PB96-963128
EPA/ESD/R05-96/313
March 1997
EPA Superfund
Explanation of Significant Difference
for the Record of Decision:
Electro-Voice, Inc. Site,
Buchanan, MI
5/23/1996
-------
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
ELECTRO-VOICE SITE
BUCHANAN, MICHIGAN
April 16,1996
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Electro-Voice, Inc. ("EV") Site (the "Site" or the "EV Site") is located in southwestern Michigan
in the southeastern corner of the City of Buchanan, Berrien County, Michigan, approximately six
miles west of Niles, Michigan.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA" or the "Agency") is the lead
agency for the implementation of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS"), the
initiation of Remedial Action for Operable Unit One for the Site, and enforcement activities,
including the preparation of this Explanation of Significant Differences ("ESD"). The Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ"), previously known as the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources ("MDNR"), is the support agency.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA")
as amended by the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ("SARA") states, in
Section 117(c),that:
after adoption of a final remedial action plan—
(1) if any remedial action is taken,
(2) if any enforcement action under section 106 is taken, or
(3) if any settlement or consent decree under section 106 or section 122 is entered
into,
and if such action, settlement, or decree differs in any significant respects from the final plan,
the President or the State shall publish an explanation of the significant differences and the
reasons such changes were made.
The June 1992 Operable Unit One Record of Decision ("ROD") for the EV Site established Cleanup
Standards for several chemicals present at levels that exceeded health-based risk levels or exceeded
taste and odor thresholds. The Cleanup Standards were developed pursuant to MDEQ's Type B
criteria under the Michigan Environmental Response Act 307 of 1982, as amended ("Michigan Act
307"). In 1995, the State of Michigan amended Part 201 of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, (formerly Michigan Act 307), to allow for cleanups
based on current and future land use. The state criteria have been revised and are now referred to as
residential, industrial, and commercial, either generic or limited, cleanup criteria. Subsequently, U.S.
-------
EPA has reevaluated land use at the EV Site and has determined that limited industrial1 land use
cleanup criteria is appropriate for the Site. The primary activity at the Site is industrial in nature and
the current zoning of the property is industrial.
Due to the changes in Part 201 to allow for cleanups based on current and future land use as well as a
request from EV, U.S. EPA has reevaluated the Cleanup Standards and revised them to reflect the
current state and federal regulations. Initial soil Cleanup Standards shall be established using risk-
based soil cleanup concentrations which satisfy a 10"5 risk (carcinogens) and a hazard quotient
("HQ") of 1 (non-carcinogens) for industrial land use. Final soil Cleanup Standards shall satisfy a
cumulative 10~5 cancer risk and a HQ of 1. Initial Cleanup Standards for on-property groundwater
shall be the Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs") in the Federal drinking water standards
promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act 40 CFR 141. In addition to achieving MCLs, final
on-property groundwater Cleanup Standards shall also comply with a cumulative 10~5 cancer risk and
aHQofl.
U.S. EPA has determined that these changes to the Cleanup Standards are protective of human health
and the environment and are acceptable changes to the First Operable Unit ROD. U.S. EPA proposes
to make these changes pursuant to Section 117(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9617(c), and offers
an explanation of the significant differences that will now be incorporated into the final remedial
action.
This ESD is being issued to document a significant change from the June 1992 ROD and the May
1995 ESD. This ESD will become part of the permanent Administrative Record file for the Site, and
will be kept at the Site repositories and the U.S. EPA Region V offices for public display.
The Administrative Record for the EV Site is available for public viewing at the U.S. EPA Region V
offices, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, and is also available for public inspection at
the following Site repository:
Buchanan Public Library
117 West Front Street
Buchanan, Michigan
Further information may be obtained from the Remedial Project Manager, Eugenia Chow at (312)
353-3156 or the Community Relations Coordinator, Denise Gawlinski at (312) 886-9859, both
located at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
1 The term "limited industrial" is used because the groundwater is not currently, nor will it be in the
future, the source of drinking water at the property.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY
The EV Site is located at 600 Cecil Street in the City of Buchanan, Berrien County, Michigan. EV is
a manufacturer of audio equipment. Current activities at the facility include painting, electroplating,
assembly, die casting, and machining. EV has been in operation at its present location since 1946.
The Site consists of the EV building and parking area, a former dry well area where disposal of paint
wastes and solvents occurred, a former lagoon area where disposal of electroplating wastewaters
occurred, a former fuel tank area, and a groundwater volatile organic compound ("VOC")
contaminant plume which extends from the EV property boundary one-half mile north to McCoy
Creek.
The population of Buchanan in 1980 was approximately 5,140. The EV facility is surrounded on
three sides by residential homes and on the fourth side by an elementary school. All residents are
connected to the city water supply. The city wells are located approximately 4,000 feet west of the
EV facility and are not considered to be threatened by the EV contaminant plume because ground-
water flow is to the north.
In 1952, EV constructed two clay-lined lagoons for disposal of liquid wastes from the electroplating
operation at the plant. EV discharged plating waste to the lagoons from 1952 to 1962.
A dry well was installed in 1964 for disposal of wastes produced during painting operations. The dry
well consisted of a pit in the ground which was backfilled with gravel. A gravity drain pipe
connected a sink inside the building to the dry well. The sink was used to clean equipment associated
with the paint shop.
In 1973, a subsurface tank (20,000-gallon capacity) was installed immediately west of the dry well to
collect discharge from the paint shop. In 1975, the subsurface tank was removed and replaced with
an upright buried tank of similar capacity. The second tank was removed in 1983. An aboveground
tank, with a capacity of 1,000 gallons, was placed near the dry well and was identified as the methyl
ethyl ketone ("MEK") tank. The MEK tank has also been removed from the Site.
Two partially buried fuel-oil tanks were excavated and removed from the Site during July 1987.
These tanks had been on-site since 1930. EV used the tanks from 1946 to 1960 for storage of No. 6
fuel oil.
In March 1979, plating waste solution was released into the north lagoon as a result of a ruptured
drain pipe. EV reported this incident to the MDEQ, which began an investigation of the Site shortly
after the incident was reported. The MDEQ requested a review of the on-site plating waste treatment
and conducted an inspection of the EV facility in March 1979.
In 1979, EV hired a contractor to develop a program for removal and abandonment of the two
lagoons. In January 1980, four groundwater monitoring wells were installed around the lagoons to
3
-------
determine if liquid waste had leaked from the lagoons, thereby contaminating groundwater in the
area.
In September 1980, the north lagoon and its contents were removed. The area was then backfilled.
The south lagoon was backfilled (no contaminated materials' vere removed) and graded to the natural
surface topography of the area.
On July 29, 1982, a Hazard Ranking System ("MRS") score was developed for the EV Site. On
September 8,1983, the EV Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priority List ("NPL"),
and the proposal became final on November 21,1984.
In October 1987, EV entered into an Administrative Order by Consent to conduct the RI/FS at the EV
Site. The RI report was completed in 1990 and the FS report was finalized in 1991.
3.0 U.S. EPA'S SELECTED REMEDY IN THE JUNE 1992 ROD
In June 1992, U.S. EPA issued the Operable Unit One ROD which included institutional controls;
SVE and excavation and landfilling of a sludge layer in the dry well area soils; Michigan's Act 64 cap
on the lagoon area soils; pump and treat of on-property groundwater; and monitoring of the
contaminated off-property groundwater. The Cleanup Standards in the 1992 ROD for the dry well
area soils and the on-property groundwater were developed pursuant to MDEQ's Type B criteria
under Michigan Act 307. Michigan's Type B cleanup criteria were developed assuming residential
land use and a 1 x 10'6 excess lifetime cancer risk level for each carcinogenic compound.
According to the 1992 ROD, a combination of SVE, excavation, solidification and off-site landfilling
of the sludge layer identified in the dry well area soils would be used to clean up the dry well area
soils. This ROD recognized that excavation, solidification and off-site landfilling of the sludge layer
may have been required to meet Cleanup Standards for semi-volatile contaminants. Lagoon area soils
would be capped with a Michigan Act 64 cap.
For the on-property groundwater, the 1992 ROD specified that it would be pumped, treated and
discharged to a POTW. The off-property groundwater (from the EV property to McCoy Creek),
would be monitored. A second operable unit ROD will address remedial alternatives for the off-
property groundwater.
The 1992 ROD also recognized and discussed the Subsurface Volatilization and Ventilation System
("SVVS") treatability study to be conducted on the dry well area soils and the on-property
groundwater. This ROD recognized that, based on U.S. EPA's evaluation of the effectiveness of the
S WS system at the EV Site, the Agency would consider utilizing this system to remediate the dry
well area soils and on-property groundwater at the EV Site.
In June 1993, U.S. EPA issued an BSD revising the list of Cleanup Standards for on-property
groundwater and dry well area soils. In this ESD, 1,1-Dichloroe'thene ("1,1 -DCE") and alkylbenzene
-------
were deleted from the Cleanup Standards for on-property groundwater, and beryllium was deleted
from the Cleanup Standards for the dry well area soils. These chemicals were deleted from the
Cleanup Standards because they were not identified as potential chemicals of concern in the Risk
Assessment. 1,1 -Dichloroethane ("1,1 -DCA") was added to the Cleanup Standards for groundwater
because it was identified as a potential chemical of concern in the Risk Assessment. Finally, the ESD
revised the Cleanup Standard for xylenes based on Michigan's taste and odor threshold values.
In May 1995, based on positive results from the SVVS treatability study, U.S. EPA issued an ESD
which selected SVVS to provide the final cleanup of the dry well area soils, the dry well area sludge,
and the on-property groundwater. Continued monitoring of the on-property groundwater indicates
that all onrproperty groundwater Cleanup Standards specified in the 1992 ROD are currently being
achieved as a result of the operating S WS and natural attenuation. -j.. ./
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
Drv Well Area Soils
In response to a request from EV, following changes in Part 201 of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act to allow cleanup criteria to be based on current and future land use,
U.S. EPA has reevaluated Cleanup Standards and land use at the EV Site. As a result of this
reevaluation, both Cleanup Standards and land use will be revised to reflect the current state and
federal regulations. U.S. EPA has determined that the limited industrial land use scenario is
appropriate for the EV Site. Michigan's Part 201 specifies the limited industrial, land use scenario as
appropriate for the Site if 1) the primary activity at the site is industrial in nature and access to the site
is reliably restricted consistent with its use; and 2) current zoning of the property is industrial. The
EV Site currently satisfies both of these conditions. Furthermore, U.S. EPA determined that the
Cleanup Standards shall be revised to risk-based cleanup levels which satisfy a risk of 10'5
(carcinogens) and an HQ of 1 (non-carcinogens) for industrial land use.
U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfimd, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals ("RAGS") 1989, was used to
develop the risk-based dry well area soils initial Cleanup Standards in Table 1. Potential future
industrial exposure routes that were evaluated include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption of
contaminants in soil. After these initial Cleanup Standards have been achieved in the dry well area,
EV shall perform a risk evaluation in accordance with U.S. EPA RAGS to verify that the cumulative
risk associated with the dry well area soils satisfies a 10'5 cancer risk and a HQ of 1. If the
contaminant levels remaining in the dry well area soils satisfy a cumulative 10'5 cancer risk and a HQ
of 1, they shall become the final Cleanup Standards.
As discussed in the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"), acceptable exposure levels are concentration
levels which generally satisfy a cancer risk range between 10"4 and 10"*. U.S. EPA has determined
that Cleanup Standards based on a 10'5 cancer risk are acceptable for the Site because they are
protective of human health, and they would be cost-effective. It is anticipated that an expansion of
-------
the SVVS in the dry well area will not be required with the revised dry well soil Cleanup Standards.
EV estimates that the revised dry well area soils Cleanup Standards would result in a cost savings of
approximately $565,000.
Closure sampling shall be performed in accordance with the MDEQ Guidance Document,
Verification of Soil Remediation, Part 1, Small Soil Cleanup Verification, which incorporates a
biased sampling strategy. If based on the soil sampling results, it appears that the initial soil Cleanup
Standards have not been achieved, operation of the SVVS will continue.
U.S. EPA has consulted with MDEQ and subsequently determined that compliance with Michigan's
Part 201 site specific criteria for limited industrial land use will be satisfied using the values below.
Therefore, U.S. EPA has changed the soil Cleanup Standards for each of the following chemical
contaminants:
Table 1 - Dry Well Area Soils
Chemical
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
ESD Initial
Cleanup Standards
(ug/kg)
17,000
64,000
6,200
620
6,200
16,000,0002
62,000
320,000
620,000
620
1992 ROD
Cleanup Standards
(Hg/kg)
0.4
20
100
100
100
100
100
40
100
100
2Since toxicity values were not available for this compound, U.S. EPA's RAGS could not be used to
calculate a risk-based cleanup concentration. Therefore, for this compound the MDEQ generic industrial cleanup
criteria has been utilized.
-------
Table 1 (cont'd)
Chemical
Ethyl Benzene
Indeno(l ,2,3,cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
PCB-1254
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Total Xylenes
ESD Initial
Cleanup Standards
(ug/kg)
6,800,000
6,200
6,000,000
5903
770
37,000
14,000,000
170,000
140,000,000
1992 ROD
Cleanup Standards
(ug/kg)
1,400
100
600
1,000
20
14
16,000
60
6,000
Groundwater
At a minimum, the on-property groundwater shall satisfy chemical specific MCLs in the Federal
drinking water standards promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act 40 CFR 141. However,
since MCLs have not been established for several chemicals of concern in the on-property
groundwater, the final Cleanup Standards shall be determined by verifying that a 10"5 cancer risk and
an HQ of 1 water has been satisfied4. Once the MCLs (as shown in table 2) have been achieved, EV
shall perform a risk evaluation in accordance with U.S. EPA RAGS to verify that the cumulative risk
associated with the on-property groundwater satisfies a 10'$ cancer risk and an HQ of 1. Chemicals of
concern at EV for which MCLs have not been established include 2-butanone, chloroethane,
chloromethane, 1,1-DC A, and naphthalene.
3Risk-based cleanup standard is lower than Type B criteria possibly due to changes in toxicity values and
exposure assumptions.
"Although the NCP defines acceptable exposure levels as concentration levels which generally satisfy a
cancer risk range between 10"4 and 10"*, Michigan's Part 201 cleanup standards require that cleanup standards
satisfy a 10-s cancer risk.
-------
Table 2 - On-Property Groundwater
Chemical
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-Dichloroethane
Cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
ESD Initial Cleanup
Standards (MCLs)
(ug/L)
5
6
5
70
100
700
1,000
200
5
2
10,000
1992 ROD
Cleanup Standards
(Hg/L)
1.00
2.50
0.40
70.00
140.00
70.00
800.00
600.00
3.00
0.02
300.005
The Operable Unit Consent Decree and Statement of Work ("SOW") provides for the operation of the
SWS until it has been demonstrated that the groundwater performance standards have been achieved
throughout the entire on-property contaminant plume. The demonstration shall consist of two years
of consecutive quarterly groundwater monitoring during which none of the contaminants exceeds any
Cleanup Standard in any of the wells in the monitoring network. The SOW provides for the
continued operation of the SVVS until U.S. EPA approves EV's petition to terminate its operation.
After the SVVS has been shutdown, the SOW further specifies that EV shall sample and analyze
select monitoring wells for a period of five years. If the post-shutdown analytical data shows that any
Cleanup Standard is exceeded, subject to one confirmation sample, EV shall reactivate the SWS
immediately.
These changes do not fundamentally alter the overall approach intended by the remedy presented in
the ROD and they will be incorporated into the Remedial Action to be implemented at the Site.
5.0 STATE CONCURRENCE
The MDEQ concurs with this ESD and has no additional comments.
5 Cleanup Standard established in U.S. EPA's June 1993 ESD.
8
-------
6.0 AFFIRMATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
U.S. EPA has determined that the selected remedy, with the changes described above, will remain
protective of human health and the environment, will comply with federal and state requirements that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action, and will be cost-effective. In
addition, the revised remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable for this Site.
7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
The Administrative Record is available for review at the repository listed in Section 1.0.
William E. Muno / Date
Superfund Division Director
9
------- |