United Statw
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R09-88/018
September 1988
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
MGM Brakes, CA
-------
50772 -101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION /1. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R09-88/018
I~
3. Recipient's Accnalon No.
4. Title end Subt'''e
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
MGM Brakes, CA
First Remedial Action - Final
.'
s. R~I~e/88
I.
'. Author(.)
8. Perform In. O,.enlzatlon RePt. No.
9. Performln. O,.enlntton Name and Add,...
10. Project/Tuk/Work Unit No.
-_.._-
11. eomract(C) or Grant(G) No"
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsorin. Or.anintlon Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
II. Abstract (Umit: 200 word.)
The MGM Brakes site consists of a five-acre plot containing an automotive brakes
casting' plant, a paved area surrounding the plant, and an open field. It is located in
the community of Cloverdale, California, in Alexander Vall~YI approximately 80 miles
north of San Francisco. Forty homes, an apartment complex, a church, an animal grazing
arear and several construction companies exist within a half-mile radius of the site.
In addition, a 200 unit housing development' is under construction immediately adjacent
to the site. Surface wat'er drainage from the site flows into Icaia Creek 'which flows
into the Russian River. From 1965 until 1972" hydraulic fluid containing PCBs was
!is charged onto site property. 'Wastewater containing ethylene glycol was disposed
onsite between 1972 and 1981. The ethylene glycol acted as a co-solvent with water,
facilitating the transport of PCBs in soil. Approximately 13,510 yd3 of soil within a
3-acre area have been contaminated with PCBs at concentrations up to 4500 ppm. The
majority of contamination is present at depths of less than 5 feet (although
contamination to 29 feet was found in one area). In addition, VOCs have been detected
in ground water from wells on and near the site. However, the source of this
contamination is unknown. The primary contaminants of concern affecting ground water
are VOCs including TCE and benzene. The primary contaminants of concern affecting soil,
sediments, surface water, and air are PCBs.
(See Attached Sheet)
, ,
17. Document Analysl. a. DescriPtors
Record of 'Decision
MGM Brakes, CA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: air, gw, sediments, soil, sw
Kev Contaminants: PCBs
11. Icfentrfiers/Open.Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. ,Availability Statement
-
21. No, of Pages
200
--
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
22. Price
.n.! ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instrucrions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-771
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R09-88/0l8
MGM Brakes, CA
First Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes: dismantling of the MGM Brakes
process building; crushing of concrete slab, and excavation of soil and of contaminated
sediments in the drainage ditch containing PCBs at levels greater than or equal to 10
mg/kg, with disposal in an off site RCRA Class II landfill if below 50 ppm and a
TSCA-approved landfill if above 50 ppm; determination and removal of VOC-contaminated
soil and offsite RCRA disposal; pump and treatment of ground water for PCBs and VOCs
through use of an onsite mobile treatment unit and discharge to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW); soil replacement, regrading, compaction, and revegetation;
offsite ground water monitoring to determine extent of VOC contamination; and
development of additional ~emedial measures, if warranted. The estimated capital cost
for this remedial action is $5,369,300 with no annual O&M costs.
) .
-------
RECORD OF DECISIOO
DECLARATIOO STATEr1ENT
PG1 Brakes Site
Cloverdale, California
STATEMENI' OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the MGM
Brakes site in Cloverdale, California, developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) , as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan
40 CFR Part 300 (1987)(NCP). This decision is based on the Admdnistrative
Record for this site. The attached index identifies the items .which
comprise the AdnUnistrative Record.
Surface and subsurface soils at the MGM Brakes Site have been contaminated
with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as a ~esult of the direct discharge
of waste~ter containing hydraulic fluids and PCBs. PCB soil
concentrations. of up to 4,500 mg!kg (parts pe.r million or ppn) have !::Ieen
detected, with~depth of contamination down to 29 feet below ground level.
Samples of the ~ement slab below the MGM Brakes casting facility have.
produced PCB levels of up to 5,400 mg!kg. PCBs continue to be released
from the site in surface water ~off. PCBs have been detected in air
samples collected on-site and along the borders of the site.
:
In addition to the PCB soil problem, chlorinated volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene,
trichloroethylene, dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride have been detected in
groundwater ~lls located on-site and immediately off-site. Benzene was
also recently detected in an offsite ~ll. The presence of the chlorinated
benzenes can be associated wi th the release of PCBs, as chlorinated
benzenes are cCllm:>n to PCB mixtures. The source of the benzene and the
trichloroethylene, and its breakdown products dichloroethene and vinyl
chloride, is not known. However, one purpose of this Record of Decision is
.-i-
598.7:3
-------
to establish the measures which will be used to identify and remediate the
voc groundwater problem concurrently with the PCB soil problem.
DESCRIPTICN OF SELECI'ED REMEDY
The selected remedy for the PCB contaminated soils is excavation of
contamdnated soils above 10 mg/kg and transport for off-site disposal at a
TSCA landfill. This remedy addresses the principal threats at the site,
which are exposure to PCBs via ingestion, direct contact, and inhalation
pathways. Removal of the contaminated soil to a 10 ID9/kg level will
significantly reduce the present and future on-site risk to human health
and the environment to a 10-5 oncogenic risk and provide unrestricted
future use of the property. The remedy will also include further
investigation of groundwater contamination with VOC's and restoration of
groundwater up to the. site boundary to the appropriate MCL or other
health-based standard such that the total risk will not exceed 10-6 .
This Record of Decision (ROD) is based on the second Feasibility Study
prepared by ~A for the s:ite. . The first reasibility Study id,entified
on-site incineration as the preferred remedy.
The MGM Brakes site is divided into two parcels for remediation activities.
Parcel I is the PCB-contaminated soil exclusive of that beneath the MGM
Brakes processing building and corresponding concrete slab. Parcel 2 is
the contaminated soil and concrete beneath the processing building.
Remediation of both parcels can occur concurrently (i.e., immediately
following issuance of this ROD) or separately (i.e., remediating Parcell
now and delaying remediation of Parcel 2). MOM Brakes is presently
manufacturing brake products at its casting facility on the site. A
separate remediation of Parcel 2 would allow MGM Brakes and the local
community time to plan and prepare for any disruptive effect stemming from
removal of the casting building. If implementation occurs separately,
remediation of parcel two will occur at a maximum of 10 years after
-ii-
598.7:3
-------
clean-up of Parcell or immediately after the casting plant is closed for
business, whichever occurs first.
The major components of the selected PCB soil and VOC groundWater remedies
include:
Parcell
Parcel 2
o
Construction of a staging area for remedial and oversight
activities. .
o
Excavation of approximaUy 10,650 cubic yards of contaminated
soil containing PCBs at a level of 10 mg/kg or greater.
Excavation of contaminated sediments in the drainage ditch
leading from the site such that the requirements of the Water
Quality Control Plan of the North Coast Basin are met.
o
o
Disposal of contaminated soil to a landfill permitted to accept
, PCBs and in compliance with S121(d)(3) of SARA.
Dewatering of soil excavated below five feet (approximate
groundwater level) by a sump pump in conjunction with a mobile
water treatment system to remove PcBs.
o
o
Discharge of treated groundwater to a local publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), or surface water body in compliance with
the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (l5Q:B's) Water' .
'Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin.
o
Soil replacement, regrading, compaction, and revegetation of
disturbed areas to prevent erosion.
o
Confi~tion sampling to ensure that a 10 mg/kg cleanup level has
been achieved and that PCBs are no longer detected in groundwater
and surface water.
o
same excavation and dewatering activities as Parcel 1.
Dismantling of the MGM Brakes process building.
o
o
Crushing of concrete slab and disposal of slab and remaining
contaminated soil in a landfill perDdtted to accept PCBs and in
compliance with S121(d)(3) of SARA.
-iii-
598.7:3
-------
VOC Groundwater
o
As part of PCB soil cleanup confirmation, analyze soil samples
for the presence of VOC? to locate source of VOC spill.
Remove VOC contaminated soils and dispose of in accordance with
the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA)..
o
o
Treat on-site VOC contaminated groundwater in treatment unit
described above.
o
Install additional down-qradient wells to evaluate extent of VOC
problem.
Develop for implementation additional remedial measures (e.g.,
pump and treat) if evaluation warrants.
o
DECI.ARATICN
The selected remedies for Parcell, Parcel 2, and VOC groundwater are
protective of human health and the environment, attain Federal and State
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and are cost effective. These remedies utilize per.manent
solutions and alternative treatment technol~ies to the maximum extent
practicable for this site. Because treatment of the principal threats of
the site was n~t found to be practicabl~; the selected remedy does not use
. ". ~
. . treatment as a principal element of. the remedy. .
EPA evaluated several treatment options before reaching its decision.
Incineration, EPA's first preferred alternative, woUld permanently destroy
the wastes; however, this alternative was removed from consideration as the
final remedy due to strong objections by the local community and EPA
concerns regarding implementation. EPA evaluated dechlorination of PCBs
using an alkaline polyethylene glycol treatment method. This alternative
would also detoxify the PCBs, but was deemed impracticable due to the
nature of site soils. EPA also evaluated fixation as a treatment
alternative. However, because fixation: (1) would not detoxify PCBs; (2)
would increase the volume of the contaminated soils; (3) would not address
the principle threat at the site through treatment; and (4) would require
long term monitoring, maintenance, and land use restrictions at the site, .
EPA rejected this alternative. EPA has identified excavation and off-site
disposal as its preferred remedy.
-iv-
598.7:3
f
-------
Because the remedy will not resul t in hazardous substances remaining on
site above health-based levels, the five year facility review will not
apply to this action.
9. '). q. 88
Date
.~~<~
Danle W. McGovern
Regional ~nistrator
£PA, Region 9
-v-
598.7:3
-------
TABLE OF COOTENTS
SEC'I'I~
Record of Decision
Declaration Statement
Statement of Basis and Purpose
Description of Selected Remedy
Declaration
.Record of Decision
I Site Location and Description
II Site History
III Community Relations History
IV Scope and Role of Response Actions
V Site Characteristics
VI SUIII1Iary of Risk'
VII Documentation of Significant Changes
VIII Description of Alternatives
IX Summary of the Comparative Analysis
X 'l11e Selected Remedy
XI Statutory Determinations
AdBdnistrative Record Index
PAGE
-
i
i
ii
iv
1
5
8
9
10
14
16
16
of Alternatives 21
51
53
-------
Responsiveness SUlllllary
I
Introduction
I.A
LB
II
II.A
II.B
II.C
III
III.A
IILB
IILC
III.D
IILE
Comments by Members of the Interested Public
Letter of Mr. & Mrs. Dee Reynolds
Comments Made at Communi ty l'Ieeting,
Cloverdale May 18, 1988
1-1
1-1
1-1
Comments' by State and Local Agencies
II-1
II-1
California Department of Water Resources,
Memorandum from James U. McDaniel, Chief,
Central District
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 11-2
North Coast Region, Dennis L. salesbury,
Associate Water Resource Control Engineer, Letter
to Glenn Stober, State Clearing House.
California Department of Health Services, Letter 11-7
from Michelle Rembaum, North Coast California
Section
Comments by the Potentially Responsible Parties
Ccmments by me;
Dr. James L. Byard's Report,
"Camnents on EPA Endangerment Assessment.
at the JIO't Brakes S1 te" .
Comments made by Rennedy/Jenks/Chilton on'
the Draft Feasibility Study. .
Estimates of on-site concentration of
PCBs in Ambient Air, JOt Brakes
Cancer Risk Estimates for Exposures to
PCBs During and Following Alternative
Remedial Action
111-1
III-1
111-31
III-34
I'II-53
III-55
-------
Responsiveness Summary Exhibits
Exhibit A - Record of Communication -
Telephone conversation between Carl Hange, Department of
w~terResources and Johanna Miller, EPA
exhibit B - Record of Communication -
Telephone conversation between Dennis Salisbury, RWOCB, and Johanna
Miller, EPA
EXhibit C - Memorandum, SueLoyd to John WOndolleck, ~, Regarding
Wastewater Disposal for MGM Brakes Treated Groundwater
Exhibit D - Memorandum -
Gerald Hiatt to Johanna Miller, EPA, Regarding Comments on Draft rs
Risk Assessment
Exhibi t E - Memorandum -
Sue Loyd to John Wondolleck CDM, Regarding Particulate Concentrations
During Construction Activities
Exhibi t F - I'!emor andum -
Phil Moyer to John Wondolleck CDM, Response to Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
Cost Coanents
Exhibit G - Record of Communication -
rred MUllins Qualtec and Sue Loyd CDM regarding 5011 Volume Increase
During Fixation .
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.
The MGM Brakes site is located in Cloverdale, California, a northern
California ccamunity in the Alexander valley approximately 80 miles north
of San Francisco (Figure 1). The MGM Brakes facilities, a portion of which
comprises the MGM Brakes Superfund site, are located at the southern edge
of the community.
r
The MGM Brakes division of Indian Head Industries, Inc. operates an
assembly plant and casting plant for automotive brakes, located on the east
and west sides of Highway 101. The assembly plant, a storage area, and
offices occupy three acres on the east side of the highway. The aluminum
casting plant and vacant field occupy five acres of land on the west side
. .
of the highway. The site consists of the fiye-acre plot which contains the
operating casting plant, a paved area su~rounding the plant, and an open
field to the far west" southwest, and sC?Uth of the plant (F.igure 2).
Adjacent property consists mainly of residential homes and construction
businesses. Within a half-mile radius of the site there are approximately
40 homes, an apartment complex, a church, a railroad track and several.
small construction industries. Additionally, a grazing area for cows and
horses is located 100 feet northwest of the site (see Figure 2). In
addition, a 200 unit housing development is under construction immediately
adjacent to the northern boundary of the si te.
The JIDI Brakes si te lies on the west side of a valley through which the
Russian River flows; the site is located less than 1 mile west of the
river. 'l1'1e site does not lie on the 100 year flood plain of the Russian
River. '11'1e topoqraphy of the site is relatively flat (1.0 to 1.5 percent
slope), but slopes gently to the south. SUrface water drainage fran the
MGM Brakes site flows south-southeast along a ditch paralleling Highway 101
toward Icaria Creek. Icaria Creek flows north-northeast approximately 1/2
-1-
598.7:2
-------
i -
I
I
ort"WNtem I'et:lflc Co. 1t8/lroed
~
-N-
m
CALIFORNIA
CltWerr181e
..... T,...".."" F~lIIty
11011 FabrlcatJon "'.nt
South Ckw8lfl818 W.., Co. Wells
/t1la/8ft /tlver
#e8lt. CI'Mk
Law L". AN.
.
1
z
MGM Brak.. Sit.
Figure
LOCATION MAP
1
-------
~ -:- --- -=- -~ -=--=... -- ~ ~
-~- - - - o.c..... - - - ~
r:..-.--- -- - - ~ --
- -~ -=w.= --..::E:..,jIo -~-~
;:- --- ---=- -=- ~ -- -=- ~ ---wL:.- - ,
N --'- - ::.:= - - ---- -- - - - ~
- -- ~---- :-';111- -~ -
~ .=- - -=--- ---=---= ~ ~ - --~
°0
o
HORSE
CORRAL
~ .SUN LUMBER
COMPANY
DIVERSION
DITC H
DITCH
~_.
DRAINAGE
I!
,
100
200
400
o
~
i
.
..
:
~GM Brake. Site
fEET
-----
\~!:~'!;~,)iii\~i~
~\~
.~
~
x
~
:J:
LEGEND
r -... LOCA'ION Of 'OIIlIIell
'-./ trOCII "LI
- A""..OIIIllAU A..eA WHe..e "c.
.... CON'AIilINAfiON HAl 8UN
OUICUO At ,. ,. ""III
. tce CON'AMlNA,eO WILL
f~~~ PlIlO
c=J "A,eo "A..IIINO LOt
- IWI..'UNO Ine 80UNOA'"
-
o
-
EXTENT OF PCB SOI~
CONTAMINATION >10 PP
F6g~.
2
-------
mile, where it merges with Port~rfield Creek. The combined streams flow
approximately 3/4 mile south before flowing into the Russian River (see
'1qure 1). Groundwater flow is south-southeast and the hydra~ic gradient
in this direction is about 0.014 feet per foot during the winter and about
0.012 feet per foot during the summer. The groundwater table is rather
shallow, fluctuating two to five feet below ground surface seasonally.
South of the MGM Brakes casting plant there is a slight depression. This
depression drains surface water to the southeast corner. An interim
'drainage ditch directs surface water flows southeasterly from the northwest
portion of the site plant to a west to east drainage ditch along the
southernmost property boundary. This ditch drains surface water away from
the site toward a.drainage ditch which runs parallel to Highway 101 (Fiqure
1) . The di tch runs southward on the west side of Highway 101. It then
crosses under the highway via a culvert, runs several hundred feet
southward on the east side of the highway, and then returns under the
highway via another culvert to the western side of the highway. The ditch
falls into a generally lQW lying area about one-half mile south of the
5i te. Just further south is Icaria Creek, Which flows to the Russian
River-. During periods of heavy rainfall, it is likely that the drainage
from the ditch flowS into. Icaria Creek and reaches the Russian River.
The local geology of the MGM site has been interpreted through a seismic
refraction survey, soil test borings, shallow test pits, and gamma logging.
These tests indicate that the site is 'underlain by a dark gray, siltstone
bedrock varying irregularly in depth from 3 to 32 feet. A very stiff,
micaceous, silty clay varying in thickness from about 2 to 20 feet,
depending on bedrock topography, overlies this bedrock and is a product of
extensive bedrock weathering. The very .stiff clay is in turn overlain to
the ground surface by silty sand and clayey gravel lenses emplaced in a
matrix of stiff, silty clays. The lenses do not appear to be continuous as
they cannot be traced between adjacent test borings.
The area on the west and south sides of the casting plant is underlain by
approximately four feet of fill. This fill consists of clays, gravels,
silts, and non-toxic aluadnum furnace dross (film skimmed from molten
-4-
598.7:2
-------
aluminum) , extending approximately 60 feet beyond the southern edge of the
parking lot. ~e fill was reportedly added in the mid-1960s and portions
were" paved over in the late 1960s.
II.
SITE HIS'roRY
~e land which comprises the MGM Brakes site is owned by Clover Castings,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of ~yssen-BornemiszaGroup, Inc. ("TBG").
~e parent company of TBG is TBG Holdings, Inc. Indian Head Industries,
Inc. owns and operates the casting plant on the site. ~e plant was
formerly operated by MGM Brakes, Inc.; MGM Brakes is now a division of
Indian Head Industries, Inc. The potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
for the site include all of the above-referenced companies, although not
all actions in this document identified as being perfo~ by PRPs were
perfo~ by all of them.
PCB discharges occurred from 1965 to 1972. In 1972 hydraulic fluids
containing PCBs were replaced with other products. Discharge of hydraulic
fluids containing ethylene glycol and wastewater continued until August,
~981. Portions of ~e property have been found to be contaminated with
. PCBs as a result of the discharge of the PCB-~aderi.hydraulic fluid.
~e North Coast California ~egional Water Quality Control aoard(NCRWQCB) "
and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) conducted an
inspection at the MGM Brakes casting plant on August 11, 1981. They noted
the presence of an oily material on the soils south of the plant building.
The NCRWQCB and DFG representatives informed the KGl1 plant manager that
discharge of wastes materials on the property soils had to be discontinued
and the visibly oily waste materials on the property soils had to be
cleaned up.
fIGII Brakes personnel scraPed up the oily materials with shovels and
stockpiled it on-site. fIGII Brakes contacted IT Corporation in Martinez,
California for waste disposal. Prior to accepting the material, IT
requested that a sample of the material be sent to them for analysis. On
September 28, 1981, IT Corporation informed MGM that the soil sample
contained PCB.
-5-
598.7:2
-------
The NCRWQCB issued Clean-up and Abatement Order .81-216 (November 1981),
which required MGM Brakes to submit and execute a remedial action plan and
to monitor groundwater for the presence of PCBs. These remedial activities
were primarily performed by consultants to the PRPs. The site was placed
on the SUperfund National Priorities List (NPL) ~n 1983. At this time, EPA
took the lead responsibility for this previously state-lead site.
EPA conducted a limited field investigation during the course of evaluating
remedial al ternati ves. The original EPA Feasibility Study (FS) was
initiated during 1985 and released in 1986. The first FS identified
incineration as the Agency's preferred alternative. Due to strong
opposition to incineration as well as other comments submitted during the
public c01!lDent period, EPA decided to do a revised FS. The revised FS was
initiated in 1987 and released for public comment in April 1988.
The following is a chronology of important MGM Brakes site activities and
investigations by the PRPS, state agencies, and EPA:
Sept 1981
Nov 1981
RWOCB and DFG inspect MGM Brakes facility and note
presence of oil~stained soil.
IT Corporation reports" that oily soils contain PCBs.
Aug 1981
Harding Lawson and Associates' (HLA) was .contracted by
PRPs to investigate "the extent of PCB soil'
contamination on the site.
Nov 1981
HLA prepared a proposed sampling program in
accordance wi th NC:RWQCB clean up and abatement order
No. 81-216.
Nov 1981-June 1983
HLA collected soil, surface water and groundwater
samples at MGM Brakes site and the surrounding
property.
lteMedy Jenks Engineers (KJ) was contracted by PRPs
to collect additional samples during this time
period.
June 1982
HLA performed a seismic refraction study and
subnitted a "Remedial Action Plan."
NCRWQCB and California Department of Health Services
(OOHS) reviewed the HLA "Remedial Action Plan" and
submitted comments.
April 1982
-6-
598.7:2
-------
,
Sept 1982
In response to NCRWOCB and DOHS cOlllDents on the
remedial action plan, HLA performed additional
sampling and submi tted a "Revised Remedial Action
plan" to the NCRWQCB and DOHS.
Oct 1983
In response to additional sampling requests by DOHS
and NCRWQCB to determine the full extent of PCB
contamination and to further characterize the
subsurface geology and hydrology, HLA resubmitted the
"Revised Remedial Action Plan" on July 15, 1983.
KJ prepared a draft report entitled won-site Remedial
Action. "
July 1983
Dec 1983
May-oct 1984
KJ collected additional groundwater samples.
KJ collected additional groundwater samples.
Oct 1984
Kennedy. Jenks Chi! ton (1VJ/C) prepared a draft
Feasibility Study (FS) based on previous
investigations and submitted it to DOHS and EPA.
EPA and DOHS provided comments on K/J/C draft FS and
requested that the FS be revised to comply with
minimum requirements.
June 1984
Nov 1984
1985
PRPs declined to prepare revised FS.
EPA contracted GCA Technology Inc. to prepare an
Endangerment Assessment and Feasibility Study.
. .1
Sept 1986
Sept-Nov 1986
GCA FS was released for public comment.
Public comment period on first FS.
1987-1988
EPA contracted Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM) to
revise the GCA FS to meet new requirements and
address comments provided on the original FS by the
PRPs and the public.
TO complete the data base established by the first FS
and to evaluate TeE contamination, CDM performed
surface soil sampling, groundwater sampling, and
split sampling with the PRP consultants. CDM also
reviewed PRP consultants' PCB air monitoring efforts
and treatability study programs.
1987
June 1987
1VJ/C and International Waste Technologies conducted
bench scale fixation test of IQ Brakes contaminated
soiL
-7-
598.7:2
-------
,
Sept-Dec 1987
K/J/C and Galson Research conducted laboratory scale
testing of PCB dechlorination using an alkaline
polyethylene glycol mixture.
April 1988
May-June 1988
Revised F5 issued.
Public comment period on Revised FS.
III.
CCJ1MUNIT'i RElATICN5 HI5'roRY
EPA has carried on an extensive community relations program at theMGM
Brakes SUperfund site.
In the spring of 1986, . EPA conducted interviews of Cloverdale CCIIIIIUni ty
members: these interviews formed the basis of the COIIIIIUnity Relations Plan
(CRP) for the site. The CRP - completed in the fall of 1986 - described
concerns of the community relating to site clean-up and £PA's plans to
inform the community about current site activities and opportunities for
input. EPA also established a repository for site-related documents at the
Cloverdale library and compiled a site mailing list.
In September of 1986, EPA released to the public its first Feasibility
Study (F5) on the MGM Brakes Superf~d site~ In fulfillment of community
. participation requirements, EPA held a public comment period from September
23 until NOvember 29, 1986, briefings of local officials and community
members, and two COD'lllUni ty meetings. One meeting was held on october 15,
1986 to present clean-up alternatives, to answer questions, and to take
cOlllDents on the FS. A second cOlllllLlnity meeting was held on NOvember 19,
1986, to present info~tion on the health effects of PCBs and incineration
emissions. COIIIDents received on the FS focused on the following: the
economic and health risks of on-site incineration: the lack of data on
contaminants other than PCBs: and the failure to fully evaluate treatment
alternatives other than incineration.
.
In the spring of 1987, broad community opposition developed to the
incineration alternative, including opposition from a U.S. Congressman and
State Assemblywoman. In April 1987, £PA representatives were presented
-8-
598.7:2
-------
r-
. with a petition containing 500 signatures opposing incineration as a
clean-up alternative.
In late spring of 1987, based on the comments received on the FS, EPA
decided to prepare a revised FS which would address the comments received
on the first FS and also address the new requirements of SARA. A fact
sheet announcing the decision and describing the additional sampling and
alternatives to be evaluated was published in July of 1987. A community
. .
meeting was held on July 29 to further discuss the decision with the
ccmmunity.
In August of 1987, EPA conducted a conmuni ty well inventory to identify and
sample wells within a one-half mile radius of the MGM Brakes site.
In May of 1988, £PA released the revised FS and a proposed plan fact sheet
announcing availability of the FS, and held a 35-day public comment period
on the revised FS. £PA's preferred alte~tive in the fact sheet was
excavation and off-site disposal. A community meeting on the revised FS
was held in Cloverdale on May 18, 1988. Six people spoke - none in
opposition to the preferred alternative. Responses to the comments
. received during the publ~c ccnmnent period, includ~h9 those received during
the publ~c meeting, are addressed in the att~ched Responsivene~s.Summary
(Attachment B).
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPCNSE ACTICNS
Two land parcels have been identified for this selected remediation.
Remediation of Parcell will consist of removing and disposing the
contamdnated soil exclusive of the MGM Brakes processing building and
concrete slab. Remediation of parcel 2 will consist of the removal and
disposal of contaminated soil beneath the processing building and removal
and disposal of the concrete slab. Parcels 1 and 2 can be remediated
separately or concurrently. However, due to the present occupancy of the
MGM Brakes processing building, remedial action on Parcel 2 may be delayed
up to ten years to provide MGM Brakes and the ccmmuni ty ample time to plan
for building demolition.
-9-
598.7:2
-------
1-
Primary threats at the MGM Brakes site as determined by £fA include
exposure of PGot Brakes employe~s and potential future exposure of the local
populace to PCB-contaminated soil and particulates. Present and potential
future exposure pathways consist of inhalation of PCB vapor and
particulates, dermal exposure, and ingestion of contaminated' soil. VOC
contamination of groundwater is also of concern. A source for TeE and
benzene has not been found and site surface soils do not appear
contaminated. Groundwater contains benzene, TCE and vinyl chloride at
concentrations exceeding maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) (SpglL, SpqIL
and 2pglL, respectively). Although the site aquifer currently is not used
as a drinking water supply, potential future use and effects to
down-gradient aquifers require remediation of the VOC contamination.
The selected remedy, a final remedy at the site, addresses these exposure
pathways or threats by removing the source of contamination. Removal of
the contaminated soil will significantly reduce the potential for future
exposure to contaminated soil, particulates and vapor, and will prevent
migration of PCBs through surface runoff. The selected remedial measure
will address. .the VOCproblem through source identification and the
evaluation of. the need to pump and treat the co~taminated aquifer to remove
'TeE, v.inyl chloride, and' benzene.'
v.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
PCB contamination resulted from the discharge of hydraulic fluid containing
PCBs between 1965-1972 onto property of the site. Hydraulic fluids leaked
from casting machines during normal operation and were collected in sumps
below the machines. The leaked fluids and wastewater were discharged onto
property south of the facility through drain lines connected to the pumps.
In addition to PCB hydraulic fluid, the facility a1so used fluids
containing ethylene glycol. The ethylene glycol appears to have acted as a
co-solvent with water to facilitate movement of PCBs in site soil and
groundwater. As a resul t of co-sol vent transport, PCBs lIDVed to a depth of
29 feet, which is ~rock at the site. Discharge of ethylene glycol
-10-
598.7:2
-------
,-_.
continued until 1981, when all discharges ceased.
movement of PCBs had occurred by that time.
However, significant
Affected media include on-site soil, the concrete slab of the processing
building, soil beneath the processing building, on-s.i te drainage ditches
and off-site drainage ditches (Figure 2). Small quantities of PCBs have
been detected in two groundwater monitoring wells. In addition, ambient
air samples contained PCBs at detectable levels. curing the winter of
1987-88, PCBs were detected in upgradient monitoring wells; this
contamination is the result of surface water transport and flow into well
casings installed below the ground surface.
The volume of contaminated soil, exclusive of that beneath the processing
building, was dete~ned to be 10,650 cubic yards (see Figure 3).
Approximately 2,860 cubic yards of contaminated soil are estimated to exist
beneath the processing building. The majority of contamination is present
at depths of less than five feet (although contamination to 29 feet was
dete~ned at one point), but covers an area of nearly three acres. PCB
soil contamination ranges from a few parts per million to 4,500 ppm. Soil
c~ntami~tion does not appear to be homogenously distributed and, .
therefore, volume. estimates are difficult to. make ac~rately. samples
col~ected in 1986 from the concrete slab in the casting building show. a '.
maximum PCB concentration of 5,400 mg/Kg.
PCB contamination was also identified in drainage ditches leading from the
facility (see Figure 3) and in the surrounding ambient air. Hi Vol
sampling methodology was employed to dete~ne total PCBs in volatile or
particulate form. PCB concentrations of up to 0.157 pg;m3 were measured in
the afr at the site. Sediment and surface water in the drainage ditches
were also sampled; sediment samples contained PCB concentrations of up to 5
mg/kg and on-site surface water PCB concentrations of up to 54 P9IL (ppb)
were .asured.
PCBs were identified in samples frCID 2 of 14 mcmitoring wells. Well &-46
has consistently shown PCB concentrations between 0.1 to 0.5 pg/L. Monitor
well &-53 was installed in September 1981 in a highly contaminated area of
-11-
598.7:2
I
I
(
f
I
I
I
I
"
-------
,..-"-"=-1
; CPl.
I . r..--1
: [J
: I
L.._~.
MOM Sit. a Ca.tln; Plant
~
f
i
.
a
8D-3
Cui""
r--- --...,
L-T--~ ~
L 11011 '""'10"'1"" Pion.' -f -
r
-
..
Cu've"
SW-2/8D-2
aralil8ge from Sil.
Culyert
..
o
..
~
.
.
I:
118
%
.;
:;
Schematic - Not to Scale
SURFACE WATER
AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Figure
,.
,
-------
,
the site~ Monitor well samples collected from s-S3 have produced PCB
levels ranging from 24-130 ~glL. These high results can be attributed to
PCB absorbed to suspended particulate matter. Analytical results provided
by PRP consultants show more than 90 percent of the groundwater PCB values
are attributable ~o suspended sediment in the groundwater sample. The
mobility of PCBs in groundwater at the ~ Brakes site is limited. PCBs
have limited solubility in water and strong affinity to soil particles.
Movement of PCBs in groundwater is highly attenuated, with ho~izontal
movement estimated at 2-3 inches per year. Facilitated transport that
resulted with discharge of ethylene glycol is no longer occurring due to
the cessation of all discharges and natural degradation of ethylene glycol.
VOCs, including chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene,
dichloroethene and vinyl chloride, were first detected in monitoring wells
on- and off-site in October of 1986. Chlorobenzenes are commonly
associated with PCBs and at this site are found at low levels. The TeE and
its breakdown products have been detected in wells located along the
eastern boundary of the site. TeE and vinyl chloride concentrations
continue to exceed 1'1CLs.
In the May 1988 monitoring report to tl:te NCRWQCB (transmitted to EPA 'on
, ,
'July 8, 1988) Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton ~eported ~t 16.ppIi of benzene was
detected in o~e of the off-site wells also contaminated with ~ and its
breakdown products.
Most of the earlysi te data (on which the original FS was based) was
collected by consultants to the P1U's. In 1987, EPA independently validated
a small proportion of water and soil analyses as an independent check on
the quality of the PRP data. OUt of 35 samples validated, only eight were
considered to have quality control (OC) problems which made them usable for
limited purposes. In 1987, EPA also collected its own confirmation on- and
off-site 80i1 and groundwater samples and off-site surface water and
sediment samples. Sample results were caaparable to levels detected by the
PRPs, although IIJch of the EPA data is flagged for limited uses only.
-13-
598.7:2
I
I
(
I
.
, i
I
I
I
-------
1-
,
Taken together, the EPA and PRP data show clearly that the on-site soil
contamination is extremely heterogeneous, with high concentration 5amples
located next to samples with no contamination. Therefore, an important
part of the final cleanup will be detailed confirmation sampling with
strict Quality AssurancelQuality Control (OAIQC) checks. The groundwater
results continue to show a consistent trend of PCB contamination only
on-site and VOC contamination off-site with decreasing concentrations as
distance from the casting building increases. Further sampling will be
requi red as part of the remedy to determine if a source of this vex:
contamination is still present and to define the lateral extent of
contamination. .
The ai r data collected by the PRPs was never independently 'validated by EPA
so that no confirmation of the analytical accuracy can be made. However,
due to the design of the sampling program, the data are only being used
qualitatively as an indication of the presence of PCBs in on-site air.
VI.
'SUMl1ARY OF SITE RISK
In on-site soils, and to a~limited extent ne~r-site soils and surface water
drainages, PCBs are 'the contaminant of concern for the MGM Brakes site.
EPA has identif~ed three major expo'sure pathways' at the site under present
and future si te-use condi tions. The, exposure route's for the PCB
contaminated soil are inhalation of vapors and particulates containing
PCBs, ingestion of contaminated soil, and absorption through direct soil
contact by l'G1 Brakes employees and the local populace. Air sampling
results showed detectable levels of PCBs in the air around the site. Soil
sampling results showed a significant percentage of samples with PCBs in
excess of 1,000 mg/kg (1,000 ppm).
For PCBs, groundwater is not considered a major pathway for exposure. PCBs
are relatively insoluble in water and exhibit a low rate of movement
without facilitated c~solvent transport. The shallow aquifer present
below the site is also not highly productive, exhibiting sustained yields
of less than 20 gallons per hour.
-14-
598.7:2
-------
The toxicity of PCBs has been well documented. Tests of acute lethality of
PCB products in laboratory animals have demonstrated siDdlar toxico-
logical effects regardless of route of administration, species, or age of
animal. Chronic exposure of laboratory animals to PCB produced alterations
of the liver, thyroid, and reproductive system. Prolonged exposure to PCBs
can cause a disfiguring skin illness called chloracne. Laboratory data
indicates there is a potential for reproductive effects and developmental
toxicity. EPA defines PCB as an animal carcinogen and a probable human
carcinogen.
For the MGM Brakes site revised FS, EPA used established advisory levels
for estimating cancer risk. The EPA Office of Health and Environment
Assessment (OHEA) has developed advisory levels for PCBs in soil for use by
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response for remediating CERCIA
sites. The OHEA Assessment concluded that a PCB level of 1 to 6 ppm in soil
in a residential/commercial area results in a lO-~ level of oncogenic risk
(risk of developing cancerous tumors) for on-site exposure. For the
inhalation route only, soil concentrations of 2 mg/kg (2 ppm) corresponds
to a 10-6 risk of developing such tumors. The exposure assumptions in the
OHEA document and the Spill Policy are similar to the situation at the MGM
Brakes site. ~The site area is considered.residential/commercial due to the
. .
presence of 3 residences within 100 feet. of site boundaries arid the
presence of Cloverdale lumber immediately east of the site. Furthermore, a
Cloverdale Ci ty Council member indicated to EPA that the City would prefer.
to have the option of using the area exclusively for residential use. A
housing developnent of 200 units is being constructed just north of the
site. Therefore, a reasonable future use scenario would be a residential
area with unrestricted access.
The environmental risk associated with PCB contamination is due to its
persistence in the environment and inherent toxicity. EPA has concluded
that PCBs are resistant to degradation and that they bioaccumulate in the
environment and bioconcentrate in the fatty tissues of organisms. PCBs
have been detected in the drainage ditch leading from the site. '!be ditch
is known to support aquatic life during the winter rainy season.
Concentrations of PCBs have been detected in sediments and surface water in
-15-
598.7:2
I
f
I
1
-------
concentrations that violate the NCRWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan for
the North Coast Basin. .
Contamination of groundwater with VOCs is also of concern. TCE, vinyl
chloride, and benzene all exceed established "CLs. ALthough the
groundwater immediately under the site is not highly productive, the same
aquifer downgradient from the site is being used as a source of drinking
water. VOCs, which are highly mobile, do present a future threat to
drinking water sources downgradient from the site.
VII.
DOC.'UMENTATION OF SIQlIFICANT OfAM:;ES
The preferred alternative for the MGM Brakes Site is off-site transport and
disposal of PCB contaminated soil and remediation of the VOC contaminated
groundwater. At this time no significant changes from the proposed plan
have occurred.
VIII.
DESCRIPTICN OF ALTERNATIVES
The revised Feasibility Study for the MGM Brakes site describes 12.remedial
alternatives. These alternatives address the PCB contamination at the MGM
. .
Brakes site. The site has been separated into two parcels, for remediation
considerations. These parcels are:
Parcel 1 -
Contaminated soil on property exclusive of the
casting building area.
Concrete slab and contaminated soil beneath the
casting building. .
Parcel 2 -
The remedial alternatives were developed
equipment are available to remediate the
time frame.
such that sufficient labor and
si te wi thin a seven to 18 month
candidate remedial alternatives are described in the following paragraphs.
Activities to locate the source of VOCs and remediate VOC contaDdnation are
not individually described in each remedial alternative, although they will
be performed regardless of the chosen remedy. Activities to be performed
-16-
598.7:2
-------
to remediate the VOC groundwater problem will include analysis of soil
samples for VOCs as part of PCB cleanup level confirmation sampling,
installation of monitor wells to track movement of VOCs, evaluation of
effects on dawngradient users, and evaluation of potential remedial
alternatives to restore groundwater to the MCL for TCE, vinyl chloride, and
. benzene.
Alternative 1-1.
No Action - Parcel 1
This alternative would involve no action to treat, contain, or remove
contaminated soil. MUlti-media monitoring would be performed at a minimum
of every five years to support a reassessment of the no action alternative.
Alternative 1-2.
No Action - Parcel 2 .
Same as Alternative 1-1 except it applies to Parcel 2.
Alternative 2-1.
o -slte Dlsposa
This alternative will involve excavating a total volume of 10,650 cubic
yards of soil containing PCBs in excess o~ 10.mg/kg and disposing of. the
soil off-site,without prior treatment. Soil containing PCBs grea~er than
50 pPm will be transported to a Class I disposal facility with a Toxic
Substances control Act (TSCA)-permitted PCB disposal unit. Soil containing
PCBs ranging from 10 to 50 ppm will be transported to a Class II facility
permitted by OOHS and acceptable to the NCRWQCB. Implementation of this
alternative will involve excavation, construction of a staging area,
groundwater dewatering, and disposal of the contaminated soil. Wastewater
from the dewatering will be treated in a mobile treatment system to remove
sediments and PCBs. Treated water will either be released on' site in
accordance with NOWQCB'S Basin plan or disposed of in a publicly owned
treatment works. Transport of soil for off-site disposal will be performed
by a state-permitted' waste hauler. once the soil and groundwater
contamination has been remedied the site will no longer require long-term
monitoring or deed restrictions.
PCBs and
-17-
598.7:2
-------
Alternative 2-2. Excavation of Soils> 10 ppm PCBs and
Off-site Dlsposal - Parcel 2
This alternative will involve the same excavation-related activities as .
described in Al ternati ve 2-1. However, the volume of contaminated soil and
concrete to be excavated consists of approximately 2,860 cubic yards.
Prior to soil and concrete excavation activities, the processing building
will be dismantled. The concrete slab will be crushed and disposed of in a
TSCA facility or Class II permitted facility depending on soil
concentrations of >50 or 10 to 50 ~, respectively. Uncontaminated
portions of the slab may be disposed of in a Class III landfill.
Once the groundwater contamination has been remedied the s1 te will no
longer require long-te~ mo~itoring or deed restrictions.
Alternative 3-1. Excavation of Soils> 10 ppm PCBs and
On-Site Thermal Treatment - Parcel 1
This alternative would involve excavation of the same soil volumes
associated with the implementation.of Alternative 2-1, except that
co~tandnated soils would be transported to a temporary storage area where
they would be thermally treated and. subsequently disposed of as backfill at
the site. A staging area woUl~ be. required. This area would be used for
the temporary storage of contandnated soil prior to processing and
. .
temporary storage of the decontaminated soil pending PCB analysis and
subsequent backfilling. The staging area would comply with RCRA
regulations for temporary waste storage facilities. This alternative would
involve the same groundwater dewatering, treatment and disposal as
Alternative 2-1.
Alternative 3-2. Excavation of Soils> 10 ppm Pees and
On-Site The~l Treatment - Parcel 2
This alternative would involve excavation activities and treated soil
volumes as stated in Al ternati ve 2-2, except that the contaminated soils
would be transported to a temporary storage area where they would be
thermally treated prior to being used as backfill at the site. The
concrete slab would be crushed to meet the size criteria of the thermal
treatment unit. The treated concrete would be disposed of in a
I
I
-18-
598.7:2
-------
municipal landfill. Upon completion of all thermal processing, the unit
and all related equipment and facilities would be decontaDdnated,
disassembled, and removed from the site. Long-term monitoring or deed
restrictions would not be required.
Alternative 4-1. Excavation of Soils> 10 ppm and PCBs
on-Site Fixation - Parcell
This alternative would involve excavating the same volume of soil as
Alternative 2-1. Contaminated soil would be transported to an on-site
storage area where 1 t would be mixed ,-,1 th a fixative agent and subsequently
backfilled at the site. The alternative would leave a fixed mass of
concrete-like material (a monolith) to a depth of approximately 29 feet and
covering at least two acres on the site. A cap of clean soil or clean
fixative would be placed over the fixed monolith. FUture site use would be
limited by the presence of the monolith and cap.
The implementation of this alternative would involve a staging area for ..
assembly and operation of the fixation equipment. The staging area would
comply with RCRA regulations for temporary waste storage facilities. As
in Alternative 2-1, '4stewater generated by this process would be treated
by a mobile water treatment unit and disposed of in a PoTw,or in accordance
~ th . the North Coast Basin. Plan'.
Site use would be limited due to land use restrictions, and on-site
groundwater and air monitoring would be required indefinitely.
Alternative 4-2. Excavation of Soils> 10 ppm PCBs and
on-Site Flxat10n - Parcel 2
This alternative would involve removal and crushing of the concrete slab,
soil excavation of 2,856 cubic yards, along with dismantling of the casting
plant building. Soil and crushed concrete. would be processed through the
fixation 8dxing equipment: the mixture would then be used to backfill the
. .
excavation. Other activities would be the same as described for.
Alternative 4-1.
-19-
598.7:2
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I.
-------
Long-term maintenance, groundwater and air monitoring, and a land use
restrictions would be required.
Alternative 5-1.
In Situ Fixation of Soils> 10 ppm PCBs - Parcel 1
This alternative would involve treating 10,650 cubic yards of contaminated
soil with a fixative agent injected directly into the ground.
Implementation of this alternative would require in situ fixation machinery
designed to inject the fixative into the soil. Minor excavation of shallow
contaminated soil west of the plant would be required. '!his excavated soil
would be placed over highly contaminated soil prior to fixation. 'n\e
machinery is self-contained in that all the injection components are
handled through one piece of machinery. Any wastewater generated would be
used in the fixation process and wastewater disposal would not be required.
A cap of clean soil or clean fixative would be placed over the fixed
monoli tho
.
As in Alternative 4-1, this alternative would require long-term groundwater
and air monitoring, lite access limitations& and land use restrictions at
the site. Long-term maintenance of the cap would also be required.
Alternative S~2.
In Situ Fixation of Soils> 10 ppm PCBs - Parcel 2
This alternative would involve demolition of the casting plant building and
removal of the concrete slab. It is not feasible to fix the concrete slab
using in situ technology. 'I1'1erefore, the concrete slab would be disposed
of in an off-site landfill appropriate to its level of PCBs. Soil beneath
the slab would be fixed in the same manner as Alternative 5-1, with clean
soil or fixative placed over the monolith.
Site access would be restricted and land use deed restrictions would be
required, along with long-term monitoring and maintenance of the site.
-20-
598.7:2
-------
,
Alternative 6-1.
RCRA Cap - Parcell
t
i
r
J
I
I
I
This alternative would involve capping the pCB-contaminated soil using the
closure and post-closure care requirements of RCRA. A multi-layer cap
would be placed over approximately three acres of contaminated area.
Because most contamination exists south of the KG1 Brakes building, some
shallow contamination west of the building would be excavated and placed
directly over the area to be capped. The area that would be capped is
shown in Figure 4.
Access to the lite would be restricted indefinitely. Long-ter.m groundwater
monitoring and air monitoring would be conducted to measure the
effectiveness of the remedial action. Long-te~ maintenance, and access
and land use restrictions would be required.
Alternative 6-2.
RCRA Cap - Parcel 2
This alternative would involve the same activities associated with
construction of the multi-layered cap descri.bed in Alternative 6-1.
. However, the building would be dismantled and the concrete slab removed,
crushed, . and placed over the area to be capped. Design criteria, closure'
requirements, access and land use restrictions, and maintenance arid
~nitoring would be the same as those described in Alternative 6~l.
IX.
SUMMARY OF '!HE CCJ1PARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AL'I'ERNATIVES
Listed below is an evaluation and comparison of the alternatives based on
the nine key criteria which directly relate to factors S12l(b)(l) (A-G)
of SARA mandates that the agency assess. The nine criteria are:
1.
2.
Overall protection of human health and the environment.
caapliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requi rements.
3.
4.
Lonq-te~ effectiveness and pe~ence.
Reduction of toxic! ty, mobility and volume ('l1'W).
-21-
598.7:2
-------
a
1~. 0 [T-
Ar..
Dellen"'"
.. 0.,..
~
-N-
a
o 0'
o
/:-
HORSE
CORRAl.
Excayat.
ShaUow
Contaminated
8oU. and Plac. ~
In Capping, ~
Zone
'\
DRAINAGE
,
o
200
400
100
.
.
i
4
..
a
r-- ~~'
fEET
.
==EA
LEGEND
D Prop018d Ar.a lor Capping
r-J Ar.. 01 ShaUow «1 It.)
~ Soli Contamination
-
e
~
~
%
i
".
AREA OF PROP08ED
LANDfiLL CAP
Figure
4
-------
5.
6.
Short-te~ effectiveness.
I
l
I
1
!
I
Implementability.
Cost.
7.
8.
State acceptance.
Community acceptance.
9.
Alternative 1-1.
NO Action - Parcell
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative would not reduce present or future exposure to
PCBs: therefore, the threat to human health would continue to
exist. Direct contact (skin adsorption), ingestion, and
inhalation of PCBs would remain a human health concern. Under
this alternative, the potential for off-site, contaminated soil
mobility via surface ~off, air borne particulates, or volatile
emissions would remain high. This alternative also does not meet
the-protective standard established in the Spill Policy, which
has been adopted as a "To Be. Considered" (TBC) criteria for the
site. (See page -59 for a discussion' on the Spill-PoliCy). on
the basis of this existing and potential human and environmental
health risk, this alternative is not acceptable.
,
I
1-
2.
Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
A No Action alternative would not meet ARARs identified for the
site.
3.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Pe~ence
This alternative would not provide a pe~ent solution and would
not be effective in reducing the human health threat over time.-
-23-
598.7:2
-------
Releases of PCBs would continue. The contamination would remain
on site and a long-term monitoring program would be required.
The long-term reliability of this approach is dependent on: (1)
the maintenance of the perimeter fence which would preclude
direct contact with highly contamdnated soils~ (2) the
enforcement of the land use and deed restrictions-imposed, and
(3) results of groundwater and air monitoring perfo~ to
document environmental degradation. Evaluation of these factors
would determine the need for replacement of the No Action
alternative, if it were implemented.
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and volume
This alternative would not employ any active treatment processes
for soils. The toxicity, mobility, and volume (TMV) of
contaminated soi1 would remain unchanged. Continued 'off-site
dispersal of contaminants would be expected.
s.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Because th~re would be no construction activities with the No.
Action alternative, there would be no incremental increase in
risks to employees or residents due to implementatiori.
6.
Implementability
The No Action alternative would be technologically feasible.
Periodic site inspections, and groundwater and air monitoring
programs would be established, as required by SAM. Therefore,
no equipment would be required except that needed to perform
lD\i toring .
-24-
598.7:2
-------
7.
I
J
f
J
J
I
I
Cost
Operation, maintenance, and monitoring expenses would be the only
costs associated with this alternative (see Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
This alternative is expected to be negatively perceived by the
State of California, because the cont~nated soil is neither
treated nor removed and off-site releases will continue.
Therefore, the potential for exposure to PCBs would continue and
long-te~ restrictions of on-site use would be required.
9.
Community Acceptance
The no action alternative would be unacceptable to the local
cOl!l1lUJ'1ity. With residential developnent approaching the site, it
is the community's desire to return the property to unrestricted
use.
~ternative 1-2.
No Action -' Parcel 2'
1.
Overall Protection of HUman Health and the Environment
The concrete slab below the casting building is contaminated with
significantly high levels (5,400 mg!kg) of PCBs. Although the
interior surface of the casting building, including the concrete
slab, was cleaned in 1982, the slab is porous and, therefore,
PCBs potentially could migrate up to the surface of the
concrete. PCB mobility within the slab presents a potential
health threat to casting plant workers from exposure. A
discussion of PCB mcbili ty in porous surfaces is presented in the
Preamble to the PCB Spill Cleanup policy. 52 Fed.Reg. 10688
(April 2, 1987).
-25-
598.7:2
-------
TABLE 5:-1
COST SlVtMARY
Capital 06." Present Equivalent
Alternative Cost Cost WOrth Unit Cost
1988
1-1 No Action Parcell $0 $36,000 $69,100 $7/C'J
1-2 No Action Parcel 2 $0 $5,500 $10,600 $4/C'J
2-1 Off-site Disposal Parcell $4,079,400 $0 $4,079,400 $383/cy
2-2 Off-site Disposal Parcel 2 $1,289,900 $0 $1,289,900 $451/cy
3-1 On-site Incineration Parcel 1 $6,089,500 $0 $6,089,500. $572/cy
]-2 On-site Incineration Parcel 2 $2,341,700 $0 $2,341,100 $819/cy
4-1 On-site Fixation Parcel 1 $2,694,300, $12, 100 $2,318,100 $255/cy
4-2 On-site Fixation Parcel 2 $1,365,)00 $5,500 $1,315,900 $481/cy
5-1 In-situ Fixation Parcel 1 $2,841,600. $12,100 $2,812,000 $210/cy
5-2 In-situ Fixation Parcel 2 $1,104,900 $5,500 $1,115,500 $390/cy
6-1 RCRA cap Parcell $756;900 $23,500 $802,000 $15/cy
6-2 RCRA cap Parcel 2 $335,100 $5,500 $]46,]00 $121/cy
598.8:14
-------
In addition, if demolition of the building were to occur
following termdnation of use as a casting facility and not as
part of a remedial action, the threat to human health would
increase through ingestion, inhalation, and direct contact with
PCBs within and below the concrete slab.
As long as the building and slab remain, this alternative would
pose a minimal threat to the environment. Contaminated surface
soil is not exposed, thereby limiting the potential for surface
and air borne dispersion of contaminants beneath the slab. '!'he
potential of groundwater movement at a rate of 2-3 inches per
year remains. Long-term land use restrictions would be required
to prevent excavation of contamdnated soil.
2.
Compliance wi th ARARs
This alternative would not meet ARARs for the same reasons
discussed under Alternative 1-1.
3.. Long-Term Effectiveness and. Permanence
As w?-th Alternative 1-1', this alternative would not provide a
pe~ent solution and is not effective in protecting ~
heal th in the long-term.
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative does not use treatment to reduce the toxicity,
D:)bility, or volume of the contaminated soil.
5.
Short-Term Effectiveness
In the short term, as long as the building remains and CAL OSHA
regulations concerning worker safety are followed, there wcu!d be
an extremely limited risK to human health and the environment.
There would be no incremental. increase in risks to employees or
-27-
598.7:2
-------
residents due to lack of construction activities during
implementation.
6.
Implementability
Same as described for Alternative 1-1.
7.
Costs
As with Alternative 1-1, the only costs associated with this
alternative would be operation and maintenance of a monitoring
program (see Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
State perception of this alternative is expected to be the same
as Alternative 1-1.
9.
community Acceptance
Although sOme members of. the community have expressed their
desire to have the site remediated as quickly as possible, some
members of the community have also expressed concern over the
possible loss of jobs if the facility were to be dismantled. No
action may be acceptable to some community members if loss of the
business were to result in a loss of jobs.
Alternative 2-1.
Off-site Disposal - Parcel 1
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative will meet the TeC Spill Policy and, therefore,
will be protective of human health and the environment. It will
eliminate the source of contamination above 10 ppn, thereby
significantly reducing the potential for future expOsure to
contaminated soil, runoff, particulates, or vapors at the site.
-28-
598.7:2
""I
-------
Although short-term construction impacts may effect the biota of
the site, the site is expected to be fully restored with respect
to the environment.
)
1
,
I
I
Contaminants will be moved to a controlled landfill that has
long-term monitoring and land use restrictions already in place.
Human health and the environment at the landfill will be
protected due to the engineering design criteria of the disposal
unit and the regulatory mechanisms to enforce the monitoring
requirements.
2.
Compliance with ARARs
This alternative can be implemented to meet all ARARs.
Contaminated soil with PCBs greater than or equal to 50 ppm will
be disposed of in a landfill meeting the TSCA;RCRA requirements.
The disposal from this site of contaminated soil of less than SO
ppn PCBs are not regulated under TSCA. Under the CA COBS
Disposal Policy No. 81-lA, PCBs in-soil at less than SO ppm must
be disposed of in landfills specifically designated for PCB
disposal. These landfills are regulated ~ the ~ arid each
waste must be approved by the Board for .disposal at non-TSCA/RCRA
landfills: EXcavation and disposal activities will be perfo~
to meet the federal and state remedial action requirements
pertaining to handling, such as DOT 40 CFR 5267.3, 40 CFR 5263,
40 CFR 5172, 40 CrR 5173 and 5177; OSHA 29 CFR 51926, subpart C;
and RCRA 40 CFR 5261.
3.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative offers significant long-term protection of
human health for the Cloverdale cOlZlllUnity. The source will be
removed to a 10 ppm level and the potential for future exposure
to contaminated soil, runoff, particulates, or vapors will be
significantly reduced at the site. . Contaminants will be placed
within a controlled environment, allowing unrestricted use of the
-29-
598.7:2
-------
si te. Because contaminants are not treated but transferred to an
off-site disposal facility, this alternative is not a pe~nent
remedy. 'I11e advantages of transporting the contaminated soil
off-site are that the disposal facilities are better suited
technologically and institutionally to mitigate any potential
hazard posed by the contaminated soil. In this manner, the
alternative will provide a pennanent solution at the site.
Long-te~ monitoring will not be required for the site.
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,. and Volume
'I11is alternative will not employ any active treatment process to
reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminated soils. By
placing PCBs in a secure landfill with engineering controls, the
potential for mobility of the PCBs will be reduced.
5. . Short-Te~ Effectiveness
This alternative will have minimal.short-te~ impacts.
Excavation activities will increase the risk of exposure of
workers. and residents to contaminated soil and groundwater as
well as volatile and particulate PCBs. The exposure risk will be
. controlled by various actions such as implementing proper health
and safety procedures for excavation, dust control, misting soil,
and using trucks with protective linings, seals and tarpaulins.
Actual soil excavation activities will have minimal short te~
impacts on the environment of the site. Biota displaced during
excavation activities can return following restoration. Regrowth
would be promoted by the addi tion of mulching and seeding.
6.
Implementability
'I11e resources for implementing this alternative are readily
available. There are sufficient hazardous waste clean-up
contractors to implement the excavation and transportation
-30-
598.7:2
-------
activities. HoWever, a limiting resource may be landfill
disposal capacity. The Feasibility Study identified three
landfills that will accept PCB waste. permitting status or
capacity may change at any of these landfills. In addition, two
landfills were identified that can accept soils containing less
than 50 p~. Approval to dispose of PCB-contaminated soils DUst
be obtained from roHS and the RWQCB. These approval can take
three months to two years to obtain.
I
I
,
f
I
I
7.
Cost
Transport and disposal costs represent nearly 53 percent of the
total costs for this alternative. The soil with concentrations
greater than 50 ppn (approximately 4,260 cy) must be disposed of
in a TSCA facility. The nearest facility is Kettleman Hills
(approximately 300 miles). The unit cost used' for transport and
disposal at Kettleman Hills was provided for costing purposes;
the actual cost may vary. An addi tional $2S/cy was added to the .
quoted price to cover the cost associated with lining the
trailers with a PVC liner, as required by OOI' regulations. There
. "
ar~ approximately 6,390 cy of PCB contaminated soil with
. - - . . . .
concentrations-of between 10 and SOpPm that would be disposed of
at a Class lIar Class III facility. Based on quotes provided by
approved facilities, the cost for disposal at such landfill$ was
estimated to be 30 percent less than disposal at a TSCA approved
facility (see Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
This alternative is expected to be favorably perceived by the
State because the health threat represented by contaminated soil
will be removed.
-31-
598.7:2
-------
9.
Community Acceptance
This alternative has been very favorably received by the
communi ty. 'l11is alternative allows W1restricted future use of
.
the site, which members of the community have expressed as a
desireable goal. Members of the community living near the site
" "
may be inconvenienced over the short-te~ during remedial
implementation due to noise and truck traffic. Air monitoring
will be implemented to ensure that dust levels do not pose a risk
to these nearby residents. Because the site is on the southern
end of town, the overall community will not be affected by the
resulting traffic.
Alternative 2-2.
Off-Site Disposal Parcel 2
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative, like Alternative 2-1, will remove a large
"portion of cont~nated soil, thus significantly reducing the
po"tential f~r future exposur~ to contaminated soil, runoff,
particulates or vapors at the site.
2.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Compliance would be the same as for Alternative 2-1.
3.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative will achieve the same beneficial long term goals
and pe~ent source removal from the site as Alternative 2-1.
-32-
598.7:2
-------
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, ~obility, and Volume
This alternative will not use treatment to reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminants. By removing the PCBs to
controlled landfills, mobility of contaminants will be reduced.
5.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term impacts of this alternative are equivalent to
Alternative 2-1.
6.
Implementability
Implementation requirements for this alternative are equiv~lent
to Alternative 2-1.
7.
Cost
This alternative has been costed in the same manner as
Alternative 2-1. Differences between the two alterna~ives
. .
involve the volume of soil to .~ transported to a TSCA.facility
(1,140 cy) and the volume"of soil and concrete to be transported
to a Class II or Class III facility (1,720 cy). In addition, the
cost of demolition of the 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.) casting
building and concrete slab does not include moving the interior
components or reconstruction of the building. Costs assume
disposal of the building and concrete at a TSCA landfill (see
Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
The state's acceptance of this alternative is expected to be the
same as it is for Alternative 2-1.
-33-
598.7:2
-------
9.
Community Acceptance
Overall, the community's acceptance of this alternative is
expected to be favorable. However, because demolition of the
building may result in closure of the casting plant, portions of
the community may object to the possible loss of jobs. TO allow
the community arid MGM to plan for implementation of this
alternative, EPA is allowing the alternative to be implemented
any time during the next ten years.
Alternative 3-1.
On-Site Thermal Treatment-Parcell
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative would provide the best overall human health and
environmental protection because thermal ~reatment would destroy
all PCBs over 10 ppm, and the site could be returned to
unrestricted use. This alternative would meet the criteria of
the'TSCA Spill Policy.
2.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate'
Requirements
This alternative would be performed to meet OSHA health and
safety requirements, federal and state air emission standards,
including TSCAIRCRA PCB thermal destruction removal efficiency
(DRE) of 99.999 percent, and other RCRA treatment, storage and
and disposal requirements.
3.
Long-Te~ Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative offers significant long-term protection of
public health. All soil PCBs exceeding 10 ppm would be
destroyed, thus providing a permanent solution. PCB toxicity,
volume and mobility would be significantly reduced through
-34-
598.7:2
-------
treatment; the potential for future exposure would also be
significantly reduced. The site would be returned to
unrestricted use and long-term monitoring and maintenance for PCB
control at the site or at an off-site disposal facility would not
be required.
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and volume
This alternative uses treatment to significantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume (TMV) of the waste.
5.
.lmplementabili ty
The use of mobile treatment systems is a relatively new approach.
To date, only eight mobile thermal units are currently in
service. Vendors of thermal units have been identified for the
l'G1 Brakes si te. It is expected that a mobile uni t would be
available or could be fabricated in a reasonable time period for
use at the l'G1 Brakes site. ~nistratively incineration is
difficult to implement. Satisfaction of substantive perm t
requirements typically. takes up to two years to accomplish.
6.
Short-Term Effectiveness
This alternative would have short-term risks associated with
excavation and soil processing activities, along with potential
short-term air impacts resulting from thermal treatment.
Pollution control equipment would require detailed monitoring and
maintenance to minimize air impacts. Traffic impacts to the .
southern part of Cloverdale would be less than with alternative
2, since soil is not being transported, but treated on-site.
7.
Cost
On-site incineration would require extensive mobilization and set
up of equipment. System mobilization cost is high at $250,000.
-35-
598.7:2
J
.1
I
J
I
I
I
I
-------
The incineration process represents 56 percent of the total cost
or $3,395,000 (see Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
Assuming that all necessary air quality standards are met, it is
expected that the state ~ld accept incineration as a permanent
remedy for the site.
9.
Community Acceptance
Although the end point of this alternative would be a permanent
solution, representatives of the community have already expressed
strong opposition to the placement of a temporary incinerator at
the site. Opposition included letters from local, state, and
U.S. politicians, as well as a petition signed by members of the
community.
Alternative 3-2.
On-Site Thermal Treatment- Parcel 2,
,1.
.
Overall Protection of Human Heal'th and Environment
This alternative would offer the same protectiveness" as is
offered by Alternative 3-1.
2.
Canpliance wi th ARMs
The only remedial activity under this alternative that differs
frCID those under Alternative 3-1 would be the demolition of the
processing building and concrete slab. These activities would be
performed to meet state and federal COT, OSHA, TSCA and RCRA
requirements.
-36-
598 . 7 : 2 .
-------
3.
Lon9-Te~ Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative would offer the same long-te~ effectiveness and
permanence as Alternative 3-1.
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume
, )
I
This alternative would use treatment to significantly reduce
contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume.
s.
Short-Te~ Effectiveness
The short-te~ impacts of this alternative would ,be the same as
those for Alternative 3-1.
6.
Implementability
I .
I- ;
Implementation requirements for this alternative would be the
same as Alternative 3-1, except that additional construction
services would be requi red for demcli tfon of ~e processing.
. building.
7.
Cost
! .
The major costs associated with the alternative are for system
mobilization and incineration processing. These two items
represent 47 percent of the total cost or $1,108,000. This
alternative contains no operation and maintenance costs because
contaminated soils and concrete would be treated so that the PCBs
are completely detoxified (Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
State acceptance would be the same as for Alternative 3-1.
-37-
598.7:2
-------
9.
Community Acceptance
The community's perception of this alternative is negative.
Alternative 4-1.
On-Site Fixation - Parcell
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment
This alternative would reduce but not eliminate exposure risks
associated wi th PC&-contaminated soil. In tests performed by
IVJ/C (1988), PCBs were not chemically fixed to the matrix, but
instead c:emained leachable. Air emissions of PCBs from soil
samples treated with the fixative were still detected after
treatment, but at reduced rates compared to unfixed soil. The
potential public health risk associated with ingestion would also
be reduced because di rect soil contact would be eliminated by
placing and maintaining a cover over the fixed soil. This
alternative reduces mobility, but no evidence exists that it
would significantly reduce the toxicity of the waste. This
alternative would require long-te~ monitoring ,to assure the
integrity of the fixed monolith and a cover to ensure that air'
emission levels do not exceed those that would pose a public
health risk.
The creation of a solidified block would make the area unsuitable
for habitation by burrowing animals.
2.
Compliance wi th ARARs
The excavation and treatment process associated with this
alternative would be performed to meet action-specific state and
federal, OSHA, and ROA requirements. Pursuant to 40 CFR
S761.75(c)(4), the following TSCA landfill disposal requirements
would be waived: 40 CFR 5761. 75(b)(1), (2), and (3).
-38-
598.7:2
-------
3.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative would require long-term on-site monitoring,
land use restrictions, site access restrictions, and site
maintenance to ensure its long-term effectiveness. This
alternative does not use treatment as a principle element to
significantly and permanently reduce the principal threats at the
site, and, therefore, it would not result in a permanent remedy.
PCBs are made more sui table for long-term storage by rendering
them less leachable, but this alternative does not detoxify PCBs.
I
I
In the long term, this alternative, if properly monitored and
maintained, would be effective in reducing the potential
exposure risks to "the public. Fixation with a cap would reduce
the potential for migration of PCBs via any media.
, '
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative does use treatmen~ to reduce the mobility of
PCBsi,n soil. Fixed soil may be less toxic to humans. because the
fixed material. may be less readily absorbed in the digestive
tract. However, available data is inconclusive on whether this
technol'ogy reduces "toxfcity. Volume is not reduced, but is
actually increased because the PCB fixative agent added to the
soil would increase bulk up to 25-30 percent.
, ....,
5.
Implementability
The personnel expertise and equipment to perform fixation
following excavation are available from a limited number of firms
across the country. The availabili ty of mixing uni ts may be a
liadting factor. The resources for excavation activities are
readily available.
-39-
598.7:2
-------
6.
Short-Term Effectiveness
This alternative would have the same short-te~ impacts
associated with excavation as Alternative 2-1, with the exception
of less traffic. Vegetation removal would be the only short-te~
environmental impact. The excavation of large volumes of soil
would create a potential for exposure. This potential would be
mitigated through implementation of proper health and safety
practices and dust control measures.
7.
Cost
The following costs are estimated for this alternative:
*System mobilization costs
Staging and storage areas
O&M cost ($100/cubic yard)
Fixation process cost
$
100,000
50,000
12,700
1,065,000
Five percent has been included in the capital" cost (see Table
1) to caver.pilot study.
8.
*Unit cost obtained from Pepper~s Steel' Alloys site, Florida
State Acceptance
State acceptance of this alternative is anticipated to be low
because of the need for long-te~ monitoring and enforcement of
site restrictions.
9.
Community Acceptance
'ft\e cOIIIIIUnity's perception of this alternative is expected to be
less favorable than its perception of off-site disposal. The
community prefers an alternative which eliminates the problem at
the site, in contrast to one which results in minimizing the
problem, but still leaves contaminated soil at the site. During
the most recent public comment period and community meeting, no
-40-
598.7:2
"
-------
comments were received regarding fixation, exclusive of those
received from the PRP. City Council members have stated to EPA
that they prefer an alternative allowing unrestricted use. Some
community members had previously indicated preference for
fixation over incineration.
Alternative 4-2 On-Site Fixation - Parcel 2
1.
OVerall protection of human health and the environment
OVerall protection from this alternative would be the same as
Alternative 4-2, except that biota and veqetation are not
associated with the building, so they would not be impacted.
2.
Compliance with ARARs
The only activities that vary from those under Alternative 4-1
would be activities related to the processing building and
concrete slab. These activities would be performed to meet state
and federal OSHA, TSCA, and ROA handling requi rements ~ As with
Alternative 4-1, the TSCA landfill requirements related to
. ' .
grOUndwater protection [i.e., 40 CFR 5761.75(b)(1), (2), and (3)]
would be waived,. pursuant to 40 CFR 5761. 7?( c)( 4). .
3.
Long-Tenn Effectiveness
As with Alternative 4-1, this alternative would not provide a
permanent solution for the site. It has the same long te~
effectiveness as Alternative 4-1, that is, contaminant exposure
would be reduced, but the alternative would require enforcement
of lonq-tenn monitoring requirements and land use restrictions.
4.
Reduction of TOxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative would have the same effectiveness in reducing
'IYW as Alternative 4-1.
-41-
598.7:2
-------
s.
Implementability
Implementation requirements for this alternative would be the
same as for Alternative 4-1, in addition to construction services
required to demolish the building.
6.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness of this alternative would be
equivalent to that of Alternative 4-1.
7.
Cost
Cost assumptions for this alternative are similar to Alternative
4-1, except that additional costs for building demolition and
disposal are required. Costs are presented in Table 1.
8.
State Acceptance
St~te acceptance is e~pected to be less'for this alterna~ive
. .
compared to other alternatives which remove or treat the waste,
due. to the need to enforce long-term land use restrictions and
monitoring requirements at the site.
9.
Community Acceptance
As with other alternatives for Parcel 2, community acceptance of
this alternative may be low because the alternative would result
in the removal of the casting plant building, and implementation
could result in a 10S5 of jobs. Otherwise, the community's
perception of this alternative is expected to be the same as
Alternative 4-1.
-42-
598.7:2
-------
\
Alternative 5-1.
In Situ Fixation - Parcell
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection from this alternative would be potentially
less than that of Alternative 4-1, on-site fixation. Due to the
stiff, clayey nature of soils at the site, and the experience
gained in the KPEG testing, it doesn't appear possible to fix
soils as completely as for the on-site excavation and fixation
process. Adequate reduction of mcbil i ty would be questionable
and is expected to be less than that for excavation and fixation.
The exact effect of this non-homogenous mixing on air emissions
is unknown but presumably emissions would be higher than for
Alternative 4-1. The cap placed over the fixed monolith would
reduce the threat from direct contact and emissions.
2.
Compliance with ARARs
As with Alternative 4-1, this alternative would meet all ARMs.
. . .
Th~ TSCA disposal requirements found in 40 CfR S761.75(b)(l),
'. ~'.' . ,-.s-._.-~-,~ --. :;~. .
(2), and (3) would be waived, pursuant to 40. CFR S761.7S(c)(4).
. I
t
3.
Long-Term Effectiveness and ~er.manence
This alternative. would require long-term on-site monitoring,
land use restrictions, site access restrictions, and site
maintenance, in order to remain effective in protecting human
health and the environment.
The creation of a solidified block would make the area unsuitable
for habitation by burrowing animals.
This alternative is expected to offer slightly less long-term
effectiveness than Alternative 4-1, due to the inability to
completely mix the fixative and 50il in situ. This alternative
--
-43-
598.7:2
-------
,
does not detoxify the PCBs and does not use treatment as a
principle element to significantly and permanently reduce the
principal threats at:the site. Therefore, in situ fixation would
--
not resul t in a permanent remedy.
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Reduction of toxicity and volume would be similar to that of
Alternative 4-1. Reduction of mobility may be less for this
alternative, because fixation may not be as complete as for
on-site excavation and fixation.
5.
Imple~ntability
The personnel expertise and equipment to perfo~ in situ fixation
are available, but limited. Two Bay Area firms which might be
available to perform this type of remedy have been identified,
however, they have only one or two in situ units available. As
in Alternatives 3-1, 4-1 and 5-1, "excavation resources to
consolidate contaminated materials are readily available.
6.
Short-Term Effectiveness
.
The short-term impacts from this alternative differ from
Alternative 4-1 in that potential short-te~ exposure to workers
and adjacent residents would be less. Highly contamdnated soil
would not be excavated and there is less risk of dust generation,
as only minor soil excavation is required.
7.
Costs
Based on discussions with the limited available vendors, costs
for the in situ fixation process are highly variable. Actual
pilot tests would have to be performed at the MQ1 Brakes si te in
order to better estimate the cost. System mobilization cost is
-44-
598.7:2
-------
estimated at $120,000. O&M costs for this alternative are
identical to those of Alternative 4-1 (see Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
State acceptance is expected to be law due to the need to enfbrce
long-term monitoring and land use restrictions at the site.
9.
Community Acceptance
The community perception of this alternative is generally
equivalent to that of Alternative 4-1. Although in the sho.rt-
term there would be less exposure to workers and adjacent
residents compared to excavation, in the long-term this
alternative does not provide a permanent solution for the site,
and requires land use restrictions.
Alternative 5-2.
In Situ Fixation - Parcel 2
1.
Overall protection of. human health and.the environment
Overall protection from this alternative would be the same as
described for Alternative 5-1.
2.
Compliance wi th .MARs
The issues relative to ARARs and other institutional requirements
are the same as for Alternative 5-1.
3.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The long-term effectiveness of this alternative is the same as
Alternative 4-2. It does not provide a permanent solution and
requires long term monitoring, and site access and land use
restrictions .
-45-
598.7:2
J
I
. I
I
I
. I
-------
4.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility. and Volume
Toxicity and volume reductions are the same as those for
Al ternati ve 5-1. Depending on the depth of contamination below
the slab. mobility reduction could be less than for Alternative
4-2.
5.
Implementabjlity
The resources required for this alternative are the same as those
required for Alternative 5-1, including construction services to
demolish the building. The limi-ting factor would be availability
of in situ equip1lent.
6.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term impacts for this alternative would be greater than
those associated with Alternative5-l due to the need to remove -
the concrete slab. Overall potential short-term 'exposure to
workers and adjacent residents is expected to be less than-
. .
complete excavation, however: -
7.
Costs
Cost assumptions are similar to Alternative 5-1 with the
exception of the need to demolish and dispose of the building and
slab. O&M costs will be identical to those described for
Alternative 4-2 (see Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
State acceptance is expected to be low due to the need to enforce
long-term monitoring and land use restrictions.
-46-
598.7:2
-------
9.
Community Acceptance
The community's perception of this alternative is expected to be
the same as for Alternative 4-2.
I .
I
Alternative 6-1.
-3.
RCRA Cap - Parcel 1
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Capping of the site would reduce mobility of contaminants through
surface runoff. A cap would also reduce air eadssions.
Horizontal groundwater mobility of contaadnants would not be
reduced and contaminants would remain 1n direct contact with site
groundwater. This alternative would not comply with the TSCA
Spill Policy TBC criteria for the site. Overall protectiveness
offered by this alternative could only be maintained through
long-te~ land use restrictions, maintenance, and site
monitoring. This alternative presents the greatest potential for
release of contamdnants and exposure to PCBs should the cap fail, .
. .
be ~ged, or. be removeq. The ~lternativedoes not use
treatment.
2.
Compliance with ARARs
Construction of a multi-layered cap over the contaadnated soil
meets all ARARs.
Long-Te~ Effectiveness and PeODanence
This alternative would not provide a permanent solution. Capping
the si te could provide an acceptable means of eliminating
exposure to contamdnated soils via potential ingestion, direct
contact and inhalation pathways. However, to ensure long-term
protectiveness, land use and access restrictions, monitoring and
maintenance would be requi red in perpetuity.
-47-
598.7:2
-------
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative would not use treatment to reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume. However, the cap would restrict potential
human contact with contaminated soil, reduce surface water run-
off and infiltration, and emissions of air borne PCBs.
Groundwater mobility would not be reduced.
s.
Implementability
The equipment, materials and personnel necessary for the
construction of a cap would be available through local markets.
It is not anticipated that resource limitations will present a
problem.
6.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term impacts for capping fixation would be the same as
those for Alternative 5-1. Potential public health risks
associated with the consolida~i~n of contaminated soil would be .
minimized through standarq work practices.
7.
Costs
This alternative would involve covering two acres of contamdnated
soil with a RCRA cap. A RCRA cap would be the least costly of
the action alternatives. O&M costs include a site investigation
at a minimum of every five years to evaluate the integri ty of the
cap and to take perimeter soil samples and groundwater samples
(see Table 1).
8.
State Acceptance
State acceptance is expected to be low due to the need to enforce
long-term monitoring requirements and land use restrictions.
-48-.
598.7:2
~
-------
9.
Community Acceptance
Based on the comments received during the first public comment
period, the community's perception of this alternative is not
favorable. Like Alternative 4-1 and 5-1, the remedial action
would not result in a pe~ent solution, nor would it allow
unrestricted future use of the site.
Alternative 6-2.
RCRA Cap - Parcel 2
1.
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protectiveness of this alternative would be the same as
that for Alternative 6-1.
2.
Compliance with ARARs
The issues relative to ARARs are the same as those for
Alternative 6-1.
3.
Long-Term Effectiveness.and Permanence
The long-term effectiveness
as that for Alternative 6-1.
permanent solution.
of this alternative would be the same
This alternative would not be a
4.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Reduction of 'l'f1V for this alternative would be the same as that
for Alternative 6-1.
-49-
598.7:2
-------
,
5.
Implementability
The resources required for this alternative would be the same as
those required for Alternative 6-1, in addition to construction
services required to demolish the building.
6.
Short-Te~ Effectiveness
The short-te~ effectiveness associated with this alternative
would be the same as that for Alternative 6-1.
7.
Cost
Cost assumptions for a RCRA cap for Parcel 2 are simdlar to those
for the RCRA cap for Parcel 1, with the additional cost of
dismantling the building. The cap would cover approximately
5,000 square feet of the contaminated portion of the building.
0&11 costs would be similar to those described in Alternative 4-2
(see Tab.le 1).. ~
8.
State Acceptance
State acceptance is expected to be the same as for Alternative
6-1.
9.
Community Acceptance
The community perception of this alternative is expected to be
the same as for Alternative 6-1. In addition, if the
implementation of the alternative resulted in the loss of jobs,
the alternative would be perceived less favorably by the
cClllllUnity.
-50-
598.7:2
-------
x.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the analyses in the revised FS and public comments received,
EPA'S selected remedy for the MGM Brakes site is excavation and off-site
disposal of soils contaminated above 10 ppn PCBs. Soils will be excavated
to a depth of at least five feet for most of the contaminated portions of
the si te, wi th limi ted areas being excavated down to 29 feet. The soil
excavation will encounter groundwater at five feet, which will require
dewatering of the deeper excavation. Groundwater pumped fran the
excavation will be treated to remove suspended sediment, PCBs, and VOCs.
Soil containing less than 50 ppm PCBs will be disposed of in a Class 11
landfill, approved by the RWQCB. Soil contaminated with PCBs at
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppn PCBs will be disposed of in
a TSCA-approved disposal facility in compliance with S12l(d)(3) of SARA.
The excavated areas of the site will be backfilled with clean soil which
will meet a less than 1 ppm PCB criteria. The site will then be fully
regraded and seeded to ensure growth of grasses to minimize erosion.
The remedy ~ill ~lso include excavation and off-site
.' .
contaJ!1inated sediments such that the requirements' of
Quality ~on~rol plan ate met.
disposal of
the ~'s Water
The selected remedy also includes measures for locating and remediating the
vex: cont~nation at the site. Activities involved with this remediation
include locating the source of the vex: spill, removal and
treatment/disposal of VOC contaminated soil, evaluation of the extent of
the vex: contamination, and, as necessary, development and implementation of
additional remedial measures, to ensure that the groundwater is restored to
a 10-6 risk level at the site boundary.
In preparing the revised Feasibility Study, EPA incorporated results of
exposure assessments presented in the document, "Development of Advisory
Levels for Polychlorinated Biphenyls." '!his document was written by EPA's
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) Exposure Assessment
Group (EAG) and has been peer reviewed both within and outside the Agency.
-51-
598.7:2
-------
The OHEA assessment concludes that a PCB level of 1 to 6 ppm in a
commercial or residential area would result in an on-site oncogenic risk
(i.~. risk of developing cancer) of 10-5.
On April 2, 1987, EPA published a National PCB Spill Cleanup Policy (40 CFR
5761.120 Subpart G) that was based on the exposure and risk analysis
presented in the OHEA document. The Spill Policy establishes a 10 ppm
clean-up level in residential and commercial areas, when a 10 inch cap of
clean soil (defined as <1 ppm PCB) is placed over the residual
(i.e., <10 ppm) PCBs. The 1 to 6 ppm soil value for PCBs reflects a 10-5
risk. Due to the variances inherent in sampling, analysis, and calculating
PCB soil risk levels, there is not a quantifiable difference in the risk
afforded by 1, 6, or 10 ppm soil concentrations. Subsequent to issuance of
the Spill Policy, the PCB cancer potency factor has been raised from 4.3 to
7.7 mg PCB per kilogram of body weight per day. This change is less than
an order of magnitude; thus, the risk level corresponding to 10 ppm is
still 10-5. A 10-5 risk is considered acceptable by EPA and therefore, EPA
has elected to use 10 ppm as the clean-up level.- Placing a 10 inch cover
over the residual PCBs reduces the overall risk to 10-6. At mos't areas of
. .
th~ site, the excavation and subsequent soil cover will well exceed 10
. .
inches, and, therefore, the risk reduction is expected to be even greater.
The selected remedy is preferred over the others for several reasons. It
provides a pe~ent solution at the site since the source of the problem
is removed and future risks from contaminated soil, runoff (e.g. from
rains) or PCB vapors are significantly and permanently reduced. In
addition this remedy does not require long-te~ monitoring, land use
restrictions, or enforcement of institutional controls to prevent exposure
at the site. It allows unrestricted future use of the property which,
based on CCIIIIIUnity input, is important for future City plans. The only
other alternative that offers this same level of lonq-te~ protection at
the site is incineration, which has met opposition from the Cloverdale
community. Disposal at a facility regulated under federal or state law
would ensure that the PCBs are handled in a safe and effective manner. In
addition, off-site disposal is the easiest alternative to implement in two
stages, allowing the community time to plan for the closure or relocation
of the casting plant.
-52-
598.7:2
-------
The final remedy will include provisions for groundwater monitoring as long
as VOCs are present in the groundwater. Monitoring will also be perfo~
to ensure that PCBs have not impacted groundwater during remediation and to
verify that the source of 'I'CE contamination has been removed. The period
during which monitoring will be required following remediation will be
specified by the NCRWQCB.
XI.
STA'IUroRY DE."I'ERMINATICtlS
1.
PROl'ECTIVENESS
By removing all soil with PCB levels greater than 10 ppm, the present
threat and potential for future exposure to contaminated 80il, runoff, or
. PCB vapors is significantly reduced. under any plausible future use
scenario, the excess risk afforded by remaining soils would be, at worst, a
10-s risk. There is a potential for short-term public health impacts
related to the excavation and transportation ~f soil. These activities
will increase the risk of exposure to contaminated soil, as well as to
. .
volatile and PCB-contaminated particulate emissions. Excavation related.
exposJ,1re can be controlled by proper health. ~d safety procedures, as weil
as. practices such as misting soil with.wat~r to suppress airborne
particulates. The use of trucks with protective linings, seals, and
tarpaulins, and the use of on-site decontamination procedures, will
minimize exposure to waste haulers and to the public along. route ~o the
disposal facility. There will be a short-term increase in transportation
traffic due to trucks traveling to and from the site and noise levels will
increase. The impact on the community should be negligible since most
residences are to the north of the site and transport will be along Highway
101 to the south. Groundwater will be restored to levels such that the
total risk at the site boundary will not exceed 10-6.
This alternative will have minimal short-term environmental impacts during
soil excavation. Biota will be displaced by the excavation process.
However, these impacts are temporary and can be mitigated. vegetation
regrowth can be enhanced through proper seeding and mulching practices.
-53-
598.7:2
-------
Long-term environmental impacts at the site are not anticipated and the
site is expected to be fully restored.
2.
ATrAINMENT OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Section 121(d)(2) of SARA requires remedial actions to achieve a level of
control that is protective of public health and that meets applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). The Federal ARARs for a
site could include requirements under any of the Federal environmental laws
(e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water
Act) . State ARARs include' promulgated requirements under State
environmental or facility siting laws that are more stringent than any
Federal ARARs and have been identified to EPA by the State in a timely
manne r .
Applicable requirements are defined as those clean-up standards, standards
. of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulga~ed under Federal or State law that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant,
, '
remedial action, location or other circumstance at a CERCLA site.'
I' .
'Relevant and appropriate requirements are defined as those clean-up.
. .
standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State
law that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous subst~ce, pollutant,
cont~nant, remedial action, location or other circumstance at a CERCLA
site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well-suited to the
particular site.
-54-
598.7:2
-------
Contaminant Specific ARARs
The contamdnant-specific ARARs are described below:
1.
TSCA PCB Disposal and Treatment Requirements
Regulations promulgated under TSCA state that any non-liquid PCBs
at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in the fo~ of
contaminated soil shall be treated in an incinerator or disposed
in a chemical waste landfill. 40 CFR S761.60 (a)(4). Once the
contaminated soils are excavated, the requirements became
applicable to the MGM Brakes site. EPA has also determdned that
these requirements are relevant and appropriate to alternatives
not involving excavation; this determination is based on the
~milarity of the affected media, the fact that the same
hazardous substance is involved, and the fact that these
regulations were developed to address a problem sufficiently
similar to that faced at the MGM site to justify their adoption.
Therefore, these requirements are considered an ARAR for the
site. The specific chemical waste landfill requirements involved
are found in in 40 CFR 5761.75. These requirements are as
follO'WS:
. !
Landfill Requirements
o
Soils
The landfill site shall be located in. thick, relatively
impermeable formations such as large-al'ea' clay pans. Where
this is not pOssible, the soil shall have a high clay and
silt content with the following parameters:
.l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In-place soil thickness, 4 feet or compacted soil liner
thickness of 3 feet;
Permeability (cmvsec), equal to or less than 1 x 10~';
Percent soil passing No. 200 sieve, >30;
Liquid limit, >30; and
Plasticity index >15.
o
Synthetic membrane liners
Synthetic membrane liners shall be used when, in the
judgment of the Regional AdDUnistrator, the hydrologic or
qeologic conditions at the landfill require such a liner in
order to provide at least a permeability equivalent to the
soils described above. See 5761. 7S (b)(2) for liner
requi rements .
o
Hydrologic conditions
The bottom of the landfill shall be at least 50 feet above
the historical high ground water table and there shall be no
-55-
598.7:2
-------
hydraulic connection between the site and standing or
flowing surface water.
Flood protection
o
Various surface water diversion structures are required
depending upon whether the si te is above or below the
lOO-year floodwater elevation.
Topography
o
Si te shall be located in an area of low to moderate relief.
o
Monitoring systems
Ground and surface water quality from the disposal site area
will be monitored prior to commencing operations, during and
after operations. Parameters will include PCBs, pH, and
specific conductance.
Additional specifications in Section 761.75 address issues
concerning approval of landfill operators, landfill site
approval, and the transfer of property ownership of a landfill
site.
Soil rffiirements are not fully met. Although the s~te has a
silty-c ay soil layer with a permeability of 1 x 10- cmIsec or
less, borings indicate it does not appear to be entirely
continuous. .
TSCA a1so provides the EPA wi th the abili ty to grant a waiver
when one or more of the technical requi rements under 40 CFR
Section 761.75(b) are not met as long as it can be demonstrated
that the landfill will not present an unreasonable risk to health
and the environment. 40 CFR S76l.75(c)(4). Based on information
contained in the Administrative Record, it has been determdned
that granting a waiver of the requirements contained in 40 CFR
S76l.75(b)(l), (2), and (3) would not result in an unreasonable
risk of injury to human health or the environment for this site.
This finding is based on EPA's determination that although the
9roundwater directly beneath the site is already contaminated
with low levels of PCBs, the contaminated aquifer is not usable
due to low yields and, because the rate of movement of the
PCBs is highly attenuated, impacts to the downgradient aquifer
are not anticipated. The requirements of 40 CFR S761.7S(b)(l),
(2), and (3) are, therefore, waived for all alternatives that
would have contaminants on-si te.
-56-
598.7:2
-------
,
2.
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (S~) establishes drinking
water maximum contaminant level (MCLs) standards for public water
systems. The Act and regulations indicate that the standards
apply only to public water supply systems at the tap. However,
under SARA, MCLs may be considered relevant and appropriate for
contaminated groundwater which may result in a potential exposure
via drinking water.
3.
Water Quality Control plan for the North Coastal Basin
The Water Quality Control Plan, adopted on April 17, 1975,
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 CPL 92-500) and 40 CFR S131.202, establishes water quality
objectives for the waters of the state in order to attain the
highest water quality which is reasonable considering all demands
being made and to be made on those waters and the beneficial uses
involved. These objectives have been identified as ARARs for the
drainage ditch leading from the MGM Brakes site.
Location-Specific ARARs
Physical characteristics of the site may influence the type and
location of remedial responses considered for PCB decontamination.
Federal laws on regulations may require mitigation measures or may
impose constraints on the location of remedial measures.
..,
-
LoCation-specific ARARs relate to fish and wildlife, wetlands,
floodplains, and W'Ork in navigable waters. 'lhere were no-location-
specific ARARs identified for the MGM Brakes site
.."
-.-
Action-Specific ARARs
The action-specific ~ for the MGM Brakes site deal with
requirements for the treatment, storage, or disposal of contaminated
soil.
1.
RCRA and Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment (HSWA) Standards
Remedial activities that involve the excavation or removal of
hazardous substances, on-si te management of these substances, or
removal to off-site facilities must be in compliance with
standards under ROA and amendments to RCRA enacted through the
HSWA standards, and wi th the requi rements of the State standards
authorized under ROA. The requirements are applicable to any
-57-
598.7:2
-------
,
soil found to be contaminated with VOC and any soil found
contamdnated with VOCs will be disposed of in accordance with
ROA. Because PCBs are not regulated by ROA, the requirements
are not applicable, but relevant and appropriate to PCB
contamination.
The following RCRA sections are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to remedial alternatives for the MGM Brakes site.
o
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes (40 CFR
5261) .
o
Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR
5265), in particular:
Subpart B - General Facility Standard
Subpart F - Ground Water Monitoring
Subpart G - Closure and Postclosure
Subpart J ~ Tanks
Subpart L - Waste Piles
Subpart N - Landfills
o
Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of New Hazardous
Waste Land Disposal Facilities (40 CFR 5267)
HSWA prohibits the continued land disposal of hazardous
wastes beyond certain specified dates, unless they meet
certain treatment standards or contaminant levels.
Standards were established to set levels or methods of
treatment to substantially di~nish the toxicity of the
waste or restrict its migration so that short-tenm and
long-term threats to human health or the environment are
minimized. Wastes that meet treatment standards are not
subject to land dispos.al. prohibitions. CERCLA-generated
wastes have a 48-mnth statutory exemption from the November
8, 1984, enactment of HSWA. To date, existing HSWA
standards' regarding PCBs only apply to liquid PCBs or PCBs
mixed with a ROA hazardous waste. Therefore, the ROA Land
Disposal restrictions are not ARARs for the PCB contaminated
soil.
Should any soils be found to be contaminated with TCE, a
variance from the Land Disposal Restrictions for this unique
&i te wculd be sought.
2.
USDOT and DOHS Hazardous Material Transportation Rules
Offsite transportation of hazardous materials will be governed by
the Federal Department of Transportation (USDO'l') and State
Department of Transportation (oor) regulations. 'ft1ese
requirements are incorporated by reference into RCRA regulations
and the California Code of Regulations (CCR; formerly California
\
-58-
598.7:2
-------
AdDUnistrative Code), Chapter 30, Minimum Standards for
Kanagement of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes. The
requirements are applicable to the MGM Brakes site, and thus are
identified as ARARs for the site.
A permit would be needed to generate or transport hazardous
solids, liquids, or sludges. The MGM Brakes site is technically
considered a "generator" because it is the source of hazardous
waste or materials that may be transported off-site for disposal.
Therefore, these requirements would be applicable. Generator
requirements are found in 49 CFR 5172 and 5177, 40 CFR 5263, and
CCRChapter 30, Articles 4 and 5. .
OOHS administers ROA and USDOT regulations. Waste transported
out of the State must be handled by a licensed
hauler/transporter, who will need a COHS permi t for in-state
movements and Federal or State permits for out-of-state transport
to secur~ landfills or incineration depots. The
hauler/transporter must operate in compliance with State and
Federal regulations on driver training; waste identification;
container marking, labeling, and placarding; and transport
papers. packing and shipping must be perfo~ in accordance
with 40 CFR 5262.3 and 49 CFR 5173.
3.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations
All OSHA requirements are applicable to workers implementing the
remedial alternatives. Of particular concern will be exposures
to particulates and volatiles in the air, as well as direct
contact with con~aminated materials and hazardous chemicals used
in treatment processes. The requirements are applicable to the .
MGM. Brakes si te., and thus are identified as AltARs for the si te.
\ ..
-'
I .':
. \ .
SARA requires that the Secretary of Labor promulgate standards
for the heal th and safety protection of emplOYees engaged in .
hazardous waste operations pursuant to Section 6 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
Final regulations under this section shall take effect one year
after they are prCIDUlgated. until then, hazardous waste
operations are governed by the interim regulations published in
1986 that provided no less protection for workers employed by
contractors and emergency response workers than the protection
contained in the Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual
for Hazardous Waste Site Activities (NIOSH 1985) and existing
standards under the OCcupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
found in subpart C of 29 CFR 51926.
4.
california Code of Regulations Chapter 30
Chapter 30 establishes requirements for "minimum standards for
management of hazardous and extremely hazardous wastes." Article
10 classifies PCBs of concentration between 50 and 5,000 ppm as
hazardous and greater than 5,000 ppm as extremely hazardous
-59-
598.7:2
-------
wastes; such waste may not be handled or disposed without a
permi t issued by the DOHS. These standards are applicable to the
MGM Brakes site, and thus are ~ for the site.
s.
California Code of Regulations Chapter 3
CCR Chapter 3 Subchapter 15 establishes standards for the
discharge of waste to land. This subchapter provides standards
for construction, monitoring, and closure and post-closure
maintenance which are ARARs for the containment of any wastes at
the MGM Brakes site, and thus are identified as ARARs for the
site.
6.
California Water Code Sections 13260, 13370, and 13370.5
Sections 13260, 13370, and 13370.5 of the California
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act have been identified as
action-specific ARARs for the site. The requirements of these
sections apply to any discharges to waters of the State or to a
publicly owned treatment work (POTW).
~P~TED ~IREMENTS
The following is a description of "To Be Considered" criteria (TBCs).
no ARAR covers a particular situation, or an ARAR is not sufficient to
protect human health nor environment, then non-promulgated standards,
criteria, guidance and advisories may be used to p~~ide a protective
remedy. These "to be considered'" criteria are referred to as mcs. .
If
1.
PCB Clean-up Policy
A TSCA policy for the clean up of .PCBs was established by EPA on
April 2, 1987. This TSCA Spill Policy establishes the measures
which EPA considers to be adequate. for the majority of situations
where PCB contamination occurs during activities regulated under
TSCA. The policy established requirements for decontaminating
spills in both restricted and non-restricted access areas.
Region IX EPA has determined that the clean-up levels established
in the policy (based on a 1986 publication by £PA's Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, OHEA) are necessary to
provide an adequate level of protection of human health and the
environment for the site.
'ntis determination is supported by the fact that in June, 1987,
£PA's Office of Emergency Remedial Response issued a national
policy that set levels of PCB in soil considered permissible for
the protection of public health affected by contaminated sites
regulated under CERCIA. 'ntis policy was also based on the 1986
OHEA document. 'nte policy states that it is intended to
alleviate the burden on regulators of the cumbersome process of
-60-
598.7:2
-------
determdning permdssible levels of PCBs for each site under their
jurisdiction.
EPA has determined that the exposure assumptions used in
developing the OHEA risk assessment and subsequently the Spill
Policy are appropriate to the conditions at the MGM Brakes site.
The Spill policy establishes different clean-up levels for areas
with different uses and consequently different expOsure pathways.
For the MGM Brakes site, the 10 ppm level designed to be
protective for residential/Unrestricted access is most
appropriate, because" three residents live extremely close to the
site at present and, based on discussions with the City Council,
the most likely future use of the site is f" unrestircted access
residential area. 10 ppm represents a 10- on-site oncogenic
risk, which is considered by EPA to be an acceptable level of
risk.
2.
California Department of Health Services (OOHS)
DOHS has established PCB Spills Cleanup policy Number 81-2a.
This policy identifies the waste disposal and clean-up
requirements for PCB contaminated liquids, solids, and debris of
varying concentrations (i.e., >500 ppm, and <500 ppm and >50
ppn) . Policy Number 81-2a cannot be considered an ARAR because
it is not promulgated, but has been identified as a 'I'BC because
EPA has determined that this policy is necessary to protect human
health and the environment at the site.
This policy contains provisions for the disposal of non-TSCA
regulated soils, rags, and debris containing PCB waste of less
than 5'0 ppm are provided.. The poliq indicates that such waste'
is not normally considered hazardous and may .be disposed of at a
C14SS II, Class 11-1, or Class 11-2 disposal site with approval
from the~. Landfills in California are regulated by the
~. Specific landfills in California are designated for
disposal of PCB-contaminated' soil containing less than 50 ppm
PCBs. Approval from the ~ must be received'prior to
disposal.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Cost estimates presented in the Feasibility Study were prepared in
accordance with the remedial action costing procedure manual. Costs for
remediating Parcell and Parcel 2 separately or jointly were compared. In
estimating costs for remediating Parcell and Parcel 2 separately it was
assumed remediation of Parcel 2 would not occur for another ten years.
'n1is ten-year delay in remediation is an option provided so that the "
community can negotiate reconstruction of the MUM facility at the existing
-61-
598.7:2
.
i
I
,
!
. I
-------
or new site, or allow time to otherwise compensate for the potential
business loss.
All alternatives, except for the RCRA cap, result in the same order of
magnitude for capital and present worth costs. Since costs were comparable
for all alternatives, selection of the preferred alternative - offsite
disposal - was based on how well each alternative met the other evaluation
criteria, (i.e., protection of human health and the environment, ability to
meet ARARs, reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume, short- and
long-term effectiveness, and state/community acceptance). Based on the
evaluation of all remedial alternatives provided in the FS, EPA believes
that the off-site disposal remedy provides overall effectiveness
commensurate to its costs such that it represents a reasonable value for
the money.
PREF~CE FOR 'I'REA'mENI' AS A PRINCIPAL REMEDY
The selected remedy does not meet the statutory preference for alternatives
involving permanent treatment as a principal element. Such treatment was
found to be impracticable for the following reasons: (1) community
opposition' to incineration; (2) preference of the ~ommunity for
~restricted future use; (3) the fact that. the fixation alternatives do not
use treatment as a principle element to reduce the significant health risks
at the site through a reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume (i.e.,
while they reduce mobility through treatment, 'this reduction does not
address a signficant exposure pathway. - e.g., the inhalation of PCB vapors,
ingestion, and direct contact.); and (4) the lack of developed institutions
for continual maintenance/oversight of on-site remedies, and the
investigatory and enforcement burden entailed in the need to engage in such
oversight indefinitely.
USE OF PE:RMAN!Nl' SOLl1I'Ia-lS, ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT, OR RESaJRCE RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGIES 'ro mE MAXIMUM PRACTIa.BLE.
Of the alternatives evaluated in the FS, off-site disposal represents the
best balance of the nine evaluation criteria designed to reflect the
-62-
598.7:2
,
-------
statutory requirements of SMA. Treatment alternatives considered in the
FS were chemical dechlorination, incineration, and fixation.
Chemical dechlorination was unsuccessful in reducing PCB levels to an
acceptable level due to the nature of the soils at the site. Inciner~tion,
although effective in significantly reducing the overall toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the contaminants by destroying the PCBs, was
vigorously opposed by the community during and after public comment on the
first FS. In addition, an incineration alternative would be difficult to
implement due to the limited number of available incinerators, the
community's broad-based opposition, and the administrative burden involved
in meeting federal and state permit requirements. Fixation caabined with a
cap would be effective in reducing the mobility of the PCBs; however, in
order to ensure the long-te~ protection of human health and the
environment, fixation would have to be accompanied by a cap, institutional
controls such as deed and land use restrictions, and lonq-ter.m air and
groundwater monitoring requirements. These requirements would represent a
continued investigatory and enforcement burden for the indefinite future.
EPA also does not have well-developed administrative capabilities to
oversee and enforce institutional controls. In addition, community
members, in:luding members of ~e City Council, have indicated that. a
"likely future use of the site is residential; such use would be
. .
incompatible.with the land use restrictions necessary if fixation were
selected as the remedy. Fixation would also be more difficult to implement
. than off-site disposal because of the limited number of qualified firms and
equi~nt.
In contrast, the alternative involving excavation of all soils above 10 ppm
PCBs and off-site disposal significantly reduces any present risks of
exposure to the contaminants. 'nte heal th risks associated wi th exposure at
the site in the future are also significantly reduced without the need for
on-si te land use restrictions or long-ter.m monitoring. Members of the
community have expressed support for the off-site disposal alternative.
Although the PCB-contaminated soil will not be treated, it will be
transported to a facility especially designed and constructed for the .
disposal of hazardous waste. These facilities are highly regulated by the
-63-
598.7:2
-------
federal and state governments such that long-term monitoring and deed
restrictions are sure to be enforced and any failure of the landfill
detected quickly. The disposal facilities are suited technologically and
institutionally to mitigate any potential hazard posed by the contaftdnated
soil.
-64-
598.7:2
-------
MGM BRAKES SUPERFUND SITE
CLOVERDALE, CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTRATIVE REC.ORD IN[)fX
.~~.)
-------
MGM BRAKES SITE
RESPCNSIVENESS SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS AND RESPCNSES
IN'I'RODUC'I'I~
From May 26, 1988 through June 1, 1988, the u.s. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) held a public contnent periQd on .EPA's Draft Feasibility Study
(FSi EPA, 1988a) for. the MGM Brakes site in Cloverda1e, california. The
purpose of the public contnent period was to give interested parties the
opportunity to comment on the Draft FS. EPA held a community meeting on
May 18, 1988, also for the purpose of soliciting public comments on the
Draft FS.
The FS addressed possible solutions to the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
contaminated soil and VOC contaminated groundwater problems at the MGM
. Brakes Superfund site. using the FS and public comments received on this
document, the Agency has selected a clean-up remedy for the site, as
discussed in the Record of Decision (ROD).
EPA Superfund policy requires a responsiveness summary to provide EPA and
the interested public with a review and summary of community concerns about
the site and significant public comments on the FS. In addition to .
summarizing public concerns and questions, the responsiveness summary
presents EPA's responses to those concerns.
. ..
EPA has categorized .the comments and responses to those comments as.
follows:. .
I.
Comments made by members of the interested publici
Comments made by State and local agencies; and
II.
III. Comments made by potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
Potentially responsible parties under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCIA
or Superfund) include current and past facility owners or
operators, persons who generated hazardous substances, and
persons who transported, treated, ot' disposed of hazardous
substances at the site.
Each of these comment response categories are presented in the following
sections .
598.8:7
-------
1.
COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE INTERESTED PUBLIC
I.A Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Dee'Reynolds
Cloverdale, California to u.S. EPA Region IX
1.
They are
Comment: The Reynolds live adjacent to the HGM property.
concerned about dust production during remediation.
Response: EPA is also concerned about dust production. EPA will not
allow unabated dust production. during soil excavation. EPA will
enforce dust control measures such as misting soil and not allow
excavation on days with high wind speeds. EPA will also enforce air
monitoring during remediation to ensure that off-site impacts are
minimized. Excavation will cease if dust exceeds unacceptable levels.
In EPA's judgment, these measures are adequate to ensure protection of
human health and the environment during excavation.
1.
2.
Comment: The Reynolds request that the clean~up of both parcels occur
at the same time. Their statement is based on a newspaper article
that stated it would be less expensive to perform one clean-up than it
would be to do the clean-up in two stages.
Response: Remediating the site in one step would allow the problem to
be resolved in the shortest time possible. However, re~diation of
the casting plant building in the short term could result in loss of
jobs and a business for Cloverdale. To allow the community and MGM
Brakes time to plan for the remediation of the building, EPA is
allowing a two-phase remediation for the site. .
~.
The cost of cleaning up in twO phases is in fact less than the cost of
implementing the cleanup jointly for the off-site disposal
alternative. (Draft FS at 5-55.)
I.B Comments Made at Community Meeting, Cloverdale, May 18, 1988
Question and Answer Period
1.
Comment: Will the project (i.e., site remediation) bring jobs to the
communi ty, .or will it be performed by contractors from elsewhere?
1.
Response: Any qualified bidder in Cloverdale, Healdsburg, or elsewhere
may be allowed to bid on the project. If EPA were to contract the
remediation, EPA would have to follow rederal Aquisition Regulations
and select the lowest-priced, qualified bidder. If MGM Brakes were to
perfo~ the remediation, MGM Brakes could select the bidder based on
lowest price or other criteria.
2.
Comment: At present, is all of the contamcination on the MGM Brakes
property, or is some contamination on property to the south?
Response: Soil samples collected in the field south of the MGM Brakes
property did not show detectable levels of PCBs. The drainage ditch
2.
I-I
598.8:10
-------
3.
which flows south from the MGM Brakes site along Highway 101 has shown
low levels of PCB contamination, but these levels are all below the 10
ppm clean-up level that is protective of human health.
Comment: Is PCB carried in water so that it can be transported across
property south of MGM Brakes?
I
f
I
3.
Response: PCBs are relatively insoluble but are transported in water
adsorbed in suspended sediment. EPA has tested sediment for PCBs in
the drainage ditch which flows south from the MGM plant. None were
found in EPA's samples. PCBs have been detected in drainage sediments
adjacent to the site, but all results show PCBs to be below the. 10 ppm
clean-up level.
Comment: Based on EPA's testing of soils from properties adjacent to
MGM Brakes, are there any PCBs present on property other than the MGM
Brakes site?
4.
4.
Response: See Responses 2 and 3. Low levels have been detected
off-site in the drainage ditch flowing south from the site. No other
PCBs have been found off-site. During the remedial action, samples
will be taken along the site perimeter to further verify that no .
off-site contamination has occurred.
5.
Comment: What is going to be done to protect the community from dust
created during earth removal?
. . .
5. .. Response.: Dust production during remediation is a factor.- that EPA is
very concerned abou~ and specif~c dust control measures will be
implemented during soil excavation. Soils will be kept wet (misted)
during remediation to control dust. In addition, with the high
groundwater conditions at the site, a portion of the excavation will be
performed in soils already saturated with water; this will help
minimize dust production.
6.
Comment: How will it be detenmined whether any PCBs exist in the air
during excavation?
6.
~~s~~s~~me~~s~~~~;~.monitoring for PCB levels will be a requirement
7.
Comment: Will someone from the government be at the site during
excavation?
7.
Res~nse: A representative of the £PA will periodically observe
reme iation at the site. The frequency of oversight will be sufficient
to ensure that dust levels do not exceed acceptable levels and that the
remedy is being implemented properly. Dust levels will be recorded
continuously and the firm conducting the work can be fined if, during
inspections, it is found that safe levels have been exceeded. The
fines provide a strong incentive for companies to comply with £PA's
strict guidelines. .
1-2
598.8:10
-------
8.
Comment: What will be done if PCBs are detected in the air during
remediation?
8.
Response: If PCBs were detected above acceptable levels, EPA would
stop work and evaluate the situation so that additional control
measures could be implemented to solve the problem.
Comment: Where is the soil going to be placed after it is removed from
MGM Brakes? Has the decision as to where it is going been made or will
it be made at a later time? .
9.
9.
Resnnse: AS a PCB waste, the contaminated soil must be taken to a
facl ity that is permitted to accept the waste. EPA has identified"
several facilities where the soil can be taken. The decision on where
the soil will be taken will be made prior to excavation and will be
based on capacity of disposal facilities, transportation costs, and
other factors.
10. Comment: A communi ty member thanked EPA for coming around to "our way
of thinking" and not burning the PCBs. He hoped that EPA could work
out a solution with MGM Brakes. He stated that at least two members of
the Cloverdale City Council had already indicated that they would
approve of digging up the soil and hauling it away. He concluded with
the observation that the problem should be solved as quickly as
possible.
10. Response: EPA notes the community support for off-site disposal
demonstrated by this comment. EPA agrees that expeditious.
implementation. of the remedial action is important.
.
11. .Comment: With regards to the TeE problem, were all of the samples
reported collected independently by EPA?
11. Res~nse: The schematic provided in the fact sheet shows results of
samp es taken independently by EPA and PRP consultants. The two
different values shown for each well are EPA's and the private
consultants' results.
12. Comment: How deep were the wells used to sample groundwater for TeE
contamination?
The wells are installed to a depth of 20 to 30 feet.
Was TeE contamination detected in some of the deeper wells?
12. Response:
13. Comment:
13. Response: All of the wells in which TCE was detected are installed
above bedrock, which is 10 to 30 feet below the ground surface. All of
the wells are installed in the same aquifer so that if contamination is
found, it is all in the same aquifer.
14. Comment: Should TCE contamination be anticipated to occur deeper than
currently detected?
1-3
598.8:10
-------
14. Response: There is no reason to expect that TeE has gone deeper than
bedrock for the site.
15. Comment: Was sampling of surface water performed downgradient of the
site and, if so, were PCBs detected?
15. Res~ns~: EPAdcOlltectfedthfOu7tsedimePCBnt sampleStadndtOnet dsurface watfethr
samp e owngra ien 0 e Sl e. s were no e ec e in any 0 e
samples. The PRPs are required to sample surface water on a quarterly
basis. PRP sampling performed during the winter of 1987-88 detected
low levels of PCBs in surface water. These results are available from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
16. Comment: Is there a potential health risk to employees currently
worklng at MGM Brakes and what risk is there that someone who contracts
a disease would take legal. action against the parties involved? .
16. Response: The investigation of the PCB problem has primarily focused
on contamination outside of the building, and recently, on concrete and
soil below the building. EPA is aware that the interior of the
building has been cleaned and, as of June 11, 1987, levels were below
the OSHA eight hour permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 1 mg/m3. .The
remedial action has been developed so that the PCBs in the concrete and
soil below the buildin~ will be addressed as part of the overall
remedial action. EPA cannot give legal advice regarding any potential
claims by employees or others.
17. Comment:
ceased?
Have the processes that -created th~ PCB and TeE problem
17. Res~nse: PCBs are no longer being manufactured in the U.S., and MGM
Bra es no longer uses hydraulic fluids containing PCBs. The source of
the TeE is not known. EPA has sampled soils for TCE and has not -
detected it. MGM Brakes has stated that TeE is not used within the
casting plant.
18. Comment: Is TeE a component or derivative of PCB, that is, a break
down product of PCB?
18. Response: TeE is a cleaning solvent and is not a derivative or
component of PCB.
19. Comment: Are there any health risks posed to personnel currently
working at MGM Brakes?
19. ~es~nse: MGM Brakes has cleaned the building and tested the air
1nS1 e the building for PCBs. As of June 11, 1987,.MGM Brakes results
met OSHA standards for PCB exposure. See Response 16.
20. Ccmments: Commentor concluded by encouraging EPA to "go ahead and
proceed, and get rid of it all at one point if at all possible."
20. Response:
Comment noted as presented.
1-4
598.8:10
-------
21. Comments: Does EPA's proposal mean that the building will be torn
down, either now or in ten years, and that the workers eventually will
be disturbed?
21. ~spon~e: Corrments made during previous meetings indicated a concern
at slte remediation could cause MGM Brakes to close down the casting
facility, which would result in a loss of jobs. EPA shares the
community's concerns and has developed a plan which includes the
possibility of staging remediation over a 10-year period. If the
private responsible parties perform the cleanup, they may do the work
all at once or split it into two stages, with a maximum of ten years
for Phase 2 to occur. If EPA performs the remediation, the two phase
approach will be taken. This will allow time for MGM Brakes to plan
for remediation of the concrete and soils below the building in a
manner least dis~ptive to workers. EPA feels that ten years is a
reasonable period of time over which clean-up could occur. The
remediation of'the concrete and soils does not mean that the building
cannot be replaced. EPA is aware that Thyssen-Bornemiazsa Group, Inc.
(TBG) (the owner of the land which comprises the MGM Brakes site) has
entered into an indemnification agreement with MGM Brakes regarding
costs related to remediation. The financial status of this company
leads EPA to believe that it is well able to pay for replacing th~
building.
22. Comment: A property owner with a well 120 feet deep questioned whether
the well was safe for drinking water purposes. The speaker queried
whether the water should be sampled and how frequently and by whom.
. .
. .
22. Response: The necessity of sampling th~ well would d~pend on its
location relative to .the site, the reasons to believe it to be
contaminated, and whether' the well is used. The constituents to be
sampled and the frequency of sampling would be based on the answers to
the above questions and previous sampling results. The well could be
sampled by EPA as part of its program or by MGM Brakes as a part of
their program. (Note: a representative of TBG, Inc. offered to have
the well sampled.)
Formal Corrment Period
23. Comment: Sue Warner of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (NCRWQCB) noted that the NCRWCQB would be providing comments in
writing (See Section II.B). The NCRWQCB will review the FS results
with regards to TeE findings on how TeE could affect PCB results in
groundwater. The NCRYQ:B will also look at beneficial uses of the
Russian River and its tributaries from sto~ water transport of PCBs.
Sue Warner noted that the NCRWQCB's discharge requirements and basin
plan were not mentioned in the FS.
23. Response:
See response to NCRWQCB letter in Section II.B.
24. Comment: A question was raised on when the N~ was made aware of
the TeE problem.
1-5
598.8:10
-------
24. Response: The TCE problem is relatively new (as compared to the PCB
cont~nation) and the NCRWQCB is working with the EPA on identifying
the source and solution to the problem. The NCRWQCB has been awar~ of
the TCE problem since October of 1986 and receives monthly monitoring
reports from PRP consultants.
i"
: .
i
. . -. ~, "".....- ..
1-6
598.8:10
-------
II.
COMMENTS BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
ILA CALIFORNIA DEPAR'IMEN'I' OF WATER RESOURCES MEMORANDUM .FROM JAMES U.
McDANIEL; CHIEF, CEN'I'RAL DISTRICT
1.
Comment: The Department of Water Resources (DWR) states that
Cloverdale relies on groundwater to supply drinking water and that it
is likely that urban expansion in the area will cause demand for
groundwater and further encroach on the MGM site. DWR states that the
remedial action chosen should account for the future growth of
Cloverdale and all exposure pathways for PCBs, TCE, and any other
contaminants released from the site now and in the foreseeable future.
1.
Response: EFA shares DWR's concerns about urban growth near the site;
this is one of the reasons why EFA selected excavation and offsite
disposal as its preferred alternative. Only incineration or offsite
disposal allows growth near the site to continue unrestricted by the
substances at the site. EFA also shares DWR's concern over future
groundwater use and local populace exposure through direct contact,
ingestion, or inhalation of site contanUnants. Removal of
contaminated soils will address the PCB problem and potentially the
TeE source. The remedial action will include installation of
monitoring wells.upgradient and downgradient of the site to assess the
effectiveness of the remedial action. Monitoring will continue until
the extent of TeE contamination is known and then until TCE is no
longer detected. .EFA has recently been informed that benzene has been
detected near the site and this too will be.monitored.
Comment: yado~e zone monitoring and groundwater quality monitoring.
around the site should continue for an indefinite period of time,
regardless of when clean-up activities cease.
2.
2.
Res~nse. See Exhibit A, Record of Communication between Johanna
Mil er an.d C 1
ar Hauge.
3.
Comment: CWR states that some mechanism, such as deed restrictions on
all contaminated and adjacent properties, should be used to notify
potential buyers of the site history and potential problems.
Response: If a remedial alternative were selected that would leave
FCBs greater than 10 ppm on site, deed restrictions would be required.
EPA's identification of off-site disposal as the preferred alternative
eliminates the need for long-term deed restrictions on the property.
Because PCBs less than 10 ppm will be left at the site, the city and
state may opt to place restrictions on the property, including
notification to buyers of past land use history. . However, deed
restrictions would have to be enforced at the local and state levels.
EPA does not view such restrictions as necesary to protect human
health and the environment, based on its judgement that clean-up to 10
ppm will provide adequate protection. See Response to 'l'BG's Comments
30 and 32, Section III.A.
3.
II-I
598.8:6
-------
II.B CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NORTH COAST REGION
" DENNIS L. SALISBURY, ASSOCIATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL D>JGINEER
LETTER ro GLENN SroBER, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
JUNE 7, 1988 AND JUNE 27, 1988 FOI.LaoJ-UP LET'I'ER
1.
Comment: Section 1.6 of the FS fails to include or "discUss California
Regional Water Quality Control Board ARARs regarding: (1) regulatory
authority for waste treatment, storage, and disposal as authorized by
the California Water Code; and (2) stipulated control actions set
forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coastal Basin
adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on April 17, 1975.
~~~~~~;~ 0~P~r~:~~d"~~:~~;~n~~)W:~~r~2~n~Sc~~u~r;~;~;~; ~t~e
runoff from the site. Any wastewater discharaged on or immediately
adjacent to the site will meet the substantive requirements of these
ARARs. 42 U.S.C.S9621(e). Any discharge to a POTW would meet all
procedural and substantive requirements.
1.
2.
the FS in Section 2.2 with regards to a low
transport are no longer valid because of "the
solvents in wells immediately downgradient of
Comment: Statements in
potential for cosolvent
presence of chlorinated
the site.
2.
Response: Facilitated PCB transport occurred in the past, due to the
release of ethylene glycol, which, .when mixed with water ,allowed PCBs
to "move ve~tical1y.and horizontally in soils at the site at an "
accelerated rate. -Al though EPA shares the NCRWQCB '.S concern over
future 'faci1itated.PCB transport, the possibility of this occurring
under existing conditions is remote. Discharges of ethylene glycol no
longer occur. All available data show TCE not to be in contact with
PCB contaminated soils. In addition, levels of TeE in the groundwater
(-150 pg/L) reflect a 0.000015 percent by volume value. TCE would
have to be in the range of 10 percent in order for facilitated
transport to occur (TBG, Inc. Comments on £FA FS, Appendix A, 1986).
EPA's preferred alternative of excavation and off-site disposal of
PCBs addresses the NCRWQCB's concern. Through removal of most of the
source, significant cosolvent transport is no longer a possibility.
If an alternative were selected which left PCB's above 10 ppm on-site,
the use of solvents at the site in the future would have to be
restricted.
3.
Comment: Solvent facilitated transport of PCBs relative to fixation
is not addressed in the FS.
3.
Response: £PA's response to the previous comment also applies to this
comment. An alternative utilizing a fixed monolith would result in
the possibility, although remote, of f~cilitated transport due to a
release of a solvent above or into the fixed monolith. Again, EPA's
preferred alternative eliminates the potential for this to occur.
II-2
598.8:6
-------
. 5.
-- -- --
---- --
4.
Comment: Solvent facilitated transport has not been addressed for the
Resource Conservation and Recorvery Act (RCRA) cap alternative.
Response: £PA's responses to CWR's comments 2 and 3 also apply to
this conment.
4.
5.
Comment: The Draft FS states that EPA is not required to obtain
permits under Superfund, and is only required to comply. with
substantive criteria of the permits. However, because £PA's preferred
alternative involves off-site activities for contaminated soil and
treated groundwater, EPA will be required to obtain perDdts, and meet
local agency pretreatment criteria for any discharge to a POTW.
R~sponse: EPA agrees that pernUtsare required for those activities
t at occur off-site, in particular for any discharge of treated water
to a POTWand off-site transport of contaminated soil.
6.
Comment: The discussion in the Draft FS regarding the low likelihood
of transport of PCBs in surface water and sediment fails to recognize
the bioaccumulative properties of PCBs. The Regional Board Basin Plan
states that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in
concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental
physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The
discussion fails to recognize EPA's definition of "navigable waters"
and the California Water Code's definition of "Waters of the State"
which are both applicable to the drainage ditches. Tadpoles were
~oted in a ponded area of the ,drainage, indicating the drainage
supports aquatic life. 'Final~y, the Draft FS provides little,
-substantive information addressing surface Water runoff control to be
implemehted during remedial action.
Response: In presenting statements in the braft FS regarding surface
water runoff and contaminated sediment, EPA did not intend to belittle
or ignore surface water as a route of exposure. EPA also did not
intend to ignore the potential effects on the environment due to
surface water releases. EPA is concerned about the continued releases
of PCBs into, surface waters draining from the site, and these
continued releases support the need to remediate the problem at the
site. Accordingly, EPA agrees that the Water Quality Control Plan
adopted on April 17, 1975 pursuant to 40 CFR S131.202 is an ARAR for
the site. As such, contaminated sediments in the drainage ditch
leading off-site will be cleaned up to a level that meets the water
quality objectives established to protect the beneficial uses. Taking
into account the bioaccumulative properties of PCBs, a level will be
established that meets the toxicity objective for inland surface
waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries quoted by the RWQCB.
6.
During implementaton of the remedial action, £PA will not allow
discharges of untreated ground or surface waters into the drainage
ditch south of the site. Surface water runoff will be impounded at
the southeastern border of the site and pumped into the wastewater
treatment unit. Surface water collected in the excavation area will
also be treated. Off-site drainage water will be analyzed for PCBs
during remedial activities to ensure that PCBs are not being released.
II-3
598.8:6
-------
7.
Comment: Section 5.2.2 of the FS states that long-tenm monitoring
will not be required under this alternative because the source would
be removed to meet the 10 ppm cleanup guidelines. The NCRWQCB states
that at a minimum long-term monitoring is necessary to protect
groundwater. The provisions for futher groundwater investigation and
evaluation of cleanup alternatives included in EPA's fact sheet are
not included in the FSi the NCRWQCB regards long-tenn monitoring as a
necessary element of those provisions. The description of remediation
on page 5-57 of the Draft FS is in error when it states that no .
contamdnated soil will be left on site. The remedial action will
remove all PCB contaminated soils 10 ppm or greater but will leave
some contaminated soils at the site. The NCRWQCB is concerned about
the PCBs left at the site following remediation and recommends
long-term monitoring and further remediation activities.
In a subsequent phone conversation between the NCRWQCB and EPA, the
NCRWQCB stated that their primary concern about PCBs left on site is
the possibility that .these would be mobilized by the solvents in the
groundwater. (Telephone conversation between Johanna Miller and
Dennis Salisbury, July 14, 1988, see Exhibit B).
7.
Response: The FS did discuss the activities to be performed with
respect to potential groundwater contamination caused by TCE and its
breakdown products (see Response 8, below). Monitoring of groundwater
will be a p!rt of the ov~rall remedy until EPA is assured that
groundwater meets appropriate standards, after which time, monitoring
will no longer be necessary. EPA agrees that p. 5-57 Qf the Draft FS .
is incorrect in saying-no contaminated soil will be left on-site.
More accurately, only soils below 10 ppm will remain on-site. Based.
on EPA's PCB Spill Cleanup Policy and the OHEA document on which it is
based, this level is found to.be protective of human health and the
environment. (See also, Response Section III.A, Responses to Comments
30 and 32.)
With respect to the.NCRWQCB's concern over cosolvent transport of the
PCBs remaining after the cleanup (i.e., of PCBs less than 10 ppm), see
Response to NCRWQCB's Comment 2. Because TCE has not been detected
on-site in contact with PCBs and because the TeE concentrations do not
exceed 10 percent by volume, cosolvent transport should not be a
problem even if EPA did not plan to address the TCE contamdnation.
Once the TeE levels have reached the appropriate regulatory levels,
the remaining 10 ppm of PCBs will not present a threat to groundwater.
PCBs present in the soils even at levels exceeding 4,000 ppm do not
appear to be posing a significant off-site groundwater threat. The
PCBs are relatively immobile in site groundwater, given the clayey
nature of the soil, with movement on the order of 2-3 inches per year.
The aquifer directly under the site is also not productive. Given
these factors, residual PCBs of 10 ppm or less will not pose or create
a groundwater problem for the usable groundwater off-site. The
remedial action will include groundwater sampling for PCBs during and
immediately following the action. Because of the relatively insoluble
and immobile nature of PCBs, long term groundwater monitoring of PCBs
- as long as they are not detected in the sampling conducted
11-4
598.8:6
-------
immediately following the action - will not be a requirement of the
remedial action. Long term monitoring of TCE will be required until
EPA can be assured that the TeE source has been removed and
contaminated groundwater does not pose a health threat.
8.
Comment: There is no discussion in the Draft FS of measures to be
implemented to identify and remove the source of TCE or to treat TCE
contaminated groundwater. Remediation of TCE contamination needs to
be addressed along with the potential for PCB mobilization of any
remaining PCB contaminated soil.
8.
Response: On page 1-15 of the Draft FS, EPA presented the proposed
program to identify the source of TCE contamination, if such is
present on site, and to monitor TCE levels downgradient of the site.
In the Draft FS, EPA identified four activities to be implemented as
part of the selected remedial action to address the TCE groundwater
problem. These activities are as follows:
First, to locate any potential on-site source, soil samples collected
to confirm achievement of PCB cleanup levels will also be analyzed for
TeE. Samples collected in both parcels will be analyzed for TeE. If
a TeE source is detected, it will be removed along with the PCB
contaminated soils;
Second, to evaluate how far TeE has migrated, additional downgradient
monitoring wells will be installed. The number and location of wells
will be dependent on how 'far TCE has moved;
. . . .
Third, sampling of monitoring wells will be required on a quarterly
EaSIS. If the source is remdved during PCB soil excavation -,or'is no
longer present at the site - -then concentrations should decrease with
time. If concentrations do not decrease with time, then a more
detailed investigation may be warranted; and
Fourth, modeling of TeE contamination will be perfo~d to determine
rate of movement and potential impacts to downgradient groundwater
users. The modeling will be based on existing well data and wells to
be installed as part of the TeE tracking effort. .
If TeE is detected in site groundwater during remediation, the
contaminated water will be treated in the onsite wastewater treatment
unit. Because neither the extent of off-site contamination, nor the
quantity of groundwater to be treated is known, treatment of off-site
contamination is not planned to occur with the PCB remediation. EPA
will evaluate the necessity and scope of off-site water treatment of
TeE when additional data on the extent of TeE contamination is
obtained. EPA's goal is that the groundwater be restored to the
appropriate MCL or health-based standard.
TCE is highly mobile in groundwater and levels detected at the site
could have resulted from a spill of 4 liters or less of TCE. The
source area, if still present, could be an area of soil as small as 4
square feet, making it difficult to find. EPA will work with the
11-5
'598.8:6
-------
NCRWQCB in designing the remedy to effectively remediate the TCE
problem.
With regards to TeE facilitated movement of PCBs, the zones of TCE
contamdnation and PCB contamcination do not coincide; TCE contaminated
groundwater is downgradient of the PCB contaminated soil. In ad~ton,
TCE levels are too low to mobilize the PCBs. Should any of these
conditions change, EPA will re-evaluate the potential for facilitated
PCB transport.
I
!
9.
Comment: The Draft FS does' not provide a schedule for implementation
of the remedial action. A schedule needs to be developed with
specific milestones so that activities occur in a timely and orderly
manner.
9.
~esknse: The purpose of the FS is not to provide a schedule for
lmp ementation of a particular alternative but to evaluate several
alternatives and provide the basis for EPA's selection of the most
appropriate remedy for the site. The schedule for implementation will
be developed during the Remedial Design (RD). This is the usual.
procedure followed in CERCLA remedial actions.
Comment: In a June 27, 1988 follow-up letter, the NCRWQCB states that
.with regard to the need for permits for remedial activities, federal
law does not preempt local or state laws. The NCRWQCB also states
that "therefore,.... appropriate Regional Board regulations of the
proposed remedial activities will be applie~ pursuant. to California
Water Code Sections, 13260, 13370, and 13370..5."
. .
( .
I
10.
10.
Res¥Inse: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
exp lcitly exempts response actions conducted on-site from any and all
requirements to obtain federal, state, or local permits. 42 U.S.C.
S9621(e). Therefore, permits will only be required for off-site
activities. The substantive requirements of all ARARs will be met for
both on-site and off-site activities. See also, Responses to NCRWQCB,
Comments 1 and 5, above.
II-6
598.8:6
-------
ILC CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, LETI'ER FROM MICHELLE
REMBAUM, NORTH COAST CALIFORNIA SECTION
1.
1.
2.
2.
Comment: Comment numbers 1 and 3 of the letter submitted on April 6,
1987, identifying the State ARARs, must be addresse~. These comments
are as follows:
1.
Pursuant to Section 25356.1(c) of the California Health and
Safety Code, the State requires that a Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
be prepared for each site. The RAP must specifically address the
following six factors: (1) the health and safety risks posed by
the site; (2) the effect of contandnation on present, future, and
probable beneficial uses of the contaminated resources; (3) the
effect of the remedial action on the reasonable availability of
groundwater resources for present, future, and probable
beneficial uses; (4) the site specific characteristics, including
the potential for off-site migration of hazardous substances, the
surface or subsurface soil, the hydrogeologic conditions.and
preexisting background contamination levels; (5) the
cost-effectiveness of the proposed remedial action measures; and
(6) the potential environmental impacts of the alternative
remedial action. In order for the Record of Decision (ROD) to be
functionally equivalent to the RAP, these six factors must be"
addressed.
3.
Applied Action Levels (AALs) established by the Department of
H~alth Services should be ~sed in evaluating and selecting
remedial act,ions.. """ . "
Res~nse: The RAP requirements are not an ARAR because they only
esta lish administrative procedures, not substantive requirements.
See Interim Guidance on Compliance with ARARs, July 9, 1987; see also,
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C ~962l(e). Even though the RAP requirement is not an
ARAR, EPA's ROD does address the six listed factors.
-
Applied Action Levels also cannot be considered ARARs because they are
not promulgated. See 42 U.S.C. ~962l(d)(2)(c)(iii). The AALs could
be used as a "To Be Considered" cri teria (TBC) to establish a
protective level for those contaminants not having an ARAR or if the
ARAR does not establish a protective level. Of the contaminants of
concern for this site (PCBs, chlorobenzenes, TeE and its breakdown
products, and benzene) only benzene has an AAL (of 0.7 ug/L).
However, benzene has an established MCL that is an ARAR that is
protective, and therefore, a TBC is not needed to establish a
protective level.
Comment: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be
included as an ARAR for the MGM Brakes site.
Response: EPA has determined that the requirements of CEQA are no
more stringent than the requirements for environmental review under
CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Pursuant to the provisions of CERCLA, the
NCP and other federal requirements, EPA's prescribed procedures for
II-7
598.8:6
-------
evaluation of environmental impacts, selecting a remedial action with
feasible mitigation measures, and providing for public review, are
designed to ensure that the proposed action provides for the
short-term and long-term protection of the environment and public
health and hence perform the same function as and are substantially
parallel to the state's requirements under CECA.
Since EPA has found that CERCLA, the. :P, and other federal
requirements are no less stringent th", the requirements of CECA, EPA
has determined that CEQA is not an ARAR for this site.
EPA will continue to cooperate with the California Department of
Health Services and other State and Federal agencies during the design
phase. to clarify further environmental review and mitigation
requirements for this project and ensure that they are fulfilled.
II-8
598.8:6
-------
III.
COMMENTS BY THE POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
This section presents responses to all significant comments made by TBG and
TBG consultants on the Draft Feasibility Study (FS), MGM Brakes Site,
Cloverdale, California (EPA 1988). Their comments have been summarized and
paraphrased, as appropriate.
III.A
COMMENTS BY TBG
TBG did not number the comments provided to EPA. To facilitate the review
of and response to TBG comments, the page number and text line numbers of
specific comments are referenced with the comment summary. The response
immediately follows the comment.
1.
Comment: Page 1, lines 1 through 20 and page 2, lines 1 through 12.
ThlS text presents introductory, editorial, and informational matter.
(
Res~nse: The material provides an introduction to the comments that
fol ow. No comment is raised that is not responded to later in this
text.
1.
2.
Comment: Page 2, lines 13 through 25. TBG's comments (TBG 1986) on
the first Draft FS (EPA 1986) with regards to the incineration
alternative are incorporated by reference.
2.
Res~onse: The comments on the first Draft FS with regard to
inclneration were addressed in the t~xt of the revised FS. See in
particular, Chapter '1\..10 "Response to.Comments on MGM Brakes
. Fea!?ibili ty 'Study" (EPA., 1988).
3.
. . -
Comment:. Page J, lines 4 through 15. TBG alleges that the Draft FS
was developed without consideration of site-specific information. The
Draft FS incorporates EPA's advisory levels for PCB cleanup (EPA,
1986) and does not present a site-specific risk assessment.
Res~nse: EPA strongly disagrees with the statement that the Draft FS
was eveloped without consideration of site specific information.
Site-specific information was incorporated throughout the FS and was
considered in all decisions. EPA's selected remedy considers not only
the long-term risk posed by the site, but also the concerns of the
local community. Through removal of PCBs >10 ppm, the site can be
restored to unrestricted use and long-term monitoring and site
administration by local authorities will not be required.
3.
In revising the Draft FS, EPA incorporated existing scientific and
health assessment efforts made by the scientific community and
reported in the document "Development of Advisory Levels for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Cleanup" (EPA, 1986b). EPA,
therefore, elected not to revise the existing endangerment assessment
prepared for the first FS (EPA, 1986a). EPA is puzzled by TBG's
comment objecting to the incorporation of advisory level data and
clean-up levels into this FS, since TBG itself suggested use of the
advisory levels. In TBG's comments on the first Draft FS, TBG stated
I II-l
598.8:2
-------
that "(the Advisory Levels publication] provides a more useful and
appropriate basis for establishing 'target cleanup levels' than those
referred to in the Draft FS." (TBG ccmments, 1986 at p. 31)
The use of the OHEA document is supported by EPA, Region IX's
toxicologist (see Exhibit D).
4.
Comment: Page 3, lines 10, 11, and 12 and Page 10, lines 12-14. TBG
states that EPA's PCB Spill Cleanup Policy and the document on which
it is based, "Development of Advisory levels for PCBs" (OHEA, May
1986), are irrelevant to the actual conditions at the site.
Response: Based on its best professional judgment, EPA has determined
that these documents present "to be considered" (TBC) cleanup
standards for the MGM Brakes Superfund Site. EPA considered the
similarity of the objectives of this qui dance and policy with the
primary objective of the remedial action at the site: protection of
human heal th and the envi ronment in the clean-up of a PCB spill. The
OHEA document was specifically developed "to provide advisory levels
for PCB cleanup." To do this, its authors developed an "exposure and
risk assessment methodology related to hazardous waste and spill sites
and analysis of health effects data" (at p. vi!) (emphasis added).
The preamble to the Spill Policy recognized that the cleanup standards
~ontained therein could appropriately be used to set the clean-up
level for a CERCLA/SARA site. 52 Fed Reg. 10688, 10690 (April 2,
1987). Also see Response to Comments 8 and 32.
4.
5.
Comment: Page 3, lines 13 through 19. TBG disagrees with EPA's
conclusion that risks posed by the inhalation and ingestion pathways.
are Unacceptable and arques that. the risk~ associated with these
. pathways'are over-stated and a~e-not based on site-specific data.
R~s~n~e: EPA's conclusion regarding the unacceptability of these
r1S s 1S based on the facts that: (1) the chemical has been banned
from use due to its toxicity and environmental effects; (2) laboratory
studies on animals have shown it to be a carcinogen; (3) the presence
. of. PCBs in soil and air on and adjacent to the site; (4) the presence
of PCBs in soil at levels exceeding advisory levels established in the
OHEA document; and (5) EPA's mandate to protect human health against
present and potential future risks. PCBs continue to be released from
the site in an uncontrolled manner and that release is deemed
unacceptable to EPA and the local community. These unacceptable
levels and the continued release have been confirmed by site-specific
data.
5.
6.
Comment: Page 3, lines 20, 21, and 22. TBG perceives that the
surface water route is the "only significant pathway" for migration
from the site and alleges EPA ignored this pathway.
Response: The surface water route was not ignored. on Page 1-9 of
-the FS (EPA 1988a), surface water runoff and contaminated sediments
are addressed. EPA remains concerned about the continued releases,
particularly to the upgradient groundwater wells that are now
6.
. 1II-2
598.8:2
-------
!'
. 8..
!.
7.
contaminated due to surface water drainage into the well enclosures.
EPA's proposed remedyaddr'E!.~~~.s,this migration route: .
: . Q~~~:;~ ~>j~;~ .
EPA disagrees that surface""Wa'ter transport is "significant" when
compared to ingestion or inhalation. The PCB levels in drainage
sediment remain less than 10ppm, while on-site soils exceed 4,000
ppm. Soil levels remain teP'f.i;l;gh to be ignored or considered
insignificant. Moreover, ;sjJ'~hee water transport occurs seasonally,
while under a likely futur~~.tise':'of th:esi~e ingesti~f.1 and inhalatiory
can occur throughout the ye'ar.," .' . , " '
Nevertheless, EPA is concerned about protecting the beneficial uses of
the surface water contained"in the drainage ditch. 'Iherefore, a :
component of the overall remedy.forthe site wlll be to cleanup
sediments in. the drainage ditch to a level which complies with the
Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast. Basin. Seealso
Response 6 of Section II.B,.,,,,..~,,,. '
. /~t-:.\~'(~~
~~'.:..5:~'~~'" - ..:.
Comment: Page 3, lines 22;,:;';,23,:\"and 24, and Page 4, lines 1 and 2.
TaG states that EPA has misapplied and ignored statuatory requirements
in the analysis of remedial alternatives, and that the analysis has
"no foundation in fact or legal authority."
.};":"'~::~;:r' ~ '-!l-
Response: EPA has appropria.~ely:applied the statutory requirements of
CERCLA, as amended by SARA. The explicit factual and legal basis for
the comparison of the alternatives i.s con~~ined in the FS and the
Record of DeciSion (ROD).' ',;. '" ,.:' ,,<
7.
Comment: Page 4, lines 3 througli;35', page 5, lines 1 through 19. TBG
states that the Draft FS does not include a baseline risk assessment
based on site specific data, quotes' EPAF~ guidance on the stope of a
risk assessment, disagrees with EPAfs'use of risk levels and clean-up
goals taken from the "AdvisprY;.;I?o~nt", (EPA, 1986b) and the TS<;::A PCB
Spill Clean-up Policy, and claimS ~hat.these levels were adopted for
the sake of "convenience."
"¥' .
8.
. "'~ .
i:~:- ",~<;~"- -~~
ResITnse: PCBs are one of -the..few chemicals in which the industrial,
pub lC health, and regulatory c~mmunities have developed a concensus
guidance on clean-up levels'for spills. PCBs are also one of the few
chemicals for which EPA has ,conducted an in-depth risk assessment to
develop risk advisory level~s;~"; <~PA' s reliance on this extensive prior
work is not simply a matterf~ol"convenience" but rather represents a
technical and legal judgemeAt:tha~ this guidan~e and policy are
well-sui ted to the determination of. ,a clean-,up level which would be
protective of human health and the environme~tat this site. In
, January 1986, EPA developed a.",natiOnal poli,cy enti tIed". .
"Recommendation on Removal Action tevel for pegs iri Soil Based'on
Health Effect." Using the eXPosure'and risk assessment developed in
the OHEA document, this policy "set forth the advisory limitations of
PCB in soil considered per~ssible in protect~n9 the health of the .
public affected by contamin:~ted\si tes regulated under CERCLA." See FS
(EPA 1988a), Appendix F, af""l; .,:The policy states that it is intended
to alleviate the burden on ;ie'gulators of the cumbersome process of
determining permissible levels of PCBs for each site under their
~. ..
'"
I Il- 3 .
598.8:2
,
-------
jurisdiction. The Agency clearly intended the OHEA advisory levels to
fonm the basis for decisions on PCB clean-up, not just for recent
spills, but also when appropriate for historic spills regulated under
CERCLA. The decision to rely on the OREA risk assessment is
substantiated by EPA, Region IX's toxicologist (see Exhibit D).
In preparing the Draft FS, EPA compared site data with assumptions in
the "Advisory Document" and decided that the guidance and policy are
pertinent to site conditions. Because the results of the "Advisory
Document" are scientifically based and accepted by health authorities,
EPA adopted the risk levels contained therein for the MGM Brakes site.
See also Response to Comments 4 and 32. £PA's detenmination in this
regard is in compliance with the FS developnent guidance quoted by
TBG. This guidance explicitly recognizes that the level of effort
appropriate to perfoiming a risk assessment at a given site depends on
many factors, including the concentration and identity of substances,
the number of exposure pathways, the availability of appropriate
standards andlor toxicity data, and the likelihood that "no action"
will be the chosen alternative. (if it is likely that the no action
alternative will be chosen, a thorough endangerment assessment is
necessary). Draft RIIFS Guidance, March 1988, at 3-36 to 3-37. The
PCB levels at this site are extremely high, PCBs are extremely
persistent in the environment, and several exposure pathways exist.
Also, there is an available exposure and risk assessment specifically
for PCBs. All of these factors, combined with the fact that three
residences are located within 100 fee~ of the site, made it extremely
unlikely that the no action alternative would be choosen. Considering
all relevant factors, EPA's Endangermept Assessment (EPA 1986) meets
both the terms and-spirit of the draft guidance. Moreover, _this
guidance does not create binding -requirements. The March 1988 draft
explicitly states that it is "intended-for internal agen~ review
only'\ and should not "be construed to represent agency policy." Id.
at i1. .
I.
I
!
9.
Comment: Page 5, lines 19 through 26. TBG asserts that EPA used the
"generic" risk levels and Spill Policy because site- data indicate a
low level of risk "that does not warrant substantial site remediation"
and that EPA's failure to recognize the low level of risk, and its
selection of the clean-up level, are arbitrary and capricious.
9.
Response: In making its decision to remediate the MGM Brakes site,
EPA recognized that PCBs continue to be released from the site in air
and surface water, and that the high levels (>4,000 pPm) of PCBs
remaining in surface soils present an inhalation hazard and a future
inhalation, ingestion and dermal absorption hazard. Soil levels in
the range of 35-61 ppm represent a 10- risk of developing cancer from
on-site exposures. PCB levels at the site well exceed this range.
EPA does not consider risks greater than 10-4 to be "low." This level
represents an unacceptable public health risk and thus the site
warrants remediation.
10.
Comment: Page 6, lines 1 through 12. TBG questions EPA's contention
that direct soil contact is an "important" exposure pathway, stating
that the highest PCB concentration (4,500 pprn) was a "subsurface
III-4
598.8:2
-------
sample", and that the average PCB'soil concentration at the site is
about 200 ppm.
10.
Response: Table A-2, labeled "Subsurface Soil Sampling Results;"
presents results of borings that start at the surface and continue to
depths of 5 feet to 29 feet. The sample which produced a value of
4,500 ppm was collected at the 0.5 foot interval of deep boring, thus
making the sample a surface sample. Because there are a number of
samples collected within the 0-1 foot surface interval that exceed
1,000 ppm, direct soil contact will remain an important exposure
pathway for the MGM Brakes site. Even TGB's c~ted average of 200
ppm well exceeds the level corresponding to a 10 on-site risk.
Comment: ,Page 6, lines 13 through 24, page 7, lines 1 through 9. TBG
questions the conclusion that direct contact with PCB contaminated
soil would result in direct exposure, arguing that EPA's reasoning is
based on animal data and that "this may not be the case for humans."
TBG also states that site evidence does not demonstrate health effects
to MGM employees, and human exposure data reported elsewhere do not
provide evidence of exposure resulting from direct contact to PCB
contaminated soil.
11.
11.
Resp?nse: EPA has a clearly established policy for classifying'
chemlcals with respect to carcinogenicty. PCBs are classified by EPA
as a probable human carcinogen based on evidence that they cause
cancerous tumors in animals. EPA must fulfill CERCLA/SARA's statutory
mandate to protect human health and th~ environment. EPA must make
use of the best available data in makiog its decisions. TBG uses the
words "may not be the case in humans" when discussing tPA's conclusi,on
, that direct contact with PCB contaminated soil would result in direct
exposure. PCBs can cau~e cancer in animals, and the latent effects of
exposure to humans may not be known for years to come. Until
epidemiological studies definitely show this "not" to be the case', EPA
will strongly defend its use of laboratory data. Animal toxicity
studies are conducted based primarily on the long standing assumption
that effects in humans can be.inferred from effects in animals. In
fact, this assumption has been shown to be generally correct. Thus,
all chemicals that have been demonstrated to be carcinogenic in
humans, (including arsenic, which has recently been shown to cause
tumors in animals), are carcinogenic in some, although not all,
experimental animal species. See also, Responses to TBG's 1986
Comments on pp. 2-1 to 2-4 of the FS (EPA, 1988a).
Comment: Page 7, lines 11 through 17. TBG states that EPA's FS
concludes that because PCBs have been detected in site air samples,
risk at the site results from the following three pathways: dermal
absorption, ingestion, and inhalalation. TBG also states that the
risks from these three pathways were greatly overstated.
12.
12.
~espon~e: EPA does not make this conclusion based on air data, but
lnstea bases its analysis on the fact that these are the three most
significant exposure pathways under present and likely future site use
conditions. The claim that the risks were overstated is responded to
in Responses 5, 13, 14, and 15.
III-5
598.8:2
-------
13.
Comment: Page 7, lines 18 through 23, page 8, lines 1 through 22.
TBG states that EPA ignores the "magnitude" of airborne PCB data and
that EPA used this data only as evidence of the presence of
"PCB-containing airborne particulates". 'I'BG objects to £PA's
rejecting the data due to sampling and analytical difficulties,
stating that the "24-hour sampling event may represent reasonable
worst-case conditions at the site." 'I'BG criticizes £PA's questioning
of the adequacy of the air sampling program because £PA had an
opportunity to comment on the sampling plan prior to and during the
field effort.
,
i
13.
Response: The use of the air data in question is not appropriate for
purposes of a quantitative endangerment assessment for the following
reasons. .
£fA did have an opportunity (seven days) to review the sampling plan;
however, the objective of using atmospheric data collected by the
Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton (K/J/C) study for quantitative risk assessment
purposes was not clearly stated in the sampling plan (K/J/C, 1987).
That is, nowhere in the plan is it stated that the' data would be
provided to individuals qualified to perform a risk assessment and
that a risk assessment would indeed be performed. The specific
objective of atmospheric sampling as stated in K/J/C'S plan (page 1)
was to "conduct short-term sampling of airborne PCB concentrations, if
any, near the on-site area that shows highest concentrations of PCBs
in soils and at the boundaries of the site." K/J/C's rationale for
air sampling for PCBs was based on statements in the first draft FS
(EPA 1986ai Endangerment Assessment) which discussed the potential for
exposure to volatilzed PCBs and contaminated dust, but which stated.
that the potential could not be quantified because a lack of airborne'
data. The rationale section in K/J/C's sampling plan (page 2)
concludes that "[t]his air sampling plan is designed to obtain
airborne PCB levels, if any, at the site". Data collected to
determine site levels is not necessarily also suitable for use in
performing a quantitative risk assessment. Because K/J/C did not
explicitly state this objective, EPA could not comment on it during
review of the sampling plan. EPA did inform K/J/C at that time that
the data would be incorporated into the revised Draft FS, which was
done.
I
I
I
When EPA reviewed the sampling plan, EPA's concerns centered on
whether the program would be adequate to detect PCBs in samples
collected at the site. EPA was not aware of K/J/C's intent to conduct
an endangerment assessment until after the sampling episode was
completed. Had £fA been made aware of this, £fA would have commented
on it at the time that the plan was reviewed. It appears. that K/J/C
may have made the decision to perform the endangerment assessment
after the field study was over. In K/J/C's report on air dispersion
modeling (K/J/C, 1988e), K/J/C states "[b)ecause detectable
concentrations were found, it was decided to calculate the
concentrations of PCBs that might be present in ambient air in the
vicinity of the MGM Brakes site" (page 1). K/J/C then goes on to say
III-6
598.8:2
-------
that the "information will be used in assessing health risks" (page
2) .
EPA and CDM did comment on the sampling protocol prior to the field
event. £fA verbally discussed with K/J/C concerns over the use of the
term "upwind" (indicating background) with regards to meteorological
conditions at the site. On page 2 of the Plan, it states that
locations A-l and A-2 would serve as .upwind monitoring stations."
EPA and CDM informed K/J/C that the assumption stated in the plan that
winds were "typically northerly to northwesterly" (page 2) was wrong
because winds would also come from southerly directions over a 24-hour
pedod~ Therefore, sampling of "upwind" would not be performed if the
program was implemented as stated in the plan and background would not
be achieved. Meteorological results presented by Acurex (1987)
substantiate EPA's comments on this matter. In fact, the highest
airborne PCB level was measured at monitoring Station A-2, an "upwind"
location. .
While in the field overseeing the sampling program, CDM reviewed the
adequacy of and adherence to sampling protocols and commented on
these. The adequacy of a 24-hour sampling event on which a risk
assessment could be based was not at issue because the use of data for
risk assessment purposes was not mentioned. .
TBG's statement on line 23, page 7 that the FS claims that PCB
presence is due to contaminated particulates is incorrect. Nowhere in
the FS does EPA state that airborne PCBs result only from contamdnated
particulate matter. PCBs detected in air samples result from
volatilized PCBs and contaminated .particulates. 'Ihis fact is_-
supported by Dr. Byard in his letter to Ms. Shanks, provided as
Appendix A'to 'I'BG's comments. As stated. on page 1-10 of theFS (EPA,
1988a), an unfortunate shortcoming of the air sampling was that
airborne particulates entrained on the high volume filter were not
analyzed separately from PCBs captured within the PUF cartridge.
Thus, the level of particulates, the concentration of PCBs associated
with the particulates, and the volatized PCB fracti0!'1 are not known.
The assertion that meteorological conditions during the 24-hour event
"may indeed represent reasonable worst case conditions at the site" is
irrelevant since it is equally true that these conditions may not
represent reasonable worst case conditions at the site. 'I'BG faI!ed to
demonstrate the range of meteorological conditions that could exist at
the site over a 365 day period. Nor did TGB provide a reasonable
basis for concluding that the condi Hons on the day of sampling
represent a "reasonable worst case" conditions compared to other days.
'I'BG referred to the day as "hot," while Dr. Byrd described the day as
"warm." Although warm weather with little wind could facilitate
elevated vapor concentrations, these conditions would not contribute
to elevated particulate levels unless airborne particulates were
mechanically produced by some outside activity other than wind. A
review of data provided by Acurex (1987) shows that the wind blew from
the east southeast 25 percent of the time, at an average wind speed of
11 mph. 'I'BG describes wind condi Hons as "light," whereas K/J/C,
TBG's consultant, stated that the winds were "JOOderate" during the
III-7
598.8:2
-------
,
sampling. See K/JIC Comment 1.8 in Section III.C., below. This
moderate wind condition would facilitate dispersal of contaminants and
thus lower the observed concentration at the point of sampling.
Hosein et. al. (1987), in a study of PCB airborne levels during a PCB
si.te remediation, showed that: (1) PCB vapor levels approximated PCB
particulate levels; (2) PCB air concentrations increased with
increasing temperature; and (3) the atmospheric levels decreased with
increasing wind speed. Because wind speeds at the site exceeded 10
mph, it is likely that dispersal of PCBs was occurring and, therefore,
the observed results could be lower than would be expected if calm
wind conditions existed during sampling. TBG references the Byard
report (Appendix A of TBG comments), which on page 3 states that a
"warm dry day" represents "reasonable worst case conditions" for the
site. Dr. Byard's reasoning was based on the assumption that 100
percent of the PCBs were volatile and he doesn't reference site wind
conditions. (TBG's Comments, Appendix A, May 31, 1988 Cover Letter.)
The Hoseln et. al. 1987 paper does not support these assumptions.
EPA's judgement remains that the 24-hour episode cannot be used to
represent worst-case or typical.conditions for the site. In Exhibit
D, EPA's toxicologist further describes why a single 24-hour smpling
event is not appropriate for risk estimation of long-term exposures or
estimation of worst-case exposures. If a quantitative endangerment
assessment of air exposure were to be performed, long-term sampling
would be required.
A study such as that implemented by K/JIC can only be considered
reconnaisance level, intended to identi~y whether or not airborne PCBs
can be detected. Results of such a study are valuable primarily ip .
defining the scope of a larger scale study, the results of which could
be used in a quantitative endangerment assessment.' Because of the
numerous short-comings of the TBG-K/J/C air study,'EPA Will only use
the resulting data to support the conclusion that the air pathway is
an important exposure route. EPA.will continue to use the OHEA
document to support EPA's risk assessment ~f. the site.
14.
Comment: Page 8, lines 23 and 24, page 9, lines 1 through 5. TBG
states that EPA's rejection of the air data due to background
interference during analytical sample recovery is unfounded. The
recovery efficiency standards were reanalyzed with the interference
removed and recovery results met quality control (OC) standards.
Response: TBG's comment is noted and accepted. However, even if the
data passed OC criteria, the data remain acceptable for qualitative
purposes only (see Response 13). EPA's copy of the Acurex letter
referenced in TBG's footnote *4 is dated December 23, 1987, not
December 28, 1987, as stated in TBG's footnote.
14.
15.
Comment: Page 9, lines 6 through 19. TBG alleges that EPA has failed
to take into account the "small size" of the population potentially
exposed to the site, stating that only two residences are near the
site. TBG believes that the risk levels are insignificant, especially
when compared to background levels. TBG also claims that site PCB air
concentrations are less than typical background levels in household
and office space air. .
1II-8
598.8:2
-------
,
15.
Response: Three residences (not two, as stated by TBG) border the
site. One of the residences is immediately opposite the ,spot where
the highest air concentration was measured. In addition, residential
development is occurring just north of the site and the potential for
exposure under likely future use is great. EPA rejects TBG's
contention that because only a few individuals live near the site the
risk compared to background is low. As stated in Response 13,
background ("upgradient conditions") for the site was not determined
by 'I'BG's sampling program. 'I'BG does not know background
concentrations for residences in Cloverdale. The use of data from
industrialized regions of Michigan, as referenced by TBG and reported
in Health Risk Associates report (January 1988) is inappropriate and
irrelevant to an analysis of background risks for Cloverdale.
Comment: Page 9, lines 20 through 24; page 10, lines 1 through 5.
TBG states that under the assumptions ~de in the Advisory Document,
10 ppm is calculated to represent lx10- oncogenic risk.
16.
16.
Response: The Advisory document and the FS Jpage 1-18) do not state
that a 10 ppm soil level represents a lxlO- oncogenic risk. Instead
a soil level of 1 to 6 ppm represents a 10-~ risk. (The range is
based on different soil types).
Comment: page 10, lines 6 through 25; page 11, lines 1, 2, and 3.
TaG introduces a report, prepared by a Dr. James Byard (included as
Appendix A to TBG's comments), which is a review of the revised FS
endangerment assessment. TBG makes the following comments, based on
Dr. Byard's report: " ,
17.
. ,
1.
TBG states that the average PCB airborne concentration
"under reasonable worst case conditions"" was 49 times lower
than the airborne concentration assumed in the AdvisorY----
Documen t.
2.
TBG states that the Advisory Document soil-dermal uptake
calculations "are more conservative than the factor [PA now
endorses.
3.
Child soil ingestion is overstated given that the site is
fenced; TBG cites a recent study indicating a lower
ingestion rate. "
4.
Because the Advisory Document cleanup levels are based on a
linear multi-stage extrapolation model (used for chemicals
that initiate cancer through DNA modification), and because
PCBs have not been shown to be genotoxic, the cleanup levels
are not appropriate.
17.
Response 1: As explained in Response 13, the data was not shown to be
representative of "reasonable worst case conditions" for the site. "
Without knowing more about annual meteorological conditions and ranges
for the site, a worst case scenario cannot be developed. An "average"
atmospheric PCB concentration cannot be established for the site
III-9
598.8:2
-------
because the representativeness of the site with regards to source
areas and background was not established. FUrthermore, the highest
PCB concentration was detected less than 100 feet from the nearest
residence along the perimeter of the site, not near a "source area."
Because all but one of the perimeter stations had detectable PCBs and
there was only one station in an area with soil contamination, the
data can only be used to demonstrate the presence of airborne PCBs and
not average levels for incorporation into a risk document. The data
base is too inadequate to be used for any other purpose.
Resrnse 2: The difference between the 2 percent dermal uptake value
use in EPA's first FS and the 5 percent used in the Revised is is
insignificant. Using a lower, less conservative 2 percent value does
not change the risk estimate. For example, to change the risk from
10-3 to 10-4, the absorption factors would need to be ten times
higher. The difference between 2 and 5 percent is only 2.5. It is
also important to note that the OHEA document assumes that children
are only exposured every other day, which is a common toxicological
assumption i~ cold climates where it snows. In an area such as
Cloverdale, a more likely assumption would be exposure every day and,
therefore, any risk calculations should be multiplied by 2, negating
any difference in the dermal absorption' factor.
Response 3: CERCLA/SARA's mandate to protect human health places upon
EPA the responsibility of estimating risks from current and potential
future uses of contaminated sites. Because the area immediately'
adjacent to the MGM Brakes site is currently slated for residential
development, it is reasonable to assume that soil ingestion by ,
children may occur at the site. Additionally, the site itself may be
developed, thus increasing the chances that such ingestion will occur.
Therefore, an exposure pathway which assumes that children may come
into direct contact with, and .ingest, ,PCB contamina.ted soH is
appropriate for the MGM Brakes site. (See Exhibit D)
Even the use of Dr. Byard's suggested ingestion, rate does not
significantly change the risk estimate for the site. According to the
OHEA document, PCB levels between 35 and 61 ppm are associated with a
10-4 on-site risk. The 4,500 ppm at the site exceeds this range by
two orders of magnitude, which means the ingestion rate would have to
be 100 times lower just to bring the risk down to the lower end of
acceptable risk. The OHEA document used an ingestion rate for
children of 0.3 grams/day, whereas Dr. Byard uses a rate of 0.1
grams/day. Dr. Byard's rate is the same order of magnitude as EPA'S,
not 100 times lower.
Response 4: £PA's risk assessment for the MGM Brakes site reflects
current Agency policy regarding estimation of potential cancer risks
from chemicals at Superfund sites. This policy directs the risk
assessor to use £FA - approved cancer potency factors from IRIS
(Integrated Risk Information Service) when available, or from
individual program offices when IRIS values are not available.
Since there currently is no cancer potency factor for PCBs in IRIS,
use of the PCB cancer potency factor derived by £PA's Carcinogen
III-IO
598.8:2
-------
Assessment Group.(CAG), as was done for this assessment, was
appropriate. Regardless of Dr. Byard's interpretation of the
scientific data on PCB carcinogenesis, EPA policy requires that
established cancer potency factors be used; this was done the MGM
Brakes site risk assessment.
18.
Comment: Page 11, lines 4 through 21. TBG presents an alternative
approach to the Advisory Document risk levels, one which was suggested
by Dr. Byard. (Dr. Byard assumes that PCBs have an established
threshold dose below which no observable effect can be determined [no
observable effect level or NOEL]; this assumption is based on liver
studies in rats.) Based on Dr. Byard's analysis, TBG asserts that
according to Dr. Byard, a 4,500 ppm soil concentration "would result
in no statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency
or severity of adverse effects in the exposed population." TBG goes
on to suggest that "leaving the soil in place under current site
conditions would result in no significant increase in risk of adverse
heal th effects to the community". TBG closes its comment wi th a
suggestion that "scaling down" of the remedial response would be "more
appropriate for the low magnitude of the risk."
Response: Nowhere in Dr. Byard's report does he use the words
"statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or
severity of adverse effects observed in the exposed population," as
does TBG in its comment. What Dr. Byard does state is that using his
calculations, children are exposed to a dose of 13,500 .
nanograms/kilogram/day (ng/Xg/day) through ingestion alone (not
counting inhalation of vapors). This dose only provides a safety
factor 9f four, as compared to the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) of
50,000 ng/kg/day, "as calculated by Dr. Byard. -As explained i~ -
Response to Comment 17, EPA does not consider the use of a NOEL for a
carcinogen such as PCBs to be appropriate. Even if EPA accepted Dr. .
Byard's assumption that PCBs are not genotoxic, it would still be
inappropriate to use a NOEL as an estimate for a nontoxic dose. EPA
calculates nontoxic doses (referred to as Reference doses) using a
safety factor of 100 to 1,000. Dr. Byard alluded to this more
appropriate procedure in his report bUt chose to discount the value of
50 ng/Xg/day in his comparisons with the doses he calculated, based on
the level of contamination at the site.
18.
19.
Comment: Page 12, lines 1 through 29; Page 13, lines 1, 2, and 3.
TBG makes editorial and informational statements regarding CERCLA,
SARA, and the Draft National Contingency Plan (February 12, 1988).
Response: The Draft National Contingency Plan (February 12, 1988) is
not a public document and does not represent agency policy. The draft
was created for purposes of internal agency review only.
19.
20.
Comment: Page 13, lines 12 through 23. TBG quotes the Draft NCP and
Draft RI/FS Guidance on the definition of "overall protection of human
heal th and the envi ronment. "
. III-ll
598.8:2
-------
20.
~es~nse: As explained in Responses 8 and 19, neither the Draft NCP
Fe ruary 12, 1988) nor the Draft RI/FS Guidance (EPA, 1988c)
represent Agency policy.
Comment: Page 14, lines 1 through 11. TBG quotes the Draft NCP and
then states that "where several remedial alternatives. satisfy the
primary requirement for protection of human health and the
environment, the cost-effective remedy is the one which achieves this
goal at the least expen.se."
21.
21.
Response: See Response 19 with regards to the nraft NCP. EPA does
not agree with TBG's interpretation that the cost-effective remedy is
the least expensive alternative among all those meeting the primary
requirement of protection of human health and environment. Human
health and environmental protection is just one of many competing
factors EPA must consider in evaluating the effectiveness of a
particular alternative. In choosing a cost-effective remedy, EPA only
considers cost among alternatives of equal effectiveness. See also,
Response 44 in this section. Moreover, in evaluating the remedial
alternatives, EPA did not conclude that capping, fixation, and'
off-site disposal equally satisfied the primary requirement for
protection of human health and the environment. Both capping and
fixation rely on the enforcement of institutional controls to ensure
that they remain protective. Fixation would reduce mobility but data
provided by K/J/C shows that PCBs in fixed soil are not chemically
bound and that PCBs are still detected in air above a sample treated
with fixative. Thus, exposure and release would still be possible
without institutional controls. See Response 39 of this section for
the.diffi~lties associated with institutional controls. Through
excavation and removal, all 'significant risks to human .health and the
environment at the site will be eliminated and thus EPA's preferred
alternative offers increased public health protection at the site as
compared to capping or fixation.
Comment: Page 14, lines 12 through 23; Page 15, lines 1 through 5.
TBG disagrees with EPA's conclusion'in the Draft FS that fixation is
not a permanent remedy. TBG quotes Section 121 (b)(1) of SARA and
interprets this section and page 131 of the draft NCP to mean that
pe~nent solutions under CERCA include those which significantly and
partially reduce volume, toxicity, or mobility. TBG states that
"permanence does not necessarily mean complete destruction of the
hazardous substance, but can include a significant and partial
reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume."
22.
22. Res~nse: CERCLA Section 121(b)(1) states that remedial actions in
whic "treatment which pe~nently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred over
remedial actions not involving such treatment." Section 121(b)(1)(G)
directs the President to select a remedial action "that utilizes
pe~nent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable." These directives strongly encourage the
use of treatment in remedial actions while recognizing that
flexibility is necessary to deal with site circumstances and
III-12
598.8:2
-------
technological, economic, and implemention constraints that place
practical limitations on the use of treatment technologies. The
statute does not state or imply that all treatment satisfies the
statutory preference; only remedial actions of which a lrincipal
element is treatment which "~rmanentlY and significant 1 reduces
volume, toxicity or mobility of the cont~nant are pre erred
(emphasis added).
TBG argues 'that fixation qualifies for this statutory preference.
However, TBG quotes a different portion of Section 121. The portion
quoted by TBG describes the entire range of treatment technologies
which the President is directed to assess in choosing a remedial
action; this range is to include "permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies that, in
whole or in ~, will result in a permanent and significant decrease
in the toxic1ty, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. In making [the] assessment, the President
shall s cificall address the lon -term effectiveness of various
a ternat1ves. S ()() (emp aS1S a e T 1S part of 5121 does
not describe the most preferred type of alternative but rather a range
of alternatives to be considered. To meet the preference for a .
permanent remedy, a remedy must use treatment that permanently and
significantly reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element. Fixation does not fall into this category because the
reduction of mobility which would result does not address a pathway of
significant concern at the MGM Brakes site. See Response 24.
TaG again quotes the Draft NCP; this document has not been adopted by
. £FA 'and poes not. represent .Agency policy. Moreover, TBG cites this.
document for the proposition that "[t]reatment alternativesth~t
significantly reduce volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous'
substances are 'permanent' solutions." TaG Comments at page 14
(citing Draft NCP at 131). The cited document does not support this
broad claim. The problem with this statement is it assumes any
remedial action involving some treatment that results in any reduction
of toxicity, mobility, or volume meets the statutory preference for
permanence; this ignores the specific language of the statute, which
requires that this treatment be a principal element of the preferred
alternative. Also, the language of the Draft NCP describes the upper
range of treatment alternatives to be considered as involving
"remedies that completely destroy, detoxify, or immobilize the
hazardous substances and leave no need for further long-term
management. . ." Draft NCP at 131. Fixation would requi re
monitoring and land use restrictions for an indefinite period of time.
'Ihus, this remedy does not fall wi thin the upper, more permanent end
of the range of treatment technologies.
23.
Comment: Page 15, lines 6 through 16. TBG continues its comments on
"the concept of permanence," quoting Section 122 (f)( 2)( B), CERC!A's
covenant not to sue for remedial actions involving "treatment of
hazardous substances so as to destroy, eliminate, or pe~nently
immobilize the constituents of such substances." TBG states that such
a remedy is deemed sufficiently pennanent to allow EPA to surrender
II 1-13
598.8:2
-------
its enforcement authority with regards to a site when such a remedy is
employed. .
23.
~:~:::fO~wh~~S~~~i~~ ;~t~;~~e~~or:~~~~ ~e~~~:~a~~e~~~; sue
more fully than the limited quote TaG included. The subsection refers
to a remedy "which involves the treatment of hazardous substances so
as to destroy, eliminate, or permanently immobilize the hazardqus
constituents of such substances, such that, in the judgment of the
President, the substances no longer present any current or foreseeable
future significant risk to Public health, welfare, or the
envirorunent..." 42 U.S.C. 59622(f)(2)(8) (emphasis added). Only
incineration meets this definition for the MGM Brakes site. See also
Response to Comments 22 and 24.
Comment: Page 15, lines 17-24; page 16, lines 1-24, page 17, lines
1-7. TBG states that fixation is clearly a permanent remedy and
claims that EPA has described fixation as a "viable treatment
alternative which, at a minimum, reduces mobility of PCBs in soil and
therefore meets the CERCLA preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedy," citing Table 4-1 of the Draft RI;FS Guidance,
and several Superfund Records of Decision (RODs) at other sites.
Citing the Chemical Control ROD at p. 29, TBG states that EPA has
described fixation as a permanent solution due to its ability to
reduce the toxicity as well as the mobility of PCBs in soil. TaG
claims that fixation permanently and significantly reduces the
mobility of PCBs in groundwater and surface water and presents
information on the long-term stability of fixed monoliths over
geologic time. TaG also refers to unPublished data identified through
. a telephone contact with International Waste Technologies (IWT, a
. fixation vendor) that '''suggest'' fixation ";nay cause signifi.cant
chemf~a1 changes" to PcBs. TaG concludes, therefore, that fixation
may also permanently and significantly' reduce PCB toxicity.
'.<
24.
.,
24.
Response: Table 4-1 of the Draft .RI;FS Guidance does hot support the
proposition for which TBG cites it. The table simply lists excavation
and treatment and in situ treatment as possible response actions for a
site involving soir-contamination with carcinogens. The table.
contains no statement or information about the ability of flxation to
reduce mobility of PCBs in soil, and does not represent that fixation
meets CERCLA's preference for treatment as a principle remedy, as TaG
claims. In fact, fixation is not even mentioned anYwhere in Table
4-1.
The question of whether fixation significantly and permanently reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume and, therefore, meets CERCLA's
preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy, must be
addressed in relation to the MGM Brakes site, not other sites with
different soil conditions, exposure pathways, etc.1 In the FS, EPA
clearly states that fixation does reduce the mobility of PCBs.
However, this alone does not make fixation a permanent remedy. As
described in Response 22, pe~ent remedies are those that would
involve, as a principal element, treatment that permanently and,
significantly reduces volume, toxicity or mobility. Such remedies are
III-14
S98.~:2
-------
preferred because they significantly and permanently reduce the risk
at the site. Reducing the mobility of PCBs does not significantly and
permanently reduce the risk that the contaminants pose to human
health. As stated in theFS, EPA does not consider groundwater
mobility to be significant sources of risk at the site. TBG's awn
conments state that U[b]ecause the need for control of horizontal
migration in groundwater is not an appropriate remedial objective for
this site, it should not be used as a criteria for selection of
remedial alternatives. TBG's, comments Appendix a, p.3. See also,
TBG's Comments at p. 23.
The principle threats at the site arise from the toxicity of PCBs or,
more specifically, through the inhalation of PCB vapors, ingestion and
direct contact. TBG refers to data that "may" indicate a reduction in
toxicity; this data was not provided to EPA. Since no data has been
provided which demonstrates that fixation produces the chemical bond
breaking energy sufficient to alter PCBs, EPA must rely on existing
data. Data provided to EPA by K/J/C show that the PCBs are neither
chemically bound nor chemically altered by fixative agents, and
therefore, their toxicity is unchanged. Additional data provided to
EPA by K/J/C shows that ai r emissions of PCBs still occur above a
sample which has been treated with a fixative agent. No actual data
exists on the toxicological effects of fixed material on human health
and the one available research paper on the effects of fixed soil to
aquatic life shows that the fixed material is more toxic when compared
-to untreated soils (Green et. al., 1987).
25.
Under the fixation alternative, PCBs would not be chemically altered
and would be lef~ at the site. TBG has not proyided data that shows
that fixation reduces the significant health risks at the site through
treatment that significantly reduces toxicity, mobility or volume.
Instead, the principal threats are addressed by the cap which is
placed over the soils once they have been-treated with the fixative.
To ensure that the substances no longer present any current or
foreseeable risk to human health, the site would have to be monitored
and its future use restricted. Fixation is not a permanent remedy
within the meaning of CERCLA Section 121(b).
- Comment: page 17, lines 9 through 24; Page 18, lines 1 through 17.
TBG notes CERCLA's preference that off-site disposal without treatment
be the least favored remedial alternative where practicable treatment
technologies are available. TBG states that the Draft RI/FS Guidance
lFor example, PCB levels at the Chemical Control site in New Jersey range
from non-detectable to 6 ppm. The highest levels are well below EPA's
clean-up level of 10 ppm, which is designed to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment. Therefore, the issue of whether
fixation is a permanent remedy for remediation of PCBs at this site never
arises because the PCB levels do not represent a significant threat. The
cited RODs were reviewed and considered, along with other information in
the record. Nothing contained in these RODs changes EPA's decision that
fixation is not a permanent remedy for this site within the meaning of
CERCI.A 5121 (b). -
III-IS
598.8:2
-------
25;
"does not suggest off-site disposal without treatment as a remedy in
any situation." TBG also states that there is no evidence that EPA
considered this preference in the development or evaluation of
remedial alternatives for the MGM Brakes site. TBG asserts that
alternatives such as fixation and capping "adequately protect health
and the environment at a lower cost than off-site disposal" and that,
therefore, "CERCLA requires that off-site disposal be rejected."
Response: CERCLA's preference that off-site disposal be the least
favored alternative where practicable treatment technologies are
available is just that - a preference. The requirement to use
treatment technologies "to the maximum extent practicable" recognizes
that there will be circumstances that will limit the use of specific
treatment technologies at specific sites. The law does not state that
off-site disposal cannot be used in any specific situation. TBG's
statement that the Draft RIfFS Guidance never suggests that off-site
disposal be considered as a remedy in any situation is false. Table
4-1 (previously cited by TBG, see comment 24) lists disposal
excavation as a general response action for sites involving soil
contaminated by carcinogens (as is the case at the MGM site).
26.
EPA did consider CERCLA's preference when developing remedial
alternatives (see Draft FS, at 5-2 to 5-3) but did not view the
preference as adequate justification for eliminating this alternative
from the list of those to be fully analyzed. After full analysis and
evaluation~ EPA chose off-site disposal as the remedial alternative
for this site because it achieves the best balance of legitimate
CERCLA goals, taking into account the relevant risks (see Section X of
the Record of Decision). TBG's assertion that fixation or capping
must be chosen because they are cheaper and provide "adequate
pr~tection" is~ also incorrect. EPA has determined, that off-site
disposal provides ~ore protection of the ehvironment and human health,
and also' that community acceptance of off-site disposal is greater.
Furthermor~, neither fixation nor capping meets the requirements for
"permanent treatment" under CERCLA (see Response 24). Therefore,
EPA's choice of off-site disposal as the remedial action for this site
is supported by the record and meets CERCLA's requirements.
Comment: Page 18, lines 18 through 23; Page 19, lines 1 through 25;
page 20, lines 1 through 15. TBG presents introductory material on
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). TBG
cites CERCLA and the Draft NCP.
26.
Response: Text is noted as presented, although EPA again notes that
the Draft NCP has not been adopted and does not constitute Agency
policy .
27.
Ccmnent: Page 20, lines 16 through 26; Page 21, lines 1 through 23;
Page 22, lines 1 through 19. TBG argues that the TSCA PCB disposal
and treatment requirements are neither applicable nor relevant and
appropriate for the MGM Srakes site. TBG argues that the TSCA
requirements are not applicable to spills which occurred prior to
February 17, 1978, and are only relevant and appropriate to remedies
involving excavation and removal of PCB contaminated soil. TBG states
III-l6
598.8:2
-------
27.
that because PCBs at the MGM Brakes site were disposed of prior to
1978, they are considered to be "in service" and are not required to
be removed for disposal. If the PCBs are removed, however, they must
be disposed of in accordance with TSCA regulations. TBG finally argues
that spills which occurred prior to February 17, 1978, should be
remediated on a case-by-case basis and only if warranted by potential
risks to public health and the environment.
Res~ns~: TSCA's requirements regarding disposal of PCBs are
app lca Ie to all alternatives which involve removing the PCB soil
from the ground, including incineration, excavation and fixation, and
off-site disposal. This is because, by their own terms, the
requirements apply to PCBs or PCB items removed from a disposal site
at which they were desposi ted prior to February 17, 1978. See 40 CFR
Part 761 Subpart D, Note. The regulations specifically require
contaminanted PCB soil to be disposed of in an incinerator or an
approved landfill. 40 CFR S761.60(a)(4).
28.
EPA also detenmined that TSCA's requirements regarding PCB disposal
are relevant and appropriate for all other remedial actions at the
site. This determination is based on the similarity of the affected
media, the fact that the same hazardous substance is involved, and the
fact that these regulations were developed to address a problem
, sufficiently similar, in EPA's judgement, to that faced at the MGM
Brakes site to justify their adoption as an ARAR. The February 17,
1978 jurisdictional date has therefore been waived. In EPA's
judgment, TSCA's requirements are well-suited to address the
environmental and public health risks present at the MGM Brakes sit~.
Comment: Page 22, lines 20 thr.ough 25; Page 23, lines 1 through 24,
Page 24', lines 1 through 25, Page 25, lines 1 to 4. TBG argues that
the 50 feet to groundwater requirement for landfills containing PCBs
'is not appropriate for the MGM Brakes site due to site-specific.
conditions, specifically, the low mobility of PCBs in the groundwater
systems below the site. TBG cites post SARA Records of, Decision
(RODs) in which the TSCA 50-feet to groundwater requirement is either
disregarded or not mentioned for on-site containment or fixation.
TBG discusses EPA's ability to grant a waiver to the TSCA landfill
criteria, citing 40 CFR 5761.73(c)(4). TBG argues that even if the
TSCA disposal standards are relevant and appropriate, EPA would only
be requi red to comply wi th the substance of the rule, not the formal
process. TBG states that the substantive requirements of the waiver
process can be satisfied through the FS and ROD process, and that
"[a]ny refusal by EPA to even consider a waiver is arbitrary and
capricious and an abuse of discretion."
28.
Response: The TSCA regulations do contain a provision for the
discretionary waiver of any of the requirements contained in 40 CFR
S761.75(b). See 40 CFR 5761.75(c)(4). The Regional Administrator may
grant such a waiver if he finds that doing so would not result in an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Id. Based
on the information contained in the AdmUnistrative Record, it has been
detenmined that granting a waiver of all of 40 CFR S761.75(b)'s
requirements designed to ensure grouncwater protection would not
III-17
598.8:2
-------
result in an unreasonable risk for this site. The following
requirements are not waived: 40 CFR S761.7S(b)(4),(S),(6),(7},(8) and
(9. This finding-r5 based on £PA's determination that although the
groundwater at the site is already contaminated, the contaminated
aquifer is not usable due to low yields and because the rate of
movement of the contaminants is highly attenuated and, therefore,
impacts to the downgradient aquifer are not anticipated. See also, FS
at page 1-17. Therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR S761.7S(b)(1),(2)
and (3), which are designed to ensure protection of groundwater, are.
waived for all of the remedial actions at this site; this includes the
50 feet to groundwater requirement.
TBG is correct in stating that the substantive elements of the waiver
provision can be applied through the FS and ROD process. EPA has done
so in this case. EPA also notes that the statement contained in the
FS (p. 2-6) that Region 9 had never granted a waiver of any TSCA
requirements is incorrect. A waiver of some requirements was granted
to Chem Waste Management for the Kettleman Hills landfill. The
SO-feet to groundwater provision was not waived in that case, however.
29.
Comment: Page 25, lines 5 through 23, page 26, lines 1 through 10.
TBG presents introductory and informational matter on the TSCA PCB
Spill Cleanup Policy (the "Spill Policy") of April 27, 1987.
29.
Response: The material provides an introduction to the specific
comments which follow it. No comment is raised which is not responded
to later in this Responsiveness Summary.
30.
Comment: Page 26, lines 11 through 24, page 27, lines 1 through 8.
TBG questions EPA's designating the PCB Spill' Cleanup Policy as
"relevant and appropriate" to the MGM Brakes site. TBG states that no
analysis is provided to show why the ~ationale for the 'policy is
relevant to the site'and claims that the po~icy "expressly states that
the underlying policy rationale is ,probably not relevant to historic
spills". TBG argues that the policy is not relevant and appropriate
to the MGM site because it addresses exposures and risks associated
'with typical electrical equipment spills and specifically exempts
spills that occurred before May 4, 1987 because of the likelihood that
PCBs will be more pervasive and harder to clean up at these sites.
TBG notes that the contamination at the MGM Brakes site is deeper and
more extensive than that at a fresh electrical equipment spill.
30.
Response: The TSCA Spill Policy has not been identified as an ARAR,
but rather as a "To Be Considered" ('!BC) criteria. Furthermore, also
contraLY to TBG's claim, the !SCA Spill Policy itself does not state
that the underlying policy rationale is probably not relevant to .
historical spills. Instead, the policy states that historical spills
will require a site-by-site evaluation because of the "likelihood that
the site involves more pervasive contamination than fresh spills and
because old spills are generally ,more difficult to clean up than fresh
spills." 40 CFR S761.l20(a)(1){ii). This policy recognizes that the
standards contained therein may be applied to CERCLA remedial actions
involving historical spills as a discretionaLY matter. 40 CFR
S761.120{a) (l)(ii) and S761.l20(e)(a).
III-18
598.8:2
-------
'.
EPA has used the 10 ppm clean up level from the Spill Policy because
it represents a 10-5 oncogenic risk for PCBs, which is consistent with
CERCLA clean-up goals. Thus, for alternatives that involve excavation
and/or treatment, 10 ppm represents the level that is protective of
public health - a primary requirement of CERCU\. The fact that the
Spill Policy is not applicable to historical spills does not change
the level of risk that 10 ppm represents. As discussed in Response 8,
the OHEA risk assessment used as the basis of the Spill Policy was
also used by £FA in a policy specifically developed for historic
spills regulated under CERCLA. See (EPA 1988a), Appendix F at 1. The
TSCA Spill Policy was adopted as necessary, in EPA's best professional
judgment, to set a clean-up level at the site which would protect
human health.
31.
Comment: Page 27, lines 8 through 20. TBG states that cleanup levels
presented in the Spill Cleanup Policy are based on the risks
associated with inhalation of volatilized PCBs, and that the Spill
Cleanup Policy clean-up levels may be germaine to fresh spills, not
historical spills which have dissipated volatile fractions of PCBs.
To support its argument, TBG compares its atmospheric PCB data
collected at the site to the assumptions in the Advisory Document on
which the Spill Policy is based.
31.
Res~nse: The exposure assessment in the OHEA advisory document used
in eveloping the Spill Policy clean-up levels takes into account the
depletion of PCBs to the atmosphere over a seventy-year period of
exposure (OHEA at p. 1-4.) Thus, TBG's argument that the Spill Policy
is nQt germaine because the advisory document,does not take into.
account spills with dissipated volatile fractions of PCBs i~ based on
an incorrect premise. Furthermore, the air data from the sit~ can
only be used qualitatively and cannot be considered representative of
. the actual site concentrations, as discussed in Response 13.
32.
Comment: Page 27, lines 21 through 25, page 28, lines 1 through 8.
TBG states that it believes EPA has misinterpreted and misapplied the
PCB Spill Cleanup Policy and incorrectly concluded that the policy's
standards are appropriate for the MGM Brakes site. TBG's reasoning is
that relevancy and appropriateness are related to specific site
circumstances in relationship to the objectives, purpose and origin of
the standard. TBG requests thatEPA reconsider EPA's analysis and
develop site-specific remedial clean-up standards.
32.
Response: EPA has not labelled the Spill Policy as an ARAR. As
discussed in Response 30, EPA used the Spill Policy to determine a
clean-up level which is protective of human health for alternatives
involving excavation or treatment. The clean-up level of the Spill
Policy, in turn, was based on the exposure and risk assessment of the
OHEA document. EPA carefully assessed the specific conditions at the
MGM Brakes site before selecting the 10 ppm cleanup level. The
objectives, purpose, and origin of the OHEA document Which are
discussed below clearly indicate that the document and the 10 ppm
clean-up level are well-suited to the site conditions at MGM Brakes.
1II-19
598.8:2
-------
o
Page vii states that the purpose of the document is to
provide advisory levels for PCB clean-up and to describe the
detailed technical and scientific rationale used in
developing these advisory levels for PCBs in contaminated
soil.
o
The document includes a specific analysis of Arochlor 1242,
the major PCB contaminant at the MGM Brakes site; it was
determdned that for }his specific PCB Arochlor a range of 4-6
. ppm represents a 10- oncogenic risk, which EPA has
determined to be an acceptable risk level for a CERCLA site.
The document used EPA's standard exposure assumptions
appropriate for a site with residences extremely close by and
anticipated unrestricted-access future use.
o
o
page vii states the document was specifically done for EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the Office
within EPA Headquarters responsible for Superfund guidance.
In January of 1986, this same office developed a national
policy enti tIed "Recommenation on Removal Action Level for
PCB's in Soil Based on Health Effect." Using the exposure
and risk assessment developed in the OHEA document, the
policy "set forth the advisory limitations of PCB in soil
considered permissible in protecting the health of the public
affected by contaminated sites regulated under CERCLA." See
EPA (1988a), Appendix F, at 1.
33.
Furthermore, a likely future use of the site will be residential or
.unrestricted access, making the Spill Policy's 10 ppm clean-up level
more appropriate than the 25 ppm used for restricted access areas.
See also Response to Comments.4 and 8. .
Comment:. Page 28, lines 9 through 25, page 29, line 1. TBG states
that the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy's clean-up levels are inappropriate
for the MGM Brakes site. TBG states that the Policy allows less rigid
clean-up levels if site specific characteristics or reduced risk
levels warrant this. TBG concludes that because the FS states that
capping or fixation would adequately protect human health and
environment at substantially less cost than excavation and removal to
a PCB concentration of 10 ppm, clean-up to the 10 ppm level is not
warranted.
33.
Re~nse: EPA considers the risks at the site sufficient to warrant
re ial action.. The reasons the 10 ppm clean-up level was adopted
were elaborated in Reponses 30 and 32. EPA did not elimimate capping
or fixation solely on the basis that they did not meet the 10 ppm
level of the Spill Policy. Instead, these remedies were also rejected
due to: (1) the lack of developed mechanisms to enforce institutional
controls; (2) neither capping nor fixation is a permanent remedy; (3)
community preference for off-site disposal; and (4) likely future uses
of the site. .
III-20
598.8:2
-------
34.
Comment: Page 29, lines 1 through 17. TBG states that since SARA was
passed, EPA has signed at least seventeen Records of Decision for
sites contaminated with PCBs, and that only 2 (11%) of those 17 RODs
selected off-site disposal (emphasis added). TBG goes on to give the
percentage of the seventeen RODs that selected capping, incineration
.and fixation. TBG concludes that it would be inconsistent to apply a
10 ppm clean-up level for the MGM Brakes site, given these prior RODs
and the FS determination that capping or fixation would adequately
protect human health and the environment.
34.
Res~nse : TBG' s seventeen post-SARA RODs do not represent on
inc usive listing of all post-SARA RODs signed by EPA at sites
involving PCB contamination. For example, other RODs involving PCB
contamination signed since SARA include the Resolve site in Region I
and LaskinjPoplar in Region 5 - neither of which selected TBG's
perferred alternatives of capping or fixation. Therefore, the
percentages of RODs in each category as stated by TBG are meaningless
except to indicate the number of ROD's among the seventeen TBG chose
to select as examples that selected a particular remedy. Because an
alternative was selected by EPA at another Superfund site in the
country does not mean that it is appropriate for the MGM Brakes site
in Cloverdale, California. . SARA requires EPA to consider many factors
in selecting a remedy. EPA has developed nine criteria which directly
relate to the factors SARA mandates that EPA assesses. EPA has
selected the alternative that represents the best balance of these
criteria. Criteria such as short-term effectiveness require a
site-specific determination. Others, such as implementability, depend
on the physical characteristics of the site. The cited RODs were
reviewed and considered, along with the other relevant information in
the record. EPA decided that at this site, off-site disposal best.
meets CERCLA and SARA's requi rements. The compaiati ve elements of
this decision are further elaborated in the attached ROD.
35.
Comment: page 29, lines 18 through 25, page 30 lines 1 through 12.
TBG disputes the requirement for a liner for the capping alternative.
TBG cites RCRA regulations that provide an exemption for liners for
existing portions of landfills. TBG argues that because PCBs are in
place, they should be treated as an existing portion of a landfill and
regulations regarding liners should not be applied.
:~~~~S~~t :~l~g~~e~h:i~~p~g~~~e~:t~~~ir~~n~:sf~~c~r~~:~ed
this change into the Record of Decision.
35.
36.
Comment: page 30, lines 13 through 21. TBG states that under the
"California Code of Regulations," the soils at MGM Brakes should not
be classified as extremely hazardous because only materials with PCBs
greater than 5,000 ppm are classified as extremely hazardous and the
maximum concentration detected at the site was 4,500 ppm.
Response: EPA concurs that the soils should not be classified as
extremely hazardous under California Regulations unless they are
contaminated with PCBs of 5,000 pprn or greater; so far no such levels
have been found in the soil. However, EPA notes that a concrete core
36.
1II-2l
598.8:2
-------
sample contained 5,400 ppm PCBs; this level is classified as extremely
hazardous waste under California's regulations. Concrete PCB .
concentrations will need to be monitored closely during remediation to
determine which are extremely hazardous.
37.
Comment: Page 31, lines 13 through 23, page 32, lines land 2. TBG
states that EPA omitted a substantive discussion of the alternatives
in terms of human health and environmental protectiveness. TBG has
provided its own risk comparison of the alternatives. TBG claims that
in the long-term, all identified alternatives provide essentially the
same protectiveness. TBG claims, however, that in the short-term,
alternatives involving excavation have double the risk of other
alternatives. TBG concludes that capping and in situ fixation would
result in the lowest overall risks to the Cloverdare-community.
~::~gs:~d ~~i~;~~t~~n~~~f~t~~~~a~i;~: ~~~~~:~o~o;a~~e public
alternative. Each alternative was evaluated in terms of both its
long-term effectiveness in protecting public health and its short-term
effectiveness in terms of adverse impacts during implementation.
37.
As discussed in Responses 21 and 25, the alternatives to off-site.
disposal do not offer the same long-term protection of public health.
In addition, TBG's claims regarding the short-term risks of the
alternatives are based on invalid assumptions about the amount of dust
generated. TBG overstates the risks of all the alternatives.
Furthermore, the short-term risks of excavation alternatives e~timated
by reG's consultants Health Risk Associates are within the 10- to
10- risk range that EPA considers acceptable. (See Section 111.D and
Section III. E)
38.
Comment: Page 32, lines 3 thrQugh 21. TBG provid~s 'introductory
statements regarding its preference for on-site capping as the
remedial alternative for the MGM Brakes site.
38.
Response: Responses to these general comments are provided in detail
in Responses 39 through 43, below.
Comment: Page 32, line 22, Page 32, lines 1 through 25, page 34,
lines 1 through 23. TBG questions the Draft FS statement that land
use restrictions are unacceptable because "EPA does not currently have
a program established under Superfund to insure that institutional
controls are implemented or maintained either at the federal or state
level." TBG cites RODs that it describes as including institutional
controls as part of remediation. TBG also cites the Draft NCP for the
proposition that the use of non-engineered controls is to be
encouraged. TBG further argues that EPA has the authority to JIIOnitor
sites and enforce restrictions through CERCLA's provision for
inspecting sites every 5 years after remediation. TBG adds that any
consent agreement between EPA and TBG could provide a mechanism for
long-teem enforcement of institutional controls. TBG also cites other
institutional controls, which it asserts would require no enforcement
by EPA; these include fencing, deed restrictions, City building
permits, and agreements between the California Department of Health
39.
III-22
598.8:2
-------
Services and the property owner setting forth land use restrictions
which the State could enforce through civil and criminal actions
pursuant to California Health and Safety Code 525221.1 et ~q. and
525236. TBG concludes that the State, City, and EPA have e means to
enforce restrictions and EPA's refusal to consider these controls is
arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
39.
Response: A distinction must be made between the authority of EPA to
adopt "institutional controls" and the development of the
administrative capability to successfully implement and enforce such
controls. TBG refers to several legal citations which it argues
provide adequate legal authority for EPA, the state, and/or local
government to mandate restrictions on land use at the site. While EPA
questions whether all of the cited examples actually provide the
authority, TBG ascribes to theml, EPA did not base its decision to
reject institutional controls at the site on any perceived lack of
legal authority but rather on a policy judgement that implementation
and enforcement capabilities for oversight of the types of controls
needed at this site have not been adequately developed. Therefore,
their reliability in protecting human health and the environment is
questionable. EPA also rejected these controls because of the
additional resource drain which is involved in the oversight and
enforcement of such mechanisms. Effective use of such remedies would
require EPA to continue indefinitely to devote investigatory and legal
resources to penalize the landholder or fts successor or othe~ise
ensure compliance with any restrictions. Instead, EPA has decided to
dispose of the waste at a permitted landfill. Such facilities are
highly regulated as a matter of course. The Regional Adndnistrator's
decision must also be viewed in the larger context -- many Superfund
sites exist in Region IX's ~erritory. The Region desires to avoid a
proliferation of many permanent, individbal sites requiring extensive
lFor instance, TBG states that deed restrictions could be used to assure
that the cap and' fence are maintained, and that no further enforcement by.
EPA would be necessary. However, a legal issue arises as to who is
obligated to perform such affirmative actions if the property. owner or any
successor in interest becomes insolvent, or leaves the jurisdiction.
2TBG's statement that the use of state or local legal authorities would
somehow absolve EPA of any responsibility for continued oversight is
inconsistent with EPA's role as the lead agency at this site. For
instance, TBG states that deed restrictions would require no.enforcement by
EPA. However, EPA would not view such a restriction as effective unless a
means were established for governmental enforcement of the restriction; EPA
would not view the traditional means of ensuring compliance with such a
restriction (e.g., a lawsuit by the former private property owner or by a
private property owner meant to benefit from the restriction) as an
adequate assurance of enforcement, considering the risks involved in
leaving PCBs above 10 ppm on-site. The Draft NCP, referred to by TBG,
specifically states that n[w]hen [institutional] controls are used, the
lead agency must ensure that the controls remain in place and that they are
effective in preventing exposure to hazardous substances for as long as
those substances remain hazardous." Draft NCP at 115.
In-23
598.8:2
-------
monitoring and enforcement efforts for the indefinite future. This ,is
not to say that institutional controls would never be appropriate, but
only that, in deciding whether or not to use institutional controls at
a given site, the Regional Administrator may properly consider the
overall effect on regional resources and priorities, as well as the
long-te~ need to preserve the Superfund.
faG incorrectly states that "the Draft NCP encourages the use of
'non-engineered controls' to supplement engineered controls to prevent
or limit exposure to contaminated areas.- (citing Draft NCP at 115)
(emphasis added). The Draft NCP notes that "[a]s appropriate,
non-engineered controls may supplement engineered controls in managing
hazardous substances. . ." Draft NCP at 115 (emphasis added). The
document also states that "[nJon-engineered mechanisms. . . will not
substitute for more active responses. . . "Draft NCP at 115. Nowhere
does the Draft NCP encourage the use of institutional controls or
, state any type of preference for their use. In this case, for the
reasons elaborated above, the Regional Administrator determined that
such controls would not be appropriate.)
40.
Comment: Page 35, lines 1 through 16. TBG argues that capping would
eliminate what it considers to be the principal pathway for release of
PCBs, namely surface water, and would also prevent air emissions. TBG
also argues that capping would reduce groundwater mobility by
preventing rainwater intrusion. TBG claims that bacteria present at
the site "may have the potential to degrade PCBs" (emphasis added)
and, therefore, that capping may result in a permanent remedy.
Response: ,EPA agrees tha~ capping reduces surface water migration and
volatility of PCBs. Capping also results in long-term land 'use .
restrictions and site monit~ring, activities which conflict with the
likely future use of the site and place a long-term burden on,EPA to
monitor and enforce the restrictions. EPA disagrees that capping
would reduce groundwater mobility. Capping would prevent some
vertical movement of PCBs, but vertical movement has not been an issue
since the ethelyne glycol at the site was degraded. With the high
groundwater conditions at the site, which capping cannot appreciably
lower, and the presence of a large portion of PCBs within the active
groundwater zone, slow horizontal movement of PCBs will still occur.
40.
3TBG also cites four Records of Decision (RODs) from other areas of the
count~ where institutional controls were part of the selected remedy.
These RODS have been reviewed and considered as part of the decision making
process in this case. The factual situations are different from that at
the MGM Brakes site. For example, three of the four RODs cited by TBG
involve clean-up of landfills which failed. These sites involved many
different contaminants and large land areas, and had been planned as the
final terminus for the wastes which they contained. The fourth ROD (Kane
and Lombard Site) involves fencing and inspections, not deed restrictions
such as would be needed at the MGM Brakes si te. Nothing in these RODs
changes the decision that institutional controls are inappropriate in the
instant case.
111-24
598.8:2
-------
i
:
Capping cannot prevent groundwater upgradient of the site from
continuing to flow through the site and come in contact with PCBs.
With regards to biodegradation of PCBs, existing data (EPA, 1985) show
PCB molecules with 3 or less chlorine atoms to be utilized by
microorganisms. These data also show that more highly chlorinated
molecules, such as those present at the site, are not degraded by
microorganisms. The presence of microorganisms does not in itself
prove that the potential for bioremediation exists. TBG has offered
nothing further on which to base a conclusion that this potential
exists at the site.
41.
Comment: Page 35, lines 17 through 23, page 36, lines 1 through 4.
TBG repeats its argument that the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy is not
applicable or relevant and appropriate to remediation of the MGM
Brakes site. 'I'BG' again argues that the 10 ppm clean-up level is
unwarranted given site-specific characteristics.
41.
Res~nse: The basis for EPA's use of the Spill Policy 10 ppm clean-up
leve at the site is contained in Responses 4, 8, 9, 27, 30, 31, 32,
and 33.
42.
Comment: page 36, lines 5 through 24, page 37, lines 1 through 6.
TBG repeats its argument that the TSCA PCB disposal requirements are
only relevant and appropriate for PCB-containing soils removed from
the site for off-site disposal and not appropriate for "in service"
PCBs. TBG states that the RCRA liner requirements would not apply to
, the capping alternative because the site can be considered an existing
landfill. .' . '
42.
Resp?nse: The Oasis for EPA's determination that,TSCA's PCB disposal
requlrements are relevant and appropriate to remedial alternatives
. which do not involve excavation of soil at the site is fully set forth
in Response 27. EPA's decision to waive the requirements of 40 CFR
S76l.5(b) is set forth in Response 28. EPA agrees that RCRA's liner
requirement should not be considered an ARAR for the capping
alternative. See Response 35.
Comment: page 37, lines 7 through 21. TBG repeats its argument that
the TSCA 50-feet to groundwater requirement should be disregarded.
43.
43.
Res~nse: EPA agrees that this requirement should be waived based on
a flnding of no significant environmental or public health risk.
44.
Comment: page 37, lines 22 and 23, page 38, lines 1 through 7. TBG
claims that capping is clearly the cost effective remedy for the MGM
Brakes site, (emphasis added) because it would achieve protection of
human health and the environment in the most cost-efficient way.
Response: As discussed in Response 21, in selecting a cost effective
remedy EPA must consider the remedies overall effectiveness in
relation to its costs. Protection of human health and the environment
is one component of overall effectiveness. Other criteria EPA
considers in selecting a cost effective remedy include long-term
44.
III-25
598.8:2
-------
effectiveness, ability to meet ARARs, and State and community
acceptance. As stated in the ROD, off-site disposal represents a
cost-effective remedy, given all the criteria EPA must consider.
45.
Comment: Page 38, lines 8 through 18. TBG states that fixation may
be a more acceptable remedy than capping. TBG bases this statement on
its claims that fixation uses- treatment to permanently and
significantly reduce PCB mobility, is protective of human health and
the environment, meets ARAR's, has long-standing community acceptance,
and may reduce toxicity.
Resp?nse: EPA agrees that fixation may be a better remedy than
capplng but it has dete~ined that off-site disposal is superior to
both, for the reasons elaborated in the attached Record of Decision.
EPA also agrees that fixation uses treatment to reduce the mobility of
PCBs, however, EPA disagrees with TBGs assertion that mobility is
permanently and significantly reduced. As discussed in Response 24,
tne data provided to EPA by K/J/C show that the PCBs are neither
chemically bound nor chemically altered through fixation, but instead
can be extracted, unchanged. It has not been established that
fixation reduces the toxicity of PCBs. More importantly, PCB
groundwater mobility is not the main source of risk; rather, PCB
volatility is. Therefore, although the FS states that fixation would
protect human health, it would only do so in combination with a
maintained soil cap and/or air monitoring to ensure that air emissions
would not exceed those levels that would pose a risk to public health.
Th~s would involve restricted use of the site, and a resource burden
on EPA to enforce the deed restrictions.
45.
46.
TBG has not provided any support for the statement that fixation has
long~standing community acceptance. It is true. that some community
members expressed a preferenc~ for fixation over on-site incineration
during the .period when EPA'S preferred alternative was incineration.
During the public comment period on the revi~ed FS (EPA, 1988a), EPA
did not receive any comments regarding fixation from anyone other than
TBG and its consultants. Many members of the community have expressed
support for off-site disposal.
Comment: Page 38, lines 19 through 23, page 39; lines 1 th~ugh 7.
TBG agrees with EPA's conclusion that in situ fixation would not have
the short-te~ human health impacts of -alternatives involving
excavation. They then reference an assessment conducted by Health
Risk Associates, (TBG's Appendix C), claiming that it shows that
capping and fixation pose the lowest risk of PCB exposure to the
Cloverdale community. .
46.
Res~nse: The Health Risk Associates' report is responded to in
Sectlon III.E, below.
Comment: Page 39, lines 8 through 23. TBG asserts that fixation is a
permanent remedy capable of reducing PCB mobility and potentially,
toxicity.
47.
111-26
598.8:2
-------
47.
Response: See Responses 22, 23, and 24 for the reasons why fixation
cannot be considered a permanent remedy (including specific responses
regarding TBG's mobility and toxicity reduction claims).
Comment: Page 39', line 24, page 40, lines 1 through 21. TBG
references data on the short- and long-term durability of the fixed
monolith, including: (1) the pilot study referenced in the Draft FS;
(2) the scientific community's observation of the durability of
pozzolanic monoliths; and (3) the fact that the U~S. Department of
Energy's (DOE) criteria for immobilization of transurancies with
half-lives on the order of 250,000 years are met by monoliths made of
cement-based materials. TBG again claims that fixation may reduce PCB
toxici ty.
48.
48.
Res~nse: Comparing fixation of soils at the MGM Brakes site to DOE's
immo ilization of radioactive matter is inappropriate because the
monoliths created by DOE will exist in remote waste disposal
repositories that will not be within established communities. A
monolith within Cloverdale would conflict with the City's 10ng- and
short-term plans for the vicinity of the site. EPA agrees that the
fixed monolith may be extremely durable in the sense that the rate of
PCB migration in groundwater would be very slow and that the monoli th
would survive for millenia in a non-acidic environment. EPA's
response to the claim that fixation may reduce toxicity is in Response
24.
49.
Comment: Page 40, lines 22 through 23, and page 41, lines 1 through
13. TBG argues that the TSCA PCB Spill Policy, and the TSCA ECB
disposal requi,rements (inCluding the 50 feet to ground\.tater provi,sion)
,are not relevant and appropriate for the fixatlon alternative.
ResPonse: The bases for adopting the TSCA Spill Policy at this site
are set forth in Responses 30, 31, 32, and 33 above. These bases
include justification for adopting these requirements vis~a-vis the
fixation alternative. The TSCA PCB disposal requirements are dicussed
in Responses 27 and 28.
49.
50.
EPA has agreed that RCRA's liner requirement is not an ARAR for this
site (see Response 35). However, this does not mean that other RCRA
landfill requirements are not relevant and appropriate, as TBG itself
states several times. See TBG's comments at pp. 29, 36.
Comment: Page 41, lines 14 through 25, Page 42, line 1. TBG repeats
its comments regarding institutional controls discussed in Comment 39,
stating that they are specifically relevant to fixation. TBG feels
that it would take "extraordinary means to destroy the integrity of
the fixed monolith," and that institutional controls, therefore, "may
not even be necessary."
50.
Response: Because data provided by TBG's consultants show that PCBs
are not fixed and are capable of being volatilized and extracted from
fixed soils, the monolith would need to be capped. Institutional
controls would therefore be necessary to ensure integrity of the cap.
III-27
598.8:2
-------
54.
restrictions are incompatible with the likely future use of the area,
and are therefore not supported by the community. The need for long
te~ oversight and monitoring, when considered in view of the Region's
overall Superfund program and need to address many National Priority
List sites, also represents a resource and management burden which
provides an added justification for moving the waste to a site with
other wastes, which will be overseen and monitored as part of the
Agency's ongoing program to regulate TSCA and RCRA landfills (see also
Response 54 below).
Comment: Page 43, lines 8 through 15. TBG notes that the preferred
alternative provides a permanent solution for the site only, not for
the facility receiving the waste.
54.
Response: EPA recognizes that off-site disposal transfers the
contaminated soil to another location. However, the alternative also
moves the soils from an area that was never intended for the long-term
management of hazardous wastes to one that was specially designed and
pe~itted under strict Federal and/or State laws to handle this type
of material. The off-site facility selected will fully comply with
Section l21(d)(3) of SARA, which is even more stringent than the TSCA
requirements. In addition, the facility will have the institutional
controls in place to maintain and monitor the integrity of the waste
disposal unit. EPA considered the uncertainties associated with land
disposal before reaching its final decision for this site.
Comment: page 43, lines 16 through 24, page 44, lines 1 through 8.
TBG claims that EPA's cost estimates for off-site disposal are almost
two million dollars lower than actual costs. TBG also claims that
off-site disposal" offers no greater protection of human he~~h and "the
environment than the capping or in-situ fixation remedies, citing.
Health Risk Associates' comments contained in TBG's Appendix C; TaG
asserts that off-site disposal Would result "in "a significantly"
greater overall risk" than capp"ing or in-situ fixation, and that
off-site disposal "cannot be considered cost~effective when compared
to capping or fixation."
55.
55.
Response: £PA's response to TBG's cost estimates are found in
Response 51. Capping and fixation are not equal to off-site disposal
in overall protectiveness. The Health Risk Associate Report only
discusses short-term effectiveness (e.g., the impacts during
clean-up). Other errors and inconsistencies in the conclusions of
that report are discussed in Response III.C.
Comment: Page 44, line 9 through 23, page 45, line 1-24, and page 46,
lines 1 through 13. TBG's conclusion to its comments summarizes the
detailed points made in the body of its comments, and "encourages £PA
to take a second look at its proposed decision and the underlying
documents....in light of [TBG's] comments."
56.
56.
Response: 'I'he comments made by TBG here offer no new points not
addressed previously. £PA has carefully considered TBG's comments,
and has revised its decision, where appropriate (e.g., EPA agrees that
RCRA's liner requirement is not an ARAR for the site). Based on all"
III-29
598.8:2
-------
51.
£PA's comments on institutional controls for the capping alternative
also apply to the fixation alternative. See Response 39.
Comment: Page 42, lines -2 though 7. TBG disputes £PA's cost
estimates for fixation, and states that fixation is cost-effective
because it provides ample protection of human health and the
environment at a lower cost than off-site disposal.
51.
Response: EPA received from K/J/C on July 19, 1988 a letter providing
its cost estiamte for remedial alternatives. The letter was received
more than a month following the close of the COJm\f!nt period. K/J/C
estimates contain errors and misapplied values. £PA's response is
presented in Section III.C, Comments No. 1.29 and 1.30 and in Exhibit
F to the Responsiveness Summary. EPA is confident that its estimates
are accurate and will, therefore, continue to use the values presented
in the FS. See Responses 20 and 21 on why public health protection
is not the only measure of a remedy's effectiveness.
52.
Comment: Page 42, lines 8 through 17. TBG comments on the costs,
responsibilities for waste management, and lack of treatment
technology for the excavation and off-site disposal alternative.
52.
Resp?nse: EPA recognizes that off-site disposal would cost more than
on-slte fixation or capping, but has determined that off-site disposal
is the appropriate solution for the site. One of the major benefits
of off-site disposal is that the respOnsibility for the management of
the wastes will shift from a location where hazardous waste disposal
is not permitted to a loc~tion where institutio~~l systems are in
place and the lcng-term,managem~nt goal is to maintain ~nd monitor the
inte~rity of the waste disposal ~it. EPA did consider and evaluate
treatment technologies that permanently destroy the PCBs (e.g.,
incineration and dechlorination) and would prefer these alternatives
if they were implementable. As explained in the ROD, these-
technologies could not be implemented due to community objection and
process control problems. EPA seriously considered fixation and
capping, but neither of these alternatives provide a permanent
solution for the site. -
53.
Comment: Page 42, lines 18 through 22, page 43, line 1 through 7.
TBG states that off-site disposal should be considered the least
favored alternative under CERCLA because practicable treatment
technologies are available.
R7s~nse:f TBGt h~~ mthisinttherpretedd the tledrmbePr~abctliCab(le. Itt dhnoes naoltl
Slmp y re er ° Wile er e reme y wou Vl e e.g., ec ic y
feasible) but instead encompasses how well a given remedy meets the
nine criteria £FA considers in selecting a remedial alternative. As
explained in the ROD, EPA has determined that for the MGM Brakes site
a practicable treatment alternative is not available. Of the
treatment alternatives considered, chemical dechlorination was
ineffective in reducing PCB levels and incineration was adamantly
opposed by the community. Fixation would require long-term
groundwater and air monitoring as well as land use restrictions to
ensure its continued long-term protection of public health. Land use
53.
III-28
598.8:2
-------
of the public comments received, and all of the information in the
Administrative Record, off-site disposal remains the remedial
alternative which best meets the requirements of both CERCLA and SARA,
for the MGM Brakes site.
111-30
598.8:2
-------
'.
III.B
DR. JAMES L. BYARD'S REPORT, "COMMENTS ON EPA ENDANGERMENT.
ASSESSMENT AT THE MGM BRAKES. SITE," PRESENTED AS APPENDIX A TO
'l'SG' S COMMENTS.
1.
Comment: Dr. Byard presents introductory remarks regarding the site,
including assertions that the average soil concentration of PCBs is
200 ppm, a reasonable worst-case measurement of PCBs in air is 187
ng/m , and that the nearest house is approximately 200 feet from the
site.
1.
Response: Nowhere does Dr. Byard establish how the average
concentration was derived or why the conditions during one 24 hour
sampling day may represent a worst case measurement. The difficulties
in calculating an average concentration are discussed in Response 1.7,
Section III.C. The nearest home is less than 100 feet from the air
monitoring station recording the highest value.
Comment: Dr. Byard states that "actual valid analytical data" are
available to assess airborne PCB risks and that use of this data
should be preferred over modeling. Dr. Byard states that the airborne
concentrations demonstrated by the Acurex study are representative of
"reasonable worst case conditions", and are 42 times lower than the
concentration predicted by the OHEA document.
2.
2.
Resarnse: Nowhere in his report does Dr. Byard present criteria or
con ltions that would validate data collection by Acurex for use in
defining risks. EPA has explained, in Reponse to 'l'SG's Comment No.
13, (Section III.A) why the data are not usable for evaluation of
risk. Assessment of risks by Dr. Byard using the data is, therefore,
- inappropriate, and the results. of his analysis are not considered
valid.
The Acurex data on airborne PCB concentrations at the site represent
only a single. 24-hour sampling event. They are therefore not
appropriate for either risk estimation from long-term exposures or
estimation of worst case exposures.
Many factors affect airborne chemical exposures and most vary
considerably with both meteorological conditions and the season.
Acurex, TBG's own consultant, discussed some of these factors in
letters to K/J/C (Dec. 23, 1987; Jan. 20, 1988):
o
"During the 24-hour sampling period the wind changed.
directions many times." A worst-case exposure scenario for
dust would have a constant wind of sufficient velocity to
generate appreciable dust at the closest site residence.
o
"The weather conditions during the time of testing were
typical of that particular season." Estimates of risk from
long-term exposures should be based on yearly, not seasonal,
exposure conditions. .
o
"The wind may tend to have a diluting effect on the ambient
concentrations....." The variabale winds on the single day
III-31
598.8:2
-------
.6
3.
of .sampling can be expected to have diluted airborne
concentrations. Dr. Byard does not mention winds nor the
dilution affects of winds, therefore his comparison of
Acurex data to the OHEA calculations is invalid.
Comment: EP~ used asoil-dermal uptake factor of 2% in the first FS,
based on recent data for dioxin. The OHEA do~ent uses a factor of
5%. EPA should update the advisory document with the 2% value. The
dermal absorption rate would then be reduced by a factor of 2.5.
3.
4.
Response:
See Response to TBG's comment Number 17, Section III.A.
Comment: The Draft FS is faulty because it assumes .that children will
ingest soil on a site that is fenced. Dr. Byard also states that
EPA's soil ingestion factor for children between the ages of 1-5 seems
highly improbable especially in light of a recent report that 0.1
grams/day has been measured for young children.
4.
Response:
See Response 17, Section III.A.
s.
Comment: Dr. Byard recalculat'es a "no-action" advisory level using
his assumptions as compared to the OHEA document. Using a 42-fold
decrea~f in the inhalation exposure and 0.1 grams/day ingestion rate,
the 10 advisory level is raised from 0.6 ppm PCBs to 4 ppm.
Resp?nse: Given the extremely high levels of PCBs at the site (4,500
ppm 1S the highest level detected, and many other samples were in the
1,000 ppm range) and the fact that EPA is requiring clean-up to 10
ppm, a change in the advisory level from 0.6 ppm to 4 ppm is
irrelevant. Even assuming all of Dr. Byard.'s assumptions are valid,"
the site would still present an unacceptble. on-site" risk.
s.
Comment: Dr. Byard questiocs EPA'S use of the linearized multi~stage
extrapolation model, stating that it has been "inappropriately applied
to PCB carcinogenesis." He suggests that a log-probit or safety
factor approach is a more appropriate way to estimate a non-toxic dose
of PCBs for humans.
6.
Res~nse: The risk assessment reflects current EPA policy regarding
est1mation of potential cancer risks from chemicals at Superfund
sites. This policy directs the risk assessor to use EPA-approved
cancer potency factors from IRIS (Integrated Risk Information Service)
when available, or from individual Program Offices when IRIS values.
are not available. Since there is currently no cancer potency factor
for PCBs within IRIS, use of the PCB cancer potency factor derived by
the Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG), as was done in this risk
assessment, was appropriate. Regardless of Dr. Byard's own
interpretation of the scientific data on PCB carcinogenesis, EPA
policy is clear on the use of established cancer potency factors. See
a1so Response 18, Section III.A, on Dr. Byard's inappropriate use of
the safety factor approach.
Comment: Dr. Byard states that assuming 1 ppm PCBs in 10 kg of
adipose per person, the total body burden would be 10,000,000 ng.
7.
III-32
598.8:2
-------
This level suggests a daily background dose on the order of several
thousand nanograms. He goes on to state that most of the
.industrialized world has been exposed to these levels with no toxic -
effects. In fact, accidental exposures indicate that body burdens
several orders of magnitude higher are required before toxicity is
observed.
7.
Response: Dr. Byard's suggested use of limited epidemiological data
for predicting toxic levels of PCBs is inappropriate. EPA has a
clearly established policy on estimating risks from carcinogens Such
as PCBs. See also, Responses 11 and 18; Section III.A.
111-33
598.8:2
-------
III .C
III.C.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
COMMENTS MADE BY KENNEDY/JENKS/CHILTON ON 'mE DRAFT FEASIBILITY
STUDY, MGM BRAKES SITE, CONTAINED IN APPENDIX B TO 'I'BG'S COMMENTS.
K/J/C's COMMnITS ON 'mE DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY
Comment: K/J/C states that the discharge of wastewater containing
ethylene glycol ended in August of 1981 and not in 1982 as
referenced in the Draft FS.
~;~~~:e~~a~:~ ~~r~~: ;~:~tt~~.disCharge ceased in 1981 and not
Comment: K/J/C states that the Draft FS should explain that TCE
and vinyl chloride, detected in off-site monitoring wells, are not
associated with the PCB contamination. VOCs associated with PCBs
were detected in one on-site well and they emphasize that only
off-site wells contain non-PCB-related VOCs.
Response: EPA agrees with K/J/C's comment, which does not
contradict the more general statements in the Draft FS. .
Comment: K/J/C states that the highest PCB concentration detected
from on-site soil samples is 4,500 mg;Kg and not the 4,800 mglkg
reported in the Draft FS.
Res~nse: EPA agrees that the highest soil concentration detected
to ate is 4,500 mglkg, not 4,800 mg/kg. The correct value was
reported on page 1-8 of the Draft FS.
Comment: K/J/~ states that the dates reported in tpe Draft FS
. concerning the K/J/C winter sampling effort should be changed from
1987-1988 to 1986-1987. In addition,-they prefer their own name,
K/j/C, to be reported in the Draft FS as the collector of the.
. samples, .rather .than MGM Brakes. They state that PCBs were
detected in only two of twelve samples and at levels between the
detection limit and 3.5 ppm.
R~s~~~e: The winter sampling effort by K/J/C occurred the winter
o -1987. The FS accurately stated that low levels were
detected.
Comment: K/J/C states that the draft FS reported a PCB
concentration of 3 ppb from monitoring well B-4 in 1982. K/J/C
explains that PCBs were not detected for this well in 1982 from
either K/J/C's database or in Table 0-1 of the Draft FS.
Reshnse: The 3 ppb value was taken from page 5-2 of the first
Dra t FS (EPA, 1986a). A letter from Anatec Laboratories to Vath
of NCRWQCB (Anderson, 1982) reported a value of 2.5 mg/L from B-4.
In TBG's comments on the first Draft FS (TBG 1986, Appendix C,
Comment No. 13), TBG notes that the well was "not properly
constructed for monitoring purposes" and that PCB results from B-4
should not be considered representative of groundwater conditions.
III-34
598.8:5
-------
1.6
1.6
. 1. 7
. 1. 7
1.8
Although not specifically designed for long term monitoring, the
results can be used qualitatively and are similar to results
obtained from the monitoring well also located in an area of soil
contamina t i on.
Comment: K/J/C states that it is inappropriate to perform
sampling and modeling of VOCs as part of the MGM Brakes FS, and
that VOCs should not be addressed in the Draft FS. No VOCs have
been detected on the MGM Brakes site (except those associated with
PCBs) and no source of VOCs has been identified at the site. In
any event, the need for quarterly groundwater sampling and
groundwater modeling has not been established and may not be
required for what appears to be a very localized groundwater
condition.
Response: TCE has been detected in wells that are immediately
downgradient of the site and in a pattern similar to .
chlorobenzenes, which are a site contaminant. TeE has been used
iri a vapor degreaser unit at the MGM fabrication plant from 1964
to the present (Shanks, 1987). The only identified user of TCE in
the vicinity of the site is MGM Brakes. Thus, the available data
and information justify the quarterly groundwater monitoring and
groundwater modeling to further define the extent of the problem.
Comment: K/J/C states that the MGM Brakes soils database does not
show surface soil levels in excess of 4,500 mg!kg and that the
4,500 mg!kg sample reported in the draft FS in Table A-2 referred
to a subsurface soil sample, not a surface soil sample. In
addition, they state that it would be ~re appropriate to
reference the average concentrations rather than the highest ones.
Res~nse: Although Table A-'2 was labeled "Subsurface Soil
Samp ing Results," it shows results of soil boring samples
collected from the surface to depths of 29 feet. The sample with
4,500 ppm PCBs was collected at the 0.5 foot interval of a deep
boring~ This makes the result a surface sample. Calculation of
an average soil concentration would require multiplying
concentration by volume of soil at the specific concentrations.
Based on the extreme heterogeneity of sample results, it would be
inappropriate to perform this type of calculation in describing
the site conditions and the risks thereby posed.
Comment: K/J/C states that Acurex air data cannot be disregarded
due to invalid recovery efficiency standards or lack of
representative site conditions. They report that a rerun of the
recovery efficiency standard check was performed and the results
were acceptable. They explain that the conditions at the time of
the 24-hour sampling event (a hot day with moderate winds) were
representative of site conditions on a typical summer day. They
emphasize that the lack of a background sample makes the data
obtained conservative because the entire amount of PCBs determdned
is assumed to be from the site itself rather than background. EPA
had an opportunity to comment during the sampling plan review.
concerning any objections to the sampling procedure.
1II-35
598.8:5
-------
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.10
1.10
1.11
1.11
,
Response:
See Responses 13, 14, and 15 in Section II LA. .
Comment: K/J/C believes there is no significant risk associated
with exposure to volatilized PCBs at the MGM Brakes site. This
conclusion is based on the Health Risk Associates (1988) risk
assessment report, which reported PCB levels found in the air near
the MGM Brakes site boundary as lower than those normally found in
homes and offices.
"Response:
See Response 15, Section III.A.
Comment: With regard to the clay cap with slurry wall
alternative, (citing Draft FS, p. 4-5, paragraph 3), K/J/C states
that "reasonable use of the site is not limited by the presence of
the fixed monolith" because "construction in the vicinity of the
site is typically 'slab on grade' construction." K/J/C also
states that above-ground structures on the monolith would provide
further protection to the site.
Response: The portion of the Draft FS cited by K/J/C discusses
the clay cap alternative, not fixation. Thus, the comment is
unrelated to the cited material. Furthennore, neither TBG nor
K/J/C has presented any information to support K/J/C's claim
regarding what type of construction is "typical" in the area.
Land use restrictions would have to limit all possible uses which
could disrupt the cap, not just those that are "typical." Also,
if the area changes from an agricultural/light industrial use to a
residential use, as the community anticipates, "typical"
" construction methods may also change. Finally, even.with "slab on
grade" construction, restrictions such. as limi tatiorTS on the
installation, 'ac~ess to, and maintenance of utilitjes would ~
required. Thus, any additional protection. provided by .
construction of a building over the cap would not eliminate the
need for long-term land use restrictions, as well as institutional
mechanisms to ensure that those restrictions are enforced.
Comment: K/J/C objects to language in the Draft fS which states
that the inability of the clay cap without slurry wall alternative
to control horizontal movement of PCBs in groundwater is a
disadvantage. K/J/C states that because control of horizontal
migration is "not an appropriate remedial objective for this site,
it should not be used as a criteria for selection of remedial
alternatives" .
Response: £FA recognized in the FS that horizontal migration of
PCBs with or without a clay cap will be extremely slow but will
occur if uncontrolled. When compared to the slurry wall
alternative, the clay cap without slurry wall would be less
effective in controlling horizontal movement. However, £FA
specifically stated on p. 4-8, paragraph 1 that the primary
objectives of a containment would be minimize to infiltration and
prevent exposure from surface soils, not to prevent horizontal
mobility. Therefore, the slurry wall alternative was not
III-36
598.8:5
-------
1.12
1.12
1.13
1.13
1.14
,
considered further as a potential alternative for the site because
it would not meet the stated objectives any better than a cap
without a slurry wall. EPA agrees that control of horizontal
mobility of PCBs is not a primary remedial objective for the site
and should not be used as a criterium for selection of a remedial
alternative. .
Comment: K/J/C states that the results of the TCLP tests on fixed
soil, reported on page 4-16 of the Draft FS, should be <0.1 pg/L
instead of 1.0 Pg/L for the Qualtec Fixative column.
::~~n~~~leA~~~~~i~~rt~h~~~/~~;k:~~~t(;~~~~t3~S~~:~~~0~e
Qualtec TCLP value should read <1.0 pgIL, not <0.1 pglL as stated
by K/J/C above, nor 1.0 pg/L as stated in the Draft FS.
Comment: K/J/C comments on the statement in the Draft FS (p.
4-16, paragraph 1) that information is not available to evaluate
the extent to which fixation reduces extractability of PCBs from
fixed soil in comparison to untreated soil. K/J/C cites
previously submitted data and recently obtained data on extraction
of PCBs from untreated soil using the TCLP test (presented as
Attachment B to its comments). K/J/C compares TCLP leach test
results for treated soil with untreated soil from separate soil
batches and claims a 90 percent reduction in leachability between
treated and untreated soils. K/J/C describes additional tests it
is performing on a new fixative agent, and states that the results
are expected to be available in mid-July and will be forwarded to
EPA immediately. .
K/J/C also notes changes EPA has proposed to the TCLP test. K/J/C
states, U[p]resent TCLP procedure requires samples'to be crushed
to a size of 1 em or finer before the leaching test. This
requirement destroys the ability of the primary mechanism of
fixation to retard the mobility of PCBs, and thereby enhances the
leachabili ty of the fixed soil samples. U Therefore, K/J/C
describes EPA's present test methods as conservative.
Response: It is not clear how K/J/C derived its 90 percent
reduction in TCLP leachability from the two data sets it cited.
No justification for the value is given in K/J/C's comments.
Until a more appropriate leach procedure is approved for use on
fixation samples, results of the TCLP test will be used to
evaluate fixation effectiveness. EPA has not yet received (by
late-August) the data K/J/C stated would be available by mid-July.
Comment: In response to a statement in the Draft FS (p. 4-16,
paragraph 2) that PCBs were neither chemically bound nor altered
by soil fixative agents, K/J/C suggests that new fixative agents
may exist that chemically alter PCBs. K/J/C bases this claim on
information received during telephone conversations with two
purveyors of fixation technology. K/J/C stated that it would
III-37
598.8:5
-------
1.14
1.15
1.15
submit to EPA new data on fixation by mid-July, and requested that
EPA review the results prior to making its decision on site.
remediation.
Res~nse: K/J/C never provided EPA with data indicating that the
new ixative agents could alter PCBs. EPA cannot comment on data
that are not available for review. All available data indicate
that P~s are not chemically altered by fixative agents. EPA
cannot wait any longer to make a decision, awaiting potentially
new data. Site remediation technologies are rapidly changing in
the hazardous waste treatment area, but the need to make decisions
necessitates using the best information available at the time of
decision. This need is particularly critical here where the
problem has gone unremediated for over six years after it was
discovered. EPA has received public comments which urge timely
action by EPA and/or 'I'BG to begin implementing a remedy. (See
Section 1.B)
Comment: K/J/C paraphrases a sentence in paragraph 2, page 4-18,
stating "[t]his paragraph states that there is no evidence to date
indicating that fixed soils will withstand weathering and will
show no evidence of leaching." K/J/C introduces a report on the
immobilization of chemicals and integrity of monoliths developed
by a Dr. Leslie Dole as Attachment C of K/J/C's comments.
Dr. Dole reports that. the effective diffusion coefficients for a
large monolith at the Pepper's Steel and Alloys Superfund site
were measured to be less. than 10-13 crn2/second and that more than
99.9% of the PCBs will remain in the monolith after 1200 years.
.Dr. Dole also makes the following-four comments with regards to
the ability of pozzolonic material~ to withstand weathering: (1)
"structure made from similar high c.alciUm and silica pozzolanic
formulations, Cyprioit, Greek, and Roman aqueducts, harbors and
fortifications have endured immersion in highly agressive
environments for as long as 6,000 years;" (2) "monoliths below
grade in the benign silty/clay soils and high carbonate
groundwater will persist for many millenia without weathering;"
(3) "natural cements and pozzolans have been formed by volcanic
action and their hydrated minerals have persisted over 250 million
years;" and (4) "cement-based formulas are considered the only
waste form media for the long-term isolation of long-lived
transuranic wastes and the sealing of high waste repositories by
the U.S. Department of Energy."
Response: K/J/C has mischaracterized the statement in ~ragraph
2, page 4-18 of the Draft FS. What is actually stated in the
Draft FS is "[e]vidence to date indicates the blocks withstand
weathering and show no evidence of leaching. However, the
long-term durability is still unknown (Stinson, 1987)." The
statement was referring specifically to a particular company's
. fixed blocks which will be tested in an £FA demonstration project.
EPA does not contest any of the statements made in Dr. Dole's
III-38
598.8: 5 .
-------
1.16
1.16
1.17
1.17
report.EPA recognizes that the rate of leaching from a fixed-
monolith is likely to be extremely low and that such a monolith is
likely to be durable. However, current fixation tests are being
performed on materials classfied by vendors as proprietary and the
long-term durability claims for these materials are largely
theoretical. Therefore, long-term groundwater monitoring would be
required to verify this prediction. Furthe~re, it is
inappropriate to compare natural minerals formed under high
temperatures and the pressures of volcanic activity to the
fixative agents being proposed. It is also inappropriate to
compare fixation of soils at the MGM Brakes site to DOE's
immobilization of radioactive material. The monoliths created by
DOE will exist in remote disposal repositories far from residental
areas. (See also Response 48, Section III.A.)
More importantly, EPA has stated throughout the FS and ROD that
its primary remedial objectives are not to prevent PCBs from
leaching into the groundwater but are instead to prevent exposure
caused by air emmisions, direct contact, and ingestion. No actual
data exist on the toxicity of the fixed monoliths and the only
available data on air emissions indicate that there is still a
potential problem even after the contaminated soil has been fixed.
A fixed monolith does not address the primary threats at the site
in such a way that long-term monitoring and deed restrictions
would not be required to ensure protection of human health and the
environment.
Comment: K/J/C questions costs for in situ fixation ($2,600,000)
and on-site fixation. ($6,000,000) presented on page 4-18,
paragraph 5 of the -Draft FS. These values differ from those
presented in Section 5.0 of the Draft FS.
Res~nse: The values presented on p. 4-18 are based on
reme iation of a volume of 16,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil. Costs shown in Table 5-1 of the Draft FS reflect 13,500
cubic yards of contaminated soil. The cost values in Chapter 4
are part of the initial screening and are recognized to be less
accurate than those in Chapter 5. See also, Response to K/J/C
Comment 1.17.
Comment: K/J/C questions the statement that 16,000 cubic yards of
soil are to be remediated as is stated on page 4-41, paragraph 2
of the Draft FS, given that Section 1.3.2 presents an estimate of
13,500 cubic yards.
Res~nse: A volume of 16,000 cubic yards was used in the first
Dra t FS to assess remedial alternatives. As stated in the FS in
Section 1.3.2, this value was recalculated to about 13,500 cubic
yards. The 16,000 cubic yards presented on page 4-41 was used for
initial screening purposes and was amended to reflect the new
value for the detailed cost comparisons in Chapter 5 of the FS.
Use of the higher volume in the initial screening of alternatives
did not in any way affect which alternatives were selected for the
detailed analysis.
III-39
598.8:5
-------
1.18
1.18.
Comment: EPA proposes to discharge treated wastewater into a
drainage ditch that flows into Icaria Creek or to a publicly owned'
treatment works or other authorized facility. K/J/C comments that
the discharge into the drainage ditch "would probably require an
approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (~)."
K/J/C also states that it discussed disposal options for PCB
containing wastewater with Mr. Dennis Salisbury of RWQCB and he
told them that no discharge to the Russian River drainage basin is
allowed during sunmer mOnths nor at any time when the flow
capacity of the Russian River Basin cannot maintain 100 fold
dilution of the flow of the water discharge. K/J/C also claims
that "the discharge requires a use permit from the planning agency
for the area and assurance of [sic] the use permit must comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." I{jJ/C
attaches a letter from Mr. Salisbury in support of its statement
(K/J/C Attachment D). K/J/C also states that "[b]ecause site
remediation is likely to be performed in summer, surface water
discharge. . . would not be possible."
K/J/C also states that they have "learned" that the P0'IWs near
Cloverdale "are unlikely" to accept any wastewater from the City.
of Cloverdale,. and that they have "been informed that the City of
Cloverdale is reluctant to accept wastewater containing any
detectable PCBs into their sewage system." K/J/C also states that
no Class II facility that will accept wastewater containing PCBs
has been identified in California, and that disposal of wastewater
may require transportation and disposal of dewatering water to a
Class I facility. K/J/C states that "[t]he problem associated
with disposal of dewatering water significantly affect[s] the
irnplementability of any alternative requiring deep excavation.at
the si te [sic]." .'
Res~nse: The dra~nage ditch to which treated wastewa~er may be
disc arged runs through the site. Therefore any discharge would
occur on the site or directly adjacent to it. EPA is therefore
required to meet the substantive elements of any identified ARARs,
but not procedural requirements such as obtaining a permit. Thus,
K/J/C's statement that the RWQCB's approval "would probably" be
required, is incorrect, as is the assertion that a use permit and
accompanying assurances would be needed. Nor does Mr. Salisbury's
letter (Attachment D) ever mention CEQA. EPA intends to fully
comply with the RWQCB's substantive discharge requirements if any
discharges are made to the ditch.
K/J/C is incorrect in assuming that the remedial action will take
place in the sunmer. On the contrary, due to the lower
temperatures and higher moisture content of the soil, it is
preferable to perform the action in the winter in order to reduce
the amount of volatilization and dust. Moreover, K/J/C does not
say how they "learned" what POIWs in the area are "likely" to do,
nor what source informed them of the City's intentions regarding
wastewater. In any event, the wastewater to be discharged would
I II-40
598.8:5
-------
1.19
1.19
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.21
not contain detectable levels of PCB's; therefore, the intentions
attributed to the City regarding such contaminated wastewater are
irrelevant. As stated in the Draft FS (p. 5-8), if a POTW is
used, any discharge wOuld be treated to meet all of the
requirements of that facility. K/J/C has not provided any reason
to think that disposal at a Class I facility will be necessary.
Finally, EPA has contacted the City of Cloverdale and adjacent
communities and found that they are willing to accept treated
groundwater from the site. (See Exhibit C for Records of
Communication regarding disposal of wastewater.) £PA's response
to the RWQCB letter is present in Section II.S of this
Responsiveness Summary.
Comment: K/J/C notes that 24-hour-per-day operation of an on-site
thermal treatment unit or fixation technologies would disturb
local residents.
Response: The 24-hour operation was used.only as a means of
better comparing the total time of implementation and costs of the
various alternatives. Any remedial alternative implemented would
employ measures designed to minimize noise impacts to local
residents.
Comment: K/J/C comments on the necessity of long-term
malntenance, groundwater monitoring, and propert~ deed
restrictions for the fixation alternatives. K/J/C reiterates
statements from C0mments 1.14 and 1.15 on the durability of fixed
monoliths and the possibility'of new fixative age~ts chemically
altering PCBs. They .state that fixation may. require only initial
testing to verify that fixation has been accomplished and periodic
inspections to assure proper site use.
Res~nse: EPA's Responses to c~mments No. 1.14 and 1.15 apply
equa ly to this comment. EPA does not agree with K/J/C's
statement that fixation may only require initial verification.
testing. It is the long-term effectiveness of this remedy that is
in question and, therefore, testing (e.g., monitoring) would need
to occur indefinitely. EPA agrees with K/J/C that periodic
inspections would be needed to enforce the land use restrictions
imposed on the site. These, too, would have to occur
indefinitely. The need for restrictions and monitoring is
supported by the California Department of Water Resources (see
Section II.A of this Responsiveness Summary).
Comment: K/J/C applies its comments No. 1.15 and 1.20 to the
statement in the FS regarding the "unproven long-term durability
of the fixative agent/soil matrix" from page 5-27, paragraph 4.
Response: K/J/C has misquoted the statement on page 5-27,
paragraph 4. The direct quote is: "Pilot studies indicate the
short-tenm durability of the fixed material appears to be good as
evidenced by no signs of weathering or leaching, but the long-term
durability is still unproven". As stated in Response to K/J/C's
III-41
598.8:5
-------
1.22
1.22
1.23
1.23
1.24
comment 1-15, these tests are being performed on proprietary
materials. The vendors have not stated that the materials are
identical to materials currently being used as pozzolonic agents.
EPA is concerned about the lack of a database that shows that the
proprietary material will remain durable. .
Comment: K/J/C comments on soil volume increases due to fixation.
The Draft FS reported a volume increase of 25-30 percent (page 28,
paragraph 2). ' K/J/C presents data to support a'claim that volume
would be increased 2 to 25 percent, with the value closer to 2
than 25 percent. K/J/C compares fixed soil volume increases of
MGM Brakes site soil with increases of soil from other sites.
K/J/C also states that sufficient area is available on site to
accept the additional volume, even if it is a 2S percent increase.
Res~nse: K/J/C's comparison of volume increase for MGM Brakes
SOl with fixed soil from other sites is inappropriate without
considering site-specific conditions. The degree by which soil
volume will increase is dependent on a number of factors,
including soil type, density, grain or soil particle size and
form, the amount of additive (e.g., fly ash) incorporated, and the
fixative agent itself. Soil type at the Pepper's Steel site,
where K/J/C claims a 2 percent volume increase, is a loose sandy
loam. Naturally, fixing a soil with large grain size and large
void spaces would result in a low volume increase. MGM Brakes
soils are a dense, fine-particle size, silt/clay, with extremely
small space between particles. Volume increase for this type of
soil on a per weight basis would be expected to be much greater
than for that of Pepper's Steel's sandy soil.. In fact, the soil
volume increase for a clayey soil has been snown to be 18 to 20 ..
percent (see Exhibit G).. Therefore, K/J/C's statement that MGM
Brakes soil volume increase would be closer to 2 percent is
. invalid. EPA's estimate of 25-30 percent may be higher than the
18-20 percent achieved for a clay soil, but is more.realistic than
I
-------
I-~
I
'.
1.24
1.25
1.25
1.26
1.26
fixative agents has been successfully demonstrated in full scale
applications to PCB-containing soils. K/J/C notes that fixation
was accepted byEPA to remediate the Pepper's Steel Superfund site
in Florida. K/J/C believe that the fixative agents have been well
developed to treat soils with PCBs, stating that although the in
si tu mixing technique has not been used to remedy soil with -
chemical wastes, this mixing technique has been widely used in
Japan and recently has been applied in Michigan for construction
of dam foundations and other foundations. K/J/C states that it
considers mixing appropriate for the site even though, at present,
the ~xing technology has not been completely demonstrated in
clayey soils. K/J/C admits that a possible concern with the use
of "in situ fixation with clayey soil is the possibility that some
soir-may not be completely mixed with the fixative agent. K/J/C
asserts that this should not be a significant concern, as any
untreated soil would be encapsulated within the fixed mass and
would, therefore, not result in any potential for exposure or
migration.
Response: The remedial action at Pepper's Steel employs on-site
excavation and fixation. It is therefore inappropriate for K/J/C
to reference this site in its discussion of in situ fixation.
Nevertheless, EPA agrees that more data are avaTIiEle on the
fixative agents than are available regarding the in situ mixing
technology. However, because only one pilot scale-demonstration
of the in situ technology has occurred, concern over the ability
to comp1et~mix the clayey soils at the site is justified,
especially given the difficulties with the KPEG lab tefts. EPA is
also concerned about the ability'to verify complete mixing or;even
complete encapsulation of unmixed soil~ as suggested by K/J/C. If
unmixed soils were completely encapsulated, [PA would still be
concerned that any disturbance of the monolith would cause the
PCBs to be released into the environment. Therefore, as compared"
to on-site fixation where soils are excavated and then ~xed,
there is more uncertainty associated with in situ fixation.
Comment: K/J/C repeats its comments on bulk volume increases
after fixation.
Response:
See Reponse to K/J/C's comment 1.22.
Comment: K/J/C requests an addition to a statement in the Draft
FS (pg. 5-31, paragraph 3) regarding immobilization of PCBs under
a cap. K/J/C requests that the statement be expanded to address
surface water separate from groundwater and that it be noted that
the PCBs in groundwater are considered relatively immobile. K/J/C
also states that a cap would "effectively" eliminate
volatilization from below the cap.
Response: [PA agrees that the clay cap, if properly installed and
maintained, would prevent surface water releases of PCBs. The cap
would reduce ve rti cal movement of PCBs in the groundwater zone, "
but not horizontal movement. EPA agrees that PCBs in groundwater
are relatively immobile. A clay cap, constructed to RCRA
"III-43
598.8:5
-------
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.28
1.29 &
1.30
requirements and properly maintained, would essentially eliminate
PCB volatilization from the cap, but not along the perimeter of
the cap.
Comment: K/J/C objects to statements in the FS on page 5-41,
paragraph 3, and page 5~46, paragraph 1 that call fixation a
containment technology. Instead, they state that it should be
regarded as a treatment process because it "is able to permanently
immobilize and may be able to chemically alter [sic] PCBs."
Response: EPA agrees that fixation is a treatment process and
states this on page 5-41, paragraph 3 of the FS. The FS states
that "since the treatment process fixes but does not destroy the
waste it may be considered equivalent to containment." As stated
in earlier responses, no evidence is available to demonstrate that
the PCBs are chemically altered. See Response to Comment 24,
Section III.A, and 1.14 and 1.15 of this Section. Therefore,
fixation is a physical treatment process whereby wastes do not
chemically interact with the fixative agents but are mechanically
locked within the solidified matrix in a process also, referred to
as microencapsulation.
Comment: K/J/C questions EPA's concerns over the long-term
integrity of the fixed materials and the need for long-term site
control and deed restrictions. K/J/C cites the high durability of
the fixed matrix and claims it would take "a determined
individual" to break the monolith. Finally, K/J/C states that
because PCBs are "strongly immobilized in the matrix," release
into the envi.ronment from broken pieces of the monoli th is
unlikely. .
Resp?nse: Because PCBs are neither destroyed nor altered and will
remaln in the monolith for an undetermined number of years, long
term site control and deed restrictions would be required.
Disturbance of the monolith and cover is possible through many, ,
ways: installation of buried utilities, pipe lines, foundation
construction, roadway construction, etc. Only through adequate
site control and deed restrictions could adequate assurance be
obtained that such disturbances would not occur. EPA disagrees
with K/J/C's claim that PCBs are strongly immobilized in the fixed
matrix. Data provided to EPA by K/J/C on fixed site soils show
PCBs not to be fixed to the matrix but, instead, capable of being
leached and volatilized from fixed soil. See Response to Comments
24, Section III.A and 1.14 nd 1.15 of this Section. Disturbance
of the monolith could directly result in release of PCBs to the
environment.
Comment: K/J/C critizes EPA's cost estimates for remedial action
alternatives, stating that EPA should have used the 1987 EPA
Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual, instead of the 1985
III-44
598.8:5
-------
1.29 &
1.30
version of this manual that was used to develop cost estimates
presented in the Draft FS. K/J/C presents its own cost estimates
for some of the alternatives; these estimates are significantly
higher than the estimates derived by EPA. K/J/Cs estimates as
presented in their comment and the estimate they report from the
Draft FS are as follows:
Remediation
Alternative for
Parcels land 2
Implemented
Jointly in 1988
Estimated Capital
Cost in Millions
of Dollars
K/J/C
Estimate
K/J/C Cited Draft FS
Estimate
Excavation and
Off-Site Disposal
In Situ Fixation
$7.1
$5.7
--
on-Site Fixation
$6.0
$2.6
Capping
$5.2
$3.6
$3.4
$1.1
K/J/C states that "information on the details of those cost
estimates will be forwarded to EPA for review," and claims that
its estimates "are more .re,alistic."
Res~nse: ~e.Draft FS value for th~ c~pping alternative should
rea $0.9 mllllon and not the $1.1 mll110n reported by K/J/C. Some
of the present worth estimates reported in the Draft FS were in
error. Revised Tables 5-1 and 5-2 are presented here with updated
values. For the Action alternatives, non~ of the numerical
revisions reflects a greater than 3 percent difference from the
Draft FS values and the changes do not effect the comparison of
alternatives.
None of the revisions effect capital cost estimates which are being
questioned by K/J/C. The 1987 EPA Remedial Action Costing'
Procedures Manual is identical to the 1985 version. The only
difference is that the 1985 version was a Final Draft and the 1987
document was issued as Final; only the cover pages are different.
Therefore, it made no difference that the 1985 version was used.
The differences between EPA capital cost estimates and K/J/C's
capital cost estimates cannot be explained based on the use of
either version. The documents present the philosophy for preparing
estimates, not calculations and procedures. The documents do not
account for the discrepancies between the estimates.
1II-45
598.8:5
-------
TABLE 5-1
COST SUt1l1ARy
Capi~al 0&" Present Equivalent
Alternative Cost Cost Worth Unit Cost
1988
1-1 No Action Parcell $0'. $36,000 $69,100 $7/c:y
1-2 No Action Parcel 2 $0 . $5,500 $10,600 $4/c:y
2-1 Off-site Disposal Parcel 1 $4,079,400 $0 $4,079,400 $383/c:y
2-2 Off-site Disposal Parcel 2 $1,289,900 $0 $1,289,900 $451/c:y
3-1 On-site Incineration Parcel 1 $6,089,500 $0 $6,089,500 $572/c:y
3-2 On-site Incineration Parcel 2 $2,341,700 ~O $2,341,700 $819/c:y
4-1 On-site Fixation Parcel 1 $2,694,3PO $12,700 $2,718,700 $ 255/c:y
4-2 On-site Fixation Parcel 2 $1,365,300 $5,500 $1,375,900 $481/c:y
5-1 In Situ Fixation Parcell $2,847,600 $12,700 $2,872,000 $270/c:y
5-2 In Situ Fixation Parcel 2 $1,104,900 $5,500 . $1, 115, 500 $390/c:y
6-1 RCRA Cap Parcell $756,900 $23,500 $802,000 $75/c:y
6-2 RCRA Cap Parcel 2 $335,700 $5,500 $346,300 $121/c:y
598.8:14
-------
TABLE. 5-2
COST CC»IPARISOO
Capital Cost Present Worth
Implemented Implemented Implemented
Alternative Type Jointly* Jointly* Separately**
(1988) (1988) (1988, 1998)
No Action $0 $79,700 $81,400
Off-site Disposal $5,215,000 $5,369,300 $4,963,800
On-site Incineration $7,662,700 $8,431,200 $7,695,000
On-site Fixation $3,394,700 $4,094,600 $3,667,100
In Situ Fixation $3,614,000 $3,987,500 $3,641,800
RCRA Cap $946,800 $1,148,300 $1,044,500
*Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Remediation imp~e~nted in 1988:
..parcel 1 and Parcel 2 r~mediation to be implemented in 1988 and 1998,
respectively.
598.8:15
-------
Hazardous waste remediation cost estimates are prepared with a higher
level of uncertainty than those for conventional construction work.
Two reasons for this uncertainty are: (1) the lack of available
costing data from actual site remediations; and (2) many of the
innovative technologies either lack full scale development or have un-
substantiated cost estimates from vendors who can only project costs
based on bench scale studies. Hazardous waste remediation cost esti-
mates are, therefore, recognized to be less accurate. For the final
presentation of candidate remedial alternatives, EPA guidance requires
an accuracy of -30 to +50 percent. This level of accuracy is defined
by the American Association of Cost Engineers to represent an "order-
of-magnitude" accuracy. With the exception of the capping alterna-
tive, EPA's Draft FS cost estimates and K/J/C's estimates are within
this range. Therefore, even if K/J/C's estimates had been used, EPA's
selection of a remedial alternative would not have changed.
£FA has reviewed cost estimates presented in the Draft FS to determine
where EPA's and K/J/C's cost estimates differ. EPA has reviewed sev-
eral source documents and prepared a summary table comparing costs
with the Draft FS estimates. The summary table and references ar€
provided below. The table shows that the unit costs used by EPA in
the Draft FS are similar to unit costs derived from other sources.
The cost estimates provided in the Draft FS, therefore, represent a
reasonably accurate estimate of probable construction costs, with
K/J/C's estimates falling within the upper allowable end of EPA's
estimation range.
Sources for Cost Comparison Table
. So~rce 1: "Compendi'tim df Costs of Remedial Techl1ologies at Hazardous Waste
Sites," October 1987. This document presents costs in 1982-1983 dollars.
The costs shown have been escalated 10 percent to. 1988 dollars based on ENR
indices.
Source 2: "Means Site Work Cost Data, 1988," R.S. Means and San Francisco
area based "LSI CUrrent Construction Costs, 1988," Lee Saylor, Inc. The
costs presented have been escalated 120 percent to account for Level D work
and 185 percent to account for Level C work in accordance with "REM IFIT
Cost Estimating Guide," CH2M Hill, 1985.
Source 3: "Evaluation of the MGM Brakes. Site," Volume 1 of 3, September
1986, GCA Technology Division Inc. The 1986 costs presented have been
escalated 3.6 percent to 1988 dollars based on ENR indices.
III-48
598.8:5
-------
Component
Mobilization (As a
Percentage of Total
Capital Cost)
Clearing & Grubbing
Excavation
Stockpiling/Handling
Backfill/Compaction
Import Fill
Sheeting/Shoring
Final Grading
Revegetation
Resurfacing
Fencing
Transport
Disposal
On-Site Fixation
In Situ Fixation
--
RCRA Cap
Cap Components
Topsoil
Sand
30 mil HDPE
Clay
UNIT COST COMPARISONS
($ )
Um t of
Measure
%
AC
CY
CY
CY
CY
SF
SY
SY
SY
LF
CY
CY
CY
CY .
.SF
CY
CY
SY
CY
EPA
Draft FS
3-15%
4,800
7
6
3
12
11
1
2
12
15
60-100C
100-155c
100d
150. .
4
15
19
5
16
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3. .
5-10%
6- ?%b
1-5
4,800
7
3
12
12
1
2
12.
11
.50
13
4
1-3
.25-2
2-104
13-311
63
135-163
4
. 3
5
17
20
3-8
11
12
17
.Source 3 also used $75/CY for all earthwork related items.
bUpper limit could not be determined.
cTelephone quotes from Kettleman Hills (1987 and 1988).
dTelephone quote from COM/Atlanta based on actual remediation costs at
Pepper's Steel site in Atlanta in 1988. Vendor quotes from July 1987
range from $20-150/CY. Geocon quote in June 1988 was $1 00-11 O/CY . All
quotes include system mobilization and demobilization.
. Telephone quote from IWT in February 1988. Geocon quotes $130-13S/CY in
June 1988. Geocon performed the first in situ deep soil mixing process in
1987 with rwT at the General Electric slte-rn-Hialeah, Florida under the
SITE program. Both quotes include system mobilization and demobilization.
III-49
598.8:5
-------
,
Although KJC stated that information on the details of their cost
estimates would be forwarded to EPA, EPA did not receive the
information until July 19, 1988, well after the close of the public
comment period, and well after the unsubstantiated costs were
presented. Even though the information was received after the public
comment period, EPA has responded to KJC's letter in Exhibit F to th~s
Responsiveness Summary. Nothing in K/J/C'S July 19 letter changes
EPA's decision of the selected remedy. .
2.1
K/J/C Comments on EPA's May 1988 Fact Sheet Regarding the Draft
FS, Contained in Appendix B to TBG's Comments
Comment: The maximum soil concentration should be 4,500 ppm, not
4,800 ppm as stated in the fact sheet.
III. C. 2
2.1
Response: The EPA agrees that the statement was in error.
Response to K/J/C's Comment 1. 3.
Comment: K/J/C asserts that production of dust during excavation of
soils at the site is of significant concern because the majority of
contaminated soils are within 5 feet of the ground surface and above
the groundwater level. K/J/C states that the Health Risk Associate
Report (K/J/C's Appendix C) finds that dust generation is expected to
be the major exposure pathway for alternatives involving excavation.
See also,
2.2
2.2
Res~nse: Dust suppression measures will be incorporated into
reme ial design; production of dust at levels that would produce an
unacceptable risk will not be allowed during excavation. EPA will
monitor site du~t levels and enforce dust suppression measures during
excavation. . EPA could also limit excavation to the rainy season.
. months. when upper soils are saturated with water. In.any case',
. exposure to dust can be minimized and prevented. "Also, see the
RespOnse to the Health Risk Associate Report in Section II~.E.
2.3
Comment: K/J/C again comments on EPA's statements that fixation does
not destroy PCBs, it isolates them, and that long term maintenance,
monitoring, and deed restrictions will be required. They refer back
to comments 1.13, 1.14, 1.15 and 1.20.
2.3
Response: All data provided by K/J/C to EPA to date show that PCBs
are not destroyed or altered in the fixed matrix. Long-term
maintenance, monitoring, and deed restrictions are requirements at any
waste disposal site and would be necessary at the MGM Brakes site for
the fixation alternatives. See Responses to K/J/C's Comments 1.13,
1.14, 1.15 and 1.20.
2.4
Comment: K/J/C again comments on the ability of in situ fixation to
thoroughly mix soils and refers to Comment 1.24. -- ----
2.4
2.5
See Response to Comment 1.24.
Response:
Comment: K/J/C again comments on the necessity of restrictions for
the capping and fixation alternatives, and refers to Comment 1.10.
. III-SO
598.8:5
-------
,
2.5 Response:
See Response to Comments 1.10 and 1.20 of this Section.
2.6
Comment: I
-------
III.C.3
FPL Qualtec Report on Fixation Presented as Attachment C to
K/J/C'S Comments
1.
Comment: The text presented as Attachment C contains a discussion of
the long-term durability and leachability of pozzolonic materials.
Res~nse: The text presented in Attachment C does not provide
addltional information that is not already discussed as part of the
body of TBG's and K/J/C's comments. Therefore, no additional response
is required.
1.
III.C.4
Letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board of the
State of California Presented as Attachment D of K/J/C's Comments
1.
Comment: The RWQCB's plan for the North Coast Basin prohibits
discharges of toxic substances which would produce deleterious effects
on aquatic biota or which would render aquatic. biota undesirabale for
human consumption. All waste discharges are prohibited from May 15
through September 30 and during other periods when the receiving
stream flow is less than 100 times greater than the waste flow (i.e.,
a minimum 100:1 dilution). The Draft FS fails to recognize the Basin
plan as an ARAR. The Basin plan also incorporates numerous existing
statewide plans and policies, not the least of which is the
Nondegradation Policy, Resolution 68-16.
1.
The elimination of direct discharge leaves only discharge to a POTW
for treated groundwater. The POTW receiving the treated groundwater
would be required to evaluate and establish discharge limits and'
regulate the discharge. in a manner satisfactory to the Regional Board.
- RespO~se: The NCRWQCB's North 'Coastal Bas'in plan is recognized as an :
ARAR or the site. However, and most important, nowhere in the Draft
FS did £FA indicate that it would disch~rge waters toxic to aquatic
life or human health. All extracted groundwater would be treated to
remove suspended sediments, PCBs, and other organic pollutants to
required discharge limits prior to any discharge to a receiving stream
or a POTW. Although the possibility of direct discharge to the
drainage ditch is remote, EPA will retain this option for the rainy
season when rainfall causes flow in the ditch. Otherwise, discharge
would be to a POTW. Naturally, EPA would meet all discharge criteria
imposed by the receiving POTW when it discharges treated groundwater
to the POTW. See also, Response to K/J/C's Comment 1.18.
III-52
598.8:5
-------
III .D
ESTIMATES OF ON-SITE CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs IN AMBIENT AIR,
MGM BRAKES CLOVERDALE, CALIFORNIA, PRESENTED IN APPENDIX C OF
'I'BG' s COMMENTS
1.
Comment: K/J/C presents estimates of airborne dust contamdnated with
PCBs that could be generated during implementation of capping, in situ
fixation, on site fixation, and excavation and removal. The estimates
are used to calculate exposure and risk from remedial activities which
are presented in the report, prepared by Health Risk Associates (see
Section III.E). K/J/C also provides estimates of PCB volatilization
and air concentrations for each alternative following site
remediation.
1.
Res~nse: The assumptions that K/J/C has used in deriving its
estlmates of concentrations during" excavation are either invalid or
not supported by real data collected under field conditions.
K/J/C presents no supporting documentation or justification for its
assumption that dust levels would be either 1 mg/m3 or 5 mg;m3 during
site remediation. A 1 mg/m3 dust level is equivalent to a dust storm
in which visibility is significantly reduced. Although it is possible
t~ measure a 1 mg/m3 level within 10 feet of earth moving equipment in
a situation where no dust ~ontrol measures are employed, this
concentration decreases rapidly beyond the source and dust levels 100
feet from the source are less than 0.5 mg/m3. Exhibit E to this
Responsiveness Summary presents actual dust levels measured at
construction sites; these levels show K/J/C's assumptions to be wrong.
This data shows that even without dust control "measures, dust levels
will be below the 1 mg/m; used by K/J/C in its assumptions.. (An ' ".
airborne particul~te level of 5 mgtm3 reflects conditions within a
cement kiln during processing, a grain elevator during filling, or a
mine shaft following blasting (i.e., enclosed spaces) and has no real
bearing on dust levels produced at small, open air construction sites
such as MGM Brakes. )
EPA is able to and will specify working conditions and acceptable
atmospheric dust levels during remedial activities. Dust control
measures for the site will be enforced and dust levels during
remediation will be maintained within an acceptable risk range.
wi th regards to K/J/C's estimates of ai rborne PCBs following
remediation, (Table 1 of K/J/C's comment), it is important to note
that the estimates for each of the alternatives are stmilar (range of
0.028500 ~g;m3 for off-site disposal to 0.028550 ~g;m for capping).
It is also important to note that K/J/C assumed a five-foot cap would
be placed over fixed soils and over unfixed soils for the capping
alternative. No on-site cap is required for off-site disposal. It is
only through long-term maintenance of the cap that volatilization from
PCBs left on site can be controlled. Should the cap be disturbed or
fail, rate of volatilization will increase, and the on-site
alternatives would lose their effectiveness when compared to £PA's
preferred alternative. Data provided by K/J/C, therefore, demonstrate
the need to maintain the cap, to enforce deed restrictions, and to
III-53
598.8:5
-------
perform long-term monitoring for the fixation and capping
alternatives. (EPA also notes that a five-foot cap over PCB
contaminated soils would physically restrict most productive uses of
the site, other than open space.)
~
III-54
598.8:5
-------
:
III.E
CANCER RISK ESTIMATES FOR EXPOSURE ro PCBs DURING AND FOLLCMING
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIATION ACTIONS AT 'mE MGM BRAKES SITE, HEALTH
RISK ASSOCIATES, PRESENTED IN APPENDIX C OF TBG's COMMENTS
1.
Comment: Using data generated by K/J/C, Health Risk Associates report
cancer risk estimates developed to reflect risks during and after
implementation of each of the remedial alternatives.
1.
Response: Because of the inappropr iately applied assumption used by
K/J/C to generate atmospheric data, the results of the Health Risk
Associates calculations are also incorrect. (See Response to Section
III.D.) At best, K/J/C and Health Risk Associates have overstated the
short-te~ risks of remediation. Also, it is important to note that
the short-term risks associated with remediation estimated py K/J/C
and Health Risk Associates are within the risk range of 10- to 10-7
that EPA considers acceptable. Therefore, there is not a significant
difference in the risks of the alternatives as calculated by !BG's
consultants and by EPA. With regards to the risks remaining after
implementation, a~l alternatives fall within the range EPA considers
acceptable. However, as discussed in Response to Section III.D., the
low level of risk presented for fixation and capping ~elies on the
long-term maintenance ofa five-foot and air emission (therefore risk)
would increase if the cap were disturbed.
III-55
598.8:5
-------
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Record of Communication from Johanna Miller, EPA to
File re: Telephone conversation with Karl Hauge, IJolR
Exhibit B - Record of Communication from Johanna Miller, EPA to
File re: Telephone conversation with DeMis
Salisbury, ~
Exhibit C - Contact Reports on Treated Groundwater Disposal
During Site Remediation
Exhibit D - Memorandum from Gerry Hiatt on MGM Brakes
Responsiveness Summary
Exhibit E - Memorandum on Atmospheric Dust Levels for
Construction Activities
Exhibit F - Response to K/J/C's Cost Estimates for Site
Remediation
Exhibit G - Record of Communication Regarding Soil Volume
Increase for Fixation
-------
Exhibit A - Record of Communication from Johanna Miller, EPA to
File re: Telephone conversation with Karl Hauge, DWR
-------
RECORD OF COMMUNICATION
SUBJECT:
Telephone conversation with
ments on the MGM BRAKES FS
JOHANNA MILLE~~
FILE:
Carl Hauge re: DWR's com-
FROM:
i
TO:
I spoke with Carlon August 8, 1988 to discuss comments two and
tnree of DWR's comments on the FS.
1.
Vadose and groundwater moni~oring around the site should oc-
cur for an indefinite amount of time regardless of when
cleanup activities cease.
Carl clarified this comment by stating that DWR's goal is .
for ground water to be returned to drinking water standards
and that the ground water should be monitored adequately
such that this determination could be made. I explained
that !PA's ground water program would include a provision
such as. continued monitoring for at least one year after
drinking water standards are first achieved to ensure that
the performa~ce levels are met consistantly.. Carl agreed
that such a program would. meet the intent .of DWR's comm~nt.
Some mechanisms such as deed restrictions should be used to
notify potential buyers of the ~ite history.
2.
I explained that EPA selected a remedy that is protective of
human health and the environment under any future site use
and, therefore, deed restrictions would not be necessary for
purposes of protection. Carl agreed that EPA was selecting
the appropriate alternative and felt that perhaps EPA could
recommend that local officials place a notice on the deed to
notify future landowners.
-------
Exhibit B - Record of Communication from Johanna Miller, EPA to
File re: Telephone conversation with Dennis
Salisbury, RWQCB
i .
J
-------
BCORD OJ' COKMmfICA'1'IOIf
FROM:
Telephone conversation with Dennis Salisbury on MGM
BRAKES FS COMMENTS
JOHANNA HILLER ~ ".;.JL
File
SUBJECT:
TO:
I called Dennis Salisbury on July 14, 1988 to discuss two of the
RWQCB's comments on the MGM Brakes FS.
The drainage ditch leading from the site constitutes a
"navigable waterway" under [PA's definition and a "water of
the State" under the California Water Code's definition.
'Therefore, the Regional Board Basin Plan is applicable to
the drainage ditch.
Dennis feels that the language of the Basin plan clearly re-
quires clean up of the sedimen~s in the drainage, ditch-to Non-
d~tectable levels. I told him I wo~ld look at tneplan and
verifiy this.- '
1.
If 10 ppm PCB are left on-site further remedial activities
will be required and ground-water monitoring will be re-
quired indefinitely. .
Dennis was primarily concerned with the presence of solvents
that would mobilize the PCBs and felt that the FS was not clear
enough on what remedial activities would take place with respect
to the solvents. I told him that we were planning future
monitoring and treatment of ground water for solvents if nec-
cesary and that -eventually the ground water will meet ARARs with
respect to the 80lvents but that on-site 80ils would remain with
PCB concentrations below 10 ppm. In this case, Dennis felt that
the Board would only want monitoring of ground water perhaps once
every five years and would be willing to impose these restric-
tions on the company if EPA did not feel that they were necces-
aary.
2.
cc:
Marcia Preston (ORC)
John Wondolleck (CDM)
-------
Exhibit C - Contact Reports on Treated Groundwater Disposal
During Site Remediation
-------
IIDI:IWOJII
TO :
John wondolleck
FJOi! :
SUe A. Loyd
~~
~'I'E :
August 12, 1988
SUBJECT:
PG'I Brakes
ccx:tJMmI' CCN1'ROL N:>: TS98-c09-Io-cHJV-l
The following Sanitation Departments were contacted concerning costs and
application criteria for accepting filtered and treated wastewater from the
MGM Brakes Sites.
o
Santa 1\osa Sanitation Depa~nt
Contact: .Sc'ott Steinbaugh'
(70.7) 576-5189'
o
Ukiah Sanitation Department
Contact: Ted Gofer
(707) 463-6286
o
City of Clcverdale WAstewater Treatment Plant
Contact: ~ke Morris
(707) 894-2521
Mr. Steinbaugh of the santa Rosa sanitation Department explained that they
would accept the wastewater as a one time exception. However, certain
cdteria 81St be _t including an in-house review of treatment data, as
well as a $92.0011000 gallon wastewater coat and a potential $2,000.00
. cannecticn IH.
Mr. Gofer of the Ukiah Sanitation Department atated that their treaa.nt
plant ia for local uaeanly. Be explained that the C1 ty of c:lOYerdale is
outside of the district' a boundary. ~refore, the cUatdct could not
accept any wastewater from the ~ Brakes Site.
-------
According to ~ke Korris, the City of Cloverdale Wast~ter Treatment
Plant, will accept treated and filtered wastewater from the PGM Brakes
Site. However, the discharge must comply with City Ordinances No. 419-88
(see attaChment). fir. llerris explained that a sewer manhole exists in
front of the JO! Srakes CAsting building and that the manhole would be a
ccmve.nient discharge location for PGM Brakes' wastewater. Be also ltated
that due to the expansion of residential development in the area the lewer
capaci ty will be increasing.
Costs for the discharage of 10,000 gallons (1282ft') of wastewater was
quoted by Mr. llerris at less than $20.00. He based this estimate on a
lingle family unit equivalent, which is charged $20.00 for the average
discharge of 2000ft' .
412.SL:IO
-------
CITY OF C10VERDA1E
ORDINA~CE NO. 419-88
AS ORDI~ANCE OF THC CITY OF CLOVER DALE ENACTING SE~ER
rSER FEES AND S[~ER CO~~ECTI0~ FEES.
Th~ City Cou~~il of the City of Cloverdale does ordain as follo~5:
~t ion 1.
(A)
( B)
Section 2.
Section 3.
A se~er user revenue prosra~ is hereby placed into effect
and the rates shall be calculated by :.he "FIo",' Only"
method as specified in the State Pater Re50urces ContrC'l
Eoard Revenue rroGra~ Guidelines for \!ast~~ater Agenci~s.
Se~er r~er Fees shall he 5et and calculated from follo~in~
criteria:
1.
charge
of $11.55 for all Residential
Residential.
l"nit.5.
A fiy-ed
7he fee calculated shall be fixed for that year ex-
cluding any increase that misht be implemented by the
the City Council in consideration of the California
?rice Index (CPI) at the ti~e of bud~et ado/tion.
2 .
tusiness, commercial, industri~l. User Fee shall
be based on prior year usa;e of water and charged
at the rate of $1.~5 per month per 100 ~uhi~ feet.
A mini~um charge equal to the charge set for a re5i-
cen:ial unit ~ill be assessed against all commercial,
business, and industrial users.
3.
[ser :ee shall be based on average daily
(ADA) method. A rate of $65.00 per 100
Scr.cols.
attendance
AD.~. .
l. .
~ndefined User Category. User Fee shall be based on
flo~, effluent charact~ristics and demand to the
systen:.
Sewer User base rate shall be the same for all users inside
the City limits and for users outside of the City limits
excepting that an administrative surcharge of not more than
10% of the assessed charges for a comparable user within
the City limits may be p~_ced upon users of the syste~
of those premises which are outisde the City limits.
Connection Fee
(A)
$2,000.00
follo",'ing
is placed into
catesories:
effe~t
A base connection 'of
for all users in the
1.
R e s'i den t i a 1
Business, co~~ercial, industrial that do not
the annual ~aste ~ater flo~s of 12,000 cubic
e ~: c e e: ,
: e e t .
:2 .
-------
,
(1":.
.,
...
:)rd.
~o "
~19-E5
Se.f:!'
~se:-s and
Cor.nect::.on
:E:Ec!:)
( E )
Conr.ectlC'!':
Fees
Co~nec:ion fees to users that exceed l~,OOO cu~ic !eEct
~as:e ~a:E:r !lc~s t~e !E:e shall ~f cAlculatt~ C'n tte
~ecand p:ace~ upcr. the sys:ec of r:ar.: ~y that U&t:r.
::ec::C":"\
I. .
J..r.r.ual
:ncreaSfS
to
St:~"Er [SEt' Ft:fS.
1.
7he Pu~:isht:d Ca:::fcrn::.a Price Ir.d~~ (Eay Area) shall
rrLser.tt:d to the City Council !er reviE:~ at the annual
fiscal t-ud£t:t il. July of each Yf:sr. ~nd any percen:atE:
~ncrea~~ as de:t:r~inE:~ ~Y City CDunc::.l and ad~~:~d hy
~cor:::.~: ordinance C': the ann~al C::.ty hUCfE:: ~~~ll be
incor~oracE:d ~y TE:fE:rer.cE: ::.r.to :!.is C'Tei.nanCE:.
h
:ne
Any ::.ncrease ::.n ~ser
~i::~n£ G. the !::.rs:
~cC"?:::.cn C": the C::.:y
:E:es shall hE: acjustEc in the u~~r
f~ll billinG ~triDd !c::~~::.r.£ :h~
cf Clovercale's ar.:"\ual fiscal ~uc£e:"
SE-=::C~
- .
All ('ther crdinances
cor.nect::.~n fees are
~ertaininb :0 se~er
" , .
r.erecy re?E:a.ec.
USE:r
fees
ar.d
s e .... E: :-
!r:trocucec ::.n :he C::.:y Co\;~cil of t;-. e C::.:y of :: 1 C' ...." e t'" ~ a : e en
:~e 1st cGY 0: ':"e"'-u--v 1956 . an C ?assed and a~o?tec by the City CO'..::1C~:
. ."''' G... t ,
0:: :r.e 16th dGY 0: February 19EE 'cy the : 0 :. 1 o.~ :. ~ s Roll C - ~.. ".. 0: e :
, ~-~
, ,--:- c ",:-
~. - -.... ....
:iver
c: :
Pell,
Teague,
Mellon and Doble
!,C'!s:
None
Domenichelli
. -= c:: ":'?" - .
"~--_.' -.
.;.!.::~:~'::
None
;. :::::S ::::: :
;.?PR~.\.!: :
-
,
~ ,~".
IUrn/? (. h-/ A'1~
::;e; ? u : )" C ~ : ~" C tJ :" k
-------
,
r,r:DI!\,;1\CE KO, 420-88
A~ ORDI~ANCE EST~BL1SHING RE~rLATI01\S FOR THE 1NTER-
C[rT!O~, TREAT~E~T, A~D rIS~OSAL OF SE~AGE l~D I~DrS-
TRL;L h'';STES A~D TP.E rO:;TROL OF \o.'ASTEFATER, r.[Or1t:~!:G
C!;,;F\GI:S TO tE ~:';DI: TEI:RI:FJR, A~:j) Fn:U,G rE~:';LTIES FOR
H:I: \'10LATIC~; OF 5,;ID REr.VLATIu:";5
~E IT I::;;,CTED BY THI: C1:Y CC'''':::CIL ('IF THE CITY OF CL('I\'[Rl..LI::
TITLE I
(; [I; [Hi,L
Sf-ctiC"n J
S:lort Tit2e
This Orc:n3nCE.'
shall
he kno\,'n as the
"\':ASTn:ATER CO~:TROL
o ;:;) : : ~ .\ ~: c ~" .
St-cti0n ::;
r u r !' (\ :- t:
5 .: I.' .. g ~ d i s no:, a I : d (' i 1 i t i (:' s I, a v E: b (:' '" n con ~ t r u c t E: d f CI r t i I E: i n t E: r -
ce~:iC'r., :reat~ei.:, and disposal of se~a£e and indu~trial ~astes
ori~ir.a::n~ ~:t~:n ::s boundariE:s.
. . !he ?ur~cs~ of this Ordinance i~ to regulate the inter-
cept:c" cf se~ase and incuF,trial ~a~tes an~ to .tontrol ~aste~ater
:0 ?rovide the ~a~irn~~ ~utlic benefit of the se~a£e' disrosal
:acilities of the Cit~ of Cloverdale. The regulations'~hai1
:~cluce ?rovisicns for source control in order to monitor and
cCi.:rcl cuan:i:v, quality, and flo~ of se~age and industrial
~as:e, !~e re~ulatior.s ~hall require charge~ for use of se~a~e
~is~osa: facilities of the Ci:~ of Clov(rdale ~hich are desi~~ej
:0 achieve an equita :e recovery of the ca~i:~l re~erve fund and
c ? era: ::. r. ; c c s : S 0 f sue h ::;: - i 1 i : i e s . T i. erE: [: U 1 a tie:') s s h a 1 ;. in: 1 U d e
provisions for ~nfGrcement and penalties for violations.
5~ction 3
Definitions
Fer the purposes of this Ordinance, unless the context
specifically indicates other~ise, the meaning of terms used shall
be as: 0110"'" s :
"City" -
The City of Cloverdale,
Son~ma County, California.
"Chemical O>:~'gen Demand, Filtered" - The at:lount of Chemi,,:,
cal Oxygen Demand passing through a glass filter as measured in
:onforrr.a~ce ~ith the Standard Method.
"Chlcri"e De~a;:clt\ - The a~C~J:;t cf chlori~e required to
~~oduce a fee c~lorine residual 0: 0,1 ~~/l after a contact time
0: 15 ~::'nutes as t:leas~red bv the !odorne:ric ~ethod on a sam~le
at a :e~~erature 0: 200 C i~ .co:-:fcrmance ~ith the Standard ~ethoc,
c. f
"Conta!::ination" - An irnnairrnent of the quality of
the State b: ~as:e tc a de;ree ~hich creat~s a hazare
the ",'FteI'S
to :~e
-------
Ordina~ce ~o.
~20-88 (Cont~~ued)
Public health t~rough poisoning or through the spread of disease.
"Critical Industry" - A discharger whose waste~ater requires
special regulation or contains industrial wastes requiring source
control or ~hose average wastewater strength cannot be estatlished
on a buslness classification basis.
I .
"Disch3rge=" - Any person who discharges or causes the discnarge
of wastewater to a City of Cloverdale sewer system.
"Dir~ctor" - Director of Public Works a~d/or Ci~y Engineer of the
Public .Works Department of the of the City of Cloverdale or h~s designated
representative.
"Se~age" - The water-borne wastes derived from human habitation and
use of bui:dings for residential, business, institutional and industrial
purposes.
"Nuisance" - A discharge of wastewater in violation of City regula-
tions or orders, or wh~ch is Or could be harmful to 0= unreasonably af-
fect the ~ewage disposal facillties of the District, or which impairs or
unreasonably affects the ope=afion and maintenance of such facilities.
or which violates quantity, quality, or flow standards adopted by the
City. and all wastewater discharges which unreasonably affect the quality
of the City treatment plant effluent in such a manner that receiving water
qual~ty requirements established by law cannot be met by the City.
"Person" - Any individual. partnership, firm, association. corpora-
tion, or public agency, including the State of California and the United
States of America.
"p6l1ution'" - An alteration of the qualitY of the waters of the 'State
by waste to a deg=ee which unreasonably affects (1) such wat~rs for bene~
ficial use or (2) facilities which serve such beneficial uses.
"Premisei" - A parcel of real property. or portion thereof.
including any improvements thereon, which is determined by the ~ity to be
a single unit for purposes of receiving, using, and paying for sewage
d~sposal service. In making this determinati~n, the City shall take into
consideration such factors as whether the unit could reasonbly be sub-
divided, number and location of sid~ sewers, and whether the unit is
being used for a single activity and, if not, what is the principal acti-
vity for sewage disposal services. but in any case the City determination
shall be final.
~Receiving Water Quality Requirements" - Requirements for the City
treatment plant effluent established by law or by State or Federal regu-
latory agencies for the protection of receiving water quality. -Require-
ments. shall include effluent limitations, and waste discharge standards.
requirements, limitations, or prohibitions which may be established or.
adopted from time to time by State or Federal laws or regulatory agencies.
- 2 -
-------
Ordinance No. 420-88 (Continued)
"Sewage" - The wa:er-borne wastes d~rived from human habitation
and use of buildings for residential, bu~iness, institutional, and in-
dustrial purposes.
"Sewage Disposal Purposes. - The acquisition, construction, enlarge-
ment, operation, and ~aintenance of intercepting sewers, sewage treatmeni
works, pumping plants, outfall sewers, and appurtenances by a special
district. .
"Sewa~e Disposal Facilities" - Includes intercepting sewers, sewage
treatment works, pumping plants, outfall sewers, and appurtenances con-
str~cted, operated, and maintained by the City of Cloverdale ar.d created
for sewage disposal purposes.
"Side Sewer" - A sewer lateral
charger from a residence, building,
sewer, including di~ect connections
by the public agency.
conveying the wastewater of a dis-
or other structure to a community
to a ommunity sewer where permitted
"Waste" - Includes sewage and any and all other waste substances,
liquid, .solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation,
or of human or animal origin, or from any prodcuing, manufacturing, or
processing opera:ion of whatever nature.
. "Wastewater" - All sewage, industrial, and other wastes and waters,
whether treated or ~ntreated, dis~harged into or permitted to enter.the
seV.'er 'system for treatment in s'ewage disposal facilities of the City as
usee'in this Ordinance, unless the"'context specifically indicates other-
wise, "wastewater" shall mean sewage and industrial waste discharged to
a City sewer by any ~erson,
"Wastewater Capacity Fee" - "Connection Fee" - A charge to each new
customer, or customer who increases his demand for capacity for waste-
water treatment, which reasonably reflects the City's cost for providing
wastewater treatment capacity.
"Wastewater Strength" - The quality of wastewater discharged as
measured by its elements, including its constituents and characteristics.
- 3 -
-------
Ordinance No.
~20-88
(Continued)
"EPA" ~ Federal Environmental Protection Agency
"Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972" - Public Law 92-500,
cfficielly entitled the "Federal Weter Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 197:," a~d any amendments thereto, as ~ell as guidelines, limitations,
and standards promulgated by the Env1ronmental Protection Agency pur-
~uant to the Act.
"Garbage" - Solid wastes from the domestic and commercial prepara-
tion, cooking, and dispensing of food and from the handling, storage, and
sale of food products.
"Incompatible Pollutant" - A component of industrial wastewater
which interferes with, is not removed by, or is otherw~se incompatible
w~th the subregional sewage treatment and water reclamation plant or
their processes.
"Industrial Waste" - The waterborne waste ~nd wastewater.from any
product10n, manufacturing or processing operation of whatever nature in-
cluding institutional and co~~ercial operations where water is used for
the remoyal of significant quantities of waste other than from human habi-
tation or premises connected to the public sewers. Contents of chemical
toilets, septic tanks, waste holding tanks and waste sumps shall be
classed as industrial ~aste.
"Infiltration"
ground. .
- Water entering the sewerage system through the
"Inflow" - Water entering a sewerage system from surface drainage
\ and clean cooling water 'systems:
"Mgd" - Abbreviation for millions gallons per day.
"Natural Outlet" - Any outlet into a watercourse, ditch, pond,
lake or other body or surface or ground water.
"Nonresidential User" - Users whose premises are primarily for com-
mercial, or governmental or other nonresidential activity but excluding
premises of industrial users. Incidental residential use is not precluded.
"O&M"
- Operation and maintenance.
"Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF)" - Peak rate of flow occurring
during or from the effects of precipitation.
"Person" - Any individual,'firm, company, association, society,
partnership, corporation, organization, group or public agency.
"PH" - The logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen-ion
acity in grams per liter of solution as measured by standard analytical
procedu:,es.
"Pollution" - An alteration of the quality of the waters of the
State by waste to a degree which unreasonably affect (1) such waters
for beneficial use or (2) facilities which serve such beneficial uses.
- 4 -
-------
Ordinance No. 420-88
(Continued)
.Premise" - A parcel of real property, or portion thereof, including
any improvements thereon, which is determined by the Director to be a
single unit for the purposes of receiving, using, and paying for sewer-
age ser\'ice.
.Pretreatment" - The treatment or flow limitation of industrial
wastes prlor to discharge to the City sewerage system.
.Public Agency" - The United States Govern~ent or any department or
agency thereof: the State of California or any department or agency
thereof; any city, county, town or any department or agencies thereof:
any school district: any other governmental or public district or entity:
or any other legal public district, entity or entities: or any combina-
tion of the foregoing.
"Sewer, Sanitary Sewer" - A pipe or conduit which carries sewage
and/or industrial wastes and to which storm, surface, and groundwaters
are not intentionally admitted. Unless otherwise qualified, .he word
"Sewer" when used in this ordinance shall be takeri to mean" nitary
Sewer." A City sewer or public sewer is any sewer located w:~hin an
easement or public right of way and which is maintained by the City. A
building sewer or lateral service sewer or privately maintained collector
sewer is a sewer on private property serving a specific building or pro-
perty and is maintained by the owner(s) thereof.
"Sewerage System" - All works for collecting, pumping, treating,
disposing, storing and reclaiming sewage.
"Slug" - Any discharge of water, .sewage, or industrial waste which is
concentration of any given constituent or in quantity'of"flow exceeds, "
fo~ any period of dur~tion longer than fifteen (151 mintues, more than
five (5) times the average twenty-four (24) hour concentration or flow
rate d~ring normal operation.
"Standard Analytical Procedures" - Procedures contained in the lates~
editions of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater"
(American Public Health Association), American Society of Testing and Ma-
terials (ASTM) standard and tentative methods, and other standard proce-
dures appropriate to the conditions as set forth or approved by the EPh.
"Suspended Solids (SS)" - Particulate matter present in sewage and.
retained on a filter (Nonfilterable) in a standard analytical procedure.
"Trade Secret" - A method or process, not patented, but known only
to persons using it in producing an article of trade or a service having
commercial value.
"User" - Any eprson who is owner of record, lessee, sublessee,
mortgagee in possession, or responsible for property having a connection
to a City sewer or for processes which contribute sewage or industrial
waste to a City sewer. See also "Industrial User."
User Agency" - A public agency which by agreement with the City of
Cloverdale is served by and acquires a capacity service in the City of
Cloverdale Sewerage System.
- 5-
-------
Ordinance Ne. ~20-68
(continued).
~ater Quality Requirements: - Requirements for City's treatment
plant effluent established by the National Pollutant Discharge Elim~na-
tion System permit, or by State or Federal regulatory agencies for the
~rotection of receiving ~ater quality. ' Water quality requirements in-
clude effluent limitations and waste discharge standards, limitation, or
~rohibitions which may be established or adopted from time to time by
State or federal la~s or regulatory agencies.
Section 4.
A.
Sewers Required:
It shall be unlawful to discharge any sewage, industrial ~ate
or other polluted waters into any storm drain or natural outlet.
B.
It shall be unla~ful to construct, reconstruct, relocate or alter
any privy, privy vault, cesspool, septic tank or other facility
intended or used for the disposal of sanitary sewage within the
City if a public sewer is available, as described in Section
C.
The own~r ~f any premises used for human occupanyc, employment, re-
creation or other human purpose situated within the City arid abut-
ting on any street or easement in which there is situated a sani-
tary sewer within 300 feet of the property line and designed to
serve such premise is hereby required to install, at his expense,
a connection ~ith the public sewer in accordance with the provisions
of this ordinance within ninety (90) days after date of official
notice by the City Council to do so and the private sewage disposal
system shall be removed or cleaned of sludge and filled with gravel,
sand'or clean 'compacted earth. ' . t.
Sectidn 5.
Priva~e Sewage Disposaf Systems:
A.
Objectives. The objectives
systems are as follwos:
of regulating private se~age disposal
( 1 )
To attain the highest possible level of public health standards
within the development in the City of Cloverdale;
( 2 )
To ensure uniformity and consistency in teh standards of sani-
tary service within the City;
( 3 )
To achieve and maintain env~ronmental protection by utilizing
a pUblic sewer system instead of private septic systems;
( 4 )
To prevent the use of private septic systems within the City
except where specified conditions of approval are met.
B.
Permit Required. No septic tanks shall be installed within the City
without a septic tank permit, approved by the Director of Public
Works. No septic tank permit shall be approved for a lot, if con-
nection is possible in an existing sewer within 500 feet of the pro-
perty line. '
- 6 -
-------
0rClnance No. ~20-88 (Continued)
Co~ditions of Approval. Septic tank permit applications may be
ap~roved by the Director of Public Works for issuance by the Sonoma
County Health Department., after review by the Director of Public
Works and subject to the following conditions:
C.
( 1 )
( 2 )
( :3 )
( 4 )
( 5 )
(6)
(..., \
I I
( 8 )
All Director of Public Works approvals of septic tank permit
applications shall include a finding that City sewer facilities
will not be available within a reasonable time.
Except lots legally
nance, all lots for
be at least two (2)
slope for the leach
existing on the effective date of this ordi-
which septic tank permits are sought must
acres in size and less than 30 percent
field area.
All septic tank permit applicants shall furnish results of
soil percolation tests performed under wet weather standards
unless the applicant has furnished evidence sufficient to
establish that it has been previously demonstrated to a County
Health Officer of the Regional Board that percolation rates are
satisfactory in the area for whictJ the permit is sought.
All septic tank permit applications shall be accompanied by
. plans ~r.ich conform to Sonoma County Health Department standards.
All applicants for whom sseptic tank permits are approved shall,
prior to issuance of the permit, record an irrevocable covenant
running ~ith the land obligating the land to connect to the pub-
lic sewer when required by the Director of Public W;~ks as part
of a!1 area-wide ,sewer installati'on program.
All applicaDts for whom septic tank permits are approved and
issued sr.all al:o~ inspection of their septic system by a
Sonoma County Hea:th Department representative upon presentation
0: proper identification. .
At sucr. time as a ~ublic sewer becomes available to the premises
served by a private sewage disposal system ~onstructed subse-
quent to enactment of this ordinance, the building sewer shall
be ccnnected to said public sewer, as provided in this ordinance.
Discharge of industrial waste from any premise within the City
onto land or to any natural outlet may be permitted o~ly if the
discharge complies with all requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and of all other local, state and federal
laws and regulations. .
Construction of Sewers and Sewer Connections
No unautorized person shall uncover, make any connection with
- 7 -
-------
O:-=inance
1" o. 4:: C. - C 8
(Continued)
cr opening into. us~. alter or di~turb any public sever or
appurtenances thereof ~ithout first obtaining a wrltten ~er~:t
from the director.
All cons:r~ction of public =anitary sewers. 0f sewers to bec~~e
pu~lic sanitary sewer or oflat~ral service connectio~ ~ewer5
shall conf~rm to the o~5ign crlterl~. the standard plans an~
specifications and t:,e inspection and testinc;: for s~nita:-y
~ewers in accordance with current City standarc=.
Connection of Surface or Subsurface
make connection of roof downspouts.
drains. or other sources of surface
a building se~er or lateral service
connected directly or indirectly to
Drains. 1\0 person shall
areaway drains. foundatic~
runoff or gro~~d~ater tc
sewer which in turn is
a ~u~lic sanitary sewer.
Section I. Sewer \'sers .
All users sh~ll be classified for se~age collection 3nd disposal
purposes in accordance with the governing activity ccnducted C~ tl~~
premises. as deter~ined by the Director cf Public Works. The
pur~ose of the class::lca:ion is to facilitate the reg~latior.s cf
sewer use based on character and quantity of flow; to provide
an effective means of so~rce control of toxic substances; and to
provide a basis for sewer use charges to insure an equitable
recovery of capital and operating cost~. Use classifications are
as follows:
Residential
residentlal
Users 'whose premises are primarily for
purposes and have no sigr.ificant prc':'Jcl:1"g or
activity.of a commercial ~i ind~stri~l nat~re.
pro("~ssing
Nonresider.ticl Users whose premises are primarily for
cial. ~ivernmental. ind~strial or other nonresidential
but eX~'Jding pre~ises of industrial users. Incidental
tial u~e is net precluded.
co~rr,er-
a c : : ': i t Y
residen-
I~dustrial
Industrial users
as defined in Sect~on 3.
Basis of Sewer Service Charges
Sectio:1 6.
Sewer service charges shall be based en the following rules and
standards:
( 1 )
The standard utility accounting period shall be a fiscal.
year commencing July first and ending June thirtieth.
( 2 )
The service charge shall be payable by eac~ user on a
bi-monthly rate and generally billed and paid with th~
bill for water service to the same premises.
( 3 )
Sewer service charges shall be based upon the estimated
actual use of the sanitary sewerage syste~ by the F:-~mises
or user. except that a ~ir.imum charge may be set based
upon a minimum bi-monthly usage.
- 8 -
-------
r--
!
O=dinance No. 420-88
( 4 )
( 5 )
( 6 )
( 7 )
( 8)
Sec~icn 9.
(Continued)
Charges for Residential Users shall be based on metered
consumption of water during the bi-monthly water metering
period of least consumption between the period November 1 and
March 31. For Residential Users supplied by private water
supplies, the rate shall be not less than that applicable to
like residences served by a metered public water supply~
Charges for Nonresidential and Industrial Users shall be based
on bi-monthly or monthly metered water consumption from all
sources but excludir.; water which, upon determination by the
Director of Public Works is found to not be discharged to a
sanitary sewer.
Charges for Industrial Users may also be based on the pounds
of BOD and suspended solids and any other applicable waste
loadings discharged to the sewer each billing period deter-
mined in accordance with Section Specia~ charges may be
made to reimburse the City for abnormal costs incurred because
of other pollutants in the wastewater. .Rates for seasonal in-
dustries shall include in their capital-related element the
costs of allocated capacity service in the System. lndustrial
rates, to the extent applicable, shall include provisions to
comply ~ith industrial cost recovery provisions of the Federal
~ate= Pollution Control Act of 1972.
Charges to users of premises si~uated partly or wholly outside
of the City limits of Cloverdale may be cahrged and in lieu
fee fo~ costs of related serVices not covered by the sewer
service charges for users within the City, as set forth but
not to exceed a su=charg~ of 10% more than users withi~ the
City Limits~
CQnnec:ion Fee. The one time connection fee as set forth
in the master fee sched~le of the City of Cloverdale or sewer"
fee o=dinance shall apply to all sewe= connections and there
sha~~ be no additional charge for users outside the City limits,
Utili:v Accountina
- -
An accounting system shall be maintained in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. It shall be sufficient in detail to
demonstrate that collections and disbursements are made in compliance
with the intents and purposes of State and Federal regulations.
Section 10.
Vacant Premises.
Upon affidavit by the owner of a premises that is vacant, water service
shall be stopped and sewer service charges shall be suspended until
water service is restored.
- 9 -
-------
c..:-c:. :"'.ancE' ~~c.
C:O-cc
iCo:;t:.nuedJ
Secti":1 ::.
~iability of O~ners for, Collec~ion of
Charaes
~~e C~u~c:l of Cloverdale finds t~at the public health and welfare 0: the
reople ~~ the City of Cloverdale is beneflted by a sanitary sewerage
~y~te~. AI: o~ners are liable fQr the charges rpescribed by thlS c~a~t(=
re?ardles~ ot ~hether the owners use the service herein pro\'ided.
';(:.;:::on 1~.
Ch~rcina Occupant. Ultimate Liability of O~ner If
Oc,'upant Falls to ?ay.
:n the case of premises that are occupied by someone other than the
o~ner, such charges may be billed to the occupant of such pre~ise$. I~
the occupant fails to pay such charg~s the owner shall be liable to the
City for such charge, but in no event shal~ the charge billed the o~ner
exceed billing for a four-month period.
.:<2ction 13.
Add:..tional
F'C'medy
!ne Clty may terminate ~ewer and ~ater sources to the property for ~~i=h
charges for sewer services are delinquen~ and may refuse to restore such
services until ~ll such charge~, together ~ith service charges for resump-
tion of such services are fully paid. Water and sewer services may be
te~minate~ to the property regardless of the identity of the owner or
occupa:;t c: the property, or us:r of the service.
3ecti9n 1';.
PER~ITS - GENE~AL
The following permit$ are provided for in this section:
( 1 )
Connection Permit - a ~ri~ten aut~orization by tne Director
to .make.a specific connectlon to a 'public sewer.
(2 )
Se~er Use ?ermit - a license for a use~ to discharge was~e-
water into a public sewer. There are two types:
(a)
( b)
Nonresicential sewer use permit;
Industrlal se~er use permit;
3ection 15.
CON~EC:ION PER~:T
No co:;nection to a public sewer shall be made until a connection permit
has been issued therefor by the Director of Public Works. The owr.er of
the premises to be served shall provide all in:ormation required by the
application form supplemented by any plans, specifications, or other
information which in the judgment of the Director of Public Works is
pertinent to the location and use of the p~emises. Separate connections
may be required for each building of a single premise or for separation
of industrial waste .from sanitary sewage. All applicable connection fees
shall be paid upon submitta2 of the application in accordance with the'
then in effect City ordinance or resolution establishing sewer connection
fees.
The permit shall be validated upon final inspection and accpetance c:
construction of the connection and, when required, upon the applica::.cn
of and issuance ofa sewer use permit.
- 10 -
-------
I--
I
..20-88
Sectio~ 15.
_::: :..:-.a:1ce t-;o.
SEWER USE PEF~:T
(Contin'oJec)
Use~s ~hose premises are designated as either NonreSlde:1tial or Indus-
t~~al under Section 3 shall not use the publlC se~age system, eithe~
directly or indirect IX through a private collection system ~ithout first
obtaining the proper Sewer Use Pe~mit exc~pt as provided herein.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Sectior. 16.
All Nonresidential or Industrial user applicants who intend
to connect their pre~ises to :he sewer on or af:er the effec-
tive date of t:1is Ordinance must obtain a Sewer Use Permit.
On ur after the effective date of this Ordinqnce, users who
acquire or ne~ly occupy premises which were then connected to
the sewer must obtain a Sewer Use Permit.
Existing users whose premises ar~ connected to the sewer prior
to the effective cate of this Ordinance shall file an applica-
tion for a Sewer Use Permit within 30 (thirty) days after notice
by the Director of Public Works tO,do so. Terms under which in-
dustrial users are permitted to use the public sewerage systenl
under previous ordinances shall remain in effect until sixty
(60) days after notice to file an application for an Industrial
Sewer Use Permit under this Ordinance has been issued and for
such additional time as may be extended for good cause by the
Director of Public Works.
A??L!C~TION FOR SE~ER USE PERMIT
Persons applying f.or a Sewer Use Permit shall complete and file with the
Director of Public Works an application form, a~companied by the applicable'
fees. The applica t ion may requi:;:-e. the following information: descri'pt-ion
o~ ac~ivity, facilities, and plan~.process on the premis~s, including raw
materials processes and types of materials which are or could be dischar~
total proc'oJct prod~ced,- by type; number and type of employees; estimated
wastewater stre~gt~; estimated ~astewater flow; average and peak waste-
water dis=har~e ::ow for eac~ lateral service sewer; locations of lateral
se~vice sewers, sampling points, and pretreatment facilities; water supply
, infor~atior.; source, volume and chemical characteristics of each tank
co~:€~ts, and any other infcrmation the Director of Public Works shall
maintain the privacy of all business data and trade secrets supplied and
identi:ied as confidential matter by the applicant.
The Director of Public Works wi:l evaluate the data furnished by the appli-
cant and may require additional information. After evaluation and approval
of the data furnished, the Director of Public Works will determine the
class of the user and may issue a Nonresidential or Industrial Sewer Use
Permit subject to conditions and terms as provided herein.
Section 17. , CONDITIONS ON SEWER USE PERMITS
Sewer Use Permits may contain prohibitions on discharge of certain
toxic substances as identified by Federal or State law and of hazardous
substances and may contain other conditions as deemed
- 11 -
-------
(C:Jr.:i.nuec)
:..:-diii. "'.ce ';2~;-82
appr:Jr~iate ~y the
this O~dinance and
Directcr of
the perrr..;..:.
compliance
",,'i t h
Pt;blic \\or).-.s to
inst;re
:~dustrial Se~er Use Permits may contain any or all of the follo~ing
cO:1ditio:-:s:
( ~ )
( 2 )
( 3)
( 4 )
( 5 )
( 6).
(i)
:ec:ion 18.
Se~~~ation of i~dustrial ~aste~ater from
Frior to discharge to the public se~er.
sanitary se",,'age.
Pretreatment of industrial ~astes.
Limits on flow rate, time of discharge, strength of specific
constituents or characteristi'~, or requirements for flo~ and
constituent regulation or equalization.
Requirements for inspection, flow measurement, and sampling
facilities, incllJding access to such facilities by the Direc:or
cf Public Works.
M6nitoring progra~ which may include: sampling location~,
frequency and method of smapling, number, types, and sta~dard
for tests; and the establishmeDt of a reporting schedule.
Monitoring shall be provided by the user at his expense, using
a State certified laboratory. The user's laboratory, where
available, may be used if approved by the Director of Public
Works.
Submission of technical repo~ts of discharge reports. .
Mai~tenance of plaht records relating to wa~tewater disc~arges,
as specified by the Director of Public Works and affording t~e
Director access ther~to.
~=:R~.~S 0:
SE~E? USE ?ER~:~S
h Se~er Use Permit shall be valid for a term of five (5) years
~ate of its issuance subject to the follo~ing conditions:
from the
( 1 )
( 2 )
( 3 )
(4 )
Chanoe in User.
tra:isferred.
A Sewer Use Permit shall no: be assigned or
Change in use. Whenever the use of the pre~ises by the
the character of the discharge, changes materially from
stated in the permit application, or upon demand of the
tor of Public Works, the user shall file an application
new permit within sixty (60) days.
user, or
that
Direc-
for a
Change of permit conditions. The City may change the conditions
of a Sewer Use Permit, including changing the limits or consti-
tuents of wastewater strength from time to time, as circum-
stances may require. The City shall allow a discharger rea-
sonable time to comply with such changes. .
Temporary su!~ension. A Sewer Use Permit may be temporarily
suspended by the Director of Public Works at any
- 12 -
-------
C=c':':1ance No.
4::0-86
(Continued)
time if, in his opinion, the continued discharge of the waste
or ~ater into the sewerage system ~ould, when combined with the
other discharges into ~he sewerage system exceed the City's
alloca:ed capacity service in the Sewerage System, substantiall
Jeopard~ze the ability of the treatment system to meet ~ater
quality requirements or would cause an unsafe condition to'
occu~. In lleu of tempo~ary suspension of permits, the Engi-
n~er may impose such temporary restrictions, conditions, or
limitations upon the quantities, qualities, and rates of dis-
charge made thereunder as he deems necessary to assure that
said receiving water quality requirements will not be violated
by the se~age discharged by the City to the System, or to alle-
viate the unsafe condition. In addition the Director of Public
Works may suspend a Sewer Use Permit at any time if he deems
said suspension necessary to halt or prevent a discharge that
has the potential to endanger human lives and/or injure the
environment.
( ~ \
-' I
~otice of suspe~sion. Notice of the temporary suspension or
the lmposltion of temporary restrictions, conditions, or limita-
tions sha~l be given in writing by the Director of Public Works
to the permittee at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to their
effective date. Delivery of said notice to the permittee's
place of business ~ithin the (lty shall constitute delivery of
notice to permittee. In circumstances where the Director of
Public ~crks deems it necessary to suspend a Sewer Use Permit
in order to prevent potential danger to human life and/or.
injury to. the env{ronm~nt, no notice pursuant to this sectio~
is requ~red. .
(6) Revocation. A Sewer Use Permit may be revoked by the Dire:::tor
of ?Ub~l::: ~o=ks for any of the following'reasons:
a.
Fa:.l~~e of tI-le
0: the perrr:.:.t.
permittee to comply with the conditions
b.
Failure of the permittee to pay when due any charges
.:.mposed as a condition of the issuance of a permit.
No permit shall be revoked by the Director of Public Works
until he has notified the permittee in writing of his intent
to do so and has afforded the permittee the opportunity to
appear before the City Council within a reasonable period of
time to show cause why the permit should not be revoked; pro-
vided, however, a permit may be summarily revoked by the
Director of Public Works without prior notice to the p~rmittee
if, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works the contin-
uing discharge would result in a violation of receiving water
quality requirements.
(7) Compliance. Unless directed otherwise on the notice of revoca-
tion or suspension of permit, the permittee shall cease dis-
charg~ng into the public sewer on the effective date of sa~d
revocation or suspension or shall conform with temporary re-
strictions, conditions, or limitations on the effective date
of such imposition.
- 13 -
J
-------
~o re~so~ shall disc~arge,
se\,;~r ll:1e tne follo",,'ing:
C~c::.na:lce
( 1 )
( ~ )
( 3)
( 4 )
( 5 )
( 6)
( 7 )
,
f- c. .;.: 0 - E 8
. .
\ co:-.: .:n:..:e:: ;
or cause to be Jischarge(,
to a
C:..:y
..ny c~oling ~ater, or unpolluted ind\!~~rial process ~ate=.
Linpol:uted ""ater shall be disc:,argeo ti such plpelines as ::re
~peciiJcally designated as storm drain, 0~ to a natural ou:~et
ap~ro\~d by the Engineer. '
Any ""'aste or ....'astewatE:r having a PI! lowe~ than ~. 0, or
any other corrosiv~ property capable of causiTlg darr.a0'.:
z~~d to structures, equipment, or perso~nel.
h a ': :.. ~ ::
c.,:" hc-
Garbage, except ground garbage from resi6~ntial and commercia:
p~emise~ where ~ood is prepared and consume~. For the purpos~
0: the Ordinance, garbage shall mean that it has been shredded
to su~:h a degree that all particles ....'ill be carried freely
under the flo....' c'""nditi':\ns Tlormally pr.::':ailing' ir. public seKer,
....'ith no particle gre..:er than O.2~ incn (6mm) in any dimenS10I..
Any ashes, cinde~s. sand, mud, straw, leaves, g~ass cuttin?s.
metal, glass, ceramics, rags, feather~, tar, plastlcs, wood,
paunch manure, or any othe~ solid or viscous substance capatle
of either causing obstruction to the flow in se~ers or inter-
fering with the proper sewerage system operation and/or main-
tenance.
Any radioactive waste~ater, except when thE person is author:..zed
to use radioact~ve material by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mis s ion, or oth'er' go\'err;men t al agency empowered to' regula t.: ~ the
us.e of r.adio-active materials, a.nd ....'hen"t:-:e.~as.te""'atei is 6is- '
charge1 in strict conformance' with curren: Nuclear Regul~tory
Com~is~ion regulations and recommendations for safe dis;'csal,
an in strict compliance Kith all ru:es' and regulatior;s c~
State, local ~egulatory agencies, and the Sewer Use Permit.
Those pesticides and other toxic pollutants id:ntifiec ty t~e
EPA and in excess o~ amounts determined by the EPA in acc6r-
dance Kith Section 307 (a) of the Federal Wate~ Pollution Cc~-
trol Act of ~972 or as subsequently amended, which may be ~e-
vised from time to time, including:
( a )
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
( 9 )
( h )
( i )
Aldrin, Dieldrin
Benzidine and its
DDD, DDE and DDT
Endrin
Cadmium and all
Cyanide and all
Mercury and all
Polychlorinated
Texaphene
salts
cadmium compounds
cyanide compounds
mercury compounds
biphenyls (PCB's)
Any sutstance in violation of the Categorical Pretreatment
mentStandards referred to in Sections 307 (b) and (c) of
the Clean Water Act.
- 14 ~
-------
I
I
I'
,
("rC.lnance
fIj('\. ~20-88
(Cont~nued)
Section 19.
REGU~ATION OF WASTE DISCHARGES
PER~ISSIBLE DISCHARGES
Waste~ater may be discharged into City sewer for collection, treat-
ment, and disposal by the City, provided that such wastes do not cor
tain substances probhibited or exceed limitations of wastewater
volume c.~ strength, as set forth in this Ordinance and, if applicable,
in a Se~er Use Permit; and further, provided that the user pays all
ap~lica~le City charges and is in compliance with all other terms of
this Ordinance.
Section 20.
GENERAL
PROHIBITIONS
No persons shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, into a public
J?anitary sewer:
( 1 )
( 2 )
Sectio~ 21.
Any water, wastes, or other matter which will result in
contamination, pollution, or a nuisance.
Any stormwater, surface water, groundwater, road runoff,
or subsurface drainage.
PROP.:EITED EFFECTS
~~ e~rson shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, wastewater
ir.to a public sewer if it contains substances or has characteristics
which, either alone or by interaction with other wastewater, cause
or threat~n to cause: .
. ( 1 )
(2 )
: 3 )
(4 )
( 5)
( 6 )
( 7 )
(8 )
Section 22.
Damage to the City sewage collection system" or interference
with or impairm~nt of the opera~ion or maintenance of that
syster.-:.
Obstruction
of flow in sewers.
8arnage to or ir.terference with, or overloading, of the
Subregior.al interceptors, treatment or disposal system
or processes.
Flammable or explosive
conditions.
Wastewater, or any other by-products of the treatment
process, to be unsuitable for re=lamation and reuse, or
interference with any processes for reclamation.
Noxious or malodorous gases or odors.
Discoloration or any other condition in the quality of
the treatment plant effluent in such a manner that receiv-
ing water quality requirements established by law cannot
be met by the City.
Conditions at or near City facilities which violate any
statute, or any rule, regulation, or ordinance of any
public agency or State or Federal regulatory body.
PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES OR CHARACTERISTICS
- 15 -
-------
c =-:: :. :1 a:-, C E r~ ~ .
';:0-88
(Conti;.'..Jed)
Sec:~c;. ~:. ~E?~?7:NG RE:~~RE~E~7S ~~~ ~:~IFICATIO~ OF DISCH~?GE
~hcse users ~h~cn come ~i:nlr, :~e Code of federal Re~ulatlc;.s de~:-
~i:lon o~ "Categorical Industries" ~hall comply ~ith the re~br:in9
requ:rements of ~O Code of Federal Regu1atio~s 403.12.
Nc.ti:ica:ion c: DischarS~. l'sers 5:.a11 notify the Agency lmmed:3te:'y
u;:"1:J r, a c c ide n t a:' 1 y d i s c h a r s; i n 9 "" a 5 t e sin \' i 0 1 a t ion 0 f t his 0 r din Co' Ice
to enab:e countermeasures to be taken by the Agency to min:mize
dan,a'.?e to the comilunity se...'et-, treatment facility, treatmEnt j r.:..-
cesse5 and t~e receiving ~at~rs.
This notification shall be followed, within 10 days of the date 0:
occurrence, by a detailed written statement describing the cause of
the accidental discharge and th' measures being taken to prevent
future oc~urrence.
Such ;;otification ...'ill not relle\'e users of liability for an e>:t:"~;.s'2,
105S cr daffia'.?e to teh sewer system, treatment p:ant, or treatme;.t
process or for any f:nes i~pGsed on the Agency Gn account the:e~f,
under Sect:cn 13550 0: the CaliforniQ ~ater Code or for violat:=;.s
Sec::c;. 5t~O of the Califc~nia Fish and Game Code.
c:: . .., .
_ectlon -".
~EG~:A:ED S:~CHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
~o person shall discharge or cause to be discharged,
~ny 0: the following ~i~hout first obtianing a Sewer
specifi~ally per~its such industrial ~aste c~scharge
to a Ci:y ~e"",'2r,
Use? e rr. 1 t t r. a :
characteristics.
( 1)
Dis~harge during a daily twenty-four j24)
in excess of 20,DOO gallDns. .
hours perioc
( :2 )
\lo',u~e 0: :lo\-: or concentration
"slugs", as de:ined herein.
.cons...i~~:~.:"':~
( 3 )
c f.,,' as: e s
~ischarge ~nich ans
a daily
average =oncentrat~o~ c~:
fa)
,b;
( c )
(d)
(e)
3:J in exces~ :)f
CCw in excess of
Suspended solids
liter.
?ol~r grease in excess of 100 milligrams
Nonpolar grease or other hydrocarbons in
of 50 milligrams per liter.
30e ~il~igrams per liter: or
iOO ~~llig=ams per liter: 8r
in excess of 350 milligrams per
per ~i ter.
excess
( 4 )
Water or wastes with PH lower than 6.0 or higher than 9.5.
( 5 )
Discharges containing metal pick:ing or etching wastes
or plating solutions, whether neutralized or not.
( 6 )
Any discharge which ahs an average daily concentration 0::
(a)
(b)
(c)
Arsenic exceeding O.Z milligrams per liter.
Hexzvalent c~romium exceeding C.1 milligrams per
liter or total chromium exceedi~g 0.5 milliorams
per liter. -
Copper exceeding 0.2 milligrams per liter.
- 16
-------
Ordinance ~0. ~2J-88
(Continued)
Section 25.
ADMINISTRATION
A.
RESPOt\SBILITY
The Director is charged ~ith responsibility fer the City's ~ast~-
~ater control prosra~ and the administration and enforcement of
t~e provisions of this Ord.:.nance. f(.r the purposE;' of inspectirlg
the facilities for ocnformance with tl1e provisions of this Ordi-
nance, he may enter upon the J:..remises of any person discilar9ing
or applyginf ro permissic~ to discharge nonresidential or i~dustrial
~3stes into the sewerage system of the City at any time. Such
entry may be announced or unannounced, scheduled or unscheduled
and may occur ~ithout prior notification to the user.
B.
UNUSUAL COt\DITIONS
Not~ithstanding any provision of this Ordinance to the contrary,
the City Council of Cloverdale and any person may enter into an
asreeme~t ~here unusual conditions compel special terms and condi-
tlons and charges for the interception, treatment and disposal of an
i~c~strial waste ne~~ssary to meet the purposes of this Ordinance.
In no event, however, may the "Categorical Standards" referred to in
Sections .20, 21, 22, 24 of this Ordinance, or any other federal or
State standard, be relaxed or waived.
C.
~=:.~SU REMEN':"
OF ~:ST=:~A':"ER CHARAC7ERISTICS
All measurements~ tests, and analyses of the chara=tcristics of
industrial. wastewater shall be, unless other~ise indica~ed ~r . ~
.required. dpte~mi~e~ in acc9r~ance with ~tAndaTd.labor~tory pro-
ced~res as defined herein, and shall be determined at the control
~a~~=le or upo~ su~:able sampIes 'take~ at said control ma~hole.
:~ :~e event no sp~cial manhole has been required, the contrel
~a~~ole shall be co~sidered to be the nearest access determined
as s~~ta~le ty ~he Di=ector.
...
CO~':"RC: r-:.z..NHO~E
The Sewer Permit may require any user to construct, at his o~n
expense, a metering and samplins statior., or control manhole,
together ~ith the corresponding measuring and sampling equipment.
The control manhole shall be constructed on the lateral service
sewer of the discharger and at a location approved by the Director:
provided that the Director may require the installation of such
facilities on the premises of the user at a location which iwll be
accessible to the Director at all times. Construction shall be
completed within sixty (60) days of waste discharge permit ap~roval
and the Director may require the instllation of such control man-
holes on each sewer lateral.
E.
UNMETERED WASTE FLOWS
Sewage and industrial waste flwos from dischargers nonresidential and
industrial not required to install control manholes shall be de-
termined as follows:
( 1 )
for premises where no significant portion of the water
- 17 -
-------
C:=~:nance
t\J. ';;0-88
(Con:~nuee)
receivee fro~ any source 1S co~su~ed in the principal
act1vlty of the user. ~r is re~,oved fr0m the premise by me~~s
o:~cr than the se~< rage syste~. the vo2u~e o~ waste flo~ s~all
be equal to the total volu~e of wa~er used £~om all Sources.
~ater received from each source shall be determined by t~e
=es~stra:i0n shown in the corresponding water meter. Cnmeterec
~a:c~ sources shall be equipped ~~th meters at the user's ex-
pense. Siz~ and type of ~ater meters and frequency of tes::~~
shall be specified :' Lie Sewer Use tJerrTat.
; ~ )
For premises where a portion of the water received from any
sourc~ does not flow into the sewerage system. either because
of the principal activity of the user or because of its re-
maval by other means t1'E: volu~rle of .....aste f10....' shall be equal
to the volume of water used from all sources less the volume
of ~ater removed by the user's ~ctlvity. Water received fro~
eac!~ source, as well as ~ater removed, shall be det~r~ined
by :h~ resistration sho~r in the correspondi~g ~ater mete:!.
Unmetared ~aterremov~ls shall be equipped with meters at
the user's expense. Size and type of watermeters and fre- .
quency of testing shall D0 as specified in the Sewer Use ?er~~:.
Section 26.
PRE7?EA7~E~7 FAC~~!TIES
~her~ required in the Waste Discharge Per~it or by State or Federal
:a~s anj regulations, the discharger shall provide, at his expense,
such preli~inary treatment or controls as ~ay' be necessary to eli~
minate or reduce the 0bJectionable characteristics, constituents,
or quantities and rates of discharge to conform,to the maximu~
limits provided for in the,permit..
Plans, specificat'ions, an~ any o:hei'per:iner.t informatio~ re':a:e~
to prop~sed pretreatme~: facilities shal~ be submitted fer toe
approval cf the 8irec:=r. Cens:ruct10r of such facilities shall
not ccm~-=!"1ce until said appro\'al :.s obtainee i:: ....-rit:'::3. an:; use
of such facilities shall not commence until ~ompleted facilities
are apprcvee in ~riting. Pretreatment facilities shall be c=n:i~-
uously ~aintained in satisfactory and effective operating condit~cn
to the satisfaction of the Dire=tor.
Section 27.
IN7ERCEPT0RS
Grease, oil, or sand interceptors shall be provided when, in the
opini~n of the Director, they are necessary for liquid wastes
containing grease in excessive, amounts, or sand, flammable materie2s,
or other harmful ingredients.
All itnerceptors shall be of a type and capacity approved by the
Director and shall be located so as to be readily and easily
accessible for inspection and cleaning. All grease, oil, and sand
interceptors shall be mainta~ned in continuously efficient opera-
tion at a~l times.
- 18 -
-------
Ordinance No. ~~O-88
(Continuec)
Section 28.
DISCHARGE REPORTS FRO~ USER
The Director may require ~aste reports, including, b~t not limi,ed
to, questionnaires, technical reports, sampling, reports, and test
analyses, and periodic reports of wastewater discharge. When the
requested report is not adequate in teh judgment of the Direc~or, he
may require the user to supply such additional information as the
Director deems necessary. .
Water reports may include, but are n0t necessarily limited to,
nature of the process, volume and rates of wastewater flow, elements,
constituents, and characteristics of the wastewater, together ~ith
any information required in thE Sewer Use Permit.
Confidential information. All information and data on a user
obtained from reports, questionnaires, permit application, permits
and monitoring programs and from inspections shall be available
to the public or other governmental agency without restriction
unless t~e user specifically reque3ts and is able to demonstrate
to teh satisfaction of the Agency that the release of such info~-
mation would divulge information, processes or methods which
would be detrimental to the user's competitive position.
When requested by the person furnishing a report, the portions of
a report w~ich might disclose trade secrets or secret processes
s~all not be made available for inspection by the public, but shall
be mace available to governmental agencies f9r use in making studies:
prQvidec, h6wever, taht such portions of a. report shQll ~e available
for use by the Stat~ or any.State agehcy in a judicial re~iew or
en: orcemen t proc'?ed ings .invol \! ing. t he person furn ishing the
report. Wastewater constituents and characteristics w~ll het be
recos~izec as con:ide~:ial information.
Ii.for~a:ior. accepted by the Agency as confidential, shall not be
trans~:tted :0 an: governm~ntal agency 0: to the general public by
the Agency until and unless prior and ad~quate notification is
g:ven to the user.
Section 29.
E!\F:JRCE~~E~T
A.
RULES fOR ENFORCEMENT
The Director may adopt procedures and rules for the implementation
and administration of this ordinance, including, but not limited to:
( 1 )
Recuire the discharoer to submit schedule of remedial or
preventative measures. When the Director finds that a
discharge of industrial wastes is taking place, or threaten-
ing to take place, that violates or will violate prohibi-
tions or limits prescribed by this ordinance, or other
wastewater source control requirements, or the provisions
of a Sewer Use permit, the Director may require the
discharger to submit for his approval a detailed time
schedule of specific actions the discharger shall take
to correct or prevent said violations of requirements.
(2 )
Order to cease and desist. When the Director finds that
a discharge of industrial wastes is taking place or threat-
-------
Ord~nance No. 4~O-88
( 3 )
( 4 )
(5 )
B.
If any
tation
by the
quest.
c.
(Continued)
ening to take place in violation of prohibitions or limits
of this ordinance, or ~aste~a~er source control requlre-
ments, or the provisions of a Sewer Use Permit, the
Director may issue an order to cease and desist and may
direct that those persons not complying ~ith such prohibi-
tions. limits, requirements, or pro\-:sions (1) comply
forthwith; (2) comply in accordance ~ith a time sched~le
set by the Director; or (3) in the event of a threatened
violation take appropriate remedial or preventative actlon.
Elimination of surface or subsurface drainaae. When the
owner of premise fails to comply with an order to cease
and desist the entrance of surface or subsurface drainage
water from his premise to the public sewer the Director
shall have the right to enter the premises, and to block
the flow of drainage water. The csots thereof shall
become a lien upon the premises in accordance ~ith appro-
priate sections of Article -
Damage to facilities and processes. When the discharge
-of indus~rial wastes causes an obstruction, damage, or
other impairment to the sewerage faciilities or treat-
ment processes, the Director ~ill tabulate the expenses
incurred for the work required to clean or repair the
facility and correct the treatment process. Such ex-
penses shall be added to the discharger's billing
for industrial service charges.
Termination of service. The City may terminate or cause.
to be terminated the service to any suer if a violation 0:
any provision of this ~rdinance is found to :exist or --
.threatens to cause a condition of contamination, pollution
or nuisance, as defined in this ordinance. This provision
in acition to other statues, rules or regulations authori=-
in9 termination of service for delinquency in payment. or
for any other reason. Whenever a premise has been dis-
connected from the City's sewerage system for a violatlon
of this Ordinance, reconnect ion of said premise shall be
in accordance with the City of Cloverdale regulations.
REQUEST FOR RULING
discharger or applicant for a permit disputes the interpre-
or applicaiton of this Ordinance, he may request a ruling
Director who will set forth his determinations on the're-
APPEAL
If the discharger or applicant for a permit is dissatisfied with
the determinations made by the Director under the preceding sec-
tion, he may, within thirty (3D) days after receipt of said ruling
of the Director, appeal said ruling by giving written notice 0: the
basis of his appeal to the City Council of the City of Cloverdale.
The City Council shall, within thirty (3D) days after receipt of
said written notice of appeal, make a final determination of the
issue submitted.' .
- 20 -
-------
Ordinance No. ~20-S8
(continued)
E.
PENALTIES
No person shall violate any provision5 of or fail to comply with
any of the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person intentionally
of negllgently violating any of the provisions or failing to comply
~ith any. of the requirements of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor. Each person shall be guilty of a separate offense for
each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any
provision of this Ord~nance is committed, continued, or permitted by
such person and shall be punishable accordingly.
F.
SIX THOUSAND DOLLAR PER DAY DAMAGES
AQY person who intentionally or negligently violates any order issued
by the Engineer for violation of provisions of this ordinance or
regulatlng or prohibiting discharge of wastewater which causes or
threatens to cause a condition or contamination, pollution, nuisance,
as d~fined in this ordinance, maybe liable civilly in a sum not to
exceed Six Thousand Dolalrs ($6,000.00) for each day in which such
vlolation occurs.
The City Attorney, upon request of the City Council of the City
of C~o\'erdale. shall petition the Superior Court to impose, assess
and recover such sums.
G.
I I'JL'NC7I ON
. .
Whenev~r a discharge of wastewater"is in violation of the provisions,
of tr.is Ordinance or otherwise causes or thr~atens to cause a
condltio~ of conta~ination, pollution, 0r nuisance, the Director may
petlt~o~ the Superior Court for t~e issuance of a preliminary or
per~anent injunction, or botr., as ~ay be appropriate, restraining
t~e =or.tlnuance of such discharge.
.. .
::-: NE ::-OP.
FAL5I::-ICATION OF DATA
hny person who submits reports required by the preceding sections of
t~is chapter, which he knows or should have reason to kno~, contains
falsified data shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000.00.
If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the
Ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or
or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
All ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its adoption and publication or as soon thereafter as all
precedents of law have been satisfied.
- 21 -
-------
Ord~nance No. 420-1988
Approved and adopted this 16th day of February 1988.
. APPRC'VED'~
(/JO.ln :1. Do
V
ATTEST:
Deputy C~ty Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 420-88
was introduced in a regular meeting of the City Council on the
1st day
of February, 1988, and was adopted at a regular meeting
of the City COuncil on the 16th day of February, 1988, by the follo~ing
roll call vote:
AYES:
Pell, Teague, Mellon and Doble
NOES,:
None '.
ABSENT:
Domenichelli
AES: ':'.1!\:
t\one
~
ATTES:: \
D
~
- 22 -
-------
Exhibit D - Memorandum from Gerry Hiatt on MGM Brakes
Responsiveness Summary
-------
MEMORANDUM
8 August 1988
. To:
Johanna Miller (T-4-2)
From:
GERALD F. S. HIATT, Ph.D. CT-6)
Regional Expert Toxicologist
SUbject:
MGM BRAKE/CLOVERDALE - RESPONSIVENESS S~Y
Per your request, I am responding to criticisms of the proposed
remediation for the MGM Brake/Cloverdale Superfund site. Three
documents were reviewed:
- Comments on EPA EndanQerment Assessm~nt at the MGM Brakes Site,
James ~. Byard, 31 May 1988.
- Estimates of Onsite Concentrations of PCBs
Brakes. Colverdale. CA, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, 31
- Cancer Risk Estimates for Exposure to PCBs
AlteFnative Remediation Actions at the MGM Brakes
Associates; 1 June 1988.
in Ambient Air - MGM
May 1988.
Durinq and Following
Site, Health Risk
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: . .
The remedial objective at the MGM Brake/Cloverdale Superfund site is
consistent with established policy of the U.S~ Environmental
Protection Agency CEPA). A remediation goal of 10 ppm POlychlorinat~
biphenyls (PCBs) in soils was chosen based on EPA's policy for clean
up of PCB spillS, as stated in Development of Advisorv Levels for
Polychlorinated BiphenYls (PCBs) Cleanup, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, May, 1986. Use of existing
guidance for Superfund remediation activity is both appropriate and
consistent with EPA pOlicy.
BYARD CRITICISMS: .
Dr. Byard commented on the risk assessment which was cited as partial
justification for requiring remediation of the PCB contamination at
the site. Most of Dr. Byard's criticisms were directed at procedures
which are established practices of the EPA.
Most of Dr. Byard's comments addressed the fOllowing issues:
- EPA's use of PCB concentrations obtained from modeling as opposed
to use of Acurex monitoring data for estimating risk from
airborne PCBs.
- derivation of a cancer potency factor for PCBS using the Linear
Multistaged extrapolation model.
- use of an exposure scenario which assumes that non-workers,
including children, will come into direct contact with PCB-
contaminated soil at the site.
-------
Monitorino Data:
The Acurex data on airborne PCB concentrations at the site represent
only a single 24 hour sampling event. They are therefore ilQt
appropriate for either risk estimation from long-term exposures or
estimation of worst-case exposures.
Many factors affect airborne chemical exposures; most of these vary
considerably with meteorological conditions, and hence with season.
Acurex alluded to some of these in the attachment to letters to K/J/C
(23 Dec 87, 20 Jan 88):
- "During the 24-hour sampling period the wind changed direction
many times." A worst-case scenario for exposure via dust would have a
constant wind, of sufficient magnitude to generate appreciable dust
levels, blowing straight at the closest residences to the site.
- "The weather conditions during the time of testing were typical
of that particular season." Estimates of risk from long-term
exposures should be based on yearly, not seasonal, exposure
conditions.
- "The wind-may tend to have a diluting effect on the ~ient
concentrations..." Winds on the single day of sampling can be
expected to have diluted airborne PCB vapors, resulting in diminished
exposures.
Acurex concluded that the "best approach to characterizing emissions
from the site would be to conduct ambient air test [sic] over a period
of days during many different seasons or weather conditions."
The need for,longer term monitoring is also illustrated by the fact
that differen~ weather conditi.ons, will maximize airborne ,PCB by.
different mechanis~s: . . .
.' - hot, calm weat~er conditions will tend. to maximize PCB
volatilization and therefore increase exposure to PCB vapors.
- dry, windy conditions will tend to maximize dust generation. and
therefore increase exposure to PCB adsorbed to particulates.
Cancer Potency Factor Derivation:
The MGM Brake/Cloverdale risk assessment reflects current EPA pOlicy
regarding estimation of potential cancer risks from chemicals at
Superfund sites. This policy directs the risk assessor to use EPA
approved cancer potency factors from IRIS (Integrated Risk Information
Service) when available, or from individual Program Offices when IRIS
values are not available. .
Since there is current,ly no cancer potency factor for PCBs within
IRIS, use of the PCB cancer potency factor derived by the Carcinogen
Assessment Group (CAG), as was done in this risk assessment, was
entirely appropriate. Regardless of Dr. Byard's own interpretation of
the scientific data on PCB carcinogenesis, EPA policy is clear on the
use of established cancer potency factors.
Future Use EXDosure Scenario:
An exposure scenario which assumes children may come into direct
contact with, and ingest, PCB-contaminated soil is a~propriate for the
-------
MGM Brake/Cloverdale site. This exposure pathway represents a
reasonable potential future secnario at this site.
Under the Superfund Program, it is EPA'S responsibility to estimate
potential risks from both current and ootential future uses of
contaminated sites. Since the area immediately adjacent to theMGM
Brake site is currently slated for residential development, it is
reasonable to assume that the site itself may also be developed at
some time in the future, thus providing the opportunity for this
exposure pathway.
It should be noted that the soil ingestion factors apparently used in
the OHEA's PCB Advisory document do exceed pOlicy which is currently
being developed for Region IX risk assessments. This new pOlicy will
recommend a sliding scale for soil ingestion factors based on age:
Age
.( vears)
0-1
1-6
6-11
>11
Average
(mold)
50
100
50
25-50
Maximum
(mo Id)
250
500
250
100
K/J/C and HEALTH RISK ASSOCIATES CRITICISMS:
The:se two documents address risk estimates for the various femedial
alt~rnatives. They.purport to show that the short term risk.
associat~d with implementing EPA's preferred remediation is greater
than for ot~er, less comprehensive,. alternatives.
The crux of the issue is dust generation during the remedial process.
Both documents base their conclusions on estimates of airborne PCB.
concentrations du~ing the remediation process which are greater than
EPA estimates. These higher PCB levels are derived from assumed dust
levels that are greater than EPA'S assumptions.
K/J/C assumes dust~ generated during remediation may reach levels
between 1 - 5 mg/m in air. Health R~sk Associates then uses this
assumption to assert that short term risks associated with remediation
are 2.5 times greater for excavation and offsite disposal (EPA's .
preferred alternative) than for capping.
Since EPA is able to specify and monitor working conditions during
remediation,' this issue is moot. It is common in risk assessments to
make worst-case or plausible worst-case assumptions about dust
generation during work activities (the OSHA TEL for nuisance dust, 10
mg/m3, is sometimes used). These assumptions are appropriate in those
situations where EPA has no control over working conditions. However,
when the activity being modeled is site remediation, EPA is able to
specify working conditions and therefore assure that dust generation
is low enough keep risks in an acceptable range.
It should be noted that the potential short term risks associated with
remediation which were estimated by K/J/C and Health Risk Associates
-------
are within a range often congidered acceptable by
potential risks of 2.9 x 10- for capping and 7.3
excavation and offsite disposal. Therefore, bO~h
alternatives pose potential risks less than 10- ;
not to regulate risks of this magnitude.
EPA. They estimate
x 10-6 for
remedial
EPA often decides
cc:
Kathleen Shimmin
OF-S ~-
. .
-------
Exhibit E - Memorandum on Atmospheric Dust Levels for
Construction Activities
. .
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
JIIDI:JRANDJPS
'I'O :
John T. Wondolleck
FROM :
Sue A. Loyd
JLJ-
~TE:
August 12, 1988
TS98-C09-Io-CFPM-1
DOC't.1ME:NI' NO. :
SUBJECT:
Particulate Concentrations During Construction
Activi ties
The following entities were contacted to determine the average particulate
concentration encountered at a construction site or areas in which heavy
equipment operate on unpaved roadways:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
State Air Resource Board
Cal OSHA
Fed OSHA
lCF
McVeheil and Monnett
WoQdward-Clyde Consultants
[PA's Air Tbxics Division.
. UC Berkeley Environmental. Health" Science oepartment
UC Berkeley Energy and Resource Department
UC Berkeley Transportation Institute Library
State Air' Resource Board Library
Canadian General Electric Company Limited!
The following tables represent the pertinent "information gathered in this
survey. Air data from three California monitoring stations are reported in
Table 1. The first two stations represent particulate concerytrations found
in areas within one block of heavy construction or where there is heavy
construction or activity on unpaved roadways. The air data collected from
the third station is considered background for an urban area. For
comparison purposes, this table also lists air quality standards and other
relevant info~tion.
Tables 2 and 3 list data collected from a transportation study. The
report, prepared for the Transportation Board, includes particulate
concentrations collected from air monitoring stations located at various
distances from construction sites. In all, 151 samples were collected at
14 locations. In addition, samples were collected at 10.1 and 3.5 feet
from ground surface. The report c~ncludes that particulate concentrations
ranged from 28 ~g/m3 to 1,400 ~g/m for all locations and activities
described, except one location in which jack hammering was being performed.
1
598.4:35
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC
Table 2 lists air monitoring data for five locations in which a variety of
construction activities were performed. . Table 3 lists particulate
concentrations for specific dates and locations for grading and compacting
activities only.
Finally, Dr. Hosein of Canadian General Electric was contacted concerning
particulate emissions encountered at a hazardous waste site where PCB-soil
cleanup activities were being performed. In Mr. Hosein's study, air
monitoring on site was conducted simultaneously with excavation activities.
Mr. Hosein explained that no visible dust was present during the heavy
construction-excavation process. He stated that particulate air
concentrations did not exceed 100 ~g/m3. PCB concentrations in the soil
ranged from 10-200 ppm and only in a small number of samples did they
exceed 200 ppm.
It should also be emphasized that mitigation procedures can decrease
particulates during construction activities. According to Mr. wyman Siu,
Chief of Air Monitoring for the BAAQMD, and Mr. Bill Monnett of McVeheil
and Monnett, mitigation to reduce dust such as watering can reduce
particulate emissions by fifty percent.
TABLE 1
TSP
3
~g/m
. Location High Lo....... Geo
4th Street/
San Josel 304 32 90.2
S~ate ~treet/ 201. 4 68.7 119
Alviso
Al vi so
(Background) 3 112.5 15.6 45.7
Ar 1 th
Activity
heavy construction
123.6
heavy construction
50.2
STANDARDS
Background Daily Standard
Federal Daily 24 Hour Standard4
Former Fedfraly Daily Standard~
Du,st storm
3"
15-60 pg{m
150 pg/tn
3
260 pg/tn3
750 Pg/tn
According to Mr. wyman Siu of the BAAOMD and Mr. Bill Monnett of McVeheil and
Monnett, mitigation to reduce dust such as watering can reduce particulate
emission by fifty percent.
2
598.4:35
-------
TI\BLE 2
TSP
I
pq/m
Distance from Edge of
Location High Low Geo Ar i th Construction (ft) Activity
Winter park/ 1,1631 281 801 9.43 5 hauling, grading,
Florida (11) 1,0552 232 521 .5~1 5 watering, compacting
Winter park/ 1,255 451 580 -710 16 hauling, compacting,
Florida (.2) 750 71 249 310 16 watering
Winter Park/ 197 31 109 119 82 excavating, grading
Florida (. 3) 259 38 100 110 .82 dumping limerock,
hauling, traffic
winter Park/ 191 50 100 no 111 excavation, grading,
Florida (14) 158 38 89 98 111 dumping, compacting
Richmond/ 930 198 435.5 512 2 grading, compacting,
Virginia (112) 2 dres~ing side slope,
hauling, excavation
110.1 feet above ground surface
,23.5 feet above ground surface
3
598.4:36
-------
. 'TABLE]
TSP
)
.pg/m
Distance from Distance from Edge
Location Date Concentration TSP Ground Surface 1ft) of Construction 1ft) Activi ty
Winter park/ 10/12 232 10.1 5 Grading, water ing
Flor ida (Ii) 4/16 1,163 ].5 5 hauling, dumping
4/16 800 10.1 5
Winter Parkl 4/17 155 10.1 51 hauling, dumping,
Florida (12) and grading
Winter park/ 5/3 15] ].5 82 compacting limestone
Florida II]) 100 10.1
5/1] 58 ].5 82 compacting and
5] 10.1 82 grading
Winter park/ 5/31 197 ].5 111 grading and
Florida (14) 259 10.1 111 compacting clay
Richmond/ 7/8 468 1].5) 2 grading, compacting,
Virginia (112) dressing side slope
. .
<1
598 . 4 : J7
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
REFERENCES:
1 California Summary of 1985 Air Quality Data, California Air Resources
Board, 4th Street Station, San Jose, CA.
2 1987 Reported PMlO and TSP concentrations from an EPA Remedial
Investigation, unpublished.
) Same as 2.
. 40 CFR Part 50 Title 40.
S Phone conversation, July 7, 1988, with wyman Siu, Chirf of Air Monitoring
for the BAAQMD. Mr. Siu explained that this 260 Pg,/rn TSP guideline has
been replaced with the 150 pg/m PM10 guideline. Mr. Siu stated the
reason for the change was that 55-60 percent of TSP is PMlO.
6 Phone conversation, July 7, 1988 with Mr. .John Suder, an air monitoring
professional with woodward-Clyde Consultants. Mr. Suder stated that this
was the highest particulate concentration he had ever encountered.
1 Effect of Air Pollution Regulations on Highway Construction and
Maintenance, Orin Riley, et. al., Fairfield, NJ, for the Transporation
Research Board Research Council, washington, D.C. Pp 13, 59-63. 1974.
. Contribution of Adsorbed PCB to Total Airborne PCB during Soil ~lean-up.
H.R. Hosein, L. Gray and J. McGuire. Canadian General Electric Company
Limited; Toronto, Ontario, 1987.
5
598.4:35
-------
Exhibit F - Response to K/J/C's Cost Estimates for Site
Remediation
.r
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
TO:
FROH:
John \1ondolleck
Phil Hoyerf~
DATE:
June 29, 1988
SUBJECT:
Response to Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton Comments 1.29 and 1.30 on
the HGH Brakes FS
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum addresses comments 1.29 and 1.30 by Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
(KJC) concerning the cost estimate for the HGH Brakes FS. It is my
understanding that KJC believes CDH's estimates are In error and, as a
result, are lover than probable construc~ion costs.
It should be noted that "hazardous vaste" related cost estimates are
prepared vith a level of uncertainty that is far greater than any
"conventional constru.ction" cost estimate. The tvo primary reasons for the
high level of uncertainty are (1) there is limited costing information
available from actual site remediations and (2) an increasing number of
innovative technologies lacking full scale development are continuously be
added to the list of potential remedies. Hazardous "aste related. cost"
"estimates are, therefore, prepared vith less accuracy.' For the final phase
of the FS, the FS guidance requires ~n accuracy of -30 to +50 percent.
This level of accuracy is defined by the American Association of Crist
Engineers to repre$ent an "order-of-magnitude" accuracy. \lith this in mind,
KJC's and COM's cost presented in Table 1-1 are "ithin this range. (Note
that KJC presented COM's capping estimate at $1.1 million and it should be
$0.9 million).
Cm1t~Et;T RESPONSE
It is my opinion that comments made by KJC were unfounded, as vill become
evident during this comment response memorandum.
Comment 1.29 states that the new (1987) Remedial Action Costing Procedures
Manual should be used instead of the 1985 version in order to "develop a
more realistic cost estimate for each alternative". I have t"o points to
make concerning th~s comment. First, the only difference between the t"o
versions is that the 1987 version is the final version and includes a cover
page and transmittal page, and includes typographical corrections. The
second point is that the referenced document provides the philosophy for
preparing estimates rather than a "ho"-to" procedure that ensures more
realistic estimates. No cost data or estimating calculations are given in
the Hanual.
Comment 1.30 addresses the discrepancy between KJC's and COM's cost
estimates. \1ithout having any of KJC'sback-up it is impossible to compare
-------
MEMORANDUM
June 29, 1988
Page 2
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC
the tvo estimates. In lieu of KJC's back-up, I have prepared Table 1-2
vhich presents a comparison betveen unit costs derived from three sources
and CDM's unit costs. The three sources are as follovs:
Source '1
- "Compendium of Costs of Remedial Technologies at Haz~rdous
Yaste Sites," October 1987. This document presents costs in
1982-1983 d01lars. The costs shovn in Table 1-2 have been
escalated lOr. to 1988 dollars based on ENR indices.
Source *2 -
"Means Site York Cost Data, 1988", R.S. Means and San Francisco
area based "LSI Current Construction Costs, 1988", Lee Saylor,
Inc. The costs presented in Table 1-2 have been escalated 120r.
to account for Level D vork and 185% to account for Level C
vork in accordance vith "REM/FIT Cost Estimating Guide", CH2M
Hill, 1985.
Source #3 -
"Evaluation of the MGK Brakes
19B6, GCA Technology Division
Table 1-2 have been escalated
indices.
Si te,. Volume 1 of 3, September
Inc. The 1986 costs presented in
3.6r. to 1988 dollars based on ENR
The blank spaces in the table indicated that no unit cost vas available for
that particular item.
The table indicates that the unit costs used in CDM's estimate are similar
to unit costs derived from other sources. It i5 therefore believed, that
CDM's estimate represents a reasonable ~ccurate est~mate of prob~ble
construction costs. It should also be pointed out that many consu~ta~ts
have been providing th~ EPA vith "ultra-con~ervative" estimates and the EPA
has recently expressed theit concern over this and vould like to see. more
realistic estimates.
If you have any comments or questions concerning this memorandum, please
feel free to contact me. It may be appropriate to request KJC's cost
estimate calculation sheets so that an accurate comparison can be made
betveen the tvo estimates.
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
TABLE 1-1
COST COMPARISON
Remed 1a t ion
Al terna t ive for
Parcels 1 and 2
Implemented
Jointly in 1988
Estimated Capital
Cost in Millions
Of Dollars
K/J/C Estimate
EPA/CDM Estimate
Excavation and
Offsi te Disposal
$7.1
$5.2
In-situ Fixation
$5.7
$6.0
$3.6
$3.4
On-site Fixation
Capping
$2.6
$0.9
i .
I
,
I
.i
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC
TABLE 1-2
UNIT COST COMPARISONS
($)
Unit of Source Source 2
Source
Component Measure CD~ 11 .2 t3
Mobilization (As a % 3-15% 5-10% 6-1%1
Percentage of Total
Capital Cost)
Clearing & Grubbing AC 4,ROO 4,BOO
Excavation CY 7 1-5 7 4
Stockpiling/Handling CY 6
Backfill/Compaction CY 3 3
Import Fill CY 12 12
Sheeting/Shoring SF 11 12
Final Grading SY 1 1-3 1
Revegetation 5Y 2 .25-2 2 .50
Resurfacing SY 12 12 13
Fencing LF 15 11
Transpor t CY 60-1003 2-104 63
100-1553 ..
Disposal CY 13-311 135-163
On-Site fixation CY 1004
In-S1 tu Fixation CY 1505
RCM Cap SF 4 4 5 3
Cap Components
Topsoil CY 15 17
Sand CY 19 20
30 mil HDPE SY 5 3-8 12
Clay CY 16 11 17
1
2 Upper limit could not be determined.
3 Source 13 also used S75/CY for all earthvork related items.
4 Telephone quotes from Kettleman Hills (1987 and 1988).
Telephone quote from COM/Atlanta based on actual remediation costs at
Pepper Steel s1te in Atlanta in 1988. Vendor quotes from July 1987 range
from S20-150ICY. Geoeon quote 1n June 1988 vas SlOO-l1O/CY. All quotes
5 include system mobilization and demobilization.
Telephone quote from IV! in February 1988. Geocon quoted S130-135/CY in
June 1988. Geo~un performed the first in-situ deep soil mixing process
in 1987 vith IV! at the General Electric site in Hialeah, Florida under
the SITE program. Both quotes include system mobilization and
demobiliation. .
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
~
FROM :
John Wondolleck
Phil Moyer 1 ~\
ro:
DATE:
August 8, 1988
MGM BRAKES COST COMPARISON
SUBJECT:
This memorandum summarizes the findings of a cost comparison of CDM's and
J/K/C's cost estimate for the R~ Cap alternative (Alt. 6-1 and 6-2
combined) for the MGM Brakes Si te. As a general comnent, I feel that I
-------
JItemorandum
MGM Brakes Cost Comparison
August 8, 1988
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC
~D/DEMOB
These costs are similar. K/J/C did have a mathematical error of
approximately +$10,000 for this component (i.e. K/J/C showed $137,000 and
actual subtotal is $126,900). The total cost discrepancy for this
component is -$22,700.
SITE MCNITORING
K/J/C's estimate for this component is 284% higher than COM's estimate.
Two reasons for this discrepancy are (1) K/J/C has a +$5,000 error in using
CDM's unit cost for Item 2a and (2) K/J/C included soil samping under the
buidling and during capping at +$66,800. I don't believe that the sampling
under the building is necessary; only confirmation sampling around the
perimeter of the cap. There are physical limitations which will limit the
extent of the cap. Furthermore, using CDM's capping cost of $4/SF, the
$66,800 could be used to cap an. additional 0;4.acres which would increase
the capped area by nearly 20\. The total cost discrepancy for this
component is +$71,800.
EARTHWORK/S I 'I'E PREP AF.ATI ON
The major discrepancy of this component is $63,000 for backfill and
compaction of imported fill. This was not included in CDM's estimate
because the need for such has not been identified and regrading of the site
may be all that is necessary. $10,000 was also added by K/J/C for
temporary surface drainage control. This is extremely high at
approximately $S,OOO~. A perimeter ditch could probably be const~cted
for under $1,000. The total cost discrepancy for this component is
+$74,300.
SITE RES'roAATIOO
K/J/C included $29,000 for concrete drainage ditches. I do not know why
concrete-lined ditches were estimated; they do not seem necessary for a
cap. If they are, they become a final design issue and should be covered
-------
Memorandum
MGM Brakes Cost Comparison
August 8, 1988
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE fNC
by the contingency. Though it has a minor impact on cost, K/J/C used
10,000 SY for site restoration and CDM used 9,700 SY. The total cost
discrepancy for this component is +$29,900.
SOIL CAPPING
The component provides the second highest discrepancy do11ar-wise at
$391,800. K/J/C's base unit cost for a RCRA cap is approximately $7/SF
versus CDM's at $4/SF. I do not have K/J/C's back-up, but COM's cost was
calculated from material cost quotes, estimating guides, and information
from other sites. K/J/C added 15% for unknown reasons which increased
their unit cost to $8.25/SF. This increase coupled with a 20\ contingency
.added to the total capital cost results in a component contingency of 38%. .
This is "excessive" considering the RCRA cap is nothing more than
earthwork.
CASTING BUILDING REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL
This component has the highest percentage and dollar discrepancy at 800%
and +$647,500, respectively. I believe the two primary reasons for the
discrepancy are (1) K/J/C's estimate included demolition of the entire
building and concrete and (2) K/J/C used $250,000 for equipment
decontamination which CDM assumed MGM Brakes would be responsible for prior
to demolition of the building. K/J/C also included off-site disposal of
all concrete as hazardous waste, while CDM assumed it would remain on-site
. .
under the cap. COM assumed partial demolition of 5,000 SF of the building.
I do not understand why equipment decontandnation is so high at $250,000,
but I have no details to comment further.
INDIREC'T CAPITAL COSTS
Indirect capital costs included engineering and design, contingencies, and
bonds. K/J/C and CDM both used a 20\ contingency. I feel that K/J/C's.
could be lower given the level of detail of the estimate. K/J/C calculated
engineering and design. at 15% of the total direct cost plus the 20%
contingency. This is not standard practice. The 15\ engineering and
-------
fllemorandum
MGM Brakes Cost Comparison
August 8, 1988
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
design is applied to the total direct cost. K/J/C'S method results in a
net engineering and design percentage of 18% or an additional +$57,000.
SUMMARY
I believe this memorandum provides the justification necesary. If you need
further assistance, feel free to contact me. I also reviewed the other
estimates briefly and have similar comments. In addition, I believe that
K/J/C's conversion of CY to TN for the other estimates results in a large
portion of those discrepancies.
,-
, .
4
-------
Memorandum .
MGM Brakes Cost Comparison
August 8, 1988
F'OO'INOTES :
l.
2.
K/J/C totalled this item at $137,000, actual total is $126,900.
K/J/C stated that $29,000 is from COM estimate, however, COM's
estimate is $24,000. .
3.
Why is soil sampling under the building necessary when the area
will be capped? Perimeter sampling for confirmation of absense of
PCBs should be all that is required.
The ~ estimate included as part of the contingency confirmation
sampling during cleanup.
4.
5.
A concrete-line ditch does not appear appropriate for the cap
alternative. A temporary ditch during const~ction of the cap and
a site grading following construction should be sufficient to
address drainage control.
EPA did not estimate volume of fill for minor soil excavation.
Filling of the minor excavation or site regrading will be
performed depending on anticipated site uses.
6.
7.
estimate, I assumed that this ha~ already beened
by by MGM Brakes. and was not included. My feeling is
cost is extremely high. When or if MGM does an annual
cle~ning and overhaul does it really cost $250,000?
For CDM's
performed
that this
. equipment
8.
In CDM's estimate, I was told to figure on removing a portion of
the building which was 58,400 CF, K/J/C used 391,000 CF. Is this
the entire building? The building removal volume I used was a
SO'xlOO' floor area with 12' walls (exterior dimensions).
9.
Similar comment as Footnote B.
estimate is based on 5,000 SF.
K/J/C used 22,400 SF, CDM's
10. This item included in Item 4c cost. $230/CY is extremely high for
disposal. Does this include disposal .of building demolition and
transport?
11. This item included in Item 4c cost. TO use unit costs rounded to
the penny (i.e. $16.40ILF) for unit costs over $1 at this level of
estimating and small quanitity is not appropriate. This indicates
that K/J/C's estimate is intended to be more accurate than
-30/+50%.
12. This item included in Item 4c cost.
13. COM's estimate does not include this item.
that this needed to be removed. Does it?
I was not informed
14. This is a contingency item in CDM's estimates if we do not have.a
quantity to base it on.
-------
Jllea)randum
MGM Brakes Cost Comparison
August 8, 1988
15. What is the justification for a 15 percent mark up?
16. COM's estimate includes this cost in Item Sa.
justification for a 15 percent mark up?
What is the
17. K/J/C used 10,000 SY, CDM used 9700 SY.
18. What are the concrete drainage ditches for?
19. CDM'stotal cost shown here (from spreadsheet) is slightly higher
than the total of subtotals (i.e. $701,300 vs $700,500) because
COM's estimate included a few other items such as irrigation that
were not included in K/J/C's estimate.
20. Indirect capital costs such as engineering and design,
contingencies, and bonds are calculated as percentages of direct'
capital costs (i.e. Item No.7). K/J/C calculates the contingency
from the direct capital cost, adds the two together, and then
calculates 15% of the new subtotal capital cost (Item 9) for
enginering and design. This results in $57,000 additional profit
for the engineering firm. K/J/C should utilize the Remedial
Action Costing Procedures Manual (£PA 1985 or 1987).
598.-8: 8
6
-------
. (D)T (DUIANUSOO or ALTEIN\TIvE 6-1 Nt) ALn:RNI\TIVE 6-2 cafalNlD
K.JC 1'Im IJC CIIt K.JC CIIt
ITDI t«>. DESCRIPrIOI OONrrITY lHIT COOT tfiIT COST 'IUI'AL COST 1UIN. (D)"I'
-.--.
1 (a) ~IPtIENT ~jI)fK)B 4 FA. N.A. 1,000 3,000 . 4, 000
(b) SECURITY;FmCItI;, ETC 1 LS . . 21, 000 42,000 21,000 42,000
( c) CXNI'. S1URAGE AREA ? ? ? 500 3,200
(d) P~ DECCH ? ? ? 7,000 11 , 400
(e)&(f) ~PMENl' DECCH ? ? ? 20,500 28,000
(9) DEJIIJLISH C(Jfl'. AREA 1 LS 2,500 N.A. 2,500 N.A.
(h) DEMOLISH ~-('(Iff ARFA 1 LS 2,000 N.A. 2,000 N.A.
( i) DE~ EXJUIPHENl' 1 LS .1 , 000 N.A. 7,000 N.A.
( j) PERI1ITS 1 LS 8,000 20,000 8,000 20,000
(k) CCNl'RACTOR REPORTS 1 LS 12 , 000 12,000 12,000 12,000
(1) IH/SO ? 30,000 6,000 30,000 24,000
(m) BClIDS, INS., tNDEMNIFICATIOO 1 LS 10,000 N.A. 10,000 N.A.
(n) I1I'ILITY ~CT/DISC'rnNEcr 1 LS 3,000 15,000 3,000 15,000
( 0). (]fEMICAL WI LETS 5Ma 80 N.A. 400 N.A.
5m'IU'mL - PIJ8/DEPDB $126,900. $159,600
($131,000)
2 (a) AIR fOItroRIt«; I~IN:;
BASELINE SNlPLIN:; LS 29,000 24,000 29,000 24,000
(b)(1) SNU'Llt«i UNDER 8UtLDt~) LS '36,800 N.A. 36,800 N.A.
(b)(2) SOl L SAPlPLIt«i OORIt«; CAPPlt«;4 50 FA 600 600 30,000 N.A.
(c) GRaJNIH\TER SMPLILM:; 30 FA 500 500 15,000 15,000
summu. - SITE fIOnroRr~ $110,800 $39,000
] (a) LAYOOT AREAS ro BE CAPPm ? 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,500
(b) CLFARI~, GRU8Br~, AND
DISPOSAL OF CLFARm MTERlAL 2 AC . 4,800 4,800 9,600 9,600
(c) TEMPORARY SURFACE DRAINAGE
CCNI'ROL!o LS 10,000 N.A. 10,000 N.A.
(d) REJ10VE AND DISPOSE OF
CCJIlCRETE PAVEMENT 60 C'{ 30 N.A. 1,800 N.A.
(e) BACKFILL/COMPACTIOO or
IMPORTED fILL (, 4200 r;.y 15 N.A. 63,000 Ji:. A .
SU8'IO'J7\L - EARTtmRK/SITE PREPARATIOO M". ..INTENANCE $85, 400 ~. iC .. ~ 1.,..00
-------
msT aMPMR!SBf 01" AL'l'EIN\TIVE 6-1 NI) AL'l'EIH\TIVE 6-2 (DtBDIfD
ItJC I'ftIt LTC LITIa.8 ? 0.18 0.30 70,400 11 , 500
(c) caoETE FLOOR DEX>LITIcK ? 5.25 15.00 117,600 75,000
(d) caoETE FLOOR DISPOSAL I 0 593 CY . 230 N.A. 136,000 N.A.
(e) FOOTIt«; DEX>LITI~ I 728 LF 16.40 N.A. 12,000 N.A.
( f) FOOTIt«; DI SPOSAL I 1 120 CY 230 N.A. 28,000 N.A.
(9) TRUCK ~ DEmLITIa./
DISPOSAL ) LS 40,000 N.A. 40,000 N.A.
(n) MIS~ ITD1S ro BE
DEmLISHED LS 86,000 N.A. 86,000 N.A.
sonunu. - CASTIN::i BUILDIN::i RD1O\lAL AND DECOOTAMINATIOO $740,000 $92,500
5 (a) cn.ISTRUCTIa. OF R~ CAP1 ~ 92,300 SF 7 4 646,100 369,200
(b) cn.ISTRUCTIa. OF A .
SOIL COIJER16 92,300 SF 1.25 N.A. 115,000 N.A.
som7rAL - SOIL CAPPING $761,000 $369,200
6 (a) FINAL GRADIN:i11 ? 1 1 10,0000 . 9,700
(b) HYDROSEmIN::il1 ? 2 2 20,000 19,400
(c) cn.ICRETE DRAINAGE DITCHES I 8 1000 LF 29 N.A. 29,000 N.A.
SUB'IUIN. - SITE RESroRATIOO $59,000 $29,000
1 SUB'lUTAL l' $1,900,000 $701,300
8 cafl'It«;mc'l° 20\ 380,000 140,300
9 SUB'lUTAL Z 0 .. 2,280,000 N.A.
10 EKJINEERIN:i & ADMINSTRATIOO1o 15\ 342,000 105,200
11 roTAL $2,600,000 $946,800
-------
,
Exhibit G - Record of Communication Regarding Soil Volume
Increase for Fixation
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC
JIIDI)RANOOM
FROM:
John wondolleck, .~-
Sue A. Loyd J5~
AU9\lst 23, 1988
T598-C09-Io-CJKD-1
TO:
DA'I'E :
DOC'UME:m' NO.
SUBJEC'!:
Fixation - Soil Volume
Mr. Fred Mullins of Qual Tech was contacted on AU9\lst 22, 1988. Qual Tech
performs fixation on soil at the Pepper's Steel Superfund Site. According
to Mr. Mullins, t~e soil type at the Pepper's Steel location is a loose,
sandy loam, ~ith ~ moderate silt content. .Mr. Mullins explained that the
volume increase, resulting from the fixation of this soil, is less than 1
percent. In contrast, larger soil volumes result when fixation is applied
to clay tyPe soils. Mr. Mullins explained tha~ treatment performed on a
heavy ,cl'ay Mississippi sOll increas.ed overall volume by 18 to 20 percent.. .
'S96. 6: 13.
------- |