United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-91/171
September 1991
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Michigan Disposal Service,
Ml
-------
i0272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-91/171
4. TItle and SubtItle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Michigan Disposal Service, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(.)
I ~
3. RecIpient'. Acce88lon No.
5. Report Date
09/30/91
6.
8. Perfonning OrglUllzation Rept. No.
8. Perfonnlng Org8lnlzation N8me and Add..,..
10. ProjectlT.8klWork Unit No.
11. Contr8ct(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ Sponaortng Organization Name and AcIdre..
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type 01 Report 10 Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary No...
16. Abelr8ct (UmIt: 200 word.)
The 68-acre Michigan Disposal Service Landfill site is an inactive municipal landfill
in Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Land use in the area is predominantly
industrial, commercial, and residential. The eastern border of the site lies within
a wetland and the 100-year floodplain of nearby Davis Creek. From 1925 to 1961, the
site was owned and operated by private parties as a municipal landfill. Forty-seven
acres of the total site was used as a landfill. In 1961, the city of Kalamazoo
purchased the property and began accepting wastes from residences, businesses, and
local industries. The majority of these wastes were incinerated onsite, with onsite
disposal of the ash. From 1968 to 1981, the site was licensed to accept only inert
wastes, and incineration ceased due to new air pollution regulations. In 1981, the
site was sold, and subsequently, was operated as a licensed landfill. During the
mid-1980's, the State conducted investigations as part of a landfill extension
request. These onsite studies documented that wastes leaching from the landfill had
contaminated onsite soil, sediment, and ground water. To continue landfill
operations, the owners were ordered to install a collection system to intercept
leachate prior to entry into Davis Creek to prevent contamination of the creek. This
(See Attached Page)
17. Document AnIIIy8i8 L De8cripto18
Record of Decision - Michigan Disposal Service, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw, sw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other organics (PCBs), metals (arsenic, chromium,
lead)
b. Idenlifier8l00000Ended Tenna
c. COSA TI AeIcIIGroup
18. Avlilabiity Slatement
19. Security CI... (This Report)
None
20. Security Cis.. (This Page)
Nf'1np
21. No. 01 P.ges
108
22. Price
[See ANSl-Z39.18)
See Inslructiona on Reverse
~nm 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTlS-35)
Department 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-91/171
Michigan Disposal Service, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
Record of Decision (ROD) addresses onsite contaminated soil, sediment, ground water,
and surface water, as a final remedy. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, debris, ground water, and surface water are VOCs including benzene;
other organics including PCBs; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes installing a clay cap and
revegetating the landfill contents; installing a leachate collection system and a gas
venting system for the landfill; pumping and pretreating ground water onsite, as
required, followed by offsite discharge of the ground water/leachate to a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW); monitoring all media; and implementing institutional
controls, and site access restrictions including fencing. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $8,269,500, which includes an annual O&M of $253,800
for 20 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Ground water cleanup goals are based on SDWA and State
standards. Chemical-specific goals for ground water include benzene 1 ug/l (State),
arsenic 0.02 ug/l (State), and lead 5 ug/l (State).
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Record of Decision
Michigan Disposal Service
(Cork Street) Landfill Site
Kalamazoo, Michigan
-------
Table of Contents
Section
Declaration
.. .. .. .. .. .'-. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. ..
State of Michigan: Letter of Concurrence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decision Summary
...... ............. .................................
Site Name, Location, and Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site History and Enforcement Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Highlights of Community Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within Site
Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Site Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Site Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environmental Standards Not Met at the Site. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rationale for Further Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: The Nine Criteria. . . . .
Selected Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statutory Determinations
.. .... ...... ..... ...... -.....
Summary
................... .......................................
Responsiveness Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (following) 48
Administrative Record Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. Appendix 1
~
I
IV
1
1
6
8
8
9
15
25
26
26
32
38
41
48
-------
Declaration
Selected Remedial Alternative
for the
Xichiqan Disposal service (Cork street)
Landfill Site
Kalamazoo, Xichig&D
site Name and Location
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street) Landfill
2800 East Cork street
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
statement of Basis and PurDose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Michigan Disposal Landfill Site, in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which was
chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Com.prehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting
the remedy for this site. The information supporting this remedial
action decision is contained in the administrative record for this
site.
Assessment of the site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DescriDtion of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy is the final remedy for the Site. The remedy
addresses the threats posed by low level threat wastes and
contaminated ground water at the site. Low level threat wastes are
defined as those source materials that generally can be reliably
managed with little likelihood of migration and that present a low
risk in the event of exposure. They include source materials that
exhibit low mobility in the environment or are above protective
levels but are not considered to be significantly above protective
levels for toxic compounds.
The remedy employs engineering controls to contain the landfilled
waste (low level threat wastes) on-site. The remedy also employs
i
-------
treatment of contaminated ground water. The landfill does not have
a threat that can be classified as a principal threat.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
.
Ground water extraction followed by treatment of the extracted
contaminated water at the POTW. If necessary, extracted water
will be treated on-site to meet POTW pretreatment standards
before being sent to the POTW;
Deed restrictions to control the use of the land and the
ground water;
.
.
Containment of the landfill contents using a clay cap with a
vegetated soil layer which complies with RCRA Subtitle D and
Act 641 closure requirements. The cap will consist of (from
top to bottom) four inches of top soil with vegetation, a
layer of soil for frost protection and drainage, clean fill to
develop the required grades, and a 2-foot thick clay layer; and
Installing fencing and warning signs to restrict access
.
Declaration of statutorY Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and state requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost effective. The remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies, to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
~tatutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Due to the large volume of landfilled waste that would need to be
treated, treatment of this low level threat waste is considered
impract~cable. However, the remedy selected employs treatment of
contaminated ground water which is considered a principal element of
the remedy. The remedy employs engineering controls which will be
protective of human health and the environment to address the low
level threat posed by the landfilled waste and employs treatment to
return contaminated ground water to beneficial uses.
ii
-------
Because this remedy will result -in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted every
five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment.
~
iii
-------
STATE OF MICHIGAN
NATURAL It£sOUfIcn COMMISSION
MllnLCloIr .1. FI ~It
-------
Mr. Valdas Adamkus
-2-
September 20, 1991
Although the MOHR does agree with the containment alternative selected, the
MDNR can not concur with the technical design of the closure cap described. A
ca~1 design which meets only the minimum requirements of Act 641 is not fUlly
prc1tect ive of human heal th and the env ironment at the Cork Street Landfill
sit.e. As described in our response to the proposed plan, dated September 9,
19S'1, a composite cap consisting of a two foot clay layer, flexible membrane
lJr~, frost protective layer, and vegetative so;l layer should be constructed
at this 51te. The MONR can not support the proposed cap design which excludes
a flexible membrane liner (FML) as an essential component. The addition of an
FHl. would help provide protection to the underlying aquifer from further
corlhminat ion in that cap integrity and impermeab il ity woul d be greatly
en~anced. This is especially important when considering that this landfill
ha~, no bottom or .side impermeable liners, thus allowing any infiltration
through the cap to eventually leach contaminants to the groundwater. The MDNR
believes thit, in order for the containment alternative to be effective, an
FHL. should be included in the cap design.
ThE: additional protective and vegetative soil layers provide endurance to the
ca~1 by protecting the impermeable layer from being adversely affected by
en\'ironmenta' conditions. The protective layer has several important
functions, including providing a lateral drainag~ layer for infiltrating
prE!cipitation; providing protection of the clay layer and FHL from damage due
to erosion, the effects of freeze-thaw cycles, penetration by roots, burrowing
an~mals and other sources; providing stabilization of the vegetative soil
1a~'er; and ass ist 1ng in the establ ishment and support of vegetat lve cover.
ThE:se layers enhance the long-term effectiveness of the cap and reduce
optration and maintenance costs.
ThE: MDNR concurs with the proposal that additional studies on the nature and
extent of groundwater contamination must be conducted prior to the Remedial
De~,ign phase of the project. Remedial Investigation data is insufficient to
properly design and place the extraction well and monitoring systems. It is
thE! MDNR's pos it ion that any addit ional studies be conducted as expedit ious1y
as possible to avoid undue delay in implementing the remedial alternative
selected.
ThE! MDNR also concurs with the Statutory Determination Summary, with the
following exception. The state has previously identified the Water Resources
Conmiss1on Act (WRCA) (1929 P.A. 245, as amended), MCL 323.6(a) and the
as~,ociated Part 22 Administrative Rules. MAC R.323.2201 it U1L. as ARARs for
this site. It remains our position that the WRCA and the associated Part 22
Rules are ARARs for the remedial action for this site because hazardous
substances in the aquifer beneath the site are migrating to degrade previously
un(.ontaminated groundwater. It is the MDNR's judgement that the selected
remedial action for this site will provide for attainment of all ARARs.
inc.luding the WRCA and the Part 22 Rules, by preventing further discharges of
iniurfous substances into the groundwater outside of the containment area, and
by~remedyin9 the existing groundwater contamination.
-------
Mr. Valdas Adamkus
-3-
September 20, 1991
ThE! MDNR concurs with the access restrict ions presented in the ROD. wh ich
include fencing and signs, deed restrictions, and groundwater use
re!ttrictions.
We look forward to working with you on the implementation of this ROD. We
aho hope to come to I mutual understanding with the U.S. Environmental
Prc1~ection Agency regarding the technical design components of the closure
cap~ If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Mr. Dennis
Ea£lle, MDHR Project Manager, at 517-373-8195, or you may contact me directly.
Sincerely, 0
.t.,~-I /2 I)
Delbert Rector
Deputy Director
517-373-7917
cc: Mr. Jonas Dikinis, EPA
Ms. Mary Pat Tyson, EPA
Mr. Timothy Prendiville, EPA
Hr. Robert Reichel, Depart~nt of Attorney General
Mr. John Craig, MONR
Mr. Alan Howard, MOHR
Mr. William Bradford, MDNR
Mr. Peter 01111a, MDNR/Cork Street Landfill File
-------
Decision Summary for the Record of Decision
~.
Site Name. Location. and
DescriDtion
The Michigan Disposal Landfill Site is located at 2800 East Cork
Street in the City of Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Figure
1 is a site location plan and figures 2 and 3 are diagrams of the
Site.
The Site consists of approximately 68 acres, 47 of which had been
used up until 1968 as a municipal landfill. It is bounded on the
south by Interstate 94, on the west by Conrail Railroad, on the
north by Cork Street and the Lakeside Refinery Co., and on the east
by Davis Creek and the Grand Trunk Railroad. In the vicinity of
the Site, Davis Creek is not used recreationally with its most
important function being drainage. Although the majority of the
Site is fenced, the site is accessible from the east and the south.
The immediate area surrounding the property is industrial with the
general area being used as mixed industrial, commercial and
residential, and being served by the City water supply. The single
aquifer below the Si te is a Class II aquifer, flowing to the
northeast, which is presently being used in the area surrounding the
Site and could potentially be used in the area of concern. Two
municipal well stations, 13 and 18, are located 4,000 feet southeast
and 1,300 feet west-southwest of the Site, respectively. Station 18
is used only during peak demand periods (three to four months a
year) and station 13 is used mainly as a supply for fire protection.
Pump tests performed on these pumping stations have demonstrated
that the quality of water being collected by those wells is not
currently being affected by the site. The nearest residences are
approximately one-quarter of a mile from the Site. The eastern
border of the property, along Davis Creek, is located in the 100
year flood plain. A wetland is also present along Davis Creek (see
figure 4).
The site is relatively flat except for approximately 26 acres which
are currently being used as a Type III landfill, creating an
elevated topography in the southern portion of the property. Under
Michigan's Solid Waste Management Act of 1978 (Act 641), Type III
means, "... an on-land disposal facility designed and operated to
accommodate large volumes of certain solid waste having minimal
potential for groundwater contamination." The type of waste going
to these facilities is required to undergo annual testing. Type II
is defined as, "...on-Iand disposal facility designed and operated
to accommodate general types of solid waste, including, but not
limited to, garbage and rubbish, but excluding hazardous waste."
1
-------
)
N
MICHIGAN STATE MAP:
NOT TO SCALE
KALAMAZOO VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCAlE
APPROXlIlA 1E SCAL(
I
2,IlOO
I
2,000 fEET
o
SITE LOCA liON PLAN
! L
PtIO'AIIQI fOIl
CORK SlREET
lANDALl SITE PRP's
CanonieEnvirmrneDtal
FIGURE 1
fiGURE 1
DRA_a NUIoIII£II
81-on-81
&
-------
~ ~ 8 ~ 3 \ ~
on
- <~ wac~ 0# .n ~'
z ~ (")z
, \
Il CEAiBRIT + +
<.000 ,'.
LEGEND:
AREA Of WASTE DISPOSAL :=..-=- -=- -= UNIMPROVED ROADWAY
ACTIVITY BOUNDARY (1960) \ DIRECTION Of flOW
---- PROPERTY LINE
I.~- + + + + RAILROAD
mJ AREA Of WASTE DISPOSAL
ACTIVITY (1950)
o AREA Of wASTE DISPOSAL
STREET LANDFILL ACTIVITY (1955)
AREA Of WASTE DISPOSAL
ACTIVITY BOUNDARY (1960)
1.000 - + + +
NOTES:
~ I. HIGHWAY 1-94 CONSTRUCTED
BETWEEN 1955 AND 1960.
2. AREA Of WASTE DISPOSAl ACTMTY
... fOR EACH Of THE THREE TIME
PERIODS SHOWN WAS ESTIMA rED
fROM EXAMINA nON Of AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS REfERENCED AND
MAY NOT REfLECT ACTUAL EXTENT
Of DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
A T THE SITE.
SCAL(
+ + I
300 0 .100 fEET
AREAS or WASTE DISPOSAL
ACTIVITY 19J8 - 1960
PREPAR£D fOR
frr£A£HC£S' CORK STREET
O(CEwBER IV8~ AERIAl. PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS Of lANDFILL SITE PRP's
!HE DlSPOs[-O-WAST£ SlII COWPIL(O BY JH( US + + + + + CanoDieEnvirmrnental
EPA (REGION ~I [HIMIONIoI(HTAL WONITOIIIHC SVSIIWS
LA8011A lOllY.
DATE' 4-14-9' fiGURE 10 DRAwING NUI.tBE.
SCALE: AS SHOWN 81-062-D~8
6
FIGURE 2
-------
~ j ~ ~ ~
,,;
aRa£~ .. "
- .. I I
" I
I
I l + +
CtA/BRIT
000-
.
.~-
+
+
+
000 -
STREET LANDFILL
+
CONRAIL APPROXIMA TE LOCA TlON or
WlLCO INCINERATOR (196:i)
+ + + +
+ +
:r(RrNCr5-
D£C£"8ER Iin A(RIAl PHOIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS or
IH£ OISP05[-O-WASIt Silt COUPILEO 8Y n"
'\
~
(:)
\
+
+
LEGEND:
=--=--=--= UNIMPROVED ROADWAY
DIRECTION Of fLOW
----
PROPERTY UNE
+
'. RAILROAD
~
B
AREA or WASTE DISPOSAL
ACTIVITY (196:i)
AREA Of WASTE DISPOSAL
ACTIVITY (1973)
AREA Of WASTE DISPOSAL
ACTIVITY BOUNDARY (19W)
NOTES:
1. LAKESIDE REfiNERY DEVELOPED
BETWEEN 1960 AND 1965.
2 AREA Of WASTE DISPOSAl ACTIVITY
. fOR EACH Of THE THREE TIME
PERIODS SHOWN WAS ESTIMATED
fROM EXAMINA TlON or AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS REfERENCED AND
MAY NOT REfLECT ACTUAL EXTENT
Of DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
AT THE SITE.
SCAlE
JOG
I
. ~oo fEET
o
AREAS or WASTE DISPOSAL
ACTIVITY 1960 - 1973
PR£PAIIEO rOR
CORK STREET
LANDFILL SITE PRP's
CanonieEnvirmmental
fiGURE I 1
DRAWING NUIoiBER
81-082-8'9
. .
&
. .
. .)
-------
~ "'~~ ~ ~ \. ~
~ ~ . \
I " .,< .1 ...
- ..; ,,; ~
" %
Z Z = I I
I ~,~J en
~~~
<.:"
l CEM8RI r + + \
0(1-
~ LEGEND:
" ~ =--=- -=- -= UNIMPROVED ROADWA Y
DIRECTION or fLOW
+ + + ---- PROPERTY LINE
0(1- + +
RAILROAD
~ AREA Of 100 YEAR
fLOOD PLAIN
CORK STREET' LANDFILL
+ Wetland Area + + ~ Approximate
0-
Wetland Area
-I.
+
+
+
CONRAIL
SCALE
.,.
JOO
o
I
.JOO fEET
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN MAP
,_. ...'
PREPNlEO fOR
JIUiI:a;.
.'R" (LOCO INSUR""CE RA J[ "..,. COWPIlEO
.f \HE fEDERAL E"ERGENCY """ACE"ENf AGENCY,
'fY Of KALA"AZoo, "'OIICAN, p""n 20 or 2~.
'AY I, '18).
CORK STREET
LANDFILL SITE PRP's
CanoDieEnvironnlental
FIGURE 9
DRAWING HUUSER
81-D62-U:ID
&
Fir.un 4
-------
2.
site Historv and Enforcement Activities
Between the period of 1925 to 1961 the property was owned and
operated by private parties as a general refuse municipal landfill.
Attempts to identify viable owners and operators from that period
were unsuccessful. In 1961 the City of Kalamazoo bought the
property and began accepting wastes from local residents, businesses
and industries. A tee-pee shaped incinerator, called a Wilco
burner, was used to incinerate a majority of the waste with the ash
being deposited on Site. In 1968 the site became licensed by the
state to receive only inert waste, and incineration ceased at the
site to comply with new air pollution regulations. Also, at that
time, the landfill closed for public use. However, the City
continued to dispose of its own inert waste there until 1981.
During the period of 1979 to 1981 the facility operated without a
license. The state had determined that a license for this operation
was unnecessary because the refuse being disposed of in the landfill
was predominantly street sweepings, leaves and demolition debris.
Figure 3 shows the approximate waste management area boundaries.
In March of 1981 the City sold the property to Dispos-O-Waste, now
known as Michigan Disposal Service corporation (MDS). This sale was
contingent upon MDS being able to get an operating license to use
the land as a Type III landfill. This landfill would operate
directly on top of the old municipal landfill and would accept
waste, defined, by the state, as having low potential to cause
groundwater contamination. A construction permit, allowing MDS to
prepare the site to accept waste, was issued by the MDNR in July of
~982. This permit contained the following stipulations:
1) An acceptable monitoring program to distinguish the Type
III leachate from the Type II facility must be developed and
submitted to the Resource Recovery Division for review and
approval.
2) A groundwater monitoring and collection program pursuant to
299.4305, Rule 305(3), must be developed and submitted to the
Resource Recovery Division for review and approval. Base line
water quality data must be established prior to license
application;
3) The source and supportive physical data for the final cover
must be identified and sU,J:>mitted to the Resource Recovery
Division for review and approval pursuant to R299.4304, Rule
304(3) (c), and Rule 305(10);
4) All areas which have received refuse from the previous
landfilling activities and are currently at the final grades
proposed must have final cover (pursuant to R299.4305, Rule
305(10), in place at the time of license application;
6
-------
5) Any construction activities within 500 feet of Davis Creek
or within the contiguous wetland area must be conducted
strictly in accordance with the Inland Lakes and stream Act and
Wetlands Protection Act, respectively. In the event permits
are necessary for the above stated acts, they must be obtained
prior to the commencement of construction: and
6) A clearance must be obtained from the Michigan Department
of Public Health pursuant to Act 399 of 1976, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, R325.10812, Rule 812, prior to the construction of
the facility.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) issued an
operating license to MDS in June of 1983, for one, five acre cell
(cell #1) with the following stipulations included:
1) Any leachate breakouts shall be properly contained,
gathered up with associated soils and disposed of in a proper
manner:
2) Because the anticipated work includes filling adjacent to
the highly travelled expressway, precautions will be taken to
eliminate illegal access and disposal from off-site sources:
3) The landfill operator will monitor
unacceptable wastes from the site: and
for
and
remove
4) An extension to the letter of credit, and acceptable
replacement letter of credit or other acceptable financial
assurance shall be provided by May 15, 1984.
Three years later the license was renewed and expanded to include an
additional five acre cell (cell #2).
The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in June
of 1987 with an HRS score of 37.93. The City of Kalamazoo, MDS and
the u.s. EPA entered into a Consent Order (EPA Docket No. V-W~87-C-
035) for the City and MDS to perform the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) on December 3, 1987, and the site was
finalized on the NPL in February of 1990.
In August of 1987, MDS submitted an application to license an
additional 16 acres (cells 3 & 4). This application was denied by
the MDNR in November of 1988 and a Director's Cease and Desist Order
was issued at the same time. These were issued on the basis that
MDS had failed to meet the requirements of the stipulations in the
original permit and licenses issued for the landfill. In December
of 1988 MDS filed a complaint in the Kalamazoo County Court against
the MDNR for denying the application and, also, sought injunctive
relief from the Cease and Desist Order. The judge issued an
injunction allowing continued filling at the Site and ordered that
a collection system, called a trench drain, be installed to
7
-------
intercept the leachate prior to its entering Davis creek. The
trench drain has been installed and is operating. Cells 1 & 2 have
been closed with a clay cap and cell 3 will be capped during the
summer of 1991. Cell 4 is currently being filled with Type III
waste. Operations have also taken place in cells not covered under
the denied license application. The case is still pending in the
county court ~
3.
Hiahlightsof Communitv particioation
The RIfFS Report and the Proposed Plan for the Michigan
Disposal Site were released to the public for comment on July 11,
1991. These two documents were made available to the public in both
the administrative record maintained at the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Docket Room in Region V
and at the Kalamazoo Public Library. The documents were also made
available at the public information repositories maintained at the
Kalamazoo Public Library and the Kalamazoo Nature Center. The
notice of availability for these two documents was published in the
Kalamazoo Gazette newspaper on July 8, 1991. A public comment
period on the documents was held from July 11, 1991 to September 8,
1991. In addition, a public meeting was held on July 17, 1991. At
this meeting, representatives from U.s. EPA and the MDNR answered
questions about problems at the Site and the remedial alternatives
under consideration. A response to the comments received during
this period is included in the Responsiveness Summaq, which is part
of this ROD. The provisions of Sections 113(k) (2) (B) (i)-(v) and 117
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended have been satisfied.
4.
Scope and Role of O~erable unit or Resoonse Action Within Site
strateav
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the final remedy for the
site. The threats posed by this Site to human health and the
environment are: landfilled waste, which is the source material for
the leachate, the leachate, and contaminated ground water.
The landfilled waste is the source material for contamination from
the site. This waste is classified as a low level threat waste.
Low level threat waste is defined as those source materials that
generally can be reliably managed with little likelihood of
migration and that present a low risk in the event of exposure.
They include source materials that exhibit low mobility in the
environment or are above protective levels but are not considered to
be significantly above protective levels for toxic compounds.
Leachate contained within the landfilled waste is also considered a
low level threat waste. Leachate in ground water is classified as
contaminated ground water.
8
-------
Leachate and contaminated ground water will be treated. The
landfilled waste will be contained "on-site". Treatment of the
landfill's contents was determined to be inappropriate, because the
size of the landfill and the absence of known "on-site" hot spots
(areas of concentrated hazardous substances within the landfill)
that represent major sources of contamination preclude a remedy in
which landfilled waste could be excavated and treated efficiently
and cost effectively.
5.
Summarv of site Characteristics
Pursuant to the authorities under the CERCLA, as amended, and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), an RI and FS were conducted at the Site.
Figure 5 shows the sampling locations. During the RI/FS the
following conditions were observed at the Michigan Disposal Landfill
site:
1. Topography and Drainage
The topography of the site is relatively flat with a maximum relief
of approximately 70 feet, due primarily to recent and continued
filling with paper mill sludge, construction debris, and other inert
materials. The ground surface of the Site is characterized by
numerous "piles II of landfilled materials or stockpiles of inert
waste such as concrete and steel. The Site drainage is mainly to
the northeast to Davis Creek: however, the far west portion of the
Site drains to a small depression along the Conrail tracks where it
infiltrates into the soil underlying the Site. The extreme south
portion of the site and part of the 1-94 right-of-way drain to a
topographic low area on the south margin of the site, where water
either evaporates or infiltrates.
2.
Hydrogeology
Local Hyrogeology
a.
The site is underlain by interbedded glacial outwash and till. The
glacial drift thickness in the vicinity of the site is approximately
150 feet, beneath which lies the Coldwater Shale unit. The outwash
is mainly composed of fine sand with some gravel and/or cobbles,
while the till is clay-rich. The glacial outwash/till unit is
considered a single drift aquifer. The regional ground water flow
in the aquifer is to the north towards the Kalamazoo River at a
gradient of approximately 0.015, and the aquifer has a maximum
average linear velocity of 399 ft/year.
9
-------
,
~ '''.~.:-.''
.,., .
'r~.
, "."
,
"
,
.
I
l
.'. '..
"" ",
A"" ~,
. ,
" "
. '...',,-
'" "-
-, "',', oj
, "
i
.,
"
,I,.'
.Ii'" '.~ "I"~'
"
..
,:,
....,
.
RMofAC
-;
+
+
1-
,.",~. ..'"
IIIIU.
wi ~... ...., --...... .
. f'oo8-...w ,..... . ...e .~
.. . ....... ~I~ c.-...
::~-=:~':"H.""" ....,.
n
"
.-.... '''''.- .... ,... I.... .,.
""" ..-. '.....
.
--.-....... -'--...-..
'''-'--T-
.
I
i/
/
, ,//
:'/ /'
..
:J-"
..
.'
I
.
,
I
.
,
_C- 01
LfIiCt&.
'';::'~~''''
-0'
~_:-
1IIOOt81Y ""
....-
+
+
+
oj + + +
....,
i .. ..
I
,
C
. _""A-
Doc.'. -- 50
, 'UICA_"
It ... OA\ilS (
IU8lAU WAit
StOM(HI SAIl
:IUI - $1-
~
~ - SlMAC
-
U - UIIOIA:
-
.It - liS! '"
~
~ Clf-I 0\
~Af'I\l\1..)1
POm~iNt.. '
~TA.-ub'"
of
of
...
+
: ~
oj
'1-;}
...~
+
+
lb
.......... ...
\LJ
cI.
$
l.c
..
1
+
+.
...
...-.;::.
.. .
.
.. '111
SAt.4PLE LOCA TlON PLAN
PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTICA TION
DRAFT
PREPAII{D fOR
CORK STREET
LANDfiLL SITE PRP's
CanonieErwirQ1~r.
ID"~ 6-~n I "l0IIA08tC....
SC [, AS SHOION flCURE.. 81-062-(/1
" -, ._"
:'rnn1
------...... .
t"'-
-------
b.
site Hydrogeology
Two shallow hydrogeologic units are present beneath the Site: a
brown silty fine sand and an underlying gray silty clay. The native
soils are locally overlain by 0 to 26 feet of fill material and
refuse. These materials have been covered mainly with sandy fill
and other inert' material to various thicknesses. Pump tests
performed on two municipal well pumping stations upgradient from the
Site show that there is some connection between the shallow water
bearing unit and the deep water bearing unit. In addition, soil
borings from a previous study have shown that the shallow clay layer
is absent at certain points on the site. The top of the water table
is located approximately between 3 to 12 feet below the surface of
landfilled waste while a portion of the waste is sitting in the
shallow ground water. The connection with the ground water creates
a conduit for contaminants to leach into the ground water.
Two additional, deeper hydrogeologic units are present beneath the
Site: a system of fine to coarse sands and gravels with occasional
clay lenses and the Coldwater Shale unit. No data is available on
these units. The ground water flow in the shallow aquifer at the
site is estimated to be northeast towards Davis Creek at a gradient
of 0.11 to 0.17. In the southwestern portion of the Site, the
gradient in the shallow aquifer is flatter but becomes steeper again
near Davis Creek, indicating that groundwater is discharging to and
upward into the creek.
3. Contamination
a.
Ground Water
Wells on the eastern border of the Site have shown contamination
from volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
chemicals (SVOCs), and metals in the shallow aquifer. Benzene,
lead, and arsenic were found above Federal Drinking Water Standards
Maximum contaminant Levels (MCLs).
Table 1 .lists the chemicals above Michigan's Act 307 Type A or B
criteria. Michigan Act 307 Rules contain clean-up criteria which
include three different methods by which clean-up levels can be
determined. The levels are Type A, Type B, and Type C. The
methodology for Type A clean-up is based on background levels or
method detection limits for chemicals of concern. The methodology
for Type B clean-up uses standardized risk assumptions and exposure
assumptions to determine clean-up levels which will be protective of
human health and the environment and the use of the invol ved
resource. R. 299.5709 and R. 299.5711 provide thorough explanation
on how to apply the Type B clean-up to the chemicals of concern and
calculate the clean-up levels for a site. The methodology for Type
C clean-up considers the actual conditions of a site; the uses,
present and future, of a site: a site specific risk assessment; and
11
-------
:jf~~i~:
;';:;':;':::::;
Test pit
Soils
Soil
Borings
Ground
Water
Table 1
contaminants Detected Above Act 307 Standards
..
. ........~~ri~irii~~::~t~~~~~:.......i:'::'
-::..:~::':::::::::':::::::':'<::' ... ...,"'" "::,',"." ',::.'::::::":::::::<.:'; .,.. .."', ..., ,','.',',".:':'
. ,.:...... ',',' W",,' '."" .. ....... :.;::.:.:::..::,:~:;,:::~::.:::.:::::.:.:...." ;:; :.:;::.~:::~.::::::::;::.:~:;
. ... .....
"",:',"','::-:,"',"". . :'.:.' "".:.;,',',;.:-' '';';: ,':. ,',",",',",,',',','.",',","',', ,",',',"',',"'.' .
:~~f'~tt~.;.'.;. :.:.:'3,:.:. 0' ?:.',::..'...r::~.,;.;:o.;;.1,..:.:~, t. :,~.p)da,..::,..:'..:::::,'..,..';.::'.:.:.:.:,'::.:.:.::,r:.:#
"::".':'.'. ,.Ipp»)i:)((: U'~W
. ....
Methylene Chloride 110 100
Benzo(a) anthracene 330 100
Benzo(a)pyrene 330 100
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 770 100
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 4,100 40
Chrysene 420 100
Indeno-(1,2,3-c,d)-pyrene 120 100
Naphthalene 30,000 800
2-methylnaphthalene 7,400 1,200
PCB-1254 6,200 1,000
Arsenic 12,000 0.4
Lead 316,000 9,700.
Zinc 786,000 20,000
Mercury 250 <100.
Benzo(a) anthracene 340 100
Benzo(a)pyrene 310 100
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 580 100
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 330 40
Chrysene 400 100
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 190 100
Arsenic 20,000 0.4
Aluminum 6,190 1,000
Lead 87,000 9,700.
Mercury 250 <100.
Nickel 15,000 2,000
Benzene 150 1.0
1,4 dichlorbenzene 4.0 .. 1.0
-------
~~~i~r> ..
Ground
Water
Sediments
Leachate
Table 1
contaminants Detected Above Act 307 Standards
.....dciJ~~hirit~tic:~~~....
. .
.. .
.., ......,... . ... ....
.....~~.~.~........~.~~.?f...!... .....~.~y.....~~~~~~i€.~.....:
.. ..
Methylene chloride
10
5.0
2.0
0.02
80
5.0
100
100
100
40
100
100
6,000
100
4000
0.4
9,700.
1.0
30
Local background for lead, mercury and zinc - Established using Table 18
of Cork street RI report, West KL Avenue soil boring data.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl}phthalate
Arsenic
29
65
zinc
Lead
9,870
268
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a}pyrene
4,800
3,700
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
7,600
720
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h}anthracene
4,700
770
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d}pyrene
9,900
1,500
pyrene
Arsenic
7,200
6,900
Lead
60,700
1,4 dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2.0
190
-------
:.
cost effectiveness analysis. .oR. 299.5717 provides a thorough
explanation of how to apply the Type C clean-up to the chemicals of
concern.
Sufficient data is not available to conclude if Davis Creek acts as
a hydraulic barrier, or if contaminants travel further east beyond
the creek. Because no samples were taken below the shallow clay
layer, it is not known if the contaminants have migrated beneath the
shallow clay layer. Additional studies will be required to fill
these data gaps. Pumping tests performed on two municipal water
supply stations, station 13 and Station 18, located approximately
4,000 and 1,400 feet upgradient of the Site, have shown that those
wells are not presently capable of reversing the flow of qround
water at the Site so as to threaten the quality of water drawn from
those wells. This, along with annual monitoring results of the
stations by the City of Kalamazoo, has shown that the municipal
water supply is not presently threatened by the site. Figure 5
shows the approximate locations of the pumping station wells.
b.
Soils
Analytical results from soil and test pit samples show that the
landfill contents (approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of waste)
are the source of contamination. Soil samples were taken from a
background location and the Site. The results show that VOCs,
SVOCs, PCBs and metals are at elevated ~evels in the soils:
however, limited sampling of the landfilled waste and soils found no
localized areas of high contamination. Table 1 summarizes the
contaminants found in the soils and test pi ts at concentrations
above Michigan's Act 307. criteria. Eight VOCs were detected in the
subsurface soils at the landfill, ranging in concentration from
0.001 mg/kg to 0.110 mgjkg. Twenty-six SVOCs were detected in the
soils of the landfill, ranging in concentration from 0.040 mg/kg to
30 mg/kg. PCBs were observed in soils from two test pits at
concentrations ranging from 0.22 mgjkg to 6.2 mgjkg.
c.
Leachate
Leachate samples taken from test pits 2 and 3 found several
contaminants leaching from the landfill contents. Four contaminants
were found to exceed their MCLs: chromium (53.8 ppb), iron (84,000
ppb), manganese (1,400 ppb) and mercury (4.2 ppb). Leachate seeps
formerly observed on the southeastern border of the Site, and
discharging to the creek are now being collected in a trench drain
installed by MDS, however, other outbreaks have been observed on the
west and northeastern portions of the property. The most recent
sampling performed by the MDNR on leachate coming from the Type III
waste has shown no significant contamination, however, those
sampling results may be questionable due to sampling conditions.
14
-------
d.
Surface Water and Sediments
Samples of surface water and sediments were taken from four
locations in Davis Creek; one upstream and three downstream. The
only contaminant found in the surface water above federal ambient
water quality criteria was manganese with its highest concentration
being 97.5 ppb.
Three volatile compounds were detected in the sediments, ranging in
concentrations from 1 ppb to 53 ppb. Semivolatiles in the sediments
ranged from 40 ppb to 9,990 ppb with 19 total SVOCs detected.
Fourteen inorganic compounds were also detected with concentrations
ranging from 1,800 ppb to 40,900 ppm. The presence of the SVOCs may
be attributed to the Site, run-off from 1-94 or an oil spill to the
creek (in 1979) upstream of the Site. Many inorganics were detected
at higher concentrations upstream than downstream. Those detected
at higher concentrations downstream were aluminum, calcium, copper,
iron, manganese, sodium, and vanadium. Some SVOCs were also
detected at higher concentrations upstream.
with the possibility of other factors influencing the condition of
the sediments, it is not possible at this time to establish a
connection between the Site and the conditions of the creek.
However, with only one chemical found above federal standards in the
surface water,it appears that the Site is not having a significant
effect on the surface water at the Site.
6.Summarv of site Risks
-Human Health Risks
Pursuant to the NCP a baseline risk assessment was conducted by MDS
and the City for the Michigan Disposal Site as part of the Remedial
Investigation. Unacceptable risks to human health have been
identified for the ingestion of ground water.
A baseline risk assessment was performed using analytical data
generated during the RI. The baseline RA assumes no corrective
action will take place and that no site-use restrictions or
institutional controls such as fencing, ground water use
restrictions or construction restrictions will be imposed. However,
for the future Site scenarios, present action at the site and
current plans for development are considered. CUrrently, the Site
is being filled with waste and portions are being capped with two
feet of clay. Because the Site is an active landfill it was assumed
that the site will be capped in the future. The future residential
scenario was considered unreasonable because the site had been
planned to be developed as an industrial park after closure of the
currently operating landfill, and the area surrounding the site is
used industrially and commercially. Potential exposure pathways
considered for the Site under current and nonrestricted future site
development scenarios were:
1) Direct contact with impacted soils on-site, including
ingestion and absorption, by a trespasser under current
conditions;
15
-------
2) Direct contact, including ingestion and abso~tion,
with impacted test pit soils by a trespasser (children of
ages 6-11):
3) Exposure to surface water and/or sediment, including
direct contact and inhalation by a potential receptor
wading in the creek:
4) Direct contact, including ingestion and absorption,
wi th impacted leachate on-si te by a trespasser under
current as well as future nonrestricted conditions;
5) Ingestion of impacted ground water and inhalation of
volatilized organics from household use of impacted
ground water in the future from drinking water supply
wells located on the landfill.
A smaller group of contaminants than actually detected at the Site
was selected to focus the baseline risk assessment. The chemicals
selected were chosen because they were considered most likely to
contribute most of the risk associated with the site, based upon a
concentration-toxici ty screen which took into consideration the
concentration of contaminant found at the site and the contaminants
toxicity. Tables 2 thru 7 list the contaminants of concern chosen
for each of the media at the Site.
For each exposure pathway evaluated, carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic health risks were characterized for the reasonable
maximum exposure risk scenario, for current ~ite conditions, and for
future Site development. Table 8 lists the exposure assumptions
used for each of the pathways evaluated.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by u.S. EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to
chemicals exhibiting non-carcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the
amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) can
be compared to the RfD. Rfds are derived from human epidemiological
studies 'or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been
applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict
effects on humans). These uncertainty factors help ensure that the
RfDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse non-
carcinogenic effects to occur.
Potential concern for non-carcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient
(HQ) (or the ratio of the es.timated intake derived from the
contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's
reference dose). By adding theHQs for all contaminants within a
medium or across all media to which a given population may
reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated.
The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media. Any Hazard Index value greater than 1.0
suggests that a non-carcinogen potentially presents an
unacceptable health risk.
16
-------
Table 2
Ground Water contaminants of Concern
,
,
Contaminants
, ...., .:Ofuii<.u
>concern ....,. .u'
... Frequel1cY.".'..".,i"
...uo.f,,( .u
:betecti~;l
.u
u uu "
u
.. ..
RaDge<>f
uU.'u.. .. Deteoted .,y..,
,.:....F:~.~.c;~7;b)~t~~~,.,....
1. 0 - 150.0
..... ..
..'....~;~i~:;2.~..~.....:..".......'....:;
uu~ pp~t?
.: :',' <.:~./. .,'. .. .
Benzene
6/30
23/30
30/30
1/30
1/30
4/30
30/30
2.7 - 65.4
31.6 - 382.0
7.0
18.0
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
10.0 - 10.0
9.2 - 9.2
155.2
0.8
Chromium
6.3 - 9.8
2.3
3.1
Manganese
3.8 - 3,000
466.5
u ... u
Contaminants
.. of ...
.c~.~ce~n .~...r'
Table 3
Soil contaminants of Concern
..': .:. H'" ',:h ", ;';::;":.'.:' 1';'-. ".':.:.. .' ,.:. ".".
Frequency, " Rapqe~f ..
.'.'..',ofH)".. ." .,.... .':'..'...... Detected. .'.' '.'.
P.~t~cti9.~u....'.;..< . ..u'. conc~nt.ra~iQll~'
,..........> uu.u... (ppb). ... UU
.... . ...... ....
. P'" ....... .. .., . .
. . ,. . . .. . ...
<.:~~it1met~~i?
, '."u.:u .. .Mean..,u u....
u(ppb). uu"
';'N:'
-,'. .
Arsenic 6/6 1,100 - 20,000 5,333
Barium 6/6 16,000 - 126,000 46,166
Chromium 6/6 5,800 - 15,000 9,300
Manganese 6/6 171,000 - 292,000 219,833
Table"
Surface Water contaminants of Concern
..
. ......
. .......
. . .
. . d' n.
,.,Ft~'~~:0-8.
, Detection.
.:. ':~:'.:'.
.... ..... . ',.. ," "'"
:';;""':""" ;.' "', .c.',",':.. ..',
'. .. ,...u:~~b~::\l.~:;:
uconcent;ati6ns...
'. «Ppb):,;;u "'..
4.4 - 8.1
..n.. ..
. . ... . .. .
.... ... . . ...... ..
. .... .... . .
1..i:it.funatic<
... . .>.M.ean .. ....
. ..Jp~P.t
.c~?~.a~~~~;:~~ .. .
.. Concern ....
.. .'~.' '.
... ..
Arsenic
Barium
2/4
4/4
4/4
49.6 - 50.5
96.1 - 97.5
3.7
50.1
Manganese
97.0
-------
~
Table 5
Sediments contaminants of Concern
.. .
..... .
'~~.:...::.'...'...{'..~p"~p"~b:..~}1......:.......~.:.',..:..:.::c:;:....,:.:i...~:.:.:::i.i:;:$:..::'..~'...'..:.:.:.: ..~...l:i.;.i:....i:..r.'.......I.;.:...:.~.....:...'..i.~.p.:..~.~.~J.
. . . . . .. , . .:::::.~::~C?A~.~~p...
......
":'::';>:. :
... .
. ..
u..
Arsenic 4/4 2,700 - 6,900 5,400 -
Cadmium 1/4 3,900 - 3,900 1,347
Chromium 4/4 5,800 - 12,000 8,775
Manganese 4/4 115,000 - 234,000
365,000
Benzo(a) anthracene 4/4 390 - 4,800 1,795
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4/4 430 - 7,600 2,858
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4/4 270 - 7,600 2,818
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4/4 380 - 3,700 - 1,475
Chrysene 4/4 480 - 4,700 1,798
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4/4 42.0 - 770 303
Table 6
Leachate contaminants of Concern
..: :::::: ..::::: :: ::
contaminants:
:: :0£'. ":': :. :....
:Concern .. .
. . ..... . . ,.. .. . .. .. ... ....
............. .. ,'..... ''''''H''''''. .
P' .... .. .. .......
. . .. ... "'" . ... . . . .. . ... . ... . ,.
. .......
. ...... ............
........ P'" ..... ......
. :..:.:'~:00~~'08:!.i!.......:.."....'.:
p~'t~~~~~~n:}/:~' ....
. ..... ". .,. . ,.,
,..........., ......... ., .
.. .... . ....., . ,. ..
. '." '''.','.','.''.'',''.' ..............., .. '.. '."~ ,. ... .' "..
.i;;:".'R~nqE(:~ t::;:'.;:.:.::l;
::)\:}:ba.tect;i(!l)::(/:t:
. . qpp.~~:~&¥J;0~~#~:;::::
" ......;-:-:,..:-::,:',', :.;. ,:,;".,.,:..,::.::.;": :. :
;~;;lri)J11
...
: ..
PCB-1254 1/3
Antimony 1/3
Arsenic 3/3
Barium 3/3
Chromium 2/3
Manganese 3/3
.. .
..
12.0 - 12.0 4.3
43.8 - 43.8 29.0
15.2 - 34.8 26.2
165 - 286 210
6.7 - 53.8 21.2
757 - 1,400 1,030
-------
Colitaminan ts . ........
.......... ....0£.. ."i.
Concern ....
.... ..
...
PCB-1254
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Manganese
Table 7
Test Pit contaminants of Concern
... F......:.r... /.... ~........qu......~ef."....~.........f:Y.................................................. . . .. .. .. .RangE!.~f
v .. .. ........... ...... Detected..<... .. .
..Detection.... .conoent.ratio:n~'
.. . .... ""{ppb).'.}... .... ... .... .... .....
5/7
6/7
7/7
5/7
7/7
7/7
220 - 6,200
3,800 - 12,000
63,500 - 506,000
490 - 7,200
9,900 - 77,200
302,000 - 4,790,000
.A~i. ~~:~i~f ..
.. .
. Jppb) . .
P',,"
,',N'
1,298
7,121
227,971
2,185
29,929
1,838,300
-------
-rA BLE ~
Rllatlw AbSOl"Dtion F8~Ors(a)
~r. &pc.ur. ~ &oo8ur8 ~,. Vo/81118 Semivolatil.
Pafllwav PoDulcon FreocuencY lid ~ Oro.~ic8 o-oanic::a "'oroanics
Groun~ Wat., (Futur. SIt. o.wfooment)
.' .'
tlgeSlion 7O-Ic; HluIIII Daily 211181s/day (b) 70 y..,. ' 1~. 100'1f0 1~
Source At.., (Curr.nt Sit. Conditiona)
~-T.stPila 30«; OIildren (Age 6 . 1 1) ~/yNJ (d) 1oomgf-nt (8) 5 YM18 ,~ ~ 50"
7O-Ic; OIildr.n (Age 12" 18) ~fyNJ (d) 100 mgf-m (8) 7 y..,.. 1 CXI"iO so... 50"
W.i;""~ A..,age(e) 53 kg ~fyNJ (eI) 100 mgf-nt (8) 12 V.at'I , CXI"iO 5O'\i so..
~on . Test PiIa 30-1<; OIlldr.n ~ e . 1'1 ~!'fNJ (d) ~m;fewnl II) $ YM18 '0.. ,-. '-'
7O-Ic; OIIId,.n ~ 12. 18) ~/yM1 (eI) ~ m;/-I'II (I). , 7 YM18 10.. ,-. 1-.
Weigltt8d Awra;e(e) 5311; ~/yNJ (eI) $ICQ mg/_nt II) 12 YM18 10.. 1-. ,"
"gestion . Laacnat. 3O-I
-------
\Ai:Lt ~
(~n'-::)
~
P.at-av
&po.u,.
Pol)ulatlon
~a
Frtoauancv
~ra
.Be
~re
[).r~on
Rele~ AOso~tion Fectorstal
VoIatl'- S.mNo~llIe
~ ~ Inoreenics
$edimem to.m.m Site Coftdtllon,1
- .:'
i'Ig8SDOn 3O-k; CMdr.n ~a S. 11) 7/ytllI 1C1:) mg/-m (a) 5 Y.." ,~ 5O1ity ~,pft,CXX&& cmfhoyr (wtI1ct\ 1III'U &&aY~ when no cn.m1caJ-apeoeific dermal
permea>1ity conr..!'11III'U .v&i~a). 2.8 hOIJl'1 of .~rl P8" -nt. ~ 2.0X! -=llIarl C8ntiml'18r IIdn ar.. (hand.,
f:)raatma, f"l. and ~r~. of child or /'I&r\da and feet of 8dlllt).
POOR QUAL\TY
ORIGiNAL
-------
Tables 9 and 10 list the total Hazard Indices for the pathways
considered. As the tables indicate, none of the indices for the
different scenarios exceed 1.0.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by U.S. EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to po~entially carcinog~fic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in un1ts of (mg/kg-day) ,
are mUltiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen,
in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes
underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer
potency factors are derived from the results of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict
effects on humans).
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks are determined by multiplying the
intake level with the cancer potency factor for each contaminant
of concern. These risks are probabilities t~at are generally
expressed in scientific notation (e.g. 1x10- or 1E-6). An excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-6indicates that, as a plausible upper
bound, an individual has a one in one million chance of developing
cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a
70-year lifetime under the specific expos~re conditions at a site.
The u.s. EPA generally attempts to reduce the excess lifetime
cancer risk posed by a Superfund sites to a range of 1x10-'to
1X10-6C1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1 million), with an emphasis on the
lower end of the scale (1X10-6).
Tables 9. and 10 indicate the Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks for
different scenarios. As the table shows, the excess lifetime
cancer risk for the future site development scenario of inqestion
of ground water exceeds the acceptable risk range of lxlO-'to
lX10-6.
-Environmental Risks
In addition to human health risks, the risks to the environment
were al$o considered during the remedial investigation. A
wildlife survey produced no evidence of threatened or endangered
species inhabiting the Site. Analysis of earthworm samples from
the site detected no bioaccumulation of metals in those organisms.
It is estimated that the greatest risks posed by the Site are to
the aquatic life in the surface water.in the vicinity to the Site
and the wildlife and plant life in the wetlands on-site. Leachate
and contaminated ground water flow into the wetlands and
eventually into Davis Creek. As long as these liquids continue to
be produced by the Site, they will be a source of contamination in
the creek and wetlands.
Risk Summary
jhe potential excess lifetime cancer risk posed by the Site, lXlO-
I exceeds the acceptable risk range of lXlO-4 to lXlO-6
22
-------
t/EX.PO $Jr~H:."
.'.'.'.:.'.:'...,'.'.:.:.:',i;...'.....$c::er~ri;bi:'..
.,", '.'.....-:":'..'.:'.'."
........ .
,".'''''."..'',''.'.',',','...
..... "".:.;;: :'::'..~:'.::.', ::: ::':.;.:;:
... ... .....
.. . ....
......
Ingestion of
Soils
Absorbtion
of Soils
Ingestion of
Sediments
Absorbtion
of Sediments
Ingestion of
Surface
Water
Absorbtion
of Surface
Water
Ingestion of
Test Pit
Soils
Absorbtion
of Test Pit
Soils
Ingestion of
Leachate
Absorbtion
of Leachate
Table 9
Summary of Risk Estimates
CUrrent Conditions
. . .
. . ...
, ., .., .
'. ExoessHCanoerRisk}
,:>: ,": . ..,,:::\::: '/:':::":":" .' H.'://e."::'.:: H :::.H' H'
. . ..,','. .
.. . ............ ..
':~Re~sdm~bi~).:
:.:: ,.,:,,~axi~um::::
\~XPO$1..i~~::t>~: .
. '/C':Case::;:>r::
. .. ..
. . . .. .. . . ..
. . . ..... . .
xiChemlSai~:"""..
'....:;~~~~M~,~t~.~~~...:..
2 X 10-7 Arsenic
4 x 10-8 Arsenic
4 x 10-6 PAHs
8 x 10-7 PAHs
4 x 10-8 Arsenic
1 x 10-8
Arsenic
7 x 10 -7
PCB-1254
1 x 10-7
PCB-1254
5 x 10-6
PCB-1254,
Arsenic
2 x 10-7
PCB-1254,
Arsenic
. ....
.. ",;.C' '." . ",' .; . .' 't.. .. " . " . ';.'~
-------
..
. .. .......,
P' .. .. . .. ,". n,
. ....".........
.. ... ". '
. .. n''', n." ,
<~>.tp~$.*1:.gi:::
........~.f....~.:~.....A~~q:.
':'~;'::;'::~::::
"""""
..,..."....... .
....... )f~~(:~t>~f:;.~r~~;~~
. . ..
....
,"...
Ingestion of
Ground Water
Ingestion of
Sediments
Absorbtion
of Sediments
Ingestion of
Surface
Water
Absorbtion
of Surface
Water
Ingestion of
Leachate
Absorbtion
of Leachate
Table 10
summary of Risk Estimates
Future site Development
. . ...... .'" .:: EXC=:~..f~~d.;;¥.ii~~....) . ....... .... ......::!1J~ri~~~~i~~~~:~~~~~:~~;).. . ...'
.. ;1'~~11~~i~W(l~li;lt~~;lt~;~i~t.!~
," :'::. ");::::':::\{:\i~\;~'~;C~'$e}<:?:': ":::;~., .., ... "",.. ... ",. ""'. ".. {~?/:?(?~\~ ::::~::~:t:?::::::~.~~~.:::.~':':':"':""v. -.:w- . .... ".. .':....".. ....... .:...
1 x 10-3 Arsenic 1. 0 Arsenic,
Cadmium
4 x 10-6
6 x 10-4
Arsenic,
Cadmium
PAHs
8 x 10-7
1 x 10-4
Arsenic,
Cadmium
Arsenic
PAHs
4 x 10-7
Arsenic
7 x 10-4
1 x 10-8
. 2 x 10~5
Arsenic
Arsenic
5 x 10-6 PCB-1254, 1 x 10-2 Antimony,
Arsenic Arsenic
2 x 10-7 PCB-1254, 5 x 10-4 Antimony,
Arsenic Arsenic
-------
principally from the future use of contaminated qroUnd water, with
arsenic contributing most to the risk. This represents
unacceptable potential risks to human health.
The hazard indices for humans interacting with the Site do not
exceed the acceptable hazard index of 1.0, indicating that non-
carcinogens do not present an unacceptable risk to human health.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementation of the response action
selected by this ROD may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment,
primarily through use of contaminated ground water. The Site also
poses risks to non-human receptors from contaminants released from
the site into surface waters and the wetlands
7.
Environmental Standards Not Met at the site
In addition to posing unacceptable risks to receptors, the MDS
Landfill Site does not meet certain applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal or State environment~l requirements (ARARs) at
this time.
a.
Cap
The existing landfill cap does not meet the requirements of
Michigan state Solid Waste Rules promulgated under Michigan Act
641, which provides current state landfill closure regulations.
These regulations are relevant and appropriate for the old
municipal landfilled waste because they were placed prior to the
promulgation of Act 641. However, Act 641 is applicable for the
new Type III landfill which has been regulated under that law.
Because there is no evidence of hazardous waste being deposited in
the landfill a hazardous waste cap is not applicable or relevant
and appropriate for this landfill.
b.
Clean-up Standards
u.s. EPA's ground-water clean-up policy is to attain Maximum
contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Federal Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA): however, if clean-up to MCLs causes the residual risk
levels to exceed the 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 risk range, then,
according to section 300.430(e) (2) (i) (B) through (D), the Agency
may consider applying ~isk-based clean-up levels to reach the goal
of protection (1 x 10- excess lifetime cancer risk).
Michigan Act 307 Rules contain clean-up criteria which include
three different methods by which clean-up levels can be
determined. The levels are Type A, Type B, and Type C. The
methodology for Type A clean-up is based on background levels or
method detection limits for chemicals of concern. The methodology
for Type B clean-up uses standardized risk assumptions and
exposure assumptions to determine clean-up levels which will be
protective of human health and the environment and the use of the
involved resource. R. 299.5709 and R. 299.5711 provide thorough
explanation on how to apply the Type B clean-up to the chemicals
of concern and calculate the clean-up levels for a site. The
methodology for Type C clean-up considers the actual conditions of
a site: the uses, present and future, of a site; a site specific
25
-------
risk assessment: and cost effectiveness analysis. R. 299.5717
provides a thorough explanation of how to apply the. Type C clean-
up to the chemicals of concern. .
Michigan Act 307, Type B clean-up criteria provide for the
calculation of risk-based clean-up standards at the 1 x 10-6
excess lifetime cancer risk level for each carcinogenic compound.
These standards are usually more stringent than the corresponding
MCLs or non-zero Maximum Concentration Limit Goals (MCLGs). The
u.s. EPA has determined that Michigan Act 307, Type B criteria are
protective and are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
Michigan Disposal Landfill Site.
Table 11 lists the representative chemicals found in the
contaminated ground water plume and the corresponding Federal and
state preliminary ground-water clean-up criteria which the u.s.
EPA believes to be adequately protective of human health and the
environment. Table 12 lists the Ground Water Remediation
Standards for the Michigan Disposal Landfill Site.
8. Rationale for Further Action
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementation of the response action
selected by this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Therefore, based on the findings in the RI report and the
discussion above, a Feasibility Study (FS) was performed to focus
the development of alternatives to address the threats at the
Site. The FS report documents the evaluation of the magnitude of
site risks, site-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements, and the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP in the
derivation of remedial alternatives for the Michigan Disposal
Landfill Site.
9.
Description of Alternatives.
The alternatives passing through the screening process and
considered for the detailed analysis in the FS were:
Common Blements. Except for the "No Action", all of the
alternatives considered for the site include institutional
controls such as land and ground water use restrictions (pursuant
to Michigan Act 307), notice to future property owners of
contamination at the Site, restriction of on-site activities such
as excavation, construction of a fence around the Site, and
environmental monitoring.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES-- Management of Migration Alternatives
Alternative KK-l: Ho Action
The NCP requires that the "no action" alternative be evaluated at
every site to establish a baseline for comparison of the
effectiveness of the remedial alternatives. Under this
alternative, no active measures would be taken at the Site. This
alternative does include a review every five years to determine
the need for additional action. Risk levels will remain as stated
26
-------
Table 11
Comparison of Federal and state Ground Water Remediation standard
(ppb)
. .. '''''' "" . . ...'
,","",",',,",. " ",'.,'," ',.',"" ".',',',',',",.. c.',",',',',',,",",,,
..i..~~~.0~~~~:~!~~0:~~!.....;.
ic(;~tailrtan~<~y~i;...
...... .... ....... .. ...(j(~]',.)"{
Benzene 5.0 1.0
1,4 dichlorobenzene 70 1.0
Methylene Chloride NE 5.0
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NE 2.0
Arsenic 50.0 0.02
Lead 5.0 (T) 5.0
Zinc NE 80
(T) To-be-considered
NE Not Established
-------
Table 12
Ground Water Remediation Standards
Michiqan Disposal Landfill site
......
:i~.;.\~.:,.'.lr.'.;.i.~.\.:.1.~.:.~~1~11I1.1
"u.."'"'' .....
~i'.~.:.'.~t.;.;.:.:;.;.'.\.i.i.I.1.'
....... ..........
. ....... .........
.......',- ...........
:',"':':':;':':':':':':':.":':"':'.';';':
-,-..... .................. "".','
Benzene 1.0
1,4 dichlorobenzene 1.0 Landfill Michigan
Methylene Chloride 5.0 Final Act 307
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.0 Cover TypeB lX10~
Arsenic 0.02 Boundry Criteria
Lead 5.0
Zinc 80
Where the Federal or state remediation standard established for a
contaminant is lower than the method detection limit for that contaminant,
the method detection limit will be used as the remediation standard for the
site.
- Chemical Specific Reasonable Maximum Exposure Risk, measured as individual
incremental lifetime excess risk, to be attained at the conclusion of the
response action.
-------
in the baseline risk assessment summarized above and describe in
the RI report.
Alternative XM-3: Ground Water Bztraction, On-site Treataent and
Discharge to Davis Creek
Contaminated ground water would be collected and treated until
each contaminant meets the cleanup standards. The cleanup
standards are the Michigan Act 307, Type B cleanup criteria,
listed in Table 1-2. The extraction and treatment system would
consist of a row of extraction wells along the eastern boundary of
the Site.
The extracted ground water and leachate would be treated on-site
in a mUlti-step treatment process. The treatment processes would
include precipitation, flocculation, and "filtration to remove the
inorganics and carbon adsorption to remove the organics. Treated
water would then be discharged to Davis Creek after meeting the
substantive requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The spent carbon and sludge
generated by the treatment facility would be disposed of in
compliance with the RCRA land disposal restrictions at a licensed
facility off-site. The ground water treatment system could
operate indefinitely because contaminants would continue to leach
from the waste into the ground water, but it is estimated that it
will take up to 20 years, pumping at 45 gallons per minute, to
reach the cleanup levels at the landfill boundary. Monitoring of
the ground water would be continued once the cleanup standards are
met to assure stable contaminant concentrations have been
achieved.
It is estimated that this alternative will have a capital cost, an
O&M cost and a present worth of $1,273,000, $671,000 and
$7,600,000, respectively.
Alternative XK-4:
POTW for Treatment
Ground Water Extraction and Discharge to the
contaminated groundwater and leachate would be collected and
discharged to the City of Kalamazoo's Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) where it would ultimately be treated and disposed.
The extraction system would consist of a row of extraction wells
along the eastern boundary of the Site, as in Alternative MM-3,
with discharge to the POTW via an on-site sewer system. The City
of Kalamazoo's POTW treatment system includes treatment to remove
organic compounds, however, incidental removal of low level
inorganics also is effected. A pretreatment standard set by the
POTW is applicable to all the waste streams discharged to the
POTW. The standards set maximum levels of chemicals allowed in
the waste stream being discharged. Table 13 lists the City of
Kalamazoo POTW's pretreatment standards. Standards may need to
be set for contaminants not listed in the table. At this point it
is anticipated that concentrations will not exceed the POTW
standards. If, however, the discharge limits are not met, a
pretreatment step would be added prior to discharge of the water
to the POTW.
29
-------
..i ......
:,'.' .../.
Table 13 *
city of Kalamazoo Pretreatment standards
."..,..........!.......:........,., .,...,... . .......;...,.....,...:.......,.,.,...,,~, .,..,.,.....,....:....",....".. ...........'..'..'......'..'..................'.. ...............,... ...........~,~ioi;c:;:r~:t~l:.'....~~\~~!:.i.:!....i.~...:!..:!;'.
Cadmium ' 0.040
Chromium 4.67
Copper 2.23
Cyanide (total) 0.25
Lead 0.110
Nickel 1.59
Mercury 0.25
Zinc 5.30
* The POTW may be required to develop additional pretreatment standards for
contaminants not listed here, but found in the discharge from the site.
-------
Contaminated ground water and leachate would be collected and
treated until each contaminant meets the cleanup standards. The
cleanup standards are the Michigan Act 307, Type B cleanup
criteria. It is currently estimated that it will require 20
years, pumping groundwater at 45 gallons per minute to reach the
cleanup levels. Actual pump rates will be determined during the
Remedial Design phase. Monitoring of the ground water would
continue once cleanup standards were met to assure stable
contaminant concentrations were achieved.
It is estimated that this alternative will have a capital cost, an
O&M cost and a present worth of $147,000, $212,500 and $2,150,000,
respectively.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES---Source Control Alternative.
Alternative SC-l:
50 Action
This alternative is the same as alternative MM-1. The NCP program
requires that the "no action" alternative be evaluated at every
site to establish a baseline for comparison against the other
cleanup alternatives. Under this alternative, EPA would take no
further action at the Site. This alternative does include a
review every five years to determine the need for additional
action.
Alternative SC-3:
Surface Capping with Clay
Alternative SC-3 includes construction of a solid waste cap, which
meets Michigan Act 641 requirements, over the entire Site
(approximately 1.18 million cubic yards of soils and waste). This
cap, consisting of two feet of clay and a vegetative layer (four
inches of soil and grass cover), would meet State and Federal
closure requirements for solid waste landfills. An additional
frost protection layer .may be required to protect the clay cap
from frost damage. This alternative would require the importation
of clean fill to develop an acceptable grade to the land. This
cap would prevent exposure to landfill wastes and reduce
infiltration of precipitation into the landfill. .
It is estimated that this alternative will require 1-2 years to
construct and will have a capital cost, an O&M cost and a present
worth of $5,730,500, $41,300 and $6,119,500, respectively.
Alternative SC-4: Surface capping with Type III Soli4 Wastes an4
clay
This alternative is the same as Alternative SC-3 except that it
uses Type III solid wastes and inert materials, to develop the
acceptable grades on the site prior to capping, instead of clean
fill. Type III waste is generally construction debris or
specially approved solid wastes with low potential to contaminate
the groundwater. At completion of the cap, this option would
prevent exposure to landfill wastes and reduce infiltration of
precipitation into the landfill.
31
-------
It is estimated that this alternative will require 3-4 years to
construct and will have a capital cost, an O&M cost and a present
worth of $4,304,000, $36,300 and $4,646,000, respectively.
Alternative SC-5: Kiqh-Temperature Theraa1 Treatment of LaD4fil1
.esi4ua1. an4 Associate4 Soil.
Alternative SC-5 involves the excavation of approximately 1.18
million cubic yards of soils and landfill contents from areas
where filling historically occurred and treatment of the materials
through incineration or another high-temperature thermal treatment
process option. The treated materials would be backfilled into
the excavation, regraded and the area revegetated. This
alternative would be designed and implemented to comply with all
federal and state air pollution regulations. This alternative
would also be implemented to comply with all federal and state
solid waste disposal restrictions. RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions would become ARARs only if the residue from treatment
became a characteristic hazardous waste.
It is estimated that this alternative will require 5 years to
implement and will have a capital cost and a present worth of
$519,800,000 - 611,600,000.
Alternative SC-7:
clay
Surface Cappinq with Type III So114 Wastes an4
Alternativ.e SC-7 includes the construction of a hazardous waste
landfill clay cap which complies with the state of Michigan's Act
64 standards for hazardous waste landfills. This clay cap would
be placed over approximately 1.18 million cubic yards of waste.
Michigan Act 64 standards include a three-foot-thick clay cap, a
two-foot-thick protective soil layer, and a four-inch-thick
vegetated topsoil layer. This alternative would include the
continued filling of Type III solid wastes on top of the old
municipal landfill to produce the proper grades prior to placing
the clay cap. Type III wastes are generally construction debris
or specially approved solid waste with low potential to
contaminate the groundwater. The cap in Alternative SC-7 would
meet state and Federal closure requirements for hazardous waste
landfills. SC-7 would prevent exposure to landfill wastes and
minimize the infiltration of precipitation through the landfill
and into the groundwater.
It is estimated that this alternative will require 3 to 4 years to
construct and will have a capital cost, an O&M cost and a present
worth of $8,076,000, $36,300 and $8,418,000, respectively.
10.
ComDarative Analysis of Alternatives:
The Nine criteria
The following nine criteria, outlined in the NCP at Section
300.430(e) (9)(iii), were used to compare the alternatives and to
determine the most appropriate alternative for remediation of the
soils and groundwater contamination that is protective of human
health and the environment, attains applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs), is cost-effective and represents
the best balance among the evaluating criteria. An alternative
32
-------
providing the "best balance" of trade-offs, with respect to the
nine criteria, is determined from this evaluation.
The Nine criteria
-Threshold Criteria:
OVerall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes
how risks posed by each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced,
or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
All of the alternatives, with the exception of the No-Action
alternatives (Alternative SC-l and MK-l), are protective of human
health and the environment.
Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 both would equally minimize the risks
to human health and the environment from exposure to the
groundwater by taking active measures rather than relying solely
on institutional controls. These active measures include
installation of extraction wells, which would collect leachate and
contaminated ground water, and treatment of the leachate and
contaminated ground water: MM-3 would treat the water on-site and
discharge to Davis Creek and MM-4 would send the water to the City
of Kalamazoo's POTW for treatment. By cOllecting the leachate and
contaminated ground water, these alternatives will prevent further
impacts on the wetlands and creek and reduce the risks associated
with ingestions of the contaminated ground water.
Alternatives SC-3, SC-4 and SC-7 all utilize a cap, however, they
differ as to the type of cap placed over the waste. Any of the
caps proposed will prevent contact with the contaminated waste by
wildlife and humans and reduce infiltration of precipitation. The
caps would also prevent erosion from depositing contaminated soils
in the wetlands and creek sediments. None of the caps will result
in complete cleanup of the aquifers under the Site, as waste will
remain in contact with the ground water.
SC-3 uses clean fill to regrade the site and SC-4 uses inert and
Type III wastes instead of the clean fill. Alternative SC-4 would
produce the most runoff because of the cap's increased slope due
to the proposed continued filling of the Site with Type III and
inert wastes. The final grade would be above the minimum
requirements achieved by SC-3. Both alternatives SC-4 and SC-7
would pose a greater risk than SC-3 to the ground water because,
by definition, Type III waste has a greater possibility to impact
the groundwater than clean fill and any leachate exposed to that
waste may become contaminated with new chemicals.
Alternative SC-5 provides the maximum reduction of risks at the
site by incinerating the landfill residuals and associated soil,
thereby, eliminating risks due to exposure to the landfill
contents and eliminating the source of the groundwater
contamination.
Compliance with ARARs addresses how the proposed alternative
complies with all applicable or relevant and appropriate.
33
-------
requirements of Federal and more stringent state environmental
laws (ARARs). It also considers how the alternatives Comply with
advisories, criteria or other guidance to be considered (TBCS)
that do not have the status of laws, but that the tI. s. EPA and the
State have agreed are "appropriate" for protectiveness or to carry
out certain actions or requirements, and/or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver.
A summary of identified ARARs for the ground water and soils
alternatives is included in section 11 below. Only ARARs
necessary for on-site remedial activities have been identified.
In some instances, rules cited contain both substantive and
procedural or administrative requirements. Only the substantive
requirements are ARARs for the purpose of on-site activities.
Examples of administrative or procedural requirements which are
not considered ARARs include, but are not limited to, reporting
requirements and permit application requirements.
The major ground water ARARs, as discussed in the FS report,
include the federal Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts and
Michigan Act 307. Because the landfill operated under Act 641,
and because there is no documented evidence of hazardous waste
being disposed of in the landfill, Act 641 will be the closure
ARAR for this Site.
Alternative MM-1 (No Action) will not comply with the groundwater
cleanup standards. Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 will be designed
and implemented to comply with ground water cleanup standards at
the point of compliance, the boundary of the. final landfill cover.
The cleanup standards for contaminated ground water at the Site
are Michigan Act 307 Typ~ B standards, which treat each
contaminant to the 1xlO- excess cancer risk level, or federal
Safe Drinking Water Act standards, whichever is lower. The
effluent discharge to surface water will comply with the
substantive NPDES requirements, and the discharge to the POTW will
comply with all pretreatment standards. Any sludges produced from
on-site treatment will comply with RCRA, including Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs).
Alternative SC-1 will not comply with the state of Michigan Solid
Waste Act (Act 641) closure requirements. All of the proposed
landfill caps will comply with all of the state and federal
requirements and meet closure requirements.
The landfill caps will be designed to limit impacts on adjacent
wetlands and the floodplain. Impacts include wetland hydrology
changes due to excavation, drain fields and filling activities.
Currently it is not anticipated that any work will be performed in
the wetlands or floodplain at the site. If, during design or
construction, it is determined that work in these areas is
necessary, all of the capping options will comply with State
and/or Federal ARARs governing these circumstances: Clean Water
Act, Section 404, Dredge and Fill Provisions; Wetlands Management
Executive Order 11990; Goemnere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act
(Act 203 of 1979); Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988;
RCRA - Location Standards 40 CFR Part 264.18. The cap will also
be sufficiently protected from flooding events through proper
engineering.
34
-------
Alternative SC-5 will be designed and implemented tQ comply with
all state and federal requirements, including air quality laws,
and, due to the placement of the unit, wetlands protection
requirements. Alternative SC-5 involves the excavation, treatment
and placement of waste, thus making the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDR) potential
requirements if hazardous waste is placed on-site after treatment.
-Primary Balancing criteria:
Lena-Term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the magnitude of
residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable'
protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup standards have been met.
Alternatives MM-1 and SC-1 provide no long-term effectiveness or
permanence. Both Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 provide an equal
degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence. By extracting
and treating the groundwater to reduce contaminant concentration
in the aquifer, both alternatives will reduce and control the
risks associated with the groundwater at the site. However, any
long-term effectiveness and permanence provided through these
alternatives relies on control of the source of contaminants.
Each of the capping alternatives will reduce the amount of
infiltration of rainfall through the landfill. and thereby reduce
the amount of contaminated leachate and groundwater produced by
the Site. In general, an Act 64 cap is less permeable than an Act
641 cap due to an extra foot of clay. However, at this Site, some
of the landfilled waste sits in the shallow groundwater, making
the additional impermeability afforded by SC-7 unnecessary. In
addition, the two feet of soil cover included in the Act 64 cap
would protect the clay layer from frost, burrowing animals, deep
rooted plants and erosion and excessive drying.
Both Alternatives, SC-4 and SC-7 have a greater risk of cap
failure than SC-3 due to settling of the fill. The heterogeneous
nature of the Type III and inert wastes will make it difficult to
get adequate compaction of the fill layer. In the future this
could c~use the cap to settle and crack allowing water through the
cap, into the fill and eventually the groundwater. SC-3 poses
less of a risk of that happening because it will use a homogeneous
clean fill and can achieve better compaction. Also, because Type
III waste, by definition, poses a greater risk to the groundwater
than clean fill, Alternative SC-3 would present less of a risk if
the cap did fail, i.e., it would be less likely to leach
contaminants.
All three capping options will require long-term maintenance and
deed restrictions to assure the effectiveness and integrity of the
cap. Because SC-4 and SC-7 will be developed above minimum grade
with Type III waste, maintenance of the caps will be more critical
than in SC-3 in order to avoid erosion. The increased slopes
associated with SC-4 and SC-7 will also increase the difficulty in
developing the proper vegetative cover required.
Alternative SC-5 will result in the greatest long-term
effectiveness and permanence. It will permanently remove all of
35
-------
the landfilled material through excavation and incineration,
eliminating alL source materials in the landfill.. There is a
possibility that incinerator residuals may have elevated levels of
metals. Such materials will be stabilized and disposed of on-
site, or if necessary, at a hazardous waste landfill.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility. or Volume throuah Treatment is
the anticipated performance of the treatment technoloqies a remedy
may employ.
Alternatives MM-l and SC-l do not reduce toxicity, mobility or
volume through treatment. Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 will, to an
equal extent, reduce toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants
in the groundwater through treatment on-site or via the POTW,
respectively.
Alternative SC-5 will substantially reduce toxicity, mobility and
volume of the contaminants in the landfill materials and soils
through incineration. The other Source Control alternatives do
not provide for any treatment.
Short-Term Effectiveness refers to the speed with which the remedy
achieves protection, as well the remedy's potential to create
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may
result during the construction and implementation period.
All the alternatives evaluated are considered effective in the
short-term, as certain aspects of the alternatives, such as
institutional controls and monitoring would be implemented within
a year. The time required to implement the construction
components of Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 would be between one and
three years. It is estimated that it would take 20 years to
restore the groundwater. These two alternatives have no adverse
impacts on human health and the environment except for any damage
that drilling may cause. This will be managed by monitoring
during operations.
Of the Source Control Alternatives, SC-3 has the least negative
short-term impacts. As far as time to construct these caps SC-3
takes the shortest time at approximately one year. The two other
caps would require about two to three years to construct.
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-7, by using Type III waste as fill may
increase the amount of time the groundwater treatment is required
to operate until cleanup levels are met, because of the
possibility of leaching contaminants from the new waste.
All of these alternatives involve construction and have a degree
of risk associated with them through potential exposure to dust,
vapors, and contaminated waste. This potential would be
minimized, as much as possible, through good construction
practices and engineering controls.
The exposures associated with Alternatives SC-3, SC-4 and SC-7
would come about during construction of the landfill cap. These
alternatives would result in increased truck traffic in the area
and at the Site, as supplies and clay must be imported to the
Site. SC-3 will involve greater risks from truck:" traffic, dust
emissions, and vapors from the Site, than Alternative SC-4 and SC-
~~
-------
7 because Type III waste that was supposed to be landfilled at the
site will be required to go to another landfill and the
alternative also includes bringing in clean fill. SC-7 will
involve more traffic than SC-4 because of the increased amount of
material needed to construct the thicker cap.
The greatest potential for exposure is associated with
Alternatives SC-5. This alternative involves excavating the
waste and incinerating it, which could result in increased dust,
vapors, and the potential for direct contact with contaminated
soil and waste. During incineration there is the possibility that
stack emissions may contain low levels of organic and/or inorganic
chemicals. However, air quality monitoring, in place during the
action, would trigger action to minimize such emissions. This
alternative also requires the greatest length of time for the
remediation process~ 5 years instead of the one to three years
required to construct a cap.
ImDlementabilitv is the technical and administrative feasibility
of a remedy, including the availability of materials and services
needed to implement the chosen solution.
All of the alternatives are readily implementable. Alternatives
MM-1 and SC-1 would be the easiest to implement with only five
year reviews to perform. Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 would require
pilot studies to ensure the proper performance of the collection
and treatment systems. MM-3 would also require meeting the
substantive NPDES permitting requirements before discharging would
be allowed to the creek, and MM-4 would require an agreement with
the POTW to accept the waste water from the site for treatment.
MM-3 would require the handling and disposal of sludges and used
activated carbon from the treatment system.
Of the Source Control alternatives, SC-4 and SC-7 are the only
alternatives with implementation problems. These two alternatives
include continued use of the Site as a Type III .landfill. The
MDNR has issued a Cease and Desist Order to MDS for the existing
Type III operations and has denied a license to use additional
portions of the property for this purpose. As discussed in
previous sections the basis for issuing the order and the denial
was the facility's inability to comply with Michigan's solid waste
regulation's. Because the State has issued a cease and desist
order and denied the operating license, it would be difficult to
meet the substantive requirements of Act 641, and it would be
difficult to implement Alternatives SC-4 and SC-7. No major
implementability problems are anticipated for any of the other
Source Control alternatives. The capping alternatives would
require the importation of clay and fill materials. The
technologies included in each alternative are readily available
and easily implemented. Alternative SC-5 would be the most
difficult to implement technically because of the need to handle
the waste prior to incineration and the need to stabilize and
dispose of the ash.
~7
-------
~ includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance, and
present net worth costs. Table 14 lists the cost for each of the
alternatives.
Tab1. 14
Bstimated Cost
NONE NONE
MM-1 NONE
MM-3 1,273,000
MM-4 147,000
SC-1 NONE
SC-3 5,730,500
SC-4 4,304,000
SC-5 519,800,000 -
611,600,000
SC-7 8,076,000
671,300 7,600,000
212,500 2,150,000
NONE NONE
41,300 6,119,500
36,300 4,646,000
NONE 519,800,000-
611,600,000
36,300 8,418,000
-Modifying Criteria:
State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
RIfFS and Proposed Plan, the state concurs with, opposes, or has
no comment on the preferred alternative.
The state of Michigan has assisted in the development and review
of the Administrative Record. The State's position regarding the
selected alternative is discussed in the State's concurrence
letter.
Community Acceptance The specific comments received and u.S.
EPA's responses are outlined in the attached Responsiveness
Summary .
11. Selected Remedy
Based upon considerations of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP
and balancing of the nine criteria, the U.S. EPA has determined
that Alternatives MM-4, ground water extraction and discharge to
a POTW for treatment, and SC-3, surface capping with clay, are the
most appropriate for the Michigan Disposal Service Landfill Site.
The components of the selected remedy are as follows:
1. Access Restrictions
a. Temporary and/or permanent fences and signs will be
erected and maintained around the site and
pretreatment/treatment systems as specified by the U.S. EPA.
b. Pursuant to Michigan Act 307, institutional controls
including, but not limited to, notice to future property
owners of contamination at the Site, deed restrictions to
regulate the development of the Michigan Disposal Service
38
-------
Landfill property, and ground water use restrictions in the
areas that have contaminated ground water will be instituted
and enforced. Ground water use restrictions may be
rescinded after remediation standards are met and proven to
be maintained.
The purpose of these restrictions is to prevent exposure to
Site contaminants, prevent erosion of the cap and provide
security for the remedial action equipment.
2.
Site Monitoring
a. Ground water and surface water monitoring. Ground water
aquifers and surface waters and sediments in the Site
vicinity will be sampled and analyzed periodically to
monitor chemical contaminant levels during Site remediation.
Ground water monitoring will include monitoring above and
below the shallow clay layer. Sampling and analysis will
include existing ground water monitoring wells and
additional ground water monitoring wells.
b. Volumes and contaminant concentrations of extracted
leachate and contaminated ground water will be measured
periodically.
3. Cap Construction and/or Improvements including Landfill
Gas Controls and Leachate Collection
A cap will be constructed on the Site, or any existing cap
improved and/or replaced so that it complies with Michigan Act
641, including the final cover specifications found under R
299.4305 Rule 305. This state requlation includes, but is not
limited to: cap thickness and composition (2 feet of clay),
compaction, vegetative cover, maximum and minimum slope, and
gas venting performance. In accordance with accepted
engineering practices, the cap will include an additional soil
layer of a thickness specified by the U.S. EPA to protect the
cap from frost, burrowing animals, deep rooted plants and
other factors which may threaten the integrity of the cap.
A Michigan Act 641 cap is considered protective for this site
since it would provide protection against direct contact with
waste at the site and act as a significant barrier to
infiltration of precipitation. The waste in the landfill is
in direct hydraulic connection with the shallow ground water
and produces significant amounts of leachate. For this site,
a less permeable cap such as a hazardous waste landfill cap
under Michigan Act 64 would not provide a significant relative
reduction of leachate. A leachate collection and ground water
extraction system would still be required.
The leachate collection system will be installed to prevent
leachate breakouts at the cap. The gas venting system will be
installed and monitored periodically to determine if the
levels of emissions may cause potential health hazards. If
potential health hazards are indicated, an emission treatment
system wi~l be placed in the venting system to reduce
emissions to acceptable levels.
39
-------
4.
Ground Water Extraction Wells
Ground water extraction wells will be installed to extract
contaminated ground water for treatment. Ground water will be
extracted until the remediation standards of Table 12 are
achieved in all parts of the ground water contaminant plume
beyond the point of compliance, including any plumes detected
during pre-desiqn or design studies. The point of compliance
for the ground water remediation standards is the boundary of
the final landfill cover. The placement of ground water
extraction wells may be within and/or outside the Michigan
Disposal Service Landfill property boundary. Additional
studies on the nature and extent of the ground water
contamination will be performed prior to the Remedial Desiqn
phase of the project. The results of these studies will be
used, along with information from the Remedial Investigation,
to place the extraction wells.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore the ground
water to its beneficial use and to protect against current and
future exposures. specifically, the ground water will be
pumped until the cleanup standa~ds are met at the point of
compliance.
Based upon information obtained during the RI and FS, the U.S.
EPA believes that the selected remedy will meet these goals.
It may become apparent during implementation or operation of
the ground water extraction system, that contaminant levels
cease to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher
than the remediation standards in Table 12 over some portion
of the contaminant plume. In such a case, or if other
circumstances necess~tate the system performance standards,
the system design, and/or the remedy may be reevaluated. And,
if such a reevaluation results in a determination that the
remediation standards should be changed, a new proposed plan
will be released for public comment and an amended ROD will be
issued.
It is projected that the ground water extraction system will
attain the remediation standards within 20 years. System
performance monitoring will be performed on a regular basis.
If warranted, the system may be modified without amendment to
this ROD, in order to achieve the standards as follows:
a)
Pumping may be discontinued at individual wells where
remediation standards have been attainedl
b)
Wells may be pumped on an alternate basis to eliminate
stagnation pointsl
c)
Additional extraction wells may be installed into any
aquifer in the vicinity of the Site to facilitate or
accelerate clean-up, and 1
d)
"Pulse pumping" may be performed to allow the
aquiferes) to equilibrate and allow adsorbed
contaminants to partition into ground water for
extraction. .
~o
-------
Ground water will be monitored periodically at any well where
pumping has ceased to ensure that the remediation standards
continue to be met.
5.
Discharge of Leachate and contaminated Ground Water to a
POTW for Treatment
The extracted leachate and contaminated ground water will be
treated by a POTW. If the extracted contaminated groundwater
does not meet pretreatment standards, these standards will be
met by an on-si~e treatment system prior to discharge of the
leachate and contaminated ground water to a POTW. The
specifics of the design and operation of the treatment systems
will be determined during the Remedial Design phase of the
project. Should the treatment of these liquids at the POTW be
restricted for any reason, the complete treatment of these
liquids to the standards of an NPDES permit will occur on-
site. Such a treatment system will be required to meet the
substantive requirements under, but not limited to the Clean
Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA and any more stringent state
standards. The treated liquids would then be discharged to
surface waters in accordance with the substantive requirements
of an NPDES permit.
6.
other provisions
Mitigative measures will be taken during remedy construction
activities to minimize the impacts of noise, dust and erosion
run-off to the surrounding community and environs. Fugitive
dust emissions will not violate the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for particulate matter smaller than 10
microns (PM-10). Potential runoff, silting and sedimentation
problems from construction will be mitigated to comply with
Michigan Acts including Public Acts 203 (1979), 346 (1972) and
347 (1972) for wetland protection, inland lakes and streams,
and soil erosion and sedimentation control, respectively. Any
residuals from on-site treatment of contaminated ground water
will be handled in accordance with RCRA regulations.
The landfi1led waste will continue to be contained on-site.
Since this 1andfilled waste is the source of the contaminants,
hazardous constituents will therefore remain at the site. A
review of site conditions will be conducted every 5 years
after the initiation of the remedial action.
12.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy must satisfy the r~quirements of Section 121
(a) through (f) of CERCLA to:
1.
2.
3.
Protect human health and the environment:
Comply with ARARs or justify a waiver:
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable: and
Satisfy a preference for treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principle element of the remedy.
4.
41
-------
The implementation of the selected alternative at the Michigan
Disposal Servic~ Landfill Site satisfies these requirements of
CERCLA section ~2~ as follows:
a.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment~
Implementation of the selected alternative will reduce and
control potential risks to human health posed by exposure to
contaminated ground water. Extraction and treatment of
contaminated ground water to meet Ground-Water Remediation
Standards will reduce the potential excess lifetime cancer
risk due to ingestion of contaminated ground water. As
discussed above, the future scenario for ingestion of ground
water at the Site results in an unacceptable excess risk of
cancer of ~ x ~0-3. Implementation of this alternative will
reduce the risk to ~ x ~0-6.
Institutional controls will provide short-term effectiveness
for the prevention of drinking contaminated ground water until
the Ground Water Remediation Standards are met. The selected
remedy also protects the environment by reducing the potential
risks posed by site chemicals discharging to surface water
(Davis Creek) and the adjoining wetlands.
Capping the landfill, in addition to reducing any potential
further risk posed by exposure to landfill contaminants, will
reduce precipitation infiltration through the cap and maintain
that reduction over time. The cap will reduce ground-water
contaminant loading to the aquifer, allowing the restoration
of the aquifer within a reasonable time frame. No
unacceptable short-term risks will be caused by implementation
of the remedy. The community and Site workers may be exposed
to noise and dust nuisances during construction of the cap.
As above, mitigative measures will be taken during remedy
construction activities to minimize impacts of construction
upon the surrounding community and environs.
b.
compliance with ARARs
The remedy selected will meet or attain the applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal and State requirements
(ARARs), and will be implemented in a manner consistent with
these laws. In particular, the remedial action selected for
implementation at the MDS Site is consistent with the NCP,
Michigan's Act 641 rules, and with Michigan's Act 307 rules.
The selected remedy will comply with the Federal and/or State,
where more stringent, applicable or-relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARS) listed below:
1.
Chemical-specific ARARs
Chemical specific ARARs regulate the release to the
environment of specific substances having certain chemical
characteristics. Chemical-specific ARARs typically
determine the extent of clean-up at a site.
42
-------
Federal ARARs
Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs and MCLGs - Maximum
contaminant Levels (MCLs) and, to a certain extent,
non-zero Maximum contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), the
Federal Drinking Water Standards promulgated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are applicable to
municipal drinking water supplies servicing 25 or more
people. At the Michigan Disposal Service Landfill
Site, MCLs and MCLGs are not applicable, but are
relevant and appropriate since the aquifer is a Class
II aquifer which is presently being used as a drinking
water source in the area surrounding the Site and could
potentially be used in the area of concern. MCLGs are
relevant and appropriate when the standard is set at a
level greater than zero (for non-carcinogens),
otherwise, MCLs are relevant and appropriate. The
point of compliance for Federal drinking water
standards is at the boundary of the landfilled waste,
because this is the point where humans could
potentially be exposed to contaminated ground water.
Because this landfill will have a final clay cover, the
point of compliance will be at the boundary of the
final landfill cover. This is to avoid the need to
install monitoring wells through the cap, which may
compromise the integrity of the cover.
Clean Water Act Section 304 - Surface water quality
standards for the protection of human health and
aquatic life were developed under section 304 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The Federal Ambient Water
Quality criteria (AWQC) are nonenforceable guidelines
that set pollutant concentration limits to protect
surface waters that are applicable to point source
discharges, such as from industrial or municipal
wastewater streams. At a Superfund site, the Federal
AWQC would not be applicable except for pretreatment
requirements for discharge of treated water to a
Publicly OWned Treatment Works (POTW). CERCLA (section
121(d) (1» requires the u.S. EPA to consider whether
AWQC would be relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances of a release or threatened release,
depending on the designated or potential use of ground
water or surface water, the environmental media
affected by the releases or potential releases, and the
latest information available. Since the contaminated
aquifer is a potential source of drinking water and
since treated water may be discharged to the City of
Kalamazoo waste water treatment plant (if pretreatment
criteria are met) or to Davis Creek, AWQC adopted for
drinking water and AWQC for protection of freshwater
aquatic organisms are relevant and appropriate to the
point source discharge of the treated water into Davis
Creek. Discharge to Davis Creek would be required in
the event that on-site treatment of the extracted
ground water is necessary, because the POTW is
incapable of treating the extracted ground water to the
cleanup standards. If discharge to Davis Creek is
-------
~
warranted the substantive NPDES permitting requirements
would also need to be met.
Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality standards 40
CFR 50 - These regulations provide air emission
requirements for actions which may release contaminants
into the air. As the selected remedy involves
excavation and construction activities which may
release contaminants or particulates into the air,
emission requirements promulgated under this act are
relevant and appropriate.
state ARARs
Michigan Act 307 - Establishes cleanup criteria based
upon site-specific risk assessments for sites of
environmental contamination within the state. The u.s.
EPA has determined that the Type C criteria would be
applicable within the area containing the landfilled
wastes. Type A or B criteria would not provide for the
derivation of cleanup standards which could be met
unless the source materials were excavated. Therefore,
Type C criteria would provide for a cost-effective and
appropriate remedial action for the landfilled areas.
The u.s. EPA has determined that acceptable standards
for ground water clean-up, that have been derived under
Type B criteria, would be protective in all the areas
of the plume outside of the landfilled waste. Clean-up
levels derived under Type B criteria would allow the
aquifer to be restored to its beneficial uses by
achieving the risk-based clean-up standards. The u.s.
EPA has determined that these clean-up standards are
protective of human health and the environment. In
accordance with the NCP Section 300.430(f) (5) (iii) (A),
the point of compliance for these standards is to be at
the boundary of the waste management area. Because
this Site will have a final cover, which will extend
beyond the edge of the landfilled waste, the point of
compliance will be at the border of the final landfill
cover.
The u.s. EPA has determined that Type B criteria would
yield ground-water clean-up standards which would also
provide for the protection of surface water quality, in
turn protecting human health and the environment. Type
B criteria will be as protective as a remedy consistent
with the u.s. EPA risk assessment policy.
Michigan Water Resources Commission Act (Act 245) as
amended - Portions of the Water Resources Commission
Act 245 (Michigan Act 245) of 1929, as amended, will be
applicable to the remedy and establish surface water-
quality standards to protect human health and the
environment. The State administers the NPDES program
under Part 21 of Michigan Act 245; therefore, Part 21
of Act 245 would be applicable to the direct discharge
of treated water to Davis Creek (if on-site treatment
is necessary), to the indirect discharge through ground
44
-------
water movement to a surface water body, or to a
discharge to a POTW.
Michigan Air Pollution Act 348 provides air emission
requirements for actions which may release contaminants
into the air. The selected remedy involves excavation
and construction activities which may release
contaminants or particulates into the air. This act is
relevant and appropriate.
2.0
Location-specific ARARS
Location-specific ARARs are those requirements that relate
to the geographical position of a site. These include:
Federal ARARs
The Clean Water Act section 404 - This section of the
Act regulates the discharge of dredge and fill
materials at sites to waters of the United states.
These regulations are applicable to capping of the Site
and other activities which may take place in the
wetlands and/or Davis Creek. .
Wetlands Management Executive Order 11990 - This order
is applicable to the Site. The order requires federal
agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long-
and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
destruction or modification of wetlands.
RCRA Location Standards 40 CFR Part 264.18 - These
standards are relevant and appropriate for the remedy
at Michigan Disposal Landfill because a portion of the
site is located in the 100-year flood plain. These
standard specify that a facility located in a flood
plain must be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to prevent washout of hazardous wastes by a
100-year flood.
Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 - This
order is applicable at this site. It requires the
minimization of potential harm to or within flood
plains and the avoidance of long- and short-term
adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and
modification of flood plains.
state ARARs
Goemnere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, Act 203 of
1979 - Regulates any activity which may take place
within wetlands in the state of Michigan. Act 203 is
applicable at this Site; it may require the replacement
of adversely impacted wetlands with comparable
resources.
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, Act 347 of
1972 - This act is applicable to this Site due to the
select~d remedy's use of construction activities which
may impact Davis Creek. The act regulates earth
45
-------
changes, including cut and fill activities which may
contribute to soil erosion and sedimentation of surface
water of the state. Act 347 would apply to any such
activity where more than 1 acre of land is affected or
regulated action occurs within 500 feet of a lake or
stream.
3.
Action specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are requirements that define
acceptable treatment and disposal procedures for hazardous
substances.
Federal ARARS
RCRA Subtitle C Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)- The
requirements of this act would be applicable to the
selected remedy if the ground water treatment requires
a pretreatment step and any of the waste products of
that process are RCRA hazardous waste. These
regulations govern the storage and disposal of
hazardous waste.
40 CFR Part 403 - These regulations are applicable to
the selected remedy. They establish pretreatment
standards for controlling pollutants discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
state ARARs
Michigan Solid Waste Management Act (Act 641) - For
landfill closure, because the old municipal landfill
was operated prior to the promulgation of Act 641, and
because the landfilled waste is sufficiently similar to
waste regulated under the act, that act's requirements
are relevant and appropriate for the old municipal
waste. However, because the Type III facility was
operated under Act 641 regulations the requirements of
that law are applicable for the portions of the Site
operated as a Type III facility. A hazardous waste cap
(regulated under Michigan's Act 64) is not an ARAR at
this Site, because there is no documented evidence of
hazardous waste being deposited in the landfill. These
regulations govern design, licenses, construction,
operation, environmental monitoring, and closure and
post-closure care of sanitary landfills.
Michigan Public Health Code, Public Act 368 of 1978,
Part 127 - This act regulates the construction of
private drinking wells and monitoring wells. This act
is applicable to the selected remedy.
Michigan Environmental Protection Act, Public Act 127
of 1970 - The act regulates activities which may
pollute, impair, destroy or cause harm to the
environment. This act is applicable to the Site.
Inland Lakes and Streams Act, Public Act 346 of 1972,
as amended - The act regulates construction activities
46
-------
on or over bottomlands of inland lake and streams.
This act will be applicable to the selected remedy if
pretreatment standards are not met for the POTW and on-
site treatment with discharge to Davis Creek becomes
necessary.
Mineral Well Act, Public Act 315 of 1969, as amended -
this act regulates construction and abandonment of
monitoring and test wells. This act is relevant and
appropriate for the selected remedy.
Cost Effectiveness
c.
Cost effectiveness compares the effectiveness of an
alternative in proportion to its cost of providing
environmental benefits. Table 14 lists the costs associated
with the implementation of the remedies.
The selected remedy for management of migration, Alternative
MM-4, has been determined to afford overall effectiveness
proportional to its cost. It is the least costly of the two
management of migration alternatives which protect human
health and the environment.
The selected remedy for source control, alternative &C-3, has
also been determined to afford overall effectiveness
proportional to its cost. It has the second lowest cost of
those alternatives which protect human health and the
environment. The only other alternative which costs less is
SC-4. However, the use of Type III waste in the remedy may
increase the cost and duration of the ground water remedy if
the Type III waste contains contaminants and the contaminants
leach into the ground water. This may also limit the
effectiveness of the ground water remedy if new contaminants
leach from the new waste and the POTW cannot handle them. The
selected remedy, therefore, affords the greatest effectiveness
proportional to its cost.
d. utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to
the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized
in a cost effective manner for this site. Of those
alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, the u.s. EPA has determined
that the selected remedy provides the best trade-offs in terms
of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in
toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through treatment,
short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, and
considering state and community acceptance.
While the selected remedy does not offer as high a degree of
long-term effectiveness and permanence as the incineration
alternative, it will significantly reduce the inherent hazards
posed by the contaminated ground water and leachate by
treating these substances while containing the.waste at the
site and reducing further generation of leachate. These
47
-------
benefits are achieved at a reasonable cost. Contaminants from
the ground water are extracted and permanently addressed
through trea~ent.
e.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element
of a remedy is satisfied by the selected alternativ~s.
Due to the large volume of landfilled waste that would need to
be treated, approximately 1.18 million cubic yards, treatment
of this low level threat waste is considered impracticable.
However the remedy selected employs treatment of contaminated
ground water and is considered a principle element of the
remedy. The remedy employs treatment to return contaminated
ground water to beneficial uses, and employs engineering
controls which will be protective of human health and the
environment to address the low level threat posed by the
landfilled waste.
13.
Summarv
The presence of ground water contamination at and around the
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork street) Landfill requires that
remedial actions be implemented to reduce the risk. to public
health and the environment. The u.s. EPA believes, -based
upon the RIfFS and the Administrative Record, that the
selected. alternatives provide the best balance of trade-offs
among alternatives with respect to the criterla used to
evaluate the remedies. Based upon the information available,
at this time, the u.s. EPA believes that the selected remedy
will be protective of human health and the environment, will
attain ARARs and will utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The total estimated costs for the selected remedy at this Site
are as follows:
Total Total Total
Alternative CaDi tal Cost. O&M. 30 vr. Present Worth
MM-4 $147,000 $212,500 $2,150,000
SC-3 $5.730.500 $41.300 $6.119.500
TOTAL $5,877,500 $253,800 $8,269,500
48
-------
Responsiveness Summary
This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to meet the
requirements of Sections 113(k) (2) (B) (iv) and 117(b) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA), which requires the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to respond"... to each
of the significant comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in
written or oral presentations" on a proposed plan for a remedial
action. The Responsiveness Summary addresses concerns expressed by
the public, potentially resp,onsible parties (PRPs) , and
governmental bodies in written and oral comments received by EPA
and the State regarding the proposed remedy for the Michigan
Disposal Service (Cork Street) Landfill site (MDS Site).
A.
overview
1.
Backaround/Pro~osed Plan
The MDS Site is located on the eastern border of the City of
Kalamazoo, Michigan. The 65 acre site has been used as a
landfill since approximately 1925. The City of Kalamazoo
owned and operated the landfill from approximately 1961 to
1981 when it sold the property to Dispos-O-waste, a
predecessor company of the current title-holder, Michigan
Disposal Service corporation (MDS). MDS is currently
accepting waste at the Site under a Kalamazoo County Court
injunction. The injunction was issued ,in connection with a
law suit filed by MDS against the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR), because MDNR had issued a cease and
desist order and a license denial to MDS for its Type III
landfill operations. (Please see the Decision Summary section
of the Record of Decision for further explanation of the
background of the Site)
In 1981, testing of ground water monitoring wells at the MDS
Site found elevated levels of lead and arsenic. Testing
during the Remedial Investigation (RI) determined the nature
and extent of contamination and found that the old municipal
landfill was serving as a source of contamination in the
ground water. The Feasibility Study evaluated eight cleanup
alternatives in order to address the areas of concern.
The proposed plan for remedial action included the following:
. Ground water extraction followed by treatment of the
extracted contaminated water at the POTW. If necessary,
extracted water will be treated on-site to meet POTW
pretreatment standards before being sent to the POTW:
.
Deed restrictions to control the use of the land and the
1
-------
ground water:
. containment of the landfill contents using a clay cap with
a vegetated soil layer which complies with RCRA Subtitle D and
Act 641 closure requirements. The cap will consist of (from
top to bottom) four inches of top soil with vegetation, a
layer of soil for frost protection and drainage, clean fill to
develop the required grades, and a 2-foot thick clay layer:
and,
.
Installing fencing and warning signs to restrict access.
Reliance on institutional controls (e.g., deed restrictions),
in conjunction with engineering controls (e.g., fencing),
would aid in the prevention of the ingestion of contaminated
ground water and of contact with landfill contents.
2.
Public Comment Period
B.
A public comment period on the proposed plan and FS for this
Site was held from July 11, 1991 to September 8, 1991. In
addition, a public meeting was held on July 17, 1991 at the
Kalamazoo City Hall. At this meeting, representatives from
EPA and MDNR answered questions about problems at the Site and
the remedial alternatives under consideration. Comments from
the public were also accepted at the meeting. During the
comment period, EPA received approximately 12 written
submi ttals of comments and 4 oral comments concerning the
proposed plan.
Community Ynvolvement
The level of public interest regarding this Site has been
fairly minimal since the listing of the Site on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Since the issuance of the Proposed
Plan for public comment the general public has had opposing
views on the selected remedy. Some commentors agree with the
selected remedy. They believe that the possible future risks
to the public health and the environment, from continued
filling with Type III waste, are not warranted and the
landfill should be closed as soon as possible. Other citizens
oppose the capping portion of the remedy mainly because it may
cost the taxpayers in Kalamazoo $5.7 million if clean fill is
required to be brought in to develop the appropriate grades at
the Site, where it would cost them nothing if Type III waste
is used instead. The commentors saw no justification in the
Administrative Record for the Agency's determination that
continued filling with Type III waste is not acceptable.
C.
Summary of significant Comments
2
-------
The public comments regarding the KDS Landfill Site are
organized into the following categories:
Summary of comments from the PRPs concerning the FS and
the proposed plan;
Summary of Comments from the local community regarding
the FS and the proposed plan;
Summary of comments from KDNR and state legislators
regarding the FS and proposed plan.
Many of the comments below have been paraphrased in order to
effectively summarize them in this document. The reader is
referred to the Administrative Record for this Site, located
at the City of Kalamazoo Public Library, which contains copies
of all written comments submitted to EPA. The Administrative
Record also contains a copy of the public meeting transcript.
Comments from the Potentially ResDonsible Parties
Comment '1:
Alternative SC-3 is no longer implementable, because the 2
percent slope to be attained at the completion of the capping
is not possible due to approximately 60 percent of the Site
being covered with Type III fill and capped with an Act 641
cap. The commentor states that the 60 percent of the Site
that has been filled approximates a 25 percent slope and the
remaining portions of the Site will have slopes approximating
16 percent. The only versions of SC-3 that could
realistically be implemented would be a modified version of
SC-3 that: a) would use clean fill to cover only the
remaining 40 percent of the site; b) would have a slope of 25
percent on the portion that has been filled to date; and c)
would necessarily have a slope of approximately 16 percent on
the portion not yet filled.
Response '1:
EPA disagrees with this comment. SC-3 remains implementable
even though 60 percent of the site has been filled. The
comment or ignores another option which would most likely
minimize the amount of imported clean fill necessary to
achieve acceptable grade at the ,site. This option would be to
regrade the currently landfilled Type III waste down to the 2
percent slope specified in theFS and the Proposed Plan. If
this option were implemented, and less clean fill were
required than anticipated, the cost estimates associated with
importing clean fill to the site may turn out to have been
overestimated in the FS, and the cost of implementing SC-3 may
be lower than expected. EPA maintains that Alternative SC-3
3
-------
remains implementable regardless of the current state of the
Type III waste landfilled at the Site. EPA continues to
express concern over the changing conditions at the Site due
to the continued filling and the difficulty this poses in
designing the cap.
Comment '2:
Several commentors stated that both theFS and Proposed Plan
fail to acknowledge that the true net cost of SC-4 will be
approximately zero, because revenues generated from the
operation of the Type III filling activities are sufficient to
offset the costs of this alternative. They cite the NCP as
stating that revenues from recycling should be included when
calculating the costs of a response action, and if this were
done on this Site it would show that SC-4 is the only
alternative that is cost effective and consistent with the
NCP. The commentors state that Alternative SC-3 .will put a
$5.7 million burden on the taxpayer of Kalamazoo.
Response '2:
EPA does not agree with the commentor's interpretation of the
NCP or the conclusion reached that revenues from operating the
landfill should be considered in the cost analysis. The costs
compiled in the FS, and deemed appropriate by the PRPs,
showing a difference in capital costs of $1.4 million between
SC-3 and SC-4, are those that EPA believes are appropriate for
this Site. In EPA's, Guidance for Conductina Remedial
Investiaations and Feasibilitv Studies Under CERCLA. Interim
Final, October 1988, (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01) factors such
as revenues from an operating facility are not appropriate
considerations in the cost analysis of remedial alternatives.
The following are the factors, listed in the RIfFS Guidance,
that may be considered in developing direct and indirect
capit~l costs for an alternative.
Direct Costs
1)
Construction costs--Costs of materials, labor
(including fringe benefits and worker's
compensation), and equipment required to install a
remedial action;
2)
Equipment costs--CO$ts of remedial action and
service equipment necessary to enact the remedy
(these materials remain until the site remedy is
complete);
3)
Land and site-development costs--Expenses
associated with the purchase of land and the site
preparation costs of existing property;
4
-------
5)
4)
Buildings and services costs--Costs of process and
nonprocess buildings, utility connections,
purchased services, and disposal costs;
Relocation expenses--Costs of temporary or
permanent accommodations for affected nearby
residents. (Since cost estimates for relocations
can be complicated, FEMA authorities and EPA
Headquarters should be consulted in estimating
these costs.)
6)
Disposal Costs--Costs of transporting and disposing
of waste material such as drums and contaminated
soils.
Indirect Costs
1)
Engineering expenses--Costs of administration,
design, construction supervision, drafting, and
treatability testing;
License or permit costs--Administrative and
technical costs necessary to obtain licenses and
permits for installation and operation of off-site
activities;
2)
3)
Startup and shakedown costs--Costs incurred during
remedial action startup; and
Contingency allowances--Funds to cover costs
resul ting from unforeseen circumstances, such as
adverse weather conditions, strikes, and inadequate
site characterization.
4)
Based upon these factors, it is clearly not appropriate for
EPA to take into consideration, during its decision process,
the source of funds used to implement a remedy. Such a
consideration would have the potential to bias the Agency's
decision and would not present an accurate cost-effectiveness
analysis~
In addition, the contention that the revenues from operating
the landfill are actually revenues from recycling goes beyond
what EPA would define as recycling. Landfilling waste is
generally not considered recycling, i.e. recycling is the
recovery of materials or energy, or the controlled removal of
reusable materials from solid waste. Neither situation
includes the landfilling of solid waste. Finally, if EPA were
to implement this remedy, the agency would not be in the
position to operate a facility such as a landfill, and such
revenues would not be generated, and should not be considered
in this analysis. EPA disagrees with the comment and believes
5
-------
its analysis of cost-effectiveness in the proposed plan and
Record of Decision is appropriate.
Comment .3:
The proposed plan incorrectly states that, the Site "was
eventually finalized on the NPL in February of 1990." '!'he
commentor believes the statement fails to acknowledge that in
Karch of 1991, as a result of a judicial challenge to the NPL
listing, initiated by KDS, agreed that it had made a mistake
in the Site's scoring and agreed to reconsider if the site
qualifies for listing on the NPL.
Response .3:
'!'he comment correctly notes that the listing of the Site on
the NPL was challenged in court by MDS. In the course of the
proceedings, EPA requested that the listing be remanded to the
Agency to allow a factual misstatement in the record be
corrected. EPA did not acknowledge, or imply, that it had
erred in scoring the Site for the NPL, or "formally agree to
reconsider" the Site listing: the motion and order attached to
the comment are self-explanatory. EPA' s review of the
remanded matter is presently ongoing.
Comment '4:
The proposed plan correctly concludes that the closure
requirements of Michigan's Act 641, rather than Michigan's Act
64, are applicable to this former municipal landfill.
Response '4:
Comment noted.
Comment '5:
Several commentors noted that the' State's position, that a
flexible membrane liner (FML) is necessary at the Site, is not
supported by Michigan's Acts 641 or 64, nor is supported by
the conditions at the Site. It is also not discussed in the
FS that an FML would be necessary to meet ARARs at the Site.
The commentors agree with the proposed plan's conclusions that
the FML is not necessary here because the landfilled waste
sits in the ground water and will not afford any additional
protectiveness. The commentors stated that nowhere in the
Administrative Record is it documented that MDNR has stated
that a flexible membrane line should be required at the Site.
Response f5:
The comment is noted, so far as the need for an FML at the
6
-------
Site. As to the Administrative Record documenting MDNR's
position on the FHL, the original request to include an FHL in
the source control remedy was part of oral, undocumented
remarks from KDNR. A letter from MDNR to EPA, clarifying the
State's position has been added to the record in an update.
MDNR maintains that an FML is needed at this site to protect
human health and the environment.
Comment '6:
The Administrative Record does not support MDNR',s suggestion
that more than 4 inches of soil cover should be required to
protect the cap from frost. The comment says that the
Administrative Record discloses a "hasty effort by MDNR to
develop an argument for the frost protection layer. It The
commentor states that the requirement for a frost protection
layer is a departure from MDNR's previous interpretations of
Michigan's Act 641 rules.
The commentor also states that no support for additional frost
protection can be derived from the July, 1989 technical
guidance document concerning final covers on hazardous waste
landfills in the Administrative Record. The commentor
maintains that this document is only applicable to hazardous
waste landfills, and, because no hazardous waste has been
deposited at the MDS landfill, this document should not be
relied upon at this Site. The commentor refers to the
preamble to EPA' s recently proposed regulations governing
municipal solid waste landfills which. states that design
features recommended for hazardous waste landfills are not
necessarily appropriate for municipal solid waste landfills
and that the Agency should avoid over regulation.
Response #6:
The basis for requiring a frost protection layer, above the 4
inches of soil required under Michigan's Act 641, is not based
upon ARARs. Rather, the' requirement is based upon sound
engineering practice. The MDS Site is located in a portion of
this country where the maximum frost depth has been estimated
to be 42 inches and freeze-thaw conditions pose a major threat
to the long-term effectiveness of the cap. As stated in the,
Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste
Landfills and Surface Impoundments (July 1989), tlFreeze-thaw
conditions are an important potential of damage to the soil
component of the low-permeability layer (clay layer). Cycles
of freezing and thawing may cause material cracking, lessening
of density, and loss of strength. It Accordingly, the EPA
believes that the 4 inches of soil required under Michigan's
Act 641 would not be sufficient to protect the clay cap from
freeze-thaw conditions. The addition of this layer to the cap
will minimize cap failure and subsequent increases in leachate
7
-------
.production and will minimize lonq-term maintenance costs.
MDNR has required additional frost protection layers on
several sites as listed in its internal memo of July 10, 1991
from John Craiq to Dennis Eaqle.
In response to the comment on use of the technical quidance
document mentioned above, this document was relied upon in
reference to frost protection, not as an ARAR, but rather as
a quide to the need for additional protection of the cap at
this Site. The section of that document discussinq the need
for frost protection at sites where freeze-thaw cycles are a
factor is clearly applicable to a site such as the MDS Site.
EPA is not over regulatinq, but merely requirinq the minimal
amount of cover to ensure lonq-term effectiveness of the cap.
Comment '7:
A straiqhtforward application of the remedy selection process,
as set forth in the NCP, clearly demonstrates that Alternative
SC-4 is the only source control remedy that is consistent with
the NCP. The comments were based on the following major
points:
a)
b)
SC-3 and
criteria";
satisfy
both
SC-4
the
"threshold
A proper consideration of the primary balancinq
criteria requires selection of Alternative SC-4
because,
1)
EPA's argument that Type III fill is more
prone to differential settlement is not true
and is not supported in the Administrative
Record;
2)
Type III and inert fill do not present a
siqnificantly qreater risk of qround water
contamination than "clean fill";
3)
Al ternative SC-4 is equally protective, or
more protective, than SC-3 in providinq short
term protection, after considerinq the
environmental and safety effects of additional
truck traffic and dust emissions in the area
caused by the unnecessary excavation and
transportation of clean fill, and the
envir.onmental effects of havinq to provide
al ternative landfill capacity to accept the
Type III fill that is currently qoinq to the
site; and,
4)
For this Site, cost is the determininq factor
8
-------
c)
in the consideration of the primary balancing
criteria, because all other primary balancing
criteria are either equal or inapplicable.
EPA mistakenly interprets state Acceptance to mean
MDNR acceptance. Two other branches of Michigan's
state Government have spoken out in favor of
Alternative SC-4 and the proposed plan should have
stated that state Acceptance favors Alternative SC-
4 (Several commentors made this comment).
Response '7:
EPA disagrees with the comment that a straightforward
application of the remedy selection process, as set forth in
the NCP, clearly demonstrates that Alternative 5C-4 is the
only source control remedy that is consistent with the NCP.
EPA strongly believes that it has implemented its decision
process properly and appropriately at this Site, in accordance
with the NCP, and refers the reader to the Record of Decision
for the rationale behind its selection of. Alternative 5C-3.
Alternative 5C-3 has been selected as part of the remedy at
this 5i te based upon its long-term and short-term
effectiveness, implementability and state acceptance, largely
because .it uses clean fill to develop acceptable grades
instead of Type III fill. A remedy which includes the
importation of waste as part of a remedy clearly contradicts
EPA's program goal as stated in the NCP (55 CFR 8846) of
selecting remedies minimizing untreated waste. Such a remedy
would, in fact be introducing untreated waste to the site, in
addition to that already present.
a) Although both Alternative SC-3 and SC-4 will attain ARARs
at the conclusion of the remedy, MDNR maintains that 5C-4 will
not be able to attain the substantive requirements of
Michigan's Act 641 during the implementation of the remedy.
b) The assertion by the commentor that Type III fill is not
more prone to differential settlement than clean fill is not
correct. Based upon common engineering knowledge of
construction debris and other wastes common to Type III waste
streams, these materials may contain wood or other degradable
materials and may cause settling of the waste in the future,
regardless of the waste being compacted during placement.
The commentor' s own remarks state that Type III waste contains
paper .mill sludges which, with its high water content, will
be more difficult to compact than clean fill. Paper mill
sludge also has a predisposition to biodegrade and will be
more susceptible to settling than clean fill. The argument
that the underlying Type II waste is unstable and some
settling will occur regardless of the material placed above
it, is questionable. The Type II waste has been in place for
9
-------
over 15 years now and the majority of settling will have
occurred already. Using clean fill to develop the required
grades at the Site will minimize any settling that may occur,
any costs associated with maintenance of the cap due to
settling, and will preserve the long-term effectiveness of the
cap.
The following argument is also questionable: Because 60
percent of the site is already filled with Type III waste and,
if the final 40 percent of the Site were filled with clean
fill, the risk of uncontrollable differential settlement at
the interface of the existing Type III and clean fill, would
be virtually guaranteed. This is questionable for two
reasons: a) this scenario does not consider regrading the
existing Type III waste over the area of the Site and
minimizing the amount of clean fill to develop the required
grades which would limit the amount of differential settlement
that might occur, and b) proper engineering would be used to
minimize any settling that could occur at the interface of the
two types of materials.
Type III waste, by definition, does have a pot'ential to
contaminate the ground water. That risk of contamination is
greater than that of clean fill. It is recognized that, in
general, materials used in clean fill may contain low levels
of some naturally occurring hazardous substances, however, all
materials used in capping this Site will undergo chemical
analysis prior to placement and if any unacceptable levels of
contaminants are found the materials will be rej ected and
another source of clean fill may be required. EPA is unable
to comment on the validity of the data submitted by the PRPs
from the tests performed on several soil samples, because EPA
has no knowledge of the source of the samples, the rel~ability
of the testing procedures used, or the reliability of the
laboratory. EPA reiterates that any material used in the cap
will undergo analysis prior to placement to determine if it is
suitable for use. EPA will not select a remedy which may
potentially further endanger public health or the environment.
By using analytically confirmed clean fill we avoid any
further endangerment, but by incorporating Type III waste
there is the possibility of further contamination.
The claim that ground water monitoring data shows that levels
of hazardous substances have been decreasing since the Type
III operations began in 1982 is misleading. EPA acknowledges
that, some of the parameters included in Geological Services'
study may be decreasing, however, others may be constant or
increasing. In that same report, arsenic, the one compound
contributing most to the risk at the site, was shown to be
increasing over time. This may be due to several factors; one
being that there is a continual source in the 01d municipal
waste, and another being-that the new Type III waste may be
10
-------
contributing arsenic to the ground water. It is impossible to
determine, from the data available, precisely the reason for
this increase. Benzene, on the other hand, was not included
as a parameter in the analysis performed by Geological
Services, and no trend in its concentration can be rightfully
implied from the study.
The statement that, "Any theoretical concern that the use of
Type III fill may adversely affect groundwater is refuted by
the fact that actual data from groundwater monitoring shows
that the levels of hazardous substances have generally
decreased since the Type III filling operations began in
1982," is refuted by EPA. EPA must stress that concerns about
Type III waste affecting ground water quality are based upon
the definition of Type III waste having greater potential to
contaminate the ground water than clean fill (see the
dis~ussion above).
The claim, " . . . Type III fill .rather than clean fill would
probably reduce further degradation of ground water because
Type III fill is generally less permeable...", is
unsubstantiated speculation. The studies referenced by the
commentor which evaluate the permeability of Type III waste
have not been submitted to EPA, and the res~lts have not been
verified. Without seeing the reports the concept is suspect
for the following reason: Type III fill is generally
heterogenous and permeabilities over the area of the Site will
vary greatly. In implementing the remedy, it would be largely
impossible to rely on any theoretical impermeability afforded
by Type III waste because confirmation of attainment of
sufficient impermeability over the entire area of the Site
would be impossible. The studies also do not discuss the
long-term permeability of the materials tests. Based upon
common knowledge of papermill sludges, they would have a
tendency to degrade over time and the effective permeability
would decrease in proportion to that degradation. To ensure
that a remedy will be protective, EPA cannot rely on such
speculative statements.
EPA disagrees with the contention by the commentor that even
some minimal impact on the ground water would not justify an
additional "$5,700,000" in a situation where all ground water
will be captured and treated. Even if any additional
contamination is captured by the ground water extraction
system, EPA's preference is to avoid creating additional
ground water contamination. If other contaminants are
introduced into the ground water which are not present now,
pretreatment of the ground water, if not already in place, may
be required. If it were in place, the pretreatment system may
require redesign. Such a situation would greatly increase the
time and cost of implementing MM-3. This type of situation
reiterates EPA's position that continued operation of the
11
-------
landfill will make it impossible to desiqn a remedy for the
Site due to the constant changes in conditions of the Site.
The reader is also referred back to Response '2 for a
discussion of EPA's position on the "additional $5,700,000.
cost of implementing Alternative SC-3.
Remediation with Type III fill will result in steeper slopes
and will cause erosion problems and difficulties in
establishing vegetation. If continued filling occurs the
final slopes of the landfill, as projected by MDS's engineers,
w.ill be 25'. If filling ceases, the current 25' slopes may be
regraded down to a lesser slope and erosion and establishment
of vegetation will be less of a problem.
EPA acknowledges that the discontinued filling at the Site
will result in more traffic in the county wide area and the
ROD has been changed to reflect this. However, EPA disagrees
that that is sufficient cause to regard Alternative SC-4 as
equally, or more protective, than SC-3 in providing short-term
effectiveness. Short-term effectiveness takes the following
into consideration:
1)
Short-term risks that might be posed to the
community during implementation of an alternativel
Potential impacts on workers during remedial action
and the effectiveness and reliability of protective
measures 1
2)
3)
Potential environmental impacts of the remedial
action and the effectiveness and reliability of
mitigative measures during implementationl and
Time until protection is achieved.
4)
with the continued addition of Type III waste and its
potential to contaminate the ground water, Alternative SC-4
may add substantial time until protection is achieved if
additional contaminants are introduced into the ground water.
In addition SC-4 will take 1 to 2 years longer than SC-3 to
construct. The commentor I s claim that the basis in the FS for
assuming a shorter construction time for SC-3 no longer
exists, is not true. It is possible to regrade the existing
Type III waste and cap the Site in a shorter period of time
than it would to import Type III waste.
Although EPA is concerned with any risk that may be associated
with truck traffic and air emissions caused by the capping of
the landfill, the risk associated with prolonged cleanup of
the aquifer far out weighs the short-term risk of truck
traffic. The risks caused by the extra truck traffic will be
temporary (lasting the 1-2 years that the landfill cap
12
-------
installation will take place) and should cause minimal
additional risks to residents if proper driving precautions
are taken. Air monitoring will be employed at the Site to
control any possible air pollution problems. The commentor's
statistical analysis of the approximate additional number of
miles of truck traffic and associated casualties is largely
unsubstantiated. In fact, any estimate of the number of miles
of truck traffic would be greatly reduced if consideration
were given to the option of regrading the existing Type III
waste at the Site, thereby minimizing the amount of clean fill
required in the remedy.
The commentor's claim that shutting down this facility will
require the county to site a new landfill is not valid.
According to MDNR's Waste Management Division, Kalamazoo
County does not have plans for 20 years of disposal capacity,
either in the county or through the use of disposal facilities
in other counties, and will be required, by state law, to
provide for the siting of additional landfill capacity as part
of Kalamazoo County's Solid Waste Management Plan. Siting of
an additional landfill will be necessary regardless of whether
the site continues to operate or not. Kalamazoo County has
been continuously advised by MDNR not to rely on MDS Landfill
as capacity in its plan, because it has been ordered to close
by MDNR, it is a Superfund site, and it is a continuing source
of ground water contamination. MDNR does not anticipate being
able to accept this landfill as capacity for purposes of the
Kalamazoo County Solid Waste Management Plan. The County also
has the option to develop disposal capacity in other counties
if they choose.
EPA disagrees that cost effectiveness is the only primary
balancing criterion on which to base a selection between
alternatives SC-3 and SC-4 and refers the reader to the Record
of Decision for EPA's evaluation of each alternative under the
nine criteria and to the Response #2 concerning the
appropriate factors to consider in developing costs. The cost
analysis submitted by the commentor is inappropriate because
of its consideration of revenues from operation of the
landfill. EPA reiterates that, based upon an appropriate
evaluation under the nine criteria, as set forth by the NCP,
Alternative SC-3 has been selected based upon its superior
performance under long-term-effectiveness, short-term
effectiveness, implementability and state acceptance.
The selected remedy for source control, Alternative SC-3,
affords overall effectiveness proportional to its cost. It
has the second lowest cost of those alternatives that protect
human health and the environment. SC-4 costs less, however,
the use of Type III waste may increase the cost and duration
of the ground water remedy if the waste contains contaminants
and the contaminants leach into the ground water. This may
13
-------
also limit the effectiveness of the ground water remedy if new
contaminants leach from the new waste and the POTW cannot
handle them.
c) EPA disagrees with the commentor's statements concerning
the analysis of state acceptance. CERCLA contemplates
siqnificant involvement of the states throughout the Superfund
process. Pursuant to the National contingency Plan (NCP),
this notion of EPA/State involvement is embodied in a
Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA). This document
establishes the nature and extent of EPA/State relations and
designates the state agency responsible for carrying out the
terms of the SMOA. On May 6, 1981 Governor Milliken of the
state of Michigan designated the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MOHR) as the state lead agency for the
planning and implementation of CERCLA. MDHR, created by the
state of Michigan legislature to enforce and manage Michigan's
environmental programs, has entered into a SMOA with EPA. As
a result, MDNR is the designated state agency responsible for
providing the state of Michigan's position on EPA's Record of
Decision for the MDS site. Therefore, in evaluating state
Acceptance under the NCP, the posi tion taken by MONR is
considered the position taken by the state of Michigan.
Decisions rendered by Michigan's courts and views held by
Michigan legislators do not amount to state acceptance under
the NCP. Finally, With the relatively few comments received
on the proposed plan and the fact that several commentors
wrote in favor of EPA's selected remedy discount the claim
that the local community strongly supports the selection of
Alternative SC-4.
Comment '8:
The proposed plan concludes that the point of compliance for
meeting ground water standards is the landfill boundary.
Response '8:
Comment noted.
Comment '9:
The proposed plan incorrectly concludes that the Michigan Act
307 (Act 307) Type B criteria are appropriate for the site.
Site-specific factors which preclude completion of an on-site
exposure route along with technical concerns about achieving
Type B standards or even measuring constituents at that level
make Type C criteria the appropriate cleanup standards for the
Site. The commentor stated that under Michigan Act 307 rules
and Type C analysis, Federal Maximum contaminant Levels (MCLs)
promulgated under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act as the
National Primary Drinking Water Act Standards are the
14
-------
appropriate ARARs for ground water cleanup.
Response '9:
EPA supports the determination of Act 307 Type B criteria as
the ARAR for ground water at the Site, and does not agree with
the commentor' s conclusion that Type C cleanup would be
appropriate for the ground water at this Site for several
reasons:
1) Michigan Act 307 Type B standards, a more stringent
State ARAR than Federal MCLs, has been identified as an
ARAR at this site and takes precedence over the MCLs:
2) The Agencies believe it is necessary to establish
risk-based cleanup levels for the Site. The basis for
selection of these cleanup levels is provided in CERCLA
Section 121 and the NCP. In order to protect human
health and the environment, under CERCLA and the NCP, a
risk-based cleanup is necessary due to the potential
future use of ground water at and near the Site.
The NCP requires a site be remediated within a 10-4 to
10-6 risk range. In order to achieve a level of
acceptable risk at the Site, cleanup levels were
established at a 10-6 risk level rather than at the MCLs
or the non-zero MCLGs. Due to multiple contaminants at
the MDS Site, MCLs would not sufficiently protect human
health and the environment. The target residual risk
under the Safe Drinking Water Act is consistent with a
Type B cleanup.
3) EPA disagrees with the commentor's discussion on the
technical limitation in achieving Type B cleanup
standards. In the case where a cleanup goal is below the
method detection limit (MDL)for a given compound, EPA
will generally establish the cleanup goal at the method
detection limit. This method has also been adopted by
MDNR under Act 307. MDLs are based on the lowest
acceptable detection limits established by EPA for
routine analytical services. Because MDLs vary
considerably between laboratories, MDNR has compiled a
list of acceptable MDLs for several compounds under Act
307.
EPA disagrees that practical quantitation limits (PQLs)
are more appropriate cleanup levels than MDLs. The
primary difference between the MDL and the PQL is that
the MDL is a detection limit, and the PQL is a
quantitation limit. The detection limit is a measure of
when an analytical system indicates that a substance is
15
-------
present above a certain limit, there is a 99 percent
probability that the substance is present, but not
necessarily at the reported level. The PQL is
established at a level above the MDL where quantitative
certainty is higher. PQL is the lowest level that can be
reliably achieved within specified limits of precision
and accuracy during routine laboratory operation
conditions. EPA developed the PQL concept to define
measurement concentration that is time and l-.boratory
independent for regulatory purposes. EPA estimates that
the PQLs are 5 to 10 times higher than the MDLs.
The use of MDLs is more appropriate than PQLs as a lower
detection limit on target.cleanup levels because:
a)
MDLs extend the analytical range to lower
levels based on presence/absence of a
contaminant. If a target cleanup level is
below the MDL and lab analysis confirms the
presence ofa contaminant above the MDL, then
the cleanup level has not been achieved:
Al though it is true that more quanti tati ve
uncertainty exists with MDLs than PQLs, this
uncertainty is reduced through reliance on
multiple samples: and, .
b)
In the absence of a large interlaboratory
study to identify the PQL, the PQL defies
precise definition. The PQL can only be
estimated from the MDL using the 5 to 10
factor. MDLs can be determined for a single
laboratory using a specific in~trument and a
specific analyst.
The EPA performance study indicates that initial
expectations are "often" not met by ground water
extraction systems~ The Agency acknowledges that
certainties with regards to achieving the health based
cleanup levels are not quaranteed, and that attainment of
these levels may involve a greater investment than if
these levels were not required. However, the Agencies
have determined that the cleanup levels formalized in the
ROD are required for protection of public health and the
environment. EPA feels that the cleanup levels can be
achieved through the use of the chosen alternative. It
is not appropriate to arque that the remedy will incur
greater costs than a remedy which would not achieve the
goal of protectiveness. If, in fact, it is determined
that cleanup levels will not be achievable, EPA will
consider other options to achieve protection.
c)
16
-------
4) EPA disagrees with the commentor's evaluation of cost
effectiveness in regards to achieving Type B standards in
relation to aChieving MCLs. The difference in the
present worth costs of those two options would be minimal
over the period of time required to implement either type
of cleanu~.
5) EPA disagrees with the commentor's discussion on the
consideration of other Type C factors. Both EPA and MDNR
identified Act 307 as an ARAR at this Site when review
comments on the draft FS were provided to the commentor.
The revised FS incorrectly analyzed Act 307 as a
hazardous waste statute, eliminating it from
consideration as an ARAR and placing it in the "to-be-
considered" category. If a Type C proposal was to be
considered for MDNR approval it should have been
presented as one of the remedial alternatives analyzed in
the FS and not presented in the limited form in the
comments to the proposed plan. Nevertheless, even if the
proposal put forth by the commentor had been addressed in
the FS, the Type C proposal would not have been approved.
The following are deficiencies in the commentor's
proposal:
a)
The statement is made that the "only
conceivable points of exposure are a small,
narrow area between the Landfill and Davis
Creek", and that, "The potential for future
unacceptable exposure will be prevented by
deed restrictions..." First, the total extent
of ground water contamination is not known at
this time because samples were not collected
from the deeper semi-confined aquifer under
the site or from either aquifer east of Davis
Creek. Secondly, the ground water flow
direction has not been determined north and
east of the Site and it is not known if all
ground water from the site discharges to Davis
Creek. Therefore, it is not possible at this
time to know all conceivable points of
exposure. In addition, if ground water
extraction is stopped once some Type C level
is obtained then ground water may migrate off-
site, past the creek, with the potential to
expose a future user to ground water which
contains chemicals above strictly health based
risk levels, i.e, Type B levels;
The analysis fails to recognize either surface
water or the wetland area as potential
environmental media. This completely
invalidates the statement that, "Because there
b)
17
-------
h)
c)
will be only one environmental medium of
concern following the overall si te remedy,
overly conservative methodologies which make
allowances for mul tiple exposure paths need
not be considered for the development of
cleanup criteria in this instance.8;
The geology and hydrogeol6qy have not been
adequately identified in that the deeper
aquifer, and the geology/hydrogeology east and
north of the Site have not been adequately
characterized. Therefore, the physical
setting of the Site cannot be evaluated;
d)
Implementation of Type C criteria would not
result in ground water concentrations as close
to background as technically feasible;
implementation of Type A criteria would;
It is true that the potential migration
pathway is ground water, however, the physical
migration pathway has not been identified.
Also, ground water discharges to Davis Creek
and this migration pathway is not discussed
under this comment;
e)
f)
Residual levels of parameters of concern will
remain dissolved in the ground water, however,
it has not been demonstrated that anything
other than heal th based risk cri teria are
appropriate and protective;
Type B levels are technically feasible in that
they are set at the acceptable method
detection limit if the health based criteria
is below that limit. Also Act 307 Rule
299.5601(3) . states that, "The cost of a
remedial action shall be a factor only in
choosing among alternatives which adequately
protect the public health, safety, welfare and
environment and natural resources, consistent
wi th the requirements of part 7 of these
rules." This rule precludes the selection of
Type C criteria based on cost alone and
mandates that a Type C remedial action must be
thoroughly evaluated using the Part 7 rules.
Adequate information has not been provided for
this evaluation using the comments provided by
the commentor;
g)
The FS did not identify or compare a Type B or
Type C alternative under Act 307. Rule
18
-------
299.5717(3) (1) states, "The technical
feasibility and cost effectiveness of remedial
action alternatives, including alternatives
which comply with Type B criteria," shall be
provided by a party who proposes a Type C
remedial action. This was not done in the FS
and therefore a comparison of the alternatives
cannot be made: and,
It is simply not the case that the application
of Type B criteria will result in a situation
where remedial performance cannot be
monitored. Type B levels revert to HDLs which
can be achieved by standard laboratory
procedures.
The above listed deficiencies do not support the
statement that Type C levels are more appropriate than
Type B levels for ground water remediation at this site.
i)
Comment '10:
One commentor questioned where in the Administrative Record
are the documents supporting the following statements in the
proposed. plan:
b)
a)
Type III fill material is more difficult to compact
than clean fill and may be more prone to
differential settlement and cracking of the clay
cap:
c)
Type III waste, by definition poses a greater risk
to ground water than clean fill:
The steeper slope associated with alternative SC-4
would make maintenance of the cap more critical to
avoid erosion and will make development of a
vegetative cover more difficult:
d)
Type III fill material would involve greater risk
from truck traffic, dust emissions, and vapors:
e)
Type III fill material may increase the time during
which the ground water treatment system is required
to operate:
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-7 are not acceptable to
the state.
f)
The commentor questioned where, and how, EPA has considered
cost in choosing between Alternatives SC-3 and SC-4.
19
-------
The commentor questioned what criteria EPA would establish for
the clean fill to be used in Alternative SC-3, and stated that
even clean fill contains various levels of hazardous
substances.
The commentor went on to state that because EPA chose not to
place copies of any of the documents listed in the "Guidance
Documents Index" with the repositories of Administrative
Record documents in Kalamazoo, these documents are not part of
the Administrative Record an4 EPA cannot rely upon any of them
as a basis for its remedy selection. The commentor requested
that copies be placed in the record and not consider the
comment period as begun until those documents were placed
there.
Response '10:
In response to the point by point questioninq of the
Administrative Record, the documents EPA considered and relied
upon in support of the above referenced statements in the
proposed plan and ROD included, but was not necessarily
limited to, the fo11owinq:
a)
Document '19 of Administrative Record Update '2,
"MI Disposal site EPA ID MID 006029102", dated
9/18/91.
b)
Document #8 of the Administrative Record, "Letter
Forwardinq Results of Moni torinq Well Data and
Samples Taken From French Drain", dated 1/19/89;
and,
c)
Document '47 of the Administrative Record, "Cork
st. Landfi11- Analytical Results", 2/13/91.
"Revised Draft Report FS Cork street Landfill
Superfund Site", document 184 of the Administrative
Record.
e)
..
"Revised Draft Report FS Cork Street Landfill
Superfund Site", document #84 of the Administrative
record, and (The reader is referred to Response #7
for further discussion on this issue).
Document #8 of the Administrative Record, "Letter
Forwardinq Results of Moni torinq Well Data and
Samples Taken From French Drain", 1/19/89; and,
d)
f)
Document #47 of the Administrative Record, "Cork
st. Landfi1l- Analytical Results", 2/13/91.
Document #7 of Administrative Record Update #1,
20
-------
h)
"Director's Order to Cease and Desist", 11/10/88;
Document t18 of the Administrative Record, "Letter
re: requesting re-evaluation" (from Al Howard to
Dave Ullrich), 4/18/90; and,
g)
Document t12 of Administrative Index t2 "Letter re:
Completed review of the final proposed plan for HI
Disposal Service Corp", 9/9/91' (The reader is
referred to Response '7 (c) for a discussion of
state acceptance).
The reader is referred to the Decision Summary of the
Record of Decision for a discussion on how EPA considered
cost in choosing between alternatives SC-3 and SC-4. The
reader is also referred to Response '7 for a discussion
of EPA' s cost effectiveness analysis. EPA maintains that
SC-3 is the most cost-effective remedy for source control
at this Site.
Although this will be further refined during design, EPA
anticipates the material to be used as clean fill will be
material not regulated under Michigan's Act 641 solid
waste regulations and not exhibiting unacceptable
chemical concentrations above background levels for
inorganics or at non-detect for organics.
i)
Under Section 300.805(a) (2) of the NCP, "Guidance
documents not generated specifically for the Site at
issue need not be located at or near the site at issue,
provided that they are maintained at the central location
and the index to the administrative record file indicates
the location and availability of these guidance
documents." EPA has complied with this section of the
NCP and has supplied the required information in the
Administrative Record Index for the MDS Site. These
documents can be relied upon by the Agency as part of its
basis for its remedy, and copies of the guidance
documents will be located solely in EPA' s Region V
office. The period for public comment will remain
unchanged.
Comment t11:
Operating the Type III landfill on top of the old municipal
landfill would close the old landfill in an environmentally
safe manner, at no expense to the taxpayers.
Response '11:
Based upon EPA's analysis of the alternatives under the nine
criteria, Alternative SC-3 has been selected as the source
21
-------
control alternative for this site, based largely on the fact
that it does not involve continued filling with Type III
waste. Continued filling with Type III waste is not an
environmentally sound response to the contamination problems
presented by this landfill. Testing of leachate produced by
the Site indicate that the Type III waste contains additional
contaminants which may further degrade the ground water
conditions. In addition, increased differential settlement of
the Type III waste may threaten the integri ty of any cap
placed over the waste possibly increasing the amount of
leachate produced by the site. The reader is referred to the
Decision Summary of the Record of Decision and Response '7
above for further discussion on why SC-3 is the selected
remedial alternative instead of SC-4. The reader is also
referred to Response '2 for a discussion on the costs of the
alternatives.
Comment '12:
The City of Kalamazoo has spent $550,000 doing studies on the
Site, which is two and a half percent of the City's property
taxes and now EPA wants the taxpayers to spend $5.7 million on
this remedy, SC-3, when other protective, viable solutions are
available.
Response '12:
EPA certainly is sensitive to the issue of the cost of any
remedy to taxpayers, however, as discussed in Response '2, the
source of money used to fund a cleanup at a Superfund site is
not a proper consideration under the NCP. The selected remedy
is considered the most cost-effective remedy for this Site.
It should be pointed out that the cost of the selected remedy,
when compared to other remedies at municipal landfill
Superfund sites, is not considered high. Also, the amount
spent on the RIfFS, based upon estimates given in EPA guidance
document "Scoper' s Notes, An RIfFS Costing Guide", $550,000 is
considered well within the average cost for studies performed
at sites similar to this.
Comment '13:
"From our standpoint this is our community. These are our
citizens, this is our environment. And its our resources and
dollars. And I can assure you that we are concerned about all
of those issues, very much so because it impacts us directly.
We live here. We work here. We are very concerned about
these issues. And we intend to deal with them effectively.
All we ask from EPA and DNR is for your support in reaching a
solution, a reasonable solution. One that is in the best
interest of all, but most importantly in the best interest of
our residents." .
22
-------
Response '13:
Congress, in passing CERCLA, has delegated to EPA the duty and
the powers to protect human health and the environment at the
nation's worst uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. EPA has
established guidelines for implementing CERCLA in the NCP, and
it is in the NCP that the nine criteria for selecting remedies
have been established; one of them being community acceptance.
In the remedy selection process at a site, EPA must take into
consideration which components of the alternatives interested
persons in community support, have reservations about, or
oppose. This responsiveness summary is part of the Agency's
effort to assess the community's opinions on the proposed plan
and the FS, and it is in the responsiveness summary that EPA
responds to each significant comment submitted by the
community.
After evaluating each of the alternatives proposed in the FS,
EPA believes it has selected a remedy that is cost-effective
and protective and in the best interest of human health and
the environment.
Comment '14:
It is clear that Type III waste is not the threat on this
site.
Response '14:
EPA disagrees with this comment and refers the reader to
Response #7(b).
Comment '15:
Type III wastes and inert material would be the best use to
develop acceptable grades on the site prior to capping.
Response '15:
EPA disagrees and refers the reader to the discussions under
Response '7.
Comment '16:
Several commentors agreed with the selection of Alternative
MM-4 to address the ground water.
Response '16:
Comment noted.
Comment '17:
23
-------
Eliminating a safe and satisfactory depository for Type III
wastes in the communi ty only compounds the communi ty' s
capacity problems.
Response '17:
EPA disagrees with this comment. The comment is based upon
the idea that the Type III landfill is safe and satisfactory.
MDNR has already determined that the lan~fill is not adequate
and should not be operating. EPA supports MDNR in their
implementation of their solid waste program and their
determination in this matter. The reader is referred to
Response 8 (c) in regards to the community's capacity problems.
Comment '18:
The proposed plan incorrectly states that, "Type III fill is
defined as having low potential to contaminate the ground
water." The Act 641 Rules actually say "minimal".
Response '18:
Comment noted.
Comments from the Community
Comment '19:
Several commentors expressed concern that additional data
should be gathered before a cleanup plan is chosen. They
believe that additional data should be gathered to determine
if there are sources of contamination to the ground water
other than the landfill and if other private wells exist down
gradient from the Site.
Response '19:
EPA agrees that additional data must be gathered at this Site
to adequately implement the selected remedy. Data on ground
water conditions below the local shallow clay layer and east
of Davis Creek will be gathered with other data during the
Remedial Design phase of this project. In addition, efforts
will be made to identify any private wells in the vicinity of
the site that weren't identified during the RI. If additional
wells are located, and circumstances warrant it, those wells
will be tested to determine if contamination from the Site has
affected the quality of water drawn from them. However, we
also believe that sufficient data exists at this time, to
select the most appropriate remedy for this Site.
In regards to determining the source of contamination in the
ground water, well placement during the Remedial Investigation
24
-------
was such that other possible sources of contamination
upgradient from the Site were taken into account, and the MDS
landfill was found to be the source of contamination in the
ground water.
Comment '20:
Two commentors, spoke out against selecting Alternative SC-3.
The commentors bel.ieve that the money spent by the City on
implementing the selected remedy could be used for better
purposes. Both stated that the money could be used to address
real or more important threats to society and the environment,
rather than hypothetical threats associated with this Site.
For example, the money could be used to build more prisons,
for city youth programs, or for repair of the City's
infrastructure. One commentor would prefer to see the Site.
only monitored every five years. Both commentors believe that
SC-4 is preferable over SC-3 because the waste will have to be
deposited somewhere anyway- Both cite the extra pollution
that will be caused by closing this landfill and requiring the
Type III waste to be brought to another landfill as reasons
why SC-4 is superior to SC-3.
Response '20:
Although EPA acknowledges the other social and environmental
problems in this world, they are not addressable under CERCLA
and are not appropriate considerations during remedy selection
at Superfund sites. The investigations performed at this Site
have detected a real problem which poses a threat to human
health and the environment. It is EPA's obligation and duty
to take some action at this site to protect present and future
generations from the risks posed by the Site's contamination.
The EPA assesses the risks posed by a site by conducting a
baseline risk assessment which assumes no corrective action
will. take place at a site and that no site-use restrictions or
institutional controls such as fencing and ground water use
restrictions will be imposed. The risk assessment then
determines actual or potential risks or toxic effects the
chemical contaminants at the site pose under current and
future land use assumptions. The risk assessment for the3site
found that the Site poses an excess cancer risk of 1x10- for
future ingestion of ground ~ater, ,pich is outside of EPA's
acceptable risk range of 10- to 10- . Based upon the baseline
risk assessment, EPA has determined that the Site may pose an
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the
environment if the site is not addressed by the selected
remedy. If only 5 year monitoring were implemented the risk
levels would remain the same at the Site and that is
25
-------
~
unacceptable to EPA.
Some action must be taken.
EPA does not believe that continued filling with Type III
waste is an appropriate means to address the risk posed by
this Site. The reader is referred to the Decision Summary of
the Record of Decision and Responses'2 and '7 for
discussions on the issues of the County's landfill capacity,
the appropriateness of using Type III waste as part of this
Site's remedy, and the cost of the selected remedy.
Comment '21:
Two commentors wrote supporting the selection of Alternatives
MM-4 and SC-3. The commentors.prefer SC-3 over SC-4 because
of the possibility of potential additional contamination of
the ground water from the Type III waste and the need for an
Act 641 cap to ensure Site integrity. One commentor would
prefer the addition of an FML in the cap design.
Response '21:
The comments are acknowledged. EPA does, however, disagree
with the addition of an FML to the cap design. Based upon the
fact that the waste sits in the ground water, the additional
impermeability afforded by the FML would not be cost-effective
and may not be any more protective thap a cap constructed of
2 feet of clay, a frost protection layer, and a vegetated soil
layer.
Comments from State Leaislators and MONR
Comment '22:
Several commentors support the City of Kalamazoo and MOS in
their preference for Alternative SC-4 over SC-3. The
commentors are concerned that the issue of spending $5.7
million of taxpayers money has not received higher priority in
EPA's review process. They stated that Alternative SC-4
provides an option where the users of the landfill will cover
the costs of the remedy, not the taxpayers and does not affect
landfill capacity in the County of Kalamazoo. The commentors
are concerned with the accuracy of the statement that SC-4 is
not acceptable to the State because it does not comply with
Michigan's Act 641 for two reasons:
The proposed plan states that all of the proposed
landfill caps will comply with all ARARs for
meeting closure requirements: and,
The MOS has received permits and licenses from MONR
in the past under Act 641 and that act has not
changed since those licenses were issued.
26
-------
The commentors also stated that two branches of the
government, the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch are
supporting Alternative SC-4, so the statement that the state
does not favor that alternative is not correct.
The commentors concluded by supporting the remediation goal of
capping, pumping and monitoring, but asked for reason as to
the methods for- achieving these goals.
Response t22:
EPA reiterates its position that it is not appropriate to
consider the source of funding for a cleanup when selecting a
remedy. The Agency has appropriately evaluated each
alternative against the nine criteria established in the NCP
and has selected the alternatives that are cost effective and
protective. The reader is referred to Response #2 under PRP
comments for a response to the issue of considering the cost
of Alternative SC-3 to taxpayers.
EPA acknowledges that each of the capping alternatives will
comply with all landfill closure ARARs at the completion of
the remedy. However, MDNR has already determined that during
the implementation of SC-4 the Site will not be able to comply
with the substantive permitting and licensing requirements
under Michigan's Act 641, e.g. a baseline water quality could
not be established for the facility. In addition, Although
Act 641 has not changed since the first licenses were issued
to MDS for the landfill, MDNR, in its denial of the last
license application and by issuing the cease and desist order,
has expressed its determination that the operation of a Type
III landfill at this Site would not be in compliance with Act
641.
On the issue of what is considered State Acceptance, the
reader is referred to Response #7(C) for a response. It must
be added, however, that the Judicial branch of the State has
not overruled MDNR1s refusal to grant an operating license.
Rather, the Court has issued a temporary injunction allowing
HOS to continue operating until a final ruling is made.
EPA has used reason in its selection of the final remedy for
the MDS Site and refers the reader to the Record of Decision
for the Agency's basis for the selection of Alternatives MM-4
and SC-3. The reader is also referred to Response #7 for a
response to the issue of landfill capacity in the County.
Comment '23:
MDNR has commented in favor of Alternative MM-4 because it
will prevent flow of contaminated ground water off-site or
into Davis Creek. MDNR added that a pretreatment system will
27
-------
need to be installed if pretreatment standards are not met.
HDNR strongly supports additional studies of the deep aquifer
to further define the extent of contamination.
Response '23:
Comment noted.
Comment '24:
MDNR has commented that it does not totally agree with the
selection of Alternative SC-3 as the preferred source control
remedy for the site. MDNR agrees with SC-3 in principle, as
the source control remedy and supports it rather than SC-4,
because SC-4 would include continued filling with Type III
waste. HDNR states that the use of Type III waste would
contribute to continued leachate production over time and
would not appreciably decrease the permeability of the fill as
a layer of properly compacted clean fill would. The ground
water beneath the Site is very susceptible to contamination
from infiltrating precipitation leaching chemicals out of the
old and new waste.
MDNR does not agree with the technical design of the closure
cap. MDNR states that the two feet of clay with four inches
of vegetative cover are minimum requirements under Act 641
rules and are not considered fully protective of human health
and the environment. MDNR states that they are consistently
attaining cap designs which exceed these requirements. MDNR
believes the design should be one which includes, in addition
to the minimum requirements of Act 641, a minimum 40 mil FML,
a minimum three foot drainage/frost protection layer, and six
to twelve inches of vegetative soil cover.
Response '24:
EPA acknowledges the concurrence on the selected remedies, but
disagrees with some of the additional layers added to the cap
design. An FML, if added to the cap design would not afford
significant additional protection because the landfilled waste
is in contact with ground water. This is the major route of
migration for the contaminants at the Site. Any additional
impermeability given to the cap by the FML would not shorten
the amount of time required to reach cleanup standards in the
ground water and is not considered to be cost-effective. EPA
does agree with MDNR on the need for a frost protection layer
in the cap design and it is included as part of the cap design
in the Record of Decision. Any party implementing the
selected remedy will be required to maintain a vegetated layer
on the cap. Under the current Act 641 rules this layer must
be ~our .inches th~c~. EPA strongly believes that the cap
deslgn lncluded ln the selected remedy will be fully
28
-------
protective of human health and the environment. The design
criteria for the selected remedy will comply with Act 641
rules and are consistent with criteria used at other Superfund
sites located in Michigan. Another major consideration when
defining what is an appropriate cap design is the amount of
hazardous material disposed of in the landfill. At this Site,
information in~icates that significant amounts of hazardous
industrial material was not disposed of at this Site.
Comment '25:
MDNR stated that the statement under State Acceptance in the
proposed plan implies that the State arbitrarily prefers an
FML and additional soil layers. The statement should have
read, "The State believes the preferred alternative should be
one which is fully protective of the public health and the
environment, and complies with Michigan's Act 641. In order
to meet both of these objectives, the State submits that a
composite cap design should be constructed over the fill.
This design would include a two foot clay layer, a minimum 40
mil FML, a minimum three foot drainage/frost protection layer,
and six to twelve inches of vegetative soil cover."
Response '25:
Comment .noted.
Comment '26:
MDNR commented that the costs estimated in the FS for the
clean fill to be used in Alternative SC-3 were over-estimated.
MDNR states that the cost estimate of $3,904,500 for the clay
cap for SC-3 is $1,056,500 higher than the $2,848,000 for SC-
4. MDNR does not understand why there would be such
difference, especially when the clay cap designs are
essentially the same. It would not be necessary to bring in
the same amount of clean fill as Type III waste. The existing
topography could be regraded to a lower elevation, reducing
the volume of sand needed to prepare the subgrade. The FS did
not estimate the minimum volume of Type III waste needed to
bring the Site to grade. Such an estimate should be developed
for cost purposes in the remedial design phase to determine if
it is more feasible to regrade the existing fill to minimize
the amount of clean fill needed, thus greatly reducing the
cost.
Response '26:
Comment noted.
29
-------
Comment '27:
MDNR does not believe the three to four years estimated for
the years to construct Alternative SC-4 is valid. The
operators of the Site have been estimatinq this amount of time
to complete the, landfill since 1982. It may take up to 5 more
years to close the facility if continued operation is allowed.
Response '27:
Comment noted.
30
-------
*
Plee 110.
07110191
1
APPENDIX 1
ADMIIiISTIATIVE IECORD IMDEX
IIClIGAM DISPOSAL SERVICE/coat ST. LANDfILL SUPERfUND SITE
KALAMAZOO, III an GAM
flCHE/fRAME PAGES DATE TITLE ALlTIIDI IECIPlEIiT DOCUIEIIT tYPE DOCIUIIEI
2 00/00/00 Lettlr rez Thank. 81ven 1111_, '8. Power.,II. - Correspondence 1
for a,.tatanel 81rln by . tCIIIIDlaalon
tlllll8z00 tCU\ty:
I
87/12/01 Litter re: Effectl~ tozll,D.J. . U.S. EPA 'UNIley J. . Corr8Sponde~e 2
date for thl Cork a::1I 81118Z00
Street Landfill
87/12/03 Letter re: Druma tlken IIlleJezlk.I.. MONa Cozll.D. . U.S. EPA Correspondencl 3
In 1969 and 1970
3 88/03/10 Letter re: relponse Colar ,II. T. . U.S. Dept.. Coul,D. . U.S. EPA Correspondence 4
to requelt of rlvlew of the Inurlor
of thl Drift Work.PI'1
2 88/08/22 Letter re: r.n.w.l of tONitantllol,l. . Dekruyter,J. . "I Correspondence 5
operltlng 'Ie.nse at u.s. EPA Ollp.
Cork St. Llndflll
1 89/01/05 Cork St. Landfll' GAP, COZZI,D.. u.s. EPA "Ins'ey,l. . Correspondence 6
Approve' tll81118zo0
12 89/01/13 Lettlr re: .ubmltt.d E.I (lIon,G.I. . Obradovlc,lI. . Correspondence 7
.1 r.port detal'lnt the Envlronmenta' aelourc.a Canonle
relult. of an el.ctromag.."anlg~nt,lnc.
netic I aroundpeneiratlnt
radar .uryey
1 89/01/19 Letter re: forwlrdln; for lIuleahey,D. . MOIII
"
review result~ the
~ltorln8 we iC\L
the resulta of lemple.
collected from the french
drlln
89/01/20 Contrlct No. 68-01.7351 Ehrhard,L.. Jacobi
Letter Report Engineering Group
.0 In't.IU. I.u.r re: Test Pit Gerken.$.- Canonl,
Cozla,D. . U.S. EPA Correspondence
8
COZZI,D. . u.s. EPA Correspondence
9
Cozze,D. . u.s. EPA Corre$~ondence
10
-------
hge Mo. 2
01/10/91
ADMIMJSTIATIVE IECORD INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/COR( IT. LAMDfl~L SUPERfUND SITE
ULAMAZOO, MICIIUWI
fiCHE/flAME PAGES DATE TITU AUTIICII I£CIPI£IIT DOa.tIEIiT TYPE DOCIU-.
Locltlon Sllectlon En'ilrWDlntll
and Proposed PrK8Cb"1I
Cort St. Landfll~
7 89/04/06 Lettlr rl: TechnlclL Dbrldo'ilc,M. . Canonll Cozzl,D.' u.S. EPA Correspondence l'
MtlllDrlndua GrOWld Wlter EnviroraenuL
Pumping TIst' Cork St.
LandfilL Sltl
2 89/09/22 Litter rl: COGmentl of PhILllpa,S.. MONR Mictl,f. . u.S. EPA Correspondence 12
NONR .on thl PrlL i.lnary
PhlSI I lemedllL Inveatl.
iltlon leport, Cort St.
LandfiLL Sitl
I
1 89/10/12 Monthly StltUl;Re~rtf Obrldovlc,M.' Canonll Mlckl,f.. U.S. EPA Corrlspondencl 13
Mo.20. Envlroraentll
1..
2 89/11/09 Obrldovlc,M. . Canonll Obradovlc,M.. Canonll Mlckl,f.. U.I. EPII Correspondencl 14
Envl rOl'lll8nuL £nvl roraentlL
89/11/28 Llttlr ria thl Ilat Mlckl,f. . U. I. EPA MlnaLly,I.- NDNI Corrlspondencl 15
IInenJDent to be prlpared
al 'Don I' poillbll; thl
requelc 01 I prl'iloua
flhone
caLL on 11/2/89
90/01/04 Llttlr ria Appro'ill IUch,". . MIdi. rll_zoo Correspondencl 16
of thl Prll181nary Disposil Slrvlce
Phl..1 Remedial
Investigation 'Iport
for thl MIChl~
DisposaL lerv II. ,.
I
5 90/03/19 CccnnenU on Michigan' prendlvllll,T.' U.S. E'A MlnaLly,D. . Correspondence 17
Disposal Addenda rei_zoo
2 90/04/18 Lltt,r rl' requesting K~wlrd.A. . MeW. UlLrlch,D. . u.S. Correspondencl 18
n-evalultlon E'A
-------
Pa,1 810. 3
07/10/91
ADMIIiISTRATIVE IECORD IIIDD
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANDfiLL SUPEIFUND liTE
KALAMAZOO, MIC8IIGAN
FICHE/FlAME 'AGES DATE 1 ITLE AUTIIDI I£CI'IE8II DOCLIIfIiT TY'E DOCIlUlll£I
Z 90/06/13 Ilvbed Clppll'l8 'Lan Sadowskl,I.- N08I1 Dlkruytlr,~. - "I Corres~e 19
Cork It. LandfLII' DI,p.
6 90/06/19 Llttlr rl: Drift Dltilled G.rkln,S. . Canonll Nlctl,F. -u.S. EPA Correspond.ncl 20
Analysl. of Altlrnatlv.. Envlronaaental
Work Plan Cork Str..t
Landfill, Trlneb Drlln
(,IIAlUOo,MI
1 90/06/26 Cork St. Type III Der:ruyter ,~. . Lelp, T. . Jl)IIR Corrlipondencl 21
LandfiLl, Trtncb Mlchlaln Dispo'il
Service
9 90/01/11 Clpplna Plan i,' Iralthwaltl,J. . Sadowskl,r. . MDNR Correspondencl 22
Revisions Cor':' Iralthwaitl Consultanta
St. Landfill' .~, Incorporated
'11~zoo County
9 90/08/21 R.vl.w of Drift lemedlal We.ton' (ruaa,C. 'r.ndlyllll,T.. U.S. Correspondence 23
Investlaltlon of thl Gllbertun,I.II. EPA
Mlchfa8n DI.po.al
Landfl it
Z 90/08/24 Llttlr rll II.ponal lralthwaltl,I.- 'redlyllll, 1. . U.s. Correspondencl 24
on behalf of IIldilaan .aralthwalte EfA
Dispoial 'I",'ce COI\Iultant.
rcaardlne thl cap
construction actlvltl..
4 90/08/24 Lltt.r rl: A.sumed D.Kruytlr,J. . IIlchla8n Prendlvllll,t.. Correspondencl 25
rupon.lbl I Ity jof Disposal Servlc. U... EPA
Remedial 'roJ's...
Manaa.r for Cork St.~
Landfill Sltl .
1 90/10/04 Llttlr rll Inspection C~IN,D. Spllur ,W. . MI Correspondencl 26
of 1/19/90 Hl.II\an SIr
12 90/12/07 levlew of thl Draft 1:IIIner,II., Gllberuan, Pr.ndlvllll,T.. Correspondencl 27
~elslbility Study for Wilton U.S. EPA
-------
PIgllio. 4
07/10/91
~MIIIISTIATlVf IECORD INDEX
MIClllGAIi DISPOSAL SERVICE/coar ST. LAYCflLL SUPElFUIID SITE
WAMAZOO, MICIlIGAII
fiCHE/fRAME PAGES DATE TITLE aurllCR IECIPIEIiT DOCLMEIIT TYPE DOCIII.IIID
Landfill Superfund
Ih.
3 90/12/19 Lattlr rl: Trln58~tt.1 'Irken,S. - Canonl. 'randlvIU.,T. -U.S. Corrlspondencl 28
Response. to Agency Envl ronllltnul EPA
Comments Cork Strllt
Landfill Superfund Sitl
7 91/01/23 Revllw of Canonl.,. Gllbertsen,l. - Wiston Prendlvllll,T.- U.S. Correspondenca 29
Response. to U.S. EPA
EPA'. C~t, on the
drift II liport
and I..ellne Illk
Assesuaent
5 91/02/07 Lettlr re: to Infbna 1 IIgl.,D.. MOil. Prlndlvill., T. - Correspondence 30
thl MDNR cClllllle(\ta on the U.S.EPA
final dr.fta and'
Idclen6.8a
to thl Remedial
I nyestl gatl on
leport and Rlak
A"8IS8Int
for thl Cork St. Landfill
35 91/02/21 Lattlr ra: att.c:hld flgle,D. - MOIIR Prendlvllle,T. - Correspondencl 31
a lilt of State 0' U.I. EPA
Michigan appllcabl. or
relltly. and ARAR.
WI I ch thl lID... h.a
Idlntlflld .. appllcabl.
or potlntlally appllcabl~
to the Michigan Dispoial
alt.
4 91/04/23 Litter rl: .ttached ira h;l.,D. . MONR PrendlvlUa,T. -U.S. Correspondence 32
I
comment. raclavld from EPA
fllix Acaul,
toxfcllogllt
with the Special Serylell
Section
.,
i "105/20 .oylew of Rlvlsed WI.ton,I., for the PrendlvlUe,T. . Correspondenc:e ~':t
-------
"lie 110. 5
01/10/91
ADMUIlSTUTlVE RECORD IIIDEX
MICHIGAII DISPOSAL SERVICE/COR, ST. LAMDflLL SUP£RfUWD 511£
WAM.UDD, MI~IIIGAII
fiCKE/fRAME PAGES DATE II TLE AUT IICI8 I£CIPIEIIT DDCLII£IIT TYPE ODCIltlllEI
Draft f...lbility IIlchleM Dflpoaal u.s. If A
Stud)' Landf It I prepared
by Canonll Environ.
.ntal Incorporated
28 91/05/28 Letter ra: cD8pl.tlon £1111',0. - IIDNR Prlndlvlll',T. - Correspondence 3"4
of review of Revision U.S. EPA
110. 2 of the Draft
fe.slbility Itud)'
for thl Cork Stre.t
Landfill Superfund
27 86-90 MonltorlOll R.sultl Drawlngs/Di,"rams 35
I
6 91/06/11 W.ter Utilization Drawir.gs/Di.grams 36
Stud)'
. 89/01/00 Pollution Investigation U.5. £PA U.S. EPA fact Sheet 37
II Undlrway
" 89/~/OO Questions and Anlwlr. U.I. EPA U.I. EPA fact Sheet 38
about Pollution Study
Z 81111/20 C£RCLA 122 Adminiitrativi Gadl,M.A. Constlnt.lol,I.- Memor andI.ID 39
Order by Consent for u.s. EPA
Mlchlean Dlsposll Slrvlca
. MemorandLa
4 18/11/10 Cork St. Dlvllopment HIII.,D. - IIDIII DelCruyt.r..I. - IU .40
Company Siction 36, T21. Dl1p.
111W, lCalam8Zoo Township
"
Z 89/09/05 C-ntl on lr~:ItJ. MfleJcz.k,l. - MOIII Phillips,S. - HONR Memorandl.a 41
Landfill Remedl~' ~
Investlgltlon Report
and .aslllni Risk
, 90/09/07 Comments'on Cork St. Prendlvllle,T. - HemorinduQ 42
Landfill lca.dla' U.S. EPA
Investigation Report
and Basiline Risk
-------
Pall' 110. 6
07"0/91
ADMIIIIITRATIVE IECORD IIDEX
MICKIGAM DISPOSAl SERVICE/CORa: ST. LANDFILL SUPEafUND SITE
ULAMAZOO, MICMIGAII
fICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUlIIOI HCIPIEIIT DOCLI4ENT tYPE DOC8IIWJ
2 - 90/09/11 Water Dlvfafon .a. Irylon,D. . U.S. lAP ULLrfch,D.A. . U.S. MlIIOrancUa "3
reviewed thl 1~laL EPA
Inv.stfgatlon leport
1 90/12/10 C~nt. on Cork St. l:_e,I. ICIA - Prlndlvllle,t. - MlIIOrandua ..4
Landfill feaalbllitr - U.I. EPA u.S. EPA
Stuay
4 90/12/11 Wat.r Division levle~ Watter,E.P. - U.I. EPA IIlederg8n8,N. - U.I. M~randum 4S
of Draft fea.lblLitr EPA
Stuay for IlIdllean
Olapoall Landfill
luperfLni Sit.
I
2 90/12/12 Review of th~ Draft I Tran, X. - u.S. EPA Prendlvl u., T. - Memorandum 46
,
Feasibility ~tuay for u.S. EPA
thl Michigan ~laposaL
14 91/02/13 Cork St. LandfilL' Iyrd, L.A. - MONI Crale,J. . U.S. EPA MemoranduD ..7
Analytl~al a,aulta
3 91/02/25 fax Transmittal r.: T,ob,l. . MOIII Eagl.,D. . MONR MCIIIOr andLIII 48
Review of Cork It.
LandflU FS
6 91/03/26 Various memora r'l TNChan, J. ~ MONI Howard ,A. - U.S. Memorandr.a 49
Prot'~tIYe Value 0' EPA
Mini- Landf II I Cap
Requlr_nta Contained
in the A~t "" lule.;
frott Protactlon
.
p..
. -I.
2 91/04/11 Wetland Determlnailon rlco,s.r. 'MeNI Truchan, J. MeNR MemorancUD 50
91/06/07 Comment. on Cork St. rlelman,J. - U.S. EPA Prendlvllle,T.'U.S. Memorandl,a 51"
LindH U EPA
..
3 91/06/17 Frost Protectlva Layer Cralg,J. . MeNI Eail.,D. - U.S. EPA Memoral'ldua si
for Cork Street LandfilL
;uPlrfund Sitl
-------
'a" Mo.
01/10/~1
7
ADMUIiSTlATIVE UCQRI) IIIDEX
NICHIGAW DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANOflLL SUPERFUND SITE
PL AMAZDD. 8.. CHI GAIl
fiCIE/fiAME 'AGES DATE
TitLE
NJTIIDI
IECIPIEIIT
DDCUHEMT TYPE
DOCJUt8£
2 88/12/08 EPA Study to leg\n U.5. iPA . ".5. EPA lIe1llS Ie I ease 53
At Michigan Disposll
Seryice/Cork St. Landfl11
1 87/11/23 Letter re: HandMrltten Other 54
diagram of the intlll
Investlgltlon of the
drl.lll ana
1 90/08/11 Marratlve S~ry Other 55
01 Cork St. Landfll1
Capping Construction
Activities
2 ~0/08/27 Cork St. Landfill Other 56
Cap Critical .'Mon
crltlca1
1 8911 1/01 LOi re: Munlclpa1 Miley. C. Ecology "e",C. Phone Log 57
"ellflelda and Envl rOl'88nt. Inc.
13 & ,.
47 87/10115 A~lnlstratlve Order Michigan Disposal Service Clty/Kllamazoo, MI Pleadings/Orders 58
Iy Consent re: aemedla1 Corp.
Inv.stlgatlon and
f..slbUltv
Study
1~6 88/12/22 Motion for prel hll.tllry g.blult. c. . Stata Pleadings/Orders 59
Injunction Mlchlgln of Michigan
Dlspol~1 ser# v
8IOMR . .A.
,
I
32 89/06/02 Michialn Disposil KeI1ey,f.J. - Atty Clerk Pleadings/Orders 60
Service Corp y MDMR General. Statel
and David Hales KII~~zoo Michigan
.Clrcult court ~o-
E.-88-3159-A1
-------
Paae 110. 8
07110/91
AElMIIiISTRATlV£ aECORD IJII)EX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
ULAMAZOO, MICHIGAII
fIC~E/FRAME PAGES DATE 'ITLE AUTHOR IECIPIEIIT DOCUMENT TYPE DOCIII.IIIIEI
Inj&n:tion Service
343 9D/04/07 Deposition re: Mifhie8n Spaniolo,O. - lIotary Pleadines/Orders 62
Disposal Service vol. 1 & Public, county of lnar..
2 State of Michiean
2 90/01,/24 Letter re: Response ULlrich,D. - I,I.S. EPA Howard,A. - MD~R Pleadings/Orders 63
from EPA'. request
for direction on
remediation 8Ctivites
362 89/05/00 Final Remedial COM USEPA Report/Studies 64
Investiaation Report
For West tL Avenue
Lendfill
Community Relaii~ ' Jacobs Enaineerin; Report/Studies 65
69 89\03\00 I USEPA
Plan - Mlchie8l\ Group Inc.
Disposal Service'
(Cork Street Landfill)
160 81/09/00 Hydro;eoloelcal Study Geolo;ical Services. Dispos-O-Waste Co. Reports/Studies 66
for the Cork Street Inc.
Lendfill
72 81/10/14 Environmental Assessment Herman.t. - Michi;an MOIIR Reporta/Studies 67
for the Cork St. Lendfill Disposal Service
Section 36 of 'ai_zoo
Township
36 82/04/17 Responses to Questions Geololllc:al Servlces,lnc. Overholt,W. - Gove Reports/Studies 68
Hydrolleoloilical Study Assoc.
for the Cork St. Lendflll
i'
J..
207 88/01/00 Addendl.lll to the Hydri,- Wilkins & Wheaton Michiean Disposal Reports/Studies 69
;eolo;ic Investigation Environmental Services Service
for the Cork St.
Landf ill
6 8&i01/11 Y.dsworth Center Reports/Studi es 70
for Laboratories end
Research
-------
Palle 110. 9
071"'/91
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IIIDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/COR' ST. LANDfILL SUPERFUND SITE
kALAMAZOO, IUCHIGA8I
fiCHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUT lIOII HCIPIEIIT D~NT TYPE DOCIIIIMIEI
306 88/02/00 Sit. Investleatlon eat8lllZoo,IU Cork It. Landfitl Reports/Studi 8. 71
PI," QA proJ.et Ptan PRP.
Ileal th and ..fetYj Plan
Phlse I Rtmedlal
Investigation Cork
St. Landfill Site
t3 88/07/01 Varian Spe'tra Reports/Studies 72
30/'0 Ze~ Report
18 88/07/08 Status Information Reports/Studi.. 73
Report
30 88/07/10 Analysis Report Summary Reports/Studies 74
5 88/07/10 Varian Speetra Reports/Studi8I 7S
30/'0 Zeeman RepOrt
18 88/10/07 Proposed Trench Drain Wilkins & Wheaton Cork St. Landfill Reports/Studi.. 76
System for the Cork Environmental Inc.
St. Landfi U
7 89/04/14 Preliminary Nealth Reports/Studies 77
Assessment for Mlehlgan
Disposal Servie.
8 89/12/04 Monthly StatUi leport Mulholland, S. . C~le Mlk.,f. . U.S. EPA Reports/Studl.. 78
110. 22 'al~loo, 141 Envl ronmental
455 90/07100 Remedial InveSileltlon 'alamazoo,Mlchlean Cork St. Landf. PRPs Reports/Studie. 79
and hsellne p~
Assessment . -!-
Cork St. landfitl
superfl6ld St.
Landfill Superfund sit.
1 01 2
"2 90/07/00 Reuedial Investigation Cork St. lendflll 'Itemlzoo.Mlthlean Reports/Studies 80
and Basel in. Risk Potentially Responsible
~c.cc:"..."t' Parties
-------
..8e Mo. 10
07/10/91
ADMINISTRATIVE IECDIID IIIDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SE8YICE/tOR~ ST. lAKDflLL SUPElfUKD SIT£
1ALAMAZOO, NICKIIAAII
fiCKE/flAKE PAGES DATE TITLE AUTIIOI HCIPIE.., DOCUMENT TlPE 0CIt»
auperfund It.
Landfi~~ Superfund lit.
1 of 2
23 90/07/OQ woe Pl_o, .or Michilian 'r.lth~.itl Canau~tant. Mieni;an Disp. Corp. leports/Studils 81
Dispos.~/Cork St. Sitl
90 90/12/00 Addeadr.A to thl finaL Canonil Envlr~t.~ leporu/Studies 82
Drift II leport IA Cork
StreIt LandfiL~ Superfund
Sit.
98 91/03/05 Lettlr rl: eGallntl PrendlvlUI,T. . U.S. EPA NlniLly.l. . ieporUJ$tUliieli 83
for thl Drift fS for hl...~oo
thl HI Dis~s.1 Superfund
Sitl
552 91/04/00 levlsed D'I~. .eport fS 1:11 IlIIlZoo, HI Cork St. PI'I leporU/5tUliles 84
Cork St. LlldflU
Superfund ;. .
Ih.
20 91/05/01 Cork St. L.r~fi~~ . GrUhor't.L. . W 1l1I~.,D. 'MDNI Repor u/StUliI e, 85
WWEI 'roJlct ~o. 27606 Inllinelrlnil & Seiene,.
C... IID.-613 .' .1111:.
43 00/00/00 Audio VI,ual H.t.rll~1 MApa 86
-------
P.ge 110. 1 ~
D7I2JJ191
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL/CORK ST. LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
UPOATE 110. 1
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
'FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOC\.IIENT TYPE ooaa IMBER
2 88/08/22 Constantelos,B. - Guenther ,G. - tl>NR DeKruyter .J. - U.S. Correspondence 1
U.S. EPA EPA
2 88/08/26 Letter re: Oper.ting H.les, D. - MONR DeKruyter ,J. Correspondence 2
License Applications
for Cells .1 and t2
2 88/11110 Operating License Hakes,D. - MONR DeKruyter,J. Correspondence 3
Application for Cells
13 and ... Cork St.
L.ndfill
6 89/03/16 Letter re: Test Pit Gerken,S. . C.nonl. Cozz.,D~ - U.S. EPA Correspondence 4
Location Selection Envirorvnentll
and Proposed Proce-
dures Cork St. Landfill
2 89/09/22 Letter re: Comments of Phillips,S. - MONR Mickie,F. - U.S. EPA Correspondence 5
the HONR on the Prelimi.
nary Ph.se I Remedial
Investigation Report,
Cork St. Landfill Site
6 90/06/19 Letter re: Dr.ft Gerken,S. - Canonie Micke,F. . U.S. EPA Correspondence 6
Det.iled Analysis Envi ronnentll
of Alternatives Work
Pl.n Cork Street
L.ndflL l Site
4 88/11/10 Director's Order 10 Hales,D. - MONR DeKruyter,J. - MONR Memorandull 7
Cease and Desist
91/03/26 Protective Value of Truchan,J. Chief Howard,A. - DNR Memor and1.ln 8
Minimum Landfill Environment.l Response
Cap Requirements Division
Contained in The
Act 641 Rules
2 91/010/11 ~etland Determination KLco,S.' MONR Truchan,J. - MO~R Memorand\n 9
-------
'ate 110.
07 1U191
2
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL/CORK ST. LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
UPDATE NO. 1
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAtI
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT "PE
DOCIIWER
1
91/05/22
Frost Protective
Layer for Cort Street
Landt ill
Eagle, D. - MONR
Craig,.I. - \oM)
MeIIIorancUII
10
3
91/06/17
FRost Protective Layer
for Cork St. Landfill
Superfund Site
Craig, .I. - WMO
Eagle.D.- ERO
MemorancUII
11
2 89/11/01 Phone Log re: Maley,K. . Ecology and Neal,le. Phone Logs 12
conversation Environmental, Inc.
regarding Municipal
Well fields 13 & 18
52 89/07/00 Technical Guidance U.S. EPA EI'A Reports/Studies 13
Docl.m!nt: Final
Covers on Hazardous
Waste Landfills and
Surface Impoundments;
Frost Protection
-------
r'lI~ ~o. 1 *
09/20/91
-------
hge 110. 2
09/20191
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IIIDD
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANDFILL MO.2
ICALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
FICHEIFRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOQJ4ENT nPE DOCNlJIBER
3 91/07/31 Letter re: EPA's proposed Holub,D. - Dept. of Schutte,P. - U.S. Correspondence 8
plan for addrHsLng the Plamlng & C~lty EPA
Michigan Disposal Service Development
Superfund afte fn
lCal...loo
2 91/09/0it Letter re: concern with Senator 'au I Wartner Schutte,'. - U.S. Correspondence 9
the proposed clean up EPA
actions being proposed
by EPA for Michfgan
Disposal Service
Superfund Site
2 91/09/06 Letter re: Kalamezoo Shugars,D. . House Schutte,P. - U.S. Correspondence 10
and Michigan Disposal of Representatives EPA
Services have contacted
my office end are very
concerned with the
proposed
cle~ actfons
2 91/09/06 Letter re: Concern wfth Welborn, J. - Senate, Schutte,P. - U.S. Correspondence 11
the proposed cleanup Lansing, Michigan EPA
actions being proposed by
the EPA for the Michillan
Disposal Service
Superfund
Site
5 91/09/09 Letter re: Completed Howard, J. - MONR Traub, J. . U.S. EPA Correspondence 12
revjew of the final
proposed plan for MI
Disposal Service Corp.
3 91/09/10 Letters re: Comments on Dunsky,C., Brown,M. Schutte,P.- U.S. EPA Correspondence 13
Proposed Plan for Cork
Street Landfl U
17 91/07/10 letter re: attached fs Schutte,P., Prendlville, Resfdent Fact Sheet 14
a copy of a fact sheet T. - U.S. EPA
about the contiminatlon
problems at the Mlchillan
Disposal Service (Cork
-------
~,e Uo. 3
119/20191
ADMINISTRATIve RECCRO INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANDFILL NO.2
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCU4ENT TYPE DOCWMBER
.Street Landfill)
Superfln:f
Site in Kalamazoo.
Z 91/06/10 Landfill tap Requlr-.nta Royeraft,P. . fIINR Hovard,A. . U.S. EPA Memoranci.a 15
91/06/17 Contelrment. On Mansbach,S. . U.S. EPA UlIrich,D. . U.S. "-rara. 16
Consultation, Michigan EPA
Disposal Landf.
4 91/07/10 Composite Caps at Cralg,J. . MONR Eagle,D. . U.S. EPA Memorandlln 17
Act 641 Landfills
2 91/09/18 Impact of Closing Cork Phillips,S.. MONR Cralg,J. . MONR Memor.ndun 18
Street LAndfill on Solid
Waste Planning In
".lam8100
County
1 91/09/18 MI Disposal Site Landreth,R. - U.S. EPA Prendlvllle,T.. HemorandIJn 19
EPA ID MID 006029102 U.S. EPA
2 91/07-08 Publ I c Comnent Sheet U.S. EPA Klevlt,R. Public Comnent 20
re: comnents from
a resident near the
Michigan Disposal
site
91/07-08 Public Comment Sheet Rinlc,C. Schutte,P. - U.S. Public Comnents 21
EPA
91/07-08 Public Comnent Sheet PIb l! c U.S. EPA Public Comments 22
re: opinion of .
resident near the
Michigan Dfspo..l
ait.
48 91/07/17 Public Hearing re: U.S. EPA MI Disposal Plbllc Hearing 23
Michigan Disposal Ser.Superf.St
Service Superfund
Site
-------
Page 11:1.
09/20191
'.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANDFILL 10.2
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT OOt1MENT TYPE DOCNlJ4BER
, 91/01/08 P1.tIlt c COIIIIIents re: U.S. EPA P\bll c P\bUc Meetlna 24
FeasibIlIty Study 8nd
Proposed Clearql Plan
83
91/09/09
COIIIIIenti on Proposed Plan Tripp,D. . CCQWel
for tork Street LandfIll. for CIty of ralamezoo
Kalamazoo. MI Catt.
Petition
/Court)
Schutte.P. . U.S.
EPA
Reports/Studies
25
-------
Pige No.
07/2Z191
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK STREET
Guidance Documents Ire IVlillble for review It
USEPA Region V-Chicigo IL
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
Covers for Uncontrolled USEPA 85/09/00
Hazlrdous Waste Sites
Discharge of USEPA 86/0l./15
Wastewater frclll
tERCLA Sites into
Pub li c l Y Owned
Treatment Works
(POTWs)
S\4)erfund Remedial USEPA 86/06/D1
Design Ind Remedill
Acticn (RD/RA)
Guidance
S\4)erfund Risk USEPA 86/11/00
Assessment Information
Directory
Guidelines for USEPA 81/0Zl09
Producing Superfund
Documents
Dati Quality Objectives USEPA 87/03/00
for Remedial Response
Activities: Volumes
1 & 2
Community Rtlltiona USEPA 88/06/00
In Superfund: A
Hlndbook (Interi.
Guidance)
CERCLA Compliance Mith USEPA 88/08/00
Other Laws Mlnual,
Part I (Interim Final)
Guidance for Conducting USEPA 88/10/00
Remedial Investigations
Ind Feasibility Studies
(RI/FS> Under CERCl.A
Guidance on Remedial USEPA 88/12/00
Actions for Contaminated
Ground Water at Superfund
Sites
A Guide on Remedill USEPA 8910l.100
-------
Page 110-
07/22191
2
TITLE
Actions for
Cont8IDi I'I8ted Grcuwj
Water
Policy for Superfund
Compliance with the
RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions
A!)plicable or
Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) Os I As
Expediting Remedial
Construction
Determining Soil
Response Act i on
Levels Based on
Potential Contaminant
Migration to
Ground Water:
A C~ndil.lll of Ex~les
A Guide to
Developing Superfund
Records of Decision
A Guila to
Developing Superfund
Proposed Plana
The Fees i bfl i ty
Study: Development
and Screening of
Remedial Action
Al ternatives
Gett i n; Ready:
Scoping the RI/FS
Guidance on Oversi;ht
of Potentially
Responsible Party
Performed Remedial
Design .~ Remedial.
Action
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK STREET
Guidance Documents are available for review at
USEPA Region V-Chicago IL
AUTHOR
DATE
USEPA
89/04/17
USEPA
89/05/00
USEPA
89/10!QO
USEPA
89/10/00
USEPA
89/11/00
USEPA
89/11100
USEPA
89/11/00
USEPA
89/11/00
USEPA
90/02/14
-------
Page No.
07/22/91
3
TITLE
The Feasibil hy
Study: Detai Led
Analysis of Ren.ctiaL
Action Alternatives
Plaming for
Sufficient COIIIIU\ity
Relations
A Guide to Selecting
Super11R1 RemediaL
Actions
CERCLA CompLiance
with Other Laws
Manual, Part 11:
W, TSCA, and
Other SUtuUs
AIARs Qs & As:
Compliance with the
Toxicity Characteristics
Rule: Part 1
AllAh Qs & As:
Compl i anee wi th
Water QuaLity tritera
Guidance on Expediting
RemediaL Design and
Remedial Action
Streamlining the RI/FS
for CERtLA Municipal
Landf ill Si tes
lIS ~s of P~ and
Treat Ground Water
Remediation TechnoLogy
CERCLA Site
Discharges to
POTWs: Guidance
Manual
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK STREET
Guidance Docl.IIIents are aVli Lable for review at
USEPA Region V-Chicago IL
AUTHOR
DATE
USEPA
90/03/00
USEPA
90/03/07
USEPA
90/04/00
USEPA
90/04/00
USEPA
90/05/00
USEPA
90/06/00
USEPA
90/08/00
UUPA
90/09/00
USEPA
90/09/00
USEPA
90/09/00
-------
Page No.
07/22/91
10
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
23
90/07100
90
90/12/00
98
91/03/05
552
91/04/00
20
91/05/08
43
00/00/00
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORO INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
TITLE
Cork Street Landfill
S~rfund Site Vol. 2 of
2
GA/GC P~an for Michigan
Disposal/Cork St. Site
AddenI:Iun tl) the Final
Draft RI Report RA Cork
Street Landfill Superfund
Site
Letter re: comments
for the Draft FS for
the HI Disposal Superfund
Site
Revised Draft Report FS
Cork St. Landfill
Superfund
site
Cork St. Landfill
WVES Project NO. 27606
Case NO. 613
Audio Visual Materials
AUTHOR
Braithwaite Consultants
Canonie Environmental
RECIPIENT
DOCUitENT TYPE
DOCNUHBER
Michigan Disp. Corp. Reports/Studies
Prendiville,T. - U.S. EPA Hinsley,'. -
Kallllllzoo
KalIllllZoo,MI
Grifhorst,L. - WW
Engineering & Science.
Inc.
Cork St. PRPs
£agle,D. -MONR
81
Reports/Studies
82
Re~rta/Studi ..
13
Reports/Studies
84
Reports/Studi es
85
Mapa
86
-------
Page No.
09/26/91
,
fltHE/FRAHE PAGES DATE
2
91109/25
TITLE
Memo re: Draft Record of
Decision Michigan
Disposal
Service Landfill Site,
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE/CORK ST. LANDFILL
UPDATE tf3
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
e
AUTHOR
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCNUMBER
RECIPIENT
Adatsi,F. - MDNR
Eagle,C. - U.S. EPA Memorandum
------- |