PB98-963156
EPA 541-R98-188
March 1999
EPA Superfund
Explanation of Significant Difference
for the Record of Decision:
Waite Park Wells
Waite Park, MN
8/11/1998
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Port-It* fax. Note 787'
Priori*
55TTZ ^ ft r-fLJ.1
August 11, 1998
CoJDtpl
M
Ms. Judith McDoncugh
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Northtown GOB
80 44th Avenue North East
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421
RE: Implementation of the August 1998 Explanation of Significant Difference for
Impacted Soil at the Burlington Northern Car Shop Site, Waite Park, Minnesota
Dear Ms. McDonough:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has completed the August 1998
Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) to the July 14,1994, Record of Decision for
the Burlington Northern Car Shop site (Site) in Waite Park, Minnesota. A copy of the
ESD is enclosed. In accordance with the October 22, 1985, Request for Response Action
issued to Burlington Northern Railroad Company for the investigation and remediation of
the Site, the MPCA staff requests the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad
Company (BNSF) to provide a schedule for the completion of work by August 21,1998.
Please note that if the current temporary stockpile remains on-site over winter, additionall
measures will be necessary in order to comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery-
Act of 1976 (PL 94-580) minimum stockpile storage requirements as specified in MN
Rules ch. 7045.0534.
The MPCA staff has included a Responsiveness Summary to the ESD. The
Responsiveness Summary provides a response to your July 27,1998, comments and other
comments received. As stated in the MPCA March 25,1998, letter after careful
consideration of your request, the MPCA staff has determined that they arc not amenable
to the placement of untreated (i.e. unstabilized) stockpiled soil in an on-site containment
cell.
Lafayette Rd. N.; St Paul. MN 55155-4194; (S12}-296-6300 (Votes): (£12) 282-5332 (TTY)
Regional Offices: Ouluth • Srainerd • Detroit Langs • Marshall • Rochester
p«(u«! Oppoflunliy Employer • Pnmea o»i reeye'sd p6p«f axs.nmg at '«*«; zm ftbc« from oaw 'arvsiad by
-------
Ms. Judith McDonough
Page 2
August 11, 1996
The MPCA staff appreciates your continued cooperation with the investigation and
remediation of the Site. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please
contact Brenda Winkler, the Site project manager, at (651) 296-7813.
Sincerely,
Gary LVEddy, Supervis
Response Unit I
Site Response Section
Ground Water and Solid Waste Division
BW:lkk
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Richard E. Miller, Mayor, City of Waite Park
Kurt Geiser, Remediation Technologies Inc.
Jeffrey Baird, Clerk, City of Waite Park
Stan Weinberger, Attorney
Ron Mornton, Morton Construction
Gordon Hansmeier, Attorney
City of Waite Park Library
-------
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
FOR THE JULY 14,1994, RECORD OF DECISION
BURLINGTON NORTHERN CAR SHOP SITE
WAITE PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 1998
INTRODUCTION
The Burlington Northern Car Shop site (Site) is located in Waite Park (City), Stearns
County, Minnesota. The Site is rectangular in shape and includes approximately 200
acres of land in Section 8 and 9, T124N, R28W, of the SW/4 St. Cloud IS* Quadrangle.
The location of the Site is shown on Figure 1.
The city of St Cloud is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Site. The Site is
bounded on the north by the Electric Machinery (EM) site, an industrial park, and a trailer
park; to the south by Third Street, then a residential neighborhood; to the east by
residential homes and a commercial park; and the west by the Sauk River. For remedial
investigation purposes, the Site was separated into eight parcels (Area's A through H).
Tenth Avenue runs north-south through the Site and separates Area A from Areas B
through H. The City municipal wells are located in Area H. The features on the Site and
in the vicinity of the Site are shown on Figure 2.
The Site as well as the EM site, is part of the Waite Park Ground Water Contamination
site. The Waite Park Ground Water Contamination site is listed on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) with a
Hazard Ranking Score (HRS) of 32. Although the Site is considered a part of the Waite
Park Ground Water Contamination site, it is listed separately on the state of Minnesota's
Permanent List of Priorities (PLP) with an HRS score of 38. The Waite Park Ground
Water Contamination site is currently in the EPA Enforcement Deferral Pilot Project
which gives the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPC A) the lead agency
responsibility for the Site. The MPCA is overseeing the Site cleanup conducted by the
Responsible Party, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company (BNSF).
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) as amended by the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizarion Act
(SARA) states, at Section 117 (c), that:
[a]after adoption of a final remedial action plan-
(1) if any remedial action is taken,
(2) if any enforcement action under section 106 is taken, or
(3) if any settlement or consent decree under section 106 or section 122 is
entered into,
and if such action, settlement, or decree differs in any significant respects from
the fi"a' plan, the President or the State shall publish an explanation of the
significant differences and the reasons such changes were made.
-------
The July 14,1994, Record of Decision (ROD) identified the following two alternatives
which met state and federal criteria for remediation of impacted soil at the Site:
Solidification/Stabilization and On-site Containment; and
Solidification/Stabilization and Off-Site Landfill
Solidification/Stabilization and On-site Containment was selected over Off-Site Landfill
based on the Responsible Party preference for treatment and their estimated cost. Since
implementation of the July 14,1994, Record of Decision (ROD) additional lead impacted
soil, exceeding the cleanup levels, has been identified at the Site. This Explanation of
Significant Differences (BSD) has been developed to explain that an Integrated Remedy
will be used to address impacted soil at the Site.
The Integrated Remedy will use a risk based approach that may include a combination of
any of the following remedial actions: excavation, treatment and hauling to an off-site
landfill; evaluating risk of exposure to public health and the environment to determine: if
impacted material may remain in place; and use of engineering and institutional controls
to ensure that the remedy remains protective of public health and the environment.
Specific details are presented below in the section titled Description of Significant
Differences and the Basis for Those Differences.
This ESD will become part of the permanent Administrative Record file for the Site, and
will be kept at the repository which is available for public inspection. The repository is
located at the MPCA St. Paul office and the Waite Pork Community Library.
SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY AND CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
In the early 1880's, the Great Northern Railroad piirchased the Site. A box car
construction and repair shop was built in 1894 followed by a paint shop in 1896.
Throughout the years, other types of railroad equipment were built and/or repaired on the
Site. From 1950 to 1970, approximately 10.000 gallons of waste oil, paint, waste, and
solvents were allegedly disposed of at the She. In August of 1986, the Burlington
Northern Railroad Company (BN) deeded a majority of the land and buildings to the
City. Figure 2 shows the boundaries of the 3N and City property. The City is currently
developing Area A into a recreational area and has sold some parcels of the property east
of Tenth Avenue that have been or are currently being developed for industrial and
commercial uses.
In December 1984, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were found in the City's
municipal water supply wells. Initial provisions were made for a temporary supply of
safe drinking water from nearby St. Cloud businesses, and on February 4, 1985, an
emergency hookup between Waite Park and St. Cloud water systems was made to supply
the City with safe water until the most appropriate long-term water supply system could
be installed.
-------
ESD. Please refer to the July 14, 1994. ROD. for a historical description of all soil and
ground water contamination problems.
Paint containing high concentrations of lead was stripped from railroad cars at &
sandblasting station in Area H. Waste sandblast sand was spread throughout the Site and
used as fill in holes and lagoons. At the time of the July 14, 1994, ROD, the MPCA
thought the majority of sandblast sand disposal areas were identified and subsequently
addressed in remedial actions completed in 1996. Subsequent studies have shown that
additional lead impacted soils are present at the Site. The known areas are located in
Areas A, B and C and H. Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of lead impacted soil has
been removed from Areas A, B, C, and H, and stockpiled for treatment and disposal.
Impacted soil remaining in place that must be addressed as pan of this remedial action is
still present in Areas B and C. In addition, MPCA staff expects that ftiturc development
activities are likely to encounter areas of lead impacted soil.
P REMEDY
The selected remedy as presented in the July 14, 1994, ROD consists of the following:
Alternative C: Solidification/Stabilization and On-Site Containment. This alternative
includes the excavation of lagoon waste, sandblast sands, and the contaminated dirt floor
of the paint building, and incorporation of the consolidated sandblasts sands.
Excavation of the contaminated waste would continue until analytical results of selected
side-wall and bottom samples pass the remediation levels as specified in Table 1. Any
visible oil in the excavations floating on the ground water would be removed by pumping
or using sorbentpads. Excavations would be bactfilled with clean fill, compacted,
covered with topsoil, and seeded. The waste would then be solidified/stabilized. The
purpose of solidification/stabilization is to reduce the concentrations of contaminants to
below hazardous waste levels as specified in Table 4 and to minimise the mobility of the
contaminants in the waste material. Solidification/stabilization, while implemented as a
single technology, actually consists of two processes. Solidification consists of
entrapping materials in a solid matrix with a high structural integrity, thereby
minimizing the potential for constituents to leach from the waste. Stabilization methods
involve the use of materials that limit the solubility and thus, the bioavailability and
mobility of waste constituents. Several Solidification/Stabilization techniques are
available, depending on the type of contaminants. However, Portland and Pczzolana
cements are the most widely used with thermoplastic resins and organic polymers less
common due to their high costs. Treatability studies would be conducted to determine
the most appropriate method to use. The treated waste would be placed in a containment
facility constructed on-site in Area E in accordance with the Minn. Rules Chapter 7035
pt 2815. Contingency action plans and post closure requirements would be conducted in
accordance with Minn. Rules Chapter 703 5 pt. 2615 and 2645, The facility design would
include: I) a liner system consisting of layers of synthetic material and/or clay and sand;
2) a leachate collection and detection system; 3) a cover system consisting of layers of
-------
On October 22,1985, the MPCA issued a Request for Response Action (RFRA) to BN.
citing BN as a source of contamination to the City's water wells. On March 25,1986,
and September 26,1986, the MPCA also issued RFRAs to Brown Boveri & Company
Ltd., Cooper Industries, Inc., Dresser Industries, Inc., and Electric Machinery
Manufacturing (Responsible Parties) for the adjacent EM site. The RFRAs also cited the
EM site as a source of contamination to the City wells.
The RFRAs requested both BN and EM Responsible Parties to conduct a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and implement a Remedial Design/Response
Action (RD/RA) Plan for ft long-term water supply treatment system for the City, The
RFRAs also requested BN atid EM Responsible Parties to conduct an RI/FS and
implement an RD/RA to address the contamination at their respective sites.
In September 1986, the MPCA staff approved the installation of an air stripping unit that
would remove the contaminants from the City water supply. Burlington Northern and
Electric Machinery Responsible Parties jointly implemented a water treatment system
and the City wells were placed back into service in February 1988. This is the remedy
that is currently in place, providing an acceptable long-term water supply to the City.
The City, Minnesota Department of Health, and me MPCA staff regularly monitor the
water from the wells before and after treatment to ensure that the deep aquifer treatment
system is functioning properly.
The EM site Record of Decision (ROD) was issued on January 5,1989. The remedy
implemented at the EM site included the treatment of the shallow aquifer by installing
shallow aquifer pump out wells, packed tower aeration treatment, and discliarge of the
treated water to the Sauk River. Remediation of the deep aquifer is addressed by the City
well treatment system. The MPCA completed a five year review on March 30, 1995.
The review recommended that the capture zone effectiveness of both the Electric
Machinery (EM) site pump-out system and the Waite Park Municipal Well field system
be evaluated to determine if the contaminant plume is being adequately captured. The
EM site RPs implemented the recommendations by developing a groundwater model
which evaluated the groundwater flow paths and capture zones at the EM site and Waite
Park municipal pumping systems and by reviewing historical water level measurement
data from wells at the site. The evaluation concluded that the EM site and Waite Park
pumpout/well systems are effective in containing and treating the plume of chlorinated
VOCs.
The BN Site ROD was issued on July 14,1994. Excavation and treatment of impacted
soils in Areas A, C, H and. the Paint Shop Building and construction of an on-site
containment cell was completed in 1994 and 1995. The total volume of 41,900 cubic
yards of treated soil was placed in the containment cell. This was reported hi the April
1995 Excavation Documentation Report and the December 1995 Volume I and II
Excavation/Treatment Documentation Report Confirmation testing and other
information identified additional impacted soils in Areas A, B, C, and H. The following
is a brief description of contamination problems that need to be addressed as part of this
-------
synthetic material and/or clay and sand; 4) a ground water monitoring system; and 5) a
gas collection system.
Deed restrictions -would be placed on any area that is not remediated ro unrestricted land
use remediation levels and on the property containing the facility. This alternative also
includes a ground water monitoring network as required in Alternative A.
DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AND THE BASIS FOR
THOSE
In the period since the ROD was signed, the MPCA has advanced initiatives to develop a
risk-based approach to decision-making during investigation and remedy selection at
Superfund and Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup sites. The MPCA has developed
draft guidance for implementation of this approach presented in the MPCA August 25,
1997, Draft Guidelines on Guidance on Incorporation of Planned Property Use Into Site
Decisions. Although planned property use, recreational and industrial, was used io
setting the original cleanup levels, the risk-based approach takes this concept further by
evaluating whether contamination may remain in place as part of a rem^foi action and
engineering and institutional controls are used to ensure mat the remedy remains
protective of public health and the environment
As described above, an Integrated Remedy will be used to address impacted soil at the
Site. Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of impacted soil, exceeding cleanup levels, has
been excavated from Areas A, B, C, and H and stockpiled. This soil will be stabilized
and hauled to an off-Site Landfill. Solidification/Stabilization and Off-Site Landfill was
an acceptable alternative presented in the July 14, 1994, ROD and is summarized below:
Alternative D. Solidification/Stabilization and Off-Site Landfill. This alternative
includes excavation, oil removal, backfilling, and solidification/stabilization of waste
materials as described in Alternative C. Once the waste is solidified/stabilized to below
hazardous levels the waste can be disposed of off-site at an industrial waste landfill.
Treated waste would be transported to an industrial waste landfill in trucks.
Deed restrictions would be placed on any area that is not remediated to unrestricted land
use remediation levels, This alternative also includes a ground water monitoring
network as required in Alternative A.
Solidification may or may not be used in the stabilization process of the 60,000 cubic
yards of stockpiled soil. Regardless, die soil will be stabilized to meet Table 4, Treated
Soil Remediation Levels, as well as any off-site landfill waste acceptance criteria.
An additional significant difference is using a risk-based approach to evaluate whether
contamination may remain in place as part of a remedial action. The use of engineering
and institutional controls may be necessary to ensure that the remedy remains protective
of public health and the environment. Any proposed Integrated Remedy shall be
-------
developed in accordance with the needs of all affected parties. Commissioner approval of
any proposed actions or contingency plans will be necessary and may include conditions
which the Commissioner deems reasonable and necessary to protect public health or the
environment, and shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Institutional Control language will reflect site conditions to assure that response actions
remain protective of public health and the environment by limiting uses or activities on
the property that could result in exposure to hazardous substances that remain on the
property after response actions are completed. An example of this is in Area A where a
significant volume of impacted soil was removed to a depth of four feet Impacted soil
and debris remain at a depth greater than four feet. Institutional Control language will be
developed and filed with the property deed that place restrictions on excavation activities
at depths greater than four feet The language will also serve as a mechanism to notify
appropriate parties of the presence of residual contamination and accompanying controls,
and or ensure long-term mitigation measures or momtoring requirements (e.g.
engineering controls) are carried out and maintained.
To date, BNSF has spent over $10,000,000 in investigation and remediation activities at
the Site. The stabilization and off-site landfilling of the 60,000 cubic yards of impacted
soil is estimated to cost an additional $3,000,000 to $7,000,000. Although significant
remedial efforts have been undertaken to remove and treat impacted soil, residual impacts
remain. By using a risk-based approach to address these impacted areas additional
remediation costs will be significantly reduced without adversely affecting public health
and the environment.
AFFIRMATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Considering the new information, that has been developed and the changes that have been
made to the selected remedy, the MPCA believes that the remedy remains protective of
public health and the environment, complies with federal and state requirements that arc
applicable or relevant and appropriate to mis remedial action, and is cost-effective. In
addition, the revised remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this Site.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTrVIITES
The administrative record for this Site is located at the MPCA St Paul office and the
Waite Park Community Library. If you need further information, you may contact the
Site Public Information Officer:
Katherine Carlson
1-800-657-3864.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Responsiveness Summary
August 1998 Explanation of Significant Difference to the
July 14,1994 Record of Decision
Comment: The West River Business Park Partnership (Partnership) objects to and
would be adversely affected by the decision to allow material to remain on the Burlington
Northern Car Shop site (Site) which would result in further limitations on the use of the
Site or the imposition of engineering controls and deed restrictions more restrictive than
those currently recorded against the Site.
Response: The Explanation of Significant Differences language will be modified to
accommodate the Partnership concerns by including the following language: Any
proposed Integrated Remedy shall be developed in accordance with the needs of all
affected parties. Commissioner approval of any proposed actions or contingency plans
will be necessary and may include conditions which the Commissioner deems reasonable
and necessary to protect public health or the environment, and shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
Institutional Control language will reflect site conditions to assure that response actions >
remain protective of public health and the environment by limiting uses or activities on
the property that could result in exposure to hazardous substances that remain on the
property after response actions are completed.
Comment: Burlington Northern (BN) commented that in the second paragraph the City
is referred to as St. Cloud not Waite Park.
Response: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will modify the text
accordingly.
Comment: BN requested the MPCA to evaluate the option of placing unstabilized
impacted material in an on-site containment cell.
Response: Placement of lead contaminated soils which are characteristically hazardous
is in direct violation of the Minnesota Rules and cannot be allowed. The MPCA staff
based their decision on the following Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs):
• According to Minnesota Rules ch. 7045.0131 a material is considered to be hazardous
if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics as outlined in subparts 2 to 7. One of
the characteristics listed is toxicitj and is further defined in subpart 8 The data
shown in Tables 2 and 5 clearly demonstrate thai the stockpiled soil is hazardous
because the analytical results exceed the maximum concentratiori for the Toxicity
Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for lead which is 5.0 mg/1.
-------
• If an on-sile solid waste management facility is constructed Minnesota Rules ch.
7035.253S specifically states mat an owner or operator of a solid waste management
facility, in this case Burlington Northern Sanra Fe Railroad (BNSF), must not accept
wastes determined to be hazardous as defined by Minnesota Rules ch. 7045.
• Treatment of hazardous waste is required prior to placement in a hazardous waste
land disposal unit Minnesota Rules ch. 7045.1309, subp 3 Special Rules Regarding
Wastes ih&i Exhibit a Characteristic. "In addition to any applicable standards
determined from the initial point of generation, no prohibited waste that exhibits a
characteristic under part 7045.0131 may be land disposed unless the waste complies
with the treatment standard under parts 7045,1350-1360." For the stockpiled soils
treatment would most likely include solidification/stabilization such that the soils
meet the Land Disposal Requirements (currently the TCLP tor lead).
Additional ARARs are listed in me July 14,1994 Record of Decision.
Comment: BN has requested the remedial cost estimates to be modified based on more
precise information.
Response: MPCA will modify the text to reflect these more refined estimates.
Comment: Several citizens indicated that they would prefer the stabilized soils to be
shipped off-site by rail.
Response: MPCA has requested BN to evaluate costs, transportation by rail may be Isss
expensive than by truck, but BN has not yet obtained approval to dispose of stabilized
soils at the landfill which is accessible by rail.
If truck transportation is necessary, the MPCA has requested the responsible parties to
work the city of Waite Park to develop an acceptable truck route.
Comment: A citizen inquired whether the soils, removed from Lot 6 of the West River
Business Park development, are contaminated
Response: MPCA staff has requested the Partnership to evaluate the lead concentrations
in these stockpiled soils and develop a plan for disposal if necessary.
------- |