United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-92/160
September 1992
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement but adds no further appflcabte information to
the content of the document. Ail supplemental material is, however, contained in the adminotiative record
forthissite.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. RB>ORTNO.
EPA/ROD/R03-92/160
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and SubUUo
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
5. Report Date
09/29/92
6.
7. Author(»)
8. Performing Organization Repl. No.
8. Performing Orgalniation Nune and Address
10. Project/Taskwork Unit No.
11. Comnct(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organuxtion Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
15. Supplementary Holes
PB93-963921
16. Abstract (UmH: 200 words)
The Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump site is located in a 22-acre drainage area of a sparsely
populated rural area in western Frederick. County, Virginia. Surface water runoff flows
into a north-south tributary that discharges to Hogue Creek, which is 4,000 feet
downstream. Bedrock is noted to be highly fractured, and the ground water flow in the
overburden aquifer is toward Massey Run. From 1S72 to 1983-, the site owner conducted a
tire disposal operation, which consisted of transporting discarded tires from various
locations and storing them on z 5-acre wooded slope behind his home. An estimated 5 to
7 million tires that had been accumulated caught on fire in October 1983 and burnec
until July 1984. As a result of the fire, a free-flowing oily-tar, which contained
anthracene, benzene, cadmium, chromium, ethylbenzene, napthalene, nickel, pyrene,
toluene, and zinc, began to seep out of the tire pile into Massey Run and on to Hogue
Creek. In late 1983, EPA's emergency response team constructed a secondary lined
containment basin, known as "Dutchman's Pond," downslope of the fire area to contain
water generated by the early fire-fighting efforts and oil products from the burning
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, sw
Key Contaminants: metals (arsenic, lead, zinc)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
30
22. Price
(SeeANSI-ZM.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly MT1S-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-92/160
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Abstract (Continued)
tires. The oily-tar waste stream exhibited properties similar to heating oil; therefore,
approximately 800,000 gallons could be collected, removed offsite, and recycled into fuel
oils. EPA directed the site owner to construct ditches and dikes for drainage control.
In 1984, ground water studies by EPA concluded that ground water contamination was
limited to the Massey Run drainage basin. A 1988 ROD addressed the migration of
contaminants offsite via surface water runoff, as OU1, and included construction of an
onsite wastewater treatment plant. This ROD provides for an early remedial action for
the soil, sediment, debris, and surface water associated with the onsite containment
basin known as "Dutchman's Ponds" as OU2. A future ROD will address OU3, which includes
the remainder of site contamination, and sludge generated.from the treatment processes.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and surface
water are metals, including arsenic, lead, and zinc.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating approximately 1,125 cubic
yards of contaminated soil with zinc concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg from the pond
area; sampling, excavating, and dewatering pond sediment using solidification with a
solid reagent; testing the soil and sediment for hazardous characteristics and
transporting these offsite for appropriate disposal; removing the synthetic liner within
the pond, with offsite disposal; treating approximately 200,000 gallons of contaminated
surface water from the pond using the existing oil/water separator; directing the water
to Rhinehart's Pond for treatment in the existing wastewater treatment plant using
chemical precipitation and filtration to remove solids, with discharge of the treated
water onsite to Massey Run; backfilling Dutchman's Pond, and any surrounding soil that
may be excavated with clean soil; and implementing soil erosion controls. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is 51,300,000, which includes an estimated
annual O&M cost of $12,000 for 2 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil excavation goals are based on background and aquatic toxicity
levels and include zinc 50 mg/kg. Chemical-specific surface water discharge limits are
based on state standards and include aluminum 87 ug/1; arsenic 360 ug/1; copper 9.2 ug/1;
iron 1,000 ug/1; lead 34 ug/1; nickel 1,100 ug/1; silver 0.12 ug/1; and zinc 180 ug/i.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 1992
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU2)
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE SITE
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE SITE
I. DECLARATION
A. SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Rhinehart Tire Fire Site
Winchester, Virginia
Operable Unit Two
B. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site (the Site), in Winchester, Virginia,
which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) . This decision is based on the
administrative record file for this Site.
The Commonwealth of Virginia concurs with the selected remedy.
C. ASSESSMENT OF TEE SITE
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine,
pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606, that actual
or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, as
discussed under Summary of Site Risks in this document, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
D. DESCRIPTION OF TEE SELECTED REMEDY
This early remedial action for the second operable unit (OU 2) of
the Site addresses an onsite containment basin, "Dutchman's
Pond". Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) addressed the control of
contaminant migration offsite via surface water runoff. A
subsequent operable unit will address the remainder of the Site.
The major components of this selected remedy for OU 2 include:
Oil/water separation of the surface water presently in
Dutchman's Pond via the existing onsite oil/water
separator.
-------
Surface water from the oil/water separator will be
directed to Rhinehart's Pond for treatment in the
existing onsite wastewater treatment package plant
using chemical precipitation and solid separation.
Treated surface water will be discharged to Massey Run.
Sediments from Dutchman's Pond will be sampled, removed
and mixed with a solid reagent. Moisture reduced
sediments will be tested to determine if they are
hazardous according to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and disposed of appropriately.
Removal and disposal of the synthetic liner currently
lining Dutchman's Pond.
Testing of the soils surrounding and underneath
Dutchman's Pond. Soils containing levels of zinc
greater than 50 parts per million (ppm) will be
excavated, transported, and disposed of at an approved
landfill (RCRA Subtitle C or D).
The area of Dutchman's Pond, including any surrounding
soils that may be excavated, will be backfilled with
clean soil and appropriate soil erosion controls will
be implemented.
E. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource
recovery technologies), to the maximum extent practicable and
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a
principal element. Because this remedy will not result in
hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based levels,
a five year review pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(c) is not applicable to this action.
S£P 29 1992
Edwin B. Erickson Date
Regional Administrator
EPA Region III
-------
II. DECISION SUMMARY
A. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Rhinehart Tire Fire Site is located in a sparsely
populated rural area of western Frederick County, Virginia. The
Site is approximately 65 miles West-Northwest of Washington, D.C.
and approximately 6 miles east of the Town of Winchester (Figure
1).
The Rhinehart Tire Fire Site is located within a 22 acre
drainage area (Figure 2). Surface water runoff within the Site
flows into the northeast-southwest flowing tributary (Figure 3)
which discharges to Hogue Creek 4000 feet downstream. Hogue
Creek, which is a tributary of the Potomac River System, has been
designated as a put-and-take trout stream (Class V) by the
Virginia State Water Control Board.
The Site is located on private property in the Western
Portion of the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province, in the
Appalachian Highlands. The area topography encompassing the
Rhinehart Site is dominated by a series of alternative northeast-
trending ridges and valleys. The area of concern, located on the
western slope of Hunting Ridge, is underlain by five to ten feet
of compact clayey-silt. The silt is underlain by ten to twenty-
five feet of weathered sandstone and interbedded with gray shale.
Unweathered bedrock predominates at depths between twenty and
thirty-five feet. Bedrock is noted to be highly fractured.
Groundwater flow in the overburden and weathered bedrock is
toward Massey Run. Although not well understood, deeper regional
groundwater flow is believed to follow the bedrock fractures.
B. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Between 1972 and 1983, the Site owner conducted a tire
disposal operation which consisted of transporting discarded
tires from various locations and storing them in the natural
drainage swale of a wooded slope behind his home. By October,
1983, an estimated five to seven million tires had been
accumulated. On October 31, 1983, a fire broke out in the 5-acre
tire storage area and burned until July 4, 1984. Due to the
magnitude of the fire, assistance from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was requested by State officials.
The intense heat generated by the fire caused a pyrolytic
reaction with the tires which produced a free flowing oily-tar.
Chemically, the oily-tar consisted of: benzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, anthracene, naphthalene, pyrene, cadmium, chromium,
nickel, and zinc. Shortly after the fire started, the free
flowing tar produced from the melting and pyrolysis of the tires
-------
began to seep out: of the toe of the tire pile and into Massey
Run, a tributary to Hogue Creek. An undetermined quantity of tar
flowed into Hogue Creek, which is a tributary to the Potomac
River System. Due to the imminent hazard posed by the free-
flowing oily-tar, control of the material was a priority. High
rates of tar and water seepage threatened to exceed the temporary
containment basin constructed by State and local officials during
the initial period of emergency response. In an effort to
control the migrating/flowing waste stream, oil was pumped to
"Rhinehart's Pond." The Site owner created Rhinehart's Pond by
damming Massey Run prior to the fire to construct the cooling
water pond. In addition, EPA's Emergency Response Team (ERT)
constructed a secondary lined containment basin downslope of the
fire area by mid November, 1983. This containment pond, known as
"Dutchman's Pond", was built for containment of water generated
by the early fire fighting efforts and oil products from the
burning tires. Currently, Rhinehart's Pond and Dutchman's Pond
remain onsite.
In order to further minimize the threat to human health and
the environment in a cost-effective manner, reuse/recycling of
the tar waste stream was evaluated by EPA during the emergency
response. The waste stream generated exhibited properties
similar to heating oil allowing for 800,000 gallons of the waste
stream to be collected, removed from the Site, and recycled into
fuel oils.
Concurrent with the emergency response activities at the
Site, EPA entered into an administrative consent order with the
Site owner to construct dikes and ditches for drainage control
and collection and pumping operations to minimize the volume of
waste escaping from the Site. Since the fire, the Site owner has
conducted trenching and grading operations which affect shallow
ground water flow and distribution of the ash residue.
Subsequent to the emergency response, in 1984, EPA ERT
performed a ground water study. The ground water study was
undertaken to determine only if ground water contamination
existed, not to define the full extent. The study concluded that
some degradation of ground water had occurred, but contaminants
were likely to remain within the Massey Run drainage basin,
eventually discharging to Massey Run, with little effect on local
ground water consumers.
Following the emergency response activities at the Site,
EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation (RI) to characterize and
define the extent of possible contamination at the Site. The
first phase of the RI, completed in March of 1987, included site
mapping, surface water and sediment sampling, soil sampling, and
a ground water survey. The second phase of the RI, completed in
-------
August of 1988, included the sampling and analysis of surface and
subsurface soil, ground water, surface water and sediments, and
biological studies of aquatic life. Following these two phases
of investigation, a feasibility study (FS) was developed in
November of 1988.
The RI identified aquatic toxicity as the principal
environmental concern at the Site and concluded that contaminated
runoff from the Site was the main contributor to the problem.
Based on these studies, a remedy was selected in the June 30,
1988, Record of Decision (ROD). The goal of the remedy was to
control the contaminants leaving the Site in the surface water
runoff. Following the ROD, a detailed set of plans and
specifications for implementation of the OU 1 remedial action was
designed for EPA by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
Upon completion of the OU 1 design in July 1989, bids for
construction of the remedial action were advertised on August 10,
1989. Although the bid closing date was extended through
September, no bids were received on the project. The USAGE then
initiated negotiations with a pre-placed construction contractor.
EPA awarded only the wastewater treatment portion of the project
to the pre-placed contractor in October 1989. The wastewater
treatment plant was installed onsite on June 11, 1990. The
remainder of the project was re-evaluated and revised for cost-
effectiveness. The revised design Was advertised for bid on May
22, 1990. The construction contract was not awarded until
September 13, 1990, due to changes in Site conditions made by the
property owner. On July 26, 1989, the Site owners entered into
an Administrative Consent Order with EPA. The main purpose of
the Order, among other things, was to provide EPA access to the
Site to conduct the necessary response actions. Construction
began March 6, 1991, and was completed on April 30, 1992.
Operable Unit 1 has been implemented and is currently
functioning onsite. The major features of the constructed remedy
include: soil erosion controls which have been installed in the
fire area, the containment capacity of Rhinehart's Pond has been
increased by raising the existing dam on the Pond by 13 feet,
shallow oily-ground water seeps are collected and drained to the
oil-water separator, surface water runoff from the fire area is
collected and drained to Rhinehart's Pond through an extensive
subsurface drainage system, the increased capacity of Rhinehart's
Pond provides gravity settling of solids, and surface water in
Rhinehart's Pond is pumped through a wastewater treatment plant
and subsequently discharged to Massey Run. The wastewater
treatment plant is now operating on a periodic basis. The sludge
generated from the treatment process is returned to the Pond and
will be addressed in the final remedy for the Site.
-------
6
C. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA has met its public participation requirements under
CERCLA Sections 113(k)(2)(B), 117(a), and 121(f)(1)(G), 42 D.S.C.
§ 9613(k)(2)(B), 9617(a), and 9621(f)(1)(G). The Proposed Plan
and administrative record file for this operable unit of the
Rhinehart Tire Fire Site were released to the public on August
15, 1992. These documents were made available to the public in
both the administrative record file and the information
repository maintained at:
The Handley Library
100 West Picadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
(703)662-9041
Office of the County Supervisors
9 Court Square
Winchester, VA 22601
(703)665-5666
EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
The notice of availability of these two documents was published
in the Northern Virginia Daily and the Winchester Star on August
14, 1992. A response to the comments received during the public
comment period is included in the Responsiveness Summary which is
part of this ROD. This decision document presents the selected
remedial action for the second Operable Unit (OU 2) at Rhinehart
Tire Fire Site.
D. SCOPE AND BOLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Rhinehart
Tire Fire Site are complex. As a result, the EPA organized the
work into three OUs. They are as follows: OU 1 which addressed
the control of contaminant migration offsite via surface water
runoff (a ROD for this first OU was signed on June 30, 1988 and
construction of the OU 1 remedial action was completed on April
30, 1992); OU 2 - Dutchman's Pond (the subject of this ROD); and
OU 3 which will address the remainder of site contamination.
This early action for OU 2 is being addressed before the
completion of the final phase of the RI/FS because it has been
determined that Dutchman's Pond poses an environmental risk at
the Site. After the final phase of the full-site RI/FS is
-------
completed, EPA will select and implement a final remedy for the
entire Site. To the extent possible, this early action will be
consistent with any future response actions at the Site.
The Preamble to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) explains that there is a bias
for action and that the principle of streamlining may be
appropriately considered throughout the life of the project. The
Preamble specifically states that "EPA expects to take early
action at sites where appropriate, and to remediate sites in
phases using operable units as early action to eliminate, reduce
or control the hazards posed by a site or to expedite the
completion of total site cleanup. In deciding whether to
initiate early action, EPA must balance the desire to
definitively characterize site risks and analyze alternative
remedial approaches for addressing those threats in great detail
with the desire to implement protective measures quickly." 55
Federal Register at 8704 (March 8, 1990); See: 40 C.F.R. S
300.430 (a)(1)(ii)(A). The decision to select the remedy for OU
2 was made utilizing the bias for action set forth in the NCP as
the guideline.
E. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The principal environmental concern is toxicity as
demonstrated by acute and chronic bioassay tests on Ceriodaphnia
and the Fathead Minnow in surface water samples taken from
locations downgradient of the Site. The toxicity exhibited was
attributed to the elevated levels of zinc identified in surface
water samples and onsite soils. Therefore, runoff from the Site
into surface water may be elevating zinc concentrations in
surface water and sediments. In addition, offsite sediment
samples contained high metal concentrations and several organic
compounds that are known to adversely impact aquatic life.
A portion of the second phase of the RI included sampling of
surface waters and sediments. A total of sixteen surface water
and sixteen sediment samples were collected from Dutchman's Pond,
Rhinehart's Pond and streams that receive drainage from the Site
(Figure 3). In addition, toxicity tests were performed on
samples collected from these surface waters. Two of each type of
sample were collected from Dutchman's Pond.
Sediment samples from Dutchman's Pond, contained
significantly higher concentrations of zinc than did the
background samples. Zinc was also detected in downstream
samples. The concentrations decreased with increased distance
from the Site. Zinc was the only metal found in significantly
higher concentration in all samples. The table below compares
zinc levels in background sediments with the highest level of
zinc found in sediments of Dutchman's Pond and the highest level
-------
8
of zinc found in sediments of the offsite receiving stream.
SEDIMENT SAMPLE '
Dutchman's Pond
(Station 2)
Background Stream
(Station 5)
Off site Stream
(Station 6)
ZINC LEVEL
2880 ppm
93 ppm
1900 ppm
As shown on the following table, filtered surface water
samples from Dutchman's Pond and the offsite downgradient
receiving stream contained several metals at concentrations which
exceed state and federal criteria for aquatic life.
SURFACE WATER LOCATION
Dutchman's Pond
Station 2
Off site Stream Sample
Station 9
Chronic Criteria for
Protection of Aquatic
Life (ppb)
Federal Water Quality
Criteria for Freshwater
Aquatic Life (ppb)
CONTAMINANT LEVELS (ppb)
Zinc
2210
1530
47
120
Copper
300
364
10.8
18
Silver
33
13
0.03
4.1
Surface water toxicity tests were used to assess potential
ecological effects at the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site. Selected
organisms were exposed to surface waters to determine whether the
surface water exhibited adverse affects. Results of these
toxicity tests, documented in the Aquatic Toxicity Report dated
January 29, 1988, demonstrate acute and chronic toxicity in
Dutchman's Pond and the offsite receiving streams. The data,
shown on the following table, suggests that acute and chronic
toxicity has contributed to the elimination of some resident
species in the stream extending from the Site downstream to
station SW012 (Figure 3).
-------
SURFACE WATER
SAMPLE LOCATION
Dutchman's Pond
• SW002
• SW002A
Off site Streams
• SW006
• SW009
• SW010
• SW011
• SW012
CERIODAPHNIA
TOXICITY
Acute
X
X
X
X
Chronic
X
X
X
FATHEAD MINNOW
TOXICITY
Acute
X
X
X
X
Chronic
none
none
none
X = toxitity demonstrated note: responses are either acute or chronic
In August of 1990, additional samples were taken from
Dutchman's Pond to verify surface water and sediment
contamination. A detailed schematic of Dutchman's Pond has been
included as Figure 4. In addition, soil samples from around the
pond were taken to establish contaminant concentration levels.
Although a complete data set was not obtained, zinc analyses
performed revealed concentrations from 20 ppm to 1300 ppm in
surface water; 940 ppm to 1400 ppm in sediments. Zinc levels in
soils ranged from 50 ppm to 300 ppm in surface soils samples and
48 ppm to 58 ppm in samples collected 18 inches below the
surface.
Background soils samples collected during the Phase I RI
in 1986 contained zinc levels from 36 ppm to 50 ppm. Zinc has
been detected in surface soils surrounding the Dutchman's Pond at
concentrations up to 300 ppm, i.e., six times greater than the
estimated background conditions. During high flow conditions,
surface soils containing zinc can erode and transport elevated
levels of zinc offsite.
The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) was
run on surface water, sediment, and soil samples to determine if
any of the media was considered a characteristic hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). All
results were negative with the exception of one sediment sample
which contained a benzene level of 0.86 mg/1; however, these data
results are of questionable quality. The level of benzene
identified as hazardous according to the TCLP is 0.5 mg/1.
-------
10
Physical parameters were also taken during the sampling
event. A noticeable gradient of dissolved oxygen, pH, and
conductivity (with depth) was present near the center of the
Pond. Sampling and analysis show that pH grades from 8.6 units
to 6.5 units from top to bottom. Dissolved oxygen follows the
same gradient with values of 7.5 mg/1 to 0.16 mg/1 from top to
bottom. These parameters seem to suggest stratification in
Dutchman's Pond as a result of a chemical gradient located at the
bottom of the Pond.
During the remedial investigation, Massey Run, the unnamed
tributary, and Hogue Creek were observed to be small shallow
streams characterized by slow-moving ripples and occasional deep
pools. This type of stream enables metals to settle out of the
water column and accumulate in sediments. However, the steep
topography of the drainage basins in these streams suggest that
during high flow conditions large amounts of sediments are
transported and subsequently redeposited further downstream
presenting the risk of contaminated surface water and sediments
migrating to Hogue Creek, a put-and-take trout stream.
Sampling of Dutchman's Pond shows zinc contamination of
surface water and sediments. Normally, the pond would enable
some of the contaminated sediments which enter it to settle out
of the water column; however, only 6 inches of freeboard exist in
Dutchman's Pond. Currently, the pond presents an imminent threat
of release to the environment since contaminated surface water
and sediments are readily available for offsite transport.
F. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Zinc is found in the earth's crust in the range of 10 to 300
ppm, with an average of 50 ppm. Zinc's mobility is strongly
affected by pH: in alkaline soils, zinc is immobile. It is an
essential trace element for mammals and many other organisms, but
at high levels, it impacts liver metabolism. Zinc bioaccumulates
well in freshwater species. Zinc-enriched sediments impact
embryo development in fish. Adult fish suffer gill impairment
from elevated levels of zinc. The oxygen transfer mechanism is
adversely affected. Liver tissue becomes necrotic (localized
death of living tissue). Tolerance to zinc involves protein tie-
up in the liver. Ceriodaphnia, a commonly used bioassay
organism, is the most sensitive aquatic invertebrate, showing
chronic toxicity at 47 ug/1 (ppb) in water. Zinc exposure is
known to cause acute and chronic effects in aquatic life. Low
levels of zinc are known to damage or kill plants.
Acute toxicity causes death or extreme physiological
disorders to organisms immediately or shortly following exposure
to the contaminant. Chronic toxicity involves long-term effects
of small doses of a contaminant and their cumulative effects over
-------
11
time. These effects may lead to death of the organism or
disruption of such vital functions as reproduction. Aquatic
bioassay analyses performed by U.S. EPA Region III Wheeling
Operations Section Biology Unit on surface water samples from
Dutchman's Pond and the receiving stream produced acute and
chronic toxicity in Ceriodaphnia and fathead minnows.
Additionally, the pH and hardness of surface water collected from
Dutchman's Pond in August of 1990 conservatively indicate that
zinc is bioavailable.
The exposure route of concern is the continued release of
surface water, sediments, and surrounding soils from Dutchman's
Pond to aquatic life. The contaminant most likely to be of
ecological concern is zinc.
The contaminated surface water, sediments, and soils
surrounding Dutchman's Pond allow for significant exposure
pathways to aquatic organisms and the environment. Qualitative
risk information demonstrates that action is necessary to control
offsite migration of contaminants. The threat to the environment
is intensified further due to the lack of freeboard in the Pond.
Without further action, the Site will continue to degrade and
pose an unacceptable risk to aquatic life and the environment.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the environment.
G. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Superfund process requires that the alternative chosen
to clean up a hazardous waste site meet •two threshold criteria:
protection of human health and the environment, and meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
EPA's primary balancing criteria are: long term effectiveness
and permanence, short term effectiveness, reduction of volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the contaminants through treatment, cost
effectiveness and implementability. EPA's modifying criteria are
State and community acceptance.
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, 42 D.S.C. S 9621(d) requires that
remedial actions at CERCLA sites at least attain legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and State
standards, requirements, criteria, and limitations which are
collectively referred to as ARARs, unless such ARARs are waived
under CERCLA Section 121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. S 9621(d)(4).
Applicable requirements are those substantive environmental
protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under federal or State law that specifically address hazardous
-------
12
substances found at the site, the remedial action to be
implemented at the site, or other circumstances present at the
site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under federal or State law which, while
not applicable to the hazardous materials found at the site, the
remedial action itself, the site location or other circumstances
at the site, nevertheless address problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at the site that their
use is well-suited to the site.
Alternative No. 1: No Action
The NCP requires that the "no action" alternative be
evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for comparison.
Under this alternative, EPA would not implement any additional
measures to protect human health or the environment at this time.
Under this alternative Dutchman's Pond would remain onsite. The
zinc-containing surface water and sediments would be available
for transport offsite until a final remedy for the Site is
selected and implemented. It is anticipated that this final
cleanup would take approximately two years after the final phase
of the RI/FS is completed, a Record of Decision is prepared and
signed, and a remedial design is finalized. There are no
estimated costs or implementation timeframes associated with this
alternative.
Alternative No. 2: Closure of Dutchman's Pond
The intent of this alternative is to eliminate the immediate
threat of release to Massey Run, the neighboring receiving
stream. This alternative would eliminate the present and future
ecological risks associated with the contaminated surface water
sediments, and soils associated with Dutchman's Pond. Under this
alternative, the following actions would occur:
• Oil/water separation and wastewater treatment of
approximately 200,000 gallons of surface water in Dutchman's
Pond utilizing the existing onsite oil/water separator and
the onsite wastewater treatment package plant. Treated
surface water meeting the existing Water Quality Effluent
Standards set by the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB)
would be discharged to Massey Run. These criteria are
identified in Appendix A of this document. The sludge
generated from the wastewater treatment process will be
returned to Rhinehart's Pond and will be addressed in the
final remedy for the Site.
• Sampling, identification, excavation, and moisture reduction
of sediments contained above the liner in Dutchman's Pond.
-------
13
• Moisture reduced sediments will be tested to determine if
they are hazardous according to Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). These sediments will be transported
and disposed of at an approved RCRA Subtitle D or Subtitle C
landfill in compliance with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions,
40 C.F.R. Part 268, as appropriate.
• Transportation and disposal of the synthetic liner in an
approved RCRA Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill as
appropriate. If it is determined that the liner must be
disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill, the RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions will be complied with as necessary.
• Testing of soils surrounding and underneath the lined pond
for contamination. Soils containing levels of zinc greater
than 50 ppm would be excavated, transported, and disposed of
at an approved RCRA Subtitle D or Subtitle C landfill in
accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions as
necessary. In either case, removal of the liner and soils
will constitute a clean closure. An estimated 1,125 cubic
yards of soil will be removed for disposal.
• The area of Dutchman's Pond including any surrounding soils
that may be excavated will be backfilled with clean soil and
appropriate soil erosion controls will be implemented.
The present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated to
be $1,300,000. The capital costs are estimated at $1,276,000.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated at $12,000
per year to maintain the soil cap. O&M will be required for two
years. The estimated implementation time is 18 months.
H. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The NCP requires that remedial alternatives be evaluated
using the following nine criteria: Threshold Criteria (overall
protection of human health and the environment; compliance with
ARARs); Primary Balancing Criteria (long term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through
treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost); and
the Modifying Criteria (State acceptance and community
acceptance).
Overall Protection of Hi-man Health and the Tftnri yonmen't
Alternative 2 is protective of human health and the
environment. This alternative would eliminate the migration of
contaminated surface water and sediments offsite. The
surrounding pond soils would be remediated to acceptable
-------
14
environmental cleanup levels as set forth in Section G.
Description of Alternatives, Alternative No. 2: Closure of
Dutchman's Pond, bullet 5.
The no action alternative would not reduce any risks at this
time, and, therefore would not be protective of human health and
the environment as required by the NCP. Therefore, it is
eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 2, the selected remedy for OU 2, will comply
with all applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-,
location-, and action-specific ARARs pertinent to this action as
summarized below:
Discharge of treated wastewater to Massey Run will comply
with the provisions of Virginia's Pollution Discharge
Elimination Regulations (VR 680-14-01) and the Virginia
Water Quality Standards promulgated August 1989 (VR 680-21-
01). Discharge limits consistent with these regulations
were established for the Site in August 1989 and are
identified in Appendix A to this document. A test of
treated effluent on aquatic organisms will be required prior
to any discharge associated with OU2.
The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Code of
Virginia Section 10.1-560 et seq.. and the Virginia Erosion
and Sediment Control Regulations (VR 625-02-00) contain
standards that are applicable to the area of Dutchman's Pond
where soils may be excavated and backfilled.
The Virginia Air Pollution Control Law, Code of Virginia
Section 10.1-1300 et sea.; Virginia Department of Air
Pollution Control Regulations for the Control and Abatement
of Air Pollution (VR 120-04-010101) as codified in 40 C.F.R.
§ 52.2420 are applicable to the remedial alternative. Under
this regulation, fugitive dust emissions generated by
earthmoving activities must be controlled to prevent
particulate matter from becoming airborne. These
regulations require that no source discharge emissions of
greater that 20% capacity except during specific periods.
To the extent that hazardous waste is identified on site
40 C.F.R. Part 262, 40 C.F.R. Part 23, and 40 C.F.R. Part 24
are applicable to the disposal of that hazardous waste.1
1 The Federal Regulations as cited above are applicable to
the extent that requirements of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments have not been promulgated as part of the Virginia
Regulations.
-------
15
The Virginia Waste Management Act, Code of Virginia Sections
10.1-1400 et seq.. Virginia Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations (VSWMR) (VR 672-10-1), and Virginia Solid Waste
Management Regulations (VSWMR) (VR 672-20-10) are applicable
to the treatment and disposal of waste from the Site if
these wastes are determined to be hazardous.
40 C.F.R. § 264.228 and VHWMR Section 10.10 governing
the closure of hazardous waste surface impoundments is
relevant and appropriate to the closure of Dutchman's
Pond, if sampling determines that the pond wastes are a
RCRA characteristic waste.
Part VTII of the VSWMR is applicable to the deposit of
any soil, debris, sludge or any other solid waste from
the Site. It is anticipated that the wastes generated
from the pond closure will be characterized as a
Special Waste under the Virginia regulations. Specific
approval from the Virginia Department of Waste
Management will be required before any special waste
can be accepted by an offsite solid waste disposal
facility within the Commonwealth of Virginia.
VHWMR Section 3 is applicable to the identification and
classification of waste streams associated with
Dutchman's Pond.
The RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Regulations (LDR's), 40
C.F.R. Part 268, are applicable to the offsite disposal of
soils and mixed sediments if through sampling EPA determines
the waste is hazardous under RCRA, that "placement" of
wastes has occurred, and the RCRA waste is restricted from
land disposal under RCRA as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 268.1.
The remedial alternative calls for offsite disposal of a
waste in a landfill. This action constitutes placement.
The sampling and analysis to be performed on sediments and
soils to be disposed offsite will allow EPA to determine if
the wastes are a RCRA hazardous waste and a RCRA restricted
waste.
The LDRs place specific restrictions (e.g., specific
treatment of wastes to specific concentration levels) on
RCRA hazardous wastes prior to their placement in land
disposal units. The Agency recognized that meeting such
treatment standards would not always be possible or
appropriate. CERCLA response actions involving the
placement of soil and debris contaminated with RCRA
restricted wastes may utilize a Treatability Variance (40
C.F.R. § 268.44) to comply with the LDRs because these waste
differ significantly from the waste used to set the Land
Disposal treatment standard. Under the Treatability
-------
16
Variance, alternate treatment levels based on data from
actual treatment of soil, or best management practices for
debris become the "treatment standard" that will be met.
Should EPA determine that the wastes are hazardous under
RCRA and that they are restricted from land disposal under
RCRA, EPA will consider the appropriateness of seeking a
Treatability Variance.
The Department of Transportation regulations outlined in 49
C.F.R. Part 107, Sections 171.1-171.558 and the Virginia
HWMR Part VII will be applicable to the offsite transport of
waste streams classified as hazardous.
The OSHA regulations outlined in 29 C.F.R. § 1910 and 1926
are applicable to ensure worker and visitor health and
safety during onsite remedial activities.
This evaluation focuses on the results of a remedial action
in terms of the risk remaining and the ability of the remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment
at the site after response objectives have been met.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence is achieved in its
highest degree with Alternative 2. For this alternative
contaminated surface water is treated to established levels for
protection of aquatic life. Contaminated soils and sediments
would be removed leaving no residual environmental risk from the
pond.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Alternative 2 will provide an irreversible treatment process
(chemical precipitation and solids separation) that significantly
reduces the aquatic toxicity of the contaminated surface water.
The removal of contaminated soil and sediment will abate the
ecological toxicity and mobility of contaminants.
Short-Term Effectiveness
This criteria focuses on the human health and environmental
impacts which may occur during the implementation of the remedial
alternative.
Alternative 2 would require proper adherence to safety
measures to protect onsite workers during wastewater treatment
and excavation activities. Risks posed to the local community
through the offsite transportation of wastes are minimal;
-------
17
however, dust control measures will be implemented. The actual
site work through the excavation of surrounding surface and
subsurface pond soils should take approximately 6 months.
Additional time will be required to design and construct the
appropriate soil backfill and soil erosion controls.
The implementability criterion relates to the technical and
administrative feasibility of an alternative. The excavation,
removal, and transportation of soils and sediments to an
appropriate disposal facility is a standard site cleanup and
construction procedure and should not present any unusual
technical or administrative problems. The oil/water separator
and wastewater treatment process to be utilized are well-
demonstrated and readily implementable.
cost
This criterion examines the estimated costs for implementing
the remedial alternatives. The estimated present worth cost is
$1,300,000 which is comprised of $1,276,000 in capital costs and
$24,000 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. O&M costs are
anticipated to maintain the soil backfill on the area that will
be excavated for a period of two years. The cost-effectiveness
of this remedy is enhanced by the use of the existing onsite
wastewater treatment plant and oil/water separator.
state Acceptance
The Virginia Department of Waste Management (VDWM) has
concurred with Alternative 2 as the selected remedy for OU 2*
A public comment period for the Proposed Plan was held from
August 15, 1992 to September 14, 1992. Because community
interest in the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site has been limited in the
past, EPA offered to conduct a public meeting if requested.
Although EPA received no requests for a public meeting, several
written comments were received. The Responsiveness Summary
provides a thorough review of the public comments received on the
Proposed Plan, and the EPA's responses to those comments.
-------
18
I. THE SELECTED REMEDY/PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine criteria,
and public comments, EPA has determined and the State of Virginia
has concurred that Alternative 2 (Closure of Dutchman's Pond) is
the most appropriate remedy for this portion of the Rhinehart
Tire Fire Site. As described in the Description of Alternatives,
the selected remedy consists of:
Oil/water separation and wastewater treatment of surface
water in Dutchman's Pond. Dutchman's Pond is defined in
Figures 3 and 4. Approximately 200,000 gallons of surface
water from Dutchman's Pond will be pumped through the
existing onsite oil/water separator. Surface water will
then be directed to the existing onsite wastewater treatment
package plant at Rhinehart's Pond. The wastewater treatment
process consists of chemical precipitation and solid
separation. Treated surface water would be discharged to
Massey Run meeting the existing Water Quality Effluent
Standards set by the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB)
under the "Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(VPDES)." The performance standard for the surface water
treatment process is the discharge criteria detailed in
Appendix A of this document. The sludge generated from the
wastewater treatment process will be returned to Rhinehart's
Pond and will be addressed in the final remedy for the Site.
• Sediments from Dutchman's Pond will be pumped from the pond,
mixed with a solid reagent such as cement kiln dust to
reduce moisture to meet the receiving facility's standards,
and sampled using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) to determine if they are hazardous
according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) toxicity characteristic. If the mixed sediments are
not hazardous, they will be transported and disposed at an
approved RCRA Subtitle D landfill. If the mixed sediments
are considered hazardous, they will be transported and
disposed of at an approved RCRA Subtitle C landfill in
compliance with Land Disposal Restrictions as appropriate.
• The synthetic liner of Dutchman's Pond will be transported
and disposed of in an approved RCRA Subtitle C or Subtitle D
landfill as appropriate. If it is determined that the liner
must be disposed of in a Subtitle C landfill, the RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions will be complied with as necessary.
• Soils surrounding and underneath the lined pond would be
tested for the presence of contamination using EPA's Target
Compound List and Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL). Soils
containing levels of zinc greater than 50 ppm would be
excavated, transported, and disposed of at an approved
-------
19
landfill. If testing identifies additional contaminants of
concern, EPA will determine the appropriate cleanup level.
Previous test results indicate that soils do contain zinc
levels in excess of 50 ppm; however, testing also indicates
that these soils are not a RCRA hazardous waste. If testing
verifies that soils are not a RCRA hazardous waste, soils
will be disposed of in an approved RCRA Subtitle D landfill.
If soils are found to be a RCRA hazardous waste, they will
be disposed in an approved RCRA Subtitle C landfill in
accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions as
necessary. In either case, removal of the liner and soils
will constitute a clean closure. It is anticipated that
1,125 cubic yards of soil will be removed for offsite
disposal.
The area of Dutchman's Pond including any surrounding soils
that may be excavated will be backfilled with clean soil and
appropriate soil erosion controls will be implemented. Soil
erosion controls may consist of diverting any ground water
seeps and hydroseeding.
• If it is determined that the Land Disposal Restrictions
apply to any of the cases mentioned above, it may be
necessary to invoke a Treatability Variance to comply with
the Land Disposal Restrictions.
J. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 EPA must select
remedies that are protective of human health and the environment,
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(unless a statutory waiver is justified), are cost effective, and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies, or resource recovery technologies, to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference
for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes as a principal element. The following sections
discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory
requirements.
Protaeti<
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. By removing all contamination from Dutchman's Pond,
contaminants in the soils and sediments will no longer migrate
from the area to the surface water, thus impacting the aquatic
organisms and the environment. In addition, the surface water
from Dutchman's Pond will be treated to meet the existing
Virginia Water Quality Effluent Standards and discharged to
Massey Run. No unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media
impacts will be caused by implementation of the remedy.
-------
20
The selected remedy will comply will all ARARs as presented
in the summary of comparative analysis set forth in Section H
above.
Cost Effectiveness
Since the selected remedy eliminates the risks to the
environment at an estimated present worth cost of $1,300,000, the
selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional to
its costs.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatmei
Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP1
EPA has determined and the State of Virginia has concurred
that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in
a practicable manner for the remedy for OU 2. The selected
remedy was the only alternative that met the threshold criterion
for Protection of Human Health and the Environment.
Additionally, the selected remedy provides the best balance of
tradeoffs with respect to the five primary balancing criteria.
The selected remedy meets the statutory requirement to
utilize permanent solutions and treatment technologies, to the
maximum extent practicable.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal element
By utilizing chemical precipitation and solid separation as
part of the wastewater treatment process for the contaminated
surface water, the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element is met.
K. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Commonwealth of Virginia has concurred with the selected
remedy. In addition, several written comments were received from
the public. Most of these comments focused on the property
owner's tire operation and not the proposed action. Written
comments are fully addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
The Proposed Plan for OU 2 of the Rhinehart Site was
released for public comment on August 14, 1992. The Plan
identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. Based
upon the written comments received, it has been determined that
no significant changes to the remedy are necessary.
-------
APPENDIX A
Virginia Water Control Board Water Quality Effluent Standards
Discharge Criteria Effective 8/2/89
Parameter MaviTtmm Discharge Concentrations ua/1 fppbl
Aluminum 87
Arsenic 360
Copper 9.2
Iron 1,000
Lead 34
Nickel. 1,100
Silver 0.12
Zinc 180
TSS 60,000
pH 6.5-9.5
-------
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
X
RH1NEHART
(UNLINED)
,MAS EY RUN
-.DUTCHMAN'S;
INCINERATOR AND
LOADING PLATFORM
0* Surf ac» ¥frt«r/Saolm«nt
SampliAf Location
Surf«c« w«t»f Sampling Location
• - Sadlmant Sampling LoeatiOA
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE SI
FIGURE 2
SITE SKETCH
NOT!: A bioaitay iimpi« »« eoM«etotf at
•aeh location whoro a turfaco »alor
•ae«pt at
SW-O14, wMciiwaa
eoNoctotf from
a«rMato.ao>. POOR QUALITY-
ORiGINAL-
Seala: V » 200'
SOURCE: ACOE
-------
Kl UNlil IAKT TIUI-; HKIi SI Hi
Figure 3 - Aquatic Toxicily Study Area
Direction of Stream Row
Sample Location
Location'- Adversely Impacted
Mussey Run
SWUM
SWIKHA'
SWtKIV
SWUIIA'
Dutchman s Pond
Rhineharl's I'ond
Driiwiiij; no) io scale
-------
DUTCHMAN'S POND
PVC DRAIN PIPE
LEGEND
\
4" PVC DRAIN PIPE
0"-3' SEDIMENT
4m-6" SEDIMENT
6*-12* SEDIMENT
DEPTH CONTOURS
GRAPHIC SCALE
US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM
KBPONSC CXCMtSIMC AKC ANALYTICAL CON1KACT
M-03-3487
FIGURE 4
DEPTH CO-NTOUR
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE SITE
WINCHESTER, VA
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE, OPERABLE UNIT 2
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
This Responsiveness Summary for Operable Unit 2 of the
Rhinehart Tire Fire Site is divided into the following Sections:
Section I Overview - A summary of the public's
response to Alternatives for Operable
Unit 2
Section II Background information on the Community's
Involvement and Concerns - A discussion of
the history of community interest in the
Site.
Section III A Summary of Comments Received During the
Public Comment Period and Agency Responses
to Those Comments and Questions. This
summary addresses comments and EPA responses.
A. OVERVIEW
At the time of the public comment period, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) had identified its preferred remedial
alternative for Operable Unit 2 of the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site
(Site) in Winchester, Virginia. EPA's preferred remedial
alternative, documented in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
(Proposed Plan), is clean closure of Dutchman's Pond to deal with
the imminent threats of release to the environment.
The Proposed Plan provided a summary of the background
information leading up to the public comment period.
Specifically, the Plan included information pertaining to the
history of the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site, the scope of the
proposed cleanup action and its role in the overall site cleanup,
a qualitative assessment of risk, the descriptions of the
remedial alternative evaluated by EPA, the identification of
EPA's preferred alternative, the rationale for EPA's preferred
alternative, and the community's role in the remedy selection
process.
All comments received by EPA during the public comment
period were considered in EPA's selection of the preferred
remedial alternative for Dutchman's Pond. The selected remedial
action is clean closure of Dutchman's Pond as set forth in the
Record of Decision. The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Waste Management (VDWM) supported the preferred remedial
alternative for Dutchman's Pond and concurs in the selected
remedial action.
-------
B. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The Proposed Plan documenting EPA's preferred alternative
for remediation of Dutchman's Pond at the Rhinehart Tire Fire
Site was released to the public on August 15, 1992. The Plan and
supporting documents were made available to the public in the
administrative record file for the Site maintained at the EPA
Region III Docket Room in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, The Handley
Library and Office of County Supervisors in Winchester, Virginia.
The notice of availability of these documents and the beginning
of the public comment period for the Proposed Plan were published
in the Northern Virginia Daily and the Winchester Star on August
14, 1992. The public comment period extended from August 15,
1992 through September 14, 1992.
Because community interest in the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site
had been limited in the past, EPA offered to conduct a public
meeting if it were requested. Since EPA received no such
request, a public meeting was not held.
Only three written comments were received on the Proposed
Plan; however, none of these comments directly addressed the
proposed remedial action. Nonetheless, responses to those
comments received are provided in the following section.
C. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
1. A comment was received from a concerned citizen questioning
why Mr. Rhinehart should not be responsible for paying for
the damage at the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site - as opposed to
the taxpayers.
EPA Response: It should be noted that this comment does not
pertain to the proposed remedial action for which EPA
provided the public comment period as required by Section
117(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9617(a). While EPA will not
identify its enforcement confidential decisions on whether
to pursue any particular potentially responsible party
(PRP) for a certain site, we do offer the following general
description of how decisions on enforcement actions are
made.
PRPs under CERCLA include: 1) current owners and operators
of the site; 2) owners and operators of the site at the time
hazardous substances were disposed; 3) persons who arranged
for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances sent to
the site; and 4} persons who accept hazardous substances for
transport to the site, and who selected the site for
disposal. These categories are set forth in section 107 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607.
-------
The United States evaluates all the factors necessary under
Section 107(a) of CERCLA that the United States needs to
prove to bring an action for recovery of costs, and then, in
the exercise of its enforcement discretion, makes a decision
on whether to pursue an action -against a party. In
addition, the United States needs to take into account the
applicable statute of limitations (the period after which an
action is barred) under Section 113(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 9613(g). The internal government discussions on whether
to pursue a party under Section 107(a) of CERCLA are
enforcement confidential and at a minimum, the deliberative
process privilege and the attorney work-product and
attorney-client privileges apply.
2. One comment received expressed concern over the spending of
millions of dollars on a cleanup when tires are still being
dumped at the Rhinehart Site.
EPA Response: The cleanup of Dutchman's Pond and the
storage of tires on the Rhinehart property are separate
issues addressed by different regulatory authorities. The
proposed cleanup of Dutchman's Pond is being conducted
pursuant to the authority provided by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act of
1980, as amended (CERCLA). CERCLA provides EPA response
authorities to address the release or threat of a release of
hazardous substances as defined by Section 101(14) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14), and pollutants or contaminants
as defined by Section 101(33) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §
9601(33). When the tires caught fire, an oily-tar
containing hazardous substances was released which triggered
EPA's authority to conduct the necessary response actions.
Although tires are not considered a hazardous substance,
pollutant or contaminant under CERCLA, they are considered
Special Waste under the Virginia Solid Waste Management
Regulations (VSWMR) (VR 672-20-10). The storage of tires is
regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth
of Virginia has been actively pursuing compliance with the
Commonwealth's regulations to prevent a recurrence of a
major fire.
3. A comment was received indicating "the best thing to do is
nothing. Next thing try shredding and use along back county
roads..."
EPA Response: EPA's response addresses the first portion of
the comment in terms of selecting the no action alternative
for Dutchman's Pond. EPA believes the remainder of the
comment implies how the tires onsite should be handled.
That portion of the comment is not relevant to the proposed
remedial action and is not addressed in the following
response.
-------
The goal of the remedy selection process is to select
remedies that are protective of human health and the
environment, that maintain protection over time, and that
minimize untreated hazardous waste. To take no remedial
action on Dutchman's Pond would not be protective of the
environment and would be inconsistent with the goal of the
Superfund remedial program. Closure of Dutchman's Pond is
consistent with the intent of the Superfund program as well
as protective of the environment.
------- |