Alternative 2, the industrial landfill 1i«:W.d be lc:cated a1 the
~fuge~
Al ternative 3
FS Al temative: Sectia1 6, 2A
Fstimated Total Re-'1i"J CDat: $1,658,733 pIBSent warth
Estimated TiDe to IDplement: 1 to 2 years

Alternative 3 1i«:W.cl address a1ly study site 29, the Fire
Statia'\ IamfUl, and includes the followi.n;J <>JI'f
-------
area wculd be slc:pd an:l. graded to priwide draiMge an:l a qood
ocnstructia'1 surface. '!he cap wculd be ocnstrocted of
cxmpacted soil, a drainage layer, soil fill an:l topsoil.
~ine maintenance of the CCNer wculd be part of the lcn; tem
recpirements.
AI temative 4

FS Alternative: . Sectia'1 6, 2B
Estimated ~ Remedial 0Jst: $1,084,538 present worth
Estimated Time to IDplement: 1 to 2 years
Alternative 4 1ncl\Xies all of the {u,\
-------
- ~. ~.
. - .. - ---
~ CXI'1taminated material had been I"E!IIIaYed.
Al teInative 6
FS Al teInati ves: SectiCl't 2, 28; SectiCl't 4, 28; SectiCl't 6, 38
Estimated 'nrt:al ~ial O:st: $2',798,825 plese.nt werth
Estimated Time to IDplement: 1 to 2 years

Alternative 6 includes the all of the ~~81ts inclu::lecl in
Al ternative 5, and would address all of the st:my sites
exmprisin3 the cpmsble unit. '!he a11.y difference is the
1cx::atiCl't of the imustrial and ~ landfills. In Alternative
6, the 1arrlfi11s would be 1cx::ated CI't the Re~.
Alternative 7
FS Al ternati ves: SectiCl't 2, 2C; SectiCl't 6, 3E
Estimated Total Remedial O:st: $1,047,111 present worth
Fstimated Time to IDplement: 1 year

Alternative 7 would address the Area 7 P1atin3 Pend and the
Fire StatiCl't I.an:1fil1 (st:my sites 15 and 29) and includes the
fo1lc:winq L.L.II'I -onez rts:
Low Permeability caps - orrt:ami.nated soils an:v~ aM;~
would be left in place in. the Area 7 P1atin3 Pa1d and the Fire
StatiCl't I.an:1fil1 and each would be cavered with a low
pe.meability cap, as described in Alternative 3. Prior to
cxnstJ:uctiCl't, any wet areas would be dewatered and the area
would be shaped and ~~ to provide a good cxnstJ:uctiCl't
surface.
Al teInative 8

FS Alternative: SectiCl't 6, 3C
Estimated 'nrt:al ~ja1 O:st: $2,716,361 present worth
Estimated Time to IDp1ement: 1 to 2 years
AlteJ:native 8 walld ~baS cr1ly the Fire Staticn Lardfill
(sbx!y site 29) and includes the followin;J {" .'1 «&Jts:

Excavaticn of Soil and ~;-I'Jt - Soils and --';1'IWIIrJts
CXI'1taminated with high levels of lead, 1IIhid1 wa.1ld be
cxn;idez9d hazardous waste because of the characteristic to
leach metals, wculd be excavated, as described in Alternative
1.
~ Ian:!fill - Excavated OCII'1taminated soil and -=w4;--d: mich
is cxn;idered hazardcus waste would be d;~ off11te in a
R:RA Iamfil1, as described in Alternative 5.

Backfill ExcavatiCl't - Clean soil wculd be placed in the areas
18
-------
~ CXI1taminated material had been ~.

IDW Permeability cap - O:ritaminated, nc.n-hazarda1s soils ard/or
sarIIimP.TIts would be left in place at the Fire Statia'1 landfill
and would be oavered with a lCN permeability cap, as described
in Alternative 3. Prior to ocnstJ:uctia'1, any wet areas would
be dewatered and the area would be shaped and ':fu.~1ad to provide
a good ocnstJ:uctia'1 surface.
Alternative 9

FS Alternative: Secti.a'1 6, 3D
Fstimated Total Jenedial o:st: $844,627 pI esent werth
Estimated Time to I:DplE!lJel1t: 1 to 2 years
Alternative 9 includes the all of the 01l'I.JCiIIel1ts included in
Alternative 8, and would address aUy stmy site 29, the Fire
Statia'1 Ian1fill. 'D1e only difference is the location of the
R:::RA landfill. In Alternative 9, the ~ landfill would be
located a'1 the ~.
No Action Remedial Alt~"",,~ive
FS Alternatives: 15-3, 22-3, 29-4
Fstimated 1btal Remedial CXst: $455,530 present werth
Estimated Time to I:rIplenent: less than 1 year .

'D1e SUperfund PJ:u.p.cub requires that the "no actia'1" alternative
be c:xn;idered at fINery site. ~ this alternative the cnly
actia'1S at any of the CXI1taminated areas might 1nclu:Je
ma'li.t.oring, ferx:in; or site use limitatia'1S. All wastes,
rcutes of CI21taminant migratia'1, and lcn;J-tem hL1man and
envh\AlII8:oI.tal expa;ure pathways will remain urx:banged. '!his.
alternative would not reduce the threats to human health ard/or
the envh\A~ identified at the site.
IX. ~ ap mE CXJGINW1'1VE ANAUSIS ap ~

'!he selected Alternative for the Metals Areas cperable unit at the Cr8b
orc:harc1 Natic:nal Wildlife Refuge is Altemative 2, as cutl1ned abc:we.
'Ihis alternative involves tDCI:2IVCItia\ of 'Etal-
-------
or CX8'1t.rollinq risk thra.1gh treatment, erqineerinq ocntrols, or
institutimal cc:I1trols. However, those al texnatives 1IItbic:i1
address cnly en! or two of the three stmy sites CXI1pI"isinq the
c:.perable unit eliminate, reduce or CX8'1t.rol risk cnly for those
stu:!y sites addressed, and not the whole operable unit. In
oIder to meet the thnshold criteria'1 of protective!.ess, the
Al texnatives 1IItbic:i1 address cnly en! or two of the stmy sites
walld have to be oanbined to provide cwerall protectiCl'\ for the
operable unit. 'Ihe Selected Altexnative addresses the
principle threats to pmlic health and the envi.rcnnent for all
of the stmy sites by rE!IIDIIa.l and treatment to the maY; 'l1li1111
extent practicable of ccntaminated soil and 1IUiW'!;1IIP-1'!t and
containment of the residues.
O:mpliame with MARs. All altexnatives walld meet all
iSR'licable or relevant and apprqn-iate requirements of Federal
and State envL.l.IIlII~ laws. Potential ARARs for eac:i1
altexnative are extensively tHc:t"!I~~ in the ~ report. 'Ihe
selected altexnative, Altexnative 2, will oarply with all
ARARs. Specific ARARs for the .U:&I.edy are t'Hc:t"!I1Ssed in Section
XI. B of this Decisia'1 SUIIma%y. t1p:Dninq ~ land n;~
restrictims may require d1aracteristic hazardous waste to be
treated prior to n;~, whi.d1 cxuld make certain
altexnatives (particularly Altematives 5, 6, 8; and 9) JD1-
oazpliant with ~ ARARs.

lcn;r-'tem Effecti,v- and Pe.DIBnence. 'Ihe Selected
Altexnative \Ia1ld provide the greatest lag-tem effectiveness
and permanence. It \Ia1ld involve rE!IIDIIa.l of apprcximately
20,000 a.1bic yuds of ccntaminated soil and p:wi;~, of tllhic:i1
2g)I"CKimately 9,000 cubic yuds is estimated to be ~
hazardcus. '1his ccntaminated soil and 1IUiW'!;1IIP!'Jt ccnstit:utes the
principle threat fraD this operable unit. 'Ihe Selected
Alternative also addresses the threat fraD surface water by
rem::winq the material that cculd ccntaminate the water. All of
the hazardcus metal CIa'1taIdnatia'1 will be tmated by
stabilizatiaV fixatiCl'\ to rerder it ncn-h8.zardaJs, with secure
cx:nt:airIDent of the residues. 'Ihe treatment provides a
denaCli~ated, effective rerderi.n;; of hazardcus material to a
state ~ it is ncn-h8.zardaJs.
'Ihe alternatives differ in ~ treatDent will be utilized,
the wlUIIIBS of soil and ~;1ftm1t to be excavated an:J,Iar
treatecl, and ultimate "i ~] lo:atiaa. Alternative 1 uses
the same ~. of treatment and cx:nt:airIDent of the
cx:ntaminated material as the Selected Alternative, with the
cnly difference being the lo:atia'1 of the landfill. HcweYer,
the Agencies believe that it is easier to ensure the lc::n;t-t:em
permanence and effectiveness of a dedicated landfill tuilt en-
site. Alternatives 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 do not involVe ~
treatment of the waste, and rely CI'\ cx:nt:airIDent far lc::n;t-t:em
effectiveness. Alternatives 3, 4, 8, and 9 \Ia1ld require a

20
-------
smaller volume of the c:x:ntaminated material to be excavated am
&aDe c:x:ntaminated material walld be CD1tained in place. '!be
effectiveness of ccntairment will depen:! m l~ cperatim
an:! maintenance. Alternatives 3 an:! 4 also involve treatment
by stabilizatiay fbatim, but the volume to be treated walld
be less.

For all of the alternatives, the l~ risks a~--iKed
with exposure to an:! mi.gratim of the remainin} wastes and
treatment residues would be reduced by effective treatment
ard,Ior en:Jineered CD1trols to ensure operatia'\ am mairJtenance
of the landfills, maintenance of the caps/COYerS, groundwater
m:nitorin;J and m:nitorin;J of drainageways an:! crab orchard
I.aJce .
~ of Taadcity, Jkt:)i1ity, or VOlaE. '!be Selected
Alternative and Alternative 1 will provide treatment to the
maximJm extent possible for the hazarda1s wastes. Treatment
will render these wastes nc;n-ha.zardcus. 'lhe JDCi:)ility of the
metals is reduced by stabilizatiay fbatia'\ an:! cc:nt.airment.
Al thcu;Jh this treatment p:'OOeSS inc::reaseS the volume of the
treated material, it does rx:rt: inc:rease the mass of the
hazarQcus ~~.
AI ternatives 3 and 4 utilize treatment by stabilizatitrV'
fbatia'\ m &aDe of the hazarQcus waste. However, the volume to
be treated would be less because Alternatives 3 and 4 a1ly
address the c:x:ntaminatia'\ at a1e of the three stu!y sites in
the operable unit. 'lherefore, overall reductia'\ of JDCbility
for the cper8ble unit walld be less for Alternatives 3 and 4
than for Alternatives 1 and 2. 'lhe ather alternatives use
ccntairment ted1nology to CD1trol the JDCbility of the
cart:aminated material. NeD! of the ather alternatives walld
reduce tccicity, JDCbility or volume as m.x:h as the Selected
Alternative and Alternative 1.
Sbart~ Effect.i~--- . All of the alternatives un:Ser
cxn;ideratim cxuld pt U Mat a threat to wcrtcers and the
envhy.ue4.t ~ the cxnstn1Ctiayinplementatia'\ pmse of the
~i A' actia'\ because of the potential far dust qeneratia'\ or
the JIII:JYeIIB1t of c:x:ntaminated ~;~ in surface water. SeIDe
care IIIJSt be taken ~ excavatia'\ of c:x:ntaminated pni~
fran tM Old ~ Shop Drainageway (site 22), .invclved in
Alternatives 1, 2, 5 and 6, to prevent mvement of the
cart:aminated e-'i1Nl!r1ts into the water, and subseqJent1y into
crab orchard lAke. '1his cculd be ~lished by cxmplet.in;
the excavatia'\ durin;J the dry 8P"1CUY1 V:8\ the int:emit:tent
stream is dry. '!be utilizatia'\ of varicus protective '-CIIJreS
will minimize threats to warXers. '!be estiJDated t.DIe far
1JIplementatim is roughly ecpU far the various alternatives,
and is not expected to exo-i bIo years far artf of the
alternatives.
21
-------
DIp1_~-hni:ty. All of the alternatives use standard,
reliable tectmoloqies wen are feasible for bplementatiat.
'!he equipnent an1 labor is readily available for all of the
ted1noloqies. All of the alternatives ~d be cx:nsidered
ted1nically iDplementable.

Administrative feasibility is greatest for the Selected
Alternative an1 Alternatives 4 an1 7 because these three lIV'Oid
potential ~ lard t't; ~ i~- an1 involve m-site
cx:nstruct:.iat. Alternatives wen utilize off-site t't;~J
(Alternatives 1, 3, 5, an1 8) may en:D.1I'1ter problEIIIS with
administrative feasibility because available capacity for off-
site t't;~1 is a potential problem. Also, upr-tt;1'IJ ~ lard
t't;~ restricticn; an1 existin; State of Illinois lard
t't;~ restricticn; may require c:naract.eristic ha.zarda1s
waste to be treated prior to t't;~, wen OCA1ld make certain
alternatives infeasible (particularly Alternatives 5, 6, 8, an:!
9).
Q:ISt. For the Selected Alternative an1 eaen other Alternative,
the total ~~,,' costs (capital plus cperatia'\ an1
maintenance) in present net worth are:
- Selected Alternative
- Alternative 1
- Altemative 3
- Alternative 4
- Alternative 5
- Altemative 6
- Alternative 7
- Al te.rnative 8
- Alternative 9
(Alternative 2)
$2,700,858
$5,463,787
$1,658,733
$1,084,538
$7,075,984
$2,789,825
$1,047,U1
$2,716,361
$844,627
'!he Selected Alternative is less expensive than fcur of the
other alternatives. '!he alternatives that utilize off-site
t't; ~ J t.err:1 to be DDre expensive than these utilizin; cn-site
t'ti~l.

satt-.t. 1¥:a-7 ~,~. ')be u.s. Department of Interior
~ the Selected Altemative. ')be State of Illinois has
R't ~ the Selected Alternative at this time. nlinois
has expressed c:x:ncems with the technical design of the 80lid
waste landfill. (See ~ C.)
o--wdty Ai ~ "otv.ace. A thirty day pmlic . z -...-. «. period was
originally 8Cheduled to run traD August 18, 1989, to SepteDi:Ier
16, 1989. Based at c:x:ncems expressed at the pmlic t8arin;J at
August 30, 1989, the (,,_...~ peria:J vas extended until
SepteIIb!r 23, 1989. 'IW 0< ......urt:.ars ~!S et~ oral :(10 -...-A Its at
the hearin;J specifically cxn:erned with the Metals Areas
cprable unit an1 several others made ~ related to the

22
-------
SUperfUnd decisi~ prooes9es. 'Ihirty~ (31) letters
relatin; to the Metals Areas PL~oC6ed Plan were received durin;
the pmlic ~J1t period, 1nclu:!irg three fraD organizatiCl1S.
'!he 0 ....~ received have been suumarized and addressed in the
~~iveness ~1IftM1')' portia1 of this RX).

'!he ccmnents received durin; the pmlic (YTmIP~ period are c:ne
~c:ure of the cx:amunity's aooeptaro! of U.S. EPA's ~~
remedial actia1. OYer half of the ccmnents received were
c:x:noemed with the SUperfUnd process rather than the specific
:Ldiedy. '!he pmlic was very unsatisfied with the SUperfUnd
decisi~ pl'COeSS, and felt that the process does not
a~.lIodate pmlic a:n:ems. Many of the ather (u...-rt:,s
focus~ a1 technical cpestiCl1S and a:n:ems and did not
explicitly d;~ with the p~ ...cwcdy. SeIDe
cx:mnento1;S, not the majority, expressed a preference for an
al temative 1 emedy to that pI'q)OSed by the Agencies. '!he
alternative that was Da;t frequently ~I"ta1 by the
cx:mnentors that expressed a preference different than that
p~ was an off-Site lardfill rather than an cn-Site
landfill. 'Ihese ccmnents are all addressed in the
Respa1Siveness S\mmarY.
Another ~C!!.u:e of cnmnruty aooeptance is the activities
urDertaken by the 1Igen=ies p1I'SUal1t to the CDrm.D'1ity Relaticm
Plan «(]U). '!he (]U) dco.1ments c::amunity relatiCl1S activities,
and will prcwide a .,,-.c:ure of CCItIIIJI'lity aooeptaro! in additia1
to the ccmnents received durin; the ocmnent period. '!he (E>
SUI=P'rts that the oaII'IJV1ity is dissatisfied with the SUperfUnd
process and is very c:x:noemed with the pI'q)OSed ...~ for the
PCB Areas operable unit.

In o:nclusia1, the ~ty near the Refuge does not tully
acrept the I..~ selected for the MetalS Areas operable unit.
Hcwever, the ~ is based more a1 dissatisfactia1
with the SUperfUnd precess and the ~1I'\1ty's role in
decisi~ than with the tec::hnical <> ..\ q.ents of the
I..~' In order to broaden the oc-mnruty's role at this Site,
U.S. EPA is expan:lin;J the (E>, and will work with the oaJP1I'\1ty
to address all 0.'.'RJts and CCI'1OI!rm as the rBtSiial design and
remedial actia1 90 forward.
In Sl1l"lM1')', at this time the Selected Alternative repreSents the best
balame aDI:I'1g the altematives of the evaluatia1 criteria used to
evaluate remedies.
x.
'!BE ~ JrnI!') IfUIUJ'l
'!he Selected Altemative, Altemative 2 as outlined ab:JYe, wculd
permanently remadiate the three study sites ~~isinq the Metal Areas
~le unit. Exalvatia1 of CCI'1taminated soil and sM;~ wculd
aairess the pr1nciple threats to human health and the envh 0IDe1 tt that

23
-------
. _. -." .., -".. - - - _..
-' -.. --
an-rently exist, and 1«W.d prevent future threats and envu,--1IIICI1tal
degradatiCK1. Stabilizatia'1,l fixatiCK1 of hazardous soil and aM;--rt
~d1 is ocnt:aminated with metals will cxnstitute treatment to the
ma>t';1ftUJI extent practicable. 0::nt:ainDent in a secure, c:n-site, 80lid
waste landfill of any metal bearin;J or stabilized waste will allow safe
lcn;J-term centrol of this material. '!he labor and equipDent ~...~ to
iJlplement the Selected Alternative are c::urrently available. Specific
details CK1 varic:us aspects of the selected 1:~.edy follow.
A.
IPJOR CXMR:.tmm; OF REMEDY
ExcavatiCK1 of SOil and ~;~ - CD1taminated soil and ~;-rt: will be
excavated usin;J CCI"IYentia-aal equipDent. '!he excavated material will be
Dl:JVed to a storage area cn-site, 1Iti1ere it will be stored until it is
treated or d;~. Design of the. pro.ject will inc1u:Se met:bcds to
prevent ocnt:aminated aM ;-'1t fraD Dl:JVin;J into au-face water and methods
to minimize dust. Design will also inc1u:Se c:x::n;ideratiCK1S to ensure
oarplianoe with MARs. '!he excavated material will be scmpled to
determine whether it is hazardous, and hazardous and ncn-hazardcus
material will mt. be mixed.

Stabilizaticn; Fixatia1 - SOils and sedi:ments Wid1 are c:x::n;idered ~
hazardous because of EP Toxicity (the characteristic to lead1 metals)
will be treated by stabilizatia'1,l fixatia1. Stabilizatia'1,l fixatiCK1 is a
treatJtent pI"t:aSS where ocnt:aminated soils and aM;1M"1ts will be treated
with bcntin;J agents 1IIhid1 fix ccntaminants within the stabilized waste.
'Ihis treatJne.nt makes the ccntaminants D:n'e resistant to leac:hing.
Cement-based and liJre-based stabilizatia1 ~"9S are ('>. ..... ~y used for
fixation of metals. lUring Design, apprcpriate mixtures of treatment
materials will be evaluated to .co- -r their ability to iDncbili.ze the
ccntaminants at the Site and to effectively render the material ncn-
hazardous. Also, a treatment quality assurance plan will be developed to
1int-oI-'1t the perfO%1lBnOe of the full scale treatment ~~.
In::!ustrial I.an:ifill - Excavated treated and untreated ncn-hazardcus
materials will be d;~ in an c:n-site industrial landfill. '1his
"industrial larx:lfill" will be a solid waste landfill as regulated by
SUbtitle D of R:RA am 35 DC Im't 807. 'Ihe landfill will be
cx:nstructed, at . mi.niJaJm, with a ainqle CXIIpaCted soil liner an:!
drainage layer. After pl&~.~.t of 'the ocnt:aminated soil and ~i~,
the landfill will be a:wered with a cap ccnstnJcted, at a mi.niJaJm, of
cx:mpacted soil, . drainage layer, a barrier to prevent b1rrawirJ:J aJ"';1Ml~,
soil fill and tq8oil. 'Ihe final design will be detemined ~ site-
specific characteristics, the abject bein; to provide ~te
CXI'1tainDent of the waste material. '!he final lccatiCK1 of the c:n-site
larx:lfill will be determined by investigaticn; during the ~iA 1 design
pm. to establish good sitin:) characteristics. Upa1 exmpletiCK1, the
l.andfill will be a:wered and wqetated. Grcundwater and leac:nate
JID'1itaring, and rcutine maintenance will be part of the lcn;!t.am
~.
Bi!ckfill ExcavatiCK1 - Clean soil will be placed in the areas 1IIhere
24
-------
CXl"Jt,.aminated material had been rem:JYed.
Mcnitaring and MaiJ1t.eMnce - '!he c:n-Site landfUl and excavated areas
will require mcnitorin;J of ~ter and surface water. l.cnJ-t:em
maiJ1t,enance will be recpired for the landfUl.
'.the {]I .'\.0nent5 of this Selected ReJtedy are ex. a.qA:ual, and are based at
desired perfOI'1lliUO! staroards and~. As a res1lt of the ~b1
design and cxn;troctiat p~"es sane c:han;Jes Jri1Y be made to the design
features cutlined aboYe.
B.
t"'1' F~ UP TAR:;ErS
Clean up targets have been set for the st:my sites carprisin;J the Metals
Areas operable unit. ']be targets are based at the risk as~"'-~
performed in the RI Report, whid1 evaluates patential risk to human
health and the envL.\Aauant. 'Ihe targets were then further refined to
reflect OOI's specific ccnoems and statutory man:iates for the protecti.at
of fish and wildlife at the Re~, and u.s. EPA's regiatal and natiatal
policies in establi.shin; clean up targets. 'Ihe clean up staroards for
the st:my sites in the Metals Areas operable unit are tH"".''''''~ briefly
below. since sane ~ will remain at the ReN;Je in an CI1-Site
landfill, the effectiveness of the .L-uedy will have to be re-evaluated at
least every five years.
1. Site 15: Area 7 Platim Pon:i
Di.sd1arge staroards for the pen:! water will be established to
cx:mply with the effluent staroards and water quality staroards
of the Clean water Act and State requirements.

All sl\D;es in the pen:! and CCI"Itaminated un:Jerly1nq soil
Ca1tainin;J d1raDium in ~... of naturally cxx:urrin;J bacJcgrcurd
levels will be rem:JYed.
2.
site 22: Old Ret\xre SheD Dr'ainaae Pool
Atteupts will be made to cazplete all ~; ,,1 actiat for this
site dL.1rin;I the dry P"CU'W'\ 80 that there is no water in the
drainage stream. If vater 1IIJSt be di.sctvn'ged durin;J the
r--';"t!CI\, staroards will be established to cazply with the
effluent staJ'rjards and water cpUity staroards of the Clean
water Act and State requirements.

All aMi~ and 80U Ca1tainin;J cadmium in ~... of 10 JIg
cadmium per k9 dry soU will be reIIICM!d. ReIIII::MU. ~cM upcI'1
this criteriat sha1ld address all of the other CD1taDLinants at
the site. Hcwever, the risk fraD All of the ch!mi.c:al
CD1taDLinants pt ur e-J at abave naturally ocanTin;J bacJcgrcUrd
levels in the soil and pMt;1N=II'1t shall net ~ an ar:-'""""
cancer risk of ate in cne milliat (10-6) and shall not ~
81fj ~ c:hraUc health effects.
25
-------
... - - - _. -- . -
'!he grcundwater will be JIa'litored durirq am after remed.iaticn
of the site. '!he JIa'litorirq results will be evaluated to
as&1I'f! that after oarpleticn of the remediaticn of the
CXI'1taminated soils am -ni1lP1'1ts tI)e risk fran AU of the
ccnt:aminants in the grcundwater aJxwe naturally ~
backgrcun:i levels shall not ~ an ~s cancer risk of cne
in cne millicn (10-6) an:i shall not ~ arrj nc:n--cancer
d'lraU.c health effects.
3.
Site 29: Fire Staticn I.an:ifi1l
All CXI'1taminated soil an:i sediment in this lan:ifill in -.roes~
of 450 JIg lead per kg dzy soil will be remaved. lead
CXI'1taminaticn was cnly fcunei in isolated-"hot spots" at this
stu:!y site.

. '!he grcundwater will be JIa'litored durin;J an:i after remediaticn
of the site. '!he mcnitorin;J results will be evaluated to
assure that after CXIIpleticn of the ~i aticn of the
cx:rttaminated soils an:i -nimP-nts the risk fraD All of the
cx:ntaminant:s in the groundwater above naturally ooanrinq
backgrcur'd levels shall not ~ an -"" cancer risk of cne
in cne millicn (10-6) an:i shall not exoeed arrj ncn-cancer
chra1ic health effects.
c.
~
1.
Direct CAnt t"JII 1 ~c.
'!he direct capital cost estimates include site preparaticn,
excavaticn, treatment, pla~rrt, lan:ifill cx:nst%ucticn, caYer
ocnstructicn, badcfillin;J of excavated areas, verificaticn
sanplin3, cx:nst%ucticn health am safety, an:i installaticn of
fencirq am mcnitorin;J wells. '!he brea)a:Jcwn for eac:b sbx!y
site follows:
Site 15: 280 C11bic yam
Site 22: 5,200 a.Jbic yards
Site 29: 14,600 cubic ym:ds
$55,876
$370,467
$859,910
2.
Tmi~ t"Jmit"JIII' ~.
'!he indirect capital cost estimates include a arrt:i.rJ:Jency
allowame of 25 percent, en;ineerin;J fees of 15 percent, an:i
legal fees of 5 percent of the clli'ect capital ccsts. '!he
brea)cdown for eac:b stu:!y site follows:
Site 15:
Site 22:
Site 29:
$25,148
$166,710
$386,960
26
-------
3.
~ti~ an:! Maint.enanoe ~C:.
Operati~ an:! maintenance cost estimates in::lme site
maintenance an:! .in&pecti~, sanpl~ am analysis, and a
reseIVe fUnd and insuran::2. '!he breaJa:bm for anrJUII1 ~ht for
cperatia'\ am maint.enanoe for each st:my site follows:
Site 15:
Site 22:
Site 29:
$9,228
$18,269
$26,874
4.
~Jlli1 Pl_.Mit Value Q)st
'!he total present value cost estimate in::l\D!s all of the costs
listed al:xJ\Ie for eac:tl of the sites, and estimates an cperati~
and maintenance pericx1 of thirty years with a five percent
interest rate. '!he total present werth oost estimate for the
selected l e:wedy is $2,700,858.
XI. ~ ~CRS
A.
IiClU-"n.CN OF ~ HFAIllH AND '!HE ~
'!he Selected Alternative is protective of public health an:l the
environment for the three st:my sites OCI'Iprisin;J the Metals Areas
operable unit. Also, the d1csen .LaI.edy is ccnsistent with the missim of
the Ref\.J:Je, 1IIhich is to provide a safe an:! protective settin:J for
wildlife. '!he Selected Alternative provides adequate protecti.a'\ by a
CXlft)inati~ of treatment of CD1taminated soil an:! ~iT/lll!1'1t by
stabilizatiav fixati~, the enqineered ~I~vl of an cn-site solid waste
lan:lfill for the treated and unt:rea'ted CD1taminat.ed material, and
institutiaW CD1trOls by CCI1tirJ.1in;J to nstrict p1blic ~"',
particularly to the cx:n;tructed lan:lfill. '!be n-=nia} alternatives,
in::l\.Jdin; c:n-site landfills, were deYe10pecl with the ~ that
the site wculd CXI'1tinJe to be a wildlife ~, with restricted PJblic
a~'" in order to protect the wildlife. An interagency Gj.L~ will
recpire 001 maintain the c:n-site lan:lfill and to provide a~'"
restricticns for the landfill if the land use were to c:bange in the
futuxe.

'!he cl8I!U"J.JP targets for the stD:ly sites cxmpris~ the operable unit have
been established 80 that human mcp:ISUI'e levels will be ~ for the
sum of all CCI'1t:aIDinant to no greater than a 10-6 ~'" c::ancer risk
level. In ea:titia'\, the rxn-carci.n:Jgenic hazard indices for the sum of
all cx:ntaminants shall be less than CI'I8. Also, c:bemical specific cleanLJP
targets have been established by the FE which are believed to be
protecti.ve of wildlife at this site. '!he clearaJp targets established in
this doct-1t are ccnsistent with 001'8 cx:n::1BmS am stat:utoty mrdates.
IDplementati~ of the selected .L--Jy will not PJSe ~. 1Ihart-
tam risks and will not cause c:rcss1lSdi.a iJIpacts.
27
-------
'!he Selected Alternative would clean up the three stmy sites that
cxmprise the q:enble unit 80 that future access restrictia\S to these
areas would not be ~. Because the chcsen ~-=-dy will leave
ocntaminants at the site in an a1-Site landfill, CERCIA Sectiat 121(c)
nqrlres that the l.~ be reviewed at least wary five years to ~
that it c:a1t.inJes to be protect.ive to p1blic' health and the envh__tt..
CXMPL!ANCE wrIH APPLIt'!ART F CR RF.r FVAm' AND APEK>PRIAn:
~

'!he selected ~auedy will exmply with all Federal and artj more stringent
State ARARs. No waiver of an ARAR will be required. '!he major ARARs
that will be attained by the ~.-ents of the selected ha,.edy are listed
below. 'Ihe ARARs listed below may not be all inclusive, and
iDplementatia1 of the ARARs will be deteImined. durirg remedial design and
~i eU actia'\.
B.
1.
surface Water Discharae
Clean Water Act.

- If pcn:i water frail site 15 or stream water frail site 22 JIIJSt
be di.sd1arged to a surface water body durin; site preparatia'\,
the di.sd1arge shall meet the effluent stardards and
prohibitia\S established under Sectia\S 301, 302, 303, 307, 318
and 405 of the Clean Water Act (40 ~ 122.41 and 122.44).
2.
Excavatia'\ of SOil and ~;~
l' -:-.rrce 0:niJerY2Itian and RBczM!ty Act, amtitle C
- Excavated material which is ~ haza%dcus will be han:1led
and stored in accardance with the IlUbstantive tec::hn:ical
stardards Iq:plicable to generators of haza%dcus waste and for
owners and operators of hazardaJs waste storage facilities (40
~ 262.34: and 264, sw,parts B, C, I, J, and L).
- Excavated _terial whid1 is ~ hazardaJs will be handled
and stored in ~ with the land ";~l1'eDtricticn;
(40 em 268).

- '1ha acavatiat activities, 1II1hen exmpleted shal11llBet the
clOSU1'8 perfaDBnCe stardards for clean clc:au:e (40 ~ 264,
~G)
- '!he 8XalV8tiat and storage activities.JIUSt also meet any 1Im'e
&tri.n:Jent State of Illinois ecpivalent provisia\S (35 DC Part
724 design ~).
Clam Air Act
- D.1rirg excavatiat the natiaBl lIIIbient air CJBlity stardards
28
-------
(1WC) far partia1late matter am lead shall not be ~
(40 CfR 50.6 am 50.12).
3.
~Ahilizaticnl Fixatia1
~ Q:n;ervatia1 am JBx:Nmy Act, smd-tle C

- R(». haza1'dcus material will all be treated by this pxooes&
to rerDer it~. '!be treatment shall be in
acxx>rdance with arrj praIUlgated treatment stamards for waste
which is EP 'I'cDdc for cadmium, chranium ar lead (40 CfR 268 for
0006, c007 am.,tor 0008 waste) .
- Treatment shall be in units designed to meet the sutstantive
technical requirements far ei the%' ocntainers, tanks, waste .
piles or 1ft; c:t"'JPll~ units (40 ~ 264, ~. I, J, L or
X) .

- Treatment units DUSt meet arrj mre strirgent regulatoly
design stamards of the State of Illinois (35 IAC Part 724).
Clean Air Act
- D.1rinq treatment the NMa) for particulate matter am lead
shall not be ~ (40 CfR 50.6 an:1 50.12).
4.
D~' or Decontamination of Eauianent
Res:'L1I'OB Q:n;e%Yatia1 am JBx:Nmy Act, &:iJtitle C
- Dlrinq closure all equipDent, stNCtureS am soils that are
used aVwith R(». hazardous materials DUSt be properly
deca1taminated or t1;~ (40 CfR 264.114).

- Deoa'1taminatia1 of equipnent sttuctures am soils that are
used avwi th R:RA hazardous materials DUSt meet arrj more
strin;Jent regulatory deca1taminatia1 or t1; ~} stamards of
the State of illinois (35 DC Part 724) .
5.
Yn!ustrial landfill
Sn1id 'I1a8te tri-V-' Act as ...erded by R::RA samtitle D

- '!he design am cpratiCl'\ of the a1-Site solid waste t1;~]
cell will meet the substantive technical requirements of the
R:RA, SUbtitle D guidelines for the lard t1;",-.' of solid
waste (40 CfR 241, ~rt B).
- ']he design ard cpratia1 of the lan:1fill will meet 8nf more
strin;Jent tecbnical regulations of the State of Illinois (35
IAC Part 807). ;
29
-------
6.
Backfill Excavatic:n
Clean Air Jet

- tUrinJ backfil1inJ activities the NMOS for partia1late
matter shall not be ~ (40 c:fR 50.6).
7.
M:xU torira and Maintenance
~ O:nservatia1. am RecxM:!ly Act, SUbtitle C

- GraJndwater Da'dtorinJ for the excavated study sites shall be
in accordance with the qrc:un:twater Da'd torirxJ requirements of
:RC.W\ (40 CFR 264, SUtpart F).
Solid Waste Di~] Act as audr::Jed by ~ amtitle D

- GraJndwater and leachate Da'dtorirg for the m-site landfill
shall be in accordance with the :RC.W\ SUbtitle D, solid waste
1an:ifi11 requirements (40 CFR 241.204) .
- GraJndwater am 1ead1ate m:nitorinJ for the m-site landfill
will meet any 1ICI'e strin;Jent tec:hni.cal regulatias of the State
of Illinois (35 IAC Part 807).
8.
Personnel Protection
~~a1al Safety am Health Act (~)

- tUrirxJ all remedial activities the requirements of the
()ocIJpational Safety and Health Act for the ~ and safety
of workers will be c:hserved (29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926, ~
C, D, E, and P).
9.
Clearn.Jt) ~JlllnnJlllm<:::
crab 0rd1ard Pnabling Iegisl.atim (16 C.S.C. 666f and g)
Naticml Vil'" ifte Ref\IJe Administr8t.ia1 Jet (16 D.S.C. 668cki)
- '!he chemical specific cleamp targets 1ItiUc:b have been
established far the study sites cx:IIFising the Metals Areas,
and artf others that will be established for this c:perable unit
will be CXI'1Sistent with 001 CXI'D!mS am statutory
requirements, suc:h as these cited abaYe.

In iJlplerne.ntin;J the selected ~~, U.S. EPA, 001 and IEPA have ~~
to CXI'1Sider a ra~t' of p:~ that are net legally b1.ndjnq. '1bese
inclu:ie, 1:ut are net limited to: u.s. £PA's Risk AssOO'--,t.'QniM'1Ce for
SUperfun:l; u.S. EPA's SUperfun:l ~iA' Design and ~b]' Acticm
Guidance; u.s. £PA's ~ 'l'ec:h1ical EnfOIoeweIrt: Qrl.dance ~-1t; State
of Illinois Waste ~Iit. Facilities Design criteria: State of
30
-------
Illinois Ma\itorin; well o:nstruc:tia1 an1 Installatia1 criteria: n6
MaSter Plan for crab 0rc:i1ard Naticral Wildlife ~f\.J;le: an1 NS ~fuqe
MarUal.
c.
~ Ut1:X:l'l ~c;
'Ihe selected l.€5nedy for this operable unit arr-1"S to be cost-effective.
'Ihe costs are reascnmle for the overall effectiveness of the cix:Isen
I.drSdy. Other Alternatives ,.rocn provided less l~-term effectiveness
and pe.nranenoe: less reductia1 of tcDdcity, Jld)ility or volume: or less
inplementabili ty \iIeI'e Dm"e costly.
D.
~oo OF ~ SOlI1I'ICR) AND 1IJI'ERNM'IVE 'lm".MMENr
UX;IES TO '!HE IQXIMJM EXTENI' ~Cl'I~~TF.
'!he selected Alternative for the Metals Areas operable unit utilizes
permanent solutia1S an:! treatment technOloqies to the maxiJl-1m extent
practicable.

'!he evaluation of the five primaxy balarr:::in; criteria is tHc:I"!I'''~ in
Part IX, above. '!be analysis of the criteria SURJOrts the selectia1 of
Alternative 2, as bein;J the best balance am::n; the Alternatives. '!he
analysis of the criteria suworts that the selected Remedy utilizes
permanent solutioos to the maximJm extent practicable. A brief review of
the five primaIy ba1~in; criteria follcws:
Iaq-teJ:m Effect.i\fV1 am PeJ:]IBneID!. '!be selected
Alternative wculd provide the greatest lcn;J-term effectiveness
am perroanel'¥Je. It wculd inY'olve nm:wal of ~tely
20,000 cubic yards of cx:ntaminated soil an:! seti;1N=!!r1t, of 1Ibicn
awrcocimately 9,000 cubic yards is estimated to be ~
hazarQo.1s. '!his cx:ntaminated soil an1 gM;1nP-J'It c:x:n;titutes the
principle threat fraD this operable unit. All of the ~
hazarQo.1s metal cx:ntaminatia1 will be treated by stabilizatiav
fixatia1 with secure CCI'1tainment of the residues an1 the
untreated ncm-ha.zardcus waste. '!he treatDent previ.des a
dem::n;trated, effective rerderin:I of hazarQo.1s material to a
state where it is ncm-ha.zardcus. '!he lm;J-term risks
associated with ~ to am migratia1 of the wastes an:i
treatment residues walld be rer'tv--' by excavatia1 of all of the
cx:ntaminated material, effective treatment and secure
engineerEd -"llI.ols.

par1nr+ilWl of TcDdcity, It:Ibility, ar Valwae. '!he selected
Alternative will previde treatDent to the ma.v;1ft1m extent
possible for the awrcximately 9,000 cubic yards of ~
hazarQo.1s wastes. Treatment will render these wastes non-
hazardaJs. '!he 1Icbility of the metals is redtv--' by
stabilizatiav fixatia1 am CCI'1tainment. Althcu;h this
treatment ~ocess increases the volume of the t:rMted _terial,
it doeS not increase the mass of the hazarda.Is .. .'I
-------
Shart-t.ecl Effecti,- . All of the alternatives under
cx::nsideratia1 tDlld present a threat to workers ard the
envi.ra'ment durin) the ccnstructiavinplementatia1 p-.ue of the
remedial actia1 because of the potential for dust generatiCl'1or
the JII:7IeIDeJ1t of oontaminated sen i mP.rrt:s in surface water. 'Jbe
estimated time for iIlplementatia1 :i:s rcu;Jhly equal far the
variCQ; alternatives, and is not expected to exceed two years
for artf of the alternatives. 'Jbe short-term effectiveness
should be rcughly equal for artf of the alternatives.

IDplEJDer1t:ability. '!he Selected Alternative uses stardam,
reliable t..echmloqies web are feasible for iJlplementatiCl'1.
'!he equipnent and labor is readily available for all of the
ted1noloqies. '!he Selected Alternative wculd be cx::nsidend
ted1nically iIlplementable.
Administrative feasibility is greatest for the Selected
Al ternative, ~ others, because it avoids potential RCRA
lam di~ i~~.and involves cn-Site coostructi.CI'1.
Alternatives Wic:i1 utilize off-Site di~ may encamter
problems with admi.ni.strative feasibility because available
capacity for off-Site di~ is a potential pI'tblem. Also,
upc:x:mirg RCRA land di ~ restrictia1S and exi..st.in; State of
Illinois land disposal restrictia1S may require d1aracteristic
hazardcus waste to be treated prior to di ~1, Wieb tDlld
make certain alternatives infeasible.
Q)st. '!be Selected Alternative is less ~ive than fem' of
the other alternatives. '!be alternatives that utilize off-Site
di~1 ten:1 to be DDre mcpensive than these utilizi.n;J an-site
di~l.
Alternative 2 was selected as the final r-W';a.l actiCl'1 for the Metals
Areas operable unit because it provides the greatest lCl'J3-tem
effectiveness and pemanence and reductia1 of tcDci.city, Jld)ility and
volume through treatment. '!be costs are in the mcHle of costs for all
of the alternatives, and its short-tem effectiveness is equivalent to
the other alternatives. Also, the Selected Alternative is tqUll11y
inplementable fraD a t:ec:tmical point of view, and will avoid tuture ~
land di ~1 :reDLLlctiCl'1S.
E.
M
-------
reduce mcbility of the cx:rrt:aminants. '!his treatment tec:hnolc:qy has been
denr:nstrated to be extremely effective for soil am serl;~.rrt: OCI'1taminated
with metals.
.~
33
-------
~ ~ FtR 'DIE IcrA.u
-------
~~ OF SIGNIFICANI' CXHo1ENI'S IID~: I '/ED AND RESR::NSES
~icns and cxmnents received during the PJblic u.al8l1ent period are
~ and organized into three discrete secticns within this
sumnary: those received at the PJblic hearing: written cxmnents fraD
iniividuals: and written cxmnents fran organizaticns. '!be AgEn::ies'
l~~ is given after each quest.ioo or Ca~II~.
o:mnents :Received at the Public Hearim
o:mrent 1:

Several cxmnentors stated that the time for PJblic c:x:mnent' was too short
because of the ted1nical cx:mplexity and l~ of. the. reports. '!hey felt
that the oc:mnent period sha1ld be exten:ied, with periods ~
ran:jing fran two weeks to two mcnt:hs.
Response 1:

'!be Natiooal ~ Plan (NCP) requires that the Feasibility Stmy
(fS) be available for PJblic CXIIIDBl1t for net less than twenty CD! days
(40 CFR 300. 67 (d) ). Because of cxn:mn that twenty CD! days was net
sufficient time to review and ~~~.."1t 00 the PS, the original v..'.'~
period for this c:.perable unit was thirty days. Based en cx:zxmn
~ressed at the public hearin:;J a1 Au1USt 30, 1989, the pJblic V..I.'~
period was exten:kd for an addi tia1al seven days, making a tat:al C"ft'IP-"\t
period of thirty seven days. Sin2 most of the ~ received at the
hearing were ~ with the seccn:1 operable mdt, the FCB Areas, that
ccmnent period was exten:kd for a lager period of t.De.
o ~~II~j at 2:
A CCI1I'Qe1'1tor ~ that the metal bearing material be placed in above
grcurx1 storage and 1IICI'1itored until future technologies develcp.
ReS[mSe 2:
~ sectioo 121(b) requires that U.S. EPA n... cxn:h1ct an 8~-~~
of permanent soluticns and altemative treatment tec:hnologies or rescurce
rec:r:Neri technoloq1es that, in whole or in part, will result in a
permanent and significant dec:rease in the tcodcity, JllClbility or volume of
the haza1"daJS substanCe, pollutant, or ccntaminant.... '!be President
&hall select a zw-4~ "' act.ioo that is protective of human health ard tl1e
emrh
-------
pennane.nt decrease of tc»d.city, JId::Iility, or volume. Bec:ause the ~~
proposed by the c:x::mnentor wculd not meet the statutory requirements, it
ocW.d not be selected by u.s. EPA.

0:mDent 3:
cne cx:mnentor questimed the d1aracterizatia'1 of the ~le units as
"PCB" and "Metals" units, since every a1e of the seven sites oarprisirr;J
the two ~le units has metal CD'1taminatia'1.

~6e 3:
~le unit, as defined in the NCP is "a discrete part of the entire
respa 6e actia'1 that decreases a release, threat of release, or pathway
of expcsure". ~ requirements for ~le -units is that they DUSt be
cx:nsistent with a pennanent l.e:&uedy and cost effective (40 CfR 300.68(c».
'Ihe PCB am Metals Areas ~le units have been created in aCXX)rdanoe
with the requirements of the NCP. 'Ihe d1aracterizatia'1 of the ~le
units at the site is not inten:led to be misleadin;J, am the titles of the
c:p!I'able units are sinply a means of c:haracterizirr;J the major
cxrrt:aminants within each unit. '!his does not mean that other
cxrrt:aminants may not be present, as is the case of the PCB Areas operable
unit, where lead CXI'1taminatia'1 has always been acmcwledqe:i and
n;~'e!~.
ChmIPJ'1t 4:
One cxmnentor questimed the evaluatia'1 made thra.1gh the RIfFS }Jl~
that ocntaminated groundwater does not pose a risk at the site. He felt
that al thc:u;h acass to groundwater is restricted there is potential risk
because groundwater can mave off-si tee
Respcnse 4:

'Ihe RIfFS did jn:x)rporate ccnsideratia'1S of ~C! restrictia'1S when
evaluating the risk fraD groundwater at the site. '!his is a reasa1able
expcsure scenario for the au:rent .ituatia'1 at the site. Hcwever, the
clean-up targets that were d;-'9~ in the P.r.'~ Plan require that
groundwater JllCnitorir¥} ccnt.irue durin;J and after remr::wal of the sc:urce of
CXI'1taminatia'1, and that groundwater CXI'1taminatic:n cannot ~ risk
based levels at any point 1Itbere there is a reasaJable c:bance of mcposure.
: f groundwater levels do ~ these levels, separate rel!ledj ~J action
will be evaluated for the CXI'1taminate:1 groundwater. '!his wculd include
potential off-site CXI'1taminatic:n, or other fUture use scenarics.
o _.-.~. «. 5:
cne (> ....-. .tor questimed 1IIbether the 14' tA-"eed stabilizatiav tixatic:n
treatment process is safe, and 1ihether it is a proven tsctmalogy.
3
-------
~.onse 5:

For metal beari.n;J wastes, stabilizatiCl'\l fixatiCl'1 is a proven ted1nolc:qy
'-!him ~c;fully :iJmd:>ilizes the metal cx:fltaminants. '!he treatment
plOOE!SS will be carefully designed to ensure safety duri.n;J operatiCl'1, an:!
to prevent fU:1itive emi.ssic:ns durirg prooessirg. '!he IID1itorin)
~ for the process will be develc:prl as part of rerl~wH"1
design, an:! this Da1itori.n;J will ensure~ful treatment. an:! safe
c.peraticns .
o...lauent 6:
CR! cxmnent.or stated that an off-site lanHill might be safer than an en-
site lan:!fill because of the hydrologic an:! qeologic d1aracteristics of
the Re~. He stated that cnst of the off-site lanHill Ge=med to be a
main reasa1 that this alternative was mt preferred. Also, he stated
that if a lanHill is built oo-site, that the period for mcni.tori.n;Jof
the lan:1fill has not been well defined.

Respcnse 6:
'!he u.s. EPA cxnsidered the safety of both off-site an:! cn-site lan:!fills
prior to selecti.n;J its preferred alternative. '!he evaluatiCl'1 was dcne
un:Ser the criteriCl'1 which a~ lag tenD effectiveness an:!
pennanenoe. '!he results of the RI in:iicate that there are several
p:n:entially suitable areas CI'1 the Refu;Je to site a landfill, which
include suitable hydrologic and qeologic characteristics.

Cost is CI'1e criterioo which is weighed before the U.S. EPA p.. vCses or
selects a Ieu.edy. '!he cost of off-site landfilli.n;J was greater than CI1-
site lan:!fillirq withalt significant benefits in any of the other
evaluatiCl'1 criteria categories, in::lu:ti.n;J no significant i.nc::rease in lag
term effectiveness. Since ncne of the other nine criteria D'L.uAjly faver
off-site d;~ of the waste, the greater costs weigh against an off-
site lan:!fill. In ad:titiCl'1, the Agencies believe that there are
advantages in the category of lcn::J term effectiveness am pennanenoe
because an m-site lan:!fill will prevent CXII1i.rqlin) of the waste with
mat.eria1s that cxW.d 1n::rease the lllCi>ility of the cx:fltaminants.
In additiCl'1, SectiCl'1 121(b) (1) of c::ERaA states "'Ihe offsite transport
an:! 1'1; c::r-"'l of hazardous substances or cxntaminated materials witha1t
such treatment should be the least favored alternative ~;,,' actiCl'1
\iIhere practicable treatment technologies are available." 'Ihis statutaIy
preferera! wo.1ld indicate that off-site r1;~ alternatives withalt
prior treatment should not be favored by u.s. EPA.

Written O:mnents an:! ~ions Fratt In:tividuals
o ...I-IL 7:
Several cxmnent.ors stated that the time allowed for PJblic Q ....-tt was
too short, that the prooess is a token qesture, an:! that the V.'.'--'It
4
-------
. .. '.. .-. .-..--
period am ptOOli!lDS is not fair to the p.Jblic.
~ spa1S8 7:
'!he NCP establishes a regulato%y framework for the iDpleaentatiCl'1 ot
CDCIA. As diGn-434!d in ,~ 1, the NCP includes pravisiaw far the
minimJm requirements for p.Jblic participatiCl'1. ADo1q these requirements
is that the Feasibility Stmy (FS) be available for p.Jblic o.'.'~4. tar
not less than twenty me days (40 CfR 3OO.67(d». As was stated in
p=~~ 1, the oriqinal fi.....~ period for this cpenble unit was lcmger
than the m.inimJm requirement, am an additia'l8l extensiCl'1 to the ~'1t
period was qranted based CI'1 o...-el.ts at the p.Jblic hearinq. '!he total
~.lIent period for this cp!r8ble unit was thirty ~ (37) days. '

All p.Jblic ez....--'1t. vuch was received durin; the o....,,~I4. period was
seriously cx:nddered prior to the final decisiCl'1 CI'1 a ~b' actiat.
Just because me imividual cx:mnent may not have chan;Jed the tinal
decisiCl'1, it does not mean that the process is a "token qesture".
Ctmnents received expresse:l a diversity of cpiniCl'1 abaJt \d1at actiCl'1 is
~ to clean up, the site, am not all cpiniCl'1S cxW.d be satisfied by
artj 'CI'1e decisic:n. Also, camuni.ty acceptance is cnly me of nine
criteria used to evaluate ~ial alternatives, am JIIJSt be weighed
against the other criteria.
With respect to the issue of "faiIness to the p.Jblic", U.S.-- EPA at:t.eapts
bath to respad to the pj)lic am to qet sites cleaned up fast, as
required by en. -Ii ess. '!he 1tqercj tries to allow the JDa.Y; 111111'11 p.Jblic
participatic:n cxnsistent with an e~itious cleanJp of hazardcus
materials. In additiCl'1, all regulatiCl'1S, incl~ the NCP 1IIhich
establishes the p.Jblic participatiCl'1 prCJ0Ao;1""eS, undergo a pericd of
PJblic ~nt before they are finalized. '!he p.Jblic has had
q::portunities to ~&6d. CI'1 the SUperfund p.~ as a whole, am the
regulatiCl'1S l1aflect these o....~tts. Different in:tivim".'-= within "the
PJblic" have different ideas am priarities. '!he p... ~1ral regulatiCl'1S
are an atteDpt to balance various in:tividual cxn:mns.
n.I..~Jt 8:
Several Cr."'.r~ntors stated that the criteria for trmftnUty aCD!ptanoe has
'not been met.
Respase 8:

'!he criteri.a of trmnllnUty aooeptance is di Qt"'!I-~ extensively in SectiCl'1
IX of the DecisiCl'1 SUIImary portiCl'1 of this RD.
n ..-.-.L 9:
Salle o...._"rt.ors felt that U.S. EPA has not provided enaJgh 1nfanatiCl'1 to
the p.Jblic, ar has not I'rWIWftnUc:ated adequately with pecple 1n the loc::al
~wUties. '
!
-------
~9:

Na1e of the \.AAwd'1torS stated mcplicitly ~eb informatiat that they
t.hcu#1t was lacki1q, nor did they state ~ informatiat was
inxmplete in the Administrative ~d. '!he Administrative ~
ocnstitutes the basis upcn web the u.s. EPA's decisicn; are made am,
as such, OCI'1tains all of the informatiat web is pertinent to the
remedial decisiat. ~ies of the Administrative Record have been
available for in5pect:iat at informatiat repositories located at the
M:nTis Librazy at So1them Illinois university in cartxn:Sale, Illinois
am at u.s. EPA's Peqiat V office in Chicago, nlinois.
'1W informal aVailability sessicn; am a fomal p.1blic heariJ'g were held
during the p..1blic ocmnent period ~ cpesticns at the Metals Areas
~ plan were answered. . In additiat, several Fact Sheets have been
widely distri1:uted by u.s. EPA to provide SI~"'ies of inf01:1lBtiat. '!he
Iqercy representatives also distri1:uted their tel~ rurtt:ers am ~d
have met with or talked to arrf cx:noemed JDE!riJer of the pJblic to provide
acktitia\al. informatiat, if this had been requested.
o ....P-J1t 10:
Sane cx:mtent.ors stated that the time of the JIIE!IE!tin;J at 5eptsI'ber 18,
1989, was bad for the p.1blic because of their schedules. Also, ate
cxmne.ntor said that all meet.i.r'J3S shcu1d be at the record.
Respc:I1Se 10:

The JIIE!IE!tin;J a"I 5eptsI'ber 18, 1989, was an availability sessiat to try to
answer arrf aaii tianal quest1.cn; before the end of the p.1blic {~....~ It
period. '!he intent of the JIIE!IE!tin;J was net to take 0< .'.'~Ikt for the
record. A pJblic hearin;J 1IIhere official (I.....-..tt was taken at the record
was held at ~ 30, 1989, after web the p.1blic had twenty four (24)
days to suDnit any additia\al. cxmnents in writirg. Informal availability
sessicn; are frequently held during SUperf\.1n:1 projects, am transcripts
are usually net kept. Because iniividuals have different scbedules,
there can be no time that is CX'I'IYeni.ent for evmytn!. '1hi.s availability
sessiat did net adjcm:n until 6:45 pD, am the majority of pecple were at
the JIIE!IE!tin;J at 3: 30. Pl!q)le 1ib) CD11d net atterd tile JIIE!IE!tin;J ~ had
cpesticn; cculd have CC'I1t:aCted the U.S. EPA staff at the ~'s toll
free telepa,e line.
o ....~ 11:
SCIDe ~1S1tOrS criticized the PJblic o<..,.~ period because the ~EpOrts
were aUy available at the start of the <>"...~ period, am that these
~qNrts are len;rthy am highly tedmical, making them diffia.1lt to
review .
~11:
'!he RI report am 1IUCh of the inforDBtiat in the Administrative ~d
6
-------
had been available to the p.1blic. since Au:;Just 1988, which is a year
before the start of the p.1blic ~J1t period. A ~ to describe the
results of the RI and to eJCplain the next ~ in the process was held
in A1J;lUSt 1988. A Fact Sheet describin; &ale of the types of
ted'1nolcqies bei.ng o::n;idered as reaedies was issn~ to the mailin;J list
of ccnoe%nBCl parties in Ja:tIJl4rf 1989. '!his Fact Sheet also descri1:Jed the
tentative sd1edule for the ~i'" decisim: listed the criteria by
YUch the alternatives wculd be screened: solicited p.1blic irpJt em the
~--Jy selectim: and described the p.1blic participatim process. '!his
Fact: Sheet was an att.empt to alert the p.1blic early so that they wculd be
aware of their role, their CD1tribJtions to the process and the
limitations of the SUperfund decisiCI'HDak.i.rJJ plocess.

'Ihe NCP d;cn1!;~eg the infoxmatiem that shculd be available in the RI and
FS (40 em 300.68). Because these reports fom a significant portim of
the basis of the Iqercf's decisicri5, the informatim is highly detailed
and technical. Si.rx:e they can be difficult to review, that is why the RI
was made available as SOCI'1 as it was finalized, and why the Fact Sheet to
d; ~ 1S~ the FS process was prepared.
t'hmIPr,t 12:
cne cxmnentor stated that al thc:u3h SCIDE! reports have been available to
the p..1blic for sane time, there is a differe1'X2 in p..1blic CD10em betuJeen
~t pollutiem exists and which t.ec:tu'¥)lcqies will be used to clean it up.
Respa'1se 12:

As d; ~1"'~ in Jtespa1se 11, a Fact Sheet describin:J sane of the types of
tedmolcqies CXI1Sidered for the Refuqe was i a.c:n-' in Jaruuy 1989, and
~rrt:s em ~),,] alternatives were solicited at that t1me. No
CXI1IDel1ts were received ~ arrj of the tec:hnolcqies under
ccnsideratiem until the p..1blic ~ m August 30, 1989.
o _I..~ 13:
'I\«) c:x:muentcrs stated that the SUperfund process is detrimental to the
PJblic's interest, that the pl'00eS5 causes incx:IIplete investigations,
that the need to shew results l-ILwuJtes the selectiem of faulty
technology, am that criticism of the SUperfund pr~CIIII is leadirr; to
haste at this site.
~spJI ase 13:
Its d;-=nM!~ in Respcnse 7, the SUperfund plcoes:S is codified into
regulations in the NCP (40 CFR 300). '!be regulaticns are :interded to
establish ~'~U"eS that allow far p.1blic particip!ltia1 at all SUperfund
sites. 1Urther, these regulations were open to public (\o_...~ before
they were finalized, and reflect the 0. _...~ received. ~~n-es were
established within this framework to require the p.1blic's interest to be
treated qrlvalentlyat all sites, and not em a raman, site 8peCific
basis .
7
-------
As "i-IS~ in Fle5l=on5e 11, the NCP establishes the requirements of the
RI am 18. '!he U.5. EPA believes that the RI ard FS l~ far the
Metals Areas cperable unit have met these requirements. F\1rther, the
requirements for investigaticns praII.llgated in CDC[A Sectien 104 (b) have
been met. '!he investigatien at the Refuge if» adequate to ~ the
~b1 decisien bein;J made for the Metals Areas cperable unit.

'Jhe issue of criticism of SUperfurd ard the need to show results
resul tin:;J in hasty decisicns or faulty tedmoloqies has been raised at a
natimal level, as well as at this site. It is tIUe that o......~h:$S has
directed the Iqercj to JDCJYe faster en SUperfurd projects, in general.
HaweYer, this does net mean that at this partia1lar site a poor cpality
decisien is the result. 'Jhe decisiat to increase speed at projects was
rtt made as a trade off to cpality, ard U.5. EPA believes that good
remedial decisicns can be made at sites in a timely and efficient manner.
o ....~I it. 14:
SaDe c:x:zmantors expressed 0CX'10em that u. S. EPA' S decisien en the
selected alternative walld rtt be in the best interest of the local
cr-ma1nity. Specific CXI'1OelnS are the iJlpacts en their lives ard futures,
the iDpacts at enrollment at Sart:bam Illinois university, ard the
iJIpacts at tourism.
Respc:I1se 14:

'Jhe iDpact of pmAd;1t1 alternatives at local OCIII'IImities is evaluated in
the categories of short tam effectiveness ard lcng tam effectiveness
ard~. lis rJi ~:lSsed in ~ 6, there is stra1q statutmy
preference against movement of waste to another ~1I'1ity withcut prior
treatment. '!he r--iial design will prevent adverse short tem iJIpacts
to the area, ERJCt1 as potential dust generaticn or surface water run-off
by us~ en;ineer~ JEthcds to prevent these fraD cccurrin;J.
'!he lcng tem iDpacts of an m-site, solid waste landfill were evaluated,
am this rJi ~ method shcu1d prevent arrj future prcblems by ccnt:ainin:J
the treated waste. '!here will be a siu specific, ~Eh!nsive, CI1-
goin;J inspectiat am m::mtorin;J p:t~CIIII to ensure the safety of the
lamfill.
'Jhe iJIpacts of the cbcsen ~--dy en enrol1ment or tcurism are no greater
than the other alternatives, ard are 1IUCh less than the adverse effects
en tourism that have occurred because of the eci.stirr:J CD'1taminatien
prcblea at the Retuge. RetU::Je figures inlicate that arnal fII--rs of
visitors to the RetU::Je declined fraD 1,200,000 to 800,000 because the
pmlic is aware of. existing CD'1taminatien prci)lems. Cl.eanin; these
prcblems up can a1ly iJIprDw ta1rism am dt-&.~ adverse iJIpacts en the
neamy ~1I'\i.ty.
8
-------
a..u.,ent 15:
Ch! cxmrentor felt that not enough informatia1 has been provided a1 the
lCD3 term effects of the clean up actia1S.
Respcnse 15:

'the evaluatim of lCD3 term effects for each of the alternatives,
in:::lu:tinq the c:bosen alternative is presented in the FS, and was
&mnarized in the Pl~ Plan for the ~le unit.
~.udIt 16:
several cx:rmentors ~ressed cxn::2m that excavatia1 of the CXl'Jtaminated
soil and sediment cx:W.d cause air problems, especially dust, that might
be harmful. '!hey felt that safeguards are ~~ to prevent the
~p:> of CXl'Jtaminated dust, or to clean up any dust that is created.
Also, there was cxn::2m with JIOVement of the ccntaminated material into
water .
Respa1se 16:

u. S. EPA is aware that excavatia1 of CXl'Jtaminated soil and tlilMi-!'1t has
the potential to create c:ross-media iDpaets, such as releases of dust to
the air or run-off to surface water. Safeguards are established as a
part of the remedial design to prevent these potential adverse Upsets.
Specific design features will address dust IRJR)ressim and run-off
CD'1trol. 'Ihe design will also inclu::Je methods to a:ntrol dust EII1i.ssia'lS
£ran the stabilizatiav fixatia1 treatment pzooess. In additim to the
engineeriIq ccntrols to prevent releases of ccntaminants, the z--1b1
design will inc1\de mcnitoring requirements to ensure that the ~.t.",l
~..OO' are working and a c:x:ntingency plan a1 hcJw to ~-s and
correct any JIBlt'l.n:tia1 that CD.1ld ~ the envi1aDel'~.
(\ _..,~J'1t 17:
'1\.10 ~uc:l1tors felt that the FS does not give 81CUgh site specific
details about the ~ia1 alternatives, the specific t.ect1ni.ques to be
used, the CCI1tractors to do the writ, or treatability tests.
Re~a1Se 17:
'the FS REport incl\des details about geum."al specific:atia1S of each of
the pINIrliAl altematives CD1Sidend. '!be FS Report does not go .into
extensive site specific details regarding each alternative, b.1t does
provide a ni!l:l"!l1CU;iCl1 of c:bemic:al, locati.a1 and actiCl1 specific Applicable
ar Relevant and ~¥iate Riegulat.ia'1S (ARARs) far the alternatives.
Par e:xzmple, the FS :in::1udes a ni-.-.im of the design requi.reII&1ts far
hazardous waste lardfills, b.1t does not in:::lu::Je design c!rawin;Js and
specific:atia'lS for a haza.rdaJs waste landfill at the Retuge.. Design
~ and specific:atia1S are net in::l\Dd because CI1ly CI1e z-iiA1
alternative will be d1osen, and it wa1ld be costly and time ~ to

9
-------
produCe specific designs far all alternatives.. '!he pn-pose of the fS is
to provide a reascned c:t1Oioe 8DCnJ alternatives. Specific design details
are net neoes~ry to make sud1 a c:t1Oioe. .

~, until the remedial actica is selected, . the oa'1tractors to do
the work c:annat be hired. Similarly, techni~ to iJrplement the
cx:n;tructica and cperatica of the remedial actica and treatability tests
to establish blplementatica parameters c:annat be finalized until the
actica is selected and the design ~VftP-1'1tS finalized. '!he fS does
provide en::u;Jh infcn:matica for each of the alternatives to be evaluated
against the nine criteria, the statutory requirements of CERCIA, and
o::mpared to each other.
'!he fact that this infonuatica is net developed as part of the fS Report
does not mean that the p.1blic will net have a chance to c:xrltinJe to .
review and cx:rrment on the rE!II1!!dial design and r--i i,,' action doct-rrt:s
an:! wrk plan. As material is developed it will be placed in the
infonuation repository, and othmWise provided to the p.1blic.
0:mDent 18:
Q1e cxmrentor requested a toJr of the cx:ntaminated sites.
Response 18:

To..1rs of the cx:ntaminated sites are available by ~ with the
crab ord'1ard National Wildlife Refuge Manager. He will arran:Je for
individuals or small gro.1PS to see the areas of cantaminatica, in
CDlpliance with the site safety plan and RefU:]e requirements. '!he Ref\.J;Je
Manager can be reached at (618) 997-3344.
(' .I.._~ It 19:
Q1e UAlAuentor asked ~ incineratica is feasible for the metal
cantaminated material.
~.cnse 19:

Incineratica is net feasible for the metal cantamination because
incineration t.ed1nology has no effect ca the tcDCicity, Jld)ility or
volume of metal CD'1tamiMnts.
() ....-rt; 20:
Q1e . u...~m.or cp!Stic:nd 1IIhether the ~It.ul sites identified in the RI
are truly ~-flresmtative.
FIe~a8e 20:
'l\Io sites, sbXty sites 30 and 31, were selected as CD1trol sites an:! SCIDf!!
of the scmples taken fraD crab orchard take were taken as ~It.",l
S2IDples. '!be raticnale far the selectica of the sites is explained in

10
-------
Sectia'1 3.5 of the RI ~t. Site 31 was selected as a "Ret\J;;Je
backgraJnd" bea1use it was believed to be rEIIIDte fraD artj industrial
activities. Site 30 was selected to establish ~ther there are low
levels of c1ispersed mcplosive residuals in the former Department of
Defense areas. '!he results of the investigatia'1 of these study aites is
tHQt"!I'S~ in sectia'1 8 of the RI Report. 'Ihe quality assuranoe/ CJ2lity
centrol of the first ~ of scmples was questimable, and therefore the
use of the data is limited.

'!he data fraD the centrol sites was net used as a basis for determinin:J
the clean up targets for the Metals Areas ~le unit. 'lhe
oa1taminants at the study sites cc:.uprising the Metals q:erable unit will
be I'Elnediated to risk based levels rather than to backgraJnd levels.
Because of the possible limitations of the data derived fran the
backgraJnd sanples taken during the RI, decisions have net been based
solely a'1 these data.
c...wc:l1t 21:
One cxmnentor mcpressed c:xnJem that cost will be the primary factor in
d100sinq \tb:) does the remedi.a1 work, and that a cheap cxrJtractor may be
bad.
Respa ase 21:

In award.in; a contract for the remedi.a1 work the primary ~ is that
the cxrJtractor can perform the neoes""'UY work. COSt is a secc:niary
criteria'1 an:i is a'lly a:nsidered to d100se between cxrJtractors who are
capable. '!he Federal Aqencies have specific regulations that apply to
the spending of Federal JDa1ey to do the ~ial work. In award.in; a
ccntract for the ~bl work, the U.S. EPA DUSt cc:.uply with the
regulations of 40 CFR Part 33. 'lhe det.en1ination of the final award
will a:nsider cost a'lly after the bi&sers demonstrate that they can meet
the other evaluat.ia1 criteria. If the Agencies allow or require a
respaLSible party to perform the work, the respclLSible party will be
respa !Sible for ~ selection of the CXI'1tractor. However, the choice
will be 8Ubject to Iqerr::j ~ after a deteminatia'1 that the
selected CD1tractar is qualified to perfom the work.
0. .._.~I«, 22:
Several -..wa::ntars cpsticnd the ~riateness of the c:reatia'1 of the
"PCB" and "Metals" Areas as separate q:erable units. Because of the
diversity of a:ntaminants at the sites and the occurrence of metals at
the PCB sites and possibly PCBs at a1e Metals site, the u.....A1ltor&
wa'dered if the ~le units were an awrsi:aplificaticm and if the
preferred alternatives wculcl 6dh.-s all of the a:ntaminants at the
aites.
Je~onse 22:
As ~;Qt"!I....~ in the re5pase to O....~tl 3, U.S. EPA believes that the
11
-------
creatioo of separate operable units for the Metals am PCB Areas is
aR'I'q)riate. 'Ihe creatioo of these operable units meets the statutaty
am regulatmy requirements of CDCIA am the NC'P. As stated 8ba\Ie, the
titles of the operable units are siJ1ply a means of cnaracteriz1nq the
major oontaminants within eaen unit. '1his does not mean that other
contaminants may not be pre:s~Jt. However" the selected l~ far the
Metals Areas ~le unit will address all of the contaminants ot
oc:noem found at the three study sites CXIIprisinJ the operable unit am
the lE!m8dy selected in the future tor the PCB Areas operable unit will
address the contaminants at those sites.
ecmnent 23:

one ccmnentor stated that IEPA JIIJSt "retain their power to guide am
monitor federal EPA remediatioo actia'1 00 the Ref\J:Je".
Response 23:
'!he IEPA does retain all of its legal authorities at this site. IEPA has
been, am will continue to be, a partner to u. S. EPA an:! OOI in the
remedial action at the Re~. D.1rinJ the remedial design am remedial
action for this operable unit, am for all SIJperf\.D'd activities for ather
~le units IEPA will ca1tiroe to provide irpJt, am be actively
involved with the agoinJ activities.
Cament 24:
Several ccmnentors ~iooed the pemanenoe am safety of stabilizatiav
fixatioo as a treatment process. o:n:mns :in::lude: patentialleac::.hing of
the metals in the future: the iJrt:Iact 00 the metal c:art;am.inatioo if the
stabilizers dea't last or the process breaks dcwn: the opinioo that
stabilizatiav tixatioo my not be a prc:wen tec:hnology: am CXI'1Cem that
the treat:nent can't last forever, 80 'We are aUy ~~ c:art;am.inatioo
to the fUture.
Re:spa se 24:

Stabilizatiav fixatioo is a proven tec:hnology an:1 has been deDaliSt..CLted
as the best ~ted available technology (BDAT) for treatment of
ha.zaI't)cus wastes 0CI'Itainin; cadmium, chraDium, lead, nickel , silver
arsenic an:1 selenium. Because the c:art;am.inated soil am ~i1l'lm1t in the
Metals Areas cper8ble unit ocntain cadmium, c:hranium am lead, this
treatment is tb'3 ID\T for theSe contaminants. Dsta indicate that the
stabilizaticxv' tixatioo p:ooess is pemanent an:1 that the stabilizers
"last" . 'Ihe stabilizers are generally a mixture of lime, fly ash,
pozzolans or other in;Iredients that create a oeaent type of reactiCl'1. If
this material shculd weather or brM1t dcwn for scme reasa1, the
contaminants my still be ~ in the oement matrix. ']here are no
adverse iJlpacts at the metals fraD the materials used in the trMtment
pI ooess.
Stabilizatiav' fixatioo treatment, while &hewn to iJmcbilize the metal
12
-------
0CX'1taminant:s, does not dest.ray them. '!be selected l~Y requires the
di ~ 1 of the treated hazardous and \.D'1treated ncn-hazardcus material in
an cn-site landfill. '!be landfill q:erates as an Utitimal safety
mAaSUI'e in case the stabilizatiav fixaticra pxooes& beoaies less
effective in the future. Because the oa1taminants will remain in a
treated fom cn-site, ~ nquires that the effectiveness of the
leu..:.dy be evaluated at a minimJm of every five years. In Utitiem, the
c:praticra and maintenan::e activities for landfills require pericd1.c
m:n1t.orin; to A!I:- S 1Ibether leachate is prrrlI10ed and if so, 1Ibether
arJtaminantsue fOUR! in the leachate. If the aHJOin; DD1it.orin; and
evaluatiem indicate that the treatment precess has nAlllaed to werle, the
l~y will be re-evaluated. Also, if the DD1itorin; indicates that
arJtaminants ue found in the leachate, the need for corrective acticra
will be a'S=!1"-~ before the 0CX'1taminant:s can migrate out of the landfill.
'1hese aetivi ties will prevent adverse iDpacts fran. oocurrin; in the
future.
O:mnent 25:

Several cx:mnentors questicraed the safety, permanence am,tor
~rcpriateness of a landfill em the Ref\J;Je. Because of these ccncems,
several cx:mnentors stated that an off-site hazardous waste landfill
shcW.d be used, or if an cra-site landfill is used it shcW.d meet R:RA
stamards rather than solid waste standards for the design because of the
extra protecticra the R:RA design 1IiIa1ld provide.
Specific ax10emS in:1\Dt:
R:spa1Se 25:
a.
b.
the appropriateness of 'the site geologyr
the high water table at the site Ydch oculd effect the
landfill 11nerr
potential lcx::aticra of the larxlfill in or near a '-Ietlan:l1
loc::aticra of the landfill OYer the I&i Madrid fault liner
the lcraq term effectiveness and permanence of a landfill, and
whether future clean-up of the material 1IiIa1ld be requiredr
the fact that the exact lcx::aticra of the cn-site landfill was
not identified in the FSr
the potential far food cbain ~-1' atiCll traD an cn-site
landfill: am .
1Ihrther a Naticraal Wildlife Refuge shculd be used as a site for
a landfill.
c.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
BecaUge metal CD1taminatiem can be treated hJt not pezmanently ~,
the ~ia1 alt.ematives evaluated in the FS all inclu:Jed a ~.'I.:rIeI1t of
lcn;r-te%m c:x.ntainDent (~L the no actiCll alt.emat1ve). '1he FS Report
includes an AC!'-~~'1t of both cn-site and off-site lamfills, with or
~ treatment of the material prior to d;~. '!he alternatives of
cn-site versus off-site landfillin; were ~t"ed against the nine
criteria used to evaluate patent.ial remedies, and were also 8Valuated
against the goals and missicra of the 001 for lcraq-tem RIef'uge ~.~.

13
-------
'Ihe ~1"8tive 8"'-~....-,t of the landfill locaticn; indicate that an CI'1-
site landfill is preferred. '!be Agen::ies believe that it is easier to
ensure the loog-tem effectiveness am pez:manence of an CI'1-Site lan:1fill
for the treated material t.hrcu:Jh ~~essive loog-term ~tien,
ma\itoring am maintenance. D~l of the treated material in an off-
site landfill may all~ the material to be mixed with other waste which
might adversely effect the treatment prooess am in::rease the JD:Ibility of
the 0C'I'1taminants. In additia'\, the costs of an off-site landfill are
significantly higher withem ~ic1iJ'r;J arTf additia1al benefit.

~ states that "'Ihe off site transport and ~;~1 of hazardous
substances or CXI'1taminated materials... shculd be the least faVOJ:8d
alteInative ~;A' actia'\ ....n IEPA has ast'-~ the capacity of
CXIIIIerCial lan:1fills in the State of Illinois and irxticate that capacity
is limited. In additia'\, 001 believes that an cn-site landfill is
cxnsistent with its missia'\ and obligatia'\S for the Ret\J;Je. Because the
Agencies believe that an CI'1-Site landfill is safe am provides the best
balaJ'X2 of the ,u:alledy selectia'\ criteria, an cn-site lan:1fill has been
selected as the' ~;~1 u..u~ of the final ~cll.edy.
A solid waste landfill was selected because the regulatory requirements
for landfill design are based en the type of waste to be ~;~. A
~ lardfill is required for the ~;~l of hazardous waste, as
defined in 40 ~ 261.3. siroe the material to be d;~ here will net
be a hazardcus waste when it is ~;~, a ~ landfill design will net
be selected as an ARAR. However, as part of the remedial design pICCe5S
various landfill designs will be evaluated to see wch design provides
the ~~ 0CI'1tainment of the waste. '!he final landfill design will
be based en tedmica1 requireIrents, am will meet, at a mini:aum, the
legal design requirements.
Specific a:n:I!1:'nS are addressed bel~:

a. '!he'R! in:l\Ded ~~loqica1 :i:nvestiqatia'\S inclu::lin:J a
review of ex.istinJ data, an:! the perfomance of geqi1ysica1 surveys,
soil boriJ'qs, soil S21Dplin;, gramdwater smzplin;J an:! mr:nitari.ng,
well irstallatien, peI1DB8bility testin;J, gramdwater elevatien
mcni taring, an:! an en;Jineering s:JrVe'j of the installed wells. '1his
ptU:lLalil is described in detail in 01apter 4 of the R! ~.
Selected 80il S2IDples were analyzed by stamard test methods to
prcwide infomatien en soil o.'I<6itien and remedial altexnatives.
In general, areas of CXI'1taminatia1 and sate areas cxnsi.dered for the
CI'1-Site landfill are underlain by silty clay, with hydraulic
cxnmctivities typical of the soils erau'Itered. 'Jhe data ....,~
that there are areas with suitable geoloqic c:haracteristics for the
siting of a landfill. Before the final locatien of the lan:!fil1 is
identified acktitia1al soil borin;s will be taken to determine the
lIpBCific site geology an:! to establish that the ARARs re;J8%'ding
locatien st:.an:la%ds have been met. !
14
-------
b. '!be hydrogeolc:tJical 1nvestigaticng perfOI1DSd durin;; the RI are
described in paragraph a abaYe. Shallow qroundwatar at the sites
investigated was generally found at a depth of 1 to 17 feet below
groun:i surface. 'Ibere is typically a nuctuatian of 3 to 10 feet
am::II19 wells betweell the wet (winter) and dIy «(;:nnw_,.) e-~saw.
Grc:un:!water now is generally towards crab orcha1:d Lake, with local
now ilIpacted by local surface water feat::utes. '!be water table
JDeaSUl"eIIIeI indicate that there are areas at the Site that have a
lower water table than other areas. Aaiitimal data for qroundwater
elevaticns at the p;Jtential locatia\S for the an-site landfill will
be taken prior to finalizatian of the locatian. '!be final locatian
D1St ocmply with all ARARs regardinq loc:atian stan.iards and
qroundwater prot:actian.

c. '!be Agencies have ay~~ that the landfill will not be loc:ated
in a wetland: nor will it be located ~ it will adversely bpact
wetlams. All of the Agelx:ies are extremely cx:.ncerned with the
p1: ~servatian of wetlands, and are cxmnitted to their prctectian.
Exea.1tive order 11990, entitled "Protectian of Wetlams", dated May
24, 1977, requires Federal Agelx:ies to avoid adversely iDpacti.n;
wetlams, to minimize destzuctian and to prese:ve the values of
wetlands. '1he requirements for U.S. EPA to iDplement this order are
found in 40 CfR 6.302 and AR:endix A to Part 6. U.S. EPA and 001
fully inten:! to ocmply with these requirements, and will iDplement
the selected ~;",) actian to avoid adverse iDpacts to wetlands.
d. Seismic st:amams have been prcIIIllgated for hazardcus waste
facilities, incl~ landfills (40 CfR 264.18(a». 'lhe ~ of
the standards is to protect units fraD defomatian and displ~~-d:
resultin:J fraD the movement of faults. 'lhe intent of the stan.iards
is to ban the plaoewait of a hazardcus waste facility an ar near
faults that are likely to experience displaoement in the tut::ure.
Although the material to be I'H~ will not be a hazardcus waste,
U.S. EPA ~d have similar CXI'ICf!%'nS regardinq ~ to the solid
waste landfill. Geologic evidence indicates that faults \ilhich have
DDVed in recent times (Holocene times, the last U,OOO years) are
the anes JICSt likely to JIDYe in the futme. Evidence reviewed for
the rulE!IIIakinJ in:iicated that in the Eastem United States the risk
of a:trj fault displadn:J am. defcmni.n;J the earth's surface is very
low, and that 8V8I1 historical shocks such as the New Madrid have not
broken the c;rcun::l to fam abvicus fault traces. Because of the low
likelihocxS of displ~it ar defomatian, the Eastern United States
(including nlinois) was eliminated fran the IU!h:lII;c stan:tards.

e. 'lhe lCD;1 tam effectiveness and pmaanence of landfill
alternatives was ,.;--~ in the fS Report. Because the metal
cx:.ntaminants cannot be cIestroyed, the selected l-aly cali:)ines
t:reatJDent and cx:nt:a1nDent to prcvide the greatest la'1g tam
effectiveness and pm;manence that can be aad8Y8d far tbe wstes.
No tuture clean-up of the material is expected to be~. 'lhe
&eaJre lamfill will be routinely inspected, mcnitor&d and
mintained to ensure that its integrity is preserved. If these
15.
-------
'regularly scheduled inspecticn;, or if the statutory fiVe year
review irdicate the pat:ential for adverse envi.\.d;uental or PJblic
health iJlpacts, the ~aJi3dy will be re-evaluated.

f. '!he exact locatien of the on-site landfill was ~ identified in
the f'S, al t:.ha.91 several locaticn; were, p~. '1be Refur:1e is a
large area and. there are several potential locaticn; that would meet
the requirements of an on-site landfill. '!he RI Report provides an
initial hydrogeologic 8""-OO.........TJt of marrj of the stu:!y sites. 'Jhis
data can be extrapolated to irdicate good cardidate areas for
turther investigatien durin:J the design phase of the reuediatien.
'!he remedial design will inclme further investigaticn; of the most
suitable areas before the final locale is selected. '!he final
locatien will be the me 1I4Uc:h is the most &R>Iq)riate and. least
di.sroptive to the Ref\.l;Je of those that meet all of the legal
requirements and. stardards "';c,""n"~ in the K)[).
9. ~1"'n'atien of c:xrrtaminants in the focxl chain sha1ld ~ result
fran an on-site lan1fill. '!he sea1re landfill CXl!i)ined with the
treatment process will result in :iJrm:::iJilizatien and. cc:nt:air'm-ent of
the c:xrrtaminants. '1his will make the c:xrrtaminants unavailable for
acx::unulatien in the focxl chain. '!he unrerrediated stu:!y sites
currently allow the potential for c:xrrtaminants to get i1"Ito the foed
chain by JllClVement via surface water. Upa1 oatpletien of the clean
up of the st1.r:!y sites, no foed chain aoamulatien will ooo.Jr !ran
the reuediated sites because the scuroe of ocrrt:aminatiat will be
eliminated.
h. '!he issue of 1Iti1et:her a Naticnal wildlife Refur:1e sha1ld be used
as a site for a landfill was extensively r1;c:I"'I]9eM within the !WS
and. 001. 001 is authorized by O::I..p.ess to manage the crab orc:t1ard
Naticnal Wildlife ~ in accordarxX! with its missien. 001 has
detemined that an on-site lan:lfill can be c:x:nstructed alii '
maintained in ~ with its missien. 1IU.le all of the
Agencies realize that a pristine Refuge would be ideal, this is
unrealistic in light of the fact that landfills and. other
ocrrt:aminated areas already existed en the land. 1Iibm it was tumed
CNer to 001. In lIYaluatin; the benefits versus the liabilities in
remavin:J the ocrrt:aminated material !ran the ~, the AgenCies
believe that an on-site lan:!fill is the best solutien. '!his
landfill will be c:x:nstructed am cperated to pI.~ safety and.
health alii to protect wildlife alii the huDan users of the Reb.J;Je.
o ......-.Jit 26:
CD! cu..,oP.TJtor stated that the siting criteria for an on-site landfill
wculd be JII:)re lax than those recpired for off-site lan:lfills.
pnrawe 26:
Siting criteria for the selected on-site landfill are ~;c:I"'I~ in the
ARARs sectien of the KD, alii inclme the requirements of 40 em 241 am

16
-------
IAC Title 35, Part 807. '!he criteria are equally strin}ent for cn-site
or off-site lardfills.
0. _._.~ It 27:
cne c:x:mnentor questiavd \Iihethe.r it is tectmically feasible to retrofit a
large oa ~ete tank ,.ru,cn is located m the site to meet the design
recpirements of the lardfill.
~~ 27:
'!here is a five millim CJallm ~8W.e:te tank m the Ref\J;Je ,.ru,cn was
cxnstNcted as a water res8r1IOir in 1942. Based m an initial
eR3'ineerin:J review of the as-blilt drawings of the tank it ~'P'S to tie
technically feasible that the tank cculd tie retrofitted to meet the .
design requirements of the selected lardfill. Hcwever, before this would
be chosen as the final lardfill site, an ast;~C!lftAr'It would tie made as part
of the design process to establish whether the current cxn:litim and
settin;J of the tank WtWd meet all of the ARARs.
~J'1t 28:
Q1e c:x:mmentor asked whether there is available capacity at the Re~ for
a')-Si te storage of the material.
Respcn;e 28:
'Ihe Refuge CXI'1tains a J'1I ~.,. of 0Ct.c:1. e:te bJnKers ,.ru,cn were cx:nstruct:ed
for the OOD to protectively store explosives and m.mitia1S. '1bese
bmkers are currently used and are not avai.1able for storage of the
cxntaminated soil and ,-,i1Nl!l'1t wh1cn will be excavated fraD the three
stu:!y sites u..l¥4.isin;J this cperable unit. '1here is no other available
storage capacity m the ~ for large volumes of cxntaminated
material. In additim, as t'HCIl"'IJI'...-1 in the respcuse to 0 ....~tt. 2, la'1:3
term storage of the hazardcus material WtWd not meet the requ:in!ment for
the selectim of a pemane.nt l~.
t\ _I..~J it 29:
Several ("....~ stated that cost was a primary factor in pL~in:J an
cn-site lardfill rather than an off-site lardfill.
Respcn;e 29:

As t!iCll"'lJl--~ in the respcnIe to O...._.~ 6, cost is en! of the nine
criteria ,.ru,cn are evaluated before the final laUE!dy select.iCl'l is made.
At the RefU;Je, an off-site landfill would net provide arrj additiCl'lal
benefits ewer an cn-site lamfill, and WtWd have a higher ccst.
0. .-.-.AIL 30:
cne u....~ was ccnoerned that cpenin;J "closed areas" would tIXpOP the
17
-------
p.1blic to the wastes.
Re~8e 30:

'%he areas of the Refuge that are "closed areas" have restricted ~o:; in
order to foster am protect the wildlife ~ati~ and to provide a
pennanent sanctuary for wildlife. '!he three stmy sites that ~.i.se
the Metals Areas operable unit will cart:ime to have restricted ~""
after they are cleaned up, in acxmdance with the general RetuI)e
recpirements. HcweYer, after clean up of the sites, restricticns will
not be ~""'\lY to protect public health because c:xrrtamiMnts will net
remain abcNe the clean up targets. '!he lamtill Wich will be blilt to
oontain the treated waste will have partia1lar fr"""""""" restricticns to
prevent human ocntact with the material.
O:mnent 31:
Sare CX'III!S1tors felt that the criteria of "short term effectiveness" had
nat been met because of the short review tiJre allowed the public and
because of the iDpacts to the ~n1ity.

Respc::use 31:
'!he criteria of "short term effectiveness" reflects inpacts ~ the
CXI!IIIJl'1i ty fran the rerredial acti~ Wile the acti~ is aH:JOing and does
. . not inclu:ie whether the p.1blic feels that they have had en:pj1 time to
review the ~~. 'Ihe public's fee1in;s CX\ the SUperfund process are
a part of the "ocnn.1ni.ty aooept:.arr.e" criteria. '!he short tam iJIpacts to
t.-.e cxmrunity fraD the selected alternative and the other ~iA1
:~tematives were evaluated in the FS Report. '!he &hart term iJIpcts
were viewed as beirq rcu;hly equal for all of the alternatives considere:i
(except "no action").
0:IIment 32:

Several a:mDeTitors stated that ether alternatives might be better,
in:1ud.in:; :
a.
bile -.....oAtitors felt that tec:nnoloqies fraD the SUperfund
Innovative Tecbnology Evaluatim (S1'lE) ~~GIII shcW.d be
considered:
one (.. -.-..Arrt:ar' felt that rea::Nery tec:nnoloqies had net been
ccnsic::l8red :
a1e (,k ....-ltor preferred that the mterial be lett in place
until there is a safe way to handle the prcb1em:
one «)0 ....-itar felt that it walld be sufficient to fence off and
seal off the mteria1:
a1e ... .....~ preferred di ~ in a1xNe gromd starage, with
m::ni t.orirIJ:
one (...t..~ felt that several alternatives ,.i---Jd in the
~. tJOS8d plan walld be preferable, 1nclu:Un;J alt.erMt1ws 1, 3,
4, 5, or 9: ard
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
18
-------
9.
me 0CIIIDent0r felt that an unspecifiedp "less harmful" solutia'l
sha1ld be fcum.
R:spOl~ 32:
u.s. EPA has evaluated a IUIb!r of other alternatives and has detemined
that the selected alternative is preferable. 'Jhe basis for this
determinatia'l is provided in the Decisia'l SUnIDaly for this Ja). 'Jhe
1qencies believe that the selected l--dy best meets the statutary
requirements and provides the best balance ancnq the alternatives.

Specific cxmnents are addressed below:
a. Stabilizatiav f:ixatia'l t.ed1noloqies are 1ncl\XJed for evaluatia1
in the srn: pICyA.CUII. At least seven proprietors of solidificatia'l
and stabilizatia'l t.ed1noloqies have been 1ncl\XJed in the srm
program. ~e stabilizatiavf:ixatia'l has been aooepted as 1n\T for
metals (see cxmnent 24 above), the pnpose of the srm pl'OtpCUII is to
evaluate particular proprietary P~ges or different waste
cxntitia'lS such as CX>-OCntaminatia'l. In acktitia'l, vitrificatia'l
~S9S are included in the srm PI~Lam, and were evaluated in
the fS. 'Iherefore, the t.ed1noloqies fraD the SITE P:r:Q9A.CUII have been
cxnsidered.
b. u.s. EPA maintains infomatia'l a'l technologies .w.table far the
treatment of various types of hazardous wastes. A1Ir.rJ; the
infonnaticn '-'hic:n is available and updated a'l a regular basis are
reports a'l treatment technologies in use, treatability studies and
reports a'l develc:ping innovative t.ed1nology. In JIIc.g-s:in;J the
treatment t.ed1noloqies available for the metal bear:in;J waste !ran
the Metals Areas operable unit these &aJrOeS were ocnsulted.
Ccnsideratia'l of the 8A>licab11ity of a technology incl\D!s an
evaluatia1 of whether the technology has been demcI~1:rated to be
effective, if the p:~ is available at tull scale, if it has
pot.entiaJ. adverse effects em the co-cxrrt:ami.na, and legal
restrictia'lS em 1IIhat type of t:rea'bDent may be used. Stab11izatiav
f:ixatia'l ted1nologies are likely to be selected in May 1990, \nier
k::RA as the aUf 8I=Pl,,¥date treatment for certain of the wastes
fc:ux! .in the Metals Areas ~le unit. Further, this treatment
method is the cmly technology dem:x'.strated to be effective far the
metal CXI1t:aIIIjnatia'l.

Recx7Je.ry tectmologies are not available for the CXI1t:am1nants faJD:1
at the stu:ty 8ites ~ls:in;J the Metals Areas operable unit.
'I9chnoloqies SUCi1 as these used in min:in; have not been 8A>liEd to
hazardous waste and have not been sham to achieve the cleaJ11p
targets required. SOil washin; is me technology 1IIhic:n has
pat.ential to be used a'l metal CXI1t:aIIIjnatia'l. '!his P1-~ IDCt:racts
CXI1t:am1nants frail the 8011 us:in;J a liquid medium as a 1IIIUIh!ng
8Olutia'l. '!his technology will reduce the volume of CXI1t:aIIIjnated
8011 and J.n:::rease the ~-=rJlratia'l of the CXI1t:am1nants in the
residual. 'Jbe pat.ential theoIetically exists that the metal
19
-------
cxrrt:aminants cx:W.d be calOel1trated to the point ..nere reJ:D/erf was
feasible. ~, there are several reasa\S that this technology
was lX't ocn;idered far the metal cc:ntam:inatien at the Ref\.J;Je (other
than the legal restrictia1S en treabent placed by RaV\) . 'Ibe
reasa1S in::lude: 1) the ptooes& is lX't cxmDerCially available for
soils CD'ItaJuinated with metals: 2) the .prOOess worlcs best en coarser
soils, while the soil at the ~ tenS to be the fine particles
(silts and clays) so the feasibility of the treatDent i8
questicnmle: 3) lead oontaminatien poses problEIIS for the process
because lead is not d1emically associated with artf partia1lar
fracticn of the soil and therefore there are difficulties in washin3
it: 4) the cadmium, d1raDium and lead react differently to chemical
and Ji1ysical a:n:1itia1S so that a washin3 solutien suitable for all
of them would be difficult to specify: an:l 5) ocncentratin;J the
metal oontaminaticn fraD the soil an:l sediment at the Ref\q! might
make the oc:noentratia1S high ~ to render the iJmcbilizaticn
treatment less effective.
c. '!he "00 acticn" alternative was considered for this operable
unit, as required by law. 'Ihe D:) actiat alternative would include
leavirg the material in place. As dic:r~I1""~ in the FB, if no actiCl'1
is taken to remediate the sites the risks that currently exist will
a::.ntirA1e. It is the U.S. EPA' s deteminatiat that leavin; the
material in place withcut t.aki.rq remedial actien would result in
actual or threatened releases of hazardous substa1'¥:2S fraD this
site, web may present. an imuinent and &Jbstantial en:Sargetment to
public health, 1IIelfare, or the envuallbcltt. 'Ihe 6.eudy selected far
the Metals Areas c:parable unit was as~~m for its short-tem an:l
lon;J-term effectiveness an:l pemanel'D!. '!his as-1T~ indicates
that the selected l~ is "safe", and is "safer" than leavin; the
material in place.

.d. As dic:nI~~ in secticn c above, leaving the material in place
withcut a remedial acticn 1«W.d not be prctecti.ve of human health
and the envira1ment. '!his is true even if the areas are fenced off,
because the patential exists for migraticn of the cxrrt:aminants by
surface water or for wildlife to be exposed. Also, a fence is not
cxnsidered a lon;J-tem method of isolatin;J oontaminaticn. If the
. "....PJ1tor meant a caver system or cap as the methcc1 of sealin; off
the material, this altemative was evaluated. Sale of the
oontaminated material is pn;~ fcurd in drainageways and an
intermittent stream. It 1IICUld be possible to caver this material in
place, bIt the iJlplementability 1IICUld be more difficult than ather
ccnstroctien activities, the lon;J-tem effectiveness an:l pm:manence
of dam;, so walld not be as great as other remedies and lcn:;r-tem
-=nitorinq would be mere difficult. Also, caverin; the material in
place would not reduce the tcxicity, Dd:Iility or volume of the
cxrrt:aminants .
e. See the respcnse to a:mnent 2 above regard.in;J n;~ in above
CJI'CIUI'X1 storage with JIa'1i toring.
20
-------
f. An extensive d;~\$Sion - to why the selected alternative was
cix:Isen OYer other alternatives, includizq alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5,
ar 9, is prcwid8d .in the Decision Sl1IIWMIty of this RD. '!he selected
l~ is protective of human health and the enviiG1l~, attaim
Federal and State requirerents that are legally applicable ar
relevant and appropriate for this renedia1 action, and is cost-
effective. 'Ihis ..~ satisfies the statutoJ:y preference far
l'E!lledies that Ellplay t%eabnent that z-"~ tcDd.city, Jld)ility ar
volume - a principal element and utilizes pemanent solutions and
alternative treatment (or resource recavety) tecmoloqies to the
max:il'IIJm extent practicable far this .ite. In addition, U.5. !:PA
believes that the selected alternative provides the best balance
amcn:1 the nine 8election criteria.

g. 'Ihe cxmrentcr who wantecl- the. unspecifiedr "less. hamtul"
solution did not state what types of solutions might be preferable.
cne of the requirements for the remedi.es under OCI'1Sideration is that
they be iJ!plementable. If tecmology is not available or has not
been develcpld, that tecmology cannot be selected as the r--'bl
alternative. Also, the cx:mnentor did not specify what ham wculd
result fraD the selected alternative. U.5. EPA does not believe
that "ham" will result fraD the selected l..ue.Jy, either .in the
short-tem or lcn;-tm:m.
Written c...,_.1II:l1'ts and ~ions Fran Organizations
.-
Several organizations p: ~ 5" e-J tted -.aI_lie! as .in wri tirg.
cx::mment:s are PI M ented in a separate section below.
Fach graJp's
Wilderness SOCiety
a ....~ 33:
'Ihe Wilderness SOCiety states that the pmlic has been CJiven little
infOnBtion abaJt the situation, yet are "asked to vote cn an acticn".
'!hey state that ".. .altematives shculd be pI.~!i1ted and di---.d,
iJlpacts analyzed and p.1blic 0< .....e.I.t 8C'IUght and ccnsidered."
Pespmse 33:
U.5. !:PA's dec~ and pmlic participation pt~"'9G' far c:E:RaA
sites are proc- - 1ihere altematives JaB pIESented and d;!Itt"91PRd,
iJIpacts analyzed and PJblic ".....AiI at. 8eU;Jht and OCI'1Sidered. '!he pJblic
has not been "asked to vote cn an action", and, in fact, pmlic
acD:1Iptance is cnly CIne of nine criteria 1Ibi.ch are ccnsiderect before a
final 8election of the .L--dy is made. U.5. !:PA's decisicn-1lBkinq and
p.1blic participaticn ~. -o-:-es are d;--]S~ in the respellSes to Qo .....-'its
1, 7, 9, 11 and 13 8I:x:Jve. As stated, U.5. EPA has an abliqaticn to ESt
IIeYeral statutary ..mates in c:hoosizq a final l~Y for a aita. In
~ its statutcry requinments U.5. EPA will balance pJblic CCthoe:ms,
bJt the final .L--ay will not r--~arily be that preferred by the

21
-------
p1blic, tut will be that which best meets all of the legal requirements.
o . ...~J «. 34:
'!he Wilderness Society expressed CXI'a!rns )lith CXIIpliaro! with the
requirements of the National Envuwuul:ntal Policy Act (NEPA). '!hey
stated that an RIfFS am R)[) cannot substitute for an Env.u:OIauef11tal
IDpact Statanent (EIS), an:) that an EIS DIJSt be CXIIpleted before actim
can be taken at the site.
Re5pa}se 34:

NEPA establishes a national policy requiring fNer'J Federal1qercy to
i1x:orporate ocnsideratim of envira'anental fact.ars into its decisim
mak:in; process, and the EIS pxooess was deYelc:ped to do 80. u.s. EPA has
reviewed the applicability of the EIS requinment of Sectim 102(2) (C) of
NEPA to remedial acticns taken at S\Jper'fum sites. Reqi.m V's positim
is that the RIfFS an:) UI1L.edy selectim process under c::E3::[A ensure that
the EIS requirements for adequate ocnsideratim of emu \A 1II8::.I1t.al fact:crs
am for p.1blic participatim have been met by the c::E3::[A px()OAoi'1res.
u.s. EPA is the lead Iqe:rcy at this NPL site, and xetains authorities for
remedial acticns taken at the Refu;Je. '1herefore, U.S. EPA is ncrt
required to exmplete a separate EIS for the p!IIIMb} acticns ccntarplated
at the Retu:Je. Based m this intezpretatia1, U.S. EPA has deteI'minea
that a separate stLCy such as an EIS is not required for S\Jper'fum
acticns at the Refuge.
'!be Shawnee GrcuD of the Sierra Club
n .,.,~it. 35:
'!he Siena Club felt that DIre time far the public to review an:) res-"''"Ch
the data fran the site would have been beneficial because of the len;Jth
and OCIIplexity of the material. '!hey stated that the Aqercies have been
stu:tyin3 the prc:iJlem for years, 1IIhile the public has had 'Veri little
time. . .
Re5pa}se 35:

'!he time provided for public review of the material and Pl~ Plan is
d;~-~ in the respellSes to Cio-...~rt:s 1, 7 an:) 11 abaYe.
o _...AT}t 36:
'!he SieITa Club thcu3ht that it was CYI~wuJsin;J that ~ Westa1,
Irx:., a ~ny that formerly operated at the site, a:n:mct:ed the RIfFS.
'lhey felt that this was a cx:nflict of interest, an:) that the n-mpny
IIhalld ncrt investigate their own errors. Also, the Siena Club felt that
~ Westa1, Irx:. shculd not be allowed to choose '-4oII1L..-..1:ars far the
z-1; III} act!m, ar JIDlitor ar inspect the sites during ar after clear&.1p.
22
-------
Response 36:

since the crab orchard Nati~ Wildlife Refuge is o.med by the Federal
~, particular legal stan:Jards of CERCIA ~ly. Sectien
120(e) (1) of CERCIA states that "...the department, lII:Je1CY, or
instrumentality ~c:t1 owns ar ~tes suc:tl facility shall, in
oonsultatien with the Administrator ani 8R>rq:Jriate State authorities,
----_ICe a remedial ir1Yestigatien and feasibility study for such
facility." U.s. EPA would therefore cxnsider that the requirement to
cxn:iuct the RIfFS is strictly ooI'8. Noth.in:J in CERCIA prevents ooI fran
enterin;J into an ~._uent with another party far that party to assist
ooI with its cbligatien. If the work perfcmaed by the other party is
inadequate, u.s. EPA can reject the work and req.Ure ooI to do aa1iticnal
work. In this case, SanqaDI:) Westen, Inc. and ooI entered into an
in:iepenjent, voluntary &jl.eement to. perform-the RIfFS. If the writ
performed by ~ Westen, Inc. had been inadequate, u.s. EPA would
have required ooI to cxn:iuct aa1iticnal studies as the basis far the
remedial decisien made here. Rather than waste the efforts made, u.s.
EPA participated in reviews of data and draft doct~nts generated by
~ Westen, Inc. and ooI.
O:x ~ess has directed u. s. EPA en the broader issue of hew to work with
private parties that may have been respc:nsible far CCI'Itaminatien at
SUperfurx1 sites. Because of limited resources, o....p.ess has established
pravisicns in CERCIA that allow private parties to do work at SUper'furd
sites (Secticns 106 and 122 of CERCIA). If a private party is perfcn:min3
work, u.s. EPA still retains the respasibility to ensure that it is dcne
oorrectly and to require all aa1iticnal work neoes~ry. u.s. EPA would
ensure the quality of the worX by a ccnstant cwersight ~ooess. u.s. EPA
may allow or require SanqaDI:) Westen, Inc. or other potentially
respasible parties to perfOI1ll remedial actien activities at the Ref\J;Je.
If so, the worX would be umer the supervisicn of u.s. EPA and the other
Agencies.
o -...ArJt 37:
'!he Sierra Club asked ~ the Agencies did not cxnsider or rejected
alternatives that extract Jetals fraD soil priar to landfillin:J. '!bey
felt that methods that have been prown for 1Dininq of ore cxW.d reduce
the volume of material that would be landfilled.
~~ 37:
see the N5pOIse to o-...~ 32.b above.
0. _._.~ at 38:
'!he Sierra Club .rt..u.njly PJR'Orted an cn-site landfill if an lIH&~iate
lccaticn can be fcund, bJt had IICIDe ~ with the landfilll&~l,
incl\l1ing: .
a. 'Ihey felt that a ~ landfill design is preferable to a 80lid
23
-------
waste landfill design because the extra. liner provides extra
protectia1 against leakage if the treabDent method were to fail and
addresses the ~ ccncems, such as c:harging ~ regulaticns
requiring treatment of the waste material; and

b. '!hey felt that cne of the pr'qX)Sed'locaticns at open Ave. and
RDJte 148 is unsuitable because it is a wetland, and that a better
locatia1 shalld be famd a1-Site.
R=sr~ 38:
An aH;ite landfill has been selected as a Cn't Q1e1'1t of the final leDledy
for the Metals Areas operable unit. '!he basis for this decisia1 is
dien\Ssec! in the Decisia1 SUnmary portia1 of this RX). u.s. EPA believes
that the data in the RI indicates that there are ~te locaticns
for cit.in:] a lanclfill at the ~~. '!he specific cxnoems are addressed
below:
a. As d i en 1~..-1 in the :respc::I1Se to ocmnent 25 above, a solid waste
landfill design was selected rather than a ~ landfill design
because the regulatory requirements for landfill design are based
solely a1 the type of waste to be d;~. '!he Irt:abilizatia'),!
f:iJcatia1 \A.8~ of the selected lduBdy was cix:ISen because it
effectively imncbilizes the metal CXI'1tam.i.nant. Since the waste is
a::nsidered ha.zardaJs because of the PLq:8&ity of the metals to
leach, cnoe it has been treated it will no lax.:Jel' be'hazaldcus
waste. 'Iberefore, the ~ stamards will no l~ be legally
~licable unless there is a reasa1 to apply them in order to
protect p.1blic health or the envira1ment. As stated, varicus
larr::lfill designs will be evaluated during the design t:Mse to see
which design provides the neoe6RJ:y cx:nta..inment of the waste. '1hi.s
will in::lu:Je ~""........C!IIIAF1ts of the lolL' v-:eed liner systems to evaluate
their performance if leacmte is prodI~.
b. As d; CU"I,~-.4 in the response to (u....Ar1t 25.c, the Agencies
strcn;ly &AJRX)rt the protectia1 of wetlams and are camdtted to
their prctectia1. '1he landfill will not be located 1n a wtlan:i, ar
Y1ere it will adversely iJIpact a wtland. U.S. EM is required by
40 em 6.302(a) "...to detemine if }4~ acticns will be 1n ar
affect wetJ.ams.", 1n aocardance with the 1oIl~~ set forth 1n
~ A to 40 CfR 6. umer these pt~ the FtrS is
re:spcnsible far ~ an inventory of naticmal wetlands, and
far preparing' maps doc:umer1tinq their locaticns. '!he OCta.il.~ tank
I'HaI""J""..-1 in {u....AJ1t 27 abcM! is ems of the patential sites far the
landfill, and is located near ~ Ave. and Rr:ute 148. Accordin;
to the naticnU. invent:my of wtlams the tank is D:Jt 1n a wetland
ar an area that cculd iDpact a wtland. As the lcx::atia1 of the ~
site landfill is finalized, ~-.,tatia1 will be JIIi!li.ntained to
dellastrate that wtlams will not be iJIpcted.
24
-------
~TY'I:InIIn Westen. Inc.
0. ._..061& 39:
~ Westen, Inc. -.a1a4ented that they ~ U.S. EPA's decisiCl\ to
treat the MetAls am PCB Areas as separate operable units. '!hey feel
that the stuiy sites addressed in the FS shculd be treated as CI\8
<:parable unit with a sin;Jle "cxnsolidated" lEiuedy. 'Ihey state that
". . . the reascns provided by EPA for the dual operable unit approact1 are
unfc:urDed, that the NCP criteria for usin;J qerable \.D'\its are n:Jt met,
am that havin;J two c:prable units is n:Jt ccst~ficient." Specific
oc:mrents or iSaI)E$ follow:
a. ~ West.a1, Inc. stated that drafts of the FS were reviewed
by OOI, U.S. EPA am IEPA, am that at no time durinq the
preparatia1 and review of that document was the separatia1 of the
stuiy sites into c:parable units 5\qJeSted. Also, no mcpress
analysis of the dual qerable \.D'\it a;proach was made in the FS.

b. ~ Westcn, Inc. questiav:d the graJI'ds listed as &aD!! of
the reascns for the creatia1 of qerable units in U.S. !:PA'.
~'yJSed Plans for the Metals and PCB Areas. 'Ihey felt that the
statements made in the P.&.' ~.ceed Plans do n:Jt provide graJI'ds for the
prq;:a;ed operable units. Specifically:
(1) Differeuces in cx::ntaminants - ~ Westen, Inc. states
that "'Ihe pre sence of metals CXX'ItaminatiCl\ at all six sites
makes the sites Dm'e similar than different in tens of the
nature of the substances presaut am the types of ~;.,
actia1S that my be ~."
(2) Isolated geographical locatia1S - ~ Westa1, In:
depicted that the study sites cazprisin;J each c:prable unit are
n:Jt in isolated ~c locatia1S, am "...are close e.ncu;h
to be readily a:n;olidated for pmpcses of t:akin; z--'1;'"

actiCl'1. . . ".
(3) Possibly different PRPs - SarIJ!IID Westen, Inc. ~....~
that this .issue is irrelevant to the i4qa;ed use of two
c:prable units rather than cre. '!bey felt that neither 001 or
U.S. EPA has ertJ&:J8d in a significant 88U'Ci1 far PRPs, and that
001 is an bp::Irtant PRP as the owner am ~tar of the site.
SarIJ!IID Westen, Inc. states "EPA has provided no b-cis far
handlin; U. RetuI)e areas, all of 1ItUcb are under the ownership
am -...t......l of a single PRP, as two Ile!pSr8te ~;., acticns."
(4) Different types of ~;al actions that wcu.ld IlRUY -
SarIJ!IID WestCI\, Inc. 8tates that n...there is ~ in the
nature of the cx::ntaminants ~ Slut at the six sitM tbat
JIIi!I1"dates the use of different ~iAl t.ecmclogies ar DJltiple
Re.oal:ds of eecisiCl\. II 'Ihey exples5 CD'1Cem that the creat.ia1
of separate cperable units ~--t,s that the sites are
25
-------
~~ril v subject to different rerDed1.al actiens. FUrther,
they tJeJ.ieve that the analysis in the IS ~ the selectim
of essentially the same l.eauedy (treatJDent by stabilizatim
follewed by secure ocntainDent) for all of the study sites
acklressed in the IS. Even if an alternative l~ is cbcsen
for the PCB Areas, San;Jamo Westa'1, 'Ire. mcpressed that there
are similarities and areas of potential overlap.

(5) Differences.in sd1edules - San;Jamo West:.a\, Ire. expresses
that differences .in scbedules will result solely because u.s.
EPA has separated the stJ.dy sites into cperable units. 'D1ey
feel that there is IX) PJblic health or envi%aDental reascn to
proceed mre. prarptly at a subset of the study sites. FUrther,
they declare that there have been .... IX) cCserved adverse
ilrpact. m human health or wildlife" and that ".. .neither the
Metals Areas or PCB Areas ccntain substanceS that are In e ~9ntly
migratin; to arrj significant extent".
c. San;Jamo Westa1, Ire. believes that the requirements listed in
the NCP for the creatioo of q;erable units have not been met. '!he
NCP n;c:n1~-9!1' that nspcuse act.iens may be divided into operable
units if the q:erable units are cost effective and cxn;iStent with
ac:hievin:;J a permanent l=uedy. San;Jamo Westa1, Ire. states that the
divisioo of the study sites nic:n'''~ in the IS into two q;erable
units is R:1t a:st effective. Specific ~.ents abc:ut the a:st-
effectiveness follow:.
(1) 5angam::) Westa'1, Ire. believes that the use of two operable
units rather than en! for the stJ.dy sites addressed .in the IS
will result in losses of efficiency and ";-~es .in areas
.inc1\¥iirq: design: administratim: mcbilizatim: land ,,;~]
facilities: analytical services: mccavatim JIIE!thcds and
equipnent: stabilizatim methcds and equi.pIent: and backfill
methods and equipDent.

(2) 5angam::) Westa\ prcwided tables that they tJeJ.ieve
deIIa1strate that deYelcpinq two landfills for the two cperable
units will be 53' mcre costly than a sin;J1e lardfill for a
cxnsolidated .I.--Jy. 'D1ey state that the 8dditia1al
expenditure for deYelcpinq a ..,cad landfill will be $700,000,
that this extra a:st will be a direct result of inefficiency in
havi.nr; two cprable units, and will prcwide IX) health or
envh\,oll.uelatal benefit.
d. In 8dditim, San;Jamo Westa\ refex:ewes the pre2IJIi)le to the
~.~ revisia\S to the IQ) and v.....errt:s that the following
criteria were not addressed .in the Pl..~ Plans and have not been
Et .... pressi.nr; problems that will worsen if they are not acklressed
pen::tir1g actim at other areas, or if there is an ~ wnity to
unSertake a limited actim that will acm.eve significant risk
nductim 9J.ickly and site problems are not interrelated".
26
-------
Respcnge 39:

u.s. EPA stan:ls by its cSecisiCl'\ to c::rMte t:wc separate cperable units
fraD the st1rly sites di 1I:(;!\~'=At'! in the FS. '1hese operable units will
ocntirue to be called the "Metals Areas" and the "PCB Areas". A8
di tI:It"'I ~~ in the respcnses to VlAWe.nts 3 and- 22 abave U.S. EPA believes
that the q:erable units have been created in aooordance with the .
~ of the NCP, .inc1u:iing the criteriCl'\ of cost-effectiveness.
'1he remedies selected for each ~le unit will ccxrt:ri1:lUte to a
permanent l&a:dy for the site. Resp:n;9S to specific o.....~J1ts follow:
a. It is true that drafts of the FS were xeviewed by 001, U.S. EPA
and IEPA, and that O'Brien' Gere was not requested durin; the
preparatiCl'\ and xeview of that ~--at to separate the study sites
into q:erable units. Also, ncne of the. Agencies requested analysis
of the dual operable unit ~ to be made in the FS. Note,
hcweYer, that the U. S. EPA had no c:.D'Itractual relatic:nship with
either ~ Westa1, Inc. or O'Brien' Gere, and no ~ to
require O'Brien & Gere to develop the FS in aCXX)rQan2 with the
oc. L)q.Jt of dual operable units.

In any case, there is no ~ that the FS explicitly d;-~c:
the operable unit ~ch as laJ:;J as the decisiCl'\ is a logical
out:.gro.Ith of the informatia1 in the Administrative ~d. Since
the FS 8S~~ses each study site individually and then cxnsiders
cxnsolidate::1 altematives, the oa-..qJt of graJpin; of. the study
sites is i:nplicit in the FS. Also, since the study sites 1IN.c:h were
carried foIWard into the FS did nat er~ .0' "'" all of the sites
studied in the RI, the oaLqolt of treatinq the sites carried into
the FS as a higher priority subset lead..ing to the cxmplete site
renediatiCl'\ i:nplies the creatia1 of cperable units at the Refuge.
Since the FS 0I21tains all of the elElllel'1ts n9C1e""C!'!Iry to analyze two
~le units rather than either six or ene, it was not neoee"'.ry
to charge the format of the FS.
b. '!he preaDi:>le to the ~.~ revisions to the R:P d; -.-.
~le units. It states -n. CIt¥L~iateness of dividin) ~bl
acticns into ~le units 1& dsteminBd by cxnsiderin:J the
1nterrelatia\W.p of site prcbl.. ard the need or desire to
initiate acticns ~ckly. ~ the ~-= that site p:rcblems are
:interrelated... it &J.Y be JII:ISt GH&~.iate to ca:l;h.dS the p:rcblems
together. Jb1ever, 1IIheJ:e prtIblems are reascnmly severable, Ii1Ued
l'espcnses iDplemented thrcu:3h a &eelJen:2 of cperable units my
~~ mre rapid risk nducti.a1." U.S. EPA listed its reascas for
the creatia1 of operable units in ~~ Plans far the Metals and
PCB Areas. 'lbese reascI1S ~ rt the ~ the 8eYer8bility of
the ~i ill) acticns and ~ the issue of interrelatednes of
the problems in the operable units. Specific (- .....AlIats me ..:kh.~
below:
(1) Diff~a.oes in ccnt:aminants - '1he p:nnme of argan1c
cxntaminants, and specifically of PCBs, in the PCB cpmIble

27
-------
unit makes those sites mre different than similar to the sites
with strictly iJIorqanic ocntaminatia1. '!he P1YSical am
cbelDical nature of ~c am inorganic ccntaminants are
significantly different. 'Ihese ccntaminants ~y result
frail different waste &alI"OeS. '!he presence of metala
ocntaminatia1 & all six sites does not justify that the sites
are sufficient:.q similar to be luuped together.

(2) Isolated geograprlcal locatia1S - Of the seven study sites
carried into tl'8 FS aUy two (sites 32 am 33) are adjacent,
o::ntiguoos areas of ocntaminatia1. '!he other five stu:Jy sites
are in discreet geograpucal locatia1S am the data generated
in the RI intiC2ates that the periods of cparatia1 and ,:Ji ~1
for these areas were different. '1his supports the ocnclusia1
that the areas are reascnmly severable. adle the stu:Jy sites
" . . . are close ~ to be readily cx:nsolidated for PJl1X ses of
taki.n;J remedial actia1.8O" mavement of waste between any of the
discreet areas JIIJSt cxmply with ARARs, ~ the stu:Jy sites
are handled as cne or JIIJltiple operable units. '1he creatia1 of
two operable units wculd not preclu:Je a coordinatia1 of the
remedies .
(3) Possibly different ImIs - '!be issue of different ImIs is
not irrelevant to the ~,~ use of two operable units
rather than en! when CXI'ISiderin;J \Mther the operable units are
interrelated. 0. reasa1 to create operable units is to
"...Un:Jert:.a)te a limited actia1 that will achieve significant
risk reductia1 quickly." Where Site problEm'S may be divisible,
the identificatia1 of PRPs assc:x:iated with partic:ular problEm'S
aids in 8S~~Sin;J \Mther enfOIcement or z-narlb1 actia1 furDed
by 001 is the strategy most likely to ~ite rapid risk
reductia1. u.s. EPA is C1&A..ua~Uy engaged in a significant
search for PRPs. U.S. EPA am 001 bath urderstard 001' s
respcnsibility = clean up the site. However, this does not
mean that there are not other parties with liability.

(4) Different'types of ~b 1 actic:ns that wculd apply - '!he
prei!IIIble to the 14'~ revisia1S to the NCP ,:Jic::t"l,......O!' that
"the bias for 1Ctia1"" allows ~itecl review when "ARARs,
guidance or 14~- pt~Mt indicate a limited rarqe of
6t¥I.~!ate respcmse al tcnatives (e.g., FCB stardards for
ocntaminated sails ...)". Since the limitatic:ns iv--' on the
~iA1 altematives for ead1 of the operable units are
different (e.g.. TSQ requirements only for the FCB Areas am
~ requin!Dents for bath cperable units), this SURX>rtS the
lleYm'8bility of the units. tI1i.le it is true that "... there is
ncthing in the nature of the ccntaminants prese!1Mt at the six
sites that JllU'dates the use of different ~; .1 ted1noloqies
or 1II11t.iple Reocnds of Decision", the types of treatDmt am
oa'1tairIDent technologies are on the whole different far the
types of waste ~ sent, in eac:b qm'8ble unit. '1he c:naticm of
IIEpU'8te cperab1e units is not Deant to IUJ3eSt that the .ites
28
-------
- .- - ..
... ..- . -.. .--. - --"-
- - '.- -~ --.-
are ~-"'ily subject to different r--1~III' actiars.
HcweYer, since the remedial cptias are different depen:1i.n;J m
the type of oc:nt:aminants present, the ocmparative analysis of
the remedies DUSt be different.

u.s. EPA will address the issue of whether the rs ~1:s
essentially the same ~f!Mdy in the Ia) for the PCB areas. 'Jbe
issue as raised by sarqamo Westa'1, Inc. questiaw the px~
ldk!Sdy for the PCB Areas rather than for the Metals ArMs.
sarqamo Westa'1, Inc.'s assessment of the ~i "' altematives
SIJAX)1"tS the 1.~ selected by u.s. EPA for the Metals Areas.
tlt\ateYer alternative is selected for the PCB Areas, tl1ere is
nathin;J to prevent coordinated nn-'i "' actim in the areas
where there are similarities and areas of patent:.ial cwerlap.
(5) Differen.:es in sd1edules - Diffenruoes in sd1edules might
result because of the 1IIe!-~~ of whether an enfUl-=ua&t or
u.s. gcvemment-finamed ~ch to the remedial actim is
most ~riate. 'Jbe "bias for actim" iti ~sed in the
proposed revisias to the NCP stresses that the awroach most
likely to meet the requirements of C!1CIA in the most
~itiC11S manner shcW.d be used. 'Jbe RI Report has
dcx:umented potential adverse bpacts to public health and the
erwhUlauent fran the contaminated areas. '!he RI infOJ:'lllatim
provides the grounds for :inminent and substantial endan:}ement.
Given this situatim, the sc:hedules for each operable unit
shcW.d allow for remediatim as quickly as possible.
c. u.s. EPA disagrees with San;JmIIO Westen, Inc.'. ."'-oo----Jt:, an:1
believes that the requirements listed in the NCP for the creatiCl'1 of
operable units have been met. 'Jbe NCP (40 ~ 300.68 (c» provides
that respa se actias my be divided ilIto c:ptrable units if the
c:ptrable units are a:st effective and cxndstent with achieving a
permanent ~~. San;JmIIO Westa1, Inc. did net challen)e that the
~--.ly for the Metals Areas was cxn;istent with a permanent ~aJ:dy.
u.s. EPA believes that the divisim of the seven stu::Iy sites carrie:!
ilIto the FS into two aperable units 1s cost effective. 1I1ile IICID8
CD;t savin;s cculd be d:Jt:ained by CXJIi)inirq the ~i "' ecticns,
the benefits fraD initiatin; 1--';111' actim far each of the
operable units as CIlickly as pcssible urder CEB:[A outweigh the
small ~-aatal a:st difference. Specific respa"lSDI' to the
. ~ ....~J'Its ataIt a:st-effectiveuess fol1.ow:
(1) 'Jhe FS Report pravidBs far Md1 of the six areas it; -,~
to be treated as separate units and provides cost estimates far
this. In 8dditim, 8aIIe a:st savin;Js are doamEnted by the
estiDBt.es for the consolidated alternatives. Many of the areas
that ~ Westa1, Inc. 8tated will result in lCSS8 of
efficiency and iti c:- ~. .Allies were estimated m a unit price
basis and 8hculd result in little extra a:st ~'.. the tDtal
units of _terial to be han:ned rtIDain the 81!11D8. '!be 1'5
~ the ccn::lusim that there is no price cliffe.tW1t.ial for

29
-------
a cx:nsolidatsd ~a&ady in the categories of analytical services,
excavatia1 methcds and equipIent, stabilizatia1 methcds and
equipIent, and backfill methcds and erJ1; p--rtt.

In the area of administratia1, the efficierx:y of manar:Jirr:1
en! operable unit with 1II1ltiple wb-oa1tracts will not be very
different fraD the efficien::y of manar:J~ separate c:x:ntracts
for the two operable units. Also, the administratia1 of the
oversight and .iJ~a1 of 1II1ltiple ~in;J activities at en!
versus two operable units is not significantly sinpler or JDOte
efficient. In the area of Dd:>ilizatia1 and dem:lbilizatia1
there shcW.d be little iJlpact frem c:reatin; two operable units
rather than en! because either JDOte equipDent and 1IIaJ1X'WE
\IIQ.11d be lId:Iilized at en! time to meet the needs of a s~le,
large-scale ocnstructia1 period or 8dditicnU cx.nstructia1 .
SI"""«:rY\S would requi%e remcbilizatia1 for the larger volume of
waste managed in en! operable unit.
'D1e estimates for design are based as a straight percentage
of the direct capital ccsts whether the estimate is for a
s~le study site or for en! cx:nsolidated e;proach. Since the
percentage remains cxnstant, the savin;s a1 design \IIQ.11d ocx:ur
fran savin:Js a'l direct capital costs. As di c:t"I).."..~ aboYe, the
savirgs a'l direct capital costs are not expected to be
significantly different because mcst of the cxsts reflect price
per unit of material handled, and the units remain cxnstant
regardless of hew many operable units are created. one
possible difference :in capital ccsts is in the difference in
ccsts resul tin; £rem me lardfill versus two landfills
potent:.ia1ly resultin1 £ran two c:prable units. 'Ibis issue is
d;~""'...-1 in ~ (2) below.

(2) U.S. EPA believes that the tables that were sutmittsi with
the 00 ....,~.f\'ts fraD san;cmc Westa'\, Inc. use saDe cost estimates
that are inccnsistent with these in the FS. '%be cost estimates
for two landfills versus en! landfill were recalculated by U.S.
EPA us~ cost figures JIm'e cx:nsistent with the FS (see Tables
1 and 2 in ~ C). '%be U.S. EPA estimates inticate that
the total cost far two landfills result1n;l fraD two operable
units will be 6WIaxiJDately $300,000 .are than a a:iJJ;Jle
landfill far ere ccnsol1dated operable unit, rather than the
$700,000 est1mated by san;cmc Westal, Inc. '!be l.aJI!dy far the
PCB Awas operable unit has net yet been selected. HcweYer,
the ccst of the preferred alternative far the PCB Areas is
$25,000,000. If the prefer%9d alternative is selected the
total cost of the remedies far both cper8ble units is
$27,000,000. '1berefore, the price differential of $300,000 is
a1ly alxut l' of the total cost. Given the uncertainties in
estimatin; r--1iA1 ccsts and a CXI'Jtin:3encY allcwance of 25t,
this oost differential my not be ~c:tJrable. EY8\ if
san;cmc's estimate of $700,000 were JDOte ~te the price
differential 1IICUld be less than 3' of the total estimated
30
-------
remedial cost, which wculd still be difficult to '-'9Jre.
'Ihese estimates 1ncl\de the differential for extra design
exsts. If another l~Y is selecte:i for the FCB Areas
operable unit, the oost differential might be a higher
peroent:aI:Je of the total oost, but wculd still be within the
rarw:)e of the CXI'1tin;Jency allowanae.

'!he use of two cpenble units wculd rm MO""$qrily ~
that two landfills be ocnst:Ncted. 'Jhere is ~ to prevent
ooordinatia1 in the design phase to develop aM! landfill.
1b.IeYer, the additiav1l mcpeJditure for developin;J a seccn:!
landfill, if resultin; fraD the use of separate operable units
will rm ren:Jer the operable units oost inefficient s.in2 the
extra oost is insignificant to the total oost of the reuedies.
d. In ~ b abaIIe the iRCZI~ raised in the premzble to the
pI'q'06ed revisia1 to the NCP are acklressed. '!he above di !I:t'"J~c:ia1
fcomas a1 the i99l~ of interrelatedness of the operable units an::!
the m:st effective means of achievin;J risk reductia1 for each of the
sites. 'Ihese criteria were rm specifically acklressed in the
P1.,~ Plans, but as di ~_...-:I above, were ccnsidered prior to the
formatia1 of operable units.

0:mDent 40:
San;cmr::> Westa1, Inc. is cx:n::mned that the cleam.1p targets for the Metals
Areas are cwerly str~ or overbroad in light of the risk .""--~
in the RIfFS. '!hey state that the clear&Jp st.armrds require refinement.
Specific ~ with the cleamp standards follow:

a. San;cmr::> Westa1, Inc. felt that the threshold criteria above
Wic::h excavated soil wculd be treated an::! below 1IIhic::h they wculd be
di~ withcut treatDent was rm clear in the P1.~ Plan. '!hey
felt that an apprcad1 a:nsistent with ~ and other laws wa1ld be
to treat by stabilizatiav fixatia1 a1ly the exr:avated material that
exhibits the characteristic of EKtracti.a1 ~'.~1re (EP) Tc»dcity
when tested in accardance with U.S. EPA protocols.
b. ~ Westa1, Inc. cbjects to the blanket ~licatia1 of a
cleamp criteria for 80il am a-'i-,t of 1 x 10 ~... cancer
risk. '1b8 rM8a18 for their cbjec::t.i.Cl'\ follow:
(1) 'DIey lltate that the {" .'10JI'd specific clMI'IJP targets as
deY8lcp8! in the RI/FS are 8Ufficient because they were
deYelcped to protect against the potential risks of the
&Ubstances id8ntified in the RIfFS, and that -nme is no need
to specify a cleamp criteria1 in the Ja) for other &Ubstances
that bIJve rm been discx:weJ:ed ... II .
(2) '!hey are a:n::mned that U.S. EPA failed to assure that
calculatia1S of CUIII1lative risk wculd be based en "rMli8tic
and site ~e{"ific mc;osure scenarios rather than en patentially
31
-------
~iate general asSI1IIf'tias."

(3) fUrther, they beliew that "'lhe 10-6 risk level shculd net
be a rigid requireIrent, tut at DCSt a goal, to be ccnsidered.",
and that the R:)[) shculd prDII'ide for ,the clearaJP aoal to be
stip.1lated as a ~<:; risk range of 10-4 to 10-7.

c. 5an:]am:)~, Inc. states that they beliew the stated clear&.1p
level for grourdwater of 10-6 exces9 cancer risk is ~te
for several:reasa'lS. 'Ihese reascns are outlined below:
(1) , Bec3use there are no current users of the Ref\J;Je
groundwater, and no future use is expected for groundwater,
there are no receptors for this route of exposure. 5an:]am:)
Westa'1, Inc. states that the RX) shculd ~ore net establish
a specific groundwater clear&Jp stardard.

(2) '!be RI~ did net analyze inpacts of usin; a 10-6 risk
level as a cleanup stardard for groundwater, and 5an:]am:)
Westa\, Inc. expressed cx:noem that this stardard might require
substance-speCific cleanup levels that are below the met:hcd
detectia1 limits for sud1 cxmp::JUr'ds. 'Ihis wculd make the
cleanup level ted1nically iJrpracticable to attain at the site.
(3) As with soil and sen; ww:o!1t, 5an:]am:) West:m, 'Inc is,
~ that U.S. EPA has nct assured that the calallatim of
risk will reflect realistic and site specific exposure
scenarios.
(4) As with soil and ~;w:a1'1t, the use of 10-6 as the cleanup
stardard rather than a risk ran;p! of 10-4 to 10-7 is
~iate.
Re.spcnse 40:

In order to clarity SCIIIf! of the i~CII~ raised by 5an:]am:) Westm, Inc. and
to ~ &aile of their ccncems, the U.S. EPA has mcpanded the '
ni c:r!I19Sim of the clear&Jp stardards in the Decisim SUnIDa%y particn of
this RJD. Specific ccncems are addressed below:
a. U.S. EPA ¥ with 5an:]am:)'S positim with regard to the
threshold criteria delineatin; whid1 waste JIIJSt be treated and whid1
waste will tie landfilled withcut treatDent. 'Ihis was always the
~es' intent. In the ~.~ Plan the criteria for the
8tabilizatiaV fixatia1 treatment ptocess was .SOils and pMi-=-r'lts
whid1 are ccnsidered hazardcus because of their characteristic to
leacb metals wculd tie treated..... 'lhe intent of this was to
require treatment of a1ly material '4IIhic:h is ~ hazardcus because
of the characteristic to leach metals (EP 'l'aKicity) . ~ has
been -""-' in the Decisim St1l'lWMry portia1 of this RJD to clarify
this.
32
-------
b. u.s. EPA is retain:in;J the 1 X 10-6 -.-.... cancer risk as a
cleamp st:an:)ard for soil and sediment for this operable unit. 'lhis
criteria'1 is established for the protectia'1 of p.1blic health IU'd is
based a'1 Reqia'1 V's p'licy regardinq cleanup staniards at SUperfund
sites. '!he 10-6 -.. risk stamam has been selected in I'UIIerCUS
RDs is9I~ by Reqia'1 V in the past, and is ocnsistent with criteria
established at ather sites when DUltiple CXI'1taminants are p. 5l,..L.
R=SI=(X~es to 5an;JaDD WestQ" Inc. 's specific o...,..oI!!Ja'ts follow:
(1) '!he Q .'I.~ specific cleamp targets as develq:81 in the
RI/FS, the Pl~.ceed Plan and this R:)[) were deYelq:81 to protect
against the potential risks of the target substances identified
in the RI/FS, m:ludin;J the risks to exposed wildlife far the
specific 0.'1 amds addressed. However, the target <> .'I-anls
were refined without esti.matinJ the risk fraD ather 00 .'I~
that were found at the study sites. '!he risk ...--~
assumed that many of these ather c:atpOUnds would be addressed
by the ~i~tia'1 for specific chemic;:als. Hawever, u.s. EPA
JIIJSt assure that this occurs and the 10-6 -.. risk level is
the criteria'1 against 1IIhic:b this will be .~~-~. CEaA
would require that hazardous substances that "have b:Jt been
d.iscovered" JIIJSt also be addressed if they are found at the
site.
(2) U.S. EPA's p'licy in ass-"in;J risk fraD SUperfund sites
is that the ~~~-~ be based a'1 a reasa1able, wrst case
risk assessment. 'Iherefore, in estimatin) the residual risk
fran the remediat.ed areas the calculatia'1S of risk to establish
whether the cleamp target has been met will be based a1
"realistic am site specific exposure scenarios rather than a1
p::1tent:ially ~iate general .!IUIII~a1S. It '!he final
fI'!>S'~---.t will follow the u.s. EPA guidance a'1 hew to perfaz:m
risk .e"'~~.
(3) U.S. EPA guidance allows for ocnsideratia'1 of clearq:>
targets within an tM-'9 risk ran;e of 10-4 to 10-7. Hcwever,
U.S. EPA Reqi.cn V has established 10-6 as a cleaBJp target, as
a policy far SUperf\n! sites based at the Waste ~I~tt
Divisia'1'S decisicm a1 8CD!!ptable risk DIani!at}-.~1'lt practioes.
'!he 10-6 risk level is b:Jt a rigid requirement far all
SUperturd sites in the Reqia1, bit a target to at:teapt after
the other statutozy requi.reaents have been and,dered.
Hc:IwII!rver, cleaBJp targets are established in ect1 Ja) a1 a site
specific basis far each SUperfund .ita. 'D1ere.is no 8Yidence
that the 10-6 -... cara!r risk clemJp target far the Metals
Areas operable unit is in ccnflict with the 8tatutary.mates
of CERC:'IA. Also, the risk .~r1-~ in the RI ~~ls that
these levels are attainable for the study sites tol be
ad::h--d. 'Iherefore, this risk level will be ret:ained as the
cleaBJp level for the soil and aM;1NIIrJt in this cp!nble unit.
33
-------
c. In the preaJli)le to the pI.' ~ revisicns to the NCP, u.s. EPA's
awroac:b to grcundwater remediatia1 is lH at'~"e.-1. 'Jbe ~aauiJle
states "'!be goal of EPA' s SUperfUnd ~c::h is to ret:um usable
grcund waters to their beneficial uses within a timefnme that is
reasmable given the partio.1lar c.ir0.Jmst.ar05 of the site.- '!be
grcundwater at the Refuge is a usable re:sall"Oe ard ccntribJtM flow
to a unique env~a ment. 'Jbe RI ~rt in:licated that there was
grcurlwater oart:aminatia1 associated with the Metals Areas cprable
unit, but did not ~-rrt: risJcs frail the grcundwater. U.S. EPA
believes that the l"E!IIICIVal of saJrOeS of oontaminatia1 will -..1U",,1
arrj potential grcurlwater problems. HcM!Yer, if m:nit.orin;
activities durirq ard after remediatia1 in:licate that there is
potential risk frail the grcundwater, additia1al rar-'i~tim
activities will be cc:nsidered.

Since a L~Y ather than source centrol was not selected for
grcundwater, the 10-6.exo-''''' cancer risk target level d;at'~"e.-1 in
the PI.' ~ Plan ard selected in this Ja) will not neoessarily be a
cleanup level, tAJt will trigger a review of cxn:titicns at the sites.
I.an:Juage has been aQjed to the Decisia1 S\mmary portia1 of the Ja)
to clarify this. In additicm to the ~"" cancer risk standard to
trigger a review of the grcundwater cxn:titicns at the st1dy sites,
there are st.ardards for rx:n-cancer chra1ic health effects. 'lbese
st.ardards have also been clarified in this RD.
Specific -.a181eJ'1ts are addressed below:
(1) Grcun1water is an enviramental media that has been
iJlpacted by the past d;~l activities at the st1dy sites
cx:mprisirq the Metals Areas operable unit. Because grcundwater
is a valuable re:sall"Oe, u.s. EPA's goal is to maintain the
beneficial uses of grcundwater. In additim, the grcurdwater
at scme of the st1dy sites disc:harges to Crab orcharcl lake am
potential disc:haJ:ge of ocntaminants to the lake is a a:n:Em.
As d; ~1e~ above, since the risk fraD the sites shculd be
addressed by the rem::wal of CCI'1t:aminant sources, the st.ardards
specified in the RD are net cleanup standards, but standards
to evaluate hew effective saJrCe -..at..&.""l has been. If the
st.ardards specified in the Ja) are ~, the grcundwater
situatim will be evaluated to determine if further ren-'t;A1
actia1 is neoes~ary.
(2) As stated, the standards specified in this RD for
grcundwater are net clearJJp standards, tut triCJgerS for turther
review ard evaluatia1 of grcundwater a:n1iticns. 'Iherefare,
the RI/FS did not have to analyze the iJIpacts of usirq this as
a cleanJp standard far grcurdwater. SaJ'9mIO Westa1' S a:n:Em
~ ~ific levels that are below the I8thcd
detectia1 limits far such (u'\.wrD; is CIne ~c::h is easily
addressed in the r--ib1 design phase. ~;.1. design ard
r--'iA) actia\ will require a workplan that specifies, IIIIICn1
other thin;s, the m:nitorirq cx:n5tit:uents far grcurdwater and

34
-------
the cpU.ity assurance required. '!he risk assessment is most
likely to 1nclude cx:nstit:uents that have actually been detected
in acoordance with the ~ tUality Assurance Project Plan.
(3) As t!;at"'!l1S~ in parag11Iph b(2) above, the risk ~~-~-.,t
cala1laticns for grcun:iwater will reflect realistic am si~
specific exposure scenarios, in aOX)rdance with u.s. EPA
guidance.
35
-------
~ aamRD HATICKJ.L wrrnrJ"PE JUu;E
MerAIS ARFAS CH'2WU tInT RJ)
APAH1IX A
FIamES
-------
.
Rockford.
Chicago
.
Peoria
Illinois
.
Springfield

Crab Orchard
Site
"___h I
Jackson County
..
U')
!

.
~
~
Carbondale
CzdtU LDke
. \
w - ........ .. .. .,. ~. . j
I
. "-
Williamson County
Herrin
r--.
at)
Energy !!
19
f!
4)
-
c
-
State ~
Marion
I
BoskydeJl I
I
I
Giant City I
State Park I :;
I:'~
Linle Gnus,
Uzkel
I
Makanda I
I
I
I
~.Dmls' Jatchefl

~) u,u-
Fern. Clyff.
State Park
Not Ie
Figure 1

Site Area Map

Crab Orchard Site

Williamson County, Illinois

~ I Refuge Boundary
t ~: ~ - 1 Closed Site Area
l ---.J Surface Water
t . . . .-.... c. I . .....,. ...""'18.... .............---
."01
~ -.
-------
.1' I :. ~ .-J   . '
    '1   . 
    r \ -  
   . - . .,. - 
   _.~~  Ii 
     t 
    I   
   _oJ    
--- REFuoe BOUNDARY

- CLOSED AREA
. KAU III FUr
~-
o '000
CRAB ORCHARD NATIONAL WilDLIFE REFUGE
lOCATIONS OF SAMPLING SITES
J
JOOO
Sit. ""","'r
~
Ar- " ..... .....
A... " ~ ,.....
Ar.. " AcW .....
o Ar- 51 Or...... 0.-.1
o A... -... La-
O Ar- ,-",-, DnIII8e8 0.-.1
r Ar.. ......-... DnIn8e8 Ch8nneI
.... --.... tl~" 8.A-.- .'--..41
. gJ" - .......-.., 8.41-.- £1_-_'
r A... .....
Ar- I. ''''' ..A..4..t
A... ,. C-.. ......
A.- " W...-.' J-.... ..~-.. 1M,
.....,~..,.... ~....
.. ....,..1 tlwl"~
,.. s..,. .............
Ar- " ~ ""',-
Ar- " 8_-
o Ar- s-tt Or"'" CI\8nNI
s.u...... c.- ,.
~..... ,,... 8. A -.... ....
rep"""'" Or""'" DItch
8...A 8...d-.4 ...... A ........... ~"Jf
e~... 8...'-.4 I.-A . I ""h.... S'
c.. .....- c.-.... 8.11 'I' .r.
A... .
.,-. y- L."'''
fer. ...,~.. ~...ft81
lIafu8e C"W"
............ c.'reI
.... t k .ftF .
-::. ~'.~~~~ Il~ _,I

tr- . fa., -.........
. .
.
,
J
JA
.
,
......
.....
itA
U
II
..-
.....
-t6-
~
"
"
18
"
..U-
,.
....
.....
..,..
..'
.....
..
..
""'
-I~
......
n
8t10"lo,ofS

8 notJITOl:IN6
.
G O1I"E"G OERI!
-------
-

"i, \.hTL '3
SITE 15-AREA 7 PLA-l L\G POND,'
SITE 16-Ar:r:: 7 li\'DUSi f':ltl PAF ~,
PHASE I
l'
, ' '--'\ .
.,. .
'r,
~.
o

11

o
:.0..
. .' -,' " ~f:;,)'::'.'
@ - DECONTAMINATION AREA 0
APPRCCIM'I'E ICIL£ .
!IiI5i!!!!
o 100 ZOO
C8U11 .
>~~ '.... ,
,..., ..
., ~"""'" . ...~;y. ".:. .
"
'Z
~-
~.
:r.,'
t----1
t 11-1 PLATING
f ~j POND
r 11-1
.-.- ...
$11-.

,-
18-7 18-
o
~.:.',
i
I
...
.11
'~~';ij;"
""~~.... . ; .
,.-:"t-. tool
l' O"8AIENCGERI
'81 ENGlNeER~ ~
-------
c" " t. ( I - 16
~I I ~, ,..) C
SAMPLI~~ :.. 'j-:I~',-iONS
Pk";t.~L: 1l
FltSU~E t..J
- - - - - .-.- ~~..-.- .


I
.
'.
".:''':e.
,'.;t

I ,-::;" 1
1 ': l/~ "~I ,',
Ii", ........
, I. ~'33
I " ,- -, I
I ,', .' oJ
I -"-'
, /.. '
L.~Y
I '
~ ~ 1 /.
) ~ ..
f." I;

I
, !
, I '
, ~i.
'.
.
, '
.~2i
, ,
N
.. Shallow well
ICAL! IN P'IET
~tC1O
.
II! 0'8"1~ ~ "~~E
'II ENGlNcc,..::." .::
-------
--...- --.- -.---:------....---
FIGURE S- -
S~TE 22
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PHASE II
. - .~--
-8.
. -
. .. . t'I
.0.. . . .... ..." .vl

"8
.
.
=-
-
-
8EDIMENT CQNCENTR&T1ONS .
( 1::.2 I Total C,oni48 ("" I. 811J)
410 Totat ~-....,. ("" I'a9 )
... CodfNuIll ("'81 L.)
N

(

I
+ Shallow .811

tCALI IN fIlET
~ - .--
~
. ..
-------
FIGURE
SITE 22'
OLD REFUGE SHOP
PHASE I
N

~
~.
-r
t
IUL
~L

r
SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS
~ Totol C,o,,1dt (lIIIIq)
I Total CodIftiuIR (""III;)
- EP Codmiu", ('"IlL.)
--- - - -- - ---------- -...- -------------- ----
-"
.......
....
"
,
,
\
~
RAIL.ROAD 8ED-,\
"
~
1

: D

- ~t I ,/
OLD REFUGE HP ~ '
~. i1J1~1 ~ I
L~~l
DUe
.\i
11
~
~XI~~E 5CALE:
.- ~-;~:' ~.'~~~
C' 4-'Y' tn)
l=.~'
.. .
"" _"'--n~~-,&.~IN \TtON .., ~ ,
-------
'M!'~ ..t.....!",~ .~"n~': ,~.p,"'\.c-t'",~'(I;' ~ir:"
._~-..;.._.._._..~.:~ :.:." ~~1.~....:~~r ',' . ,:',:. "< '~~, ',.~:~::." ~~ .. ~-"
~
;~
/
/
;
Q
'\::Y
. .
"'..~ ~ .~
"J:~";'" ~ i"'.'~ "!':~ ..('
............. - - . _:.. -..
.. iI,'J.,.
     ~     .
         ..
 .    .8-11     
 ..       ..  Ep 
      .    
   t   ..    .8.'. 
   ..       
0         0  
o.         ..  
    .. WOODU AIIU   
    .   
 t     ..     
 ..     .     
    .      .. 
    ..    .   
        ..   
 0  0  o.      
 ..       . 
   ..  .     .. 
       .    
  0     00    
  o.  0       
   .,       
         .  
         ..  
.
"
,..
~7
lit
~;
t
..
SITE 2ft
810 TOWER ' UlFILl
PHASE I b II
,..-
... 0..--.........
0-"'" .... --. wn.....

0-...--.... -...,..
I '--.

O"".~ .

Icf .... --. ........ ..,...., '"
::=~

* .... 8II8U8

i'/h - :::.~'£'.:nr~
.:.,,:.'- -- GP 111'1 ~
:::::~:~::*~ - .... .. .. .. .....,
ICM8 ...,.
~
..
.

,..
.
Ei--
-------
~ (R]WI) NAT1CK\L wnnrJ"PE ~
MeI7US AIDS CHBAB[E t6rl' lID
APAHDX B
'mB[RS
-------
')
ITEM
INCINERATION IESIDUES LANDFILL
....---..-.......-.-..........
INCINERATION IESIDUE VITH METALS
Site 17 lesidue with Met.ls
Site 28 St8bllizecl lesidue 8 1.3 YOIu. inc.
Ar.. 9 Residue with ..t.ls
ktltot.1
TABLE 1
TWC OPEIAILE UNITS
COST ESTIMATE
lu.S.UA ,.~
G"''''''''''''' ,

CIWITITY ~ UNITS
100
1,300
5,00D
CY
CT
CT
...................
7,100
CY
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS INCINERATION RESIDUE LANDFILL (10 FT DEPTH)
LI NER AND IIiSTALLATICIN \
Ivy/h.ul/plece/c~t 2.0 f..t soil 2,130 (CiooJ CT
with MJti- pel"lle8bility of 1 E.7 ca/sec -,
Ivy end pl.ce GeotextH. Fllt.r fabric 19, 170(1C.~~SF
Ivy/haul/plec. 6 inch.. drliNtl l.yer 355 (..'IS CY
Ivy end plec. Geot.xtile Fllt.r fabric 19, 170CI"~ F
CAP MATERIALS NIl) IIISTALLATION
Ivy/heul/plece/cOlllp8Ct 2.0 f..t soil
with lIui- pel"llelbHity of 1 E-7 ca/lec
Ivy end piece GIot.xtit. Filt.r F.ie
Ivy/haul/plec. 6 indl dr.iN,e tlyer
Ivy end piece Geotextit. Filter F.ie
Ivy/haul/plec. 6 indies ,rlwi
Ivy/Haul/Plec. 1.5 ft Eltl8nk8lnt
Ivy/Haul/Plec. 0.5 ft T~i I
Seed, fertiliz.r end 8Ulch
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
L.ech.te holding tank
Pipes, pu.p&, ItC.
OTHEI COSTS IICIIIEIATION IESIDUE LAllDFILL
S8f.ty Pf08r-
E"",i~t Decont_ination
Mobiliz.ti~itiz.tion
Fenct,. LIndfHt, Tn
Monitoring Will. (, vett. 8.20 ft)
1,~ ('i..) CY
1f,170(.,.,,-} SF
355 (1.~ CT
19, '7'OC'''~)sF
355 ("l.t$) CT
1,065 "..~CY
355 (-..a.~ CT
2,'3C'1~ -r
LI.IIP SUI LI.IIP SUI
LI.IIP SUI LI.IIP SUI
UN IT COST
120
10.20
115
10.20
120
10.20
US
10.20
110
15
115
13,000
11,000
(P.ge 1. of ,.)
G L>.~.';~ \
TOTAL COST n,...1 c..,+)
:~
Slt2,600 (.. '1)...)
13 83It C '\ r.. 'Io.{.)
15 :325 (, ~ "', ~, S'")
13,83It C.. ~, ""e)

128,400 (..').-)
13,134 (" 'L., "'t.)
15,325 C 1 ').. 3") f')
13,83It C' '1.., 't ,- ~
::~~l' ~~!:1
15,3Z5tt '3,~'T)
S2,'30l~ I,')'.)

13,000 "",... ~
11,000 ('S , )~.)
.""-";;;;:;;,- (f "1) '11 S" )

125,000 (.. ,.,.00 )
sz,soo (f ~,..oJ
115,000 (I ~, -.)
14,500 ('I 'I ))'0)
14,800 l ~ ." ,.. )
""."";s;:iOO- 1$ -z.c, ) ]_.)

1169,116 (, ,'/} a1~
S25 , 000
12,500
115,000
110
160
~tot.l Other Coats
ESTIMATED DIIECT CAPITAL COST IMCIMEIATJDI IESIDUE LANDFILL
Lendfill lubtot.t
LI.IIP SUI LI.IIP SUI
LI.IIP ~ LI.IIP SuI
I.&IIp SuI LI.IIP SUI
450 Lf
10 LF
-------
.,
ONE OPERABLE UN IT
COST ESTIMATE
ITDC
l U.S.e?A)
Q...c.....~"""f
GUAMTIT' ~ UNITS UNIT COST
IMDIIECT CAPITAL COSTS
-......................
Cont Ingeney AUl*ane. It 251 dl rect cepl tel cost
El'4llneerlng Feft It 151 di rKt cepltll cost
Letel feft It 51 dirKt cepltll cost
EltiMt8d Indirect Cepitll Cost
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL OP£ItATlIlIi AND MAIIlTEIiAliCE COSTS
.......................................
, Mnd8ys 1250
LIIIIP SUI LIIIIP SUI 14,800
52 88nd8ys (~c. \ 1250
, .,-deys 1250
36 .,-deys l c - ) 1250
L"'" SUI L""P SUI 14 ,000
L~ SUI L""P SUI 15,000
L~ $\11 L""P SUI 13,909
L~ SUI L"'" SUI 13,909

Eatl.tlCl Am.I8L aperltll'4l
8nd "'Intenence Colts
COrCU'dwater 1~lIng
~l. .".lysll (,e.... ,'-1.)
Site _11'41
Site inspection
8IlsceUeneo.a lIte .-ork
Site ~rk ..ter'ela
. Leechlte trelt-.nt
lrauranee It 11 di rKt cap! tel cost
Ie..""" f~ It 11 dlrKt cepltll COlt
"ESEIIT weIITH 0' AMNUAL OP£ItATlIlIi
MAIIITEIWIC( COSTS fOR 30 TIS (laSl)

LANDFILL TOTAL COST
Cost Infor88tlon .ourcn Include:
1.5. ....,.. Co., Inc., 1981. lulldlng Coratructlon Coat Dete . 1988.
O'irten & Ger. EngtnMrI, Inc. . 'rof...iOl'l8l Experience
u.s. cr" &.J:-~'~ ~_.. -t~ 
-r~. -1 &.rt-~I L- oJ - "~ t ' lit. "3" '-
.
~... crrCJ~\o \ c.. ~_:t 1 iOt.\9f.~
(p8ge 2. of 2.)
f U.~. ~i>A \
TOTAL COST \i-'i.. \ C.':) H
197.726 ('1 ,~ , ,-.s-S-)
158,636 (1 It 04 , '\ ., )
119,545\$ ,..;" I)
1175.908lt I ~'" ) ",)
1566,813 (-; '4~).. J If I' )
12 000 ($ 1...-)
14'800 Ii ~C;,,)
113:000 \1 c., !'..)
11,000 (1 1,---)
19,000 IS 'Io,S--.)
14,000 11 0
~:= n .::",'\. '\
13,909 U 'I., Ii ~1.. )

146,618 (~,.,)' ,"0)

In6,'" l' "Z." 'f ) ~'
 ~ )
( 
-------
")
ITEM
DIIECT CAPITAL COSTS LANDFILL
.-.-.......--....-.-......-...
INCINERATION IESIDUE
Site 17 lesldUe with Metall
Site 28 StabU I zed leslu a 1.3 vol~ lne.
Area 9 lesldUe with ..tall
SOIL AIIO SEDIMENT
Stabilized Site 15 Sofl
Stabilized Site 22 Soil
Stabilized Site 29 Soil
Si te 29 non'EP Toxic loll
Stabilized Area 9 Soil
"-Ototal
INDUSTIIAL LANDFILL C15 FT DEPTH)
LINER AND INSTALLATION
luy/haul/place/cQlllP8Ct 2.0 fMt 8011
IIIlth ..xl- pel"88bUlty of 1 E.7 mllec
Iuy ar«I place GeotutUe ,Uter 'abrlc
Iuy!haul/place 6 Inch.. dral,.,. L8)'er
Iuy ar«I pLace &8Otutlle FILter F8brle

CAP MATEIIALS All) IIISTALLATION
luy/haul/place/eQIIIP8Ct 2.0 fMt 801 L
lIIith _al- perwe8bUlty of 1 E-7 mllec
Iuy ar«I place &8OtutUe FUte,. 'abrle
Iuy/haul/place 6 inch dral,.,. teywr
Iuy ar«I place GeotutUe FILter 'abrle
luy/haul/place 6 Inches grewl
luy/Haul/Place 1.5 ft bb81""""t
Iuy/Haul/Place 0.5 ft T~ol t
Seed, fertilizer - ...tell
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
Leechate holdl,. t8nk
PlpeI, ~, etc.
OTHER COSTS
S8fety ,rogr-
E~I~t Decant_INti...
Mobilizatl~ILlz.tl...
'encing L8'ldf1l L
Monitorl". "'U. C4 .u. a ZO ft)
TABLE 2
ONE OPERAILE UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
l u.c;.~7A \
(g..- of :-L..,'
QUANT ITT J.. UNITS UNIT tOS T
800
1,300
5,000
CT
CT
CT

CT
Cy
Cy
Cy
Cy
120
10.20
115
10.20
S20
10.20
115
10.20
110
15
115
11
13,000
11,000
ESTIMATED DIRECT CAPITAL COST LANDFILL
36lo
6,760
4,420
11 ,200
1 , Ql.O
-........-
30,884
Cy
6,177("""') CT
55,591(t4t.C;-\ SF
1,029 (t-'CY
55,591('f~"e4SF
4, 118 ('~ CT
55, 591 (of z.c;-)s F
1,O29l~.-) Cy
55 ,591('f'Lc;~,
,,029(~.)CT
3,088l 1..,-') CY
1,029( 'I..) CT
6,177''''''')ST
L~ SIa LUIp ~
LYIP ~ LYIP SUa
LendfitL SUbtotal
)
(page 1. of 2.)
( \J.S. ~'PA \
TOTAL COST \T.~t C-~ +)
1123,536 ('1 c.'i.. OD. )

.11 118 if r "S'T0)
115:1,.(,2(1 I~,...)
'","8 l' 1',~.)

182,357 (" C. '(, ... )

111,118 (' y, n-)
115,1,.(,2 (t ''L,...~
,",118r1 ~"no)
l1o,295r1 ", -..)
1'5,1,.(,2(' . 'L, -.-)
115,1,.(,2( ~ '"1.., . -.)
16,177 tCJ ", Cr..)
15 000 (1 "J,... )
12:000 l1 '7. ,....)
-.--.............
m5,606 ('" "t. ~ '3.. 'l 1...)
LYIP SUI LUIIP SUn 125,000 125,000 ('$ ~ I-~o \
LYIP ~ LYIP ~ 13,000 13,000 (1 ~,..'" ')
LYIP SUI LYIP SUn 115,000 115,000 '1 'LT, ..-)
750(It...)u 110 17,500 (t \')..., ..-)
80 LF 160 ..........~:~. \. t 'I, 'IDe)

~ot.t Other Coati 155,300 (1 (,'11'_0)

1390,906 (t 2'r JL1.0)
-------
')
TWO OPERABLE UNITS
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
I u.c;.€t>~ )
L Q........ "t~;. ..,
QUANTITY ~UNITS UNIT COST
IMDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS INCINEIATION RESIDUE LANDFilL
-..................................................-
Conti~ency AltCIWMCe at 251 direct capital cost
Engineering Fees at 151 direct capltll cost
Letll Fees It 5'1 direct c.ltll COlt
Estl_teeS Indirect Capital tOit
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL OPEIATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS INCINERATION RESIDUE LANDFILL

;;~;;;.~~;~........_.._....................~~.~;;..i~~ 1250

~le analyaia L II. .. ; '1.- ) L"", SUI L~ SUI )14,800
Site ..,ing 52 Nnd8ya (1." 1250
lite iNPICtion 4 "'ya 1250
'UlCellllllOla .ite writ 36 Mnd8ya l I.) 1250
. Sfte writ _terilla L"", SUI L~ "'" 14,000
le8Chlte trHt8Int L"", SUI l~ SUI 13,500
lnaurence It 1'1 di rect c.itll cost l"", SUI L"'" SUI 11 ,691
Inerw f~ at 1S direct capital COlt l"", SUI l"", SUI 11,691

Eati_ted arn.1 Operltlng
end Mainterwnce to8t1
PRESENT WORTH OF ANNUAL OPEIATING
MI8ITENAlltE COSTS FOR 30 'IS U8SS)
I8ICI8IEIATIOI RESIDUE LANDFill TOTAL COST
(Plge 2. of 4..)
TOTAL COST
(u.s. C;?A \
~_"c..1 c..\1)
142,279
S2S ,367
18,456

176,102
(f "1:!., 1""11.' J
(1 ,~),'t ,)
(1 ~) ~~'I)
($ &42...,'2.''')
lll")!.) 
-------
)
ITEM
.TALS LA8lDFILL
..-.-.-.----....
SOIL AND SEDIMENT CONTAINING METALS
Stabilized Site 15 Soil
St8blllzed Site 22 Soil
Stabilized Site 29 Soil
Site 29 nan-EP Toalc Soil
St8blllzed Are. 9 Soil
ktltoUl
TWO OPERAILE UNITS
COST ESTIMATE
(P'lIe 3. of l..)
L\)-~. €?A . J
u -...'" '1-,
CIUAIITITT ~ UNITS UNIT COST
36'
6,760
4,420
11,200
1 , 0l.0
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
.............-.....
Z3,784
CT
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS METALS LA8lDFILL (15 FT DEPTN)
...........---..-....-.......-....----...-.....-.--
LINER AND INSTALLATION
Iuy/tleul/pleee/c~t 2.0 feet loll
~Ith ..xl.u. penle8blllty of 1 E-7 ~Iec
Iuy 8nd place Geotutlle Filter fabric
luy/heul/pleee 6 Inches dr.I,... l.yer
Iuy 8nd plece 580textfle 'Ilter Fabrfc

CAP MATERIALS AlII> ImALLATlCIIi
luy/heul/pleee/c~t 2.0 feet 101 l
~Ith _al.u. per88bllity of 1 E-7 C:Wlec
Iuy and pleee Ceotextlle filter fabric
Iuy/tleul/pleee 6 Inch dr.fM18 layer
Iuy and pleee CeotutUe FUter Fabric
Iuy/tleul/pleee 6 Inches Ir..,.l
Iuy/Neul/Pleee 1.5 ft bbII"".t
Iuy/N8Ul/Pleee 0.5 ft TCIII&of l
Seed, fertfllzer and 8Ulch
LEACIIATE CXIlLECTICli SYSTEM
Leech.te holdine tank
'ipeI, ~, etc.
OfNER COSTS METALS LAlDFILl
Safety ,rogr.
E~;pllent Decont.lnatlon .
Mobflfz.tfon/D88Obfllz.tion
'.-cIne Landt I U
Monl tori,. WeU. (4 ..U. . ZO ft)
4,757

42,811
793
:SO, 767
CT
SF
CT
SF
I \,).'5. ~?~ \
TOTAL COST l,. ~ \ ,.\1")
120
stI.20
115
stI.2O
195,136
sa,562
111,892
16,153
3,171 (:as, Co) CT

42.811 (,\,., ~1sF
7'93 (").'
)cT
42,811 t "'.'))5F
m "'CT
2,378t 1.11't.~T
m l1.04 CY
2,643 t-f 1.1." Y
LIoIIP SUI LIoIIP SUI
LI.IIP SUI L~ SUI

L8ndf III
~ - L"", SUI
LIoIIP SUI LIoIIP SUI
U8p SUI LIoIIP SUI
7'00 LF
10 If
S20 163,424 (~~;~/I.)

10.20 18 562 (; "'1.&...,)
115 111 :892 ,t Ie) TT" )
10.20 18,562 I ~ .,) ".,,)
110 17,928 (i' c)
15 111.892 if ,.) rS"1 )
115 111,89211,.,rr,)
11 12.643 U "4,1.1. tf )

14.000 14,000 (1 ~,.o..)
11.500 11,500 (1 "7'-.)

W,tot.l""""~:o;;- (, 'Z,.)] J ~ 1(, J

125,000 125.000 8'01..0)
12.500 12.500 11 ~~...)
115.000 11'.000 (1 S'",..o)
5'0 17.000 (1 1" ..-1
I6D 14.800 l1 'I 7..)
----.-........... J

154.300 (11 oz.,) ,.. )
1308,339 (1$ 't.~ I ) ., I ~ )
~tot.~ Otaer Costs
ESTIMATED DIRECT CAPITAL COST METALS LANDFILL
-------
')
ITEM
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
.................-....
~
TWO OPERABLE 'UNITS
COST ESTIMATE
lu., . Gf'A "\
Q..-~~
QUANT ITT .L. UN IT S
UNIT COST
Contingency AUowenee .t 251 direct ceplt.1 cost
Englrwerlng Feel .t 151 di rect cepit. I cost
Leg.1 Feel .t 51 direct C8plt.t cost
ANNUAL QP£1tAT1I1Ci AND MAIIITEIIANa COSTS
.............................................
ICETALS LAllDFi LL
Gr~ter UlllPllng )
S~le 81'18lysla ll~'" t'S"\,
Site 80Wing
SIte Inspection
IClaceU81'18«8 alte 880rk
lite 880rk ..tert.la
Le8dh.te treet8ent
lnaurenee .t 11 direct caplt.1 COlt
les.rYe fund at 11 direct capit.1 COlt
Eatl..ted Indirect C.pit.1 Cost
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST
"lI8nd8ys (" ) 1250
LUIIP SUI LUIIP Sun \. 13,000
52 l18nd8ys (1J.) 1250
" 8111nd8ys 1250
36 l18nd8ys (,.) 1250
LLII'P SUI LLII'P Sun '" , 000
L~ SUI LUIIP S"" "',000
LUIIP SUI LUIIP SUI 13,oa:s
LUIIP S", LUIIP SUI I3,oa:s

Eltl..ted Arru81 aperitlno
8'Id "'Int~e CoatS
PRESENT WORTII OF ANNUAL OPERATING
MAINTEIWlCE COSTS FOR 30 TIS (1851)

METALS LAlllFlll TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST IOTII LANDFILLS
Colt Infor-.t;on sourc.. incLude:
R.S. ..... Co., Inc., 1987. IuHdh'41 CONtruction Coat Dat. . 1988.
O'irien & Gere £"8h..", Inc. . 'rof..,loneL £aperience
(P.ge 4. of 10.>
TOTAL COST
(~.~. ~?A ~
1.,...1 c.., + )
177 ,085 (., 1.'\-, 'I ~ l) )
s.t.6, 25 1 (~ '1"1, 'Z. S'''') )
115,417 l' ,~. . ",)

1138,752 l1 "'J ,,~~

""'7,091 l i ~" ) '# ,., ')
12 000 ct ,o-D)
13:000 (1 y,")
113,000" (, ,'-'0))
11,000(1 I,...
19,000 ( ~ ~.....f"8-)
"',000 (~ 0 )
14,0001 t .)
13,083 (~ "L.) ",,)
13,083lS "LJ (,., J

142,167 (1 17) '1»- )

16108,'88 t' '1.1. '3 '3 ~ ,)
J

",095,27'9 (~I.\oj ~Jr~~)

",965,866 (t ~i~,'3"'~)
-------
.. .- - -. .
. _. -.-...
... ...- -..-.- . ..
~ ~ K\TICHU, wnnr:T'PE 1(ta'Ujt;
IIemIS AREAS ~ ma.'1' R:I)
APAHm[ C
~ ~ 
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECIlETAAY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
.- .
- .
;j
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Attention SRA-14
Region 5
230 Soutb Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
- 30 III)
Agency
0: WHD -
CC: RF
WESTLAKE
Metals Areas Operable Unit ROD
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

Dear Mr. Adamkus:
Re:
This is to advise you that the Department of the Interior (DOI) has
reviewed the proposed finalized Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Metals Areas operable Unit.

We concur with the remedy proposed in the ROD. Nevertheless, in
accordance with CERCLA, the Department of Defense (000) is an
essential party which should be afforded a full opportunity to
review, to comment upon and to concur and/or object to the proposed
ROD for this Fonaerly Used Defense 51 te (roDS). We insist that DOD
be a full participant in the selection, iaple.entation, and
investigation of all future remedial activities at the site.
Further, the site should be eligible for Defense Environmental
Restoration Program (DERP) funding. Finally, 000 is responsible
under Section 120 of CERCLA as the agency owning or operating this
federal facility at the time when hazardous wastes were disposed
of at the facility.
We appreciate the commitment of U.S. EPA to support DOI's position
that DOD is an essential party to the crab Orchard Inter-agency
Agreement ( IAG) . Your staff has advised us that it is their
opinion that the lAG is the key docwaent that sets out the
relationships ..ong the participating governmental entities, which
in this case are u.S. EPA, Illinois EPA, DOD and DOI.

To consWlDlate an IAG, it is necessary that these parties work
together now. 1 am aware that U.s. EPA, like 001, is anxious to
begin actual clean-up of conta.inatioD at Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge. It is essential that ooD be a signatory to any
lAG because of 000'. significant involvement in activities that led
to the disposal of hazardous wastes which 8USt now be cleaned up.
!'bis is to advise you that unless DOD becomes a full ..aber of any
1I.G developed with respect to this 8i te, 001 i8 unwilling to enter
into an lAG. We at DOI have been in communication with DOD, and
it is now time for u.S. EPA, formally and directly, to request
DOD'S participation. t1 C eEl V E D
APR 0 It 1290
u.~. r~" "'PO""''7'~ ~
nn-:~~ ~: J .. -'-- .....0# ,.:'.~.~.:~
-------
We continue to appreciate the cooperative spirit exhibited by the
u.s. EPA regional staff. We look forward to further discussions
with a view to resolving matters of mutual concern at the site.
"
Sincerely,
,-~

J'oMn E. Schrote
,Deputy Assistant Secretary
~licy, Management and Budget
cc:
Mr. Lewis D. Walker
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Environmental, Safety and Occupational
Health
Department of the Army
Ms. Mary Logan
Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region 5
Mr. Tim Thurlow
Assistant Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 5
-------
~
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, lL 62794.9276
217/782-6761
Refer to:
LPC#1998620014--Williamson County
Crab Orchard/Sangamo
superfund/Technical
Ma rch 2, 1990
Mr. Norm Niedergang, Chief
Remedial Enforcement Response Branch
Waste Management Division USEPA
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Niedergang:

This Agency has reviewed your Draft Crab Orchard Metals Areas operable
unit ROO dated February 14, 1990 and received by this Agency on February 16.
Attached you will find a listing of specific comments by page of the ROD.
I would like however to express this Agencies concern with USEPA's landfill
design criteria chosen to be applied within this operable unit remedy.
It is this Agencies understanding that the landfill design undertaken by
USEPA will be patterned after solid waste design requirements, those out-
lined in 40 CFR 241, Subpart B or 35 lAC Part 807. It is also the under-
standing of this Agency that the landfill will not only be utilized for
"metals bearing" contaminated soil but also for other "organic and inorganic
contaminants of less concern." It appears that this landfill cell would
also, be utilized as the deposition area for ash generated during the
proposed incineration of PCB contaminated soil.
Based on the lack of historical evidence available describing how
existing wastes were geherated (processes), it becomes difficult to
discern if the waste is a listed RCRA hazardous waste as noted in Ill.
Adm. Code, Title 35, Subpart D. It also becomes extremely difficult
to test every cubic yard of contaminated material being deposited in
the landfill for EP Toxicity. It is doubtful that the "other organics
of less concern" will be rendered entirely inert during the treatment
and solidification stage of the selected remedy. Based on this knowledge,
the rising public concern surrounding this site, along with the "permanence"
criteria outlined in the nine criteria utilized when selecting a remedy at
an NPL site, a carefully designed secure cell is mandated to adequately
protect the health, welfare and the environment within the State of Illinois.
Although existing Federal and State solid waste landfill design requirements
are lacking when applied to liner and cap requirements, this Agency has con-
sistently applied state liner and cap design standards outlined in Waste Manage-
ment Facilities Design Criteria. At a minimum the landfill liner s't~ould
contain a 10 foot (in situ, or placed and compacted clay soil liner e.xhibiting
-------
Letter to ~orm Niedergang
r":: -r. ..,
-
a permeability of 10-7 cm/sec in both horizontal and vertical planes).
If a 10 foot clay liner is not available, then an artificial liner should
be placed above a clay liner with a leachate detection and collection system
being sandwiched between them.

It is the Agencies concern that a landfill designed to meet a strict
interpretation or minimum requirements of solid waste regulations will
not provide a permanent, long term remedy for the Crab Orchard Refuge
site. -~owever, I believe that a landfill can be designed that will
adequately protect public health and the environment utilizing the States
landfill design criteria or a modification of RCRA requirements.
It may not be within the States best interest to concur on the metals
operable unit ROD thus setting a precedent of lo~ering our Solid Waste
policy standards. I believe this issue warrants additional dialogue in
the immediate future. Please contact me at your earliest convenience
so that we can discuss this matter.
Sincerely,

Wdrl~ ~{d,~~,

William Child, Manager
Division of Land Pollution
Control
WC:pss
Attachment
cc:
Di vi s; on File
Terry Ayers
Stephen Davis
Greg Michaud
Jim Mayka
Mary Logan
Charlie Zeal
Rob Watson
Ed Bakowski
-------
~.
:,
Illi'nois Environmental Protection Agency. P.O. Box 19276. Springfield, IL 62794.9276
lEPA Comment On:
Draft Metals Areas Operable Unit ROD
1.
Page 2, Paragraph 4: The February 1990 date should be changed
to reflect the breakdown in lAG negotiations.
2.
Page 2, Paragraph 5: Why is 001 reviewing the responses to
104 (e) letters by prospective PRP's when they themselves are
considered a PRP in the ongoing action at the site?

Page 3, Paragraph 1: The lEPA has not assisted in conducting
the community relations program at this site. Reference to the
lEPA's participation should be deleted.
3.
4.
Page 28, first bullet: Groundwater and leachate monitoring for
the on-site landfill should be in accordance with montioring re-
quirements outlined in RCRA 40 CFR 264, Subpart F, or 11. Adm.
Code Subtitle G, 724, Subpart F, or a modification thereof.
5.
See previous comments dated September 21, 1989.
-------