United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-89/100
September 1989
SEP A
Superfund
Record of Decision
Cliff/Dow Dump, Ml
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-89/100
4. Title «nd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Cliff/Dow Dump, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Authors)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental .Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. * "'.-.... -.;
Washington, D.C. 20460 ' :
X Redpienf Accession No. .
& Report Data .
09/27/89
8. ' '
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. FrojectOask/Work Unit No.
11. ContrictfC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The municipally owned 2-acre Cliff/Dow Dump site is in a wooded recreational area
adjacent to the Dead River in Marquette, Michigan. From 1954 until the early 1960s
wastes generated by the Cliffs-Dow Chemical Company's charcoal manufacturing plant were
deposited at the site. The wastes, which included tar and tar-contaminated fill
materials, were deposited to fill a small bog depression. The 200 cubic yards of
exposed tar deposits are the primary source of contamination in the soil; however, the
remaining 9,400 cubic yards of fill material containing charcoal and wood intermingled
with approximately 200 cubic yards of tar, are also a contamination source. Results of
pilot studies indicate that ground water is undergoing in situ biodegradation as it
flows downgradient of the fill and poses no risk to human health or the environment.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are VOCs including benzene,
toluene, PCE, and xylenes; and other organics including PAHs and phenol.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavation and offsite
incineration of 200 cubic yards of exposed tars; excavation of 9,400 cubic yards of
fill material intermingled with tars, and segregation followed by offsite incineration
of 200 cubic yards of buried tars encountered during the excavation; forced aeration
biological treatment of the 9,200 cubic yards of residual (See Attached Sheet)
MI
17. Document Analytic a, Deacriptore
Record of Decision - Cliff/Dow Dump,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, PCE, xylenes), other organics (phenol)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Term*
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (Thia Report)
None
20. Security Ctaaa (Thia Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
99
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
.EPA/ROD/R05-89/100
Cliff/Dow Dump, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
6. Abstract (continued)
contaminated fill material after replacement in the excavated area; installing a soil
.cover and revegetation of bioremediated fill area; implementation of institutional
.controls including deed restrictions preventing new well installation .and disturbance of
fill material until health-based goals have been achieved; and ground water and air
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $2,842,165,
.which includes estimated annual O&M costs of $63,280.
-------
UNITED STATES
i-N \^IRONA [ENTA L TROTECTION
* * * *
RECORD OF DECISION
******************
CLIFFS-DOW DISPOSAL SITE
MARQUETTE, MICHIGAN
Marquette
Township
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Cliffs-Dow Disposal Site
Marouette, Michigan
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Cliffs-
Dow Disposal site in Marquette, Michigan, chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCIA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). The decision is based on the Administrative Record for the
Cliffs-Dow Disposal site. The attached index identifies the items which
comprise the administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.
The State of Michigan has been consulted and concurs with the selected . '
remedial action.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by implementing the remedial action selected in this Record of
Decision, may present an imminent and substantial endangennent to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
OF
*
The selected remedial action for the Cliffs-Dow Disposal site gA^rgsses the
source of the contamination by remediation of on-site wastes and residual
contaminated fill material. The major components of the selected tv^U*!
action include:
»
* Excavation and treatment, via incineration, of approximately
200 cubic yards of tar.
* Excavation, segregation and treatment, via incineration, of
approximately 200 cubic yards of buried tar.
* Excavation and treatment, via enhanced biological treatment of
approximately 9,200 cubic yards of residual contaminated fill
* Topsoil cover and revegetatlon of bioremediated fill area.
* Site deed restrictions that prevent installation of
drinking water wells within the vicinity of the contaminated
-------
grcundwater boundaries and disturbance of fill material until
health based remedial action opals have been achieved.
Groundwater/air Monitoring program to oonfiro the adequacy of
enhanced biological treatment of residual contaminated fill material
and in-situ bioremediation of residual groundwater contamination.
OF OFF-SITC DISPOSAL
All factors considered, U.S. EPA has determined that enhanced biological
treatment of residually contaminated fill material is a viable innovative
treatment technology for contamination such as that found at the Cliffs-Dow
Site. The enhanced biological treatment will be completely evaluated during
remedial design and shall provide for protection of public health and the
environment within U.S. EE&'s acceptable risk range of 10"4 to 10~7, with a
preferred point of departure of lO"6 for potential carcinogens, and provide
for a cumulative health index less than one for non-carcinogens. If, based
upon remedial design pilot studies, U.S. EPA determines, that these health
based g^»i« are not achievable via enhanced biological treatment, then offr
site disposal and/or other treatment technologies will be required.
Consistent with CERCXA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP, 40 C.F.R.
Part 300, the selected remedial action is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-
effective. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the m*vin««i extent practicable and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment and reduces
taxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Because this remedy
will result in hazardous substances remaining en-site above health based
levels, the five year review will apply to this action.
Valdas V. Adanda
tegicnal Admini
Date
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
CLIFFS-DOW DISPOSAL SITE
MARQUETTE, MICHIGAN
' '' " .' . **********
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 3
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 5
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES 6
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 7
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 10*
VII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 13
VIII. DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES. 14
IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES..17
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY .30
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS SUMMARY 30
-------
SUMMARY OP REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
CLIFFS-DOW DISPOSAL SITE
MARQUETTE, MICHIGAN
N y^TICtl AND
The Cliffs-Daw site is located in a wooded area off County Road 550, about
one mile north of the City of Marquette, in the upper peninsula of the
State of Michigan. The two acre site, bounded by the Dead River and
currently owned by the City of Marquette, is zoned for recreational use.
Most of the recreational activity is concentrated along the river and
associated with sport fishing. The area around the site is largely
undeveloped. A snail area to the east of the site, and property to the
north of the study area is zoned industrial. A tourist park, operated. by
the City of Marquette, is located south of the site across the Dead River. *
See Figure 1 for site location and Figure 2 for a land use map of the study
area. '. . . '''''
The area of fill deposition consists of what appears to have been a small
bog depression with a total area of under two acres. After filling in the
bog depression, the area of waste rijgpmcal is generally level and vegetated
with grasses, shrubs, and small trees except for the areas of exposed tars. .
Geophysical surveys indicate that the waste occupies approximately 1.4 acres
with a thickness of between twelve and sixteen feet. The depth of the waste
is greatest at the center and slopes upward toward the edges, approximating
the shape of a shallow bowl. The total volume of fill is estimated at 9,600
cubic yards.
The tar deposits are the primary source of contamination at the site.
The remaining fill i«itw|»i , containing charcoal and wood with intermingled
tars, is also a contamination source. There are a total of three areas of
exposed tars in the fill area (see Figure 3) . Two are in depressions below
the grade of general relief of the fill area and the surrounding topography.
The third area is small, isolated, and appears to be a shallow (less than
four inches) surface deposit. The total volume of exposed tar material is
estimated at 200 cubic yards. The actual quantity of residual tars
(currently non-exposed tars intermingled with fill material) is also
estimated at 200 cubic yards.
-------
Site Location Map
Marqucllc
Township
-------
L«H( surduon
It
*
OOil illo-O 'OiNl C«M«III «tlO(i*nO><
« I
,vn," ^^Tl/3
I I TURK 2
CONSERVATION 8
HECHEATIOU
::;. RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
. OLftRflCn
.OtVtLOPMENF
| J roncsnu
({it i '.. pn'-v '(: ' " >.
USE or sum? .-:'
n' '': ' '
-------
\\
I IUIKF, 3
ci iff 5 - OOH
(JK.ncr.4L S|lf
i.ncAi in.-i or
E.'I'O'jEO
0 10')
, .
-------
u. .77? HISTORY AND
From 1954 until the early 1960s, wastes generated by a charcoal
manufacturing plant, the Cliffs-Dow Chemical Company, were deposited at the
site. Hardwood harvested from area forests was converted into charcoal at
the facility by heating the hardwood in the absence of air until the wood
became pyrolyzed. The resulting solid product was processed as lunp
charcoal; vapors from the pyrolysis process were condensed, separated, and
fractionated into primary products, such as acetic acid and methanol. Waste
products consisted of charcoal scraps, unpyrolyzed wood fragments, and wood
tars. . . '. . . '.'. . -
The fill area and surrounding property were owned and leased to the Cliffs-
Dow Conpany for use as a disposal area, by the City of Marquette, the
current title holder. The Dow Chemical Company and. the Cleveland-Cliffs
Iron Company were shareholders of the stock of the Cliffs-Dow Conpany. In
1968, these companies sold their shares to the Georgia-Pacific Corporation
and the E.L. Bruce Conpany which continued to do business under the name of
Royal Oak Charcoal Conpany. . : \
The City of Marquette initially received a complaint regarding the site in
the spring of 1981. Two people reported that their clothing became soiled
with tar residue after their walk through the fHgp-«aT area. The City
initiated site investigations and referred the. site to the U.S. EPA. In
September 1983, the site was placed on the Superfund National Priorities
List (NFL). ' : ''' ;':: . .;
The U.S. EPA conducted a preliminary assessment of the site in May of 1932
and iHO iniinnded in a report dated July 1983 that a snow fence be placed
around the fill area to deter unauthorized entry.
A public meeting was held in Marquette on September 27, 1984, to HJ«V-H=L^ the
work to be conducted under the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS).
On SfytPinher 28, 1984, the U.S. EPA Region V Administrator signed a CERGLA
106 Administrative Consent Order stipulating the undertaking of a RI/FS and
pre-design at the site to ascertain the extent of contamination and
migration of contaminants at the site, an endangexment assessment to
determine th» actual or potential danger presented by the site to the public
health, welfare and the environment, and prepare a pre-design package
allowing for implementation of the selected alternative. Signatories
(potentially responsible parties) included the following: Dow Chemical
Company, the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Conpany, the Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
and the City of Marquette. The signed Order for undertaking the RI/FS -~
-------
On April "I, 1989;, the U.S. EPA published, and placed in the repository for
public viewing, a Proposed Plan for remedial action. A public availability
session was held on April 25, 1989, to answer questions in regard to the
Proposed Plan arid a formal public hearing was held on April 25, 1989, to
accept verbal public eminent on the Proposed Plan. U.S. EPA, accepted
written comment on the Proposed Plan through July 5, 1989.
On February 28, 1989, prior to U.S. EPA's publication of the Proposed Plan,
the Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs") who had signed the RI/FS
Consent Order filed a Notice of Dispute with U.S. EPA pursuant to the
dispute resolution provisions of the Order. The notice alleged, among
other things, that U.S. EPA had failed to allow the PRPs an adequate
opportunity to analyze the proposed alternative in the FS. U.S. EPA denied
the existence of a dispute but met informally with the PRPs to address their
On March 29, 1989, the PRPs filed a Complaint and Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against U.S. EPA in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The PRPs
sought to prevent U.S. EPA from publishing the Proposed Plan, claiming that
they did not have an adequate opportunity to aniiifmt on the proposed
remedial action. Ruling from the bench at the hearing held April 3, 1989,
Judge Hillman found that the PRPs were not likely to prevail on the merits
of their case since courts generally do not have jurisdiction to review U.S.
EPA's' selection of a remedy until the Agency seeks to enforce it. The judge
also found that the PRPs would not suffer any irreparable harm if U.S. EPA
published the Proposed Plan. Finally, Judge Hillman determined that the
PRPs' request was contrary to the public interest inasmuch as it would delay
implementation of the remedy. The case has since been dismissed without
prejudice.
-------
HI. rr^dMTTf RELKTKIS HISKFY
Since the Cliffs-Dow site is small, remote and little used, it is generally
not perceived as a health threat by the public. Consequently, Superfund
activities at the site have received minimal attention from the community
and limited interest by local organizations and the media.
Community relation activities began with a public meeting held in Marquette
oh September 27, 1984, to ^-icu-^ea the work to be conducted under the RI/FS.
The signed Consent Order for undertaking the RI/FS went out for public
nt in October 1984. No comments were received during the thirty day
period; the Order became effective thereafter.
Following completion of the RI/FS the U.S. EPA published a Proposed Plan for
remedial action on April 7, 1989. 'The RI/FS Report, Proposed Plan for
remedial action and the Administrative Record, have been placed in an
Information Repository located at the Peter White Public Library.
Consistent with Section 113 of CERCLA, the Administrative Record includes .
all documents such as the work plan, data analyses, public comments, v
transcripts, and other relevant information used in developing remedial
alternatives for .the/site. These documents were made available for public
review and copying at the Peter White Public Library.
To encourage public participation in the remedy selection process consistent
with Section 117 of CERCLA, the U.S. EPA initially set a 30 day public
eminent period from April 7, 1989, through May 6, 1989, for the Proposed
Plan. The ccnrnent period was extended by U.S. EPA, due to informal requests
from U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, through
July 5, 1989. for the Proposed Plan. An availability session was held on
April 25, 1989, to answer questions in regard to the Proposed Plan and a
formal public hearing was held on April 25, 1989, to accept verbal public
comment on the Proposed Plan. Interested parties provided comments on the
alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan and elaborated upon in the FS.
The PRPs mn.lirted a Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS) to evaluate an
alternative involving biological treatment of the fill material as an
alternative to U.S. EPA's preferred excavation and off-site disposal of the
fill. The remedy for the Cliffs-Dow site described herein was selected
after a detailed review of the SFS and other public comments received. The
attached Responsiveness Summary addresses those public comments received.
-------
The FS identified four remedial objectives for the Cliffs-Dow site based on
the data obtained by the Pqincrfiai Investigation and the possible exposure
routes identified in the Endangerment Assessment. The objectives of the FS
are: ".;.'-'
1) To control airborne releases due to the volatilization of
organic components from the areas of exposed and residual
tars;
2) To prevent direct contact with exposed and residual tars;
3) To prevent consumption of contaminated groundwater; and
4) To prevent containination of the surface waters down-
gradient to the fill area.
Twelve actions were identified by the FS to satisfy the objectives. These*
potential actions were combined to formulate an array of remedial alter-
natives. These alternatives were screened and compared to each other and
the remedial .objectives to determine their ability to achieve the
objectives. V "'. .". '.; '.- ..':' .'' -: ..
The U.S. EPA further evaluated the FS array of remedial alternatives and
'selected seven remedial alternatives that would satisfy the objectives of
the FS, meet health based clean-up levels and meet the statutory
requirements of CEHCLA. Six of the seven alternatives were identified in
the FS; the seventh alternative is a combination alternative derived from
Tit parts of the FS alternatives.
The SFS, conducted by the H^Ps during public comment, evaluated a biological
treatment alternative to *«**?*»? contaminated fill material. The U.S. EPA
has identified an eighth alternative, based upon certain components of the
biological treatment described in the SFS that would satisfy the objectives
of the FS, meet health based clean-up levels and meet the statutory
requirements of CERCXA.
Tables 8-1 through 8-7 lists the eight remedial alternatives that would
satisfy the objectives of the FS, their component parts and costs.
The remedial action selected for the Cliffs-Dow site will eliminate the
threats associated with direct contact with contaminated media. The
role of the remedial action selected is a complete site remedy. When the
remedial action is completed, no further remedial action at the site other
than groundwater monitoring is envisioned. The monitoring of groundwater
will be nrrrfticted to assure that the enhanced biological treatment fill
mat-A^ a \ and in-situ biodegradation of residual groundwater contamination is
occuring. Since hazardous substances above health based levels will
remain in fill material at the site, until adequacy of biological treatment
can be confirmed, a five year review will be necessary.
-------
The area of fill deposition consists of that appears to have been a small
bog depression with a total area of under two acres. After filling in the
bog depression, the area of waste digpranl is generally level and vegetated
with grasses, shrubs, and snail trees except for the areas of exposed tars.
Geophysical surveys indicate that the waste occupies approximately 1.4 acres
with a thickness of between twelve and sixteen feet. The depth of the waste
is greatest at the center and slopes upward toward the edges, approximating
the shape of a shallow bowl. The total volume of fill is estimated at 9,600
cubic yards.
The tar deposits are the primary source of contamination at the site.
The remaining fill material, containing charcoal and wood with intermingled
tars, is also a contamination source. There are a total of three areas of
exposed tars in the fill area (see Figure 3). Two are in depressions below
the grade Of general relief of the fill area and the surrounding topography.
The third area is small, isolated, and appears to be a shallow (less than \
four inches) surface deposit. The total volume of exposed tar material is
estimated at 200 cubic yards. The actual quantity of non-exposed residual
tars is also estimated at 200 cubic yards.
The RI included soil boring and sampling, geophysical surveying, instal-
lation of groundwater monitoring wells and elevation monitoring, and in-situ
hydraulic conductivity testing (see Table 4 and Figure 4). Soil borings
showed that the fill consists of wood and charcoal scraps mixed with tars
and soil with tar deposits in the surface depressions. These soil boring
samples were analyzed for compounds on the K*-rAn^ substance List. These
compounds consistently identified in the waste materials and considered to
be potentially hazardous components are considered site indicator compounds.
Table 1 lists the site indicator compounds.
Table 1
Site Indicator Compounds
ACID EXISACTfrRTrg BASE
Benzene Enenol Naphthalene
Ethyl Benzene 2-methylphenol 2-methylnaphthalene
Toluene 4-methylphenol Dibenzofuran
Xylene 2, 4-d imethylphenol Eftenanthrene
Tetrachloroethylene Pyrene
Further investigations to determine the presence of site indicators included
the advancement of soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells outside of
-------
II «
^
"C
-i
hounds of I'ropost
!> < '1 Ki-slrit-il ion
1)1 All HIM
II I. )'
II ll«',III \.
HI.UfcK A
n if IT. - now-
DISPOSAL srif
,
'
in 1:11 lull luc ui i.i.
AND
'UMI
I.OCATIn-
no
k^Gfjo
pom ion HELL *nn in
f tpi nntioRv SOIL
(irnnofK ouicnoi1
ircil Kesi r icL-i tins.
POO .1.
-------
8
the fill area and subsequent analyses of soils and groundwater. Site
indicators were not detected in soils at locations outside of the fill area.
Air monitoring performed with a nonspecific portable field organic vapor
detected no airborne waste components.
B. Area HvOraaBOlogy
Information generated as part of the RI Report indicates that the
hydrcgeolcgy of the site is characterized by a shallow, unconf ined sand and
gravel aquifer of relatively high hydraulic conductivity. The fill material
was deposited, up to five feet below the water table, in the aquifer. The
aquifer is bounded by a bedrock ridge on the eastern edge of the site. TWO
primary flow channels exist in the aquifer on the hydraulically downgradient
side of the site. Water balance calculations estimate a sixty-six percent
discharge through the northeast channel; this discharge becomes less
significant during low flow.
Samples of ground water collected from monitoring wells advanced outside of
the fill area locations (see Figure 4) were analyzed for site indicators. *
Detectable concentrations of the site indicators listed in Table 2 were
present in the shallow well nearest to the fill (well 3A), the well in the
path of the major (northeasterly) groundwater flow component through the
site. Detectable levels were not present in the deeper screened well at
that location.
TABLZ 2 - Site Indicators at Hell 3A
Indicator Onijuund fgw?ls (vxt/1)
Benzene 4.0
2,4^diinethylphenol 860.0
Ethylbenzene 20.0
Toluene 7.0
Xylene 41.0
Ehenol 220.0
2-methylphenol 570.0
4-methylphenol 250.0
naphthalene 21.0
2-methylnaphthalene 1.0
Groundwater collected from well 85*4 located to the east and hydraulically
downgradient to well cluster 3, contained residues of semi-volatile
indicator parameters at detectable concentrations (see Table 3).
-------
TABLE 3 - Site Indicators at Well 85-4
Indicator Canxund Levels fua/1)
2,4-dimethylphenol 5.0
Etenol 3.0
4-methylphenol 11.0
Dibenzofuran (non-chlorinated) 2.0
Fluorene 2.0
groundwater collected from wells 85-3, 85-3A, and piezometer B6, situated
hydraulically downgradient to the fill and cross gradient to well cluster
3, t*m*-»rinarf no detectable residues of any of the site indicators. The
waste ccnponents detected at well cluster 3, located in an area directly
downgradient and adjacent to the fill, are being reduced to near or below
detection limits by the time it migrates to monitoring well 85-4 which is
within 350 feet downgradient of the fill. Based upon results of pilot
studies, it is believed that the groundwater is undergoing in-situ
biodegradation as it flows downgradient of the fill. Sanples of
groundwater collected from monitoring piezometers B4 and 86-4A, located
along the path of a southeasterly groundwater flow conponent through the
site, contained no detectable residues of site indicators.
-------
10
An endangerment assessment using information gathered during the course of
the remedial investigation identified four potential exposure routes. The
four routes that could transport waste components from within the site
towards potential human and wildlife receptors at on and off-site locations
are: 1) the airborne exposure route, 2) the direct contact exposure route,
3) the groundwater/surface water contamination route and 4) the groundwater
exposure route. Each of the following sections focuses on a particular
exposure route and evaluates the level of impact it represents.
1. The vtiiMitiM* ^m»m»» Routa
The airborne exposure route, with exposed tars representing a potential
source of airborne residues, presents a potential risk to wildlife such as
the small manuals and birds that inhabit the interior of the site at
locations near the exposed tars. There are, however, no designated critical
habitats in the study area nor is there any evidence to suggest that the
study area provide shelter or breed ing for any endangered species. Based on
the organoleptic (odor) threshold of the waste materials, published chronic
and subchronic Acceptable Daily Intake values and the absence of potential \
human receptors to chronic exposures within the observed odor range of the
airborne exposures, it was concluded that airborne emissions from the site
did not represent an acute or chronic human health risk. Due to the low
odor threshold of the waste components, however, the perceptible airborne
releases of waste components from the site present an aesthetic problem.
The odors could impact public welfare insofar as such smells discourage the
use of the area for recreational activities. In fact, the site was first
brought to the of public officials by hikers concerned with the odors in the
area.
2. The Direct Contact Exposure Route
A measurable risk is associated with the direct contact exposure route, with
exposed tars and tars within the residual fill materials representing the
source and potential residents the potential receptors. The tar residue
contains a nonspecific 1% mixture of indicator compounds, volatile organic
compounds (MXs), and acid extractable and base neutral compounds that could
result in injury ranging from, localized skin irritations to more systemic
effects if large dose or long-term exposure occured. Although a barrier
fence and warning signs exist around the site, the existing site condition
dees represent potential for human and wildlife health risks and requires
ideration for remediation.
The indicator compounds detected in the tars and tars within the residual
fill pose carcinogenic health risks based upon a lifetime ingestion
scenario.
Risks posed by carcinogenic indicator compounds detected in the tars are
presented in Table 6. The tars, both exposed and within the fill, pose a
(2.09 x 10e-4) excess cancer risk. The U.S. EPA. generally evaluates
alternatives tfiich fall within the (1 x 10e-4) to (1 x 10e-7) excess cancer
-------
11
risk range, with (lxlOe-6) being the preferred point of departure. The
risks gosfri by the tars do not fall within U.S. EP&'s acceptable risk range
and therefore will be considered for remediation.
The risks posed by lifetime chronic ingestion of ncncarcinogenic indicator
cxapounds are presented in Table 5 for tars and tars within the residual
fill material. The noncarcinogenic risks are based upon an ingestion
scenario for children and adults, and are prepared to ratio of exposure
level (EL) to the Acceptable Daily Intake (reference dose or RfD) for that
indicator «»iiymi*i- This ratio, EL/RfD, is expressed as the Hazard Index
(HI). The total noncarcinogenic risk to an individual is estimated by
sunning HI values for all indicator ccnpounds. Hazard index values of 1.0
or less indicate that there is no significant noncarcinogenic risk, while a
value larger than 1.0 indicates that noncarcinogenic effects may occur and
requires consideration for remediation. The tars at the site have a HI
value less than 1.0 and are currently within U.S. EPA's acceptable non-
carcinogenic risk range.
3. The Grounduater Facilitated Surface Nater Qontamination Route
The groundwater facilitated surface water contamination route with \
potential contamination of the Dead River via groundwater discharge and
surface water ponding of groundwater represents the source of risk to users
of these waters. Groundwater at well 3A, located approximately 50 feet
outside of the fill area, contains residues of benzene and 2,4-
dimethylphenol in excess of ambient water quality criteria.
Groundwater modelling indicates that contaminant concentrations in down
gradient wells are in equilibrium with the fill and contaminant con-
centrations; groundwater sampling and analyses confirm that the site
contaminant indicators have not migrated more than four hundred feet
downgradient of the fill.
The Dead River, bounding the site to the east and southeast at a mini in mi
di stanr** of 1000 feet, represents the downgradient groundwater receptor.
Since contaminants will be reduced to below detectable levels before
groundwater is discharged to the surface water, this source of risk is also
minimal.
Consequently, there are no cur rait or future human or wildlife health risks
associated with the groundwater facilitated surface water exposure route.
4. The Groundwater Exposure Route
Based on data collected during the RI the groundwater exposure route does
not currently pose a potential risk if contaminated groundwater, from a well
placed within the vicinity and elevation of well 3A, is omcamyd.
If concentrations of indicator compounds were to increase and if drinking
water wells were to be installed in the area downgradient of the fill, then
this exposure route could become complete and risks could be present. This
risk is presently limited, however, by the absence of human and wildlife
-------
12
users of groundwater in the area; there are no current residences nor
current groundwater users in the study area. The nearest residences
utilizing groundwater as a drinking water source are located about 750 feet
west of the site. Review of the 1978 City of Marquette Zoning Ordinance
indicates that no rezoning for residential or industrial use is planned for
the j Ttrtfyn ^t-o future.
Risks posed by carcinogenic indicator coqxunds are presented Table 6. The
groundwater poses a (3.3 x 10e-6) excess cancer risk. The U.S. EPA
generally evaluates alternatives which fall within the (1 x 10e-4) to
(1 x 10e-7) excess cancer risk range, with (LxlOe-6) being the preferred
point of departure. The risk currently posod by groundwater falls within
U.S. EPA's acceptable risk range, although it exceeds U.S. EPA's preferred
point of departure.
The risks posod by lifetime chronic ingestion of noncarcinogenic indicator
ccnpounds present in groundwater are presented in Table 7. The noncarcino-
genic risks are based upon an ingestion scenario for children and adults,
and are compared to ratio of exposure level (EL) to the Acceptable Intake
(reference dose or RfO) for that indicator cccpound. This ratio, EI/RfD, is
expressed as the Hazard Index (HI) . The total noncarcinogenic risk to an
individual is estimated by summing HI values for all indicator compounds.
Hazard index values of 1.0 or less indicate that there is no significant
noncarcinogenic risk, while a value larger than 1.0 indicates that
noncarcinogenic effects nay occur and requires consideration for
remediation. The HI for groundwater at the site is currently less than 1.0
and is currently within U.S. EPA's acceptable ncncarcinogenic risk range.
There is an uncontrolled source of contamination on-site which leads to the
potential for concentrations of indicator ocnpounds to increase in the
groundwater and there is a potential for the groundwater pathway to becore
complete and pose health risks if future zoning ordinances change.
Therefore, the water requires consideration for remediation.
-------
13
vn. pexmanKTiiCH OP sryirv^H*1* csfxss
Public umiuent received from the PRPs at the Cliffs-Dow Site included a
Supplemental Feasibilty Study (SFS) to address ocntaminated fill material at
the site. Tne SFS evaluated alternatives involving segregation of tars from
the fill and biological treatment of residual contaminants within the fill
material not presented in the original PS. The SFS was based primarily on
information generated during the RI as veil as supplemartal efforts
including test trenching and bench-scale biotreatability studies. The U.S.
EPA has evaluated the information prcaontod within the SFS and other public
nts received and has incorporated a change into the U.S. EPA preferred
alternative. As part of the Proposed Plan, U.S. EPA im.niiiipnribri off-site
landfilling of the fill material. Based upon rnhUr uuuuait, the U.S. EPA
has incorporated the segregation of tars and biological treatment component
for the fill material into this Record of Decision (PCD). The biological
treatment of the fill would meet the remedial objectives as described in the
Proposed Plan and Section IV of this ROD. U.S. EPA has included a
description of Alternative H and an evaluation with respect to the nine
evaluation criteria in Sections VIII and IX respectively.
\
Section 117 (b) of CERCLA requires that the final remedial action plan
be accompanied by a discussion of any significant changes in the Proposed
Plan. Alternative H, as described in this ROD, is the U.S. EPA final
remedial action plan for the Cliffs-Dow Site. Alternative H was not
presented in the U.S. EPA Proposed Plan, yet the components of Alternative H
could have been reasonably anticipated based upon the RI/FS and
Administrative Record for the diffs-Oow Site, especially inasmuch as this
change was responsive to comments submitted by the PRP's. The U.S. EPA has
determined that the final remedial action plan presented in this ROD,
Alternative H, is a logical outgrowth of those alternatives presented in the
Proposed Plan.
The Responsiveness Summary attached hereto addresses the SFS and other
comments received during the 90 day public commit period on the Proposed
Plan.
-------
14
VUI. pRSCRIPriCH QP AKTCTNATIVES
The major objective of the PS, the Proposed Plan and the SFS was to evaluate
remedial alternatives using a cost-effective approach consistent with the
-------
15
The two smaller areas of exposed tars at the southern border of the site
will be excavated and relocated into the larger, northern tar area. When
the consolidation of the tar areas is completed, the two excavated areas
will be restored and an impermeable cap installed over the consolidated
area. This cap consists of a 24-inch layer of compacted clay under IS
inches of native material with an impervious synthetic liner between the
compacted clay and the native soil.
The groundwater treatment system will collect groundwater that has passed
through the area of exposed tar materials through two 50 gallon per minute
(GEM) collection wells located north and east of the site. The wells will
be installed to a depth of 30 feet to intercept groundwater and pump it to
an above-grade treatment plant. In the plant the air stripper removes the
volatile components from the groundwater and discharges to the activated
carbon filter for adsorption of residual contaminants. The uncontaminated
effluent would then be released to a downgradient surface water concourse or
municipal sewer system. Samples of the influent and discharge water, as
well as air samples from the vicinity of the cap, would be collected (see *
air and water monitoring program in alternative B) and analyzed for the
presence of site indicator compounds to determine the effectiveness of the
remedial action. The treatment would continue for 30 years or until the
sampling data indicates a sustained1 decrease in influent contaminant
concentration to levels outlined under Alternative B. An eight foot high
chain link fence will be erected around the capped area.
Alternative D - (Alternative 6 in the FS) - Excavation and off -site
landfill ing of the exposed tars; deed restrictions; and a groundwater and
air monitoring program.
Implementation of Alternative D uses earthmoving equipment as described in
Alternative B but the tars would be hauled to a secure, CESCLA off-site
policy compliant, RCRA landfill for disposal. The deed restriction and
monitoring ptujiam includes the gam» provisions as Alternative B.
~ (Alternative 11 in the FS) - Excavation and off-site
landfilling of all fill materials; a groundwater treatment system; and a
groundwater and air monitoring program.
Implementation of Alternative E involves complete excavation of fill materials.
There will be an estimated 9600 cubic yards of fill material hauled to a secure,
CTRTA off-site policy compliant, RCRA landfill for disposal.
The groundwater treatment component of this alternative would include the sane
provisions as Alternative C, except that the treatment program would aciiress
residual groundwater contamination.
The groundwater and air monitoring program would include the «MTT»» provisions
as Alternative B.
-------
16
P - (Alternative 12 in the FS) - Excavation and off-site
incineration of all fill materials; a groundwater treatment system; and a
groundwater and air monitoring program.
Implementation of Alternative F involves complete excavation of fill materials.
There will be an estimated 9600 cubic yards of fill material hauled to an off-
site CERCLA/RCSA approved incinerator for thermal destruction.
The groundwater treatment component of this alternative would include the same
provisions as Alternative C, except that the treatment program would address
residual groundwater contamination.
The groundwater and air monitoring program would include the same provisions
.as Alternative B.
Alternative G - ("Hybrid" of Alternatives 7 and 11 in the FS) - Excavation and
off-site incineration of tars and off-site landfilling of all remaining fill
material; deed restrictions; and a groundwater and air monitoring program.
Implementation of Alternative G involves excavation and off-site
incineration of all tars encountered during complete excavation of the fill
material. For cost purposes it is estimated that 200 cubic yards of exposed
tars and 200 cubic yards of residual tars will be off-site incinerated.
There will be an estimated 9,200 cubic yards of fill material to be
excavated and hauled to a secure off -site landfill for disposal.
The deed restriction and monitoring components of this alternative include
the .game provisions as Alternative B.
The groundwater and air monitoring program would include the same provisions
as Alternative B.
ff - ("Hybrid11 of Alternatives 7 in the FS, Alternative G and
Alternative H in the SFS) - Excavation and off-site incineration of exposed
tars; excavation, segregation and off-site incineration of concentrated
buried tars; enhanced biological treatment of the remaining fill material,
soil cap and revegetation over treated material; deed restrictions; in-situ
bioremediation of groundwater; and a groundwater and air monitoring program.
Implementation of Alternative H involves excavation and off-site
incineration of all exposed tars, and excavation, segregation and off-site
incineration of all concentrated buried tars encountered during complete
excavation of the fill material. For cost purposes it is estimated that 200
cubic yards of exposed tars and 200 cubic yards of concentrated buried tars
will be off-site incinerated. There will be an estimated 9,200 cubic yards
of fill material to undergo enhanced biological treatment. Forced aeration
biological treatment provides a basis for preliminary design; however, the
specific biological process option actually implemented will not be selected
until completion of remedial design (see Tables 12 and 13) . Further
treatability studies during remedial design phase will provide more
-------
17
extensive information for selection of the appropriate biological treatment
method for implementation.
This alternative involves revision of the property deed to prevent the
future use of the groundwater, including the establishment of drinking water
wells in the vicinity of the fill areas, until health based remedial action
fpalg have been achieved. The deed restrictions will also prohibit
disturbance of the fill material during the biological treatment process,
until health based goals have been achieved.
The groundwater and air monitoring program would include the same provisions
as Alternative B.
DC. SOMABY OF THE OCMPARATIVB AKAT.YSTS np
A. The Nine Evaluation Criteria
The FS examined twelve alternatives, and evaluated them according to
technical feasibility, environmental protectiveness, public health '
protectiveness and institutional issues.
The U.S. EPA carried forth seven alternatives for evaluation in its Proposed
Plan, the seventh alternative is a "hybrid1* combination alternative created
from those detailed in the Feasibility Study (FS). The SFS conducted by the
PRPs during public comment evaluated enhanced biological treatment methods
for the contaminated fill material. The U.S. EPA has identified an eighth
alternative, a "hybrid" combination alternative based upon the SFS, that
would satisfy the objectives of the FS, meet health based clean-up levels
and meet the statutory requirements of CEPCLA (see Tables 8-1 through 3-7).
The alternatives were evaluated according to the following nine criteria
which are used by the U.S. EPA to provide the rationale for the selection of
the final remedial action at a site:
1) Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment aA^r^5^^
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks
posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2) Compliance with State and Federal Regulations (ARARs) acVlrPssps whether
or not a remedy will meet all the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other Federal and State environmental statutes and/or
provides grounds for invoking a waiver.
3) Deduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
4) Short-Ttera Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve
protection, and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that
may be posed during the construction and implementation period until cleanup
gnnls are achieved.
-------
IS
5) Long-Hani Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the ability of a
remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environnent
over tlr» once cleanup goals have been met.
6) luplementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement a particular option.
7) cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs,
and net present worth costs.
8) State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS
and the Proposed Plan, the State concurs in, opposes, or has no ocranent on
the preferred alternative at the present time.
9) CoBnunity Acceptance will be assessed in the Record of Decision
following a review of the public contents received on the RI/FS report and
the Proposed Plan.
B. ft ii^ uraM.VB Ana1yge>«g of Al*p*aT-nat'TVes
Each of the alternatives was evaluated using the nine criteria. The
regulatory basis for these criteria comes from the National Contingency Plan
and Section 121 of CERCXA (Cleanup Standards) . Section 121 (b) (1) states
that, "Remedial actions in which treatment which permanently and
significantly reduces the volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants is a principle element, are to be
preferred over remedial actions not involving such treatment. The of f -site
transport and rii«~£«ifcm1 of- hay-arrV^ig eait-nat-aproe QJ» mnt-ami riant1 materials
without such treatment should be the least favored alternative remedial
action where practicable treatment technologies are available.1* Section 121
of CERCIA *!«" requires that the selected remedy be protective of human
health and the environment, cost effective, and use permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maviTmTm extent practicable.
Each alternative is ccnpared to the nine criteria in the following section:
1) Overall Protection of Hasan Health and the Environment.
All of the alternatives, with the exception of the No Action Alternative,
would provide, with varying degrees of efficiency, an increased protection
of human health and the environment, with respect to existing conditions.
The increased protection is achieved by reducing percolation of surface
waters and/or flow of groundwater through the contaminated fill material,
thereby decreasing contaminant migration in groundwater. None of the
alternative cover systems prevent the migration of contaminants that are in
contact with the groundwater, although they would reduce the risk of direct
contact with the fill material.
-------
19- .. . : . ".. . .'
Excavation of all fill material, and either incineration or off-site
landfilling, will eliminate further groundwater contamination and eliminate
the direct contact risk, thus maximizing overall protection of human health
and the environment. Alternatives E, F, and G provide such protection.
Incineration of exposed and buried tars in combination with enhanced
biological treatment of contaminated fill material, will eliminate further
groundwater contamination and eliminate the direct contact risk, thus
maximizing overall protection of human health and the environment.
Alternative H provides such protection.
(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARABS).
SARA requires that remedial actions meet legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of other environmental laws.
"Applicable requirements" means those cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, *'
criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial
action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCXA site. These laws
include, but are not limited to the following: the Toxic Substances Control
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA), and any state environmental law that
has more stringent requirements than the corresponding Federal law.
"Relevant and appropriate" requirements are cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that, while
not legally "applicable" to a haMrrVnc substance, pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action or circumstance at a site, arirlress problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at the site so that their use is
well suited to that site.
"A requirement that is judged to be relevant and appropriate must be
complied with to the same degree as if it were applicable. However, there
is more discretion in this determination; it is possible for only part of a
requirement to be considered relevant and appropriate, the rest being
dismissed if judged not to be relevant and appropriate in a given case"
(Interim Guidance on Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements, 52 FR 32496, August 27, 1987).
In addition to legally binding laws and regulations, many Federal and State
environmental and public health programs also develop criteria, advisories,
guidance and proposed standards that are not legally binding, but that may
provide useful information or * m«immnrWa^ procedures. These materials are
not potential ARARs but are evaluated along with ARARs, as part of the risk
assessment conducted for each dPCLA site, to set protective cleanup level
targets. Chemical specific "To Be Considered" (TBC) values such as health
advisories and reference doses will be used in the absence of ARARs or where
ARARs are not sufficiently protective to develop cleanup goals, other TBC
such as guidance and policy documents developed to implement
-------
20
regulations nay be considered and vised as appropriate where
ensure protectiveness. If no ARARs address a particular situation, or if
existing ARARs do not ensure protectiveness, to-be-considered advisories,
criteria, or guidelines should be used to set cleanup levels. . .
Tables 10-1 through 10-9 include Federal and State ARARs and TBCs for the
Cliff-Dow Site.
Alternative A does not meet any ARARs. :
40 CFR Part 264 lists requirements for HaTarrinw Waste Management units
under RCRA. Although the Cliffs-Dew Site was not regulated under RCRA, and
the wastes are not listed or characteristic RCRA wastes, the fill material
deposited at the site and contamination detected in groundwater contain
constituents (site indicator compounds) identified in 40 CFR Part
261 Appendix VIII, which was the basis for listing RCRA F001, K022 and K035
wastes. Therefore, parts of 40 CFR Part 264 are relevant and appropriate
for remedial alternatives at the Cliffs-Dow site. Under 40 CFR Part. 264
waste management units may be closed in one of two ways: a RCRA \
compliant cover system or "clean" closure corrective action.
Alternative B utilizes a non-RCRA soil cover over contaminated fill
residuals which would not meet ARARs under 40 CFR Part 264.310.
Alternative C involves consolidation of exposed tars within the waste unit
and placement of an impermeable cap on the exposed tars. The cap would not
meet RCRA design requirements and would not cover all areas of contaminated
fill; therefore, Alternative C would not meet ARARs under 40 CFR Part :
264.310.
40 CFR Subpart B lists requirements for site security during a waste unit's
"active life" . Closure activities are included in the definition of "active
life1*. For those alternatives in which contaminated fill remain cm-site,
Alternatives B, C, D and H, 40 CFR Subpart B is relevant and appropriate.
Alternatives B, C, and D would not comply with this ARAR because the fill
material would remain untreated and exceed health based standards.
Alternative H would comply with this ARAR because fill material on-site
would not exceed health based standards at completion of biological
treatanent.
General groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements for waste
management units are included in 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F, and are relevant
and appropriate for the site. This subpart requires a system of wells to
detect hnr-arrVuvs constituents in groundwater downgradient of the waste unit.
The detection of waste unit constituents downgradient could trigger the need
for corrective action. Corrective action is required for all releases of
haaarnVais constituents from any solid waste management unit. Data gathered
during the RI indicates constituents beyond the contaminated fill area
boundary.
All alternatives, except the No Action Alternative, include a groundwater
monitoring program which would meet 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F monitoring
-------
21
requirements.
Alternatives B, C and 0 leave contaminated fill above health based standards
within the contaminated fill area which would continue to impact
groundwater. Alternative C provides remedial action via groundwater
treatment downgradient of the contaminated fill area, but does not address
the entire source of contamination and ensure that hazardous waste
constituents do not enter the grcundwater. Alternatives B and D provide deed
restrictions, extend the contaminated fill area point of exposure and
prevent installation of drinking water wells within the contaminated
groundwater area but do not provide for active grcundwater remedial action.
Alternatives B, C, and D would not comply with 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F
corrective action ARARs since contaminated fill remains en-site untreated.
Alternatives E, F and G provide complete excavation of fill material thereby
eliminating the contaminant source and future migration of hazardous
constituents into the groundwater. Alternatives E and F provide for
groundwater treatment downgradient of the contaminated fill area.
Alternative G provides deed restrictions, extending the contaminated fill
area point of exposure and preventing installation of drinking water wells
within the contaminated groundwater area. Alternatives E, F and G would
comply with 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F corrective action ARARs.
Alternative H provides for bioremediation of contaminated fill to acceptable
health based standards thereby minimizing future migration of hazardous
constituents into the groundwater. Alternative H provides deed
restrictions, extending the contaminated fill area point of exposure and
preventing installation of drinking water wells within the contaminated
groundwater area. Alternative H would comply with 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F
corrective action ARARs.
40 CFR Part 264, Subpart L list requirements for waste piles. This ARAR is
relevant and appropriate to Alternative H because the actual construction
activities associated with this alternative would temporarily create such
waste piles. The design of Alternative H, including enhanced biological
treatment of the waste or off-site incineration of tars would comply with 40
CFR Part 264, Subpart L requirements.
Alternatives B, 0, F, G and H involve the excavation and off-site transport
of contaminated materials* 40 CFR Part 262, is relevant and appropriate for
these alternatives classifying the site as a generator of hazardous waste.
40 CFR Part 263 lists transporter regulations which are relevant and
appropriate to these alternatives. Alternatives B, D, F, G and H would
comply with 40 CFR Part 262 and 263 ARARs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SENA) has published maximim contaminant levels
(MCtB) allowable in regulated public water supplies. The MdB are relevant
and appropriate for use at the site since the aquifer is a GWOG Class II
type. Benzene is the only indicator compound detected in groudwater at the
site which has a SDWA MCL. Benzene is currently below its SCWA MCL of five
parts per billion. Tetrachloroetnylene (PCE) was also discovered in on-site
tars, and PCE and certain PCE degradation compounds »T«r> have SEWA Ids.
-------
22
Alternatives B through H provide a, monitoring 004x1*3 it to assure detection
of compounds with SDWA *GB, thereby assuring compliance with this ARAR.
The dean Air Act sets may-tut contaminant concentrations for airborne
releases. Alternatives B through H provide air Monitoring to evaluate air
releases and assure compliance with this ARAR.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) 40 CFR regulates point source discharge to
navigable waters. This Act Is administered by the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MUR) under Michigan Act 245 and establishes surface
water quality standards. The MDMR oversees point discharge standards as
promulgated by the Federal NPEES pruoiaa under this Act. Alternatives C, E
and F, involving groundwater extraction, treatment and discharge would
comply with this ARAR by meeting the substantive requirements for an
effluent discharge permit and the terms and conditions of the permits
effluent standards and limitations. This Act is not an ARAR for the other
alternatives.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA include provisions
restricting land disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes. The purpose of the HSWA,
is to minimize the potential of future risk to human health and the
environment by requiring treatment of hazardous wastes prior land disposal.
The land disposal restrictions (LTRs) under KSHA are not applicable for
those alternatives involving land digpncal of fill materials or residual
incineration ash because the wastes are not RCRA listed wastes or RCRA
characteristic wastes. The Agency is undertaking a rulemaking that will
specifically apply to soil and debris. Since the rulemaking is not yet
complete, the U.S. EPA does not consider ITRs to be relevant and appropriate
at this site to soil and debris that does not contain RCRA restricted
wastes.
Alternative A does not meet identified TBCs.
Alternative B, F, G and H involve sending materials excavated from the site
to an off-site incinerator. The U.S. EPA off-site policy (OSWER Directive
No. 9834.11) is a TBC for site remediation and will be followed to ensure
that wastes ax* sent to a RCRA permitted incinerator.
Alternatives D, E and G involve sending materials excavated from the site
to an off-site landfill. The U.S. EPA off-site policy is a TBC and will be
followed to ensure that wastes are sent to a CERCXA off-site compliant RCRA
permitted landfill.
The U.S. EPA Office of Groundwater has published Groundwater Classification
Guidelines (GNCGs) which enable classification of all groundwater as Class
I, n, or m, baood on its use, value, and vulnerability. The surficial
sand and gravel aquifer beneath the site would be classified as a Class II
aquifer (current or potential source of drinking water). A Clam II aquifer
should be protected from contamination which might render the aquifer
-------
unusable or unacceptable as a source of drinking water. Therefore, oontant-
ination or degradation of the groundwater is unacceptable and should not be
allowed to occur. The GWCGs are TBC f or the site. Therefore, Alternatives B
through H, have various conponents which would or could comply with this TBC.
The U.S. EPA Envircnnental Criteria and Assessment Office has prepared the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to provide health based and
regulatory information on specific chemicals. IRIS provides chemical
specific information which is utilized by U.S. EPA in risk calculations and
development of health based cleanup goals and is TBC. The Tables presented
in the FS and in this Record of Decision utilize IRIS values where
appropriate. As presented in Alternatives E, F and G, the elimination of
the direct contact threat by complete excavation of the contaminated fill
area would comply with the health based cleanup goals developed utilizing
the IRIS database. Alternative H, the elimination of the direct contact
threat by treatment of tars via incineration and enhanced biological
treatment of the remaining contaminated fill area would comply with the
health based cleanup goals developed utilizing the IRIS database. The
groundwater monitoring component of Alternatives B through H comply with the
TBC health based cleanup goals developed utilizing the IRIS database.
The U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Rffrovtial Response, Office of Solid
Waste, and Emergency Response has prepared the Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual (SPHEM) to provide methods and guidance in preparing
health based risk assessments. The Tables presented in the FS and in this
Record of Decision utilize the SFHEM.where appropriate. As presented in
Alternatives E, F and G, the elimination of the direct contact threat by
complete excavation of the contaminated fill area would comply with the TBC
health based cleanup grain developed utilizing the SPHEM. Alternative H,
the elimination of the direct contact threat by enhanced biological
treatment of the contaminated fill area would comply with the TBC health
based cleanup goals developed utilizing the SPHEM. The groundwater
monitoring component of Alternatives B through H comply with the health
based cleanup goals developed utilizing the SPHEM.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLHQA) is a TBC because the site is
completely contained within the Great Lakes drainage basin and the
groundwater ultimately discharges to Lake Superior. Alternatives B through
H provide groundwater monitoring to evaluate potential discharges of
contaminated groundwater to the Great Lakes.
State of y>g»iinan ARARa
Act 245 Part IV establishes surface water standards. Although no discharges
to surface water are anticipated, the more stringent promulgated state
standard, relative to the dean Water Act-Water Quality Criteria, would be
met for any such discharge to the nearest surface water discharge point.
Act 245 Part IV is applicable to the site. All alternatives except the No
Action Alternative involve monitoring to assure compliance with this ARAR.
Act 245, Part 9, Rule 323, involves registering critical materials.
Alternatives C, E, and F involving groundwater treatment and discharge would
-------
comply with this ARAR.
Rule 607 requires a contingency plan and fwrtj^nuy procedures during site
activities and is applicable to the site. All alternatives, except the No
Action Alternative comply with this ARAR by providing for a Health and
Safety Plan in accordance, with the NCP.
Act 348 of 1965 and Administrative Rules defines requirements for air
emissions during remedial actions and is applicable. All alternatives,
except the No Action Alternative > comply with this ARAR by providing an air
monitoring program. .
Rule 613 is the state RCRA. equivalent to 40 CFR Part 264 as previously
described under Federal ARARs.
State of Michir
Rule 602 involves environmental and human health standards which are
applicable to the site. All alternatives, except the No Action Alternative
comply with this ARAR and address on-site contamination to various degrees \
which would benefit human health and the environment.
Act 245, Part 22, Rule 323, involves groundwater quality rules including
nondegradation of usable aquifers and is a TBC for site remediation.
Alternatives A, B, and D would not comply with this TBC because contaminated
fill remains in place untreated which potentially could continue to degrade
groundwater quality. Alternatives C, E, and F would comply with this TBC
because groundwater treatment is a uuajuna'it of these remedies. Alternative
G would comply with this TBC because all contaminated fill is removed and
groundwater monitoring would confirm the in-situ bioremediation of
groundwater while deed restrictions prevent the installation of drinking
water wells downgradient of the fill area. Alternative H would comply with
this TBC because the tars would be treated via incineration and any
residual contamination in the remaining fill would undergo enhanced
biological treatment to health based standards and groundwater monitoring
would confirm the in-situ blf^ a^jg^ of ejFrjartfijn+ftT while iVyij
restrictions prevent the installation of drinking water wells downgradient
of the fill area.
SARA. Section 121 (e) states that no permit shall be required for the portion
of any remedial action conducted entirely onsite. It is the intent of the
U.S. EPA to meet the substantive requirements of any permit related ARARs or
TBCs. As such, the following regulations are defined:
Act 245, Part 21, Rule 323; waste or wasle effluent discharge permit system;
Act 346 of 1972, permit for constructing surface water discharge piping; and
Act 348 of 1965, permit T^ofjii riaim»rit«t for air* <-^QfKartjoq during H^W^H^T
actions.
Based upon the above analysis, Alternatives E, P, G and H meet Federal and
State ARARs and TBCs.
-------
25
3) Iteducticn of TtBddty, Mobility, or Voluee.
Alternative A, No Action, would not reduce the taxicity, Debility or volume
of the fill area or contaminated groundwater.
Alternative B, by renewing and destroying the exposed tar, would reduce the
taxicity, mobility and volume of the oxpoood tars only. This alternative
does not Include treatment of groundwater. This alternative would not
address unexposed tars mixed in with the fill remaining en-site. This
remaining fill would provide an ongoing source for groundwater degradation.
Alternative C would not reduce the taxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants on site. It would limit the migration of on-site contaminants
by capping them in such a way that would minimize surface water
infiltration, leachate formation and resulting groundwater contamination in
the area where the cap is constructed. The cap would not stop groundwater
contamination which would result from groundwater flowing through the fill
material deposited beneath the water table or infiltration through residual -v
fill. The cap would prevent airborne migration of volatilized surface
contaminants. Treatment of the groundwater would remove contaminants,
thereby, reducing the taxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants
migrating via the groundwater.
Alternative D, by hauling exposed tars to an off-site secured landfill,
would not reduce taxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants. This
alternative would only relocate the waste to a more secure environment.
This alternative would not include treatment of groundwater. This
alternative would not address the taxicity, mobility and volume of
unexposed tars mixed in with the fill remaining on-site. This remaining
fill Would provide an ongoing source for groundwater degradation.
Alternative E, by hauling all fill materials to an off-site secured
landfill, would not reduce on-site taxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants. This alternative would relocate the waste to a more secure
environment without actually reducing taxicity or volume. Groundwater would
be treated to remove contaminants, thereby, reducing the taxicity, mobility
and volume of contaminants migrating via groundwater.
Alternative F, by removing and destroying all fill material, would maximize
reduction of taxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants. This
alternative includes groundwater treatment to remove contaminants, thereby,
reducing the taxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants migrating via
groundwater.
Alternative 6, by removing and destroying tars, would reduce the taxicity,
mobility and volume of contaminants in the "concentrated1* contaminant
source. Excavation and off-site fHflpmvl of the remaining fill material
would remove the remaining on-site contaminants to a more secure off-site
environment. This alternative does not involve treatment of groundwater
since the contaminant source is removed and contaminants already in the
groundwater are expected to biodegrade to acceptable health based levels.
-------
26
If contaminant oanaentxatiara in the groundwater do not decrease as
expected, the monitoring pruutam guidelines presented in Table 9 provide
groundwater remedial action criteria.
Alternative H, by removing and destroying tars, would reduce the toxicity,
inability and volume of contaminants in the "concentrated" contaminant
source. The biological treatment of the remaining contaminated fill would
reduce the toxicity, mobility and volune of the regaining en-site
contaminant source. The "concentrated" contaminant source, tars, are
segregated from the fill and destroyed by incineration, and the residual
contamination will undergo enhanced biological treatment. The contaminants
already in the grcundwater are expected to biodegrade to acceptable health
based levels. If contaminant concentrations in the grcundwater do not
decrease as expected, the monitoring program guidelines presented in Table 9
provide groundwater remedial action criteria.
Thus, Alternatives E, F, G and H satisfactorily reduce the toxicity,
mobility and volume of contaminants at the site.
4) Stort-Tera Effectiv
Alternative A, No Action, does not address contamination at the site.
The excavation and transport activities of Alternatives B, D, E, F, G and H
may cause short-term effects due to noise from heavy equipment, dust,
contaminant volatilization, disruption of the ecosystem, and the opportunity
of direct contact with wastes by construction workers. The short-term risks
for Alternatives E, F, and G would be greater because of the larger volume
of waste removed and overall mileage for d|gpr«aiT The short-term risks for
Alternative H would be less due to minimal ^asta volume for transport.
Alternative C would prevent the release of volatile compounds and would
treat grcundwater contaminants. Installation of the cap would result in
rfigHiTfoapppg ag fti "ifi'nrirri above in "excavation and transport".
The groundwater treatment activities of Alternatives C, E and F may cause
short-term impacts from air emissions during installation and potential
mechanical failure during, its operation which could lead to surface
discharge of contaminated groundwater. Grcundwater contamination would be
contained and reduced through treatment while in operation.
5)
Alternative A, No Action, offers no long-term effectiveness or permanence.
Alternative B would remove only exposed tars, leaving contaminated fill in
place with only a soil cover, thereby, minimizing long-term effectiveness
and permanence. The deed restriction would protect against disturbance of
the fill, including establishment of drinking water wells in the vicinity of
the fill area, for as long as the restriction is in effect. Continuous
professional management of the monitoring program would be required to
assure a timely response if action should be required. The soil cover would
-------
27
not provide sufficient protection from precipitation and infiltration, and
subsequent migration of contaminants from the residual fill. The monitoring
program "«rL»»j«iK>nt- ia further complicated by residual fill contamination and
its effect on groundwater.
Alternative C would require long-term maintenance of the cap. The fence
would require long-term maintenance, and violation by tresspassers could
reduce protectiveness. The groundwater treatment system would reduce
contaminant levels, but requires maintenance for the duration of its
operating life. The monitoring puxjidm management would assure effec-
tiveness of the groundwater treatment system.
Alternative 0 would remove only exposed tars, leaving contaminated fill in
place, thereby reducing long-term effectiveness. The deed restriction would
protect against disturbance of the fill, including establishment of drinking
water wells in the vicinity of the fill area, for as long as the restriction
is in effect. Continuous professional management of the monitoring program
would be required as described above under Alternative B.
Alternative E would remove all contaminated fill material and dispose of it \
in an off-site secure landfill. Lang-term effectiveness and permanence cn-
site would be maximized but long-term maintenance of tars landf illed off-
site would require monitoring and possible future remediation of that
facility. The groundwater treatment system would reduce contaminant levels,
but requires maintenance for the duration of its operating life. The
monitoring program management would assure effectiveness of the groundwater
treatment system. Since the contamination source is completely removed, it
is expected that groundwater contaminant levels would decrease and require a
snorter period of treatment than Alternative C.
Alternative F would remove and incinerate all contaminated fill material.
Lang-term effectiveness and permanence is nnw***** by treating the source
of contamination in this manner. The groundwater treatment component of
this alternative would reduce contaminant levels but requires maintenance
for the duration of its operating life. The monitoring program management
would assure effectiveness of the groundwater treatment system. As in
Alternative E, groundwater contaminant levels are expected to decrease and
require a snorter period for treatment.
Alternative 6 would remove and incinerate the tars while the remaining fill
material will be off-site ^gp"*1*** at a secure landfill. Long-term
effectiveness and permanence en-site is maximised by treating the source of
contamination in this manner but long-term maintenance of contaminated
filllandfilled off-site would require monitoring and possible future
remediation of that facility.. The deed restriction ucmxnent of this
alternative would prevent installation of drinking water wells within the
area of known groundwater contamination. Since the source of containi nation
is completely removed, it is expected that groundwater contaminant levels
will decrease through both biodegradaticn and natural attenuation. The
monitoring yruotdm management would assure timely responses if action should
be required.
-------
28
Alternative H would remove both exposed tars and concentrated buried tars,
while contaminated fill would undergo enhanced biological treatment, thereby
maximizing long-term effectiveness. The deed restriction would protect
against disturbance of the fill during the biological treatment pirn-vsa, and
prevent the establishment of drinking water wells in the vicinity of the
fill area, for as long as the restriction is in effect. Since the
Ttrated source of contamination is removed, and residually contaminated
fUl material is biologically treated to health based standards, it is
expected that grcundwater contaminant levels which are already below levels
of concern will further decrease through both bicdegradation and natural
attenuation. The monitoring yruuiam imTVttjnnent would assure timely
if action should be required.
Alternatives F, G and H provide the greatest long-term effectiveness and
permanence of remedy. . . . ..
6) ImpleaentablLLty.
Alternative A, No Action, is easily implemented because no action is
required.
The methods of disposal for Alternative B requires application of availablev
construction equipment and proven technologies. The alternative is easily
constructed and the materials necessary for completion are readily available
in the Marquette area. Lade of incinerator capacity is the only limitation
to implementability. Deed restrictions are feasible since the City of
Marquette owns the study area land and it is zoned for recreational
purposes.
The monitoring program required for Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G and H is
easily implemented.
The off-site disposal or incineration required for alternatives B, 0, E, F,
G and H are not subject to the land disposal restrictions under RCRA-HSWA
and are therefore easily implemented.
The materials and technology pertinent to the capping component of
Alternative C are readily available and easy to implement. The potential
structural instability of the exposed tars, which are highly viscous and
exhibit only minor resistance to shear stress when exposed to temperatures
above 15°C, could pose a problem. Some type of reinforcement will be
necessary to properly install and stabilize the cap. Installation of the
grcundwater collection system would necessitate a large amount of
excavation work and construction activity. The treatment system may also
involve extensive pumping and treatment of large amounts of grcundwater
while realizing marginal reductions in contaminant concentrations bex^*'^*»
contaminated fill remains en-site.
The disposal of the tars in an off-site landfill, in Alternative D, is
easily Implemented from a construction standpoint. Deed restrictions are
feasible since the City of Marquette owns the study area land and it is
zoned for recreational purposes.
-------
29
Alternative E involves rf<«yr»Mi of all contaminated fill materials in an
off-site landfill. Implementation is easy, fron a construction standpoint.
Implementation issues regarding the groundwater treatment system are
similar to those rtiinnnrri under Alternative C, except that contaminated
fill materials are removed and groundwater treatment timeframes are
reduced accordingly.
Disposal methods for Alternative F, off-site incineration, is easily
implemented from a construction standpoint. However, since a larger volume
of material would be excavated for H*qrr*"'1j the availability of incinerator
capacity may be more restrictive than Alternative B. Implementation issues
regarding the grounduater treatment system ia (\imvwti under Alternative E.
Alternative G involves the same inplementability issues as described under
Alternative B for incineration, and Alternative E for grcundwater treatment,
otherwise it is easily implementable.
The excavation, segregation and dlspriBal methods for Alternative H are
easily implemented from a construction standpoint. The biological treatment \
of the contaminated fill material is easily iaplementable from a materials
and construction standpoint. Extensive coordination between the Agencies
are required during the actual remedial design pilot studies to optimize the
performance of the chosen enhanced biological treatment option. The cap
will not require extensive maintenance as in Alternative C since the
remaining fill material will meet health based standards at completion of
the enhanced biological treatment. The deed restrictions are easily
iqplementable since the City of Marquette own the property.
7) Cost.
The cost estimates presented for each alternative were developed from the
1988 Mean Cost Data guides and unit prices from similar remediation
projects. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated for a thirty year
period. A discount rate of 10% percent over a thirty year period was used
for present worth calculations of capital and operating costs. The
estimates provide a cost range of -30 to +50 percent of overall
implementation costs. See Table 11 for the Alternatives Cost Summary.
Of the three alternatives, F, G and H, which best meet the six criteria
above, Alternative H is the least expensive. The levels of contamination in
the fill material, although justifying treatment or isolation based upon a
direct contact risk, do not warrant the added cost of incineration or off-
site disposal when compared to the alternative incorporating enhanced
biological treatment of the fill material.
8) State Acceptance.
The State of Michigan has indicated that it concurs with the chosen remedial
alternative. A letter from the Michigan Deparbnent of Natural Resuurutai
indicates this support (see Attachment 1) .
-------
30
9)
In general, baaed on public oumait received, the community is most
concerned about a proper balance between protection of human health and the
environment and the cost of the remedial action. Some caamenters do not
believe that the residual fill material warrants additional excavation,
treatment and off-site ^M apical as U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan preferred
alternative. It is important to note that the majority of these types of
occments are from the "regulated" community and not the general public.
U.S. EPA believes that Alternative H best achieves cost-effective protection
of human health and the environment, yet still addresses the concerns of the
public, MENR and the U.S. EPA.
The specific canments received and U.S. EPA's roopcnooB are outlined in the
Attached Responsiveness Summary.
X.
U.S. EPA believes that the proposed remedy, (MtTTnaftjve H- is the most
appropriate solution for the site because of its performance against the
nine evaluation criteria previously fti.tmnnn1. The major components of
Alternative H include the following:
* Excavation and treatment, via incineration, of approximately
200 cubic yards of exposed tar.
* Excavation, segregation and treatment, via incineration, of
approximately 200 cubic yards of buried tar.
* Excavation and treatment, via enhanced biological treatment, of
approximately 9,20O cubic yards of residual contaminated fill
material.
* Topsoil cover and revegetation of bioremediated fill area.
* Site deed restrictions that prevent installation of
drinking water wells within the vicinity of the contaminated
groundwater br-m"rk*'r"ia
-------
biological treatment, and eliminating further groundwater ccntamination.
Institutional oontrols will be implemented during remediation to assure
protection until confirmation sampling and analyses indicate that a
health bannrt clean-up has been achieved.
Any short tern risks associated with excavation of contaminated
materials (dust generation) will be minimized by the use of good
construction practices. Air monitoring will be conducted to asigpsfl
possible exposure during remedial action.
2. Attainment of ARARs
The selected remedy will attain all Federal and State applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements as described in Section IX of this
Record of Decision. In addition, the selected remedy will attain all
Federal and State "To Be Considered11 requirements as described in
Section IX of this Record of Decision.
3. Cost-Effecti
The selected remedy provides overall cost-effectiveness because a high
degree of permanence is achieved by treatment, via incineration, of
concentrated tars, and enhanced biological treatment of residual
contaminated fill and monitoring groundwater. The selected remedy can
be implemented at a cost far less than the complete incineration of all
fill material or partial incineration and complete off-site HJapncai of
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Itocuuixu Recovery TacbnologLas to the n»-»H»«a Bctent
Practicable
The selected remedy provides the best balance with respect to the nine
evaluation criteria as described in Section DC of this Record of
Decision. Treatment technologies are utilized to the ma^H**** extent
practicable by incinerating tars found within the fill and biologically
treating the residual contaminated fill to health based standards.
This alternative is further balanced with respect to the nine criteria
because a permanent solution which utilizes treatment technologies is
being selected, but it is being applied to both those contaminants
posing the greatest risk and the residual contaminated fill material.
The groundwater monitoring uumpuiitgit of the selected remedial action
will assure that concentrations of contaminants do not increase after
implementation of the source control remedial action.
5* Preference for LrudLiuit as a Principal
The selected remedy eliminates the principal threats at the site, direct
contact with and/or ingestion of contaminated fill by the use of
treatment, via incineration, of the tars and enhanced biological
treatment of residual contaminated fill.
-------
TARIE 4
MIVXIMH COflTNIHAUON fOldl!) C(H'AREI) TO lOXICirv VALIfS
ftwme
Tolinu
Xylnis
Tetrndilornuthii?
2-IHJiyl^cml
4-M.'Uiyl|lm>l
Armi(fiUiii»
(Jirysene
Rimse
Uiste Tars
nykcj (vrt w?ii)
§9J)
410J
Hwiinn Qinjitr,itil Id/Sultull XI Kit
1.1..
III t f III11 II
'*"*
, !'-.
II l-l-i.t
il |. I.I.I
.* .I.KKI
II lll.l.l
ll tll'ttl
ll S'l-t'l
" *
i O i
«/**
* 1 . Oil Hit
u. nn. m
I/ft . UDUil
44 .(III ii J
\ttt . ItlUlll
41 .Uililll
f/t kUUO
. y' * '* 1 *' '»*
'"i;/i,)"i
0 i .11
0 I .1.1
0 i no
II i 1 i
U.I 1 .1
II i 1 1
a i us
*»!. !«
u n
0 <
o u
0 n
on t
O.StM
n
»*
4
II
II
0
0
ll
It
'"1*1*1
u
u
II
II
II
II
mi
i
Kill
Mill
Hilt
l,| } I
I'lU
Hill
I.I.I |
il.lt
I'M
I .«/
..I .;
LI i«
*
III I* >ll II
i *» t !«»«» |u
.Oat* «4/>*/.|
Mil
0
«U
HII
Mil
0
0
.!!
.1.1
i tin
1
i
i
\
/
1
0
\
null
nuOl
nni |
(in 1 0
.OOK
.00111
.01101
.0111
.ooii
.OOlt
0014
1 »* tn
' flfftBIC
0«t<
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0*0)
/.inn
10.11111111
Mf IIJ«A| 1*1
Mil
until
.tin. V,tl«. v.t. I't !««.
! l.ll.ll.D* »-.! U.t.lft IMt
..I K|l <.< Nlll ('.It. U.l. IH HII
-------
i wiss i .111: MI
uiT.1; nit r.siiMMin oinir/
liijlist D.-lJiitol OirMitrdtim
Gnt.aiimiMt
Gvrrr fWnry
Itad.ii} U(IM(I>
TetrAJiloractJme IUI>l(c
|raiu(l,?.3)|»vni»» ll.bM
Oil»iv(aJanUM\iuii> II.S(d
UiiYSiii! ll.S
1.7 x HW
I/I x IIW
I.Sx III-1
Ihml l/il'i
(? lilji-./.liy)
1:1 x ji
fc
3.1 x in
-,-..-fc
-------
T.il.lo 7
CLIFFS aw SHE
axntisCN OF tsnmiu) mur IMAM; w IODINE an (i«D)
jiiicjl
/IIXJIAJL'
JUU
iis
ul
thyl(JuX>l
UryllJuul
iL'ulue
it liita (Sun uf UI/Kft))
art AS3WIQ6
fje i-ttirvj
. uiJ liUlvhlul
r liiUtL- (liUTiMi/)
li-l/ll (kllctj Jil,)
a 10 ktj QUID
U'f.iuiL- Muimn Estiiutul Diily
.ll/w (in H| toiuiOjtioi InUfi (01)
mi'i'lMr,: niy| niykiyiliy Ul/ltfl)
ail o.ik o.ato aoi)
o.j-i o.aw aaiv aoi?
^i aou ao)u ani?
aot i 0.22 o.'i'.n o.'ju)
ass as? au>A) 0.114
as s o.» aoca auw
aj M a?i * atwo aiK;
awi
IL-.iOjillal
On Id
1
10
r«,,,i
DIJ-
ID
to
ID
10
III
II)
10
£ kg OilD)
Eitiiutal lUily
myk,y,l,y
aoji>
0.011'
0.0)12
aoiu
aoj/i
0.010
ft-ii,li.tlj|
On I.I
1
OI/WU
aor>
aou
0.0 n
a is/
aoo
aou
aois
0.21i
OauJ
(4,'fmne
(\,*
10
10
10
to
to
10
10
70 k
ami
ami
a iv
auu
aou
aois
a/.b
%£
toe
to
10
10
10
10
to
to
I: miS - l»UJ/'alijJ Ilistk liilniitiliin ry,t>ni. U.S. DA I'HI.
S. S^IH- SM-Tluil lUilu linlUi IViluitijiHiiiil. i».S.[IA l!>6
H: ll/VllD) Qurt.1 ly 'mhury ol IIA .nl II 111 O.MiciK. US. DA 1711
C: f/ic^j.*) vuluL* lu.
-------
Excavation and Off-Site Incineration of Tars,
Deed Restriction, Soil Cover, and Monitoring
Program.
capital Costs
Health and Safety Plan
Safety Provisions
Equipment Decontamination
Air Monitoring Equipment
Monitoring Wells
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation of Tars (200 cubic yards)
Disposal by Incineration
Transportation (loading)
Restoration (fill and topsoil)
Deed Restriction
Subtotal
25% Contingencies
Estimated Construction Costs
25% Misc., Engineer ing, Legal
Total Capital
$ 20,000
40,000
50,000
53,700
42,000
7,140
9,710
80,000
13,550
51,400
11.500
379,000
94.750
.,-' 473,750
.118.438
$ 592,188
Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater Sanpling / Analyses
Air Sampling / Analyses / Pump Replacement
Maintenance
Total Operation and Maintenance
* Present Worth Operation and Maintenance
(30 years at 10%)
13,700/yr. (a)
15,580/yr.
34.000/vr.
63f280/yr.
(a) = Estimates are based upon 8 wells sanpled/analyzed semi-annually.
-------
C
Inpermeable cap, Groundwater Treatment, Fencing,
and Monitoring Program.
Capital.
Health and Safety Plan
Safety Provisions
Equipment Decontamination
Air Monitoring Equipment
Monitoring Wells
Stabilizing Fabric
Excavation and Transfer of Tars
Synthetic Liner
Clay Cover
Fencing
Restoration
Groundwater Collection and Treatment
Subtotal
25% Contingencies
Estimated Construction Costs
25% Mi sc., Engineer ing, legal
Total capital
$ 20,000
40,000
50,000
53,700
42,000
2,400
6,770 (a)
3,600
29,500
19,000
11,600 .
503.000 (a)
781,570 .
195.393
976,963'
244.241 '...-
$ 1,221,204
Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater Sampling / Analyses
Air Sampling / Analyses / Pump Replacement
Maintenance of Restored Area
Groundwater Collection/Treatment
13,700/yr. (a)
15,580/yr.
7,000/yr.
187. OOQ/VT. (b)
Total Operation and Maintenance
* Present Worth Operation and Maintenance
(30 years at 10%)
$ 223,280/yr.
$ 2,104,860
* Total Pi
S 3.326.O64
(a)
(b)
Estimates are
upon 8 wells sampled/analyzed send-annually.
Calculational errors discovered in the Feasibility Study have
been corrected. '
-------
Off-Site Landfill of All Tars, Deed Restriction,
and Monitoring Program.
Capital Costs
Health and Safety Plan
Safety Provisions
Equipment Decontamination
Air Monitoring Equipment
Monitoring Wells
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation of Tars (200 cubic yards)
Off-Site Ccrpliant Landfill Disposal
Transportation (loading)
Restoration
Deed Restriction
Subtotal
25% Contingencies
Estimated Construction Costs
25% Misc., Engineer ing, Legal
Total Capital
20,000
40,000
50,000
53,700
42,000
7,140 ;' (a)
9,710
30/000 (b)
41,920 (c)
11,600
11.500
317,570
; 77.393
396,963
99.240
$ 496,203
Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater Sanpling / Analyses
Air Sanpling / Analyses / Puztp Replacement
Maintenance of Restored Areas
Total Operation and Maintenance
* Present Worth Operation and Maintenance
(30 years at 10%)
13,700/yr. (d)
15,580/yr.
5.000/vr.
$ 34,280/yr.
$ 323,157
S 792.36O
(a)
(b)
(c)
This
t has been
to this alternative.
costs:
ccopon
Corrections have made for waste
$150/CY X 200 CY = $ 30,000
Corrections have been ***** to this ccnponent, transport
distance is
to be 800 miles rcundtrip.
(d) » Estimates are based upon 8 wells sanpled/analyzed semi-annually.
-------
ALIEFNATiyE__E
Capital Costs
Off-Site Landfill of All Fill, Grourdwater
Treatment, and Monitoring Program.
Health and Safety Plan
Safety Provisions
ftennrrtv«in nat- i on
Air Monitoring Equipment
Monitoring Wells
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation/Loading of Fill (9,600 cubic yards)
Groundwater Collection / Treatment
Transportation
Off-Site Compliant Landfill Disposal
Restoration
Subtotal ;; : ;
25% Contingencies
Estimated Construction Costs
25% Misc., Engineering, Legal
Total Capital
20,000
40,000
50,000
53,700
42,000
7,140
215,900 (a)
503 > 000 (b)
387,000 (c)
1,440,000 (d)
279.400
3,038,340
759.585
3,797,925
949.481
$4,747,406
Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater Sampling / Analyses
Air Sampling / Analyses / Pump Replacement
Groundwater Collection and Treatment
Maintenance of Restored Areas
Total Operation and Maintenance
* Present Worth Operation and Maintenance
13,700/yr. (e)
15,580/yr.
187,500/yr. (f)
34.000/vr.
$ 250,280/yr.
$ 2,359,390
* Ttafcal
Worth
S 7,106.796
(a) = Excavation and Loading components nave been combined and
calculational errors discovered in the Feasibility Study have
been corrected.
(b) » Calculational errors discovered in the Feasibility Study have
been corrected.
(c) = Corrections have been Tmrip to this component, transport
distance is assumed to be 800 miles rcundtrip.
(d) = Corrections have nwlp for waste disposal costs:
$150/CY X 9,600 CY - $ 1,440,000.
(e) = Estimates are based upon 8 wells sampled/analyzed semi-annually.
(f) = Calculational errors discovered in the Feasibility Study have
been uui'i tacted.
-------
Capital Costs
Off-Site Incineration of All Fill, Groundwater
Treatment, and Monitoring Program.
Health and Safety Plan ^ 20,000
Safety Provisions 40,000
Equipment Decontamination 50 , 000
Air Monitoring Equipment 53 , 700
Monitoring Wells 42,000
Site Clearing and Grubbing 7,140
Excavation/loading of Fill (9600 cubic yards) 215,900 (a)
Off -Site Disposal by Incineration 3,840,000
Transportation 387,200 (b)
Restoration 297,400
Groundwater Collection / Treatment 503,000 (c)
Subtotal ;: : : 5,438,340
25% Contingencies : 1.359.585
Estimated Construction Costs 6,797,925
25% Misc. , Engineering, Legal 1.699.481
Total Capital $ 8,497,406
Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater Sampling / Analyses 13,700 (c)
Air Sampling / Analyses / Pump Replacement 15,580
Maintenance of Restored Areas 34,000
Groundwater Collection / Treatment 187,000 (d)
Total Operation and Maintenance $ 250,280
* Present Worth Operation and Maintenance
(30 years at 10%) $ 2,359,390
S 10.856.796
(a) = Excavation and Loading components have been combined and
calculational errors discovered in the Feasibility Study have
been corrected.
(b) » Corrections have been *At> to this component, transport
distance is gss»?pgd to be 800 miles rcundtrip.
(c) = Estimates are based upon 8 wells sampled/analyzed send-annually.
(d) =» Calculational errors discovered in the Feasibility Study have
been corrected.
-------
ALIE33NWIVE G
Off-Site Incineration of Tars, Off-Site
landfill ing of Remaining Fill, Deed
Restrictions, and Monitoring Program
Capital Costs
Health and Safety Plan
Safety Provisions
Equipment Decontamination
Air Monitoring Equipment .
Monitoring Wells
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation/l£>ading of Tars and Fill
(9,600 cubic yards)
Off-Site Disposal by Incineration
(400 cubic yards)
Off-Site Carpiiant landfill Disposal
(9,200 cubic yards)
Transportation
Restoration
Deed Restriction .
Subtotal .
25% Contingencies
Estimated Construction Costs
25% Misc.,Engineering, Legal
Total Capital
$ 20,000
40,000
50,000
53,700
42,000
7,140 ,
215,900 (a)
160,000 (a)
1,410,000 (b)
387,200 (c)
279,400,
11.500.
2,676,840
669.210
3,346,050
. 836.513
$ 4,182,263
Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater Sampling / Analyses
Air Sairpling /Analyses / Punp Replacement
Maintenance of Restored Area
Total Operation and Maintenance
* Present Worth Operation and Maintenance
* Total Present Worth Ctst
13,700/yr. (d)
15,580/yr.
34.000/vr.
$ 63,280/yr.
$ 596,540
S 4.778.803
(a) = Calculations are based on assumptions presented in the
Feasibility Study.
(b) = Corrections have made for waste djc^npytl costs:
$150/CY x 9,200 CY = $ 1,410,000.
(c) = Corrections have been made to this ccoponent, transport
disfarmp is. assumed to be 800 miles roundtrip. .
(d) = KstlnintPiS are based upon 8 wells sampled/analyzed semi-annually.
-------
Table 8-7
Capital Costs
Off-Site Incineration of Exposed and Buried Tars, Biological
Treatment of Residual Contaminated Fill, Soil Cover and
Revegetation.of .Fill Area, Deed Restriction and Monitoring
Program . ...
Health and Safety Plan i
Safety Provisions
Equipment Decontamination
Air Monitoring Equipment
Monitoring Wells
Site. Clearing and Grubbing
ExcavatioiyTryKi ing of Tars
(400 cubic yards)
Transportation :
Off-Site Disposal by Incineration
(400 cubic yards)
Excavation of Fill Material
(9200 cubic yards)
Forced Aeration Biological Treatment of Fill:
Treatnent .
Leachate Collection System
RurHan/Run-off Control System ;
Power Supply
Confirmation Sampling/ Analyses
Replacement
Restoration
Deed Restriction
Subtotal
25% Contingencies
Estimated Construction Costs
25% Misc. , Engineering, Legal
Total Capital
20,
40,
50,
: 53'
42,
,' .12,
20,
28,
' 160,
184 ,
518,
86,
7,
62,.
14,
3,
. 94,
31,
11.
1,437,
359.
1,796,
449,
000
000
000
700
000
500
000
000
000
000
000
000
500
000
000
000
000
000
500
200
300
500
125
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
$ 2,245,625
Operation and Maintenance
Grpundwater Sampling / Analyses
Air Sampling / Analyses / Pump Replacement
Maintenance of Restored Area
* PR
Total Operation and Maintenance
ant Worth Operation and Maintenance
^3,700/yr.. (c)
15,580/yr.
34.000/vr.
$ 63,280/yr.
$ 596,540
S 2.842.165
-------
87. Qnrrtirued
(a) 3 calculations are based on assumptions presented in the
Feasibility Study and Supplemental FS.
(b) » Forced aeration biological treatment costs are presented for estimates.
The actual costs should remain within the -30 to +50% range of overall
implementation costs. The actual biological treatment method selected
will be based upon results of pilot testing conducted during the
design phase.
(c) = Estimates are based upon 8 wells sampled/analyzed semi -annually.
-------
Table 9
Croundwater (b)
CUFFS-DOU SITE
MONITORING PROGRAM
MEDIA
Air (c>
fili Material |f>
Approximate No. of
Monitoring Points
.0
lo be deterailned In remedial design.
Monitoring Control Points ()
1 Upgradient
7 Oowngradient
1 Upgradient
1 Oowngradient
To be deterailned in remedial design.
Sample Parameters (d)
' Year 1; U.S. EPA Target
Compound List (TCI) Organics
1 Years 2-30; Indicator
Compounds (e)
Michigan
Act 340
Requirements
To be determined In remedial design.
Sampling Frequency
Semi-annually
Semi-annually
To be determined in remedial design.
(a) The actual well locations to be included in the groundwater monitoring program will be determined following a reevaluation of
the araa hydrogeology. These activities will be conducted as a component of the Remedial Design to identify the optimum welt
locations. New wells will be installed if the existing wells prove to be inadequate for monitoring.
(b) Should groundwater analysis indicate that the following guidelines are exceeded then an additional discrete sampling event
ihall be imnediatel y undertaken on those wells which exceed the guidelines. If this additional analytical effort indicates
guideline ciceedances then a pump and treat groundwater remediation shall be required:
' Level of U.S. EPA ICL Organics or indicator compounds exceed their SDUA-current MCI at time of sampling; or
Level(s) of carcinogenic indicator compounds exceed an ndili I i yc 10 cancer risk for those compounds without MCls; or
-------
. ; Sampling frequency hall be reevaluated, and Monitoring requirements may be terminated, when the following guideline* are met:
V Level of contamination by Indicator compounds with SDUA-MCls has decreased over four (4) successivesamp IIng rounds; and
Level* of contamination for indicator compounds have an additive health.based Hazard Index (HI)lets thanone (1) over four
(4) successive sampling round*.
(c) Air sampling shall be discontinued after 4 successive sample" rounds fai.l .to indicate elevated levels of.contaminants. .
(d) Sample'parameter*-shall be the U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program, Routine Analytical Service; Target Compound .Lilt (CLP,
AS, TCL) for year (1) one. Following an Agency evaluation of the analytical result* for year (1). an Indicator Compound list
will be determined bated upon ARAR* and TIC* health advisories. This Indicator Compound List will be analyzed for years 2
through. 30, or until criteria presented under item (b) are-met. . . . .
.() Sample parameters.for inclusion, in the CERCLA mandated five-year review shall include the CLP, RAS, TCL for the first semi-
annual sampling round, every fifth year. The analysis will provide data upon which U.S. EPA will re-asse** contaminants which
potentially pote health risks. The Indicator Compound List described under item will be modified accordingly.
(f) Enhanced bioremediation of reeidually contaminated fill material is a viable option for contamination such a* that found at
'. .'the. Cl I f f *-Oow Site. The sample location*, parameter* arid frequency will be established by the Agency, based upon results of
bioremediation pilot testing, in remedial-design. The remedial action goals for fill material will result in residual
contamination which should fall within U.S. EPA'* acceptable risk range of 10 to 10 . wi.th a preferred point of departure
of 10'*. for potential carcinogen* and have a cumulative health' inden less than (1) one for non-carcinogens. Additionally, it
must be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Agency, that any residual contamination would not adversely Impact groundwater
quality such that those* requirements under item (b) would be exceeded.
-------
TABLE IP'!
CLIFFS DOU DISPOSAL AREA
U.S. EPA ARARa .
» .Attained . .,'.'...' : .'.'-.-.
- Not Attained
0 ARAR not applicable or relevant and appropriate for this alternative
. C Chemical-specific ARAR
A Act ion/Design-spec I fie ARAR
IDENTIFIED ARAi
ARAR
TYPE DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
C. D E F 6 H-
COMMtNTS
EPA-Safe Drinking Water
Act (SOUA), Maximum
Contaminant Levels. (MCLs)
Clean Water Act (CUA)
Sections J01(b)(1)(c) and
J01(b)(2)
Contaminants in potential drinking - « » » » * » *
water aquifer must not exceed . . .
HCLS. ' . . " ' - '.''-.'.'' ...'' .".'.
Requires provision of best available 00«0»»00
treatment technology and ensures
compliance with water quality
standards in the receiving surface
water body.
Beniene NCL it 5 ppb.
Direct diachargea are expected
to be in compliance with CUA standards.
Available to alternatives C, E and F.
Clean Air Act
RCRA:
40 CFR Part 262
CFR Part 261
C Establishes maximum concentrations
in airborne releases.
Classifies site as a generator of
hazardous waste. Manifest and pre-
treatment requirements are relevant
and appropriate.
Transporter regulations. Relevant
and appropriate to alternatives
which include oil site incineration
or disposal.
»*««*»
0 » 0 » » » »
Alternatives B through H are designed
to eliminate or minimite airborne
releases of contaminants.
Apply to off-site treatment or disposal
alternatives.
Apply to off-site treatment or disposal
alternatives.
1.0
t 264 . U
fencing end poslinq requirements.
Relevant and appropriate to
alternatives A through 0.
« « « 0 0 0 0
Applys to those alternatives in which
contaminated fill remains on s i S^^^ov
health based standards.
-------
IABLE 10-2
CLIFFS-DOU DISPOSAL AREA
U.S. EPA ARARt
KEY
* Attained
- Mot Attained
0 ARAR not applicable or relevant and appropriate (or this alternative
C Cheaical-specifie ARAR
A » Action/Deslgn-gpecific ARAR
IDENTIFIES ARAR
ARAR
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
ABC D E F G M
COMMENTS
40 CFR Part 264.111
aaic closure performance standards.
Relevant and appropriate to all
alternatives.
Attained by alternatives E through H.
40 CFR Part 264.114
Dispota(/decentaminat ion requirements
(or construction related equipment.
Relevant and appropriate to
alternatives B through H.
0 » » * *
Provided (or in alternatives
B through H.
40 CFR Part 264.116
Survey of disposal units. Relevant
and appropriate to alternatives A
through D.
+ » » 0 0 0 0
Survey provided (or each alternative.
except no action, in which contaminated
(ill regains on-site above health based
standards.
40 CFR Part 264.117(a)
Post closure care of 30 years.
Relevant and appropriate to
alternatives B through H.
Provided (or in alternatives
B through H.
40 CFR Part 264.117(b)
Continuance of site security.
Relevant and appropriate to
alternatives A-D, which leaves
contaminated fill on-site above
health based standards.
0000 Alternatives E through H off-site
dispose or treat on-site wastes to
health based standards.
-------
TABLE 10-3
CLIFFS-DOW DISPOSAL AREA
U.S. EPA ARARa
KEY
Attained
- Not. Attained
0 ARAR not applicable or relevant and appropriate for this alternative
C Chemical-specific ARAR
A Action/Design-specific ARAR
IDENTIFIED ARAR
ARAR
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
ABCDEFCH
COMMENTS
40 CFR Part 264.310
RCRA compliant cover and cover
Maintenance requirement*.
000* Provided aa impermeable cap over
exposed tara only In alternative C
and at aoil cover over treated
fill In alternative H.
40 CM Part 264
40 CFR Part 264
40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F
RCRA "Clean Closure". Relevant
and appropriate to alternatives
E, F, and G.
"Health Based Closure". Relevant
and appropriate to alternatives E
through H.
General groundwater Monitoring
requirements for RCRA permitted.
0000**
0000
Provided via complete removal of
contaminated material In alternatives
E, F and G.
Provided via complete removal of
contaminated material in alternatives
E. F and G. Also provided for via
removal and treatment to health based
standards in alternative H.
Groundwater monitoring program provided
for in alternatives B through H.
Alternate Concentration
Iinit* (ACL»). 40 CFR
Pert Z64 Subpart \, SABA
Sect ion 121(d)(2)(BH I i >
RCRA groundwater monitoring
requirements applied to the site.
00000000
ACL's are not a functional element
of alternatives A through H.
-------
TABLE 10-4
ClIFFS-DOU DISPOSAL AREA
U.S. EPA ARAM
KEY . ' _ -v : ; ^ .; . . . .. . . . -..-.
* Attained '"''.
- Hot Attained
0 ARAB not applicable or relevant and appropriate for this alternative
C - Cheauca I-specific ARAR
A Action/Design-Specific ARAR
IDENTIflED ARAR
ARAR-. ..' ' . . .
TYPE DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
ABC P 6 F C H
COMMENTS
40 CfR Part 403
Provide* pretreat*ent requiresents
for direct discharge to POTU.
No direct discharges to
POIWs are proposed in the Identified
alternative*. Alternative* C, E and f
incorporate treataent before discharge.
40 CfR Part 264,
Subpart L
A Requlreawnts for waste piles.
Hazardous and Solid Waste C Provide* for land disposal
AaendMnt* of 19A4 restrictions for RCRA hazardous
uaste*.
00000000
00000000
Relevant and appropriate for Subpart L
alternative H In which wastes are
segregated, stockpiled and treated.
Not applicable for alternatives
Involving off-site disposal.
contaminants are not RCRA listed waste*
or RCRA characteristic wastes.
-------
TABLE 10 5
CLIFFS-DOU DISPOSAL AREA
U.S. EPA -To-be -considered"
» Attained
- Hot Attained
0 TIC doe* not apply to thasa alternatives
C Chemical-specific TIC
A Action/Dealgn-specific TiC
IDENTIHED
TiC
TYPE DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
ABCOEFCH
COMMENTS
U.S. EPA Integrated Risk
Information System
(IRIS)
U.S. EPA Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual
-------
TABLE 10-6
CLIFfS OOU DISPOSAL AREA
MDNR ARAM*
KEY
* Attained
» Hot Attained
0 ARAR not applicable or relevant and appropriate for this alternative
C Chemical-specific ARAR
A Action/Design-Specific ARAR
IQEMTIMEO
ARAR
TYPE DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
ABCPEfCH
COMMENTS
Act 2*5 of 1929
Part 9
Rule 323
C Surface water quality standards.
Register of critical Materials
presenting discharges from ground-
water treatment systems.
00*0**00
00*0 + »00
Oischarfes to sieet water
quality standards.
List critical Materials
presenting discharges fro*
groundwater treatment systems.
Rule 607
Requires a contingency plan
and emergency procedures during
site activities.
0»»*»*
Provided for in alternatives
8 through H.
Act 348 of 1965
Act 348 of 196S
Rules 371-373
Requirements for air monitoring.
A Provisions of fugitive dust
control program.
Provided for in monitoring
component of alternatives
B through H.
Provided for in those alternatives
involving excavation of wastes.
-------
TABLE 10-7
CLIFFS-DOU DISPOSAL AREA
MOM* "To-be-cooaidered*
KEY
* « Attained
- > Hot Attained
0 Dots not apply to these alternative*
C Chemical-specific TBC
A Action/Deiign-specific IBC
IDENTIFIED TBC
TBC
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
ALTERMATIVES
ABCOEfCH
COMMENTS
Act 64 of 1979:
Part 2
Identification requirements
for haiardous wastes.
0 » 0 » * «
for off-site disposal actions.
Part 3
Part
Rule 504
Rule 506
Rule 508
Reporting, transport and storage
requirements for haiardous Hastes.
Requires licensed haiardous waste
hauler to facilitate transport of
site materials.
****
0 » 0 * * * »
Requirements for construction permits 00000000
for neu haiardous waste treatment.
storage and disposal facilities.
Specifies technical information
for hydrogeologic reports.
Specifies operating license
application contents for
landfilIs.
00000000
00000000
Alternatives have been developed
to comply with haiardous waste
Included in all excavation and
and transport alternatives.
CERCIA sites are exempted from
permitting requirements for
on-site remedial actions.
Does not apply to CERCIA sites.
No landfills are proposed in
any of the alternatives.
Rule 602
General environmental and human
health standards.
Achieved by these alternatives.
-------
TABLE 10-B
CLIffS-DOU DISPOSAL AREA
MDNR -lo-be-considered"
KEY
+ Attained
Not Attained
0 Doe* not apply to these alternatives
C Chemical-specific IBl
A Action/Design-specific 1BC '
IPWIMJP
Act V8 of 1V13
Act 2*5 of 1929:
ula J2S, Part 21
TBC
TTPE DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
A B C 0 E f C H
A Provide* for supervision and
control of sewerage systems.
A Establishes the waste or waste
affluent discharge permit system.
00000000
00000000
COMMENTS
Ho additiona and or Modifications
to sewerage aysteas are proposed.
CERCLA sites art exempted from
permitting requirements for
on-site remedial actions.
Rule 121. Pert 22
Provides groundwater quality
rules, including nondegradation
of usable aquifers.
Crounduater atoni toring/act ion
guidelinea provided for in
alternatives B through H.
Act SIS of 1969
Act 146 of 1972
Requirements for test wells.
Requires permit for constructing
surface water discharge piping.
»»*»»»»
00000000
Provided for in monitoring
component of alternatives A
through H.
CERCLA sites are exempted from
permitting requirements for
on-site remedial actions.
Act U7 o« 1V72:
Rule 1702
Soil erosion control and
sediment plan lor earth changes
0 0 0 0 «» Provided for in "clean" closure
type alternatives.
-------
KEY
» Attained
Mot Attained
0 Does not apply to that* alternative*
C - Chemical-aped fie TIC
A Action/Design-Specific TBC
TABLE 10-9
CLIFFS-DOU DISPOSAL AREA
MOM* "To-be-considered"
IDENTIFIED TBC
TBC
TYPE DESCRIPTION
ALTERNATIVES
ABCPEfCH
COMMENTS
Act 347 of 1972:
Rut a 1704
Soil erofion control and sediment
plan for earth changea within
five hundred (500) feet of a lake
or stream.
00000000
Site does not lie within five
hundred (500) feet of a lake or
stream.
.Act 348 of 1965
Act 368 of 1978
Permitting requirements for air
diachargaa occurring during
remedial operations.
Provides Michigan Department of
of Public Health with the
authority to protect the public
health.
00000000
*******
CERCLA aitea art exempted from
permitting requirements for
on-eita remedial actions.
Alternativaa B through H structured in
accordance with Michigan Department of
Public Health codaa.
-------
Alternative A - No Action
Capital Cost
0 and M
Present Worth O&M
Total Present Worth Cost
0
0
0
Soil Cove
it '
th O&M
r. and Mcni
$
tormo Pr*7Tr^B
592,188
63,280
596.540
Capital Cost
0 and M
Present
Total Present Worth Cost $ 1,188,728
C ~
Fencing. Monitorinc
Capital cost
0 and M
Present Worth O&M
Total Present Worth Cost
$ 1,221,204
223,280
2.104.860
$ 3,326,064
live D - Off-Sji-g
Pnxiiaro
Capital Cost
0 and M
Present Worth O&M
Ttatal Present Worth Cost
496,203
34,280
323 . 157
792,360
Alternative E - Off-5it**'T^p^fjii of All Fill. Grourriwater TreatnEnt ard
Monitoring Prouidin
Capital Cost
O and M
Present Worth O&M
Tbtal Present Worth Cost
$ 4,747,406
250,280
2.359.390
$ 7,106,796
-------
11
F - Off-Site Incineration of All Fill. Groundwater Treatment.
Capital Cost $ 8,497,406
0 and M 250,280
Present Worth O&M 2.359.390
TtJtal Present North Cost $ 10,856,796
Alternative G - Off-Site Incineration of Tars. Off-Site T^ndfillina of
Ranaining Fill, pp^gd Restriction and Monitoring Prouiain
Capital Cost $ 4,182,263
0 and M 63,280
Present Worth O&M 596.540
Ratal Present Worth Cost $ 4,778,803
H ~ Off Site Incineration of E^ry*M5|ri and
Treatanent of Rp^id'1^! ODTT^^OT'' rated Fill. Soil
Covgr and Revege^tion o^ F\^\ Area. Dg^yj P«^?*!Tiction and
. Monitoring Program
Capital Cost $ 2,245,625
0 and M 63,280
Present Worth O&M 596.540
total Present Worth Cost $ 2,842,165
-------
I ABU 12
ciirrt-Dou DISPOSAL *«r*
IDfNIIf ICAIIM AMD ICMfMIHC Of IMOGICAl IICAINfNI MOCESS OPIIOMS
Central
tttponie
Action
Technology
Proce**
Option*
DrierIptIon
Icrctnlng
Cowwnlt
lolofllccl lr*«t*cnt V-
Itnt
fprt«dlng oral till In* al u*«U on lend.
ultlur* control. »nd
-------
13
ciiffs-oou DISPOSAL AHA
IVAUMtlON Of aiMOGICAL IIIAIHCMI MOCfSS Of I IONS
Central
ifX>n«e
Action
MdUl
technoloay
raceaa
Option*
fffecllvenec*
laplaMtntablllly
Coal
fmlHtnt
I fill
Mlirlal
Imf
forced Aeration
loloflcol troatMnt
tffoctlvemat likely.
tp*ce
llailtallana Mould r*c*jlre
treataent af portion* af Illl
ewierlal at a tine.
eadlly lepleaentabla.
Ian capital.
a»dluB 0 i N.
Nadlue capital.
avdlue O 1 M.
(lurry loraaclor
fffactlvcneia likely.
laplewntebla; hlati liquid/
olid flurry ratio Mould
require nuwroua tietch
treetnenla.
Blah capital.
klah O t N.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
STATE Of MICHIGAN
HATISUL
TK3MA4 J. ANOCHtOM
MA01.CNC 4 FlUrtAJrrr
00*00* i
JAMES J. BmNCHAflO, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STtVCNS T. MA9ON BUitOING
PO «O> M02«
LANSM& Ml 4tWI
QAVHO f MALtt.
September 22. 1989
Mr. Valdas Adaokus
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 Souch Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Adamkus: \
I am pleased to inform you that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) concurs with the selected remedy outlined in the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Cliffs-Dow Superfund site. The ROD indicate* that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to:
1. Excavate exposed and buried tars and incinerate then off-site.
2. Conduct enhanced biological treatment of the remaining fill material.
The enhanced bioremediation of the residual fill material will be
evaluated during the remedial design portion of the project. If, based
upon these remedial design pilot studies, it is determined that the fill
material cannot b« treated to a non-hazardous classification via the
enhanced biological treatment, then off-site disposal and/or other
treatment technologies will be required.
3. Provide a soil cap and revegetate the fill material after completion of
the biological treatment.
4. Provide deed restrictions that prevent installation of drinking vatcr
veils within the vicinity of the contaminated groundvater boundaries.
S. Conduct a groundvater monitoring program. This program will ba designed
to assess the effectiveness of in-situ bioreacdiation on the groundvacer
contamination. If th« in-situ groundvater bioremediation is ineffective
and analysis indicates that the groundvater quality has not been
restored, implementation of a plan to purge and treat the contaminated
groundvater will be required.
6 R«-evaluate the hydrogeology of the area. This requirement ia
necessitated by the fact that the hydrogeology at the sit* has beon
isinterpreted.
t.a
-------
Mr. Valdas Adaakus -2- Sepc«mb«r 22, 1989
7. Conduce an
-------
CLIFFS-DOW DISPOSAL
MARQUETTE, MICHIGAN
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) , with the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MCNR), entered into an 106
Administrative Consent Order with the Dow Chemical Company, the ;
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Conpany, the Georgia-Pacific Corporation and the
City of Marquette stipulating the undertaking of a Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and pre-design regarding the Cliffs-Dow
Disposal site located in Marquette, Michigan. The required RI/FS/
activities have been completed, information was collected on the nature
and extent of contamination at the Cliffs-Dow Site (RI) , and alternatives
for appropriate remedial acrion at Cliffs-Dow were developed and
evaluated (F5 and Proposed Plan). Throughout this process , public
meetings have been held near the site in which U.S. EPA and MCNR were
available to Hi«-»i»g the RI/FS and exchange information with the public.
At the conclusion of the FS, a Proposed Plan was finalized by U.S. EPA,
in consultation with MCNR, which identified recommended alternatives .for
remedial action at the Cliffs-Dow site. U.S. EPA offered a 90 day public
comment period on U.S. EPA's proposed Plan and FS from April 7, 1989 to
July 5, 1989. At a public meeting on April 25, 1989, U.S. EPA presented
its Proposed Plan for the Cliffs-Dow Disposal Site.
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to document the comments
received during the public comment period, and U.S. EPA's responses to
the comments. All of the comments summarized in this document were
considered prior to U.S. EPA's final decision embodied' in the Record of
Decision for the site.
The responsiveness summary is divided into the following sections:
I. ppgponsivery8!?-^ Sumn^TV Overview. This section briefly outlines the
proposed remedial alternatives as presented in the Proposed Plan,
including the maiimientei alternative.
II. Background on Ocnimnity Involvement. This section provides a brief
history of comunity interest and of concerns raised during planning
activities at the site.
III. Summary of P^lic CUHI^-TI^ Pecgived Paring the Public Canment Period
and U.S. EPA Responses. Both oral and written comments are grouped by
followed by U.S. EPA responses to these comments.
I. RESPONSIVEtmgS SUMMARY OVEW1EW
On April 7, 1989, U.S. EPA ra^ available to the public for review and
Tt the Feasibility Study (FS) report dated July 1988 and U.S.. EPA's
-------
Proposed Plan, for the dif fs-Dow Disposal Site. The alternatives for
remedial action described methods for cleaning up the tars, fill
material, and groundwater at the site. U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan
described in detail seven (7) alternatives for remedial action at the
site. The proposed remedial alternatives included the following:
ft - (Alternative 1 in the FS) - No Action- in which no
further work will be done at the site.
B - (Alternative 7 in the FS) - Excavation and thermal
destruction of the exposed tars in an off-site incinerator; soil cover
over the remaining fill materials; deed restriction; and a groundwater
and air* monitoring program. . . : ,
Alternative C - (Alternative 8 in the FS) - Inpermeafale cap over the area
of the exposed tar materials; groundwater treatment system;, fencing; and
a groundwater and air monitoring program. .
Alternative D - (Alternative 6 in the FS) - Excavation and off-site
landfilling of the exposed tars; deed restrictions; and a groundwater and \
air monitoring program. , . .
Alternative B - (Alternative 11 in the FS) - Excavation and of f-site
landfilling of all fill materials; a groundwater treatment system; and a
groundwater and air monitoring program.
Alternative F - (Alternative 12 in the FS) - Excavation, and of f-site
incineration of all fill materials; a groundwater treatment system; and a
groundwater and air monitoring program.
Alternative G - ("Hybrid" of Alternatives 7 and 11 in the FS) - Excavation and
off-site incineration of tars and off-site landfilling of all remaining fill
material; deed restrictions; and a groundwater and air monitoring program.
After careful evaluation of the RI and FS, the U.S. EPA preferred
Alternative G, in the Proposed Plan, for the Cliffs-Dew Disposal Site.
Numerous parties submitted formal written ccnments during the public concent
period. Those parties included;
1) Mr. William Blake
President/General Manager
Taccnite Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Q107 VMQT fm radio)
2) Ms. Susan Holloway .
Student-Northern Michigan University (NMU)
3) Mr. Gayle Coyer
President-Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
-------
4) Mr. D. J. Jaccbetti, Chairman
House Appropriations Gccmittee
State House of Representatives
5) Mr. Jerome A. Roth
Professor of Chemistry-NMJ
6) Mr. Janes J. Scullion (Retired)
Pres. & Chief Exec. Officer
Lake Superior & Ishpeming R.R. Co.
7) Rev. Tnuls C. Cappo, Chairperson
Lake Superior Jobs Coalition
3) Mr. Dave Hamari, Marquette Citizen
9) Eugene E. Smary, Esq., on behalf of
City of Marquette, Michigan;
Georgia-Pacific Corporation;
The Dow Chemical Company: and
The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company.
Numerous parties submitted verbal Garments during the April 25, 1989,
Proposed Plan public hearing. Those parties included;
1) Mr. Bill Witt, Environmental Manager
The Dow Chemical Conpany
2) Dr. Swiatoslav Kaczmar
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
3) Mr. David Svanda, City Manager
City of Marquette
4) Mr. Buzz Beruhe, Mayor
City of Marquette
5) Mr. Dave Hamari, Marquette Citizen
6) Ms. ft*U Coyer
President-Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
7) Mr. Richard Dunnebacke, Executive Director
Operation Action U.P.
U. BBQCBDGND OH CCtyiNTW
in the Spring of 1981, two people reported that they were walking through
the disrraal area and soiled their clothes with tar residue. The City of
Marquette then began site investigations and placed the Cliffs-Dow Disposal
Site on the U.S. EPA inventory list. The City of Marquette, the Dow
-------
Chemical Company and the Michigan Department of Public Health initiated
sampling activities at the dif fs-Dow Disposal Site in 1981, which continued
through 1982.
In September 1983, U.S. EPA placed the dif fs-Dow Site on the Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL).
U.S. EPA's planning process for the RI at the dif fs-Dow Disposal Site
began in the Winter, 1983, when the Dow Chemical Company and the Cleveland
diffs Iron Company proposed to voluntarily work with U.S. EPA in resolving
the problems at the Cliffs-Dow Site.
U.S. EPA prepared a Community Relations Plan (CRP) dated August 22, 1984,
for the dif fs-Dow Disposal Site. The CRP outlined a community relations
strategy to apply to the dif fs-Dow Site. In September 1984, public
information repositories were established at the NMF campus and the City of
Marquette Library.
On September 28, 1984, the U.S. EPA, with the MDNR, entered into an 106
Administrative Consent Order with certain potentially responsible parties \
(PRPs) that U.S. EPA has determined are liable for all costs of removal or
remedial action at the site pursuant to Section 107 of CEPTTA, including;
the Dow Chemical Company, the develand diffs Iron Company, the Georgia-
Pacific Corporation and the City of Marquette, stipulating the undertaking
of a Rpmpri.ial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and pre-design
regarding the dif fs-Dow Disposal Site. The signed Order went out for
public eminent in October 1984. No Garments were received during the thirty
day comment period; the Order became effective thereafter.
On September 27, 1984, U.S. EPA held a public meeting to rMcmcM RI/FS
activities planned for the Cliffs-Dow Site and distribute a Fact Sheet
regarding these activities. Interested parties included Marquette community
leaders, the press, UPBC, the general public and the PRPs.
In November 1984 a fence with warning signs was installed, and the RI/FS
field work began. Information was collected on the nature and extent of
contamination at the diffs-Dow site (RI). The RI report was completed in
August 1987 and placed in. the Peter White Public Library repository for
public viewing in March 1988. Alternatives for appropriate remedial action
at dif fs-Dow were developed and evaluated (FS). Tne U.S. EPA prepared a
Proposed Plan for remedial, action for the dif fs-Dow Site based upon the RI
and FS Reports. The FS report and U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan were placed in
the repository for public viewing on April 7, 1989.
On March 29, 1989, the PRPs filed a motion for a temporary restrainir^j order
and preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan (Case No. M89-10087CA). The PRPs sought to restrain
U.S. EPA from publishing the Proposed Plan, alleging that the Agency had
violated the RI/FS Consent Order by selecting a remedy which the PRPs not
studied in the FS. On April 3, 1989, Judge Hillaan denied the motion,
ruling that the PRPs had not demonstrated that they would be irreparably
harmed by U.S. EPA's action or that they would likely succeed on the merits
-------
of their claim* against the Agency at a future trial. Judge Hillman also
found that the PRP's request was contrary to the public interest inasmuch as
it would delay remedial action at the site. The case has since been
Hjqnigg
-------
I. (^r>yffl/TS FRCM TOE PRPs. General.
The PRPs submitted multiple volumes of information as their public content.
Volume I; Joint Comments of The City of Marquette, Hichigan; Georgia-Pacific
Corporation; The Dow Chemical Company; and The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company
(PRPs) on:U.S; EPA's Proposed Plan; contained the substantive portion of
their comments. In addition to actual comments on the U.S. EPA Proposed
Plan, this document presents historic information, additional studies and an
assemblage of reference information much of which do not regard the Proposed
Plan itself and are not otherwise significant comments, criticisms or new
data, and thus do,not require responses under Section 117(b) of CERCLA.
As explained in the Executive Summary in Volume I of the PRPs comments,
during the public comment period the PRPs conrTnrtvRci an extensive sampling
and treatability study, and presented the results of their additional work
as part of their public comment. The PRPs also prepared a supplemental FS,
which unlike the July 1988 FS, was prepared according to Agency Guidance and
addressed Agency concerns regarding contaminated fill materials. The
activities that the PRPs conducted during the public comment period was
beyond the requirements of the Consent Order. As such, the U.S. EPA had no *
authority to suggest or direct any additional work during the comment
period.
I.A. Comment. CVolume I, pages 15-18).
The U.S. EPA Proposed Plan overestimates carcinogenic risks related to
exposure of the.fill material. The assumption that a human child or even an
adult would repeatedly visit the site on a daily basis, every day of his/her
70-year life and ingest 100 mg. of fill material containing the highest
measured concentrations of carcinogenic material is a gross overestimation
and is inconsistent with human behavior, and what is known regarding the
site, the land use area, and the bioavailability of PAKs in carbon rich
soils. The potential is further reduced because the PRP proposed
alternative, in the July 1988 FS, would incinerate exposed tars, provide for
deed restrictions and a soil cover over the fill material.
The U.S. EPA assumption that polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAKs) with
carcinogenic classifications of NB2N and "O* are human carcinogens, with the
same cancer potency as benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), has no valid scientific
justification,
I.A.
During the course of an RI/FS at any Superfund site the U.S. EPA either
prepares or has PRPs prepare a risk assessment according to U.S. EPA policy
and guidelines. This risk assessment provides U.S. EPA with a basis for
selection of remedy which would be protective of public health, welfare and
the environment. The U.S. EPA utilizes the best available information and
makes certain reasonable assumptions in risk calculations. The risk
assessment presented in the Cliffs-Dow Proposed Plan was prepared consistent
with U.S. EPA policy and guidance, and with risk assessments at other
Superfund Sites.
-------
The U.S. EPA commonly uses a "residential scenario1* (i.e. unrestricted use
of the site) when quantifying risks. Although the site is not currently
zoned residential, there are no assurances that zoning ordinances may not
change in the future. If such a zoning change occurs, a soil cover would
likely be disturbed during any construction activities. The site is
currently zoned recreational, as such, the public is allowed
The preamble to the proposed National Contingency Plan (NCP) , 53 Fed. Reg.
at 51423, states that: N ... institutional controls such as water and deed
restrictions nay supplement engineering controls for short- and long-term
management to prevent, or limit exposure, to hay^Trirms substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls will be used routinely
to prevent exposure to releases during the conduct of the
investigation and feasibility study/ during remedial action implementation,
and as a supplement to engineering controls designed to manage waste over
time. Tfr** t*q*r n^ insfr'-'f'fottd.op'*! UUI^M-^** ^n r^-^Lrict t^^e rir' Jy-vip*-ff3 should
not. hcMcv
-------
8
For the PAH gccup of compounds the cancer potency factor for BaP is .used
for quantitative risk estimations, and applied to those compounds which
are actual or possible human carcinogens (i.e. Groups A, B and C).
It should be noted that there are uncertainties associated with the
estimates of risks and the assumptions made in developing those estimations
tend to be conservative, i.e., with a tendency towards overestimation. The
actual risks are not likely to exceed those calculated; but may be lower.
This method of risk calculation for PAH, applying the cancer potency factor
of BaP to group A,B, and C carcinogens, provides for optimal protection of
human health.
The U.S. EPA risk calculations presented in the Proposed Plan complied with
Agency policy and guidance on risk assessment and resolve any ambiguities in
favor of protecting human health and the environment.
I.B. Garment. (Volume I, page 27).
The PRPs state that "Section 121 of CERCLA ccnpels selection of an
alternative utilizing bioremedial treatment over an alternative utilizing
off-site landfilling of the same material1*. \
I.B.
Section 121 (b) (1) of CERCLA states that: "Pemedial actions in which
treatment permanently 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
treatment. The off-site transport and Higpn^ai of hazardous substances or
contaminated materials without such treatment should be the least favored
alternative remedial action where practicable treatment technologies are
available. (Emphasis added).
As shown above. Section 121 (b) states a preference, and not a requirprnpnt
for selection of an alternative utilizing treatment. Section 121 also
provides other criteria for selecting a remedy, including cost-
effectiveness and consistency with the NCP, in turn provides nine selection
criteria which are evaluated in the Proposed Plan and ROD. In the case of
Cliffs-Dow, the U.S. EPA joondnrfrpri a review of the alternatives presented in
the FS which included a treatment component in the remedy. Many of these
alternatives were carried forth and analyzed in the Proposed Plan. The
treatment components presented in the FS utilized incineration to
significantly and permanently reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume of
waste. The FS and Proposed Plan evaluated a complete incineration of all
wastes at the site and U.S. EPA determined that it was not cost-effective to
utilize that method of treatment for the entire waste volume. The U.S. EPA
preferred alternative included treatment by incineration as a integral
component addressing the most concentrated wastes which would present a
greater public health or environmental threat.
The U.S. EPA evaluated the enhanced biological treatment alternative which
the PRPs presented as part of public comment. This alternative was balanced
against the other alternatives previously presented in the Proposed Plan,
-------
and the enhanoed biological treatment component of this alternative was
incorporated into the U.S. EPA selected alternative. See the ROD for a
complete nine NCP criteria evaluation of alternatives.
I.C. Comment. (Volume I, page 28).
The U.S. EPA has selected bioremediation at numerous other sites including:
Iron Horse Park Site, Massachusetts; L.A. Clarke Site, Virginia; Renora,
Inc. Site, Bonhamtown, New Jersey; Brown Wood Preserving Site,--.Live Oak,
Florida; ATSF (dovis) Site, New Mexico; Brio Refining Site, Texas; and
French Limited Site, Texas.
The U.S. EPA acknowledges the selection of bioremediation at other Svjperfund
sites as the major component of the selected remedy. The remedy selection
process at a Superrund site is complex. This process requires careful site-
specific data collection in the RI, and application of evaluation criteria ^
to an array of alternatives which address site-specific conditions in a FS.
Simple application of other remedies selected at other Superfund sites as
grounds for selecting the remedy at the Cliffs-Dow site is not appropriate.
The site-specific Administrative Record must be completely reviewed to
determine the support (documents for each Record of Decision (ROD).
The following discussions highlight site-specific information which
differentiates the Cliffs-Dow Site from those referenced in the Respondents'
comments. Copies of these RODs have been included for reference in the
Cliffs-Dow Administrative Record.
The Iron Horse Park Site. Massachusetts, is located in an industrial conplex
with a minimal potential for residential development. The ROD did not
select a final remedy but a distinct operable unit to address specific
lagoon sludge and contaminated soils. Contaminants found in the
groundwater at the site are generally not related to the operable unit being
aAinpgJMri, but to other on-site sources which will be addressed in
subsequent operable units. ROD at 10.
'-.'.'
On-site incineration was evaluated as a remedial alternative but was not
selected because it was significantly more expensive than bioremediation.
ROD at 27. Off-site rfigpncai was evaluated but a combination of
treatment/off-site rf-i
-------
10
The clean-up of surface soils to lxlOe-6 risk for future residents
ingestion scenario was a remedial action objective. A total carcinogenic
PAH level of 0.08 mg/kg was determined to be acceptable for surface soils to
maet this goal. To attain an interim lxlOe-5 risk at a groundwater
the groundwater cleanup would require a 10.3 mg/kg PAH and 94.03
ug/kg benzene in soils to meet these health based goals. A subsequent ROD
will address appropriate groundwater cleanup. The alternatives evaluation
did not discount off-site landf illing solely on the basis of CERCLA
preference for waste treatment, the costs for off-site disposal were 300%
greater than bioremediation and costs associated with incineration were
nearly 40O% greater than bioremediation. This extreme cost difference was
due to the large volume of contaminated soils which required remediation.
HDD at 35-38.
The Renora Inc. Site. Bonhamptown, New Jersey, is located in an area zoned
for light industrial use. The site was contaminated due the transfer,
storage and blending of waste oils on-site, and ultimate abandonment by the
operator. A removal action was performed in October 1984, in which 33, 000 \
gallons of liquid waste, 28,000 gallons of PCS contaminated waste oil and
1,060 cubic yards of contaminated soils were off-site disposed. The
subsequent RI/FS was a:n:h.)ctad to evaluate alternatives for residual site
contamination.
The information gathered during the RI indicated that PAH contamination was
limited to soils and there was no release of PAHs to the groundwater. The
absence of groundwater contamination was controlled by limited vertical
permeability due to the highly weathered, clay-rich bedrock at the site and
the low hydraulic conductivity of the fill and alluvium.
The selected remedy for the Renora Site included the following components:
x Excavation and off-site landf illing of approximately 1100 cubic yards
of PCs-contaminated soils above 5 ppm;
' Bicdegradation of all PAH contaminated soils containing concentrations
above 10 ppm;
* Use of groundwater as an irrigation mRdium for biodegradation ; and
* Backfilling, grading and revegetation.
Target cleanup levels were selected which represented the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJECEP) standards and anticipated
performance capabilities of the technologies evaluated. The ROD qualifies
remedy selection as follows: The potential for future remedial action would
be determined based on the groundwater monitoring, annual site inspection
and land use changes at or in the vicinity of the site. Changes in any of
the aforementioned factors that increase the magnitude of risk to public
health or the environment would require a re-assessment of the need for
further remedial action. Based on the feasibility study, present worth
costs of any further remedial action could range from $450,000 to
$77,000,000 depending on the remedial action that would be implemented.
Furthermore, the selection of bioremediation was qualified in that; a pre-
design treatability study will be necessary to refine operating parameters
-------
11 . - -
for the system.
The Brown Wood Preserving Site. Live Oak, Florida, was a former wood
preserving facility. Fran ppnpmhpr 1987 through March 1988 a removal action
was undertaken which included the excavation, stabilization and off-site
H*«ymgai of is,000 tons of creosote contaminated lagoon sludge. The ROD'
for the site embodies the remaining worJc necessary to complete the post-.
removal site remediation. The selected alternative "conditionally** accepts
bioremediation as follows: if land treatment (biodegradation) does not
attain the desired cleanup levels for the appropriate organic contaminants
within the time allowed, then an alternative means of dealing with
contaminated soils, such as removal, incineration, solidification, or
vitrification, will be determined by U.S. EPA at that tine. ROD at 29, The
action levels set for carcinogenic PAHs, 100 ppm, was based on a Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) evaluation PAH relative to 2,3,7,8 tetra-
chlomdihPinzo-p-dioxin. This approach is not o»."*p"n to U.S. EPA risk
assessment calculations and was not applied at the Cliffs-Dew Site. The
lxlOe-6 risk, and associated lOOppn action level was based upon infrequent v
trespass by children due to the rural locale and not based upon a
residential scenario. See ROD Appendices.
ATSF f Clevis 1 Site. Clevis, New Mexico, is a drainage lake which was used
for wastewater disposal from a railroad switching yard. The contamination
found in lake sediments were predominantly hydrocarbons (up to 35 pern) , and
total phenolics (about 1.1 ppm). These contaminants were not consistently
detected in groundwater at the site. The bioremediation component of the
remedy would address low level hydrocarbon contamination, with no set
cleanup levels since there were no potential receptors identified.
Brio Refining Site. Texas, is a 58 acre site used for refining crude oil and
styrene tars. Various waste products were H-igpracri of and/or stored en-
site. The ROD for the site indicated U.S. EPA's preference for incineration
of 62,900 cubic yards of contaminated materials but would allow the
potentially responsible parties (PRFs) an opportunity to perform
treatability studies, to U.S. EPA's satisfaction, for biological treatment
of these wastes. It is important to note that the major contaminants of
TI at this site was volatile organic compounds (TCCs), with minor
contamination by a few PAH compounds.
The FS for the site did evaluated both treatment and non-treatment
alternatives addressing all contaminated material on-site. The estimated
cost of treatment by incineration was $22,458,000 to $26,598,000. The
estimated cost of treatment by bioremediation on-site was $23,308,000 to
$23,333,000. The estimated cost of off-site disposal without treatment
was $84,783,000. ROD at 20-21. In U.S. EPA's evaluation of alternatives
there is a statutory preference for treatment. At this site the costs for
off-site disposal without treatment are approximately 400% greater than on-
site treatment. As such, preference would be toward' the on-site treatment
alternative.
-------
12
French T.iTnit-ar^ site. Texas, is a 22.5 acre site which was
-------
:. . . 13
deficiencies and miscalculations in the FW FS and presented an appropriate
preferred alternative for remedial action in the Proposed Plan. The
preferred alternative provided for protection of public health, welfare ard
the environment from both "exposed and or residual contaminants", which
would meet the requirements of the NCP. See Administrative Record.
In addition, the proposed NCP states that "Final rerpaHi'ation goals will be
is selected.
protective of
evels that
be developed...". (Emphasis added). Proposed 40 C.F.R.
300.430(e) (2) (i), 53 Fed. Reg. 51474, 51505 (Dec. 21,1988)
I.E. Comment. (Volume I, pages 40-61).
The U.S. EPA improperly rejected Alternative B by misidentifying and
misapplying Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) in
accordance with U.S. EPA guidance.
The U.S. EPA and MDNR provided ARARs late in the RI/FS process. The ARARs .
provided merely a "laundry list" of potential ARARs. v
The U.S. EPA mi supplied certain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) , Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) , and State of Michigan ARARs.
I.E. Response.
The OSWER Directive 9234. L-01,; (August 8, 1988) (Draft ARARs Guidance)
provides a notice which states that "This draft guidance has not been
formally released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not
at this stage be construed to represent Agency policy. It is subject to
change and may be withdrawn without notice to holders." The ARARs guidance
further states, at page xi, that "This manual will also be used by
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) whenever they have the lead for
identifying pr^nti*! ARARs. In cases where potential ARARs are identified
by the PRP. the ac*"1"*! ARARs will be decided by the lead agency. " (emphasis
added) . The preamble to the proposed NCP states that "EPA in its oversight
role for CERdA enforcement actions, will resolve ARAR disputes between the
lead agency and the potentially responsible parties" (emphasis added) . 53
Fed. Peg. 51394, 51437 (Dec. 21, 1988). The U.S. EPA believes that it has
properly analyzed and applied ARARs in the Proposed Plan.
Following submission of the Remedial Alternatives Analysis Technical
Memorandum by the PRPs, the U.S. EPA .transmitted a detailed ARARs package to
the PRPs on January 20, 1988. The package outlined ARARs on an alternative-
specific basis for inclusion in the FS. The reiteration and misapplication
of ARARs, as they were presented in the FS were determined by U.S. EPA and
presented appropriately in the Proposed Plan.
Specific comments were received regarding RCRA as an ARAR, specifically 40
C.F.R. Part 264. U.S. EPA has made the determination that the majority of
the waste constituents found at the site are sufficiently similar to those
hazardous waste constituents in which F001, K022 and K035 were listed (See
-------
14
40 C.F.R. 261 Appendix VII) that nary of the RCRA requirements under RCRA
Part 264, although hot applicable, are relevant and appropriate and that the
application of these RCRA requirements would be protective of human health
and the environment. An explanation of ARAR application is provided in the
Proposed Plan. There were also some minor inconsistencies noted by the
PRPs. Those which warranted corrections or needed further clarification
are described as follows:
1) Proposed Plan, at page 17, indicates that "Alternatives B, C, and D
would comply with...", 40 C.F.R. Subpart B Security requirements. The
correct statement should read "Alternatives B, C and D would not
comply...", this correction will be made in the ROD Table 10-1 is
act;' .;'"
2) Proposed Plan, Table 10-1 indicating an alternatives ability to
satisfy comparison to 40 C.F.R. 264.117(a) and (b) requirements are
correct, since U.S. EPA had determined RCRA to be relevant and
appropriate;
3) Proposed Plan, Table 10-3 indicating which alternatives satisfy
40 C.F.R. 264, Subpart F, groundwater monitoring requirements are \
correct. The Proposed Plan text refers to an alternatives ability to
satisfy "Corrective action" requirements under 40 C.F.R 264;
4) Proposed Plan, Table 10-1 indicates that the SDKA ARAR was not met by
alternatives B, C, and D. This is an error and will be corrected in
the ROD to indicate that alternatives B, C, and D do satisfy this ARAR.
5) Proposed Plan, at 20 and Table 10-8, indicate that Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Water Resources Commission, Act 245, Part 22,
Rule 233> is a to-be-considered (TBC) for the site. Both the Proposed
Plan text and the Table 10-8 have incorrect citations of the Michigan
Rule. The correct citation is: Act 245, Part 22, Rule 323. The
corrections have been made, as appropriate, in the ROD. As set forth
in the Proposed Plan the U.S. EPA maintains that this Michigan Rule is
a TBC for the Cliffs-Dow Site and does require the degree of clean-up
provided.
6) Other citations of Rule 233 A» in the Proposed Plan have been
corrected in the ROD to read "Rule 323", as appropriate.
I.F. eminent. (Volume I^ pages 71-74).
The U.S. EPA presented an unrealistic overstatement of risk based upon the
direct contact exposure route. The U.S.- EPA had considered and relied upon
certain information in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) Health Assessment for the Cliffs-Dow Site. The ATSDR Health
Assessment (HA) document does not appear in the Administrative Record and is
therefore a violation of CERCLA and the U.S. EPA Interim Guidance on
Administrative Records for selection of CERCLA Response Actions, OSWER
Directive No. 9355.0-26 (March 1, 1989). Should U.S. EPA decide to
supplement the Administrative Record after the close of public comment by
inclusion of the ATSDR document, it must reopen the public comment period.
I.F.
See response to comment I.A. for general discussions on U.S. EPA risk
-------
15
calculations.
The ATSDR HA dated April 8, 1988, was reviewed by U.S. EPA and was not
at the
site. Due to this inaccuracy within the document, the ATSDR HA for the
Cliffs-Dow Site was not relied upon by the U.S. EPA in preparing the
Proposed Plan. U.S. EPA had requested, but did not receive, revisions to
the ATSDR HA prior to release of the Proposed Plan. The U.S. EPA had
provided the PRPs a copy of the ATSDR HA in order to fUJBn-isB and clarify the
revisions which were no<>r^:>d in OP^T fo? rrp^ent fac*"11^, 'jj|formation to the
public. '."'''''* .'' : ..''''...
The ATSDR has crrpleted a .draft amendment to the HA which corrects the
original misinterpretation of data. The U.S. EPA has reviewed the draft
amendment and determined that the Proposed Plan need not be modified because
of it. Both the original ATSDR HA and the draft amendment have been
included in the Administrative Record for informational purposes only.
The Administrative Record is comprised of all information, including public
comments and additional information, used by the U.S. EPA Regional
Administrator (RA) in making a selection of remedy for the site or other
information which U.S. EPA believes is pertinent. The Administrative Record
remains open until the ROD is signed by the RA. Neither CERCXA or the
Administrative Record Guidance require reopening public comment period due
to the inclusion of documents in the Administrative Record. .
I.G. Comment. (Volume I, page 74).
The groundwater monitoring program guidelines referenced in U.S. EPA's
Proposed Plan, Table 9, are inconsistent with the July 1988 FS, and are not
supported by any technical justification. The U.S. EPA has arbitrarily
increased the number of monitoring wells to eight, and has stated that the
well locations will be determined "following a reevaluation of the area
hydrogeology" without proving any basis for these statements. A monitoring
well network has already been approved by U.S. EPA and MDNR during the RI.
U.S. EPA cannot impose this groundwater monitoring "guideline" with no basis
in the record.
I.G.
During the RI, twenty-two (22) monitoring wells were installed to assess
hydrogeologic conditions at the site. Results of this investigation
indicated that the Cliffs-Dow Site is located in a highly complex geologic
setting which is characterized by sands and gravels of variable hydraulic
conductivity. The aquifer extends vertically to the local granitic bedrock.
The bedrock surface is of high relief and geophysical data indicates that
the depths to bedrock are extremely variable over short distances. The
groundwater elevations and subsequent flow directions at the site are also
variable due to the geology and seasonal water table fluctuations. The
hydraulic characteristics of the bedrock underlying the sand and gravel
water table aquifer were not evaluated in the RI.
-------
.- .;. 16 .
The .Proposed Plan, Table 9, presents a monitoring program which includes
approximately eight monitoring wells to assess contaminant flow through the
complex geologic system. The nature of groundwater flow at the site
(multiple flow directions, varying water table elevations) would require
that additional wells be sampled to assure that remedial action goals be
met. The Proposed Plan 'provides for determination of optimum monitoring
well locations and number of .well during remedial design, after complete
review of the existing monitoring well network. The "guidelines" further
provide for replacement of monitoring wells if existing wells are
inadequate. It is ««'!»< .for monitoring wells to lose their structural
integrity over time, thereby compromising data quality and requiring the
installation of new wells. = ,
I.H. Comment. : (Volume I, pages 75-77). . .
The guidelines for requiring an immediate pump and treat groundwater remedy
upon a single exceedence of certain contaminant levels are unreasonable and
arbitrary. A single exceedence may be the result of sampling or analytical
technique, or unusual climatic or seasonal changes and dees, not represent a
health or environmental risk justifying immediate mobilization of..a
groundwater treatment system. The PRPs have presented a monitoring program
which would best meet the directives of CTPCTIA. , .
I.H. Response. .
The U.S. EPA determined that the sand and gravel aquifer underlying the
Cliffs-Dow Site is a Class II aquifer,: consistent with U.S. EPA Office of
Groundwater, Classification Guidelines. As such, the aquifer should be
protected from contamination which would render the aquifer unusable or
unacceptable as a source of drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) TTtf»yJTt». contaminant levels (MCLs) and health based levels which meet
a lxlOe-6 risk have been determined to be remedial action goals which would
protect the aquifer and any potential groundwater receptors. The PRP
proposed groundwater monitoring program and proposed subsequent iHiiHlial
action would not adequately assess grounoVater/contaminant flow and assure
that these remedial goals would be attained.
'
The U.S. EPA agrees with the statement that a single exceedence of either
an MCL, or a ixlOe-6 health based action level may be the result of sampling
or analytical technique, or unusual climatic or seasonal changes and does
not justify immediate mobilization of a groundwater treatment system. In
response to this eminent, the U.S. EPA has modified its' groundwater
monitoring/action guidelines to indicate the procedure to bs. followed if an
action level is exceeded in a single monitoring event. If an exceedance is
noted, a discrete sampling event will be conducted at those well locations
which indicate exceedences. If such subsequent sampling indicate action
level exceedences then a pump and treat program shall be implemented. U.S.
EPA believes that this additional sampling would alleviate PRP
regarding analytical variability yet still provides for adequate protection
of groundwater. ...
-------
17
The PRPs prepared a study which suggested that certain compounds detected in
the grcundwater were undergoing in-situ bioremediation. The U.S. EPA
Proposed Plan preferred alternative would remove all contaminated materials
from the site therefore only residual contamination would remain in the
grcundwater. Hence, the U.S. EPA incorporated in-situ bioranediaticn as its
grcundwater component of the remedy. The monitoring/action program would
confirm- that bioranediaticn was effective, with an immediate clean-up being
required should remedial action goals not be met.
The recently proposed "enhanced1* bioremediation of grcundwater may provide
for adequate grcundwater cleanup but would require additional site
investigations and an extensive pilot test program before acceptance by U.S.
EPA. This program would not provide for grcundwater clean-up in a timely
manner should remedial action goals not be met.
I.I. Cuuiient. (Volume I, pages 77-80). .
The procedures U.S. EPA and MENR followed in selecting the remedy was
improper/ unsupported and is contrary to law and policy and to the letter
and spirit of the Consent Agreement.
I.I. Resixaise. " .' ; : ' . .'./.' .
The PRPs have complied with the terms of the Consent Agreement in ccnducting
the necessary investigations and preparing the required, reports. The U.S. .
EPA does not agree with all conclusions made in the reports and as. such
completed the Proposed Plan, consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, based upon
information generated by the PRPs under the:Consent Agreement. The U.S. EPA
has received and evaluated comments from the PRPs and other members of the
public, concerning the Proposed Plan, in making its final remedy decision.
The U.S. EPA's actions were consistent with Section 121 (a) of CERdA which
states that "The President shall select appropriate remedial actions
determined to be necessary to be carried out ...".
See narrative provided under I., Comments from the PRPs, General., for
additional information.
I.J. Comment. (Volume I, page 80).
The U.S. EPA notes that soil borings taken at the site established that the
fill consisted of "wood and charcoal scraps miveri with tars and soil with
tar deposits in the surface depressions." This is an inaccurate statement.
The U.S. EPA notes that "compounds consistently identified in the waste
materials and considered to be potentially hazardous components are
considered site indicator compounds."
I.J.
The RI Report dated September 1989, presented analytical data for soil
borings within the fill area, see Tables 1 through 4, which indicate that a
majority of the site-indicator compounds were consistently detected in the
-------
18
borings at various elevations. Since these site-indicators are cannon to
the tars deposited at the site, the statement that wood and charcoal scraps
m|y«*3 with tars and soil with tar deposits in the surface depressions is an
accurate statement.
The following was excerpted from the July 1988 FS, page 1-6, 'The acid
extractable and base neutral compounds were consistently detected in the
soil and tar samples collected and analyzed during the waste
characterization of the fill materials. The volatiles, however, were found
only in y** samples of the tar material. The chemical components in the
set of compounds listed above were designated as "site- specific indicator
parameters."" The U.S. EPA paraphrased these statements for inclusion in
the Proposed Plan. Additionally, the indicator conpounds selected are on
U.S. EPA's p^gATTHnig Substance List, therefore, this statement is correct.
I.K. Cumient. (Volume I, page 80). .
Table 1, at page 6, identified tetrachlorethane as a site indicator
compound. This is an error. The compound is tetrachloroethylene.
I.K. Response. . .' . .''.'.' .'. . ^ ,.
U.S. EPA agrees with this comment and has made the appropriate correction.
I.L. Cumient. (Volume I, pages 81-85).
On March 28, 1989, without notifying the PRPs> U.S. EPA issued a memorandum
to the Administrative Record stating that the Cliffs-Dow. Site may posed an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the
environment. The Administrative Record does not support the assertion of an
imminent and substantial endangerment. '.-
The Consent Order which is included in the Administrative Record contain the
same findings as found in U.S. EPA's March 29, 1989, memorandum. The
investigations conducted by the PRPs and U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan further
support the findings contained within the memorandum. The site lies within
a recreational area, with fishing, camping, hiking etc., being cannon.
There are no substantive barriers which preclude trespassers or any
restrictions which prevent the area from being rezoned for residential use
in the future. There have been and continue to be, contaminant releases to
the groundwater which approach drinking water MCLs. Ingestion of on-site
soils, under a residential scenario, would result in carcinogenic risks
above U.S. EPP's acceptable risk range.
Without implementation of a remedial action providing for an equivalent
degree of protection as the preferred alternative in U.S. EPA s Proposed
Plan, the site may continue to pose an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment.
The U.S. EPA has no obligation to notify the PRPs before placing a document:
-------
'."'';"' ...-- . 19
in the Administrative Record.
I.M. eminent.
Included with the PRPs' ex iments were the following documents:
Appendix A: Grcundwater Bioremediation Study
Appendix B: The Test.Trench and Boring Investigation
Appendix C: The Bioremediation Treatability Study
Appendix D: Data Evaluation: New Risk Assessment, and Uncertainty
Calculations
Appendix E: The Supplemental Feasibility Study
Appendix F: May 1989 Monthly Report
Appendix G: Review of'Health Assessment of the Cliffs-Dow Site
Appendix H: Groundwater Monitoring and Action Program
Appendix I: Amended Complaint, City of M^Tnguette. et *1. v. U.S. EPA
.- . . et al. .-''
Appendix J: March 21, .1989, Affidavit of William J. Witt, with
. Exhibits . ..
Appendix A: The U.S. EPA has included this document in the Administrative
Record as reference and has determined that no response is required.
Appendix B: : The U.S. EPA has included this document in the Administrative
Record as reference and: has determined that no response is required.
Appendix C: The U.S. EPA, through the Applications and Assistance Branch of
the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research laboratory (RSKRL) has provided
review comments on the treatability study and has made certain
recommendations. The RSKEL comments have been in the Administrative Record..
Appendix D: The U.S. EPA has included this document in the Administrative
Record. U.S. EPA's reply to comments regarding the Cliffs-Dow Site risk
assessment are included in U.S. EPA's response to comment I.A.
Appendix E: The U.S. EPA has included this document in the Administrative
Record as reference and has determined that no response is required.
Appendix F: The U.S. EPA has included this document in the Administrative
Record as reference and has determined that, rip response is required.
Appendix G: The U.S. EPA has included this document in .the Administrative
Record. The ATSCR has provided review comments and the amendment to the
referenced ATSDR Health Assessment for the Cliffs-Dow Site. All ATSDR
documents related to the Cliffs-Dow Site have been included in the
Administrative Record. Additional U.S. EPA comments regarding the ATSDR
Health Assessment are included in U.S. EPA's response to comment I.F.
Appendix H: The U.S. EPA has included this /document in the Administrative
Record. U.S. ZPA's reply to this document are, included in U.S. EPA's
-------
20
to comment I.G. and I.H.
Appendix I and J: The U.S. EPA has included this document in the
.Administrative Record. U.S. EPA's reply to this document are included in
U.S. EPA's response to Respondents' general comment I.
FV*M '1HE t^Jhf.TC DUPIJif?
PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
n.A,
Mr. Bill Witt, Environmental Manager, Dow Chemical Company, as
representative for the PRPs or the Respondents noted that the Respondents
performed a voluntary RI/FS at the GLiffs-Dow Site. The Respondents think
they have developed a reasonable alternative which would provide equivalent
environmental protection as it compares to the U.S. EPA preferred
alternative.
II. A.
The PRPs' preferred alternative would allow contaminated fill material to
remain on-site indefinitely. The contaminated residuals would continue to
leach to the grcundwater for an indefinite period of time. There would
also be a direct contact threat, under a future residential use scenario,
which would remain. U.S. EPA believes that adequate protection of public
health and the environment would not be met if theses wastes remain on-sita
without treatment. As such, U.S. EPA preferred alternative, including off-
site disposal of all contaminated fill, would assure adequate protection.
II. B.
Dr. Swiatoslav Kaczmar, O'Brien t Gere Engineers, Inc., contractor for the
Respondents summarized the actual field work performed during the RI, the
groundwater bioremediation study conducted by Dow, the site endangermerrt
assessment, and a recently performed test trenching program. Dr. Kaczmar
made the following statements in his discussions:
1. "We conducted the biodegradation study and demonstrated ...that, the
phenols, the cresols and the naphthalene. .. did, indeed >^»^«~»
biodegraded within eight days. In less than two weeks we saw full
biodegradation. *
2. "Another very important adjunct to what we did was a test trenching
program. . . we wanted to determine whether there were any tars within the
fill, such as those present at the edge of the site. . .Our observations
were that there was no stratification of tars present. There were no
major deposits of tars. . ."
3. "A critical component of what we did is a risk assessment. . . with respect
to the site. ..our conclusion was., .the compounds ...did not represent an
acute risk...' .
4. "...the compounds that are present there do not warrant the potency
factors that are currently being applied to them as benzo(a)pyrene."
-------
21
II. B.
1. The U.S. EPA agrees with your assumption that in-situ biodegradaticn
maybe occurring in groundwater at the Cliffs-Dew Site. The laboratory
studies conducted by the Dow Chemical Research laboratory indicate that site
conditions are favorable to such biological degradation of low-level
contaminants in grcundwater. The statement; "In less than two weeks we saw
full biodegradaticn. " is incorrect. The Dow study, at page 13, indicated
that contaminant concentrations in groundwater were reduced by "greater than
90%" after two weeks. Vtoeri applying conservative health based standards for
carcinogenic PAH's in grcundwater, a 90% contaminant reduction may still
present health risks. U.S. EPA believes risks will be negligible, as such,
has determined that monitoring groundwater is appropriate with a caveat for
remedial action if conditions warrant.
2. The test trenching program described did not identify stratified tars or
major deposits within the fill material. It did identify isolated tars
which are "pure product1' and will continue to release contaminants over
time. To meet health based action levels these types of waste must be
3. The U.S. EPA presented a risk assessment in its proposed plan based upon
a future residential scenario at the site. The groundwater at the site,
does not pose either a carcinogenic or ncn-carcinogenic risk based on
available monitoring well data. There is a potential over time that
concentrations may increase and exceed either health based standards or Safe
Drinking Water Act MCL's, if residual contaminant leaching were to increase.
4. The U.S. EPA's Of f ice of Research and Development, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment has developed guidelines for carcinogenic risk
assessment. For the PAH group of compounds the cancer potency factor for
BaP is used for quantitative risk estimations, and applied to those
(»iHx»mds which are actual or possible human carcinogens (i.e. Groups A, B
and C) . It should be noted that there are uncertainties associated with the
estimates of risks and the assumptions made in developing those estimations
tend to be conservative, i.e., with a tendency towards overestl nation. This
method of risk calculation for PAH, applying the cancer potency factor of
BaP to group A,B, and C carcinogens, provides for adequate protection of
human health.
II. C.
Mr. David Svanda, City Manager, City of Marquette, indicated on behalf of
the City of Marquette, that the health and welfare of the citizens are fully
protected by the PRP preferred alternative. The PRP alternative also
protects both short- and long-term interests of the City and is cost
effective.
The City also believes that U.S. EPA's preferred alternative is unnecessary,
excessive and wasteful of resources. Removal of 10,000 cubic yards of sand
and woody Ttat^rial will not add to the protection of human health and the
-------
22
environment, and will waste valuable hazardous waste landfill space.
Each.of the alternatives was evaluated using the U.S. EPA's nine criteria.
The regulatory basis for these criteria cones fron the National Contingency
Plan and Section 121 of SABA (Cleanup Standards). These criteria include:
1) Overall Protection of Bran Health and the Envirornenl
2) Compliance with State and Federal Regulations (ARARs)
3) Reduction of Ttocicity, Mobility, or VolUK
4) Short-TerJi Effectiveness
5) . LongTera Effectiveness and t±-t *"*> ^-HTM.
6)
7) Cost
8) State Acceptance
9) Community Acceptance
The U.S. EPA preferred alternative provided the best overall balance when \
evaluated against the nine criteria which U.S. EPA uses in the decision
making process. The POO presents a complete evaluation of alternatives
including the new PRP alternative proposal.
Analyses of fill material indicated that residual contamination was present
in various media within the fill material and not limited to the tars only.
Wood and sands are likely to contain residual contaminants and as such, most
be properly disposed of. The U.S. EPA Off-Site Policy requires that all
off-site diqrrywil be restricted to RCRA compliant hazardous waste landfills.
The off-site dif=%r«al component of U.S. EPA's preferred alternative in the
Proposed Plan complied with this requirement.
II. D. eminent.
Mr. Buzz Berube, Mayor, City of Marquette, indicated that a landfill site
similar to the Cliff s-Dow Site was remediated by the City of Marquette,
with approval by the Michigan department of Natural Resources.
Although the PRP preferred alternative is not a quick fix, it is certainly
as thorough as U.S. EPA's preferred alternative. It is also less costly.
It should be the preferred alternative.
I would like to eminent on your opening statement that you (U.S. EPA) have
to satisfy the MENR in the plan that you finally agree to be the one that is
used at this site. Please help us talk to the MCNR to convince them that
the PRP preferred alternative is environmentally safe and affordable.
II.D. Response.
All sites have their own specific conditions, U.S. EPA cannot compare its
actions taken at a Superfund site to those actions taken at other non-
Superfurid Sites. The U.S. EPA must follow mandated requirements under
CERdA, the NCP and policy and guidance in conducting an RI/FS and selecting
-------
23
an appropriate remedial action for a Superfund Site. Specific evaluation
criteria, as described in the response to comment II. D. , must be followed.
CERCIA, Section 121 (f) (1), maTVUi-og that U.S. EPA shall provide for
substantial and meaningful involvement by the State in initiation,
development, and selection of remedial actions to be undertaken in that
State. The U.S. EPA does not require State concurrence prior to publication
of the Proposed Plan or ROD. The U.S. EPA has allowed, as mandated by
CERCIA, the State of Michigan active participation during the Proposed Plan
and ROD process. The State of Michigan has concurnaJ with U.S. EPA in both
the Proposed Plan and ROD.
IX . E.
Mr. Dave Hamari, Marquette Citizen indicated that: I have concerns that the
site is close to the area Tourist Park which hosts the Hiawathaland Music
Co-op Summer Festival, campers, and fishing off the dead River Bridge on
County Road 550. It would be nice if the site was cleaned up.
' ' '
I wonder if any fish are affected by any runoff from the Cliffs-Dow Site?
Are there any contaminants in the fish?
I would like to have the water tested in Tourist Park Lake because kids and
students swim there in the summer.
At what point are citizens of a community and college students paying for
something that a major corporation did some 20 years ago?.
II. E.
Your comments regarding recreational activities in the area of the site
have been noted. The U.S. EPA has reviewed the site investigation reports
and have evaluated potential receptors. The Dead River and Tourist Park
Lake are not expected to be impacted by the Cliffs-Dow Site. Therefore,
further sampling of fish or water sampling is not appropriate. The U.S. EPA
acknowledges the recreational use and potential future residential use of
the area and has prepared a ROD which would address those concerns by
providing adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Liability under CERCIA is not preferential to any "person". Section 101(21)
of CERdA states that "The term "person" means an individual, firm,
corporation, association, partnership, consortium, joint venture, commercial
entity, United States Government, State, municipality, commission, political
subdivision of any State, or any interstate body." The following persons
have been identified as PRPs at the Cliffs-Dow Site: City of Marquette,
Michigan; Georgia-Pacific Corporation; The Dow Chemical Company: and
The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company. Allocation of costs among the persons
are their responsibility. In the case of municipal involvement at a site,
the burden of costs nay rest upon the taxpayers. U.S. EPA has no control in
these matters.
-------
24
II. F. Garment.
Jfe. Gail Qayer, President, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
that the parties proceed with the plan in two phases. Phase one
would be the clean-up of 200 cubic yards of exposed tars. This would
remediate the most serious environmental threat inmediately. Phase two
would review and resolve the more controversial element of whether to
remove 9,600 cubic yards of fill material.
The standard which evaluates risks based upon a residential ingestion
scenario appears unrealistic and there should be a more realistic standard
to apply to more accurately evaluate the threat that this site poses.
The components of the tar which are present in the fill material are known
or suspected carcinogens and could remain for a long time, longer than we
can guarantee that the site will not be used for residential purposes.
Also, a soil cap in a boggy area does not guarantee the integrity of the
site in future years. The involved parties should negotiate standard for
clean-up. If this disagreement goes to court, it will man years of delay in.
cleaning up the site and neither the environment or the residents will
benefit.
II. F.
The Phased approach to clean-up is a realistic concept and is caixnonly
utilized by U.S. EPA where there are discrete units of contamination at a
site. The RI/FS conducted for the Cliffs-Dow Site generated sufficient
information in which the U.S. EPA can select remedial action for the site as
a whole. The nature of the fill material is such that further
investigations would not yield substantive new information. The U.S. EPA
Proposed Plan prefer mi alternative combined am* merits of a remedy which
would address the principal contaminant sources (exposed tars) , residual
tars and residually contaminated fill. Since the source of contamination is
removed, the groundwater would be monitored to assess adequacy of tar and
fill clean-up. As part of public aliment, the PRPs proposed a
bioremediation alternative for residual contaminated fill material . The
U.S. EPA has incorporated the enhanced biological treatment of the fill
material in the POD for the Cliffs-Dow Site.
The risk assessment calculations presented by U.S. EPA in the Proposed Plan
conform to U.S. EPA guidance. The residential scenario, and soil ingestion
rates are appropriate for use at the site, and are similarly applied at
other Super fund Sites. Further explanations on U.S. EPA's risk assessment
are presented in U.S. EPA response to comment I. A.
The U.S. EPA selects remedies which utilize permanent solutions to the
mavijnim extent practicable. The U.S. EPA preferred alternative presented in
the Proposed Plan offered a combination of remedial components which were
presented in the PRP FS. Basfld upon the RI/FS and U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan,
the Preferred alternative utilized permanent solutions to the Tnayjnuin extent
practicable and provided a balance between U.S. EPA's remedy selection
criteria.
-------
25
During the public Garment period the PRFs oorducfapd a treatability study for
bioranedlation of the residual fill material and proposed an alternative to
that which U.S. EPA presented in the Proposed Plan. U.S. EPA has evaluated
the PRP proposal and has At*-e*riT**\ that enhanced biological treatment of
the fill material, after segregation of tars, is a logical outgrowth of the
alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan. The selection of this
component alternative in the BOO should alleviate concerns over delays in
site clean-up caused by disputes between the parties over remedy selection.
The selected remedy, described in the ROD, would provide for an equivalent
degree of protection of public health, welfare or the environment.
II.G. Oiiiiinnt.
Mr. Richard Dunnebacke, Executive Director, Operation Action U.P. indicated
that the companies associated with the Cliffs-Dow Site have been good
companies for Marquette County. The way the companies handled wastes in
those days was in a manner accepted at the time. The companies have
diligently been working with authorities in riming up with something that's
reasonable and doable.
The most concerning chemical involved at the site is benzene, the same thing
we get on our hands whenever we have a spill in filling our gas tanks.
The remedial alternative presented by the PRPs would be four times less
costly than the U.S. EPA preferred alternative. There is no proof that
there is a higher risk by adopting the PRP preferred alternative. U.S.
EPA's own statements regarding monitoring wells downstream point out that
little or no contaminants travel very far from the site. It would be a
waste of resources to spend valuable corporate resources and taxpayers'
dollars for the U.S. EPA preferred alternative.
I would like to point out that the U.S. EPA did not evaluate the potential
for enhanced bioremediaticn at this site despite growing scientific
literature that proves it is feasible.
II.G.
Historically, waste handling and fHgpncai practices have improved due to
the need to control the degradation of the environment and protect public
health. What was «111111.11 practice in the past may pose an endangerment
today. The Superfund pruaram addresses uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
in accordance with CERCXA and the NCP. Under CERdA, PRPs are given the
opportunity to conduct studies, as is the case at the Cliffs-Dow Site. The
Cliffs-Dow PRPs have complied with the majority of requests regarding RI/FS
development from U.S. EPA. Those requests not responded to by the PRPs were
completed by U.S. EPA within the Proposed Plan. ,
Based on analytical work conducted at the site, a site-specific set of
indicator compounds were developed. Benzene was one of fourteen hazardous
substances included in the indicator compound list. The carcinogenic risk.
assessment included benzene as one of six known or suspected human
carcinogens used in risk calculations.
-------
26
Each of the alternatives was evaluated using the U.S. EPA's nine criteria.
The regulatory basis for these criteria oonps from the National Contingency
Plan and Section 121 of SARA (Cleanup Standards). The cost of remedial
action is one of nine evaluation criteria (see U.S. EPA response to cannent
H.C.). The U.S. EPA preferred alternative provided the best overall
balance when evaluated against the nine criteria which U.S. EPA uses in the
decision making process. The ROD presents a complete evaluation of
alternatives including the PRP new alternative propobal.
During the public comment period the PRPs conducted a treatability study for
bioremediation of the residual fill material and proposed an alternative to
that which U.S. EPA presented in the Proposed Plan. U.S. EPA has evaluated
the PRP proposal and has A^oi-mincri that enhanced biological treatment of
the fill material, after segregation of tars, is a logical outgrowth of the
alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan and is directly related to the
concern which you expressed. The selected remedy, described in the ROD,
would provide for an equivalent degree of protection of public health,
welfare or the environment and be more cost-effective.
II. COMMENTS REfFrrVED TKK THE; j*W,TC DURING THE APRIL 25. 1989. PROPOSED
HEARING
III. A. QjllBlfcJTt.
Mr. William Blake, President/General Manager, Taconite Broadcasting Conpany,
Inc. (Q107 VM3T fin radio).
Based upon his review of the comments of record from the U.S. EPA April 25,
1989, public hearing, the PRP preferred alternative would effectively deal
with any concerns regarding public health and safety at this site. The
additional cost of U.S. EPA's preferred alternative would provide little, if
any, additional benefit and be a waste of money.
HI.A. Response.
The transcripts of the public hearing provided only an overview of U.S.
EPA's alternatives evaluation process. The RI/FS and Proposed Plan should
be reviewed in addition to the transcripts for a more complete understanding
of U.S. EPA's remedy selection process. The Proposed Plan presented an
evaluation of each alternative using the U.S. EPA's nine criteria. The
regulatory basis for these criteria comes from the National Contingency Plan
and Section 121 of SARA (Cleanup Standards). The cost of remedial action is
one of the evaluation criteria (see U.S. EPA response to comment II.C.).
The U.S. EPA preferred alternative provided the best overall balance when
evaluated against the nine criteria which U.S. EPA uses in the decision
making pronpss. The ROD presents a complete evaluation of alternatives
including the new PRP alternative proposal.
III.B. Comment.
Ms. Susan Holloway, Student-Northern Michigan University (NMU).
-------
27
Why did the ARARs section of the Proposed Plan not dismiss the wetlands
section of the Clean Water Act? Isn't a bog lake a wetland? Did
the companies have a permit to fill in the lake? Don't they nave to restore
the bog lake or forever preserve another lake? Bog lakes are an important
part of our ecology in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and should be
preserved.
III.B. Response.
The U.S. EPA has determined that Section 404 The dean Water Act (CWA) is
not an ARAR for the Cliffs-Ocw Site. It is true that a bog lake is a
wetland, if certain physical features are present. The Cliffs-Dew fill area
is described as a "bog lake" but those physical features associated with a
wetland no longer exist at the site.
There were no Federal permitting requirements at the time the wastes were
Hjgprearf at the Cliffs-Dow Site. As such the actions taken by the companies
were acceptable. U.S. EPA agrees that the preservation of wetlands across
the nation is an essential part of environmental protection and restoration
of wetlands be conductfid whenever possible. If a wetland were to be filled
today, Section 404 of the CWA would require that mitigative measures most be
taken to restore or create another wetland.
III.C. Commant.
Ms. Gayle Coyer, President, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.
I am writing to clarify comments arfo at the public hearing on the Cliffs-
Dow Proposed Plan. It appears that some people in attendance interpreted
my remarks as recommending the PRP preferred alternative. This is not what
I 1'HtTHiHhTripd. I recommended proceeding with the action in two phases and
to negotiate the health based risk standard for the fill. My position is
that we still don't know the realistic threat that the fill materials at the
site poses.
Ill . C. Repf-Onse.
Your comments made during* the April 25, 1989, Proposed Plan public hearing
are on the record and are addressed in U.S. EPA's response to comment II. F.
III.D. Comment.
Mr. Jercme A. Roth, Professor of Chemistry-NMU.
The difference between the two proposals (PRP and U.S. EPA) seem to revolve
around the fate of the fill and not removal of tars. Removal of all fill
would likely improve the rate of recovery of groundwater quality. However,
since drinking water standards are currently not exceeded, the fill may be
an unnecessary part of the remedial action. Deed restrictions should
alleviate concerns over groundwater ingesticn since access is limited. The
concern that citizens may ingest tars or fill material is unlikely once the
site is capped. The well-defined nature of the site allows for complete
-------
28
coverage with certainty.
As a citizen and taxpayer of Marquette, I would such rather see the cost
differential between the two alternatives spent on other urgent
environmental problems. A small city has a difficult time funding such
ambitious projects.
I urge you to negotiate a compromise on the
final decision.
III.D.
fill Jsfiaie before reaching
The U.S. EPA agrees that the rate of recovery of groundwater will improve if
the source of contamination is removed. The use of deed restrictions as a
remedial action alternative for either groundwater or soils is
inappropriate. The site is currently zoned recreational, as such, the
public is allowed access. The preamble to the proposed National Contingency
Plan (NCP), 53 Fed. Reg. at 51423, states that: "... institutional controls
such as water and deed restrictions may supplement engineering controls for
short- and long-term management to prevent, or limit exposure, to hazardous v
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls will be
used routinely to prevent exposure to releases during the conduct of the
remedial investigation and feasibility study, during remedial action
implementation, and as a supplement to engineering controls designed to
manage waste over time. The use of insta'tirf-imai umtzuls to restrict use
(treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of groundwater
to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are
determined not to be practicable, based on the balancing of trade-offs among
alternatives that is conducted during the selection of remedy. (Emphasis
added).
The potential future use of the site would not make capping feasible for
eliminating the direct contact risks. The leaching of concentrated tars
within the fill would not be precluded through the use of a cap. The cap
may be violated by tresspassers or wildlife. Additionally, the general
climatic conditions are not favorable for cap integrity.
*
Each of the alternatives was evaluated using the U.S. EPA's nine criteria.
The regulatory basis for these criteria canes from the National Contingency
Plan and Section 121 of SARA (Cleanup Standards). The cost of remedial
action is one of the evaluation criteria (see U.S. EPA response to eminent
II.C.). The U.S. EPA preferred alternative provided the best overall
balance when evaluated against the nine criteria which U.S. EPA uses in the
decision making process. The ROD presents a complete evaluation of
alternatives including the PRP new alternative proposal.
The U.S. EPA is aware of the monetary constraints which municipalities face.
CERCLA dees not provide relief for municipalities as PRPs. At those sites
where municipalities are determined to be PRPs, the burden of costs may
rest upon the taxpayers. U.S. EPA has no control in these matters.
-------
29
Consistent with CEBCXA and the NCP, the U.S. EPA is responsible for the
protection of public health and the environment. Such protection is not
"negotiable11, but different alternatives nay be selected which provide for
equivalent protection and an acceptable balance among the nine criteria.
Certain conponents of the PRPs proposal for enhanced biological treatment of
the fill material has provided U.S. EPA sufficient information upon which
the ROD selects this component alternative.
HI.E.
Mr. James J. Scullion (Retired), Pres. & Chief Exec. Officer, Lake Superior
& Ishpeming R.R. Co.
I can see absolutely no practical reason for what I feel is an unwarranted
degree of cleanup. The area involved is not a residential or high use area.
Being involved personally in prior years in relocating disposal area, it is
always our practice to utilize just such areas as this - of little value and
little use.
III.E.
The U.S. EPA has evaluated each of the alternatives using the U.S. EPA's
nine criteria. The regulatory basis for these criteria cones from the
National Contingency Plan and Section 121 of SARA (Cleanup Standards). The
cost of remedial action, as well as both short and long term-effectiveness
are decision making criteria (see U.S. EPA response to eminent II.C.). The
U.S. EPA preferred alternative provided the best overall balance when
evaluated against the nine criteria which U.S. EPA uses in the decision
making process. The ROD presents a complete evaluation of alternatives
including the new PRP alternative proposal.
Although the site is not currently residential, it is zoned recreational and
there are no assurances that rezoning will not occur. As a recreational
area frequent trespass is likely.
The Superfund program addresses those sites in which past waste disposal
practices may pose an endangerment to public health or the ervironment.
In many instances the waste djgpncai practices may have been acceptable at
the time, but could pose such endangerment today. Additionally, the waste
disposal locations may have been considered "ideal" then, but would be in
violation of both Federal and State environmental regulations today.
III.F. Commit.
Rev. Tniis C. Cappo, Chairperson, lake Superior Jobs Coalition.
The additional costs of the U.S. EPA proposal as compared to the PRP
represents a waste of taxpayer and corporate dollars. The off-site
disposal is an absolute waste. It is like burying 3 or 4 million dollars in
the ground. I urge you to reconsider your proposal.
-------
30
The U.S. EPA has evaluated each of the alternatives using the U.S. EPA's
nine criteria. The regulatory basis for these criteria CCTOPS from the
National Contingency Plan and Section 121 of SARA (Cleanup Standards) . The
cost of remedial action, as veil as both short- and long-term effectiveness
are decision making criteria (see U.S. EPA response to connent II. C.) . Ihe
U.S. EPA preferred alternative provided the best overall balance when
evaluated against the nine criteria which U.S. EPA uses in the decision
making process. The ROD presents a complete evaluation of alternatives
including the PRP new alternative proposal.
The off-site land fHcpncai which was proposed by U.S. EPA would be at a
secure RCRA compliant hay-anViM waste landfill. Such landfill is monitored
to assure effectiveness of its7 containment system. The transfer of the
waste from the Cliffs-Dow Site to the secure landfill would provided an
acceptable balance among the remedy selection criteria used by U.S. EPA when
the Proposed Plan was published.
HI.G. eminent.
Mr. Dave Hamari, Marquette Citizen.
The Presque Isle Ave. and the Cliffs-Dow Sites should be cleaned up to limit
human exposure and protect groundwater.
III.G.
The U.S. EPA has presented a preferred alternative in its' Proposed Plan
and has selected an alternative, based upon public comment received, in the
ROD. The studies conducted and the remedy selected are for the Cliffs-Dow
Site. The selected remedy would limit exposure and protect groundwater from
further degradation, thereby alleviating your concerns over public health
protection and environmental degradation.
The Presque Isle Ave. Site is not a Superfund site and will not be
addressed by U.S. EPA. Inquiries regarding the Presque Isle Ave. Site
should made through the MDMR, Marquette District Office.
III.H. Commit.
Mr. D. J. Jacobetti, Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, State House
of Representatives.
The comments made at the public hearing indicate a lack of support for the
U.S. EPA preferred alternative. Taxpayers believe that the U.S. EPA
preferred alternative goes beyond what is necessary and represents a waste
of taxpayers money. The U.S. EPA preferred alternative goes against U.S.
EPA's criteria for handling this type of problem by transferring the waste
to another area of the state.
I understand that the PRPs have offered a '.«_Ti>i»;f»ige plan which would use
-------
31
bioranadiati.cn to deal with the fill material remaining at the site. I urge
U.S. EPA to consider this proposal.
III.H.
U.S. EPA has evaluated each of the alternatives using the U.S. EPA's
nine criteria. The regulatory basis for these criteria rnnes from the
National Contingency Plan and Section 121 of SARA (Cleanup Standards) . The
cost of remedial action, as well as both short and long term-effectiveness
are decision making criteria (see U.S. EPA response to comment II. C. ) . The
U.S. EPA preferred alternative provided the best overall balance when
evaluated against the nine criteria tftich U.S. EPA uses in the decision
making process. The ROD presents a complete evaluation of alternatives
including the PRP new alternative proposal.
The U.S. EPA is aware of the monetary constraints which municipal ities face.
CERdA does not provide relief for municipalities as PRPs. At those sites
where municipalities are determined to be PRPs, the burden of costs may
rest upon the taxpayers. U.S. EPA has no control in these matters.
Consistent with CERdA and the NCP, the U.S. EPA is responsible for the
protection of public health and the environment. Such protection is not
"negotiable1*, but different alternatives may be selected which provide for
equivalent protection and an acceptable balance among the nine criteria.
Certain components of the PRPs proposal for enhanced biological treatment of
the fill material has provided U.S. EPA sufficient information upon which
the ROD selects this component alternative.
-------
&
------- |