J
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIRODIR05-91/152
December 1990
Carr!
pg cr z - C( {; '-/ I 0 £;
oEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
G&H Landfill, MI
u . S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Region In Hazardous Waste
Technical Information Center -
841 Chestnut Street, 9th Floor
Philaderphia ,- PA 19107
Hazardous WOlfe, ,", ' ,,' '. . ",.,.,
"..----.61_- d,_, ~ "
''''''''''''1Uf1 R '" "-
US EPA RegIon ?ce .Centet"~
PhBadelphia. PA 19107
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-------
110272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. I ~ 3. RecIpient. Acceulon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-91/152
'lite 8IId SubIItIe 5. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 12/21/90
G&H Landfill, MI 8.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Aulhor(a) 8. I'Itrfonnlng Organization Rept. No.
8. I'Itrfonnlng Orgalnlzatlon ...... and Add- 10. Projec1JTaaklWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponeortng Organization ...... 8IId Addreaa 13. Type of Report & PerIod Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. 800/000
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Bupplem8nlary No..
18. Abatract (Umlt: 2110 _rcla)
The 70-acre G&H Landfill site is an inactive landfill in Shelby Township, Macornb
County, Michigan. Surrounding land use is predominantly residential with adjacent
light industrial facilities and a recreational area that includes wetland and woodland
habitats. The site overlies two ground water aquifers, the uppermost of which is the
source of drinking water for some eastern area residences and industries. A portion of
the site is located within the lOa-year floodplain of the Clinton River. The site is
subdivided into three landfill areas: a 44-acre Phase I landfill area, a 17-acre Phase
II area, and an 8-acre Phase III landfill area. From 1955 to 1973, G&H landfill
accepted municipal refuse, and solid and liquid industrial wastes including solvents,
paints, varnishes, and lacquers. In addition, from 1955 to 1967, waste oil and water
mixtures were disposed of at the landfill. Several unsuccessful attempts were made by
the landfill operators to reclaim the oil, by pumping the oil into settling ponds.
After the oil was allowed to settle, the volatile components evaporated, and the
resulting sludge was periodically removed and buried in the landfill. In 1965 and
1966, the State determined that improper liquid waste disposal .operations and waste oil
disposal/reclamation activities at the landfill were contributing to onsite ground
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyala L D8acrIpIo18 c
Record of Decision - G&H Landfill, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media:. soil, sediment, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PCBs),
metals (arsenic, chromium, lead), oils
b. IcIentlfler8lOpen-EndacI Terma
. c. COSA 11 FI8IdIGroup
18. Avlllabiity ~ 19. Security CI..a (Thla Report) 21. No. of Pagea
None 99
20. Security Cia.. (Thla Page) n Prfce
I fo,Tr\no
8M ANSl-Z38.18 See In.truttlone on Rave-
(FormIIIty NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
c
EPA/ROD/R05-91/152
G&H Landfill, MI
, ~irst Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
water contamination and oil seeps south of the site. Based on these findings, all
disposal operations were ordered to cease. The landfill continued to operate as a
sanitary landfill until 1973, at which time it was closed without a proper closure
plan. From 1982 to 1989, EPA initiated four removal actions at the site to restrict
public access to contaminated ground water and oil seeps, and to prevent the migration
of PCB-contaminated oil. In 1989, approximately 2,400 gallons of a PCB-contaminated
oil and water mixture were removed and disposed of at an offsite thermal destruction
facility. The site has been divided into two operable units (OUs) for remediation.
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses contaminated soil, sediment, and landfill
material (OU1); and the contaminated ground water plume, landfill leachate, and oil
seep (OU2). The ground water contaminant plume and the sOlvent/oil-contaminated soil
and landfill debris in the Phase I landfill area have been identified as the principal
threat. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and
ground water are VOCs including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including PCBs; metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and oils.
The selected remedial action for this site includes constructing a landfill cover over
the site to meet current State landfill closure requirements; constructing a subsurface
barrier wall around the perimeter of the landfill areas and oil seeps; instituting
leachate collection and treatment; excavating soil and sediment outside the slurry wall
with PCB concentrations greater than or equal to 1 mg/kg, followed by consolidating
these under the landfill cover if less than 500 mg/kg, or treating the soil and waste
using offsite incineration, vitrification, or some other technology approved by EPA for
the destruction of PCBs if concentrations are greater than or equal to 500 mg/kg; .
eplacing affected wetlands; pumping and treating the contaminated ground water plume
outside the slurry wall, followed by onsite discharge to the adjacent Clinton River or
to a treatment plant if pretreatment criteria are met; connecting nearby residents to
the local municipal water supply; monitoring ground water, surface water, and air; and
implementing deed and ground water use restrictions, and site access restrictions such
as fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $40,000,000,
which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $750,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Excavated soil and sediment will be treated to 1 mg/kg
to destroy PCBs if PCB concentrations are greater than or equal to 500 mg/kg, or will
be consolidated in the landfill if PCB concentrations are less than 500 mg/kg. Ground
water cleanup standards are based on State standards and SDWA MCLs. Chemical-specific
goals include vinyl chloride 0.02 ug/l (State), benzene 1 ug/l (State), PCE 0.7 ug/l
(State), TCE 3 ug/l (State), xylenes 20 ug/l (State), arsenic 0.02 ug/l (State) (may
change; arsenic standard will be established based on background), and lead 5 ug/l
(State) .
-------
~+~o ST"~IS'.
i ~ \
\.~
'\ ,,_tt
~I.~~
UNITED STATES ~ PR:11'ECI'ICN AGENCY
REX;ICN 5
REXDRD OF DEX::ISICN
G&H mrxJSTRIAL IANDFIIL SITE
MAa:MB a:uNIY, KrOlIGAN
~her 1990
~
f
Q
~
~
!
o
.
g
1'''' (.
~
teA'" ... .......
-------
TABIE OF cx::mmrs
Section
~
I.
'!be
~ara.tia1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
n.
State of Michigan: Istter of
~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
III. '!be Decisicm SUaraary
A. site IJ:x::atia1 am ~CI'1..............................
1
B. s1 te 1Iis't:my'..............................................
2
c. E:r1f'~1t 1Iis't:my'....................................... 5
D. ~ntity Partic~tian...................................
6
E. SCcpe of the selected ~..............................
7
F. SUaraary of Site
Characteristics...........................
7
G. SUaraary of site
Ri.sJcs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
H. ~tia18.le for Act:.iat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
I.
Description
of .Al.ten1a.ti-ves..............................
28
J. ~tive Analysis of .Al.tematives: '!he Nine Criteria..
34
K. selected
ReII8:iy......................................... .
39
***Significant 01an;Je: PCBs in Soils am ~;~............
44
L.
Statutmy
I:::8te%mir1a.tias. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
rl.
~ EEspansiveness SUmmary.......................(following)
56
v.
~tive ~ Index..........................~ 1
Figures
1.
Site
lcx::a.tia1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2.
site fea'bJres................................................
3
3a.
G:rclD"dwater flc:.Ki directiCl'1 - 'tJR:er aquifer................. . . .
9
3b.
BE:lX saJJ::t:2 aJ:ea,S............................................
11
-------
Figures
( oonti.Jmed)
30.
'Ra ~ 82:'eaS.............................................
12
3d. Chlorinated voc source 82:'eaS.................................
13
3e.
R1ase. I laJ1C1f'ill aJ:'ea. ''11cJt. SI)C'ts"............................
14
3f.
Groundwater cantaminant ~ume........~.......................
15
3g. wasm in c:x::::I"Ita.c wi."t!1 ~"te:J:.............................
17
4. Groundwater risks
- .AJ:'ea.s of ~..........................
22
5. Rmicipal water supply u.dJeCti.ans to be supplied.............
31
6. Al.~tive 4A................................................
40
7. <=ap ~ sec:t.i0l1.............................................
41
8. Slurry wall ~ section.....................................
41
9. AJ:'eas of ~ - 1'C::I3E;.......................................
45
Tables
1. ~tive ~.......................................
19
2. SlJIrIDaJ:y' of R.j.s)cs................................................
25
3.
Preliminary
Groundwater C1~ standards.............~........
26
4. Groundwater C1~ Standards..................................
28
5.
Estimated COSts of ~ial Al~tives.......................
39
-------
/,
IB:IARAT.ICE
Statement of Basis am Purcose
'Ibis decisiC21 d~nnent presents the selected ~ia1 action for the
G&H :rndustria1 Ianti"ill site, Shelby Township, Macanb Camty, Michigan,
which was chosen in accordance with the Cc:IIprehensive Environmental
Response, o..'i>ensation, am Liability Act of 1980, as amerxied by the
S\Jperfl.1ni A1tIemments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERcrA), am, to
the extent practicable, the National Cant.in;ency Plan. 'Ibis decision is
based on the administrative record for this site. ('Ihe attached irrlex
identifies the items that CCI'Iprise the administrative record upon which
the selection of the remedial action is based.)
Ass°c:sment of the Site
Actual. or threatened releases of hazardous substances fran this site, if
not addressed by iJrplementirg the response action in this Record of
Decision, present an bnm:i.nent am substantial en::IanJerment to p..lblic
health or welfare or the envirorunent.
DescriDtion of the'Selected Remedy
'Ihe selected :reu8:dy is a final 1:E:ua::dy, usirg different methods to address
the principal threats at the site. A treatment 1:eu8:dy will address the
principal threat POSed by the grourdwater contaminant plurre, am a
cantainment 1:el1.dy will address the principal threat POSed by the massive
Ba1rCe of grourdwater contamination within a portion of the larrlfill.
'Ihe selected relueJy also addresses the lonq-term, lower-level threat
posed by other portions of the larrlfill am consists of the followirg
c:arponents :
- Construction of a larrlfill caver (cap) in oatpliance with Michigan
State Hazanious Waste Rules 299.9619 (cap specifications for hazardous
waste larrlfill closure);
- Consb:uction of a subsurface vertical barrier wall (sluny wall) arourrl
the Perimeter of the larrlfill areas. '!he Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department (IR;D) water main which traverses the site shall be isolated
fran the larrlfill areas by the sluny wall, as described in the
attached Decision SUrmnaJ:y. Grourx:lwa.ter will be p..mped (and treated,
see below) fran the upper aquifer within the sluny wall to maintain
an inward hydraulic gradient across the barrier wall;
- Collection am treatment of leachate fran the western Perimeter of the
larrlfill;
i
-------
- ~a'1 and treatment of the groundwater CXI1t:aminant plume outside
of the slurzy wall to meet Federal drinkin:J-water stan:Jards and State
groundwater-quality stan:Jards. '!he treated water shall be discha2:ged
into the adjacent Clint:a1 River in OCIIpliance with the substantive
requirements of the Naticmal Pollutant Di.sct1arqe Eliminatia'1 System
(NPtES), as administered by the State of Michigan unjer Part 21 of the
Water Resc:urces rnm.i~im Act 245 of 1929, as amemed. Altematively,
the treated water may be discha2:ged to the IHSD treatment plant if
~~LL~tment criteria are met;
- Pericxtic DDu:tarin;J of the groundwater aquifers and surface waters m
site am in the vicinity of the lan::lfill;
- Prcwisial for alternate water Slg)lies (oan-=ctim to the DLInicipal
water system) to adjacent residences and l::usinesces whid1 are aJrrently
utilizirq private wells as a water SlJR)ly;
- Prcwisim for repla~tt of affected wetlands at the site;
- Excavatim of soils and -ni1llPTtts outside of the slurry wall whim are
oantaminated by polychlorinated bjplenyls (PCBs) at a oOhcentL-dtim of
1 part per millim (RID) or greater. Soils and -n;1IIPTIts oantaminated
by PCBs at a oancentration of 500 RID or greater will be treated to
destroy the PCBs. Excavated soils and -n;1IIPTIts oantaminated by less
than 500 RID PCBs will be consolidated unjer the lan::lfill caver;
- IDpositial of deed :restrictioos limitin;J land and groundwater use at
the lan::lfill and groundwater use in the site vicinity until cleanup
stan:Jards are met; and
- Pericxtic review of emergin;J in situ treatment ted1oologies (such as
bi~jation) to deteJ:mine if a suitable ted1oology can be
effectively 8R>lied to treat the prin::ipal threat (the massive
contaminant soorce) within the lan::lfill. '!he review will seek to
deteJ:mine ~ artj such ted1oologies wa1ld effectively decrease the
levels of oantamination within the cantainment system so as to
(1) reduce the l~-tem risks associated with the ooritami.nants,
(2) reduce the risk of failure of the containment l~ due to the
high oa'-=ILLdticn; of CXI1taminants, and (3) reduce the risk of
e>cpcsure to CXI1taminants due to a failure of the cantainment system.
SUch t.ec:tmologies wa1ld be reviewed in oonfozmity with the :t:emeJy
selectia'1 criteria of CERCIA and the NCP.
StatutoIv Detem:i.natioos
'!he selected LeueJy is protective of human health and the environment,
OCIIplies with Federal and State requirements that are legally 8R>licable
or relevant and awrq>riate to the ~ia1 action, and is oost-
effective. 'Ih:is :temedy utilizes pennanent solutions and alternative
treatment t.ec:tmologies to the maximJm extent practicable for this site.
ii
-------
However, h=ramse treatment of a1e of the prirx:ipal threats at the site
was not faJnd to be practicable at the time of ROO signature, this r~
does not yet fully satisfy the statutm:y preference for treatment as a
principal element.
Because this reu.:dy will result in hazamcus substances remai.nin:J on site
above hea1th-based levels, a review will be cx:n:mcted within five years
after Cr.JI'.'-noement of the ~;al action to ensure that the ren-.ly
ca'Iti.ru5 to provide adequate protection of human health am the
envircnDent.
State O:n::m:k=:~
'!he State of Mid1igan oancurs with the selected 1::eu.::dy for the G&H
Irxlustrial Iardfill site. '!he Ietter of 0Jncurrence is attached to this
Record of Decision. .
Jk..t~ IfftJ
IBte
tor
iii
-------
;
IllATUIIAL IInOURCU CD If~
THOMAS J. ANDERSON
MARLENE J. FLUHARTY
GORDON E. GUYER
KERRY KAMMER
ELLWOOD A. MATTSON
O. STEWART MYERS
RAYMOND POUPORE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
~
JAMES J. BLANCHARD. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING
P.O. 801( 30028
LANSING. MI 48909
DAVID F. HALES. Director
December 21, 1990
'.
Mr. Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, 5RA-14
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
SUBJECT:
G&H Landfill Superfund Site, Macomb County
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), on behalf of the State of
Michigan, has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision (ROO) for the G & H
Landfill site. The remedy in the proposed ROO consists of the following:
* Construction of a landfill cover (cap) in compliance with Michigan
Act 64 Rules, specifically Rule 299.9619 (cap specifications for
hazardous waste landfill closure);
* Construction of a subsurface vertical barrier wall (slurry wall)
around the perimeter of the landfill areas. The Oet~oit Water and
Sewerage Department (DWSD) water main and sewer lines which traverse the
site shall be isolated from the landfill areas by the slurry wall.
Groundwater will be pumped from the upper aquifer within the slurry wall
to maintain an inward hydraulic gradient across the barrier wall. The
pumped groundwater will be treated and discharged as described below;
* Collection and treatment of leachate from the western perimeter of
the 1 andfill ;
* Extraction and treatment of the groundwater contaminant plume
outside of the slurry wall to meet federal drinking water standards and
State groundwater cleanup criteria in Michigan's Act 307 Rules,
specifically Rules 299.5707, 299.5709, and 299.5711. After treatment the
water shall be discharged into the adjacent Clinton River in compliance
with the substantive requirements of the National pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), as administered by the State of Michigan
under the Water Resources Commission Act (1929 P.A. 245, as amended).
R1026
3/69
-
o,
-------
Mr. Valdas Adam~
-2-
December 21, 1990
Alternatively, the treated water may be discharged to the DWSD treatment
plant if pretreatment criteria are met;
* Periodic monitoring of the groundwater aquifers and surface waters
on site and in the vicinity of the landfill;
* Provision for alternate water supplies (connection to the municipal
water system) to adjacent residences and businesses which are currently
utilizing private wells as a water supply;
* Provision for purchase of alternate wetlands to replace wetlands
affected by site conditions or the remedy;
'.
* Excavation of soils and sediments outside of the slurry wall which
are contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at a concentration
of 1 part per million (PPM) or greater. Soils and sediments contaminated
by PCBs at a concentration of 500 ppm or greater will be treated to
destroy the PCBs. Excavated soils and sediments contaminated by less
than 500 ppm PCBs will be consolidated under the landfill cover;
* Imposition of deed restrictions limiting land and groundwater use
within the slurry wall area in perpetuity and groundwater use in the site
vicinity until cJeanup standards are met;
* Periodic review of emerging in situ treatment technologies (such as
bioremediation) to determine if a suitable technology can be cost
effectively applied to treat the principal threat (the heavily
contaminated ~rea of the landfill) within the containment area. Such a
technology will be implemented if it is demonstrated to effectively
reduce the levels of contamination within the containment system so as to
(1) reduce the long-term risks associated with the contaminants;
(2) reduce the risk of failure of the containment remedy due to the high
concentrations of contaminants; and (3) reduce the risk of exposure to
contaminants due to a failure of the containment system.
This remedy complies with the cleanup criteria in Part 7 of Michigan's Act 307
Rules, specifically Rules 299.5707, 299.5709, and 299.5711 outside of the
slurry wall and cap system and Rules 299.5717 and 299.5719 for the area
contained by the slurry wall and cap system.
The State does not agree with the omission of the Michigan Water Resources
Commission Act (1929 P.A. 245, as amended), Part 22 Administrative Rules, MAC
R.323.2201 et seQ. as Applicable Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARARs).
The State has previously identified these requirements as ARARs for the
remedial action being selected for this site.
-------
I
.. .
Mr. Valdas Adamkus
-3-
December 21, 1990
Although the remedy includes replacement of some of the wetlands at the site,
the State intends to further pursue compensation for the remaining natural
resource damages.
We concur with this remedy for the G & H Landfill site.
its implementation.
I look forward to
Sincerely,
4/LLIat ~~
Delbert Rector
Deputy Director
517-373-7917
".
cc: Mr. Jonas Dikinis, US EPA
Ms. Wendy Carney, US EPA
Mr. Kevin Adler, US EPA
Mr. 'Jeremy Firestone, AG
Dr. James Truchan, MDNR
Mr. Andrew Hogarth, MDNR
Mr. William Bradford, MDNR
Ms. Claudia Kerbawy, MDNR
Mr. Brian Monroe, MOHR
Ms. Lisa Summerfield, MOHR
-------
J
I'EX:ISIaf S(HmRY
A. site IDeation an:l DescriDtion
'!he G&H In:mst:ria1 Ianifill (G&H) site is located southwest of the
intersection of Ryan Road an:l 23-Mi1e Road in Shelby Township, Macamb
Chmty, Midrl.gan. '!he G&H site is awroximate1y 3 miles northwest of
Utica an:l ~te1y 20 miles north of Detroit. '!he 7o-acre G&H
larxifi1l is situated to the north an:l east of the neamy Clinton River
(see Figure 1). '!he river provides a habitat for several important fish
species an:l other aquatic life. A portion of the Rod1es+...er-Utica State
Recreational Area (recreational area), which is located .south of the
site, has been iJ1'Ipa.cted by past larxifi1l operations. '!he recreational
area, which is usej for h:iJd.n], fishin;; (in the Clinton River), an:l for
~
. -
. I
SCALI III PUT
- . -. - ..............
Figure 1: Site location.
other recreational pJrpOSes by area residents an:l visitors, includes
wetlan:ls an:l woodlan:l habitats which support numerous species of
migratin:J bims an:l other wildlife.
'!he ~ area is generally su1:m'ban; residential neighborhoods are
located to the north an:l to the east within several hun::1red feet of the
larxifill. A subdivision of abc:ut 80 hanes is located in the eastern
-------
area, ani a newer subdivision of aJ:x:ut 25 banes is located in the
northern area. Several light in:iustrial facilities are located to the
sa.rt:heast, directly adjacent to the lan:lfill. '!he ~ sand arxi gravel
aquifer is the sc:urce of drinkin;J water for sane of the easteI:n area
residences arx:l these in:iustries. 'n1e remairDer of the area is served by
the umicipal water ~ly.
Praninent site features irolu:ie the three p,ases of the lan:lfill (R1ases
I, n, arx:l In), as shcMn in Figure 1. '1he 44-acre Blase I lan:ifill
area, 1:x:mD:d by a lO-acre autcm::lbile salvage yard (junkyard) to the
northeast, the abarDoned Conrail right-of-way to the south, the light
:in:iustrial area to the sa.rt:heast, arxi the residential area north of
23-Mile Read, is dlaracterized by fairly flat rot uneven terrain arxi
scrub vegetation. 'n1e 17-acre Fhase II lan:lfill area, whidl was begun
after Fhase I had been filled in, is also characterized by uneven terrain
arxi scrub vegetation. Fhase n is J:xu1'Ded by the Conrail right-of-way to
the north arx:l a pipeline easement for the Detroit Water arx:l Sewerage
Depart1rent (ImD) to the west. R1ase II has a steep southern slope that
teminates in the ~arxis in the recreational area. '!he 8-acre R1ase
III lan:ifill area, which represents the final ~ of lan:ifill
operations, has little surface vegetation arxi is I:xJun:ied by the msD
pipeline E'a~nt on the east. R1ase In has a steep southern arxi
western slope that teminates in the woodlarxis adjacent to the Clinton
River an:l in a portion of the river's 10o-year floodplain.
'!he J:R)D ~,,~ contains a 96-inc::h (diameter) water ~ly pipeline arxi.
a 24-iJr.h interceptor sewer. '!he water supply line was constructed in
1967 arxi serves as the main distribution line fran Lake Huron to the
Detroit nunicipal water system. '!he 24-inc::h interceptor sewer, which
serves Shelby Township, is connected to a 96-inch regional interceptor
sewer whidl runs beneath portions of the Fhase II arxi Fhase III lan:lfill
areas (see Figure 2). '!he regional interceptor sewer serves oaklarrl
co.mty arx:l connects to the ImD main sewage treatment plant.
'!he Clinton-Kalamazoo canal, an aban:1oned navigationalproject, :runs
through the recreational area to the south arxi west of the site. '!he
canal, an :intennittent, 2O-foot wide ditch, is filled with debris in some
spots arx:l otheIwise contains stantin;J water. '!he Fhase III lan:ifill area
was 1:ui1t aver a portion of the canal: reportedly, the lan:ifill operators
:intemed to reroute the canal afterwards, but this did not occur.
'n1e junkyard does not a~ to have been used for the disposal of
tmmicipal trash, but it may have been used as a solvent disposal area.
'!he surface is littered with the remains of a\I1:arobiles, trucks,
constJ:uction equipnent, an:l miscellaneous debris.
B. site Ristorv
A san:l arx:l gravel quany existed at the G&H site up to the early 19505.
In mid 1950, after quan:y operations had ~c~, the larxiowner leased the
property to the G&H Irxfustrial Fill Catpmy. Larrlfill operations began
in 1955 arxi en::led in 1973, when the final Ii1ase had been filled to
2
-------
I
capacity. '!he lanifill cpmltors accepted m.micipal refuse, solid
imustrial wastes, am liquid in:iust:rial wastes inclu.:tin] solvents,
paints, vami.shes, lacquers, am waste oils, for disposal at the site.
;> ~
--
-..........,".
~. .
='='.' \
" ,
. ,
~\ ... , .
\" ! t ) 1
'\" i' :::_--~ I 0
li;l ' \ -::-
// /,: :'.' :..1 ~, J
/-.\ . /;,..'" ,; - -~~ - '.," D ~
I ~:.~~,/(:", ~.Ia::,.-~'\~~' '-,'. ,):;'7,:':~~~ ". '. l~. :,~.:I;
: - ,".-~ : . ' ,., ,:-"'.lIoqttESTER - UTICA stATE RECREAT1oNAL'A'REA. '.....~ L
:~~ >'C<~c-'~f r~~~.~.:~:-~:'::' ,":~~~~k-2.: :" "';~i~:%,1~;'1~' ~ Li
;, ~ \ "". '-. ,", " '.' . ", !t../\?: l;:
'I \ ,', "":".-' ~/I',-t, r
/, "'" ,,~'-::..' .'~~::-::~~~~.; , \
". .,;'--~-"":--...
1 ~>~::,~:::-:...... " - "'- <'.,
"':':;:-',\ "
"
,;;",:-,;."
" ':,
I,
1I.8.II11C11D
-
t
. -
. I
~J- ~
---
'::';';'.7..,.:- '.
-
--
----
I" -.- I . - - I
--
--
.-- .&.........,
-
-.Uta
---
,
I
-. .
------
--
Figure 2: Site features.
/' -
---
-
--
---
waste oil am water mixtures, delivered to the site by rail am by tank
tzuck, \¥ere di ~ of at the lan:lfill fran approxiJna.tely 1955 to 1967.
Initially, the cpmltors att:enpted to :reclaim the oil by ~iIq the oil
am water mixtures to settliIq porDs located in the Blase I lanifill area
(see Figure ~) arxl sJdmnin:;J off the recoverable oil for resale. Several
atteDpt:s \¥ere made to reclaim the oil, tJUt none were reported to be
S!~sful. 1Jhereaft:er, the oil was reportedly allCMed to settle am the
volatile L.L.II''l.aJert:s were allCl!Ned to evaporate. '!he resultiIq sludge was
periodically :reJ1¥JVed arxl buried in the lanifill.
3
-------
In the early 196OS, lc::x:al residents lod;Jed CXIIp1.aints with the Macanb
CDmty Health Board (!am) regarc:tin:J sewage odors emanatin:J frail the
Clinta1-Fa1;:nM?oo canal sa1th of the lan:1fill. An initial site
.inspectim by the M:HB did IXJt locate the sc:m'Ce of the odors: however, a
joint site SUIVei.l1ance by the M:HB aIXi the Michigan Water Resa1roe
('r8m\i RAion (MWRC) di.soavered that gram::iwater seeps sa1th of the
railroad tracks emitted a btl~q d1emi.cal odor. As a result, the MWRC
ocn:lucted a gram::iwater aIXi surface water investigation in July 1965.
At that time, the ~ noted that the lan:1fill operation accepted waste
oils aIXi DI.D'1icipal trash, alorg with solvents, paints, etc., which ~
delivered in 55-gallon drums, aIXi identified three areas in the B1ase I
larxifill into which the ocntents of the drums were rn~ (see Figure 2).
(SUb;equently, the larxifill operators have .itW.cated that solvent
di~ paD; were located thrc:u:Jhcut the B1ase I lan:1fill area aIXi the
junkycml. )
'!be !oMRC investigation c1etenni.ned that gram::iwater (in the UJ;pr aquifer)
flowed generally to the sooth aIXi ooncluded that liquid waste di ~l
operations were responsible for contamination of the gram::iwater seeps
sa1th of the railroad tracks. As a result of this investigation, a
consent order was issued by the Macanb CDmty Circuit court in May 1966
p:rchibitin:J the di ~ of paints, varnishes, paint t:h.i1mers, aIXi
lacquers in the G&H lan:1fill. Waste oils were IXJt addressed by this
consent Oz:der.
A second !oMRC investigation in November 1966 oanclmed that the waste oil .
disposal/reclamatia1 activities at the larxifill were also cx:mtribJti.rg to
gram::iwater contamination. Based upon these fimin:;Js, the MaOClllb cnmty
Circuit court issued a COnsent order in 1967 bannin;J the di~ of arrj
liquid industrial wastes at the lan:1fill.
After liquid imustria1 waste disposal allegedly ~~, the G&H site
continued to operate as a sanitaIy lan:1fill fran 1967 until operations
cP~~ in 1973. '!be G&H lan:1fill was also known as the Shelby TcMnship
dlmp, operatin;J umer various State of Michigan pem:its. fran 1967 to
1973. Although 1an:1fill operations ~~ in 1973, for each phase had
been filled to capacity, no final closure plan was prepared or
iDplemented. .
'!be State investigated the site severalmre tmes between 1973 am 1979.
'1hese sa:nplin;J events documented potential contamination of the Clinton
River by leachate seeps west of the Fhase III laIXifill area aIXi by oil
seeps sa1th of the Fhase I laIXifil1 area.
Pursuant to the Catprehensive Environmental Response, Cclrpensation, am
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), the United States Environmental
Protection 1tgercy (U.S. EPA) inspected the site in 1982. SUbsequent to
the su1:mittal of the site Inspection report in August 1982, the U.S. EPA
placed the site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.
'!be U.S. EPA has initiated foor rem::JVa1. actions at the G&H lanifill
4
-------
pn-suant to its authority \.1ID!r CERCIA. '!he first rem::Nal action began
in JUly 1982. Its pl%pOSe was to prevent public aCX1eSS to the
OCII"Itaminated grouniwater am oil seeps sart:h of the B1ase I lal'Kifill
area am to prevent the migration of oil OCII"Itaminated with
polyd1larinated biP1enYls (PCBs). A f~ was oanst.n1ct:ecl arcun:i the oil
seep area, am dams were tuilt to direct surface water flow arcun:i the
seeps. By the winter of 1982/83, the oil had migrated beyon:i the fenced
area. '!be secan:i rem::Nal action, which began in July 1983, was initiated
to alleviate the situation. '!be fence was ext:erned aram:i the per:iJDeter
of the new oil seeps, am an oil s)c;1IWnPr was installed to prevent the
migration of floating oil. Clay barriers were placed in the path of the
new oil seeps as well.
In April 1986 the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MWR) noted
that the clay barriers am site fences were no lon:;Jer sn~s:ful at
preventirr:J the migration of the oil or public aCX1eSS to the oil. '!he
thiJ:d rem::Nal action, initiated in May 1986, inc1u:lecl the followin;J
activities:
- Recreational area trails were blocked with earthen be:cns, am a gate
was installed to restrict public aCX1eSS to the area.
- A oollector tteuch was excavated, cannec:t:in;J isolated oil seeps, am a
steel sheetpile barrier was installed to prevent oil fran migrating
beyorx1 the oollector t.u:::ldl. '!he t.u:::ldl arxl the barrier directed the
oil flow to a sin;le discharge point for periodic recovery of the oil.
Oil oollected c1urin:J this rem::Nal action was stored in a metal storage
tuildin;J const.J:uCt:ed to store PCB-aJrrtaminated wastes until they cx:uld
be prc:perly disposed of.
As the ~ial Investigation (RI), then in prog1:e6S (see section F,
below) continued, it ~ ~ that the surface soils on the
lal'Kifill were contaminated am that public aCX1eSS to the entire site
cx:uld be creating a health hazard. A foorth rem::Nal action was initiated
in July 1987. At this time, a chai.n-link fence was installed aram:i the
per:iJneter of the entire site, inc1\Xiin;J the portions of the :recreational
area affected by the oil seeps. oils were rec::avered periodically am
stored in the buildin;J. In April 1989, ~tely 2,400 gallons of a
PCB-aJrrtaminated oil am water mixture were transported to an off-site
theJ:mal dest.mcticm facility for PIq)er disposal.
C. EnfOrcemeltt Histozy
M:st of the G&H lan:lfill b.1siness records were destroyed in an office
fire in ~ 1974. '!he U.S. EPA has obtained information regarclirg
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) frau responses to info:rmation
request letters sent to alleged lal'Kifill users, depositions obtained fran
the lan:lfill operator, am depositions taken fran alleged transporters to
the site. Usin; responses to information requests received in 1986-1987,
the U.S. EPA identified an initial group of 12 PRPs, includin;J alleged
generators, the owner of the property, am the operators of the G&H
lamfill.
5
-------
Informatim regard:iD] additional mPs was obtained by the core groop of
~ an:i presented to the u. s. EPA for follow-up. since 1989, the number
of mPs at the G&H site has grown to atoJt 44, based upon depositia1S
taken in mid-1990 frail alleged transporters an:i upon responses to follow-
up infomatim request letters sent to alleged generators. several of
the additiona1 alleged generators have joined the PRP groop in
preparatiCl1 for the receipt of special mtice letters, whid1 the u.s. EPA
int:En:1s to issue in Jarnw:y 1991.
'!he alleged generators have been closely followin;J the RI since its
inoeptiCl1, offerin; Cx",.,~J1ts on the u.s. EPA's data- ....~ on the socpe of the RI work plan an:! to ;indeperdent data
reviews. '!he PRP group has provided o.......MIts, on the FS an::l the PL~
plan for ~i ~, action, whid1 are addressed in the attached
responsiveness snmrMry.
D. lhmamitv Particimtion
Pursuant to sectia1S 113 (k) (2) (b) (i-v) an::l 117 of CERCIA, the Shelby
Township ~nUty has participatai in the remedy selection pzocess, in
that:
- Prior to art:I ];11blic meetin:J, a press release was sent cut to the local
media an::l an advertisement anncuncin:J the meet.in:J was placed in the
Clinton Advisor, . a local paper of general circulation;
- Public meetin:Js were held in May 1984, September 1984, an:i Qct:d:)er
1988, anncuncin:J the socpe of the different stages of the RI;
- A public meetin:J was held in March 1990, anncuncin:J saDe of the
fin:iirr3s of the RI;
- '!he G&H Ian:lfill info:nnation repositmy has been kept up to date with
site dOt"!1mP1'1ts. An administrative re:cord ~ the RI an:i
FS LqJOrts an::l other doct11'llPT1ts was placed in the site info:nnation
repositmy, whid1 is lcx:atai at the Shelby Township Library;
- '!he lo'L~ plan was released for ];11blic 0CIIIDel1t an:i was placed into
the Administrative Record on August 20, 1990, with the 30-day ];11blic
<> ....~ period scheduled to em on September 18, 1990. A Notice of
Availability of the pr'qX)Sed plan was pJbli.shecl, in a local paper of
genera1 circulation, prior to the release of the PL~ plan;
- A pJblic meetin:J was held on August 28, 1990, proximate to the site, at
whid1 the U. s. EPA an::l the Mt'NR presented the results of the RI/FS arx:i
the PLq.OSE!d plan to the cammmity an::l received oral cxmnents (which
are addressed in the Responsiveness SUmma.zy). A transcript of the
public meetin:J was recorded an::l placed in the Administrative Record arx:i
6
-------
.
site infamatiCl1 repositmy;
- '!be u.s. EPA received a timely request to extend the public a:}!..._..t
period by 30 days. SUbsequently, the public cn..._td. period was
ext.erx8:i until October 18, 1990; am
- '!be U.S. EPA has received written o",".-Itls ~ the pl.~ plan,
whid1 are addressed in the attac:t1ed Respons1veness Slmmary.
E. SCXXJe of the Selected Remedy
'!be U.S. EPA has identified the principal threats to 1nmIan health am the
envira1ment at the G&H lanifill site to be the graJrdwater contaminant
plume am the solventjoil-oa1taminated soil am lamfill debris in the
B1ase I lanifill area. '!he solvent/oil-oa1taminated soil am lanifill
debris are the major sources of graJrdwater contaminaticm. '!be B1ase n
and B1ase In lanifill areas are considered to be a lower-level, lcn;-
tem threat, primarily as a further source of graJrdwater contaminaticm.
As di t=l("J1Ssed herein, the selected l:~~Y is anticipated to be the final
~ial altemative to be :iJ!plemented at the site; therefore, no further
RI is plarmed. '!he graJrdwater plume, a principal threat, will be
t:J:eatecl in aooordanoe with aa>licable or relevant am ~~iate
requiJ:ements of Federal am State law. In additiem, the U.S. EPA
considers CD1tairIIIent of the solvent/oil-oantaminated soil am lanifill
debris, whid1 is the source of graJrdwater oantaminaticm arxl is also a
principal threat, to be the Da;t practicable l=w=dy at this time.
However, a periodic (5 years) review of emerqin:J trea'bnent technologies
will be perfomed to det:emine if any sud1 technologies could be
effectively ~lied to treat the solvent/oil wastes.
F. SUmmarv of Site O1a.racteristics
Pursuant to its authority umer CERCIA,- am based upon previous
investigations by the State am the U.S. EPA, available site records, am
site charact:eristics (i.e., a large municipallanifill), the U.S. EPA
cxn:lucted an RIfFS at the G&H site. '!he RI, whid1 was oorducted in three
stages, was directed at the follc::JWin]:
- telineatirq the areal eXtent, directicm am rate of flOttl, am d1emical
~'I>ositicm of the graJrdwater contaminant plume at the lan:ifill;
- Det:e1:minin; the locatiem(s), number, am ocn:lition of buried 55-gallem
di~ dJ:ums within the lanifill;
- Det:e1:minin; areal extent am levels of soil contamination within am
arourx:l the lanifill;
- Det:e1:minin; the ocniitiem of the current cap; arxl
- Det:e1:minin; the iIlpact of the graJrdwater, lanifill debris, am soil
contamination em human health am the envirornnent.
7
-------
'!he RI goals were met 1:hrco;Jh the DUltistage ~~am of groomwater
mnit:.or--Mell :inst:allatia1S am sanplin}, soil borin3s am sanplin},
geqi1ysical investigations (el~l.&.~ducti.vity am magnetaDeter
surveys), b::~dl excavation in the lan:lfill (test pits), lan:lfill gas
sanplin}, air mnit.orin;J, cap investigatia1S, am surface water am
f¥IIM;1IPI'!t sanplin} in the wetlams environment. In addition, the MrNR
ccn:lucted a SlWlemental Investigation (SI), durin;J the stage III RI, to
aid in the evaluation of the site. M:1itional mnitor well, lan:ifill
gas, surface water, am surface soil ari1 een;mPJ]t sanples were taken to
augJ1P.1'1t the RI.
'!he followin;J cxn:titioos were ctserved at the G&H site:
1. ~loav
'!here are two groomwater aquifers beneath the lan:lfill: these are
designated as the I~I am "lower" aquifers. '!he ~ aquifer is
unconfined am consists of fine to gravelly sam that raR]eB fran 7 feet
to 46 feet in thickness. '!he sam 1.D1it is generally thicker to the north
am northwest am thins cut towards the scuthwest. '!he groomwater in
this aquifer generally flows in a scuth-scuthwesterly direction, towards
the wetlams am the Clinton River, at an average rate of flow of 60 feet
per year, with a raIXJe of 30 feet per year to 300 feet per year. On the
western side (R1ase ilI lamfill area) the flC7N direction is westerly,
towards the Clinton River (see Figure 3a). A rnmi:er of the residerx:ss
east of Ryan Read ~ize the ~ aquifer as a water SUWly.
An aquitard separates the ~ aquifer fran the lower aquifer. '!he
aquitard consists of a lacustrine am glacial till 1.D1it ran;Jin} fran 20
feet to 110 feet in thickness. '!he lacustrine senlmP.I'1ts consist of
thinly laminated fine sama, silts, am clays, whidl were deposited on
tq> of the glacial till. '!he till is heterogeneQ.1S: it contains thin,
c1i.scxJntinuaJ sam am gravel seams in -the generally clayey am silty
deposits, althcu;h a 4-foot-thick gravel seam was encountered in one soil
Dorin} al
-------
----
... -----
- --
-
t
. -
. I
--..
-.. ....
.,." ...--a...--
=- :...:.:='
",_-...
~--
-
-
----
.--
-
__8 U""'8II1WCI/.
-
'....----..
-_no
--"""""'"
Figure 3a: GraJrdwater flow direction - uwer aquifer.
2. Iamfill
Operations at the G&H lan:1fill resulted in three phases of fill. '!he
largest pw;e, the R1ase I lan:1fill area, is awroximately 44 acres in
size. Generally, R1ase I cxmtains 5 feet to 10 feet of residential trash
over1yin;J 5 feet to 10 feet of :in:lustrial solid wastes. Because of the
oil an:i solvent disposal cperations, there is a layer of oil floating on
the water table. '!he oil is intennixed with the :in:lustrial solid waste I
an:i cq::proximately 2 feet to 10 feet of oily soil lies beneath the
:in:lustrial refuse.
'!he B1ase II an:i R1ase III lan:1fill areas consist mainly of residential
trash. R1ase II cxmtains approximately 15 feet to 20 feet of refuse arrl
9
-------
, .
R1aSe III cxmt:ains ~tely 30 feet to 40 feet of :refuse.
3. ~.Mni~tia1
a. San'ce Areas
Based at the :results of soil borin:Js and test pits, it has been
detetmined that the Ehase I landfill area has been, and ocnt:.im1es to be,
a massive scuroe of gramiwater oantaminatian. organic contaminants,
ocnsistin:) of (in general) benzene, ethy1benzene, toluene, and xylene
(BEl'X) v.'!,>OJnjs, polymJClear araoatic (PNA) o..'loorm, and ct1lorinatej
volatile organic 0.'\ am:3s (VOCs), are faJ1'd within the landfill :refuse
and in the soil just below the:refuse. organic oontaminatian is very
widesp1:ead in the Ehase I landfill area (see Figures 3b-3d). Based an
the l:imited sanplin] in the Ihase II am Ihase III landfill areas,
organic oantaminatian is oot as prevalent in these areas.
'!he highest BEl'X canoentrations in the Ehase I landfill area soil/debris
were above 10,000 Dg/kg. A large portion of Ehase I had soil/debris BEI'X
oonoentratians in the 100 Dg/kg to 10,000 Dg/kg rarge (see Figure 3b).
PNA canoentratians ran:JEd up to 880 Dg/kg in the Ehase I landfill area
(see Figure 3c), and ct1lorinatej VOC cance11tra.tians reached 4,030 Dg/kg
in a small area of Ehase I (see Figure 3d). Generally, the BEI'X
oontaminatian is IOOSt widespread, followed by the less mbile PNA
oantaminatiCl1. O1lorinated VOC oantaminatiCl1 is nme prevalent in the
southeastern portian of Ehase I, where solvent n;~ pits ~y
were concentrated. BEl'X oantaminatian was faJ1'd in the soils below the
water table in the. in:iustrial area to the east of the landfill. Since no
such contaminants were faJ1'd above the water table in this area, the BEI'X
oontamination ~ to be :related to the G&H landfill.
other chemical 0. ~I'l am groups of concern include inorganics (metals) and
FCBs. In general, the Ehase I landfill area is the largest source of
inorganic oontaminatian at the site. Metals sud1 as barium, nickel,
chranium, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and merc::u%Y are present at levels above
their backgroun::l (naturally cxx:::un-in]) levels. FCBs were detected in a
number of test pit sanples fran the Ehase I landfill area: canoentrations
ran:JEd !ran 0.4 Dg/kg to 180 Dg/kg. Generally, the highest PCB
canoentrations were faJ1'd in the areas with high BEl'X, PNA, and
ct1lorinated-VOC levels.
'!he estimated volume of ''hat spats" within the Ihase I landfill area is
800,000 cubic yards, based on the extent of significant organic chemical
(Le., BEl'X, PNA, VOCs) oantaminatian (see Figure 3e).
b. Grc:urx:lwater
A gramiwater oontaminant plume, oonsistin;J of bath organic and inorganic
~, is present in the lJR)eI' aquifer urxier nearly the entire G&H
landfill. '!he plume has migratej at least 1000 feet fran the soothern
ejge of the Ehase I landfill area. '!he leadin:3" edge of the contaminant
plume ~y is dischargin; into the wetlams (see Figure 3f). '!he
10
-------
North \.
t \"
\\
.. .'.
~_XIllATI' """ i..,... ~.,.....\.
" U8IIFIET " '" "-'.
ICA . .,,' . .:" .
. / ;..i"~.., I '"
I .;...,..
r
l.. .~TI""IMI
\....
':.
~
~
~~~
\
IfTl! I.
-
-
CJ
D
100 to '0.0110
-"':1. II"''''.''
III HTI
PHASE RI
LANDFILL
~III
\ ".
... III...
\..IIf~'''''I''
~. ~
\ ~
., -
i~..j~(O...
\ ':
.\\
.'\'"
\.
.",
"\;.
"
"
'--\
\.
(
i
,.
'.
".
..'.:. "'"
':~"I(.....'~
. HIli.'"
.
='-1'1.'"
"..
"
111_..
111-
" .
UOEMJ
1OTAlIlENlENE'TOlUfH£ .
EnMlIE':ou-
XYlENES TIONS ,_01
COHCENTRA
. 10.000
ff'J1' . . . :.
., .e .
. =... '''-Gi
..
:~~:.,
/........
""""".',
.
,
,
,
"
. CtN'.ON 'lI""t"..".1Oo C"~,,,- .
'0 TO .00
cl TO 10
'.
Figure
source
areas.
3b:
BETX
-------
~
\. '. '..,..; --.. e ......., "ESlD£NTIAL A"EA
North ,. " , ~..;:::;::. - .
t ", ~: '~,',,' e-. ---::..~.~,. .' ,.~ . ~~.~,~-:~.~~....~!~~~~ ..:~~=;:_::- '--'r-:-
'- \' '''''''''''''''''''-'-'>-4'.:.0'''' . .\r.r.-:-..~/ '-'-'-.-. - ... 17.7.",1....../.............1.....1....... " "
~ j» .';..~' " ",' \ ,/:<~:-,~,l '\, ,O~.,,'.:...9: ..., """T~:::;:~:-,::.~, i ,".':':.:,'\
AH'IIOXlMAn / ", " ,~ ';,-",,,' . ,,'" . '.' . ~ . . . . . . .. I~J ~'..,. ' t
ICALI .. fUT ,. '- . ~ \ . I ..' \ .", . I. . ., .......... 11 . " , e . , ,
"'/ ; ,..,.....::".., "''-'''''~;; ",,' :,a I:::: :::::::::::. . :" ',.', 1,,-
. 1 '. " ',', '. -..~ . . , ,. . .. ' , . . . . . . , . . . .\ ,I . ,. -,-
" ."..,....." ... ,:.1 '; "r \', I . . . ~ - . . , . . . . .... . r :' : AuTOIoIOIII..E
..... : I ~ .....,." "" ::a I. :-- .' :; ;-:....: : : : ~ I: \., ~ . DISPOSAL. .
\ :' : I. ',,"'" "Q. ./,... "P"~I;"':\'NDFIt.L :i, YARD I
..... . .."-"0. '" '.. . . I 'cl "..,.LI\ . ..
, \. ~ " ~ """.,,' <~;... ::"0 ' , , . ' : :~ c. : ;
\ '\, t::~~ ~,. "'....~.,::~:':.':"~"':,>.",~ ~" "'" ' ~ \ ~ '",81-. 11
\ 0. --.t: I : ...~I.' '" '-1'\1'1 .. TNJ . . . " .
". :.. ~ I ~ :;... .,...e, "" - c~ ' "1 e:;" ~ 'j I
e'. cD!.:' "" """ ' ~
'\.. \ )' " .' ,..,....,. ,Q:"~~.". -.81 ,: ~ ~
: ':j f/ .0.,.'"' '.-.--b---a-'-": ~
'\ \ - ",,! .........,. ", ,.,::- ~:.. [ .~- I ~' I
e, ....,.... : , ," PHASE II lANDFilL "" ' ,(I' . . .'" . ..
~ . . . -""'. '-Q.j-ij;. ~
r~:.:.,,::>. ".. :~' _I 0
'..... ... I -:>--- ',,'. In ,INDUSTAlAL,
.. "'" ......,....... .. """''''''''''I''r:''''''''''X~~~''-::!', IP,' ,,; AREA 0
OIl - OMI.~~. J1 . . . . 'L. C
8EE'AGEAAEA~. .I"'---~' ',' I.,,' '. .,' : ',;~ :~'I -.,., ~
_,. -.....r . ,,' )0. ". .>:. ,l, 81 0 z
~ X ' " " '1't.~., I: 0 C
.~>' . .' GalA.I ,. " -::-.... I rc
81 G~~~~1;C:~':7!J 2':<\~',/.Q, ~,--,--; ~~;...: ~ 'l
" ..... ' . - -~;. :-. .'.';: \' >-:.~.:~.~.. ~~~""'1.~1t I ,.", /","
, ,I, , ..... '-', "'.........'
. '. -<':i.' !~~ :. ~~ .~,~-'.' \" . I...,:>:.. """'-.
~-"":: ..,"''''. "'~~""........)
~. '- "'. ~. 'Y}.'!' f
',eoomu.c: .. ",' _:~-":-'. ::, .". .1 i ',;;, t ,:-.
, -.u 81 ~. I i\ 1\"'"
~o".IL4t...."Zoo .. 0 '\~ j U I
.......81 - C~-4t.., "" 1:1
81 -'. .;', . :,,' ,\;1"
OttISA.I ". . " .1; :;. I
..-. "'=~ -fll~
~<
'~~+
\
.-'/
........
. .
, ,
- '. I'" /~
':"~')\\
. <...'
..
"\ "".-
''''Z,:, ',\,
", \. \;~,
.. )il
, it
-:!..' -- " '.. .
.---.--- -.
'"
'\
'""
'""
"~.
81
-
, /
-,-
,;
"
. .
--
LEGEND
.<:-:'
"- -.
PNAG.14
roTAL POLYNUCL£A"
AROMATIC COIoIPOUIID
CONCENTRATIONS IIoIGIKOI
PMA CONCENT"A TIONS (11011(0)
_.100
- '0 TO 100
OITOIO
Figure
3c:
PNA.source
areas,
-------
I-'
w
oil", \
II It II ~i'---- -'--.- j \... ----, -----..-----.,.-
1\ \I /I " ~-"-'::.:---"-- -,-, 23."LERO~,.__-_.
"1"1 , I. ~~""::,-:::-.".- - ......-.----..- ,',,-.--=v=--- . 1\ r.-' -.-
\ ~,.. ........,u"'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' / \ II. .".."..1\;----::'-. --=- .-1 ~..~.'i'U'h'"'' .......u.... It.. ........ ...........
". ."...\ \ /1 :' ''''..''''''"1.,.... . ..UII . ::.
,I; ~\ Jl/J,::'~ =
...., ,~~ :1 0"... :' /0('\':
, \.: NO. Q:I , ~(...~ ",'f'" : i
,/ I e,..... t :t ;. ....,,, '.~\
,/v-; " ,... ,I," j.
\:." (4,030) , ~ "\
, / \ '..... .. " \
,', '-~~.~- ...........~'" \ \
. ,'" ~ '.' \ I
"Co '\~, ...~ \
1 1 "~.,. \
I , "'" \ \
I , I ~I'#'I \
I J.'-" "" '" \' - ---
\ - I, "'1, \' /.......~,
I I:: """ I,"'" \\ I. . . , , . . . . . , - PHASE IlAHOfIU.
'; ,.I: - ". ". , ! o~"'...." \ /: : .;:,: : : :: : :: :::- ~ ~:: ::~:: ::--: :--"
'Jr \. . ".,...., ". I: . '11" . . . ,,.. , . , . . . , . .,
~~/I; ~ ,..,....." ,""" \ t::::""":::::::::"~~:::::::::::».,
j \ , "". '" ,""" /, , . . : : : . . . . . . . .. .......::::::::::::::::: :--"
~ ' "'" ... "'." , ' , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , ."
~ I 0 200 ""'" '... "J..,.. I: : : : : ,,": : : : : : : : : : ,\
i I' I "'" -, "" \-".. (4) . . . , , , , . . , , ,\
3 I 8CAlEIIF££T "".,/, I.... ""'')' : , : : ~: : . . ' , , : : : : ..""" ' ,
3 I ... - -- - 1;'" ....... I '»).",.. .. .. .. .. .. , . ,(27) . \
3 .' / / - -'...., """"" " ''';'>.~ : : : : : .. .. .. .. .. .... :: "
/= I """'....... " "I, I ",,' . . . . .
~I .. '.............., " '#"" "..,"':-::.,;.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::J .~-.-
, : , :. ""',", .'.' "',~ '11);........................... .. n-a ~ 0,-
: I : ,'I "" -.... '1)"...." '<' 'M . , , . . , . . , . . ,. "") ,
: : ...' / I "',.,:, '~'1),""'" (11) . . . , , , . . , , . . . . . , j'"
E: ; I "--.:-...' """'", '1'17,~,~:,:::::::::::::::,:: ::: :1 :
: I : 'PHASE'LANDFlLl "" "I ">:;...' . , , , , ~.' . . , P PI' . , " '/ :
: I : II "'" ....... "1;-'" ~ ,_. ,. (22.." " :
: : \ \ I,., "" '1i';~:..-': """ .... of :
- 1 ... - - -.. *', ','I,o:!.:" . .. .... . .
~ , ~ / \ - - - - - - - - -:. -:. -:. -:. -:. -:. -:. ::..::. -:. -:. :::::. -:. -:. -:. -:. - - (- .;. ~~,.- ....... 7."" " . : : : , . : : : : : . .- . "
: \ :/ ,,'" ,"::.'='-::'-:'-=-------- ~~''''.,~. ..., TPn ~
I -= 1" II' /." I, ""';;''''':::: 16) : ~ (202)
0'- lor """"''t\':'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''o~''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.............., ............""".., .... "'~ ;"'';;,';!l. . . . : : ~\ -
, "- II . .' :t,,, 1",,,,,,, . . . . . . \ ':
I II :EPAGE ,. ( I" .:---~. ~ ~z. ,~~~~~: : ) (); "I
LEGENO =::.r:=CIIG*DI AREA~ . , / ' ..! !,"'", ;,. "y~~ 'J::..,. (:~i :
o IIOIllIOANO - .100 r' /" . ' 0 , "'~. '", ""'" '. :
/ '. t: I ". -
. UONIYOAINOWEU ~, .. ., .. .. .. 110100 ~'~:..>-rf"-f'" ~<';': 'i., ;'.' i~-(' .~:-- "/,."""""l
''''' CI '£5' Pit L..:...:...:..J ,\.... , ,. :, , , I" r' ,,'. .:~ '" " ,
(111) "',',> .. , I ill; I- . - /...., "-.:: ~
L-.. CHlORINATED I/OC
COHeE NIRA "ON IUG/I(G)
~. .".
"..*' - 0
() ,.....
(et)
AUTOMOBILE
DISPOSAL
YARD
. ,
:~ :: ;.: _0,.
.. .
- .'
CD-DISPOSAl,
AREA
CSOlVEHTS)
D
c
..
Figure
3d:
Chlorinated
areas.
VOC
source
-------
0, ... '. i, '~J \. 23-MILEROAD
~~/?r~~'~"'"':'~''''\9~)~~~:>.''>''''''''''M7'''''''''''"'k'~~,~-:
~.'."'r...., ''', >.. ~-~ ",. \ \. ::,~ " '~i" "-
.....~ -. '. r:t,fi,; .. .. ..1 : ..... ....
n.. -t '\} .,X '--. ' \. " : l: l
: i J '~f..... \\ !t : j~ A~=~
: ! f ..... 'I.. -."4 \.. . PHASE I LANDFILL !I i.:- ~'- . YARD.
: j! : '".''' ...~ """" .~\ . ~'/.. . - -' .~ ;-'/;/'
PHASE II : )! : .'.'" "l.. "'''.. . ! (
t.ANDFILL fo',/" ~ A....., ""''':''''''' ,\ !!
-, I! : '" /. '" I \
i...r, : ".'" ""..,1"'..,:1 1/ '.~.:::
! ! : t..... '-, "';" ,~! i',
: , : "" ". ..'" .: r,
J ; : '.'1; '.... ,.',". 1 "
: ~ / f 1-:: =: .':.\. ,', :i "1..." 1."
: /;:: i : ":~ ~. 1 "'"
.. . / -I .. .~ ~ ;7
\ -./.~:! ~~~/
;.. :\ : 11
:. ~ \ i ,\ PHASE II LANDFILL
\\: ~!\ j/~.\~~-=- -= ::.":.-:::'= =.-=.: =. :=.~:::.-:::'
:'\\".'" .: ,. -I.-::..~..u...........
\~ \ ..........' : \; "".n..."""'''''''''U''''
!\ \ ,\
OI~
SEEPAGE A
o~-
. I
SCALE II FEET
~ ~ 8l
"'. .~
.."..
.~. ~6r...
<1".. '. ..:.',..' ~ , :
'."." ... :.
""... ...
'"
::::. -:: :-:.: ;;'~'. ~-::. ,..
.... ..f..... ~ ....
.."
! .'
:r ~. ~ .-'l;f-. ~
nEA ,>, '::;;( ~ j ~}!rl ~'>, ". .'. "..~
/J..~~:~, 'v, U ,."";t,,/ "'" "......
, . ~': i': ..
-~.-
<"I~':~:' ~:C.~:~l;'.-4
no
~ I
~i
:.i -
~._-)J/:~7ii'! ,:~~ ~< ,<'1.(~ ~
/
Figure 3e: J:base I lardfill az:ea "hot spots."
highest oCb..~uLLaticm of cantami.nants is located in the soot:heastezn
porticm of the site near the oil seeps, which correlates with the
irdust.ria1 solvent rH~ pits in the lardfill. '!he tcp of the upper
aquifer contains the highest levels of cantami.nants, with lower
oa~tu.atia1S fourn at depth. No cantaminaticm was fc:un:i in the
lacustrine/till unit or in the lower aquifer, except at a sinJle grourx:l-
water scmplin;J point in the lower aquifer, in a locaticm oort:h of the
lardfill, that intemittently showed traces of xylene ani ethy1benzene,
i. organic O:m:aminants
'!he predaninant organic v .''1
-------
Noftht \. \; !t~~ .~ "..~ I l "SID'~"ALA'"
".."I,I} -.~ - 23.UllEROAO
... "', ""''''''''''''''''''''''''''..... . /1 :-............., -.. ;;.........,;......,........,.. .,...m..-,.;;;, -.--.- "!,-", [
. - ~\., ~ .;p/, .. - - ..H..t.:.:... 11 i . c ~
L I . ,OIL ~I /-' .... : I
a.-...ox8lAn #t!'....-~ \1. IE 1 'r.'~" i."
ec:au8lAn " '1.: ~ , \ .
'..- "''''''''''.'~' '- '''.::...... .....~
,........; '. ~, --r;
...,., ! I~ '>'"
( i II ,''''t, ""... -~
~. ; ~; i "'.'" ~ ..
."~ !-r,'! -'
\ \. : ..
\
\\
. ~
\ 'i
:. "i '"
~i ..:~.............. I
J: \ , ,
..' 'v, \ !:
.// \'. '.... ~
/'"" .." "'--1,
~':-",: ..~ :.~. \~ - ""\\~'::.....
" . "'.. ,\ '\ -"::.....
.~. r ,':: ", ~~~ \\ \, '~,
/"-:-' '-' ...-' ",' " ~.......-_I '....--;.:'-:'-:::-
, / -..- \ \ . I' -+ I~.....r....-...-_,":
'. I'''''" ot-~,:e/ ..~ "-
'\... ',1"-'-:..:...-:........
'-. \. .)' ""'.::-_--::::;:...::--::::....-::~,-..
..",,:,:-""7":.:..:-:-..:..:.~_......... ) L':'/ ""'-
1/ '-~;:";:
II .(.
II
,;,
-
\
If-
~\
....
J !
"
""
I:J z
n c
. ... -.-:':::"~~\~l
. . I
.. ~
-... ...:. ,
- .--- .~:. - -
.'- ..,...",",\
..-'/':...-:";r: ',' .
. ~.;.. ~<:.~ . . [
-."'" -- ~C~~~t~~J[
----------- ~-~ --- ,
\, ....::'----------_'80.: - -
'\\",~'" "---... "j
II .
II
""....."
22. MILE ROAD ~
..-
-
C~~~j
-1t£JmNTt:#
_OIONATfO
VOl: CClNTAYNAT1ON"
OIIICIUNDWATIA
~TI (lYlNT~.n
CONT,.,...."ICJriI"
QIIIQUNOwATtR
"-
,
'"
".
Figure 3f: Groun:!water contaminant pllnne.
hydrocarlx:ms in the URJer aquifer was foun:1 to be 10;400 ug/L (ppb)
separate m::mitor well.
ina
ii. Inorganic COntaminants
'!he prbnazy inorganic c::atpOU1'Ds of concern, in relation to human health
arxi enviroranent:a1. concerns, are barium (maximum concentration of
5,990 ~) arxi arsenic (maximum concentration of 316 ppb). In general,
adverse levels of inorganic contaminants are foum in the same area as
the organic 'c::atpOU1'Ds.
c. oil SeeD
A natural groun:iwater seep is located near the railroad right-of-way
15
-------
south of the B1ase I lan:1fill area arxl east of the R1ase II lan:1fill
area. '!he waste oil which was d:isp:)sed of in the R1ase I lan:1fill area
is also seepin; Qlt arxl has been the subject of three of the four re:rova.l
actions. Samples showed BEI'X (up to 9.0 ngjkg), PCB (up to 526 ngjkg),
arxl mA (up to 138 ngjkg) L1_.,,'l>OUn:is to be in the oil layer. Sedilnents in
the oil seep area were also contaminated with these CCI'l'pOI.]1'X3, with the
higher exu:::elttrations foun:l closest to the seep area. '!he surface
waters at the seep area were analyzed for these CCI'l'pOI.]1'X3, but at higher
detection limits due to the presence of the floatin:] oil. D.1e to the
high detection limits, only one sample was foun:l to oantain xylene (at
1 Dg,Ikg) . However, lesser values of BEI'X arxl chlorinated voc-
CXI1taminants were foun:l in poms sa1th arxl east of the seep area, alon;
the Clint:a1-Kalamazoo Canal, arxl in the Clinton River.
d. surface Soil/Sediments
A total of 61 surface soil samples (0 feet to 3 feet) was collected
durin; stage II arxl stage III of the RI arxl the MDtR SI. PCBs were
detected in 12 samples, all but one of which were on site. '!he highest
concentration detected was at 2.2 ngjkg. '!he off-site sample, which had
a PCB value of 0.38 ngjkg, was taken fran near 23-Mi.1e Road.
PCBs, BEI'X, mA, arxl inorganic contaminants were detected in ~i'Tl¥>1'1t
samples taken in arxl arcl.D'Xi the oil seep area. Generally, concentrations
decreased with inc::reasin:J distance fran the seep area. concentrations of
PCBs ran:Jed fran non-detection to as high as 74 ngjkg in the seep area.
e. T Pi'tc:hate
I.eac:hate fran the R1ase III lan:1fill area is contaminated with BEI'X (up
to 65 ug,/L), metals, arxl several semi -volatile organic CCI'l'pOI.]1'X3. '!he
leachate is flc:JWin:] towards the Clinton River.
4. Larofill CaD
'!he soil covers on each of the lan:1fill areas do not confoDn to current
larxifill closure requirements. '!he soil cover on the R1ase I lan:1fill
area consists of 0.5 feet to 3.0 feet of mainly silty sarxl or silty sarxl
with gravel. '!he R1ase I larxifill area has many surface depressions
which hold porrled water for short Periods of time until the starxlirg
water percolates into the urxierlyin; soil arxl grourdwater. '!he potential
for precipitation infiltration through the rest of the R1ase I soil caver
is high, based on observed surface conditions.
'!he potential for precipitation infiltration through the R1ase II arxl
B1ase III larxifill areas is low to IOOderate, based on obsetved
CXJndi.tions. Generally, the soil covers are 1. o-foot to 3. o-feet thick
CNer eadl area. '!he R1ase II lan:1fill area cover soil consists mainly
of silt with sarxl or silty clay, arxl the R1ase III lan:1fill area soil
cover consists mainly of samy silty clay. Both soil covers have surface
depressions, whidl terxl to hold pomed water until it infiltrates through
the cover soils, in some areas of the site.
16
-------
5. Test Pits
FoDDer larx1fill employees have inticated that solvent wasteS were usually
transported to the site in 55-gallon drums ani that the drums were
11oC:!1,~1 ly enptied into the solvent pits ani kept for reuse or resale.
in a while a full drum wculd fall into a solvent pit ani these drums
not reocvered. Based on the test pit results, 55-gal1on drums are
scattered ~ the R1ase I larxlfill area, but no discrete drum
~ area could be fourn. }b;t of the drums fourd were obse1:ved to
be either crushed. or partially crushed., severely rusted, or leakirg,
althcu3h saoe were cbserved to be intact.
Once
were
6. Waste Decth
'!he average depth to the water table an:l of waste d;~ is 15 feet to
20 feet in the R1ase I larxlfill area. As a result, refuse ani waste oil
are in direct contact with grouniwater aver much of the area (Figure 3g).
\.
23 . MILE ROAD
!!
!! .. m;;"m.';;tr--:-=
!!.\.. /'{--'
~,..... ,-\\
. '\ ~. ..
:1j 1 .. /,:::::....
~:i A!n~
:!~ DISPOIAl
-~. f: \~::. .....'~~ .'/
-:::.'. r :--'
: ' I
: I,
i 1\
: II ".,.,
: f! '\f-
~ 1/ ;1
: ~ \
\ .
l~-
=-, D
-..-; ........itiTi"'t ......~""i'i7'ii .
DlLI"OIIDNO.1
CmH~
PHASE m
LANDFILL
c:o.«!IPOUl
AREA
(SOlVElml) ~,
"',
i20IIID
..
IlURlED WASTE AREAS IDEImFlED 10 IE ... DIRECT
~t~~~.r::.D:~~Ztm:A1&1I
o~-
. I
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3g: waste in contact with grouniwater.
17
-------
I c
.
7. Iandfi 11 t'".;:II!CI
Gas pld)es installed by the MDm .irW.cate that lamfill gas (methane) is
~ sent :in sufficient quantities in the lamfill so that it will need to
be aaD:essed durin:j the iDplementation of artf ~;,,' action at the
site. Air sarrplin:j did not detect FCBs, pesticides, or semi-volatile
organic o.,1..oon:m (SVCCs) in the aJJt>ient air. Generally, the excavation
of test pits in the Ibase I lamfill area had the greatest effect on ~
a:t-=a1w.atians :in the atmJsphere downwiJn of the test pits, na;t notably
that of methylene c:b1oride am the BETX. 0 .'Io.m:m. Hcwever, the limited
1'IJIIi:m' of sarrples am the varied results do not shew a wide eIDJgh
variance to detemine the effect of the lamfill oant:aminants on ambient
air quality, absent excavation of the lamfill contents.
G. St'III"I'IATV of site p; !CI1cs
Pursuant to the National COl'1tin:Jency Plan (NCP), a baseline risk
as«:::oo~ was perfomedbased on unaltered c:xntitians at the site, as
CX'I'1t.eJIplated by the No Action Altemative (see section 5 of the RI
l.eport) . '!be No Action Altemative as.-CI1~ that no corrective action
will take place an:! that no site use restrictions, such as fencin3',
zanin3', am drinki.rg water restrictions, will be ;~. 'n1e risk
assO!'C!I'ftOJ'1t then deteImines actual or potential risks or toxic effects the
d1emical ccntaminant:s at the site pose urrjer current am feasible future
larrj-use a9-c:l1II{1tians. As detailed in the RI report, the foll~
as-CI11r1{1ti.ans were made:
- No ~i"J actions will be taken;
- No off-site grcmxlwater use restrictions will be enforced;
- '!be ~ aquifer in the recreational area salth of the lamfill may be
utilized as a drinki.rg water source;
- Adjacent off-site deve1l.Jl-W=1it my oantinue to occur; am
- GrcuJ'dwater contaminant coramtrations will not decrease aver a
f~~;"hle pericxi due to the ~ of the massive contaminant
scurce in the lamfill.
1. Ch:!micals of Concern am Toxici tv AsS9SC!I'ftOT1t
~tely 108 different chemicals on the u.s. EPA Target carr-m:l
List ('la,) were detect:e:i in water or soil sanples at the site. As
d;c:t"\JSsed in the RI report, the site asS9S~ process allC1NS for this
massive list of CXIIpOOl'Xis to be pared down to a mre manageable list of
Representative ~ ('rable 1). '!he in:lusion of each .irW.cator
d1emical :in Table 1 was based on its relative cancentration, frequency of
detection, am toxic effects, as well as whether an environmental
stamard or criterion (such as a Federal dr:inkin;-water stamard) exists
for the chemical. Inclusion of a ~ on the list of Representative
Cat1pCA.1n:ls irrlicates that ~ia1 controls that nay be applied to a site
18
-------
should mitigate exposure to the ~~'I-wrxl(S) in groundwater, soils,
surface water, or the wet.lan::ls.
'!he risk A"'~~~ considered the cumulative effects of 69 of the 108
cbem:icals fourxl in saDples cbtained iran the site. After t:.akin;J into
aooamt the relative ~, (X)l~rt:.t-cltions, am toxic effects of
these cbem:icals, the list of 11 Representative ~ in Table 1 was
generated to focus on the derivation of cleanup stan:1ams for the site.
Table 1
RepliS='ltlative ~
G&H Irdustrial :r.amfill
Ncn2rc.incxJens
Na}::t1thalene
Xylene
Ethy1benzene
lead
t"Arci.noaens
Benzene
Arsenic
Trid'lloroethene (TCE)
'Ietrad'lloroethene
1,2-Did'lloroethene (1, 2-IX::E)
Vinyl QUoride
FCSs
Four of the Representative CcIIpounds are J'D1CarCincgens, am the
re:nain:Ier are potential or known human carcimgens (cancer-causirg
agents). Acute (short teDn at high (X)l~ltrations) or chronic (lCDJ tenn
at low concentrations) exposure to ead1 of these chemicals leads to
variC11S toxic effects (documented in Table 5-3 of the RI report).
2. Human HAA 1 th Excosure Pathways
'!he followin] exposure pathways have been identified as beiD; potential
or actual exposure pathways of prUmy ooncern for protection of human
health at the G&H site: .
- Potential cune.a1t an::l future use of contaminated groundwater for
drinkin;J, bathinq, am other hoosehold uses;
- Potential future in;Jesti.on of am;or der.ma1 oont:act with on-site soils
CXI'Jtai.nirg d1emicals of ooncern; am
- Potential future direct contact with contaminated surface waters or
~;~ due to rec:reaticma1. use of the wetlarxis area.
'!he only exposure pathway detemi.ned to be of significance to the
enviralll8:t1tal risk analysis was groundwater discharge of ocntaminants to
the wetlarxis am the oil seep area. Both aquatic life am arrj consmners
19
-------
of "the affected aquatic life, i.rd.u:ti.r¥1 humans, cx:JUl.d be exposed to site
d1emicals via this pathway.
a. Gra.m:1water Use
'lhe in:lustri.a1 facilities to the soot:heast of the lan:lfill have wells
~ch cx:JUl.d witlmaw contaminated water fran the sam am gravel aquifer
at this time. '1hese wells are currently not utilized for drink:in;r (the
State has been SlJR)lyin;J bottled water to these facilities for several
years). BaDe of the residential wells east of Ryan Road had detectable
(trace) levels of chemicals in the water, but, currently, the
ccb.~uLLCitions are at acceptable levels (be1C1N Max:iJmJm Contaminant Levels
umer the Federal Safe Drinkin;J Water Act) .
'1he \JR)er sam am gravel aquifer, i.rd.ud:in] the portion that lies
beneath the lan:lfill, is a Class IIA water soorce, as defined in U.s.
EPA's Guidelines for Gra.m:1water Classification Utrler the EPA
Grool'rlwater Protection Stratecw (December 1986). A Class IIA aquifer is
an aquifer which is currently in use but which does not meet the criteria
. to categorize it as a Class I aquifer (e.g., an irreplaceable source).
'1he \JR)er aquifer is currently bein;J utilized as a drinkin;J-water source
crcss""9ZQdient (east) of the lan:lfill am could be used as a drinkin;J-
water soorce dowrr;Jradient (south) of the lan:lfil1.
b. Iarrlfill Waste Materials
'!be ~~ition of the lan:lfill soil covers am surface corxlitions aid in
the contamination of groun1water by not preventin;J precipitation
infiltration. SUrface water infiltrates through the lan:lfill covers into
the waste materials an:l leach contaminants out of the waste towards the
groun1water. '!be steep sideslopes of the R1ase II am R1ase III
lan:lfill areas lerxi themselves to erosional forces, which may expose
future site users to lan:lfilled wastes.
c. SUrface Conditions
'!he presence of contaminants such as PCBs on the surface of the lan:lfill
covers am in the oil seep area may expose site users to unacceptable
amunts of oontaminants, either by in;Jestion or denTal contact.
3. Risk Pathwavs an:l Calculations for HI.Irnan Health Excosure
. Usin] data generated durin] the RI, the U.S. EPA oorx:lucts a site-specific
baseline risk assessment to characterize the 0JITent am potential
threats to human health am the environment posed by site contaminants.
'!he in::lividual am Cl1ltD.l1ative threats posed by contaminant migration into
groun1water, air, soils, surface water, or bioaccumulatin] in the food
chain are evaluated in the risk assessment usin] U. S. EPA' s Risk
Assessment Guidance for SUperfurx3. sites. '!he results of the risk
assessment establish acceptable exposure levels for the Representative
~, which are then used to develop remedial alternatives in the
feasibility study.
20
-------
Toxic su1:Jst:ara!s may pose certain types of hazards to 1nJman amjor animal
populatia1S. 'IYPically, hazards to human health are expressed as
carcinogenic risks ani noncarcinogenic toxic effects. Carcinogenic
risk, mmerically presented as an exponential factor (e.g., 1 x 10-6), is
the in:::reased d1ame a person may have in contractin;J cancer in his or
her lifetime due to ~ to a carcinogen over his or her lifetime.
For exanple, a 1 x 10 excess lifetime cancer risk, calculated to
acocunt for a lifetime of drinJd.n;J water with a carcinogen in it, means
that a person's d1ame of CX>11tractin;J cancer due to drinJd.n;J the water
over hisjher lifetime is in:::reased by 1 in 1 million. '!he U. s. EPA
generally att:enpts to reduce the excess lifetime cancer risk at
SUperfurxl sites to a ~ of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 (1 in 10,000 to 1 in
1 million), with an Emphasis on the lower em (1 x 10-6) of the scale.
'!he Hazard Imex, an expression of non::arcinogenic toxic effects,
TIIP~!::IJreS whether a person is beirg ~ to adverse levels of non-
carcinogens. Mry HazardImex value greater than 1.0 suggests that a
nancarcinogen potentially presents an \.D1acx:ept:able toxic effect.
a. Grcunjwater
Each Representative Catp:Jurxi in Table 1 ~ either State grourxiwater-
cleanup criteria or Federal drinJd.n;J-water stamards. Figure 4 shows
selected site areas ani the associated risks due to the potential
iJx]estion of contaminated grourxiwater fran these areas. '!he st.aniard
risk ass'X{~ assunption (that an in:1ividual weighin:J 70 kilograms
(154 pounds) in;Jests 2 liters of water per day for his or her 70-year
lifetime) was used to detennine the potential risks. '!he results of the
calculation of risks usin;J chemical data fran in:1ividual monitor wells
represent a rarge of potential risks due to in;Jestion ani dermal
absorption of contaminants in the grourxiwater. '!he highest chemical
concentrations in in:1iviciual wells wculd represent a "worst-case"
scenario risk due to potential grourxiwater use.
As shown in Figure 4, at the G&H site, the target carcincqenic risk range
is ~~ in areas 2, 4, ani 5 (areas of plausible grourxiwater use) .
'lhus, the grourxiwater contaminant p1tnne is a principal threat since the
potential excess lifetime carcinogenic risk at the site (maxinnlm of
6 x 10-3) exceeds the target carcincgenic risk ran;Je that the U.S. EPA
considers to be adequately protective (1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6).
b. Soils am I.an:ifi11 Waste Materials
'!he risks posed by exposure to the contaminated soils or the 1arrlfil1
waste materials were calculated based on U. S. EPA' s st.aniard in;Jestion
rates for soils: over a 5-year time period, an in:1ividual weighin:J 70 kg
may visit the site once a week ani accidentally in;Jest 0.1 grams of soil
per visit. Dennal absorption of contaminants fran soils was assumed to
present a much lower risk in cc:mparison to in;Jestion ani, therefore, no
quantitative calculations were made. '!he maximum excess lifetime cancer
risk was calculated to be approximately 4 x 10-6 for in;Jestion of the
21
-------
.
surface soils in the B1ase I lamfill area. ('!he Michigan Enviranmental
Respa1Se Act 307 of 1982, as amemed (Michigan Act 307), umer the
exp:sure scenario listed therein, considers soils or $I='rlimP-11ts that
oantain greater than 1.0 Dg/kg (parts per million or AD) of PCBs to
present an unacceptable risk (greater than 1 x 10-6 excess lifetime
cancer risk) to potential receptors, usin;J Type B criteria. see
sectiCl1 L(2) .)
Additimally, the cantami.nated B1ase I larxifill area debris is oonsidered
to be a princ:ipal threat at the site. '!he oils and solvents are a
CXI'ttirual source of cantami.nation for the gram::lwater. DJe to the
urxm1:ainties associated with the B1ase n and B1ase In larxifill area
investigatias, the u.s. EPA has detemined that these portions of the
larxlfill pose a l~level, lcnrt:em tmeat. '!he RI cannot investigate
the entire 1an:lfill with test pits or surface saDplin;J points. Also,
future cap erosion cxW.d expose waste materials in these areas which
would pose unacceptable hazards to human health or the environment.
c. SUrface Wat-.A'r and g,:nimP.rrts
'!he gram::lwater c:x:mtaminant plume is ~y di.sc:hargin;J into the oil
seeps .area and towards the Clinton River wetlams, as site-derived
organic chemicals have been detected in a mmiJer of surface water and
~i1TlP1'Jt saDples taken durin; the RI. Except for the oil seep area and
K:B-oontaminated e;MimP.rrt:.s, the present human health risks associated
with this pathway ~y are at protect:.ive levels. Sha1ld the
gram::lwater c:x:mtaminant plume go urx:hec:ked, umer future oc:ntitions,
gram::lwater DJdellln;J est;imates that c:x:mtaminant di.sc:harge levels may
in:::rease. unacceptable risks to human health due to exp:sure to
oantaminants are projected altho.Jgh a quantitative risk value for future
use was net calculated. IDpacts of organic chemicals an aquatic life
were evaluated in the envi.ranmental ass~'""-"T1t secticm of the risk
assese:mPJ1t (see below) .
'!he oil seep area presents a Hazard Index of 153, which exceeds the
target prct:ective level (1.0) set for ncn::arcinogenic toxic effects. '!he
value was derived usin;J the assurrptian of an accidental exp:sure to the
oantaminants (e.g., fallin;J into the water). .
PCBs have been detected in soils or --ni1llP1'1ts (see Figure 9) other than
CNer the larxifill areas. As above, soils or --nimP.rrts contain:in;J greater
than 1.0 Dg/kg of PCBs present an unacceptable risk to potential
receptors. '!he highest PCB oanoeutratian detected was 74 ng,Ikg, which
presents a potential excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of awrcxiInately
1.3 x 10-4.
Inorganic (,u'i-oorxls (e.g., heavy metals sud1 as barium), however, wculd
terxl to aocl1ITI11 ate in sediments once they have reached surface waters.
01an;Jes in pi and axidaticm potential wculd terxl to precipitate metals as
insoluble hydroxides or cartx:mates, makin;J them available for
bioaCCUlJL1lation by plant or aquatic species. Inorganic oc::.upoun:)s are
awarently di.sc:hargin;J to the wetlams at this time. Oller the lon;J term,
23
-------
N
N
North . ;'\', ..",,1 \ 6 nrSlDENOALAnu ..-...,-....--..,..
t . , - ,,' ..-- -- 23, a.'llE ROl\O-,--..._.
\i"~f~:"AW'~\Al. ''::::::::::::~;.;JJ/,/' i'" ",.."'~,,. '- --- -- -'~~~~~-=~'-''''';~'~'~~'~'l''
... . - , ," .,: .or .""'.....'N --- 0:: -!,-,,,,,,,,,,,,q!
I I ''', ...~. f', ,'" '~,' .....:~~~'." :~s...._-------- ROO2X ;j "\ /.:. - """:"~.' ~
.. ,," fr." .c .'1- ". ....' . .. I
APPIIOXlMAn , ,..k, 'v"~'" .ADI. ~ ;,' i', ~7A , i
8CAUIliRET :' '" .. ~ " ',..',', 'Rl08 Rt04 " : ,.. \'. ,: J
'/ , . '''''' I, '~,' '. .',. . .:, , ,,, OH.7AIC ,"
: ... .., ,~.~... ",' ':.' .. " ". d" .-. . . ===
/ ft~..' ....., J" :~I ..,;, "\',' ,,' I ..~~.;..~ IJI
. "'""- .' .. . ','" ". .. '. .;: . ..v.-.-....arLliO ti :
. ..''''' I I!.';':'~ "'" ':', "" ' DISPOSAL ;"Ili
,':' ~J', ", """ ','. _7 ,'. :;,. YA!!.o....- I
'.. ,. ..' "'. " .. 1 S' "" .' w'.' :
\ / ';:'" "'<""" "" . P.iASE IlANDFlll,::-' ,,{ ("" I
", " ' : >", , I .,~7A ", 1M24 ,/' I! .5' ., I
.... J' PHASEnr ,,11: """ ' ":""" ',", R024 ,.,r2 . AW2. " 1\,' I'
. "lANOFIU ,', '.. ", !, ... ,.. "".'" I
. ..., I : ',4f, ", I'ft. ",'''.. ...- ,
" \ , 'i : " "" ,: . ... . !: ,!.- 5.'''''' I I
,. AUt I .. . {.. '-IJ. ; ", .
' I~' .. ~,8 .. ". .'OHbB." AWn I oRo, i\ -- .,:
.', . . .' J,. ", . . \ 2.,0-4 ';.,; ,!..
'L62 3 .. i ""';','. i,. """" . RWIO,. ~_I ,II' oJ
1 " ; , ; f :,' ">.:, .\",' <:"'" NIl.. ',,,' .'.' :i
,'" ~ .....~//':: ': ~ ~ Rll7 ~' "" . ('."'" ""'--"-""";;;:':;;;" .C""r." '. . ......,....J,! I
. " ;' 2.'v-: ' : ", . .': " ~. ~, ., ....,.., r!:L--"
, , -; "HI. ". . : ~ . ,,',. " ":--"" l c!.'IA,I.....I1a';;;J! is
"I}, '.::',.', E ',\, PHASEIlLAHDRU "':':'., ..' OA04 [.~~~J! II!
}.. '. \. cM~:I,C ~ """~'~ ;:':'-,." ','. "::.;"'..:':..: :,:... .":: ., ',.::.'::.::: '... ,:.. ":..:' , "::.:::. .. ,...' '..:"., ":.;' ~:~AW'~~,.!;,L:::'>(""-"'B .,............-...-.._~ !'n'.j 12'f",~~
\. i. ,~/ '''''''''''''''''''''' . . -;:0. '. ~" , ~_I. . or, ,
' 'i ; "'"'''.''''''''''''''''''''''.''''''''''''''' """"~:'" '. ,'. '::>'"'::.~naAl 0
j 'i', ., ,! 108 '~'" OH2cA.~~~<" ~5A,1 -- AIIEA ":~~;~<, ,"""" ./, ~
/ / ':' , '. , '.' OH411" I " .,,:' '~"" "It '">"" .'OHI2A,.. I"""] z
' ,'/ . '.' '.-1 3 ,. ,. '.' ',,'/ .. "'. \ ..'... '''J C(
":,: /'Z\"i\t~___.........'..,'< .- ~;:7j -., ii ""'\"i;~2':~",,> 1<11
.' .. '.' ." u <:..:,:'~,\~, !'
\, . ""'..." ' " , , - . :. . " "J, :j
", ]' '. '. '. """ ~. . ''', . ;'11 ".,"-; I
'. ;:.:" '.:--.8.6 .GH02A,B.g,_,: ""........... i !::~.: ;" ~:~
j. , "-:':. ~""'....'.','i:"OIID, I~I,C \ I' (~r.'
' , ; f-i " , : 4"" ... .". u I, ...
" , /" --- '" 1:1,,"0" \ 3 . .'j.'" ""~--"';~" ! ~GR'3
i;,,!;~- --~~-' ,.....~\ .,.:>
'''''.
"
. ( .
Figure
4 :
Groundwater
risks
Areas
of
Concern.
-------
1.D'1af:Ceptable human exposure, due to consumption by ~ of affecte::l
aquatic or terrestrial species, may be likely.
4. Envil.v.lII~rtal Analvsis
Detectable levels of PCBs, pesticides, am inorganic wastes in the
surface soils am ~;1I¥OTJts present the risk of bioaccumulation of these
cart:aminants by terrest..dal, avian, am aquatic species. 'nle site is
frequented by rmmerous species of marmnals am birds as obseJ:ved by
fieldwork crews durirXJ the RI. Muskrat, opossum, am raccoon sanples
taken iran near the site in 1983 showed. evidence of PCBs, DDr, am
bis(2-ethylhexyl)P'1thalate in their fatty tissues. While the source(s}
of the cart:aminants could be the site, it cannot be conclusively shown
that the site is the exclusive source since similar cxmtaminants are
faun:! at a nearby SUperfurrl site (Liquid Disposal, Inc.). However, it is
very likely that small mammals forage in the 1an:lfil1 areas am became
expa;ed to hazartb.1s substances. '!he oil seep area presents a mre
:Umnecliate threat to wildlife, as well as a lorx;;r-terrn threat of
bioaccumulation, due to the higher concentrations of contaminants
(e.g., PCBs) in this area.
Leachate fran the 2'1ase III lan:lfill area is dischargin; towards the
Clinton River. 'nle river provides a habitat for fish species including
northern pike, walleye pike, gizzard shad, am rock bass. Fish sanples
taken in 1983/1984 in:ticated that pesticides, PCBs, am heavy metals are
contaminatin;J fish species in the river. Again, other areas besides the
G&H site could plausibly be a source of these cxmtaminants am humans
could also be at risk if they consume affecte::l species.
H. Rationale for Action
'!he u. S. EPA considers several sources of information in detenn:ini.ng
whether to take action at a site. Based on the data gathered in the RI,
the u. s. EPA perfonns a risk assessment to determine if adverse
comitions currently or potentially threaten human health arrljor the
environment. '!he U.S. EPA also evaluates site conditions in relation to
Federal am State environmental statutes am policies, in addition to the
statuto]:}' mamates pram.l1.gated in CERCIA am the goals am expectations
identified in the NCP. '!he primaJ:y criteria with re5PeCt to the G&H
lan:lfill site are presented below:
1. Risk SUInrtmy
Additive excess lifetime cancer risks calculated for ingestion of
contaminated groundwater ranged from 5 x 10-4 in area 5 to 6 x 10-3 in
area 2. '!he potential excess lifetime cancer risk posed by in;estion of
the ~ter contaminants exceeds the acceptable risk range of
1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6, am thus presents unacceptable potential risks to
human health.
Hazard Indices above 1.0 represent an unacceptable exposure to
noncarcinogens. Most notably, the oil seep area has an additive Hazard
24
-------
In:1ex cala.1l.ated to be 77 (153 for a drl.1d), which 'WQJ1d be due to the
in;esticn am demal absozption of contaminants if one were to
accidentally fall into the oily waters. Additive Hazard Irxtices exceed
1.0 in area 1, which is upgradient of areas 4 am 5. Table 2 summarizes
the risks posed by site cantaminants. .
Table 2
SlmmaJ:y of Risks
G&H Inc1ustri.a1 Iamfill
Medi.a;Iocation Hazard Irxlex Risk*
GraIl'Xlwater
Area 2 0.74 6 x 10-3
Area 4 0.63 2 x 10-3
Area 5 0.74 5 x 10-4
SUrface Soil/Sediments
B1ase I
Iamfill Area 0.01 4 x 10-6
Seep ~ 0.11 4 x 10-6
SUrface Water
Seep Area 153 9 x 10-5
*Exoess lifetime carcinogenic risk.
2. Env:ironmenta1 Starx3ards Not Met at the site
In acHition to posin; unaooeptable risks to rE:OelJLors, the G&H larxlfill
site does not meet certain cq:plicable or relevant am awropriate Federal
or State enviranmenta1 st:an:1ards at this time.
a. Qm
'!he existin; larxlfill cap does not meet the requirements of Mid1igan
State Hazardous Waste Rules (MSHWR) 299.6919 am Michigan Act 64, the
current State larxlfill closure regulations which have been detennined to
be relevant am cq:propriate for this site. In part, a MSHWR 299.6919 cap
must be cal~ of a 3-foot layer of carpacted clay overlain by a
protective soil layer (see section L(2».
25
-------
I
b. t:Tn~~r
Table 3 lists the Rqu._entative ~ am the WLL~din;J Federal
drink:il'g-water stan:Jards am the state gramdwater-cleanup criteria -men
the u.s. EPA believes to be adequately protective (see section L(2».
'!be gramdwater oantaminant plume contains ocu:;)el1t.l;ettians of hazardo.1s
substances -men ~ all or JOOSt of these gramdwater stan:Jards am
cleanup criteria. Table 3, therefore, presents the preliminary
gramdwater cleanup stan:Jards for inticator chemicals at the G&H site.
Table 3
Preliminary Gra.1rnwater Cleanup Stan:Jards
G&H Imustrial Lamfill
~
Benzene
Xylene
Trichloroethene
. 1, 1-Dichloroethane
Lead
Arsenic
Ethy1benzene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl dlloride
Tetrad11oroethene
state
stamaJ:'d1
1 Ri>
20 Ri>
3 Ri>
700 Ri>
5 Ri>
0.02 Ri>
30~
1~
100 Ri>
0.02 ~
0.7 ~
Federal
~.J'Irrl~m2
5 Ri>
10,000 ~
5 Ri>
0.4 Ri>4
50 Ri>
50 Ri>
680 ~3
2~
5 Ri>
Notes:
~ denotes "parts per billion" or ug/L.
1: Michigan Act 307, Type B cleanup criteria
2: Maximum Contaminant leVels umer the safe Drinkin;J Water Act
3: Non-zero Maxi.m.m1 Contaminant Level Goals (PI'q)osed)
4: Health-based cleanup standa1;d consistent with cleanup objectives
3. Gra.1rnwater Protection Goals
a. 'D1e National CorIt.imency Plan
'!he U.S. EPA's gramdwater protectia1 goal has been set forth in the NCP
as follows:
'!he national goal of the lewe..1y selecq.on process is to select
remedies that are protective of human health am the environment, that
maintain protection CNer time, am that minimize \mtreated waste.
(Sectia1 300.430(a)(1)(i».
26
-------
1m "NCP states that the U. S. EPA
expects to retum usable qroundwaters to their beneficial uses
wherever practicable, within a time frame that is reasmable given the
particW.ar circ::umst:arx: of the site. Whenever restaratiem of gram:l-
_ters is net practicable, EPA expects to prevent further migratim of
the plume, prevent exposure to the oantaminated groundwater, and
evaluate further risk reducti.m. (Sectim 300.430(a) (1) (ill) (F» .
Also, the NCP ocnsiders the use of institutia1al CQuLLuls to limit
exposures to hazardaJs substances in the gramdwater:
EPA expects to use institutia1al ca~yls such as -ter use and deed
restrictia1S to SlWlement ~ CQILLuls as ~1.¥L'iate for
shart- and lcng-tem management to prevent or limit exposure to
hazardaJs substances, pollutants, or cart:aminant:s.... 1m use of
instituticmal COa1LLuls shall net substitute for active mspanse
1IIA:'\sures as the sole L~Y unless such mspanse measures aze
detemined net to be practicable.... (Section 300.430(a) (1) (ill) (D» .
b. state of Michiaan
Mid1i.gan Act 307 provides for ~ial actim, at oantaminated sites
within the State, which "shall be protective of the p.1blic health,
safety, and welfaze and the envira1ment and natural resa.1rOeS."
Additicmally, all ..~:ia1 actia1S which a&h:-s the remediaticm of an
aquifer shall provide for reIJDIJal of the hazardous substance or
substances £ran the aquifer.... II Mid1i.gan Act 307 also provides for the
. dete1:minaticm of aooeptable criteria for groundwater ~iaticm at the
site. '!he Michigan Safe Drink:in; Water Act (Act 399) provides for the
dete1:minatim of aooeptable gramdwater cleanup stardards at the site.
(See page 48 for a more CCIIplete di !Qt"!1SSim of these statutes.)
c. Cleamm ~nrbnTI!I:
Table 3 presents the PrelbninaJ:y Cleanup Stamards for the site granxl-
_ter, based em the ocnsideratim of the potential risks to consumers of
oantaminated gramdwater and em the ocnsideratiem of. Federal and State
gramdwater protectiem goals, cleanup stardards, and criteria.
U.S. EPA/s gramdwater cleanup policy is to attain MaxiDum 00ntam:inant
Ievels (!as) under the Federal Safe Drink:in; Water Act (SDlA); however,
if cleanup to !as causes the residual risk levels to exceed the 1 x 10-4
to 1 x 10~ risk raJ'X}e which the U.S. EPA considers to be protective (see
page 21), then the Aqercy DL1St ~ly risk-based cleanup levels to reach
the goal of protectiveness (a 1 x 10-6 excess lifetime caooer risk).
Mid1i.gan Act 307, ~ B cleanup criteria (see sectia1 L(2» ~ide for
the cala1latiCl1 of risk-based cleanup stardards at the 1 x 10~ excess
lifetime caooer risk level for each carcinogenic C\(~II ~. 'Ihese
stardards aze more str~ than the oon:~din1 !as or oon-zero
!C.Gs. 1m U. S. EPA has detenninec1 that Mid1i.gan Act 307, 'tyPe B
criteria aze protective and may be ~licable or relevant and ~rq>riate
27
-------
.
to the G&H site cleamp (see secticm L(2» .
Table 4 lists the Gra.1n:lwater Clearmp stamards for the G&H site.
Table 4
Gra.1n:lwater Cleamp stamards
G&H Ird1strial Iamfill
n ..- «nn
~AT'lt'b!im.
Benzene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Arsenic
read
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 Ri>
20 Ri>
30~
0.02 Ri>*
5 Ri>
3 Ri>
0.7 Ri>
1 Ri>
100 Ri>
0.02 Ri>
0.4 Ri>
*Naturally occurrin:J (backgrouni) levels foun::l at the G&H site may be
higher than the Clearmp Standard. In that event, backgraJrxi levels
will ~ the 'Cleanup Standard.
4 . SUIIImaJ:v
Actual or threatened releases of hazarda.1s substances fran this site, if
not acklressed by inplementaticm of the response acticm Selected by this
Record of Decisiat, pl_ent an .iJIIn:inent am subst:.anti.a1 enian:jer.1Dent to
pmlic health, ~fare, or the envilannent. 'lheref0J:e, based at the
fi.min:Js in the RI :report am the di!::t"'!1S$icm above, a Feasibility Study
(FS) was perfm:med to focus the devel~1t of alternatives to address
the principal am lower-level threats at the site. '!he FS report
do(,1Iftj:IJ'Its the evaluaticm of the magnitme of site risks, site specific
~licable or relevant am ~~iate requirements (ARARs), am the
requirements of CERCIA am the NCP, especially the graD'Xiwater. protection
policy, in the derivaticm of :remedial alternatives for the G&H site.
I. DescriDticm of Alternatives
'!he FS divided the G&H site into two parts, or "operable units," for
effective evaluaticm of remedial alternatives designed to reduce site
28
-------
risks to acceptable levels. '!he first qerable unit dealt with the lan::l-
fill oart:ent:s, soils, am RA/i;11P'1t:s; the seocn:i qerable unit dealt with
the g:ram:iwater cantaminant plume, landfill leachate, am the oil seep.
'!he 'bJc qerable units were aciiressed separately durin;J the evaluation of
potential ~;A) alternatives, bIt they were int.eJD:d to be aciiressed
in cxmjunctiCX1 with ead1 ather by the selected ~iA' action.
Diffm:ent ~; ~l alternatives were evaluated to address the pri1x::ipal
am l~level threats posed by ead1 qerable unit, as detailed below:
1. IaMfiU ODerable unit
Alt:hcu;lh the NCP reaffiJ:ms U.S. EPA's preference for pemanent solutions
to SUperf\mi site problems thra.1gh the use of treatment ted1nologies, the
preaDi:)le to the NCP OOl'1'teDplates that many ~ial alternatives may be
bpractical for certa:in sites due to severe iDplementability problems or
prchibitive costs (e.g., treatment of the entire oantents of a large
mmicipallan:ifill). 'Ihus, the FS was directed at the evaluation of the
cxmt"A;~ rather than the treatment of the lan:ifill cperable unit, due
to the size of the lan:ifill areas an::l of the "hat spots" within the R1ase-
I lamfill area as detemined durin; the RI. A treatment };~y was
retained for CXI1Sideratiat, haINever.
2. Grcl1D:iwa.ter ODerable unit
'!he cbjective of the g:ram:iwater qerable unit is to achieve Federal
drinJd.n;r-water st:an:2rds 1.J1'Der the Safe DrinJd.rq Water Act am State
g:ram:iwater-cleanup criteria 1.J1'Der Michigan Act 307 (the G:raJmwater
ClEmlJp StarxJards in Table 4). G:raJmwater qerable unit alternatives
analyzed to ad:Jress the pri1x::ipal threat at the site rarged iran no
actia'l to g:ram:iwater extraction am treatment.
3. ~; a1 Alternatives
'!he alternatives passin; initial screenin;r am considered for detailed
analysis in the FS are:
1: No Actiat
2: Limited ActiCX1
3A: I.aJx1fill Cap
3B: Sluny Wall
4A: G:raJmwater Extractiat am Treatment
Q: ExcavatiCX1 am Treatment of Hot Spots
(Nate: Alternatives 4B, SA, SB, am 6B were not detem.ined to be
practicable at this site am were not evaluated in detail in the FS.)
Ead1 SI~ alternative is b.1ilt upon the preoedin; alternatives.
For ex.aDple, Alternative 3B (Slurry Wall) incl\Xles all the provisions of
Alternative 3A (Larxlfill cap), am Alternative 3A i1x::ludes all the
provisions of Alternative 2 (Limited Action) . Fach alternative is
n; !IU"J,c:;sed below:
29
-------
.
Alternative 3A: Ian:ifill ~n
Alternative 3A includes the o.''1ament5 of Alternative 2. In addition,
Alternative 3A covers the H1ase I, H1ase II, am H1ase III lardfill areas
with a soil-clay cap, which meets the requirements of MSHWR 299.6919.
'!he cap walld oansist of a 3-foat oc:mpacted clay barrier layer overlain
by a 3. 5-foat gravel am soil layer. '!he gravel am soil layer WOJld
provide frost-damage protection for the clay barrier layer am helps to
prevent precipitation contact with the clay layer. Prairie grasses wculd
be planted on the tqJsoil layer of the cap to provide a natural habitat
for area wildlife.
" - ~ ~ ~ ~.~" .~... 2~~~.~~AD
~~ /~-~~~---~~~
~ ~ ~F";'I';;;1'/nw--~;) - ~N ....
:~ "', ('M'''''~ ",,'7:~,~~ .. ~
~~~~~): ' ~ ( -- ~ - ~~ '~~~~~~~~~~~~i
,.~ --.. ~. ~',.' ~~~~y"~~~~
~.. ~ ~ OIL PONDS & SOL:ENT /
. " ~ . ~ " ~, DISPOSAL AREA
" .
~
~
.
~
"
..
. ..,
"
','
~""
~
,<.
<
~~
~ ._~ .: .~ ~ :1':~~~~':I:-~r--:~~';';.:->1
(~I1HUH!W Uif:@
I,:,),~~~,~',~\~oo : I' ;
! ID ?~ ~.i/.;; rum! ~ ~ r».) ffi ,ON' "','
i : -.. .4>. ,~ M ~.*l : : I ,:::1.:. ,:t.l ~$:::
J -' ,,~, J-";R+-~!" @ ~ ~~ ,i'
~I\: ~~~~~~~* ~~ j.~;.~?l",;,>:~~
ffi #< 1 * r.oO
t'i f" Y"". ' ,h..+
~ @ -;:t!., ','$/..~
"" -g'~ " J'Q
- !!;! $< "'" ~"
!S l' <$ -"., '
-I "
I
,
;
;
Y~~
~ .......... .
CU/oit,
N ON.lc",~ ."
o 500 ~----- ~
'I ~L ~~
SCALE IN FEET . .,
". '",«~. '---
! ~ ~/(,~ ~. " ~
. "',110... """,<,....", ..
v:~..,tJ ~'W
114/. m;
APPROXIMATE <:110...
ALL UMITS "0
Figm-e 5: MJni.cipal water SlWly oannectians to be SlWlied.
leachate fran the R1ase III lamfill area waJld be collected am treated
at an off-site in:lustrial wastewater facility. Ian:ifill gas (nethane)
vents waJld be p1aoed in the cap to prevent damagin;J gas bJ.i1d-up
beneath the cap am to prevent the migration of methane off site.
'!he lamfill o::Ner waJld help prevent the direct contact with lan:lfill
31
-------
A1 ~rnative 1: No Action
'!he NCP requires that the U.S. EPA evaluate the No-Action Alternative to
provide a baseline for ~isan of the effectiveness of the ~;~l
altematives.
Ulx)e.r the No-Action altemative, no active response mAasures wculd ocx:ur,
at:her than periodic site inspectian. No reductian of toxicity,
mcbility, or volume thraJgh trea'bDent or of the rate of leac:.hin] of
oont:aminant:s to the gram:1water woold be provided by this alternative;
tberefme, no risk reductian woold result ftan this action. '!he No-
Actian altemative woold mt meet awlicable or relevant am ~riate
requirements (ARARs) for gram:1water amlarxlfill closure at the site am
is not prat:ect.ive. Altemative 1 has no cost. .
Altemative 2: Limited Action
urxJer Altemative 2, limited action woold be taken to prevent direct
oantact with an-site oont:aminant:s. 'D1e present site fet'X:1e woold be
maintained, am gram:1water IIDnitorin;J woold cxmtinue to track the
DDVemet1t of the gram:1water cxmtaminant plume. Deed am gram:1water use
restrictians woold be placed on the site prcperty to prevent the
deve1~It of the larxlfill areas, to prevent a~s to contaminated
portians of the site am to prevent the oonsunption of contaminated
gram:1water. Residences am tA.1siness'2S alorq Ryan Road (see Figure 5)
woold be can~ to the mmicipal water Slg)ly to replace the water
Slg)ly contamina'tefl by the site (on the west side of Ryan Road) am as a
preventive measure to protect the p.1blic ftan the effects of arrj future
contamination of water Slg)lies. Provision of mmicipal water is a (X)St-
effective ~sure since lorq-te.m m::m.torin:J of the residential \to'ells is
projected to be DDre costly than the water Slg)ly call~tions.
MUle Altemative 2 woold provide limited p.1blic health prctection by
oantrollin:J a~s to the site am by replacin:J contaminated or
potentially contaminated water SUR>lies with mLmicipalwater, it would
not prevent the m:JVement of oontaminants off site. Reliance upon
institutional oantrols does not provide for a reduction in the toxicity,
1Id:>ility, or volume of contaminatian thraJgh treatment. Institutional
cxatt.wls also provide no lan:J-te.t1D effectiveness in the prevention of
p.1blic 8~S to the site. 'lhus, Alternative 2 provides no risk
reductian. Alternative 2 woold not meet gram:1water or larxlfill closure
ARARs.
Altemative 2 would have a capital cost of $350,000 am an armual
operations am maintenance cost of $210,000, for a present worth* cost
of $3.6 millian. Gram:iwater walld be IIDnitorecl for IIDre than 30 years.
*Present worth calculations are based an a 5 percent d;~ rate am a
3D-year operations am maintenance period.
30
-------
I '
wastes am walld also reduce the aJIDJl'1t of precipitation infiltration
t:hrc:u3h the larxlfill debris towards the gram:iwater. However, the cap
walld not prevent gram:iwater contaminants fran migrati.n:J off site.
S~ the oily wastes are in contact with the gram:iwater table, the cap
walld not prevent the CX1I1tinual degradation of gromdwater quality am
no risk reduction waUd occur. Alternative 3A walld be in cxmpliaooe
with JOOSt lamfill closure requirements but not with gromdwater ARARs.
Alternative 3A walld have a capital cxst of $22 million am an annual
cp!mtion am ~ cxst of $450,000, for a present worth cxst of
$29 million. It woold take up to 4 years to CX411:>l.u1Ct the lamfill cap,
durin:J which time lcx::al truck traffic walld in::rease. Noise am dust
levels 'Wa1ld have to be mitigated durin:; this time as well.
Alternative 3B: Slunv Wall
Alternative 3B in::ludes the O'"'l.anents of Alternative JA. In addition,
Alternative 3B walld oonstruct a subsurface, vertical barrier wall
(sluny wall) aram:l the peri:meter of the lamfill areas am the oil
seeps, except for the west side of the B1ase III lamfill area. '!he
sluny wall walld ext:en:i an average of 34 feet belC7trl gr<:JlD'Xi surface at a
m:iJWrum of 3 feet into the oanfinin:; till layer beneath the ~
aquifer. CDJpled with the cap, the sluny wall walld contain the DClbile
wastes within the lamfill areas to prevent the further migration of
contaminants off site.
Grourxlwater within the area cxmtained by the slurry wall walld be
extracted am treated to prevent the ~in:; of the cxmt:ainment
system by risin:; gram.:iwater levels due to residual precipitation
infiltration t:hrc:u3h the cap. An inward hydraulic gradient walld be
established by the extraction of the gram:iwater, which walld help to
make the cxmt:ainment system DDre effective (s~ gromdwater wculd ten:l
to flC7trl into the area contained by the sluny wall rather than o.It of the
area) .
'!he extracted gromdwater walld be treated to :renDVe oil (usin:;
oiljwater phase separation), heavy metals (by chemical precipitation am
filtration), VOCs (by air striwin:;), am residual VOCs, pesticides, an:i
R::Bs (with activated cartxm). 'Ihe treated water woold be discharged to
the Clintal River in oanfoz:manoe with the substantive requirements of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Part 21
of the Water :Resources t'hnm; ~ion Act 245 of 1929, as amended (Michigan
Act 245), establishes surface water di.scharge criteria an:i petmittiIg
rules which were pram.1lgated by the State urxler its delegated authority
to administer the NPDES P%~Law. Alternatively, the treated water may be
discharged to the IHSD treatment plant if pretreatment criteria are net.
Althcu;Jh the sluny wall an:i cap system walld contain contaminants within
the lamfill areas, Alternative 3B weul.d do mthirg to prevent the
continued migration of gromdwater oontami.nants on the Oltside of the
sluny wall. Natural attenuation is expected. to reduce contaminant
levels within the tg:)er aquifer o.Itside of the area contained by the
sluny wall to levels which will meet gram:iwater st:amards; however, the
32
-------
protective levels cu:e not expected to be met for 1!I.ldl greater than 30
years. Alten1ative 3B walld meet most landfill closure requirements rut
wai1.d not meet grourxiwater ARARs for well over 30 years.
Alte:mat.ive 3B is projected to have a capital oost of $28 million am an
anrJJal operatim and JDaint:.enaD:,e oost of $630,000, for a present worth
cost of $38 millian. OJnst:ructim of the sluny wall and cap is expected
to take up to 4 years, creatiD;J the same traffic, noise, and dust
prcblem as created by Alternative JA. Extractia1 and treatment of
grourxiwater !ran within the area 0CI1t:ained by the sluny wall, and
grourxiwater mcmit:orin;J of the oantaminant plume a.rt:side of the sluny
wall, cu:e expected to last for mre than 30 years.
If, mX1 when, grourxiwater ARARs cu:e met, the una~le risks aIrrently
posed by grourxiwater cantami.natian walld be ~1Ced to a maxi:aum risk for
imividual carcinogenic d1emicals of ~te1y 1 x 10-6. AsS'1I'niTg
tbat all carcinogens were anly treated to the 1 x 10-6 level (a highly
unlikely scenario, since. BaDe chemicals cu:e lOOre easily :rem:wed iran the
aquifer than others), the maximJm ClDIUlative risk walld be ~te1y
1 x 10-5, tmich is an a~le level. 'D1e Hazard Imex walld be
~~ to 1.0, which is an a~le level.
Alternative 4A: Grcundwa.ter Extraction and Trea~
Alternative 4A walld include all of the O"1'\Jne11ts of Alternative 3B. In
ackti.tim, Alternative 4A walld extract and treat contaminated grourxiwater
in the \JR)er aquifer not 0CI1t:ained by the sluny wall to meet Grcmdwater .
Cleanup Standards.. A network of ~te1y 20 wells walld extract the
water for treatment in the same treatment system used in Alternative 3B
for treatment of the extracted water iran within the slurry wall. Once
the Grcmdwater Cleanup Standards have been met, in an estimated 30
years, the potentia]. e1CCeSS lifetime c:arxm' risk due to :in;estion of
contaminated grourxiwater walld decrease iran the una~le risks
an.:b:ltUy posed (e.q., 6 x 10-3 in area 2) by gram:1water cantami.nation
to a maximJm risk for irxlividual carcinoqenic chemicals of ~te1y
1 x 10-6 in area 2, area 4, and area 5. As above, ass1JIIlin;J that all
carcinogens were anly treated to the 1 x 10-6 level (a highly unlike1~
scenario), the max:im.nn ClDIUlative risk walld be awroximate1y 1 x 10- ,
tmich is an acceptable level. 'D1e Hazard Imex walld be reduced to 1.0,
which is also an acn:pt:able level.
Alternative 4A walld have a capital oost of $29 million and an annual
operatim and JDaint:.enaD:,e cost of $720,000, for a present worth cost of
$40 millime As in Alternatives 3A and 3B, oonsb:uctian of the
cx.ntainment system is projected to take up to 4 years. Grcmdwater
m:m.t:orin;J walld last for at least 30 years. Alternative 4A 'N'OUld meet
bath landfill closure and grourxiwater ARARs.
Alternative 6A: Excavation and Treatment of ''Hot Scots"
Alternative 6A woold excavate and incinerate (on site) the ''hot spots"
(Figure 3e) identified in the R1ase I landfill and oil seep areas. The
33
-------
exCavated wastes walld be ~. ~sed CI'l site in an erx::losecl b.1i1clin;J to
minimize emissiCl'l of VOCs to the surramd.in;J neighbomoods. After
PL~in:J, the wastes walld be in::inerated CI'l site in two mobile
incinerators. A lo-acre 1arxifill walld be constructed to contain the
resultin:J ash am (ilx:inerator air pollutiCl'l control) sluc¥;Jes. '!he new
lamfill walld be CXI1Stn1cted to the sart:h of the Ihase II 1arxifill area.
'!he excavated areas walld be filled with clean soil, graded, am then
cat~ as umer Alte!:native 3A. ExcavatiCl'l am in::ineratiCl'l of the hot
spot wastes is projected to last for 15 years to 20 years.
Alternative 6A walld also iIx:1me the CU11~ of Alte!:native 4A.
since a1ly the hat spots walld be treated umer Alte!:native 6A, the
ocnt:ainment system walld still be needed to control the migration of
residual oantaminatiCl'l left untreated in the Ihase I lamfill area an:! to
address the 1arg-tezm, low-level threat posed by the debris in the B1ase
II am Ihase III 1arxifil1 areas.
As in Alte!:native 4A, once the Grcu'xiwater Cleanup st:.amams have been
met in the aquifer outside of the slun:y wall, in an estimated 30 years,
the potential exa!SS lifetime caooer risk due to iJgestion of
oantaminated gram:lwater walld decrease £ran the unaooeptab1e risks
anl.ot:atly posed (e.g., 6 x 10-3 in area 2) by gram:lwater oantamination
to a ma.vimllIn risk for :irxtividual carcinogenic chemicals of awraximate1y
1 x 10-6 in area 2, area 4, an:! area 5. As alxNe, aB-c::IlInirq that all
carciJr;qel~ \1IeI'e only treated to the 1 x 10-6 level (a highly unlikelv
scenario), the maximJm amulative risk wculd be ~te1y 1 x 10-5,
whidl is an aooeptab1e level. '!he Hazard Imex wculd be :z:-itlCed to 1. 0,
which is also an acceptable level.
Alte!:native 6A walld meet 1arxifil1 closure am gram:lwater ARARs.
Altemative 6A walld have a capital cost of $460 million am an annual
~tiCl'l am 1IIaintenarDa cost of $720,000, for a present worth cost of
$470 million. Construction of the cap.an:! slurry wall system would last
up to faJr years fo11owin;J cx::rrp1etion of the in::ineration of the hot
spots. Grcu'xiwater extraction, trea'bDent, am mcnitorirg is projected
to last for at least 30 years.
J. ~rative Analvsis of Altematives: '!he Nine Criteria
In acoordance with the NCP, the relative perfo:cnarre of each altemative
is evaluated usin;J the nine criteria (sectiCl'l 300.430(e) (9) (iii» as a
basis far ~isan. An altemative providin;J the "best balance" of
tradeoffs with respect to the nine criteria is detennined fran this
evaluatia'1.
'Jh&.....4. .J (J criteria
1. OVerall Protection of Human Health an:! the EnvirorDnent
OVerall protection of human health an:! the envirorDnent addresses whether
a remedy eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to human health an:! to
34
-------
the enviJ:a1ment.
'!be major mcposure pathways of ex&'Dm1 at the G&H landfill site are the
pot:ential in;Jestion of contaminated grourxlwater am the mcposure to, or
in;Jestia'1 of, oontaminated surface water and/or AM;1ftI:IIT1ts in the
rec:reatia1al area am wet.J.arm adjacent to the site. Based upon these
pathways of ex&'Dm1, the alternatives were evaluated a'1 their ability to
%'educe precipitatim infiltration 't:hrcu3h the landfill am to achieve the
GraJrxiwater Cleanup Stamards. ReductiC3'l of precipitatim infiltration
rates lAit1CeS the c:a1Ot:&ll.ditiC3'l of oantaminants leac::i1in:J into the
grourxlwater, which 0CI1t:.rib.Ites to the return of the usable aquifer to
its beneficial uses within a reasa1able time frame. '!be ~i al
alternatives were also evaluated C3'l the basis of their ability to I"eDDVe
oantaminants fran the UR?er aquifer to %'educe the levels of hazardoos
su1Jst:ara!s disc:i1argin:J into the wet:J.arD;.
OVer the lcn:J tam, Alternatives 1 (No Action) am 2 (Limited ActiC3'l) do
not provide adequate protectiC3'l of human health am the env1.raJWt:ltt
since no protection of the grourxlwater aquifer is provided either 't:hrcu3h
extraction am treatment of grourxlwater oantaminants or 't:hrcu3h
minimizatiC3'l of precipitation infiltration 't:hrcu3h the landfill.
Alternatives 1 am 2 do not pzevent direct cantact mcposure to
contaminants by human am environmental receptors. With an inadequate
cap, oxganics, heavy metals, am pesticide oantaminants detected in the
landfill wastes woold oantim.Je leachin:J into the grourxlwater in ~s of
st:an:1ards.
Alternatives JA-6A'prcvide for a cap which meets State am Federal
landfill closure criteria am woold decrease the rate of precipitation
infiltration 't:hrcu3h the lan:lfill wastes by approximately 80 percent. An
adequate cap would also provide a superior barrier to direct cantact
exposure to landfill wastes. However, Alternative JA cannot prevent the
migration of grourxlwater oantaminants off site am woold not restore the
usable aquifer to its beneficial uses. -
Alternative 3B woold 0CI11LL-ul the migratia'1 of oantaminants in the
grourxlwater but woold not address the grourxlwater oontamination which
occurs aItside of the slur.ty wall. Alternatives 4A and 6A, which utilize
grourxlwater extracticm am treatment, wa.1ld restore the aquifer beyon:l
the sluny wall to its beneficial uses. 'Ihus, Alternatives 4A am 6A are
protective of human health am the envuoullatt over the lCDJ tam.
2. CanDliance with Aoolicable or Relevant am ADclvuriate Reauirements
'!his criteriC3'l evaluates whether an alternative meets ~licable or
relevant am ~ropriate requirements set forth in Federal, or IOOre
strin.;Jent State, envirorunenta1 st:amards pert.ainin;J to the site or
prcposed actions. (Note: '!his section notes only those ARARs (if any)
not addressed by an altel:native. Section L d;~sas ARARs for the
site. )
'!he major grourxlwater ARARs include the requirements of the Federal Safe
35
-------
.
Drink.in:J Water am Clean Water Acts am the State Safe Drink.in:J Water
(Act 399) am EnviIcnmenta1 Response Acts (Act 307 of 1982, as amen::ie:i).
Iandfill closure ARARs in::lu:Je the Federal Resooroe Ck1nse1:vation am
Ret:xNery Act (RCRA), SUbtitle C provisions, am Michigan Act 64,
includirxJ the larxlfill cap specifications listed urner ftI)HWR 299.6919.
Alternatives 1 am 2 walld not meet the requirements for lan:lfill-
closure ARARs since l'X) cap walld be CXI'1Structed on the lan:lfilled areas
of the site. Alternatives 1 am 2 walld not meet the requirements of the
gramdwater ARARs as well.
~e Alternatives JA am 3B walld meet BaDe of the requirements for
lan:lfill closure, they walld not meet gramdwater ARARs.
Alternatives 4A am 6A walld meet lan:lfill-closure requirements am walid
also CCIIply with the gramdwater ARARs by achievin:J the Groornwater
Cleam1p St:.amards within a reasonable time frame.
P.rbmy Ba.1.anciJI} criteria
3. Lcn:t-TeJ:m EffectivenesslFermanence
'1hi.s criteriat refers to the ability of an alternative to maintain
reliable protection of human health am the envL.UUU8::Itt aver time, once
cleanup goals have been met.
Alternatives 1 am 2 do not provide lcn:J-ter:m effectiveness or
pennanel'X'e since they provide l'X) response 'DPaSlJre to address the wastes
throl.r;Jh either containment or treatmant. Alternatives 3A am 3B provide
BaDe lcn;J-ter:m effectiveness throl.r;Jh the oantainment of the lan:lfill
wastes; as the cap walld reduce the rate of leac:hi.rg of oontaminants
fran the larxifill debris. Alternative 3B woold be mre effective than
Alternative JA, since the slurry wall walld help prevent the continued
migration of the gramdwater contaminant plume cut of the lan:lfill.
Alternatives 4A am 6A provide a high degree of lcn:J-'tenn effectiveness
since ead1 alternative provides for the extraction am treatmant of the
gramdwater contaminant plume c:utside of the slurry wall. Alternative 6A
walld provide the highest degree of pennanel'X'e, once the hot spots within
the B1ase I larxifill area have been acXlressed. After the hot spats are
treated, the pot:ential for the oantainment system (especially the slurry
wall) to fail walld be reduced.
4. Reduction of Toxicitv. M:i>ilitv. or Volume 'Ihra1ah Treatment
'1hi.s criterion evaluates treatmant technology perfo~ in the
reduction of chemical toxicity, nmility, or volume.
As detailed above, the stated p:r:~LCUlIIuatic goal of the U.S. EPA, as
expressed in the NCP, is to select remedies that are protective aver time
am ''minimize untreated waste" (section 300.430(a) (1) (i». 'lhe NCP
conte.Irplates that the U. S. EPA will use "treatment to address the
36
-------
priD::ipal threats at a site, wherever practicable" (section
300.430 (a) (1) (lli)(A».
Altemative 6A is the cmly altemative that woold result in the reduction
in the taxicity, DdJility, or volume of oontam.inants in the soil and
wastes thra.¥#1 trea'bDent. Irx:ineration woold destroy organic CL..\-ooms
in the oil-ccl'1t:anrlnated hot spats within the R1ase I landfill area. Up
to 800,000 aJbic yards of soil/debris woold be treated; however, lower
-------
I
"
site ~ am the l'Y'm'III1T1ity fran short-term exposure to hazamoos
subst:arres. '!he disd1arge of treated water to the Clinton River or to
the !HID treatment plant will be in aoc:xn:daooe with the substantive
requirements of NPDES disd1arge criteria (as adm.inistered by the State
umer Part 21 of Michigan Act 245), which are set at protective levels.
'!he sluny wall am the gram:iwater extraction system could iDpact the
wet.J.ams to the SCArt:h of the lamfill areas am the :residential areas to
the north of 23~e Read. Groon:iwater extraction could lower the water
table in the wetlan::3s area, bIt the wetlan::is are not expected to be
significantly affected. Groon:iwater m:un:iin;J may take place north of
23-Mile Read due to the presence of the sluny wall. Ex:traction of
gram:iwater in this area will lessen the iDpact of the sluny wall on the
gram:iwater regime.
tI1i1e Alternatives 1 am 2 take the least cmamt of tbDe to achieve the
d:Jjectives of the ~i"l alternative and may have m negative iDpacts
in t:eJ:ms of short-term effectiveness, they also do not meet Groon:iwater
Cleanup standards in a reasonable tbDe frame. under Alternatives 3A am
3B, cansb:uction activity WtW.d take up to 4 years to CCI'Iplete am
Groon:iwater Cleanup standards WtW.d not be projected to be achieved
within. 30 years. under Alternative 4A, it WtW.d take up to 4 years to
exmplete cansb:uction activity am it is projected that Gramiwater
Cleanup standards could be met within 30 years. It WtW.d take up to
20 years to a::uplete trea'bDent of the hat spots umer Alternative 6A, and
Gramiwater Cleanup St:.aInards could be achieved within 30 years.
6. T1I'r}1 ementabilitv
'!his criterion cxmsiders the tedmical and administrative feasibility of
iJrplemeJ'1tjn;J an alternative.
No significant iJrplementation problems are projected for Alternatives 1
thra1gh 4A. Cap materials are expected to be obtainable iran neamy
soorces, and construction methods are rather straightforward, altha.Jgh a
large-scale effort will be needed due to the size of the lamfill areas.
'!be massive effort needed to haul cap materials to the site may increase
the damage to local roads.
IIrplementation of the sluny wall (Alternatives 3B-6A) is depenjent upon
the ccmpatibility of construction materials with the waste solvents/oils.
O:I1patibility t.estirq will be performed to detemine the JOOSt suitable
materials for sluny wall construction. Leachate extraction wells may
need to be installed within the B1ase I lamfill area to help prevent the
waste oil am,tor highly contaminated gram:iwater fran oontac:ti.n;J the
sluny wall and reduciJ'g its effectiveness.
IIrplementatian of Alternative 6A (an-site in::ineration) deperxls upon
excavation tedmiques which are generally well proven. HoltJever,
envira1mental controls will be needed to prevent emissions of VOCs to the
at:m:sp1ere durirg excavation and duriJ'g the in::ineration prooess.
Materials hardliJ'g problems and IreChani.cal breakdowns could slow the
38
-------
treatment ~"":JLe6S. Public aooeptaroa of cn-site in=ineraticm may be a
~ to the iDplementaticm of this alternative.
GIamdwater disc.harge after treatment walld need to meet the substantive
requiJ:'ements of an NFDES grourxlwater disc.harge pemit as admi.ni.stered by
the state under Part 21 of Michigan Act 245 (see section L(2».
7.~
Table 5 t'n'Ip"TeS the capital, cperaticm am maintenance, am present
werth costs of bpleme1'1tin;J the varicus alternatives at the site.
Table 5
Fstimated CXsts of ~i~' Alternatives
G&H In:iustrial Iarxlfill
Alternative capital O&M Present Worth
1 (No Acticm) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
2 (Limited Acticm) $ 390,000 $350,000 $ 3,900,000
3A (I.arxlfill cap) $ 22,000,000 $450,000 $ 29,000,000
3B (Slurry wall) $ 28,000,000 $450,000 $ 38,000,000
4A (GIamdwater) $ 29,000,000 $750,000 $ 40,000,000
6A ('1he1:Dal) $460,000,000 $750,000 $470,000,000
Notes: O&M = Opei:aticm am maintenance
Present Worth is based on a 5 percent Iii ~ rate.
IbiifyiDJ criteria
8. State AcoeDtance
'!he State of Michigan is in agreement with the u.S. EPA's analyses am
reco .,.,~1'1dations pzesented in the RIfFS am the PL~ Plan. '!he State
ooncu:rs with the selected alternative (pzesented in section K, below).
9. CCImI.mitv ~~'I'V"'A
lhnrnnruty oa'091.l'}S em! aairessed in the attached Responsiveness SUImnary.
K. selected ~
As provided in CERCIA am the NCP, am based upon the evaluation of the
RIfFS am the nine criteria, the u.S. EPA has selected A1:teJ::native 4A as
the method provic:1ir¥J overall effectiveness proportional to its cxsts to
adequately protect human health am the environment against exposures to
hazarda1s substaooes at the G&H site.
39
-------
I .
1. ,gm
Urxler Alt:el:native 4A, a cap shall be placed on the lan:ifill (see Figures
6 am 7) in CCIIIplianoe with the current requirements of MSHWR 299.6919
canoernirg cap specifications for closure of hazardous waste n;~
facilities. '!he cap shall consist of a grad.in;J layer, a miniJm.nn 3-foot
clay layer (CXIIpacted to a hydraulic ccn:1uctivity of 1 x 10-7 an;s or
less), a gravel drainage layer ,a frost protective soil layer, am a
m:inimJm 6-inch tq:JSoil layer. A methane gas ventin;J system shall be
cxmstructed within the cap as well (see Figure 7). '!he ventin;J system
shall be mnitored to detemine if the levels of emissions may cause
potential health effects. If potential health effects are irxlicated, an
emissicn treatnent system shall be placed in the ventin;J system to reduce
emissions to acceptable levels.
"~l
-.....
a . .L! ItOAO
----,r-- .-~ [
a :
-~I':i i
,'1-~-
,"'\\ .
'_).~ ;
.~. ~
- -
i. "::'J - !
-....1'(' ,
I,
"
II~.""
-f II
IJ.
"
NortII
t
o ...
, I
APNOXlMAnE
ICAU.. fUT
-
i~~Jt'm
8QlL.Q.Ay coval
-
~ ce»rmcLWB.LI
¥ERT1CAL -..
o
CI
EJmW:'YION MU8
'TeE DfWII
-<
FI.OW IllAEC'YION OF COUECTED
AND 'lJlfATED WAT£R
Figure 6: Al t:el:native 4A.
40
-------
2. Slurrv Wall
In CX31jurctia1 with the cap, a sluny wall shall be installed aram:i the
perbDet:er of the lamfill areas am the oil seep area (see Figure 6 am
Figure 8). '!he sluny wall shall be oonst:nlcted to achieve a
~~:Uity of 1 x 10-7 CJVs or less an:} shall be keyed at least 3 feet
into the lCM pet:meability (till) tmit beneath the UJ;per aquifer.
'Ibe extent as to which the slurry wall is placed in the junkyard area
will be determined durin;J the ~i~l design}i1ase. Oil-saturated soil
may exterxl fran the Ibase I larxifill area into the junkyard area an:} may
have to be contained by the slurry wall an:} cap system. ldtitional soil
bori.n3s in this area would establish the eastern eci:Je of the oantainment
system in the vicinity of the junkyard.
'!he slurry wall wculd oonst:nlcted a1 both the eastern an:} western sides
of the IJtlSD water main to isolate the pipeline fran site contaminants
(see Figure 6). '!he slurry wall will be b.1i.1t as to minimize the impact
a1 all of the IH3D pipelines crcssin3 the site area. '!he slurry wall
wculd not be oonstn1cted aram:l the western eci:Je of the B1ase III
larxifill area: however, a lead1ate collection system wculd be installed
GAS VENT
... ...
:i:WS;:!!:
%
~l~i~~;;'i~~~~iii*
............ .
............. .
"""""'" .
:/;t\){(
... """"
........... .
""""'" .
""""'" .
........... .
........... .
"""""" .
""""'" .
""""'" .
""""'" .
""""'" .
""""'" .
""""'" .
""""'" .
.... .
liii:=111
81_-
UIrU
111-11/:111
III:
A8IuM
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 7: Cap cross section.
Figure 8: Slurry wall cross section.
instead. If the leachate tests characteristic via the Toxic
O1aracteristic IeachiIg Procedure (TClP) test, then it shall be managed
as a hazarda1s waste. It is projected that collected leachate wculd be
hauled to a nem:by in:lustrial wastewater facility for treatment.
41
-------
Grc::mmrater extractiem wells wa.11.d be placed inside the cap an:! sluny
wall c:art:ainment system to create an .inward hydraulic gradient (see
Figure 6). EKtracted water wa.11.d be treated em site am disc:harged to
the Clinta1 River in ac::x:xn:danoe with the substantive requirements of an
NPIES di.scharge pemi.t, as administered by the State un::1er Part 21 of
Michigan Act 245. Alternatively, the treated water may be disc:harged to
the IHID treatment plant if p:r:~b.eatment criteria are met.
3. Grc::mmrat-~,..
urxSer Alternative 4A, grcun:iwater shall be extracted (see Figure 6 for
~te locatia1S of extraction wells) until Federal MaximJm
Contaminant levels (!CIs) or rrn-zero Ma)r;1I'IJm Contaminant Level Goals
(lCIGs), prcm.1l.gated un::1er the safe Drir1Jd.n;J Water Act, am the
grcun:iwater cleanup stan::Iards derived under Michigan Act 307, Type B
criteria are met in the grcun:iwater oantaminant pltnne aItside of the
lan:lfill c:cntainment system. (See Table 4 for Grc::mmrater Cleanup
Stan:3ards. ) '!he extracted grcun:iwater shall be treated on site an:l
discharged to the Clinton River, in oaupliance with the substantive
requirements of a NPDES discharge pemi.t, as administered by the State
un::1er Part 21 of Michigan Act 245. Alternatively, the treated water may
be discharged to the IJtlSD trea'bDent plant if pretrea'bDent criteria are
met.
'!he goal of this ~] ~1 action is to restore the grcun:iwater to its
beneficial use, which is, at this site, an actual drir1Jd.n;J water source
east of the lamfill an:l a potential. dri.nkirxJ water saJrOe sart:h of the
lan:lfill. Based on info:r:matiem ctJtained duriJ'g the RI an:! em a careful
analysis of the ~ial alternatives, the u.s. EPA believes that the
selecte:i l~ will attain this goal. It may ~ ~, durin;}
implementation or q:eration of the grcun:iwater extraction system, that
oantaminant levels have ceased to decline an:! are remaining constant at
levels higher than the Gram:lwater Cleanup Stan:3ards over sane portion of
the oantaminant pltnne. In such a case,' the system perfonnance stamards,
the system design, and/or the :t:~y may be reevaluated. An::l, if sud1 a
reevaluation results in a detemination that Grc::mmrater Cleanup
Stan:lards sha1ld be c:h.aB;Jed, a new PL~ plan will be released for
p.1blic O.,.,.-.Jtt. an:! an amen:led Record of Decision will be iSSl1ed.
It is projecte:i that the grcun:iwater extraction an:! trea'bDent system may
attain the Grc::mmrater Cleanup Stan:lards in the grcun:iwater within
30 years. System perfonnance m:mitorin;} will be perfonned on a :r:egular
basis. If wancmted, the system may be 100dified in order to achieve the
goal as follows:
(a) P\.mpin;} may be di.sconti.nued at imividual wells where Gro.m:iwater
Cleanup Stan:3ards have been attained;
(b) Wells may be punpd on an alternate basis to eliminate stagnation
points ;
42
-------
(c) "Pulse pmpint' may be perfOJ:med to allow the aquifer to
equilibrate am allow M~ 0C31taminants to partition into the
grcuDeter for extraction: am
(d) M:1itimal extraction wells may be mstaned to facilitate or
accelerate cleanup of the oantaminant plume.
GraJrxiwater will be DD1itored periodically at arry well where pmpin;J has
~$ed to ensure that GraJrxiwater Cleanup Starxiards CXJntinue to be met.
4. Fgg
A fence shall be maintained arcund the cx::rrt:ainment system am the
grt:IlDUwater tJ:eatment system to prevent access to the site. '!he portions
of the recreational area that are cw.,Lf:lttly ferx:m am whidl will not be
affected by site ~]atiat may be rEq)ened to public access in
accomance with State law. '!his will require rBIDVal am relocation of
portions of the existin;J fence to erx:irc1e the containment am
grcuDeter tJ:eatment systemg.
5. Other Previsions
~ residences am J:::usi.nee:S'5!S located in the vicinity of the site (see
Figure 5) that are utilizin;J the lJR)er aquifer as a potable water soorce
shall be oannect:ed to the DI.D'1icipal water system. '!he private ~ls
shall then be prc:perly abarxia1ed in acx:ordanoe with State law.
'!he aquifers am sUrface waters in the site vicinity shall be scmpled
periodically to DD1itor d1emical oantaminant levels durin;J site
%'f"!InI'Idiation. Groundwater am surface water m::m.torin:] shall be
bDplemented for up to 30 years followin;J the adlievement of the
GraJrxiwater Cleanup' Starxiards (Table 4).
Mitigative measures will be taken durin;J reu&Jy constructiat activities
to minimize the noise am dust iIlpacts of oonst.k1.lC'tion upon the
surramdin:J t'nII'ftnUty. SUch mitigative measures may include the
placement of earthen bEmDs amjor plant materials (sud'l as trees am
shrubs) arcund the 1anifill per:iJEt:er, am other r-"'eSsary design
elements, to effectively C()u~~l the noise an:l dust iDpacts. F\J;Jitive
dust emissions shall not violate the National Ambient Air Quality
Stan:Ia%d for partia.l1.ate matter smaller than 10 microns (~o). '1he
(~o) starxJard is 150 u;;m3 (24-ha1r average not expected to be exceeded
Dm"e than CD! day per year) am 50 u;;m3 (annual arithmetic mean not to
be ~).
Institutional controls will be relied upon to provide additional
effectiveness to the reely. Deed restrictions shall be placed at the
laDifill area property to regulate the deve10pnent of the laDifill.
GraJrxiwater-use restrictions shall be maintained in the off-site areas to
the east of Ryan Road \D'1til GraJrxiwater Cleanup Stamards are met.
'!he Leonard Forster Fstate, the present owner of the G&H pJ:q)erty, has
43
-------
been UI.~ed by a state court to :remove the surface debris in the
junkyard. Additicmal surface soil investigaticms may be ~ to
detemine the effectiveness of the :iJIpen:tin;r rE!III:JVals. Shculd
oantaminants levels, trmich potentially pose a lifetime excess cancer risk
of greater than 1 x 10-6 and/or a hazam .in:Jex of greater than 1.0,
remain after the debris nm:JVal, suitable actial shall be taken to
mitigate the situatial. Respa1se activity shall include sane or all of
the followirq: (1) excavate the surface soil/debris in the junkyard area
and utilize it as fill beneath the cap in the 91ase I landfill area or
(2) extern the slun:y wall an::l cap to include the entire junkyard area.
'!he oil seep area is within a wetlams :resan:ce that will be lost to the
landfill CXI'1tair1ment system. ~tely 8 acres of the wetlands ~d
be filled an::l ~. AccoJ:'din;Jly, the oil seep area, an::l any other
wetlands area iJrpacted or that may be iJrpacted by iJJp1ementation of the
site l~Y (such as by lower~ the water table durin:;J aquifer
restoration) shall be replaced in acoordanoe with the state of Michigan
("~~An:3erson Wetland Protection Act (Act 203 of 1979) and its
administrative roles. Ideally, wetlams replaoemeltt wculd occur within
the :rec:reaticmal area system alorg the Clinton River. At a mi.nim.Im, the
U.S. EPA will require that the wetlands wculd be replaced at par, unless
the state, un:1er Act 203, requires a higher replaoemeJit ratio.
In acxxrdarDa with the preferen::e for treatment of prm:ipal threats at
SUperfurd sites, in aatitial to and duri.n;J the 5-year review for r&a1y
protectiveness requiIed by section 121 (b) of CERCIA, emergin; .in situ
tmatment tedmologies shall be evaluated as to their effectiveness at
treatin;J the R1ase 1: landfill area cantami.nants. '!he evaluatial will
seek to detemine ~ any such tedmologies wculd effectively
decrease the levels of contamination within the CXI'1tair1ment system so as
to (1) reduce the lc::n;-tem risks associated with the oontaminants,
(2) reduce the risk of failure of the CXI'1tair1ment lauedy due to the high
ocn:ehLLaticms of cantami.nants, an::l (3) reduce the risk of exposure to
oantaminants due to a failure of the CXI'1tair1ment system. SUd1
tedmologies wculd be reviewed in oanfomity with the reruedy selection
criteria of CERCIA and the NCP.
6. Sianificant Chm:Je: PCBs in Soils and ~i1nl=l!11ts
'!he cleamp of PCBs was rot directly addressed in the ~i;\l
alteJ:natives evaluated in the FS or in the prqnsed plan. However, un:ier
the U.S. EPA's new FCB clearmp policy an::l un:1er ~ B criteria of the
Michigan Envu-oarweutal Respa1se Act 307 of 1982, as amerXIecl (Act 307),
soils an::l ~ ; 1nI=I!11ts located ootside of the slurry wall and containing
PCBs at 1.0 Dg/kg (RE) or greater shall be excavated and prqIer1y
managed. Excavated soils and sediments containing less than 500 RE PCBs
will be consolidated under the landfill cap in a manner similar to the
junkyard soils (see al:x:Ive). Alt:hco;Jh it is rot anticipated that soils
and ~imPJ'tts will be fam:! to contain PCBs at a ~tion of 500 ppn
or greater, any such soils and ~jJIIPnts shall be treated to destroy the
PCBs. Treatment shall consist of either off-site incineration,
vitrificatial, or any other destJ:ucti.ve technology approved by the
44
-------
U.s. EPA for the dest:ructim of PCBs.
areas to be addressed.
'Ibis c:haD:Je in the l:t::IUI::'.ly is a logical CAItgrowth of the RIfFS at the G&H
site. Soil am ~;'!N:01'lt PCB ocn:~ntratia1S wem evaluated and rHRCJ1Ssed
in the RI :r~t, bIt a final cleamp level was oot identifiable until
the Act 307 ~..~ effective in July 1990 and until U.S. EPA's new PCB
guidance bec-"..- effective in Au]ust 1990. '!he cleanup level for PCBs in
residential areas has been 10 AD in ac:xx:u'dance with the Federal Toxic
~ COa1w'ul Act ('ISCA). under the new (U.S. EPA) PCB guidance, a
1.0 AD cleanup level of PCBs is IXJW the cleanup st:an:iard cx::.nsiderec1 to
be protective in residential neighbomoods. '!he U.S. EPA has detemined
that protectim of the wetlams near the G&H site r--~itates a PCB
cleanup level of 1.0 AD, as a precautia'l against bioa~1Iftuatia'l of
hazardous levels of PCBs in aquatic species and their predators. 'Ibis
cleanup st:an:iard OCIIplies with Michigan Act 307 under Type B criteria.
Figure 9 displays the ~te
'!he b:ea'bDent trigger level is based upon the new PCB guidance and is
cx::.nsistent .with the NCP's mcpectatim that the U.s. EPA will b:eat only
./.
/.1
'f
f. i.
. , \
it \
.: \
i f. ~
"i \ ,
l,_, ~ \
\1 \, ,
.. \
.. .
\'" \
-,~~ \
" ,
, ,
\ ~ -.
,: " 'UIIA
.. \ \ . I j", - ,. c
.:/ f:" , II ' "'.:::), /. a
/ t' .' / 0('. \ \ ~ " . ", " : II:
/: ~., ..~" '...10."".., " " ','c' >::::.J...:"!i:.' a ~
""\\."'« ',fi",,:- :~'i. ..';/U",ji.;'I'i"'N"', .,,":"-- p.~
('1 .//'1. ,,~, {. '~ "'-.... .' .~~: ."""!:.\ '.I:', _\'-~-~ "'L
. ..... . ,.....:\ ~ .-'. ~ ~...-- - "
: -::"/ .,r ::-" 1\:, \ ... '. .-.:" ~':I!r.j ',.,~.,;:: ",,' , x'. if,
I ( /--="'-./ '\ \ " \:-00,{, -.-. f",..- '. "";;d.r '.:=....."?-... ""- '--
:; I/o" ....- .. '. \. I... ....~--, : x':~~ "__0",,-;.'..\, '''''....
\\~.. .' \ \. INI:..~ ' '-', '," ~
.../ ... ... J, ...... ~--.. - - - .(.,:' 'r~ '
\. 'Ii --=--.:..;",,-=:::.::.. .....-:-: -,::"'k,!~/i~ II ,,'
..-:-';':~::--..... ...iill -......... - ,. -,~,:"-",:,,~:':c~-,,,,~, ~~
Ii -'-...:.:..,.1 ~----- --~~:.:~.- ' ,,'~:;;":,,)} ..'i;;-':-:, /
:.' ~. "'--~e'- ~\'..... - ..-:;...~')~:::..- ~r:'.) ~... )
Ii \ ""''',-. ~ -. -........- <:':- '-";""':~:'J';~ ~;nrp i;
f: "'-._~~- '" _.~-.;, ':':~..:.~'.:~""':-: [(~i~? 1: [
II , --. ..... I ~'I:-;', '-"'...... ....,1..1..\ \ I,
..,.. ~.. ---------~--- ;I .~.7:;'P"':;.;.~.~::.:~.;'::::~ f
! . '\. , ~~'-...z-_~~.~-=.:--.-..-:-.~ ";"" ...z-..,.;r"'.;:; :.:,.,~' '.
I. . , ,,/' :'
':--,,-"-"-., "V" 1
'-"-"-"- -".--.-.,.. r ,
"-'--'. " " -;.~, I lIT'
North \ \ ~ Z2 ' 18Lt 1101\0 ----'
t
.~t
~'~S~'
,=
,.. =,
.~
"'DL~ ,..
~f- i
....~ II '
I. "
" "
If~r.J
,f Ii
jJ.--,:
", Ii i
/ ,I., J
cr-n:; ,.- ~
I
~
~~~~
8OIl.QAV COYER
-
- CCJHnIOl WEWI
. -
. I
A_,IIMAft
8CAU IN FaT
YEImCAI._R
roe-
~
UEAS TO IE EXCAVATED: PCIs
AT 1 PPII 011 GIEATEI
Figure 9: Areas of oanoem - PCBs.
45
-------
priJx:ipal threats am contain lower-level threats. 500 R;D is the level
at which PCBs are exnsidered to be a prin::ipal threat in an imustrial
settin;, therefore, treatment of soils am t::M;~11ts oontainin:J 500 R;D
or greater PCBs wa.1ld satisfy the statutozy prefereme for treabDent as a
pri.rx:ipal element. '!he amse I lan:ifill area wa.1ld be considered to be
an in:lustria1 settin;, so that the rE!!DIaimer of the soil am t::M;~11t,
with FCB levels at less than 500 AD, wa.1ld oot be c:x:nsidered to be a
pri.rx:ipal threat in itself. 'Ihus, containment of soils am t::M;~11ts
oontainin:J less than 500 AD PCBs wa.1ld. be consistent with the NCP.
'!he U.S. EPA estimates that no extra time may be 1"eeded to CXlDplete this
partial of the l:eauerJy, as the junkyard area may be subjected to a similar
cleanup respcI1Se acticm (soils excavation) which can be blplemented
ccn::urrently. Since 1IIJdl of the PCB contaminaticm was fam:! within the
area to be oart:ained by the sluny wall am lan:ifill CXNer, the cost of
the entire l~ may irx:rease slightly, b.1t no cost estimate can be
calculated at this time.
L. Statutorv Deteminations
'!he selected l:ehb.ly DUSt satisfy the requireuEnts of section 121(a-e) of
CERCIA' to:
1. Protect 1nmIan health an:1 the envi.ra1ment;
2. CcIIply with MARs;
3. Be cost-effective;
4. Utilize perm;ment solutions am alternative treatment tedmologies
to the max:imJm extent practicable; am
5. satisfy a preference for treatment as a prm:ipal element of the
remedy .
'!he i.Irplementation of Alternative 4A at the G&H lan:ifill site satisfies
the requireuEnts of CERCIA as detailed below:
1. Protection of Hlm1an ~ 1 th am the Environment
IDplementaticm of the selected alternative will reduce am oantrol
pXential risks to human health posed by ~ to contaminated
gramdwater. Extracticm am treatment of contaminated gramdwater to
meet GrcA.n:lwater Cleanup Starx3ards will reduce the pXential excess
lifetime cancer risk due to irgesticm of contaminated groumwater fran
the unacceptable risks currently posed (e.g., 6 x 10-3 in area 2) by
gramdwater ocntaminants to a ma.x:i.mJm risk for in:tividual carcinogenic
chemicals of ~te1y 1 x 10-6 in area 2, area 4, am area 5. As
above, assumin:;J that all carcinogens were a1ly treated to the 1 x 10-6
level (a highly unlikely scenario), the maxinum cumulative risk WQl1d be
~tely 1 x 10-5, which is an acceptable level. '!he Hazard Irx:lex
WQl1d be reduoed to 1.0, which is also an acceptable level.
Institutional oantrols will provide short-tenn effectiveness for the
preventicm of drinJdn;J contaminated gramdwater until the GrcA.n:lwater
Cleanup Starx3ards are met. '!he selected remedy also protects the
46
-------
env!raJment by reducin; the potential risks posed by site d1emicals
di.sc::haJ:gin; to the wetJ.ams am to surface water (the Clinton River).
Cat:Pin; the landfill, in aatitia'1 to reducin; any pote.ntia.l further
risk posed by exposure to lan:lfill oantam:inants, will reduce
precipitatiCl1 infiltratia'1 ~ the cap by an estimated 80 percent,
am maintain that rate of reductia'1 over time. IDplementaticm of the cap
am sluny wall will reduce gram:lwater CXI1taminant loadin;J to the
usable aquifer aItside of the sluny wall, allowin:J the restoratia1 of
the aquifer within a reascmable time frame.
No unac:x:eptable shart-t:em risks will be caused by iDplementation of the
l.eu.:dy. '!he lTmIIII1Tlity am site workers may be exposed to noise am dust
mtisances durin; ccnstzuctia'1 of the cap am sluny wall. As aOOve,
mitigative ~!I:IJreS will be taken duri.n:J :t:emeUY ccnstzuctia1 activities
to minimize the noise am dust iJlpacts of ccnstzuctiCl1 upon the
~ tYmI'ft1Tlity. SUch mitigative measures may i.Jx:1ude the
plaoemeIlt of earthen be1:ms an1,Ior plant materials (such as trees am
shrubs) aram:i the lan:lfill perimeter, am ather ~"'azy design
elements, to effectively control the noise am dust iIrpacts.
'!he ~ of vehicular accidents may rise due to the projected increase
in the volume of tzuck traffic in haulin; cappin; materials to the
lan:lfill. Air strippin; shcW.d not pre.sent short-tenn risks due to VOC
air emissions if properly designed am mnitored. Standard safety
progl.GIID sha1ld manage any short-tem risk of accidents.
2. O:m:>lianoe With :ARARs
'!he selected 1:eu-Jy will CXIIply with the Federal an1,Ior State, where more
stri1r;Jent, awlicable or relevant am awrq>riate requirements (ARARs)
listed belC7ll:
a. ~;cal-scecific ARARs
Olemi.cal-specific ARARs regulate the release to the envirormlent of
specific substances havin; certain chemical characteristics. Olemical-
specific ARARs typically determine the extent of cleanup at a site.
i. ,SQj.].s/SE!dj1llPnts
No Federal cbemi.cal-specific standards exist for soils am ~;1N=>1"Its.
'!he Michigan Envi.rcnmenta1 Response Act 307 of 1982, as amerned (Act
307), provides for the identification, risk asses~, am evaluation of
contaminated sites within the State; therefore, Act 307 is awlicable or
relevant an:i ~~te to the G&H site. '!he U. S. EPA CX)J1Siders the
substantive portions of Parts 6 am 7 of the Act 307 rules to be ARARs
for the remedial action at this site. 'n1ese rules provide, ~ alia,
that ~ial actions shall be protective of human health, safety, the
envirormlent, am the natural :resaJroeS of the State. To achieve the
stan:Umi of protectiveness, Act 307 rules specify that a remedial action
47
-------
.
shall achieve a de;ree of cleanup l)J'Wjer either 'tyPe A (cleanup to
bac1cgrourd levels), 'tyPe B (cleanup to risk-based levels), or Type C
(cleamp to risk-based levels l)J'Wjer site specific c:::oosideratians)
criteria.
'!he State, l)J'Wjer Act 307, has established what it considers to be
aca:ptable cleanup criteria for gramjwater, soils, surface water, and
air at the G&H site. '!he u.s. EPA has determined that the app!.'"¥Liate
cleanup standards far soils and AM;~ located cutside of the sluny
wall walld be derived l)J'Wjer 'tyPe B criteria. '!his det:ennination is based
upon the consideration of projected land use in the recreational area, of
protectim of the envircrJment, and of the new (U.s. EPA) PCB guidance.
Type A criteria are net r--s:azy to achieve the protectiveness stamard
since land use will be more intemittent than residential use, and 'tyPe A
criteria may net be projected to provide a greater measureable degree of
risk reduction versus 'tyPe B criteria. ('!he Type B criteria for
carcimgeJs are based on the reduction of the ~1UC1tians of hazarcb.1s
substances to levels which pose an intividual excess lifetime caroer
risk of 1 x 10-6, usin:J the standardized exposure a~mrtions in the
:rules. Type B criteria woold OCIlply with u.s. EPA guiQary;,e on cleanup
levels for PCBs (1. 0 AD) in soils cutside of the sluny wall.)
Within the oantainment system, the u.s. EPA has determined that Act 307,
Type C criteria walld be ~qJI'iate. '!he only form--1ble use of the
site is a lan::lfill, am Type A or Type B criteria wculd net provide for
the derivation of cleanup standards which oc:uld be met tmless the soorce
materials were rem:JVed. '1herefore, Type C criteria walld provide for a
cost-effective and'appl'"¥Liate ~ia1 actia1 for the lan:lfill areas.
li. GJ:'amiwater
~""'" ARARs
Maxim.1m COntaminant Levels (Mas) and, to a certain extent, Maximum
COntaminant Level Goals (MeIGs), the Federal dr:ink:i.nJ-water standards
praIIllgated l)J'Wjer the safe Dr:ink:i.nJ Water Act (SIJtlA), are CiR'licable to
mmicipal water SUR>lies servicin:J 25 ar more peq>le. At the G&H
lan:lfill site, H::[s and MCIGs are net CiR'licable l::Jut are relevant and
awL~riate, since the \g)er sand and gravel aquifer is a Class II
scmce which is beinq, ar oc:uld potentially be, used for dr:ink:i.nJ in the
areas of ~ (areas 2, 4, and 5). MCIGs are relevant and ~iate
when the stamard is set at a level greater than zero .(for non-
carcimgens), otherwise, MCIs are relevant and ~'"¥Liate. '!he point of
c:arpliance far Federal dr:ink:i.nJ-water standards is at the 1:x:urmry of the
lan:lfilled wastes.
At the G&H site, the u.s. EPA has determined that cleanup to MCIs and
non-zero MCIGs (cutside of the sluny wall) woold net be protective,
since the residual risk woold fall ootside of the rarge the u. S. EPA
oansiders to be protective. 'Ihus, risk-based cleanup standards are
necessary to ad1ieve protectiveness.
48
-------
State ARARs
'1he state of Michigan is authorized to administer the iDplementation of
the Federal SIJtlA. '1he State has also prcmJlgated MCIs ume.r Michigan
Act 399 (the Michigan Safe Dr~ Water Act), ~dl would be
8R>licable if the graniwater is or will be used for dr~, or
relevant am ~'-¥l-iate if the grourx:1water CXIUld be used for drinki.rg.
~ state !as are 8R>licable to the site sirx:e the aquifer is OJn:~lItly
beiD:J utilized by area resic:letDes am busir-e~'E!S. After the affected
haDes am bJsinesges are OOlu:~..:ted to the DLmicipal water SUR>ly, am the
aquifer is no lCD;Jer in use, the state !as walld be relevant am
~'-¥l-.i.ate to the site.
As abaYe, Midligan Act 307 is ~licable or relevant am ~~-.i.ate to
t."-1e G&H site. ~ u.s. EPA has determined that acceptable standards for
graniwater cleanup, that have been derived umer Type B criteria, would
be protective in the azoeas of the plume aJt:side of the containment
system. Cleanup levels derived un:ler ~ B criteria would allow the
aquifer to be restored to its beneficial uses by achievin] the risk-based
cleanup standards the u.s. EPA has determined will assure protection of
1nDDan health am the environment.
Sirx:e the recreatia1al area walld not be considered for develqment as a
residential settin;J, grourx:1water use in the recreatia1al area is
projected to be int:emi.ttent. '!he u.s. EPA has determined that Type A
criteria walld ttms be ~iate to detem:ine graniwater cleanup
standards sirx:e Type B criteria would yield protective cleanup standards..
'!he u.s. EPA also oonsiders the Type C criteria to be ~'-¥l-iate to
derive cleanup standards for the URJer aquifer, sirx:e the graniwater
use in the residential area would be CXJnSiderec1 to be oontinua1. In this
area, Type B criteria would yield protective grourx:1water standards as
well. Finally, the q.pe:r aquifer discharges graniwater to the surface
in portions of the recreatia1al area saIth of the landfill area. 'Dle
U.S. EPA has determined that Type B criteria would yield grourxiwater
cleanup standards ~dl walld also provide for the protection of surface
water quality, in tum prct:ect.iIq 1nDDan health am the environment.
'!he u.s. EPA has determined that ~licatian of Type C criteria walld be
the ~'-¥l-iate cleanup response for the portiCl1 of the aquifer to be
cont:irlned by the sluny wall. Unless the lan:lfill debris is reJIDIlE!d,
whidl is net a fores~wle event, it is net plausjDle that the groun:i-
water within the sluny wall would be used (especially for dr~) am,
therefore, neither Type A or Type B criteria walld be ~iate or even
attainable. In this area, grourxiwater walld be extracted mainly to
create an inward hydraulic gradient across the sluny wall to prevent the
migratiCl1 of oontami.nants aJt:side of the containment system.
ili. surface Water
Federal ARARs
surface water quality standards for the protection of human health am
49
-------
aquatic life were develcped urDer section 304 of the Clean water Act
(~) . '!be Federal AJli)ient water Quality criteria (AWJC) are
nt'I'1el1fcn:ceable guidelines that set pollutant ca~d.r-eltion limits to
protect surface waters that are ~licable to point source discharges,
sucn as fran in:mstria1 or Dlmicipal wastewater streams. At a SUperfun:i
site, the Federal AWJC walld not be ~licable except for p:et.b:=atment
requirements for clisd1arge of treated water to a Publicly OWned Treatment
Wm:Ks (roIW). CEaA (section 12l(d) (1» requires the u.s. EPA to
ca1Sider whether MQ:: walld be relevant am 8R>J:q:n..iate umer the
circumst:arx:&; of a release or threatene1 release, depernin:J on the
designated or potential use of gI'ClJniwater or surface water, the
envi.rcrmenta1 media affected by the releases or potential releases, am
the latest infODBtion available. Sin::2 the aquifer is a cmrent am
potential saD:'Oe of drinkin;J water am sin::2 treated water may be
dischaJ:ged to the Clinton River or to the !HID treatment plant (if
p:etreatmant criteria are met), AWJC adopted for drinkin;J water am AWJC
for protection of freshwater aquatic organisms are relevant am
~\.¥Liate to the point saD:'Oe di.sd1arge of the treated water into the
Clinton River.
State ARARs
Portioos of the Water Resources t'hTm; ~~ion Act 245 (Michigan Act 245) of
1929, as amenjed, establish surface water-quality standards to protect
1nmIan health am the envi.ra1ment. '!he State administers the NPDES
pl:~c:IW umer Part 21 of Michigan Act 245; therefore, Part 21 of Act 245
walld be ~licable to the dixect clisd1arge of treated water to the
Clinton River or tb a clean aquifer, to the in:lirect clisd1arge tlu:'oogh
grouIXlwater D:Wement to a surface water body, or to di.sd1arge to a K7IW.
b. I.oc:ation.:.cecific ARARs
Loc:aticn-spec:ific ARARs are those requirements that relate to the
geograprlcal position of a site. 'lhese .in::1\Xie:
Federal ARARs
Bath ~ (40 CfR 264.l8(b) - hazaJ':tb.1s waste storage - flood plain) am
Executive order 11988 - Protection of Flood Plains - are relevant am
~iate for this site, a portion of which is located within the
~ 10Q-year flood plain of the Clinta1 River. 'lhese regulations
walld require that the gI'ClJniwater treatJIent system be located above
10o-year flood plain elevation an:l be protected fran erosional damage.
'D1e regulations also require that any portion of the cap that is
constructed within the 10o-year flood plain be adequately protected
against a 10o-year flood event (e.g., geatextiles shculd be used to
secure tqJsoil, etc.)
section 404 of the ~ regulates the clisd1arge of dredged or fill
material to waters of the United states, .in::1udirY;J wetlaIXls. Cawing of
wetlarns is regulated urDer section 404 of the ~; therefore, the
substantive requirements of section 404 walld be relevant an:l a,wropriate
50
-------
to the xa-ni"l actiat at the site.
Executive Order 11990 - Protectiat of Wetlan::1s - is an at:Plicable
mquirement to prat:ect against the loss or degradatiCrl of wetlan::1s. As
presented above, iJlplementatiat of the sluny wall, in OCIIIbinatiCrl with
the estimated grc:JUI1:iwater extractiat rate, is anticipated to have a
negative iJIpact Crl the Clinton River wetlan::1s. '!he &Cq)e of the iJlpact
has not yet been det:emined. Mitigative efforts JIL1St be at:Plied to the
cleanup if an iJIpact is seen at the wetlan::1s. In aa:IitiCrl, cq:.prcximately
8 acres of wetlan::1s are expect:ecl to be lost due to the containment of the
oil seep area, and Executive Order 11990 may requiz'e these resooroes to
be nplaoed.
state ARARs
'!he t"--=--ere-ArxJersa1 Wetland ProtectiCrl Act 203 of 1979 (Act 203)
regulates arr:i activity which may take place within wetlan::1s in the State
of Michigan. Act 203 is at:Plicable to the rmnedl.al action at the G&H
site; it may also require the replacRTlArrt: of adversely iJlpacted wetlan::1s
with ~le resooroes.
'!he Inland lakes and Streams Act 346 of 1972, as amerded, regulates
inland lakes and streams in the State. Act 346 walld be at:Plicable to
arr:i dredgirg or fillirg activity at the Clinton River bottaD1an::1s.
'!he Soil ErosiCrl and ~i~tiCrl Q..1uLLul Act 347 of 1972 regulates .
earth d1arr:Jes, iJx:1~ a.Jt and fill activities, which may oontrib.rt:e to
soil erosiat and ~;~tiCrl of surface waters of the State. Act 347
walld at:Ply to arr:i such activity where nme than 1 acre of land is
affected or the regulated action ocx:urs within 500 feet of a lake or
stream. Act 347 walld be at:Plicable to the cap and sluny wall
oansb:uction activities since these actions ccW.d iJlpact the Clinton
River, which is less than 500 feet fran the Fhase III landfill area.
c. Action-scecific ARARs
Actim-specific ARARs are requirements that define acx::ept:able trea1:JDent
and ni~ pJ:~U'eS for hazardous substances. .
~'"' 1 ARARs
Since the G&H landfill was closed prior to No\1eDt)er 1980 (in DeoantIer
1974), ~ requirements are not at:Plicable unless ~-listed or
cnaracteristic hazarda.1s wastes are excavated and managed (treated,
disposed, or stored), as defined by RCRA, durin;] the cleamp. RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions (Im or Ian:i Ban) walld not be at:Plicable since no
"placement" of ~ hazardous waste walld be occurrirg at this site.
In its pure fom, waste organic solvent may be a d1aracteristic waste
(ignitibility) and, in its present fom (mixed with soil and debris), the
waste solvents walld be expect:ecl to fail the 'la.P test and, therefore,
eJChibit a property of d1aracteristic waste, althc:ugh no testirq was
51
-------
I v
perfatmed to detem:ine if G&H wastes EOOlibited a property of
characteristic waste as defined by~. 'lherefore, certain ~
SUbtitle C requirements, in::lu:lin;J UR, woold be relevant an::l ~iate
if the solvent wastes were to be excavated an::l managed.
'Ihe a'1ly manner in whidl the selected l.~ may stare or di ~ of
hazamaJs waste is when or if the grcurxlwater treatment system zoequires
emissiCl'1 ~.uLLvl units to capture or contain volatile mganics derived
iran aeratim of the oantaminated grcurxlwater. '!he ~ waste
generatim an::l t.e!Iponny storage regulatiCl'1S umer 40 CFR Part 262 woold
then be 8R>licable to that actim. For exanple, activated ~T'hnrt
canisters utilized as emissim ocntrols woold be managed, when spent, as
a characteristic waste if the waste canisters were to fail the TCI..P test.
For lan::lfill closure, ~ SUbtitle C requirements are oot awlic:able
s;in:)e the hazarda1s substances of oc:JOOem. were di ~ of prior to
NaveIIiJer 1980, bIt walld be relevant an::l ~~iate as considered by the
NCP (sectim 300.400(9) (2». At the G&H site, the hazardo.1s substances
in the lan::lfill are sufficiently similar to listed an:vor charact:eristic
~ wastes an::l therefore SUbtitle C is relevant. A SUbtitle C cover is
well suited to the site since this type of cap walld aid in the reduction
of precipitation infiltration through the lan::lfill contents, whidl walld
be prctective of the grcurxlwater. '1hus, a SUbtitle C caver is
~iate.
'Ihe lan::lfill closure requirements are listed in 40 CFR 264.310(a) (1-5) . .
In part, (40 CFR) .264.3l0(a) (1) zoequires the final cover DL1St be designed
an::l oanstructed to minimize the migration of liquids through the
lan::lfill. Also, 264.310(a) (5) requires that the caver DL1St have a
permeability less than or equal to the permeability of ~ battan liner
system or natural subsoils present. However, in satisfyi.rr:J
264.3l0(a) (5), a caver as required by the regulations might not be
sufficiently :impermeable to minbnize the migration of liquids as required
in 264.310(a) (1). 'lherefore, the poliCy of the Office of ~ is to
follow, whenever possible, the design st:amards in Final COVers on
Hazarda1s Waste I..arxlfills an::l SUrface Tmnr'D'rlmehts, EPA/53O-SW-89-047,
July 1989, a ~ technical guidance doCl1m~'1t for the design of lan::lfill
cap;. A flexible menimme liner (FML) is an integral ~11.anent of sudl a
~ SUbtitle C cap. ~, guidaooe is not an ARAR; rather factors
"to be exnsidered" in designi.rr:J a protective :r:eu-.ly.
'!he cap J?l~ for the G&H site consists of a gradin;J layer, a mini.m.nn
3-foat cx::mpacted clay layer, a gravel drainage layer, a frost protective
soil layer, an::l a m:inimJm 6-.inch topsoil layer. '1hese 0 ~111 ~ satisfy
the requirements of ~ SUbtitle C an::l also the requirements for cawin3'
a hazardo.1s waste d;~ facility in MSHWR 299.6919 (see below). In
designi.rr:J the G&H cap, the Hydrologic Evaluation of I..arxlfill Performance
(HELP) JOOdel was IUn to detem:ine the estimated reduction of
precipitation infiltration through the lan::ifill. '!he estimated reduction
of water infiltration with the cap is 80 percent; the ~ SUbtitle C
guidaooe cap is estimated to show a 99.9 percent reduction of
infiltratim. Each cap design satisfies 264.310(a) (1) since
52
-------
I
predpitatim infiltratia1 is sufficiently mi.J"aimi "81. However, the
1arr:lfill waste is periodi~ lly in ocntact with the groorxlwater at the
site am groorxlwater/leac:hate is to be extracted or oollected (am
treated) fran the area contained by the slm-ry wall. 'D1us, the u. s. EPA
has detemi.ned that it may net be tec:tmically advantagecus am,
therefore, net ~~iate to :install a FML at this site. Moreover, an
FML wculd be subject to damage due to differential settl:in;J of the
landfill CXI1tents. ~;,. of the FML wculd ten:! to be JII.Jd1 more oostly
and diffia1lt than repair of the 3-foot clay layer ala1e.
'!be Taxic SUbstarats CatL,\Jl Act, 40 CPR 761, sets specific requirements
far the ~.-'1t of PCBs, am wculd be ~licable if PCB ocrrt:aminated
soils and t:Mi1N:a11ts aze treated or n;~ of at the site.
Additicnal Federal acticn-specific ARARs aze fc:urn in the FS.
State ARARs
'!be State of Michigan is authorized to administer RCRA within the State.
t1rder the Hazardous Waste Management Act 64 of 1979, as amerxled, the
State regulates the generation, transport, treatment, storage, am
ni ~ of hazardous waste. Act 64 also regulates the closure, am the
postclosure care, of hazardous waste n;~ facilities in the State.
As with RCRA, above, Act 64 is net ~icable to closure of the larxifi1l
siooe n;~ c:peratians ~sed before Act 64 was pramllgated. Act 64
may be relevant am 24¥L~iate to the larxifill closure, since the wastes
are sufficiently similar to RCRA listed or d1aracteristic wastes am the .
larxifill closure IUles wculd be well suited for the closure of the G&H
larxifill. Act 64 wculd be ~licable to the treatment or storage of
hazardous lamfill contents mxVor hazardous resinU;:!I1R £ran on-site
treatment units.
Parts 4, 9, am 21 of the Water ResaJrces C'nmI; R..c;ioo Act 245 of 1929, as
amerxled, establish ntles for water quality by prdrlbit:in;J injurious
disc::ha%qes to surface water. 'lhese ntles wculd be ~licable to the
disc:hiu:ge of treated groorxlwater to the Clintal River or to the IliSD
treatment system.
Act 60 of 1976, of the Michigan O::IJpiled laws ~ PCBs prci1ibits
the di ~ of PCBs or PCB CXI'1taminated materials in surface water,
groorxlwater, or air. Act 60 also provides for the proper storage,
hanU:in;J, transportation, and disposal of PCBs or PCB contaminated
materials in larxifills or thrc:ugh incineratioo. Act 60 wculd be
~licable to the remaval am n;~ of PCB oantaminated soils am
t:M; 1N:a11ts at the G&H site.
As desc::ribed earlier in this doct~, the Michigan Envira1menta1
Respa1Se Act 307 of 1982, as amerxied (Act 307), provides for the
identificatioo, risk as~Of?sment, am evaluation of oantaminated sites
wit1Un the State. '!he u.s. EPA has detennined that the substantive
provisia1S of Parts 6 am 7 of Act 307 aze ~licable or relevant am
appropriate to the G&H site. '!he Act 307 ntles require that remedial
53
-------
-
actia'1S shall be prat:ect:.ive of tDJman health, safety, the envira1ment, an::i
the natural :rescuroes of the State. To adrleve this stamard of
protectiveness, the Act 307 roles require that a ~;~, acticm adrleves
a ~~ of cleanup umer either 'lyPe A (cleanup to backgramd levels),
'lyPe B (cleanup to risk-based levels), or 'lyPe C (cleanup to risk-based
levels umer site ~ific OCI'ISideratioos) criteria.
3. o:st-effectiveness
o:st-effectiveness tYWIp"res the effectiveness of an alt.eJ:native in
14~a1 to its cost of pravictin;J its environmental benefits. Table 5
lists the costs associated with the bplement:ation of the remedies.
Alt.eJ:native 1 ani Alt.eJ:native 2 are the least expensive alt.eJ:natives, b.1t
they do not provide adequate protection of 1nmIan health an::i the
envira1ment or effectiveness aver the larg teJ:m. '!hey do not meet
1arr:ifill closure or graD'Kiwater ARARs, either. Alt.eJ:natives 3A is JIIJCh
more expensive than Alt.eJ:native 1 an::i Alt.eJ:native 2, b.1t it pravi.des 00
~ter protecticm. Alternative 3B an::i Alternative 4A are similar in
cost, ani both address the larr:ifill closure ani graD'Kiwater contamination
at the site. Alternative 4A, for a relatively slight greater expense,
would adrleve the Groundwater Cleanup Starrlards within a reasonable tiJne
frame. Alternative 3B does not actively address the grouOOwater
contaminaticm; rather, it is allowed to naturally attenuate aver a lCJn:1
time pericx1 (m.re than 30 years).
Alternative 6A, the most expensive alternative evaluated in detail in the.
feasibility study,' wculd pemanently address a priJx::ipal threat at the
site, whereas Alternative 3B ani Alternative 4A only cnrt:ain the wastes.
'Iherefore, due to potential short-tam risks associated with on-site
incineration at this site, plus the fact that not all of the Ihase I
1arr:ifill area contaminants wculd be addressed umer Alternative 6A, the
U.S. EPA has detemi.ned that Alternative 4A is the cost-effective remedy.
4. tJt:;' ization of PeJ:manent Solutions ani Alternative Treatment
'l'echooloaies or Resource Recoverv Tedmoloaies to the MaximJm Extent.
Practicable
'!he selected 1:auedy utilizes pemanent solutions ani alternative
treatment tec:hoologies to the max:imJm extent practicable (MEP) at this
time. '!his firxiirg was made after evaluation of the protective ani ARAR-
carpliant alternatives for the G&H site ~ia1 action ani ~ison of
the "t.1.~ffs" (advantages versus disadvantages) aIIID;J the remedial
alt.eJ:natives with mspect to the five balancin;J criteria (see above).
1he NCP established the U.S. EPA policy of givin;J priority to lCJn:1-tenn
effectiveness ani to reducticm of 'IMV at a site, statiIg that lag-tenn
effectiveness ani reduction of 'IMV thrcugh treatment are generally the
key decisional factors to be considered at SUperf'urrl sites. Once the
threshold criteria of prat:ect:.ion of human health ani the environment am
ARARs-carplianoe were satisfied, a key criterion used in rSlIerJy selection
for the G&H site was short-tam effectiveness, rather than an eIDJ;i1asis on
54
-------
the iMlWtiate reductia'1 of toxicity, Debility, an:l volume ('IMV) 't:.hrc:u3h
trea'bDent. I.cn]-tem effectiveness was also eq:i1asizecl by proviciin;J for
accept:able residual risk levels .in the grc:A.1l'XIwater at the site. However,
the projected adverse iDpacts of iDplemet11:.irq Alternative 6A obligated
the u.s. EPA to place an eq:i1asis en a cxntainment l:cwcdy at this time.
Altemative 1 does mt provide adequate protectien to human health am
the envirChlll::lrt:, as CD1Sidered by the NCP, an:i it does mt address the
principal threats. Altematives 2, 3A an:i 3B do mt address ard/or treat
the principal threats. Altemative 3A an:l Altemative 3B merely contain
the lan:ifill ocntaminants witha.tt pemanently acXIressin;J or treatjn;J the
principal threat posed by the oil-oart:aminated soils am debris. '!he
grc:A.1l'XIwater oant:aminant plume is mt addressed as well.
Alternative 6A's l~-tem effectiveness am its ability to reduce the
'lMV of hazardoos ~ was weighed against its short-tem
effectiveness am cost aspects .in relation to Altemative 4A. In
general, Alternative 6A wculd prove to place a significant degree of
risk to site workers am to the t'YWT1n11T1ity durin;J the excavatien am
treatment of hazardoos~. In additien, the exb.=ur:: cost of
iDplementatien may mt reduce the site risks to human health am the
enviranul:=nt to acceptable levels, sin:Je the residual contaminants .in the
B1ase'I lanifill area may still be present .in hazartbJs quantities.
1tI1i1e Altemative 4A only contains the principal threat posed by the
contaminants .in the B1ase I lanifill area, it does address the
grc:A.1l'XIwater oant:aminant plume.
'!here may be JII.ini:qal risks associated with the haulin;J of materials for
cap oanstructien. Arr:I risks posed by sud1 actien will be mitigated by
att:euptin; to secure local materials to construct the cap am to enploy
standard dust control measures durin;J oanstruction. With respect to voc:
emissions durin;J treatment of the grc:A.1l'XIwater am soils, effective air
manitorin:; wculd ensure that air stan:1ards established to protect human
health am the environment are met. Emission controls may be utilized,
if 1"'eOeSsary, to meet these stan:1ards. Short-tenn risks due to the
disc::haJ:qe of treated grc:A.1l'XIwater to the Clintal River wculd be minimized
by ensurin;J that the treated water Deets disc::haJ:qe criteria, which are
established to protect human health am the envUUUIIII::I1't.
'!he FS report irdicates that it is mt practicable to utilize a permanent
treatment technology on the lower-level, l~-tenn threat posed by the
ccntents of the B1ase n am B1ase In lanifill areas. Arx:l, although a
cap an:i slun:y wall is not a pemanent solution to the principal threat,
it does provide adequate protection £ran exposure to the wastes .in the
lan:ifill areas. More iJIp)rtantly, the containment system provides
adequate protection to the grc:A.1l'XIwater by usin;J a barrier to
precipitation .infiltration 't:.hrc:u3h the lanifill, which reduces the rate
of oant:aminant l~ into the grc:A.1l'XIwater.
Negative short-tenn :i:apacts durin;J iDplementation of the l:eu-ly will be
minimized by health am safety measures. '!he State of Michigan has
carx:urred with the selectien of the preferred l:eu.::r.1y. Catmmity
55
-------
I .
-
aoceptance is addressed in the attad1ed respcmsiveness SI~ry.
5. P%efe1:eJ~ for TreahnPnt- as a PrinciDal Element
'!he principal th%eats at the G&H site are the gramdwater oont:aminant
plume, due to the potential. use of the oantaminated water as a drinkin;J-
water scuroe, an:i the solvent an:i oil-cont:aminated lamfill debris an::l
soils, since the contam:inant:s are highly oancetllLcat:e:l an:i wo.1ld continue
to lead1 into the gramdwater if left untreated. Although Altemative
4A treats the gramdwater prirx::ipal th%eat, it does net fully satisfy the
statutmy prefereJaa for treatment as a principal element of the l~
since the lardfill ''hot spots" are to be contained. As above, trea'bDent
of the "hot spots" wcW.d create adverse short-tem risks to the
trm'1'111I'1ity an:i wcW.d be very costly in light of the benefits received.
Treatment of the lan:ifill area principal threat was, therefcma, foun:1 to
be bpracticable at this eme.
56
-------
~~
'!his Responsiveness SUmmaJ:y has been prepared to meet the requirements of
sections 113 (k) (2) (B) (iv) ani 117 (b) of the CaDprehensive Environmental
Response, Calpensation, ani Liability Act of 1980, as amen:led by the
SUperfurd Amemments ani Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCIA), which
requires the United States Environmental Protection Aqerr:y (U.S. EPA) to
resporxi "...to each of the significant ~nts, criticisms, ani new data
su1::Initted in written or oral presentations" on a proposed plan for
~;al action. 'Dle Responsiveness SUmmaJ:y addresses oonoems expressed
by the public, potentially responsible parties (FRPs), ani govemmental
1:xxlies in the written ani oral cxmnents received by the U.S. EPA ani the
State ~ the proposed :t~lely for the G&H site.
A. OVerview
1. Bac:kgrc:Junj,lPrcposed Plan
'Dle G&H In::lustrial Iarxifill (G&H) site is located southwest of the
intersection of Ryan Road ani 23-Mi1e Road in Shelby Township, Macornb
County, Michigan. 'Dle G&H site is approximately 3 miles northwest of
Utica ani ~tely 20 miles north of Detroit. 'Dle approximately
10o-acre site, which includes 70 acres of lanifilled areas, is situated
to the north ani ~ of the J'leaJ:by Clinton River. A portion of the
Rochester-Utica State Recreational Area (recreational area) has been
impacted by the site. 'Dle recreational area, which is used for hiking,
fi.shirg (in the Clinton River), ani other recreational p.JZpOSes by area
residents ani visitors, includes wetlanis ani woodlani habitats which
support numerous SPeCies of migrat~ birds ani other wildlife.
'!be surrourxti.rg area is generally subuman; residential neighborhoods are
located to the north ani to the east within several hun:ired feet of the
lanifill. A subdivision of about 80 homes is located in the eastern
area, ani a newer subdivision of about 25 homes is located in the
northern area. Several light imustrial facilities are located to the
swtheast, directly adjacent to the lanifill.
'!he ~;al Investigation (RI) identified several areas of concem at
the site: the principal threats1 posed by the grourrlwater contaminant
plume ani by the Phase I lanifill area, a major contaminant source, ani
1Principal threats are characterized by waste that cannot be reliably
controlled in place, such as liquids, highly IOObile materials (e.g.,
solvents), ani high concentrations of toxic COl'I'pJU1'X:Is (e. g., several
orders of magnitude above levels that allCM for unrestricted use ani
unlimited exposure) (55 Fed. Reg. 8703).
-------
the-Fbase II am B1ase III lardfill areas, which are considered to be
lower-level, lan;;J-t.em threats2 to human health am the environment. '!he
Feasibility St:l¥1y (PS) evaluated six clearmp alternatives in oJ:der to
address the areas of ooncem.
'!he ~qa;ed plan for ~ial action included the follCJlrlin;:
- Extraction am treatment of the gro.n:iwater oont:.aminant plume, with
disc::haz'ge of the treated water to the adjacent Clinton River or to the
City of Detroit sewer system, in accordance with the substantive
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) pt~LCWI;
- Ca1struction of a lamfill cever to meet current State lamfill closure
requirements urxler Michigan Act 64;
- Ca1struction of a subsurface barrier wall arourxi the northern, eastern,
am southern perimeters of the larxlfill areas; ard
- Connection of neamy residents to the local m.micipal water supply.
Reliarx=e on institutional cxmtrols (e.g., deed restrictions), in
conjunction with erqineerin:J cxmtrols (e.g., fencin:J), 'NOUld aid in the
prevention of the in:Jestion of contaminated grcun:1water ard of contact
with lamfill cxmtents. :Emerging treatment technologies TNOUld be
evaluated periodically to detenni.ne whether it is feasible to treat the
landfill principal threat.
2. Public o...uua::dt Period
A public ccmment period was held fram August 20, 1990 to October 18,
1990, to allow interested parties to comment on the proposed plan, in
aooordanoe with section 117 of CERClA. on August 28, 1990, a public
meetin:J was held in ShellJy Township, Michigan, at which the u.s. EPA ard
the Michigan DepartJnent of Natural Resources (MDm) presented the
proposed plan, answered questions, ard acx::epted camnents fram the public.
D.1rin:J the ccmment period, the u.s. EPA received approximately 20 written
responses ard 5 verl:al comments conoernin:3' the PLvp.=ed plan.
B. Cormmmitv Involvement
'!he level of public interest regardi.rxj the site has been high since the
mid-1960s, when local residents began noticing unpleasant odors emanating
fram the lamfill area. Several key areas of ccmmunity concern in
regard to the preferred remedy are as follCJV.1S:
2'Ihe site contains large volumes of low concentrations of material (55
Fed. Reg. 8703).
2
-------
- '!be P1-'~ oanstzuction activity may have an adverse bpact on
traffic, noise, am dust levels in the residential areas in the
vicinity of the site;
- ~ .L~ shcW.d be bplemented as soon as possible; am
- ~ i.nt.emed lam use folladn] :t:=ucJy bplementation may have a
negative ilIpact an the quality of life in the area.
'!he above CXI'1CemS have been addressed in the folladn] section.
C. SUmrna1"V of Sianificant Carments
'!be p.1blic L1..III.'~ regardin;J the G&H site are organized into the
folladn] categories:
- SUImDary of oc:mnents !ran the local oanmunity regardin;J the proposed
plan;
- SUImDary of ~1IUt:Irt;s fran the City of Detroit am the State Parks
Division; am
- SUImDary of rYTrInP.rrt;s fran PRPs concem:in;J the FS am the proposed plan.
Many of the oc:mnents belC7W have been ~ in order to effectively
sunmarize them in this d/"lCl1ml:>nt. '!he reader is referred to the p.Jblic
meetirJ; transcript, which is available in the Administrative Record
located at the ~ Township Librcuy. ~ Administrative Record also
contains the written cxmnents suJ::anitted by the PRPs regardin;J the
p:t:~ plan.
Camam.i tv a.a11l1e1 rt;s
several canmenters expressed SURX>rt far the preferred alt.eJ:native
(Alternative 4A) at the p.Jblic 1IIeetin1. Alt.hcu3h the majority of written
~ received ultimately ~ Alternative 4A am no objections
were raised in ~ition to Alternative 4A, nest oamnenters also
S\Wlied BaDe adnaU.shments to the u. S. EPA. Several ather cxmnenters
only iterated their an:mns, rather than suwortirq any particular
remerJy. Finally, one ccmnenter supported Alternative GA. '!he camrrents
received are listed belC7W:
1. several O"'.'~ requested that cleanup begin as soon as possible;
2. Many eualll::lIters requested that trees arxvor l:ushes or a soil berm be
placed arcurx1 the northem am eastern permeter of the site to
minimize oanstzuction noise am bladn] sand/dust;
3. several cxmnenters requested that the remedial action include a plan
to control leachin;J in the vicinity of the 96-inch water main
traversirq the site, voicirq their concern that taxies may enter the
3
-------
line if it were to break or were drained. Specifically, the
01 JlI.'~ were cancerned that the water in the 24-Mi.1e lateral which
serves Shelby Township an::l other northern l'Y'Im'InUties could be
contaminated by a break in the line;
4. several (z JlI.'~ llers requested that a tJ:ust furrj be established to
ensure pelpErt:ua1 monitorin; an::l ma.int:enaooe of the site;
5. several (UI.'.mtlers requested that cxmsideratian be given to
reiJDbursement of residents of Kemlar .SUbdivision II (east of Ryan
Read) if they have already been connected to the mmicipal water
StJR)lyas a result of the threat of contamination. One ccmnenter
t:.ha1ght that cxmsideration should be given to reimbJrsement for sewer
constn1ctian as well;
6. One o."".,~rt:er requested positive ccnfimatian that "...we will not
glow" as a result of prior site activity. '!he ccmnenter reque...~
that the Agencies p1blicize that it cannot firxi artj pollutants or
dargers to the residents of Sprin:} Lake SUbdivision s~ property
values are affected by the adverse publicity the site now receives:
7. One ccmnenter, :representin:} the Clinton River Watershed Council,
reqlieste::i that recreational area larDs which have been lost to public
use be :replaced with oatparable additional larDs. '!he iJrpact of the
site on area wetlams should also be mitigated;
8. several oc:rrmenters provided suggestions for iIrprovement of the
lan::lfill property to aco ~IU"Jdate a golf course;
9. Several CuIlU~tters thought that 4 years of c:onstroction was too long.
one cxmnenter requested that the Agercy address this by increasing the
cost of the remedy;
10. Several cx:rnmenters requested that truck traffic restrictions be
iIrplemented to prevent COI'X]estion;
11. one ccmnenter wrote in order to ''vote for (Alternative) GA"; an::l
12. One Io'YUUlenter c:bjected to the fence, statin:} that a split-rail fence
may suffice. If oot, the cxmnenter suggested that a greenbelt should
be planted in front of the fence to cb3cure the vielrl of the site.
Resconses
'!he u.s. EPA an::l the MI:Im ackna.rlledge the ~rt of the camrmmity in
this matter. Additionally, the Agencies note that:
1. '!he u. s. EPA an::l the MI:Im are worJdn;J to ensure that the project
prooeeds as eJq)eCti.tic:usly as possible. '!he Agencies are in agreement
that the site has been thoroughly studied; thus, we are able to choose a
reI(~ at this point. Further site investigation(s) may ocx::ur during
remedy :iJtplementation (e.g., to detemine the nest effective rate of
4
-------
grcmdwater extraction for aquifer restoration}, which walld net slow
down the projected rate of cleanup activity.
2. '!he U.S. EPA an:l the MrNR agree that noise an:l dust control
consideratia1S are a high priority durin:J oonstruction of the remedy.
DJrin; the design P1ase of the project, the U.s. EPA an:l the MrNR shall
detemine the JOOSt efficient way(s} to control traffic, dust, an:l
oonstructian noise arcum the site to ensure the health an:l safety an:l
the well-1:lein;J of the local pcp.l1ace. P~tt of trees an:l 00shes an:l
possibly soil benDs alan} 23-Mile Road am Ryan Road will be considered;
however, the Mat'Y'nh 0:u1ty Road t'hrm; !::Sian will need to be consulted as
to the maintenance of a safe right-of-way. Pericxtic sheet sweepin:J may
also be eap10yed to control dust durin:J oonstruction.
several ~"'.,~ ~ that altemate entrances be used to haul the
fill onto the site. unfortunately, one of the altemate ra.ztes
suggested (Hamlin Read) does not access the site. However, the Agencies
agree that the intersection of 23-Mile Road an:l Ryan Road would likely be
overburdened if the site entrance were placed near there. '!he most
likely site entrances could be alan} the railroad right-of-way off of
Ryan Road am;or the northwest entrance alan} the bend of 23-Mi.le Road
near the railroad crossin:J.
3. '!he G&H site RI an:l FS reports an:l the pI'qX)Sed plan have been
reviewed by the avsD, for the City of Detroit, ~ the possible
effects en the pipeline system. '!he avsD has proposed DXXtifications to
the L~ (see below) wm.ch may alleviate the cxmnenters' concerns.
Also, the 24-Mile tAteral has a shutoff valve at its junction with the
water main. In case of an emergency break, the valve may be used to
prevent G&H contaminants fran enterin:J the 24-Mile lateral until repairs
are performed. unfortunately, this would mean no water would be
available to those communities serviced by the 24-Ml.1e lateral until
repairs are c:x:rrpleted an:l the valve is recpened. '!he u.s. EPA an:l the
MrNR will carefully assess the p1:~ Iemedy to protect the integrity
of the water main. -
4. '!he U. S. EPA an:l the MrNR will be d; Cl"'IlSSin:J the iIIplementation of the
1:eue.1y with the PRPs for the site. Arrj settlement agreement with the
responsible parties to iIIplement the 1:emedy may include a trust furrl to
ensure pelpetual care of the facility. If no agr~lent were to be
reached an:l the U.S. EPA were to perfonn the remedy, future care of the
site wculd revert to the MrNR.
5. '!he Agencies understan:l the situation that the residents are burdened
with, an:l are workin; hard to COl."!ect it. unfortunately, no Federal
statute allows for the reiJnbursement of those residents who have already
been oannected to the m.micipal water supply at their own expense. '!he
State or the PRPs, however, may possibly be a sau:oe of ~ for
these expenses, in addition to the sewer connections.
6. '!he U.S. EPA an:l the MI:NR have armounoed to the public on numerous
occasions that no contaInil1ants derived fran the G&H larxlfill have been
5
-------
-
detectecl in SpriJ:g rake or the Sprirg rake SUbdivision. '!he Agerx:ies
are workin:J to minimize the timeframe for hplementation of the l~ so
that the nrTlllllnUty may get back to noma! as soon as possible.
7. 'Ihe Record of Decision (R)D) n; ~'F""'es the recreational area an::l
wetlards iSc::l1e!; an::l sha1ld satisfy these oa1CernS.
8. Acc::ordin:J to the Solid Waste Division of the mm, if the G&H site
were to be used for devel~tt, a min:iDum of 10 feet of clay would have
to be placed an the lan::lfill areas. Also, it would be up to the G&H
prqm-ty owner(s) to consider the future uses of the site after
iJlplementatian, hIt within the constraints, of the L~Y. At this tbIe,
we are PL~irg that prairie grasses be planted an the lan::ifi1l cover to
adlieve a natural or park-like set:tin;J, which sha1ld oot be \D1Sightly to
the neighborl1ocxl. However, 10 feet of clay does oot ~.... to be a
workable solution.
9. '!be RIfFS ~.LLCIctor estimated that it would take 4 years to oauplete
ccnstruction of the cap an::l sluny wall. '!be contractor took into
aocamt the effects of noise pollution an the oamamity as well as
safety considerations in maki.n;J the estimate. 'Iherefore, the volume of
tJ:uck traffic is based only on daytime construction. '!hus, extra furxls
would oot shorten the timeframei rather, nighttime workin:J hc:m's ccW.d
possibly shorten the timeframe. At this time, the Agencies do oot
believe the oamm.mity WOJld tolerate nighttime ccnstruction, nor \tJOUld it
be as safe as daytime ccnstructian.
10. '!be u.s. EPA is also conoen1E!d with the negative effects that extra
tJ:uck traffic may have on the residential areas. '!he u.s. EPA will
evaluate the best possible routes for the tJ:uck traffic in order to
maintain safe workin;J c::orx:litions, an::l will work to keep the extra traffic
fran beirg a nuisance.
11. since the ~lIe1it:er did not specifically indicate why he supported
Alternative 6A, the Agencies carmot fully aa:h'ess his amnent, except to
reiterate that we believe that Alternative 4A is a prot:Ed:ive an::l cost-
effective l~ for the G&H site. Alternative 6A is not cost-effective
an::l ccW.d present unacceptable short-term risks durirg inplementation.
12. '!be U. S. EPA has investigated whether the current style of fenci.n;J
can be mdified to a split-rail fence. '!he MINR, although receptive to
the idea, has indicated that the current fence conforms with State
regulations c:::oncernin;J lan::lfi1ls an::l that a split-rail fence would not
confom with such regulations. Both the u.s. EPA an::l the MmR agree that
a chain-link fence would provide the security ~<;aJ:Y to maintain the
protectiveness of the 1:et~. '!he Agencies agree that a greenbelt placed
in front of the fence may enhance the accept:ance of the required fence,
an::l will erxleavor to integrate it into the design.
City of Detroit
'!he I:MSD, on behalf of the city of Detroit, did not object to the
6
-------
caa.qJts of Altemative 4A. However, the IHID did reo .'.'-00 that
Altemative 4A be DKXlifiecl sauewhat to protect the water main ani the
other pi-J?"l ines owned by the !HID. '!he reo .a....,::.rmtions were to:
1. As far as possible, provide no soil~ay caver aver the pipeline
ea-...t area, especially aver the water main; am
2. Pravide a vertical barrier (sluny wall) a1 each side of the water
main; or, place a sluny wall CI'1ly em the east side of the main,
prcvided that it can be de!la'stratecl. that leachate £ran the B1ase III
1arr:ifill area will net iDpact the water main in case of failme of the
toe drain to be placed a1 the west side of the B1ase III larr:ifill
area.
'!he above :reo .,.,~~tions were made to protect the pipeline £ran exposure
to leachate ocmtaminants in case of failme of the leachate centrol
system am to protect the City £ran ~9 expense for pipeline repair
in the larr:ifill area. .
ResDanse
'!he u. S. EPA considers IMSI)' s reo ..v..erx3atians to be scun arxi has
m:xtifiecl the sluny wall placement to conform with D-lSD's needs. '!he cap
will be designed to minimize the aDD.mt of fill or clay to be placed aver
the pipeline ~~, as provision for no soil or clay CXNer in this
area may net be feasible.
State Parks Divisiem
'!he State Parks Divisiem, on behalf of the State of Michigan, has
inticated the followin;:
1. '!he IQ oorrt:aminant:s in the wetlarxis- arxi drain areas dOWl'X]radient of
the seeps shcW.d be excavated arxi retDVed. '!he cleanup level should
be 1 AD;
2. '!he gra,niwater treatment plant shcW.d be located. nearer to the
utility CX)I'l"idor to allow for the ~ of the recreational a:rea;
3. '!he oil st:crage tJui1~ should be relocated or denDlished;
4. Gra.1rXIwater extraction wells em State larxi shcW.d be designed to allow
PJblic access to the affected property arxi also to prevent van::1alism;
5. '!he oil seep area shcW.d be pennanently rerrcvecl £ran recreational
uses, arxi the State shcW.d be c:x:mpensated for the loss of use of the
lam; arxi
6. '!he current fence should be relocated to open up as much State larxi as
practicable.
7
-------
, "
-
ResDanse
'!he u.s. EPA is aware of the recreational value of the State lams
inpacted by the G&H site contaminants. As such, the u.s. EPA has
deteminec1 that a PCB cleanup level of 1 ppn will CiR>ly to areas iIrpacted
by the site J::ut which are mt designated to be within the contai.rmIent
system. 'Ihe PCB-cxmtaminated soils will be excavated arxl CXIl'1SOlidated
beneath the cap. '!he 1JLq.a;ed plan also considered the reopenin;J of
State lams to the extent practicable. 'Ihus, the f~ will be
relocated, extraction wells will be protected iran van:2lism, arxl the oil
storage 1::ui1din;J may be :remJVed. (rrhese are all I~ design
ccnsideratia1S. ) '!he u.s. EPA also ~ ts the replaCi=uC!llt of inpacted
wtlarxls, as detailed in the roD.
PRP Cc.mments
A number of G&H mPs have been mnitoring the plog1:es8 arxl results of the
G&H RIfFS. As a group, the mPs have provided ccmment on previously
released site documents arxl have also provided c::xmnents regarding the
final RI report, the FS, arxl the proposed plan. Many of the cx:mnents
suJ::mitted cancem minor details of the RI, FS, an:i proposed plan am are
mt addressed in this document. u.s. EPA's RI/FS contractor, aI~ Hill,
has resporx3ed to the detailed c::xmnents in a separate menoran:hnn, dated
November 15, 1990. '!he mem:>rardum has been place:.i in the Administrative
Record alan; with the PRP canments. '!be substantive canments include the
followin;J:
1. A 2 percent grade (slope) would be adequate for construction of the
lan::lfill cap. '!his would reduCE the number of truckloads of fill,
which would be less expensive arxl less disruptive to the :residents;
2. '!he fill to be placed beneath the cap should not be limited to clean
soils. consideration should be given to clean denolition rubble or
excess constroction soil as possible fill material;
3. consideration should be given to the use of a 60-mil high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) flexible membrane liner (FML) . in plaCE of the
3 feet of carpacted clay. '!bere is no local clay source arxl,
therefore, Act 64 criteria are not appropriate for this site. '!be FML
would provide superior perfonnance (estimated hydraulic con:h1ctivity
of 1 x 10-13 cmvs) over the 3 feet of clay (1 x 10-7 cmvs) arxl would
be less costly. '!be large number of truckloads of clay would not have
to be brooght in; therefore, the use of the liner would cause less
di.sroption to the neighboI'h0c:x3s;
4. According to Resource Conservation arxl Recovery Act (RCRA) cap
construction guidance, only 2.5 feet of cover soils are necessary to
provide adequate protection fram frost, burrc:Ming aniInals, arxl deep
roots ;
5. A hydraulic barrier wall, provided through the use of a number of
8
-------
extractia'1 wells, woold be as effective as a sluny wall in the
oart:ainment of the landfill areas am woold be less costly;
6. '!he sluny wall woold create a backwater effect, whid1 may raise the
local grtU'Xlwater table am the level of Sprin;J :take, causin;J flcxxting
of ba~ in the residential aJ:ea;
7. '!he PI~ gradient cOhtwl wells (within the aJ:ea conta.ined by the
sluny wall) woold require extensive maintenance; thus, the hydraulic
barrier system woold be more effective;
8. '!he pl.~ plan includes (possible) ~i('\tion of the auto salvage
yard, whid1 is not part of the site am, therefore, not the
respa1Sibility of the FRPs;
9. '!he pt~ plan includes the extractia'1 of grtU'Xlwater cantaminants
!ran an aJ:ea east of the site. Tn,age cantaminants are not site-
:related, am this portion of the l.'e.medy should be eliminated. '!he
rn~r of extraction wells can be reduced to 12 (fran 20) by
eliminating- red1.Imant wells;
10. '!he grtU'Xlwater cleanup levels should be based upon Mid1igan Act 307
Type C criteria for all portions of the affected aquifer. Type C
criteria are adequately protective for the projected lam use in this
aJ:ea ;
11. '!he cost estimate for the prqx:sed plan is too low. '!he PRP group
estimate is $44 million, as cwosed to the u.s. EPA estimate of
$40 million; am
12. '!he wetlam areas are man-made.
Resconses
1. '!he FS considers the minilm.un slope on the landfill caver to be
2 percent. However, a 2 percent slope woold reduce runoff am increase
infiltration through the cap in ~isa1 to the reocmnen:ied 3 percent
slope. '1hus, an additional drainage layer may be required as di~sed
below .
2. '!he U.S. EPA notes that FCB-oontaminated soils am sediments, am
possibly junkyard soils, will be consolidated beneath the cap. '!hus,
clean deDDlitia'1 debris or consb:uction soils may be aocept:able for the
graciirg layer beneath the cap.
3. A source of clay is available 20 miles fran the site am, therefore,
Act 64 cannot be stated as bein;J "not appropriate." '!he Act 64 landfill
closure regulations are :relevant, since site cantaminants are
sufficiently similar to RCRA listed or characteristic wastes, am the
cappin;J requirements are awropriate, since a 3-foot clay cap would be
well suited for reduction of infiltration through the landfill.
9
-------
I c
'!he U.s. EPA wculd consider the use of an FML, in CD1jurd:.i.ca1 with clay,
for canstrocti.on of the cap. ~,the estimated hydraulic
corxh1ctivity wculd mJre likely awroach that of CCIIIpacted clay rather
than 1 x 10-13 aD/s, as leakage t:hra1gh seams or pmctures has been
ckx::umented by u.s. EPA res':'~. larxlfill subsi~ aOO/or settlement
my cause damage to an FML, which wculd be costly to repair in ~ison
to clay.
4. '!he ~ also reo,'n'~ that a filter layer arxl a sand layer be
plaoed beneath the soil layer to protect the FML am provide drainage.
WithaIt a drainage layer, the soils above the FML my beo .,IP saturated
arxl damage the FML aOO/or the COI/er vegetation. With a 2 percent slope,
the need for a drainage layer is enhanced in ~ison to a 3 percent
slope. '1berefore, the thickness of the COI/er layer was reo .,UI-=-JXied to be
3.5 feet, which aoocmrt:s for the 2.5 feet of caver soil an::! a 1-foot
drainage layer beneath the soil DIt above the clay.
5. '!he advantages of a physical barrier system versus a hydraulic barrier
system are n; ~1Ssed in the menorarxium prepared by CH~ Hill regarc:li.n:J
the mP grQ.1p O.'.'.A11ts. '!he Agencies believe that a PtYsical barrier is
m:>re cq:prcpriate than a hydraulic barrier at this site. '!he san:ce of
contamination is substantial; thus, a PtYsical barrier may allow for the
attainment of grc::JI.JRiwater cleanup starx1ards IIDlCh sooner than a hydraulic
barrier .
6. A significant rise in groun:iwater levels al~ 23-Mile Road is not
projected due to the relatively low flCMS in the ~ aquifer in that
area. Extraction wells could be placed alcn:J 23-Mile Road, for exanple,
to mitigate potential water level rises.
7. '!he operational arxl maintenarx:=e cx:sts for the prop::sed gradient
control wells are estbDated to be similar to that for the PRP-prcposed
hydraulic control wells. '!he PRPs may .have overestimated the size of the
souroe-control \o1e1l capture zones, which may lead to the need for
additional extractioo wells pmpirg at lower rates. 'lhi.s may require a
similar effort for the maintenance of gradient control wells as for
san:ce control \o1e1ls. .
8. '!he U.S. EPA considers the junkyaId to be part of the G&H site since
it may be ~ that solvent/paint disposal may have taken place on
that portion of the property as well as the lan::lfill areas. As such, the
Agencies wculd consider the potential cleanup of the junkyaId area to be
a concem of the PRPs. '!he U.S. EPA has considered that the junkyaId may
mt be fully investigated for contamination ani that the Leonard Forster
Estate is under a State court order to renrrve the surface debris. '!bus,
the prop::sed plan calls for further investigation of the junkyaId to
detemine if contaminant problems would remain after the renrJVal to be
urdertaken by the Estate. If further remedial action is necessary, the
junkyaId may be an additional source of grac:lin:J fill for beneath the
lamfill cap (as with the ~taminated soils) or it may require mre
substantial remedial work.
10
-------
9. '!be ~~ mmi:m' of extractioo wells is estimated to sufficiently
extract the grcurxlwater ocmtaminant.s to reach cleanup st.aniards cut:side
of the slurry wall. '!he design P1ase will det:e1:mine DDre accurately the
J"II~ of ~ ~E'ary to effectively ~bte the grcurxlwater
cxntaminant plume. '!he eastern portiat of the grcurxlwater plume may be
site-derived am the ~i al actiat oon~tiy int:.erxls to mitigate it.
10. It is the policy of the U. S. EPA to attain Maxim..nn Contaminant Levels
(H::[s) or mn-zero Max:iJIUm Contaminant I.evel Goals (laGs) ume.r the Safe
Drinkin;J Water Act in the restoratioo of an aquifer to its beneficial
uses, where practicable, provided tbat the residual risk cmoe these
st.aniards are achieved is within the risk mrge the Aqercy oansiders to
be prot:ective (1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6). If the residual risk is net within
the 'ta%get risk mrge, the Aqercy shall clean up the grcurxlwater to risk-
based stamards. Generally, the 'ta%get residual risk in such cases is a
1 x 10-6 exoess lifetime cancer risk. Also, the grcurxlwater cleanup
st.aniards to be met wa.U.d be expected to be achieved cut:side of the
baJrx1aries of wastes contained in place.
'!he U.S. EPA has det:e%mined tbat, at the G&H site, MCIs am non-zero
1CIGs wa1ld net be prot:ective since the !I::L for vinyl chloride alone
causes' the target risk mrge to be ~. Additional site
cxntamlnimts, such as trichloroethene ('1t:E) am 1, 1-dichloroet:hane
(l,l-DCA), cause the risk rarge to be greatly exoeeded, especially since
1,1-DCA has no!I::L. 'Iherefore, risk-based gramdwater cleanup st.aniards
wa1ld be CSW1-'¥Liate for the portions of the URJer aquifer mich wa.U.d
net be contained by the slurry wall.
'!he U. S. EPA has det:e%mined tbat the substantive previsions of Parts 6
am 7 of Michigan Act 307 are C!R>licable or relevant am aws.~iate to
the G&H site cleanup. '!he Part 6 am 7 rules require a cleanup to
CCIIply with 'IyPe A, S, or C criteria (as described in the Ia» .
At the G&H site, the U.S. EPA oansiderS Type C criteria to be prot:ective
for the portiat of the URJer aquifer mich is located beneath the
lamfill areas. Since this area is beneath the waste to be contained in
place, the U.S. EPA wa1ld net expect to even meet MCIs or non-zero MCLGs
in this portial of the URJer aquifer. '!here is no current (or
fOI$"""":'1ble future) residential or rDmPrcial use of the aquifer for the
portiCl1 of the aquifer c1irect1y beneath the lamfill areas am, there-
. fore, Type A or S criteria are net 8R>1:~iate for a prot:ective IeDJedy.
~ide of the (estimated locatioo of the) slurry wall, in tbat portion
of the aquifer considered to be a Type IIA aquifer, the U. S. EPA
considers Type B criteria to be the C!R>rcpriate response. Type B
criteria may provide achievable cleanup standards in the area cut:side of
the slurry wall am also provide for the derivation of risk-based
(1 x 10-6) cleanup st.aniards, mich the U.S. EPA considers neoessary for
the protection of human health am the environment. '!he gramdwater use
in the area saJt:h of the lamfill is projected to be intemittent, thus,
the U.S. EPA considers Type A criteria to not be neoessary to derive
11
-------
I "
cl~ stan:iards for the protection of human health arrl the envirarment.
11. Accardin:J to RIfFS guidance do(,-TIts, the accuracy of FS CXJSt
estimates are to be within a +30 percent to -50 percent rarge. '!he U.S.
EPA nates that the CXJSt estimate for Altemative 4A provided in the FS is
within 10 percent of the PRP's estimate for the sane remedial
altemative.
12. Alt.hcD;Jh saxe of the wetlarrls sa.rt:h of the site are man-made, a
porticm of them are naturally ocx:urrin1~ Whatever the origin, it is
u. s. EPA an::l MrNR policy to protect valuable wetlarrl resources £ran ham.
'!his site will not be an exceptioo to the rule.
12
-------
Awen:tix 1
Administrative Recxmi ,Imex
-------
~ "
, No.
..12/88
G&H LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
On Scene Coordinators Report USEPA 00/00/00 13
USEPA Clean-up Action of PCB
Spill at G&H Landfill
713D/82 to 8/4/82
Anolysls of Remedial Ecology & Environment Inc. 00/00/00 16
Action Alternatives for the
G&H Landf I II McCone CCU'lty,
MI
Report of Investigation 'G&H J. Rydquist 00/00/00 19
11/22/66 to 3/1/67
~ity Relations Plan 00/00/00 25
Report of Ground Water and G.C. Solberg, Jr. 00/00/00 6
Geology in the Vicinity of
GiH Industrial Fill Co.
Consent Order to stop dis- James E. Spier, Cir. Judge 66/05/19 2
charging liquid industrial
waste
Consent Order and Stipulation James E. Spier, Cir. Judge 67/10/02 3
with Cover Letter
Memo to F. Kellow re: Proposed J.R. Byerlay 70/12/11 8
Extension to G&H Landfill
Memo to W. Demiston re: T. Jasld 74/05/01 4
Inspection of Site for Possible
Degradation of Clinton River
'H Landfill W.G. Turney,MDNR 79/01/08 2
-------
Page No.
01/22/88
2
TITLE
Memo to A.R. Wlnklhofer re:
~Ing of weste oil at
G&H Industrial Fill Co.
Site Inspection
October 1981 end
J8lUlry & March 1982
Letter to Chrysler Corp. re
Voluntery PartiCipation In
Cleanup Activities
Letter to TRW re Voluntary
Perticipation in Cleanup'
Activitie.
Letter to A. Cuthbertson re:
Voluntary Participation in
Clean.up Activities
Letter to American Waste re
Voluntary Participation in
Cleanup Activities
Letter to G&H Industrial Fill
Co. re Voluntary Participation
in .Cleanup Activities
GlH LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
Ross E. Powers,USEPA
79/01/18 4
Ecology & Envlronnent, Inc.
82/08/00 14
Valdes V. Ademlcus, EPA
82/08/20 2
Veldes V. Ademkus, EPA
82/08/20 2
Valdes V. Ademlcus, EPA
82/08/20 2
Valdes V. Adamkus, EPA
82/08/20 2
Valdas V. Ademkus, EPA
82/08/20 2
Letter to General Oil re: Valdes V. Ademlcus, EPA 82/08/20 2
Voluntary Participation in
Clean-up Activitle.
Letter to Penn Central re Valdes V. Ademlcus, EPA 82/08/20 2
Voluntary Participation In
Cleenup Activities
Letter to Leonerd Forester re Valdes V. Ademkus, EPA 82/08120 2
Voluntary Participation in
Cl..nup Activities
Letter to Ford Motor Co. Veldes V. Ademlcus, EPA 82/08120 2
-------
I
.~ No.
!2/88
3
G&H LAND FILL
MICHIGAN
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
re Voluntlry Plrticipetion
In Clelnup Activities
Letter to J. Belmet . USEPA
re:Response to EPA Request
to Voluntlrily Plrtlclpete
In Cleenup
R. Frey, TRW
82/rY9/27 2
Hydrogeologic Report of
the G&H Llndflll Site in
MeComb County, MI
Ecology & Environment
82/10/00 76
Investigltive Reports re:
G&H Industrlll Fill Co. .
with cover letter
82/10/21 47
. 'ter to Dorothy Uchnllt
Request for Infonmation
Vildes V. Ademkus, EPA
82/11/24 6
Letter to Alexlnder Cuthbertson
re Request for Infonmatlon
Bisil G. Constlntelos, EPA
82/11/24 7
Letter to T. Westerdele Robert B. Schlfer . USEPA 82/12/01 6
Generll 011 Co. re:
Request for Infonmation
Letter to Ford Motor Bisil G. Constlntelos, EPA 82/12/01 2
Co. RE: Request for infonmatlon
Letter to Chrysler Corp. Blsil G. Constlntelos, EPA 82/12/01 2
RE: Request for Infonmation
Letter to Relmer,Zltkin & Robert B. Schlfer, EPA 82/12/01 6
Greene Attys for Americln Waste
Re: Request for Infonmation
'ter to Generll Motors Corp. Basil G. Constantelos, EPA 82/12/09 6
Request for Infonmatlon
-------
Pege No.
01/22/88
4
TITLE
~ to R. Powera EPA re:
S8q)1 fng et GlH Landfill
for PCBs
Not.. of Telephone Conver88tion
with Norm Bernstefn & Margaret
Caught in Attorneys for Ford
Motor Co re Pertiel Site Study
et GlH Lendf ill
Letter to M. Glide - USEPA re:
Response to Request for In-
fOl'1ll8tion
American Wlste Response to
Infol'1ll8tion Request re GlH
Landfill with Cover Letter
Letter to M. Gade - USEPA re:
Response to Voluntary Partici-
patfon fn Clelnup
Letter to N. Bernstein, Ford
RE: Summery of recent negoti-
etions on RI/FS
Preliminary Assessment
Recommendltfon to inftflte
RI/FS
GlH Response to EPA
Information Request
with cover letter
General Motora Corp. Response
GlH LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
Weston $per
.lOll ..18Ut & MIry G8de,EPA
A.C. Cuthbertson
J.K. Dowling, Jr.
D.G. Finch, Penn Central
Blsil G. Constantelos, EPA
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
E. Bartlett EPA & R. Grimes
Dorothy Uchni It
Joseph M. Rozek
DATE
PAGES
82/12/1' 15
82/12/20 1
82/12/29 "
83/01/03 5
83/01/05 2
83/01/06 2
83/01/12 22
83/01/18 1
83/01/21 6
83/01/27 6
-------
""'8 No.
. ~2/88
5
TITLE
to Infonaetion Request re G&H
Landfill with Cover Letter
Chrysler Corp. Rnponse to
Infonaetion Request
G&N Landfill Inspection
3/'1/83
Memo to V.V. Adamkus re
Immediate Removal Request
G&H Landfill with cover
memo
Scope of Work RI/FS
G&H Landf; II end
Transmittal memo
h_.ldential Wells S8q)lin; Near
G&N Landfill and Liquid Disposal
Inc., Utica, MI
RAMP G&N Landf ill
General Oil Co. Response to
EPA request for Information
New Release:
USEPA to Brief Area Residents
on its Superfund Remedial
Investigation Scheduled for
G&N Landfill Shelby Townshp
Ml
Letter to H.R. Elmqulst,GM
re FOIA Request
1esldentlal Well S8q)llng
G&H LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
P.R. Gllezan
Ross E. Powers, EPA
W.H. Sanders
USEPA
Tom DeFbuw, Weston Sper
DATE
PAGES
83/01/28 3
83/04/04 8
83/06/15 9
83/06/17 24
83/06/24 5
CH2M Hill, Ecology & Environ. 83/07/13 97
Jon C. & Timothy A. Westerdale 83/08/03 12
EPA
V. V. Adamlcus, EPA
Roberta Perry, CH2M Hill
83/08/15 2
83/08/16 2
83/08/29 4
-------
Page No.
01/22/88
6
TITLE
Tech Memo No.1
Residential Well S8q)l ing near
G&H Site
Site Safety Plen G&H Landfill
GrcuDleter S8q)l ing Progrem
Study Plen
Soi l Senlpl ing Progr8al Study
Plan
Letter to H.R. Elmquist
On Scene Coordinator's CERCLA
laMdiate Removel Project.2nd
rl80val J\nI 17 - August 9, 1983
G & H Landfill Utica, MI
and Appendices
Letter to CH2M Hill re
Preliminary report on
Magnetometer Field Study
Memo to D. Dennis RE:
Contllllinated Industrial Weill
Near G&H Landfill
Tech Memo G&H Site RI/FS
Residential Well
Survey S8q)l in; and Analysis
Subtesk 2- 7
Work Plen for Electromagnetic
Induction Survey & G&H
Landfill end Cover Memo
Memo to H. Shakir from R. Jones
G&H LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
CH2M Hill
83/09/01 4
J. Griffis, Ecology & Environ. 83/09/15 16
CH2M Hill
83/10/07 13
CH2M Hill
83/11/14 10
R. Grillles
83/12/29 2
OSEPA
84/01/00 396
GMC Associates, Inc.
84/01/11 14
Roger Jones,MDNR
84/01/26 4
CH2M Hill
84/02/13 5
D.O. Weber
84/03/00 7
84/03/07 5
-------
I '.
P~ge No.
~2/88
7
TITLE
attaching news articl.s re:
Contamination of Wells at
Industries East of GlH
Landfill
Memo to H. Shakir
Contaminants in Private Wells
near GlH Landf i II
Study Plan for Groundwater
S.-pllng Phase II Utica, MI
Tech Memo:
GlH Remedial Investigation
Hydrogeologic Study RI/FS
Slbtask 2.2
., Memo:
Site Remedial Investigation
Environmental Study RI/FS
S,"*,task 2.6
Tech Memo:
GiH Site Remedial Investigation
Air Sampling RI/FS Slbtask 2.5
Trip Report 3/15.16/84 to
Inspect GlH Site
Letter to R. Kenney RE:
Review of Test Results of
Residential Well Water
SlftIPle
Lettar to R. Bishop re: Review
of Test Results of Residential
Well Water Sample
'iminary Report for GlH
Jflll re Surface Geophysical
GlH LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
Roger Jones, fl>NR
84/03/08 1
CH2M Hill
84/03/08 48
CH2M Hill
84/03/09 105
CH2M Hill
84/03/16 20
CH2M Hill
84/03/21 5
J. Kratzmeyer,EPA
84/03/23 3
Terry F. Quill
84/04/06 2
Terry F. Quill
84/04/06 2
D.D. Weber
84/05/00 20
-------
Page No.
01/22/88
8
GlH LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
SUr-vey 8nd Cover Letter
Letter to J. Kratzmeyer EPA
re: request for i8mediate
rlllOval action on oily .eeps
Roger Jones,MONR
84/05130 2
GlH Landffll P&blic Meeting J. Taneka 84/06/05 2
5/23/84
Memo to file re: V. Burges., MONR 84/07/06 2
Contllllineted Wells Near
GlH Landf ill
Trip Report 6/20/84 to J. Kratzmeyer, EPA 84/07/09 7
Install Shallow Soil Borings
at Beebe Oil
Tech Memo: CH2M Hill 84/09/19 20
GIN Remedial Investigation
Sediment S~l ing Subtask
2-3-3
Tech MIIIIO: CH2M Hfll 84/09/19 20
GlH Rlllllldial Investigation
Surface Water Investigation
RI/FS. Subtask 2-]-2
Letter to D. Totzke, CH2M Hill J. Kratzmeyer, EPA 84/09/21 1
re: Request for Additional Fish
S~lil'lSl
Tech MIIIIO CH2M Hill 84/09/21 38
G&N Site Remedial Investigation
Soil Investigation Subtask 2-4
Tech Memo CH2M Hill 84/09/21 53
G&H Site Remedial Investigation
Groundwater Sampling Program
Ph..e I, Subtask 2-2-2
-------
,"
'e No.
22/88
9
TITLE
Tech Memo:
G&H Site R8lll8dlal Investigation
L.achat. Investigation RI/FS
Slbtask 2'3-2
Memo to V. Burgess re:
Contaminated Industrial and
Private Drinking Water Wells
Near G&H Landfill
Letter to J. Perrecone
Testing of Residential Well
Weter
G&H LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
CHZM Hill
Roger Jones, IIINR
Janet Rusin
Additional Renedial Investigation USEPA
'Ivitie. Work Plan G&H Land-
t Site
Progress Report' 11
To G&H Citizen Infol'llllltion
Committee Members re G&H
Landf ill
Action Memo to V.V. Adamkus re:
Authorization for Supplemental
Funding for RI/FS at G&H Landfill
To G&H Citizen Infol'llllltion
Committ.. Members re G&H
Landfill Remedial Investi-
gation Update
Work Plan Additional
Remedial Investigation
Actlvlti.. at GiH Landfill
~e II
IIINR
R. Jones,IIINR
B.G. Constantelos,EPA
R. Jones,IIINR
CHZM Hill
DATE
PAGES
84/09/25 11
84/10/04 2
85/01/17 1
85/05/28 10
85/09/03 3
85/09/13 2
85/09/25 4
85/11/13 3
85/11/22 43
-------
Pale No.
01/22/88
10
TITLE
Letter to R. Jones re: Summery
Description of the Additional
RI Work Caq:lleted During
Deceriler 1985 through
Febu8ry 1986
To GlH Lendfill Project
InfonlBtion Committee Merilers
re 3/13/86 Meeting
PRP Notice Letter to General
Oil
PRP Notice Letter to Dorothy
Uchnlet
PRP Notice Letter to Leonard
Forster
PRP Notice Letter to Chrysler
PRP Notice Letter to GM
PRP Notice Letter to TRW
PRP Notice Letter to Alex
Cuthbertson
PRP Notice Letter to Penn
Central
PRP Notice Letter to American
Waste
PRP Notice Letter to Ford
GlH LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
J. Kratzmeyer,EPA
R. Jones
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
aasil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos,EPA
DATE
PAGES
86/03/06 3
86/03/25 10
86/04/30 2
86/04130 2
86/04130 2
86/04130 2
86/04130 2
86/04130 2
86/04130 2
86/04130 2
86/04/30 2
86/04/30 2
-------
I u
, 110.
;2/88
11
G&H LAIIDFILL
MICHIGAN
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
Notas of phone call with
R. Field re PRP's declining
to undertake action
D. Tripp,USEPA
86/05/06 1
GAPP Additional Remedial
InvOltigation Activities
Phaoe II G&H Landfill
CH2M Hill
86/06/11 318
Results of Investigation of T.R. Cummings, Dept Interior 86/08/19 12
Geologic Conditions In Vicinity
of G&H Landfill and Spring Lake
Progress Report' 13 MONR 86/09/11 17
Mt80 to J. Celebrese USEPAi J.A. Hlll,Warzyn Eng. 86/11/20 3
-------
Pille 110.
01/22/88
12
TITLE
Appendic.. A-a
PRP lIotice Letter to General
Oil. Co.
PRP lIotice Letter to AC88
Paint
PRP lIotice Letter to Penn
Central
PRP lIotice Letter to u.s.
Ch_ical
PRP lIotice Letter to Richard
SIble.
PRP lIotice Letter to Chrysler
Corp.
PRP lIotice Letter to TRW
PRP lIotice Letter to Dorothy
Uchniat
PRP Motice Letter to Ford
PRP lIotice Letter to GM
PRP lIotice Letter to American
Waste Oil
PRP Notice Letter to Alex
Cuthbertson
Action Memo: Immediate
GlH LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
BlSi l G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Basil G. Constantelos, EPA
Loretta E. Kroetsch, EPA
DATE
PAGES
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/15 2
87/07/17 6
-------
I 0
Page No.
, 122/88
I
13
TITLE
Renewll Request for
G&H Lendfi II
TD File re: Meeting with GlH
PRP Representatives 7/6/87
G&H LANDFILL
MICHIGAN
AUTHOR
DATE
PAGES
J. Callbrese, EPA
87/07/31 4
-------
. .---
.... .. ----_. "----'"
Page No.
01/22/88
TITLE
Endenger'88nt A..eslMnt Hendboot
Superfund Exposur. Ass.sament
Menuet
Standard Operating Saf.ty Guide
Manuel
Superfund Public Hea1th Evaluation
Manuat
Occupatlonat Safety and Health
Technical
Assistance and tnforcement
Guidelines
for Superfund
Guidance on Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA
Guidance on Remecllat Investigations
under CERCLA
MOA between II4D and ESD
CERCLA
Standard Operating Safety Guides
Interim Guidance on Superfund
Selection
of Remedy
MOA between \II) and Great Lakes NPO
MQA between III) and Water Division
Fed Lead ClAPP Guidance
RI/FS Guidance
SARA
User's Guide to the Contract
Laboratory
Progr811
Interim Standard Operating Safety
--..-----. -.-- .------
GlH LANDFILL, MICHIGAN
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS. NOT COPIED
MAY BE REVIEWED AT EPA IN
CHICACO, IL
AUTHOR
DATE
82/08/00
82/09/00
-------
I ~
Pa"e No.
01/22/88
2
TITLE
Guides
Participation of Potentially
Responsible
Parties tn Development of RIa and
FSa
Gutdance on Remedial Inveatl"attons
and Feasibility Studi.a
GlH LANDFIll, MICHIGAN
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS - NOT COPIED
MAY BE REVIEWED AT EPA IN
CHICAGO, IL
AUTHOR
DATE
8It/03/20
85/05/00
-------
*
Page 10.
88/82"8
lDIIllSTllTl'l RICGRD 11011 - OPD1TI 'I
GiB LAND1ILL SITI
UTICA, IUCBIGU
lICBE/rRAKE PAGES DAra fUll lUUOR UCIPUIf DOCUKERr TYPE DOCIOKBBR
2 88118/25 Letter traD811ttiD9 the B.KoDloe,KDII I.AU er , OSEU CorrespoDdence
draft8 of t;e 8alp11D9
PIID,SuppleleDtal
I~'e8ti9It10D, tbe lort
PIID IDd tbe Hellth i
Safet, PI aD for the
19uc" I ruiev
88/11/15 Letter reI lort PI aD I.Ulu,U.S.IPA I.JobDloD,CB2K Bill Correspondence
il Ippro,able, litb
the liDor chaDges
lilted
2 88/11/ 16. Letter reI AppreciatioD I.LerI1D1Iul,Chrr81er Adler,USlP! i CorrespoDdence 3
elpre88ed to botb the Kotor Corp. 'D.Kaurer, KOBIoe,KDIR
IPA IDd IDII for leet1D9 TRI,IDc.
11th 'iH LIDdfl11
clieDt8' techDical
reprutDtathu
OD 10'. 1, 1988 to
dl1COl8 tecbDical i88uel
98183128 Letter re, lDDOUDCiD9 L.DoDloD Adals,USS'l PRP8 CorrespondeDce 4
tbe larcb 28, 199.
leetlD9, Ibich 1111 be
beld to di.cu.. tbe
8tlt08 of the ca8e IDd
to blve preliliDarr
CODtict lith III PIP.
at the GiH LaDdfill .1te
. 88/88/18 luperfuDd 'act Sbeet USIP1 Pact Sheets
G'. LaDdf!ll S1te
Sbelby hlDlbip,
IItchi91D
, 88/11/88 leledial ID,e.t19ItloD USIPI fact Sheets
Opdate G'. LaDdf!ll
Ute DUCI,llchi9ID
. 89/8318' SoperfuDd Project Opdate OSIPI fact Sheets
G'B LaDdfill Site
DtiCI, IItchi,aD
. 981t3/80 Slte DeloD8tratloD of OSlP! fact Sheets
Biol09ical TreltaeDt
TechDol09Y at the
GiH LaDdfl11 SuperfuDd
Site
-------
I
I ()
h. .0. 2
is/eW8
IDKIIISTRATIYI RICORD IIDII . UPDATI '1
G'B LAID11LL SITI
UTICA, KICHIGU
'ICBI/'RAKB PAGBS DATI TULI AUTHOR RBCIPIBIT DOCUKEHT ftPI DOCHUKUR
6 88/61/21 lCllOI KIMORAIDUK II. L.lroetlch,USBP! B.coDataotelol,USBPA Keioraodul
Ce11iag hcrease
Requeat for the lelo,al
lction It "B LIOdfill,
Utica, Kicbigao (Site
Spill lD 118)
. 88116/19 Kelo reI Approval of I.Jitta,USIPA I.Kiedergaog/USBPA MnoraDdul 18
the OAPP for Phale III
Reledial lo,eltigatioo
Acti,ity at the G'H
Laodfill Superfuod Site,
IUcbiglll
62 89/87121 techoical Kelo rei 1.Joholoo,CB2K Bill I. Adle r / uSln Kelouodul 11
G&B Laodfill Rouod I
Aoalyticil Relultl lod
Data Yalidatioo Phale
III RI/rs
32 98/61116 Alterolti,el irray I.Johosoo,CB2K 8111 I.Adler/USBP! Keaoraodul 12
Knoraodlll
GU Laodfill
Sbelby towolhip, KI
2 89/83/28 IPA Lauocb 'ioal Study DSIU Prus Releue 13
of "~a LaDdfill; Public
lo,ited to lotorlltioo
Sellion &pr11 3
2 981e3lU IP1 Seekl COlleot 00 USlP1-legioo Y Press Release 14
10oo'lti,e Tecboology
Delooltrlt100 It "B
Laodtill, Publ1c
KeetiDg Karck 28
1U 81161 118 II Tech01cI1 Ie port CRU Bill J.Cllabrele,USI'1 leportl/Studies 15
"B Laodfill
UtiCI, lIichigao
Tnt Voh.. 1
1818 81 te1/88 11 Tecbo1cI1 leport cB2K B11l , Warzyo uun Reporta/Studies 16
G&B Laodtill
Uticl, licbigao
Appeodices Yolule 3
125 81161/88 Suppleleotll Sectioo CH211 B11l USBU Reporti/Studies 17
techoical Meioraodul
"B Laodfill
-------
Page 10.
88112/98
3
AOIIIIIS'RA'I'I RICORO IIDII - UPOlrl 11
G&B LANDlILL SI'I
UtICA, IIIC6IGAI
rICHI/rRAKI PAGIS 01'1
'ULI
AUtlOR
RlCIPIIU
OOCUUHf ftPI
DOCHUIIBBR
52 81/11117 Alericaa Icology Corp. AlericaD Icology Corp. I.Adler,USBPA Reports/Studies 18
'acket, witb report.
titled. 7 fbe DeligD,
Icoaolic',aad OperatioD
of I Biological 'reatleat
Sr.tel for letoDe
Coataliaated 'rouad aad
SOI,eat leco,ery Proce..
'aterl, 'Deca, fbeor,'
Biological freatleat for
Lov-Le,el OrgaDic
CODtaliaated Grouadvater
aad Iadultrial lalte &
Biological !reatleat of
GrouDdwater,Soill, aad
Soil Vaporl Cootalioated
witb Petroleal Hrdro-
carboal. Bro~burel fro I
Oetol IDC. are iDcluded
3U 88/89/38 01PP for Pbale III C8211 Bill I.Uler,USBPA Reports/Studies 19
RI/rS Volule I of II
'iB IDdultrial LaDdfill
Site
Sbelby 'owalbip, II
U4 88/19/38 01P, for Pbale III CUI Bill I.Uler,DSlU Reporta/Studies 29
II/lS Volule II of II
,&. Iodultrial Laldfill
SIte
Sbelbr fOlalhip, II
U 88/11/18 fork 'lao for tbe CUI B11l USIP I Reports/Studies 21
,bait III IIIlS
GiB IDdultrial lill Site
Sbelby !owalbip, Kicbigla
5 UI83/24 '&B Laadfill Superfuad IDII 10aroe,IDIR , Reporta/Studies 22
Site Sbelby fOVDlbip, Uler,DSIPI
Kacolb Couur
Progrel. Report 817
96 89/83/28 'eopbYlical Sur,ey C621 Bill USIPI Reports/Studies 23
'iB Laodfill, II
-------
I \)
<;.
fa. .~.
88/82198
.
ADKIIISfRAfIV. RICOkD IIDEI - UPDAT. 11
G'B LAID1ILL SIfl
UfICA, KICHIGAN
lICHI/fRAHE PAGES DArl nrL! AunOR RBcmur DOCUIIIU TYPI DOCHUKBER
28 89/96138 Reviled COllunity CB2K Bill I.Adler/USlU Reports/Studiu 24
Relation Piu
G&B Indultrial Landfill
Site Sbelby rownsbip,
Michigu
3 89/12/11 "B Landfill 'round- J.leiser,CH21! Hill/Inc. I. Adle r ,USBPA Reports /Stud ies 2S
water Salplin9 SUlliry
S79 98/83/16 recboical Helorioda CHU H111 USBPA Reports/Studies 26
RI Report
G&B LaDdfill
Volule 2 of 2
-------
f!g~ Mo.
~8/21/90
-. .- - "-
lICB,/IRA', PAG'S DAfl
w
90/08/00
787 90/08/00
fIfU
.,.,dial Ia,e,c1gacioa
',porc Vola., 1 ot 2
G'I Laadtill Sic,
Sb,lby fo~a.bip, 11
'e.,dial Ia,e.cigacioa
Report Volu.e 2 ot 2
G'N Laadtill Sic,
Sbelby fo~asbip, 11
4Dll.ISf.AflV' .'COID I'D" . UPDar, '2
"B LAMDIILL SIr,
IlrICA. IUCIIIGAI
AurBOR
IICIPI"r
DOCU'Uf rypg
C12/t Bill
US,PA
Reports/Studies
CB211ill
leport./Scadiu
US"4
~
DOCNU'UR
2
-------
I v
"
p.""e No.
r/9O
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX - UPDATE 13
G&H LANDFILL SITE
UTICA, MICHIGAN
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
12
90/11/28
Letter re: G&H Landfill
Followup to Meeting of
October 29, 1990, with
tllbles attached
A.Van Nonaan-Conestogl
Rover. & Associates
IC.Adler-U.S.EPA
D0C\J4ENT TYPE
DOCNlJIBER
Correspondence
1D 90/08/28 Fact Sheet re: U.S.EPA Fact Sheet 2
Proposed Plan for
R-.dial Action
19 90/11/15 Memo re: Responses to I.Johnson-CHZM Hill IC.Adler-U.S.EPA Memorlndl.m 3
PRP Comment. on the
RI/FS for G&H Landfill,
with cover letter
attached
26 87/07/08 Dati Review Re: Conestogl-Rovers & J.Calabrese-U.S.EPA Reports/Studies 4
U.S.EPA RI Technical Associates
Report - July 8, 1987
209 90/08/17 Publ i c Comment CHZM Hill U.S.EPA Reports/Studies 5
Feasibility Study
Report
107 90/10/18 Comments on the Conestoga-Rovers & IC.Adler-U~S.EPA Reports/Studies 6
Proposed Remedial Associates
Action Plan and RI/FS,
with cover letter
attached
. ,
.
------- |