United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-89/096
March 1989
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Outboard Marine (Amendment), IL
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-89/096
S. Recipient-* Acce**lon No.
4. Title «nd SubtM*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Outboard Marine, IL
Amendment
5. Report Oil*
03/31/89
7. Author<»)
•. Performing Orginlntlon Rept No.
«. P»rfomUngOrs«Wi»ao«»N»ine*ndAddi<*e*
10. (tofecVTuk/Work Unit No.
11. ContncqC) or Gnnt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Orgwiution Nun* end Addnm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
IX Typ* of Report 4 Porlod Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Not**
16. Abstract (Uirtt: 200 word*)
The Outboard Marine site is on the west shore of Lake Michigan in Waukegan, Illinois.
A marine products manufacturing plant operated at the site for approximately 20 years
until production ended in the early 1970s. From 1961 to 1972 hydraulic fluid containing
PCBs was used at the plant in the die cast works. This fluid was later discharged to
Slip 3 of the harbor, a parking lot north of the plant, and three areas known as the
North Ditch, Oval Lagoon, and Crescent Ditch. There is an estimated 700,000 pounds of
CBs onsite and approximately 300,000 pounds in Waukegan Harbor. In 1984 EPA began
engineering design work for the selected remedial actions presented in a 1984 Record of
Decision (ROD) to clean up contaminated soil and sediment at the site. During 1985,
however, all actions were suspended due to litigation between Outboard Marine
Corporation (OMC) and EPA regarding EPA access to CMC's property. Section 122 of SARA
specifically addressed access problems and upon its effective date, negotiations with
OMC resumed for implementation of the remedy. After negotiations between EPA and OMC
were completed, a consent decree was signed in 1986 by OMC. Under the consent decree
most portions of the remedial action described in the 1984 ROD remain unchanged. An
onsite treatment step was added, however, to meet the SARA preference for treatment
requirement. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and sediment are
PCBs.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Oocurmnt Anaryei* «. Omcrtptom
Record of Decision - Outboard Marine,
Amendment
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment
Key Contaminants: PCBs
b. Mentffiera/OpM-EndBd Term*
IL
e. COSAT1 Retd/Grot*
18. Aveil«blity Sutemert
19. Secwtty Clu* (Thle Report)
None
20. Security Ctu* (Thl. P*ge)
None
21. No. o(Pige«
54
22. Price
(See ANS1-Z39.18)
See Initruction* on Acmree
OPTIONAL rORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-JS)
Department of Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272. Report Documentation Pag* la based on Guideline* for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI 239.18-1974 available from American National Standard* Institute, 1430 Broadway. New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound report—for example, each volume In a multivolume set—shall have It* unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each Individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization In accordance with American National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contact NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercase letters, Arabic numerals, slashes, and hyphens only, as In the following examples: FASEB/NS-75/87 and FAA/
RD-75/09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
title. When a report Is prepared In more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and Include subtitle for
the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date Indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which It was selected (e.g.,
date of Issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Authors). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). List author's affiliation If It differs from
the performing organization.
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert If performing organizaton wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of
an organizational hierachy. Display the name of the organization exactly as It should appear in Government indexes such as
Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA & I).
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State interim, final, etc., and, If applicable, Inclusive dates.
14. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with... Translation
of... Presented at conference of... To be published In When a report Is revised, Include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report.
16. Abstract Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant Information contained In the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that Identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use Identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Reid/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken form the 1964 COSATt Subject Category List Since the
majority of documents are multidlsclpllnary In nature, the primary Reid/Group assignments) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object The appllcatlon(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary postlng(s).
18. Distribution Statement Denote public releasablllty, tor example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, If known.
19. & 20. Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security Classification In accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pages. Insert the total number of pages, including Introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, if any.
22. Price. Enter price In paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) if known.
•A GPO: I983 0 - 381-526(8393) OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
(4-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-89/096
Outboard Marine, IL
Amendment
Bb. Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes construction of a cutoff wall
and slurry wall to isolate Slip 3 and form a containment cell; construction of a new
slip to replace Slip 3, and relocate Larsen Marine; removal and treatment of sediment
in Slip 3 which exceed 500 mg/kg PCB; dredging of upper harbor sediment above 50 mg/kg
and placement of contaminated sediment in the new Slip 3 containment cell; excavation
and onsite treatment of soil and sediment exceeding 10,000 mg/kg PCBs from the Crescent
Ditch/Oval Lagoon Area; construction of a west containment cell for treatment residues
and lower concentration PCB-contaminated soil; construction of an east containment cell
around the parking lot area; construction of a temporary, onsite water treatment
facility for dredged water; construction of a permanent water treatment facility;
onsite treatment of containment cell water followed by discharge to either a POTW or an
onsite location; capping of all containment cells; and ground water monitoring. The
estimated capital cost for this remedial action is $19,000,000; O&M costs were not
provided.
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision Amendment
Site me and Location
Outboard. Marine Corporation/Waukegan Harbor
Waukegan, Illinois
Stateq»en^ of Basis and Purpose
This decision document represents the selected remedial action
for the Outboard Marine Corporation/Waukegan Harbor site
developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) , as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) .
This decision is based on the contents of the administrative
record for the Outboard Marine Corporation/Waukegan Harbor site.
The attached index identifies the items which comprise the
administrative record upon which the decision to amend the 1984
Record of Decision, and the selection of the modified remedial
action is based.
The State of Illinois and U. S. EPA, each and independently
concur and adopt the selected remedy.
Description of the Remedy
The 1989 proposed remedy addresses the same areas for remediation
as were addressed in the 1984 ROD. The major components of this
remedial action include:
° A new slip will be constructed on the east side of the
Upper Harbor to replace Slip 3 and Larsen Marine will
be relocated from its present location to the new slip.
0 Slip 3 will be permanently isolated from the Upper
Harbor by the construction of a double-walled, braced,
and soil-bentonite backfilled sheet pile cutoff wall.
After the slip is isolated an impermeable clay slurry
wall with a minimum thickness of three feet will be
constructed. This wall will be keyed into the
underlying clay till, and a permanent containment cell
will be built in the slip.
° The most highly contaminated sediments from Slip 3 with
PCB concentrations in excess of 500 ppm will be removed
-------
from the slip and treated. The Upper Harbor will be
dredged and the dredged materials placed in the newly
constructed Slip 3 Containment Cell.
Two additional containment cells will be constructed
using the same design used for the construction of the
Slip 3 Containment Cell. The East Containment Cell
will encompass part of the parking lot area and land to
the east of the lot and the West Containment Cell will
encompass the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon area.
Before constructing the West Containment Cell,
contaminated soils in these areas in excess of 10,000
ppm will be excavated and removed for treatment.
Soils and sediments excavated from Slip 3, the North
Ditch, Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon areas designated
for treatment will be subjected to an on-site treat-
ment process. After startup, the selected treatment
technology must remove at least 97 percent of the PCBs
by mass from the contaminated materials without
endangering public health. The treated sediments will
be placed in the West Containment Cell. Extracted
PCBs will be disposed of off-site in accordance with
all applicable Federal and State laws.
A short-term water treatment facility will be construc-
ted for treating water generated during the remedial
construction activities. Dredge water will be treated
by sand filtration. Other water generated during the
course of remedial activity will be treated utilizing
the sand filtration step to remove sediments from the
water, followed by carbon adsorption treatment.
A smaller permanent water treatment facility will be
constructed to treat water extracted from the contain-
ment cells. Treated water will be discharged to the
North Shore Sanitary District or to an on-site location
approved by EPA.
When all materials have been deposited in the cells,
they will be closed and capped with a high density
polyethylene (HDPE) liner and soil cover. The cells
will include extraction well systems which are designed
to prevent the migration of PCBs from the cells.
Monitoring wells will be constructed around the cell
perimeters and monitored periodically to verify ground
water quality.
-------
Declaration
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, attains Federal and State requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action
and is cost-effective.
This remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment that reduce toxicity, mobility or volume as a
principal element and utilizes permanent solutions and alterna-
tive treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
Date naldas V. AdamJcus
Regional Administrator
Region V
-------
Date Bernard P. Killian, Director
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
-------
Record of Decision Amendment: Summary
Outboard Marine Corooration/WauJcecian Harbor
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) site is located near the
intersection of Grand Avenue and Sheridan Road on the west shore
of Lake Michigan in Waukegan, Illinois, about 37 miles north of
Chicago and 10 miles south of the Wisconsin state border (Figure
1).
WauJcegan Harbor is an irregularly shaped harbor about 37 acres in
area. The two areas of concern within the harbor are Slip No. 3
and the Upper Harbor. PCB concentrations in Slip No. 3 are
greater than 500 parts per million (ppm). In the Upper Harbor,
PCB concentrations are between 50 and 500 ppm. Water depths in
the harbor generally vary from 14 to 25 feet with some shallow
depths in Slip No. 3. The harbor sediments consist of 1 to 7
feet of very soft organic silt (muck) overlying typically 4 feet
of medium dense, fine to coarse sand. The sand is generally
uncontaminated. A very stiff silt (glacial till) that typically
ranges from 50 to more than 100 feet thick underlies the sand.
The entire harbor is bordered by 20- to 25-ft-long steel sheet
piling, except at the Waukegan Port District boat launching
areas and at the retaining wall near the harbor mouth. The sheet
piles generally extend into the sand layer above the glacial
till.
A small tributary of Lake Michigan drains surface runoff from
about 0.11 square miles of the OMC and North Shore Sanitary
District property. The system also drains surface runoff from
areas west of OMC property and the railroad tracks. This
drainage system consists of the 600 by 20 foot Crescent Ditch,
the 240 by 10 to 40 foot Oval Lagoon, and the 2,000 by 10 to 20
foot North Ditch. The U.S. Department of the Interior measured
the mean daily discharge of this tributary between March and
September 1979 as 1.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) , with a maximum
discharge of 5.3 cfs. They calculated the 5-year storm event to
be 23 cfs. PCB contamination in the tributary ranges from 50 to
over 10,000 ppm. The areas of hot-spot contamination (over
10,000 ppm) are confined to the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon.
The Parking Lot area is located north of CMC's Plant No. 2 and is
about 9 acres in area. PCB concentrations in this area are
between 50 to 5,000 ppm. There are three entrances to the
Parking Lot area: two fenced entrances in the northwest corner
of OMC's property and one fenced entrance southeast of OMC's new
die-cast complex at the intersection of OMC's private road and
Seahorse Drive.
-------
- 43°00
- 42°00
88°00
87°00
Figure I. Location of study area
-------
The generalized subsurface conditions on the OMC property
typically consists of 30 feet of compact, very fine to fine sand
overlying a stiff to very stiff silt (glacial till). The
thickness of the glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more
than 100 feet.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMFKni'
OMC manufactures marine products for recreational use.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were used in its die cast
machines at this.plant from at least 1961 until the early 1970's.
In 1976, high levels of PCBs were discovered in the soils and
harbor sediments on-site.
From approximately 1961 to 1972, OMC purchased a hydraulic fluid
used in the die-casting works that contained PCBs. Some of these
fluids escaped through floor drains. The floor drains discharged
to an oil interceptor system which discharged to the North Ditch.
Some of the PCBs escaped from a portion of the oil interceptor,
diversion and pump system and were released to the Waukegan
Harbor. The harbor area discharge was located in the western end
of Slip 3, and the north property discharge was to the Crescent
Ditch. The discharge pipe to the harbor was sealed in 1976.
As a result of these discharges, large quantities of PCBs are in
Slip 3 of Waukegan Harbor and on OMC property in the North
Ditch/Oval Lagoon/crescent Ditch area and in the parking lot. It
is estimated that there are over 700,000 pounds of PCBs on OMC
property and approximately 300,000 pounds of PCBs in Waukegan
Harbor. The range of PCB concentrations are set forth in Figure
2.
In 1984, after conducting numerous studies of PCB contamination
at the site and completing a Feasibility Study (FS) which
analyzed various alternative remedies to clean up the
contamination, the EPA, in accordance with CERCLA, selected a
recommended remedial alternative to be implemented, using monies
from the Hazardous Substances Trust Fund. This remedial
selection is set forth in the 1984 Record of Decision (ROD)
authorizing expenditures of $21 million to clean up the site.
That same year the engineering design work for the selected
remedial action was initiated. However, in late 1985, design
work on the project was suspended due to litigation between OMC
and EPA regarding EPA access to OMC's property, since such access
was essential to continue the design process.
While this litigation was pending before the courts, SARA was
enacted. The SARA amendments call for the preference for
"permanent remedies which reduce the mobility, toxicity, or
volume of hazardous substances." Although RODS signed prior to
October 1986 are not required to meet these new requirements, EPA
-------
CMC SITE —
BEFORE REMEDIAL ACTION
PCB CONCENTRATIONS
OVER SOOPPM
PCB CONCENTRATIONS BETWEEN tMr MICHIGAN
50 AND SOOPPM
| Figure 2
-------
reevaluated the 1984 ROD to develop a remedy consistent with
SARA.
About the time EPA began reviewing the remedy set forth in the
1984 ROD, EPA and OMC agreed to end the ongoing access
litigation. Shortly thereafter, OMC submitted a proposal to
clean up the site. The negotiations between OMC, EPA, and
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) since late 1986
have resulted in a Consent Decree. Under this decree, OMC will
finance a Trust to implement the cleanup and will ensure
performance of the requirements of the Consent Decree. The
Consent Decree and its appendices outline the areas to be
remediated, the methods to be used, and the financial
responsibility, both immediate and long-term, for the cleanup.
copy of the Consent Decree and its appendices are available at
the OMC site information repositories.
III. COMMUNITY PreT-ATIONS HISTORY
The Explanation of Significant Differences was released at the
beginning of the public comment period on October 12, 1988. The
public comment period extended 30 days until November 14.
Approximately 50 people attended a public meeting held October
18. An extension to the public comment period was granted until
December 5 .
The community sentiment supports "putting to rest" the contamina-
tion problems, the stigma of which has plagued the commercial and
recreational fishing industry in the area. They particularly
support the construction of a new slip for Larsen Marine. Short
term closure of Larsen Marine during the construction period was
required in the 1984 ROD. Comments received in writing and at
the public meeting are generally supportive of the 1989 modified
remedy .
The Department of Justice (DOJ) published notice of the lodging
of the Consent Decree in the Federal Register. Public comment
period was open until December 5, concurrent with the Waukegan
public comment period pursuant to Section 117 of SARA. Response
to all comments can be found in the attached Responsiveness
Summary .
IV. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
This ROD amendment is limited in scope to those technical
elements of the remedy which have changed and the SARA
preferences which are manifest in the 1989 modified remedy (and
the supporting Administrative Record). Many elements of the
original 1984 ROD do not change. Therefore, the findings made in
-------
the 1984 ROD remain the same except for the significant changes
described in this ROD Amendment.
The major differences between the 1984 ROD and the 1989 Consent
Decree are as follows:
° The 1989 decree provides for a new slip to be built to
replace the old Slip 3 and relocates Larsen Marine to
the new slip.
° • The present remedy expands the definition of "hot spot"
areas to include all material in Waukegan Harbor 500
ppm and above, thereby including a larger amount of
material. (Note that the definition of "hot spot" in
the oval lagoon and crescent ditch area remains at
10,000 ppm.)
° The containment cells are built in ground with pro-
tective slurry walls keyed into the clay till and
utilize extraction wells to maintain an inward
hydraulic gradient (a lower water level inside the cell
than outside).
° The "hot spot" material is to be treated on-site in the
manner previously discussed rather than transported
off-site for disposal in a licensed PCB landfill. The
on-site treatment eliminates the need for dewatering
lagoons called for in the 1984 ROD.
The proposed remedy will greatly reduce existing risks to PCB
exposure on OMC property and will improve the water quality of
Waukegan Harbor. The 1989 remedy will result in at least an
equivalent protection of public health and the environment as the
1984 ROD. The 1984 ROD determined that excavation and off-site
disposal of hot spot areas was necessary to enhance the reli-
ability of on-site containment. The proposed remedy expands the
amount of material designated for removal and treatment by in-
cluding all contaminated materials in excess of 500 ppm in the
harbor rather than the 1984 level of those in excess of 10,000
ppm.
The hot spot material, rather than being transported off-site for
disposal in a licensed landfill, will be treated so that, after
startup, at least 97 percent of the PCBs will be extracted and
destroyed. Treatment of the PCBs in this manner is consistent
with the goal of SARA to permanently reduce the toxicity,
mobility and volume of hazardous materials.
The soil extraction process will generate concentrated PCB con-
taminated oil. This oil will be taken off-site and destroyed in
compliance with all applicable State and Federal regulations.
The amount taken off-site will be significantly less than the
-------
off-site removal of contaminated sediment envisioned in the 1984
ROD due to on-site treatment.
Placing lower concentration materials (between 50-500 ppm) from
the Upper Harbor in the Slip 3 Containment Cell will provide an
equivalent level of protection as the above-ground vault
specified in the 1984 ROD. Containment in Slip 3 reduces the
materials handling risks and eliminates the use of on-site
dewatering lagoons. This containment alternative was previously
recommended by EPA but was withdrawn because of the economic
impact to the affected business community. The 1989 proposed
remedy allows the advantages of this method while providing for
the economic well-being of the businesses affected. This
modification is more protective of the environment since it
results in greater than 96% PCB removal by mass from the open
harbor. In the 1984 ROD with Slip 3 remaining open to the
harbor as envisioned, PCB removal was estimated at 92%.
The containment cells actively prevent migration of PCBs through
slurry walls by maintaining an inward hydraulic gradient through
a system of extraction wells. The volume of sediments being
placed into the cells is greater than in the 1984 ROD; however
the sediments will have been treated on-site and 97 percent of
the PCBs extracted, thus reducing the mass of PCBs in the cells.
In addition, the cells will be capped with a synthetic liner
which will prohibit infiltration from the surface. Samples will
be taken at regular intervals from monitoring wells outside the
walls of the cells to ensure that PCBs are not migrating into the
surrounding soils and groundwater, thus safeguarding the public
health and environment.
Key portions of the remedy which remain the same from 1984 to
1989 are summarized here:
° ' The definition of "hot spot" area in the Oval Lagoon
and Crescent Ditch remains at 10,000 ppm.
° Exposed residual soil concentrations remaining after
the remedial action should not exceed 50 ppm in any
area.
It should be noted that Kriging analysis was done after the 1984
ROD to refine the aerial extent and volume estimates correspond-
ing to these clean-up and hot spot definitions. The Kriging
analysis provides a statistical "best-fit" line delineating these
areas by elevation relative to mean sea level.
-------
SUMMARY
DIFFERENCES
OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION
V 14 ROD AND 1989 PROPOSED RE!MRny
1984 ROD
Slip 3 to be dredged
closed.
Waukegan Harbor sediments to be
contained be stored in parking
lot cell
"Hot spots" (defined as >10,000 ppm)
fixed and transported off-site
Required transportation of sediments
off-site to hazardous waste landfill
Large on-site dewatering lagoons
to be constructed
Containment cells had clay cap and
no extraction wells
1989 PROPOSED
Slip 3 to .be dredged and
closed. Larsen Marine
re-located to new slip to
be constructed
Waukegan Harbor sediments
contained in Slip 3 cell
"Hot spots" (defined as
>500 ppm in Slip 3 and
>10,000 on OMC property)
permanently treated on-
site
On-site containment re-
quires no off-site trans-
portation of sediment
Use of Slip 3 cell for
dewatering with on-site
water treatment
Containment cells have
synthetic and soil caps
and extraction wells
V.
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED REMEDY
There are no PCB extraction or soil treatment technologies
specified in this ROD. Instead, this ROD specifies the volume of
soils and sediments to be removed from the environment, and once
removed, the performance based treatment level.
The attached work plan describes the soil sediment removal pro-
gram. These soil/sediment quantities represent approximately
90% PCB removal from the environment in the North Ditch area and
greater than 96% removal in the entire harbor area. The on-site
treatment must achieve a performance standard of at least 97%
-------
extraction efficiency of the PCBs by mass present in the
excavated materials. In the course of negotiations, OMC
evaluated two extraction systems in detail. The B.E.S.T. process
is a chemical extraction process; the Taciuk process is a low
temperature thermal extraction process. Either system selected
or any other system which meets EPA approval is required to meet
the performance standards. Figure 3 shows the remedial action
which is described as follows:
° A new slip will be constructed on the east side of the
Upper Harbor to replace Slip 3 and Larsen Marine will
be relocated from its present location to the new slip.
° . Slip 3 will be permanently isolated from the Upper
Harbor by the construction of a double-walled, braced,
and soil backfilled sheet pile cutoff wall. After the
slip is isolated, an impermeable clay slurry wall with
a minimum thickness of three feet will be constructed
which will be keyed into the underlying clay till, and
a permanent containment cell will be built in the
slip.
0 The most highly contaminated sediments from Slip 3 with
PCB concentrations in excess of 500 ppm will be removed
from the slip and treated. The Upper Harbor will be
dredged and all sediments removed. These dredged
sediments will be placed in the newly constructed Slip
3 containment cell.
° Two additional containment cells will be constructed
using the same design used for the construction of the
Slip 3 Containment Cell. The East Containment Cell
will encompass part of the parking lot area and land
to the east of the lot, and the West Containment Cell
will encompass the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon
area. Before constructing the West Containment Cell,
soils contaminated in excess of 10,000 ppm will be
excavated and removed for treatment. The East Contain-
ment Cell will contain soils from the parking lot.
These soils will not receive any treatment because
they are already at lower levels (generally less than
500 ppm, with estimated average of 52 ppm).
° Soils and sediments excavated from Slip 3, and the
North Ditch, Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon areas
designated for treatment will be subjected to an on-
site thermal or chemical extraction, or other type of
treatment technology. After startup, the selected
treatment technology must remove at least 97 percent of
the PCBs by mass from the contaminated materials
without endangering public health. The treated
-------
OMC SITE —
DURING REMEDIAL ACTION
PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY LOCATION
BYPASS CULVERT
' *-|*
-------
8
sediments will be placed in the West Containment Cell.
Extracted PCBs will be disposed of off-site in
accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws.
The average PCB concentration in the West containment
cell win be 90 ppm.
° A short-term water treatment facility will be
constructed for treating water generated during the
remedial construction activities. Dredge water will be
treated by sand filtration. Other water generated
during the course of remedial activity will be treated
utilizing the sand filtration step to remove sediments
from the water, followed by carbon adsorption.
° A smaller permanent water treatment facility will be
constructed to treat water extracted from the contain-
ment cells. Treated water will be discharged to the
North Shore Sanitary District or to an on-site location
approved by EPA.
° When all materials have been deposited in the cells,
they will be closed and capped with a high density
polyethylene (HDPE) liner and soil cover. The cells
will include extraction well systems which are designed
to prevent the migration of PCBs from the cells.
EPA found it unnecessary to compare the B.E.S.T. and Taciuk
process against one another in the context of this ROD amendment
since either process selected must meet the performance
standards. Instead, Table 1 serves as a summary comparison of
the 1984 ROD and the 1989 ROD amendment relative to the Agency's
nine (9) evaluation criteria. The completed remedial action is
shown in figure 4.
VI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
U.S. EPA and IEPA believe the 1989 amended remedy satisfies the
statutory requirements specified in Section 121 of SARA to
protect human health and the environment; attain ARARs; utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The amended remedy will significantly reduce (to near zero) the
migration of contaminants to Lake Michigan, thereby reducing
risks to aquatic life and human receptors.
The extracted PCBs will be taken off-site for destruction,
eliminating any potential for future exposure to high PCB con-
centrations.
-------
Table l: Comparison of Original and Amended HDDs
1
9
8
4
R
O
D
1
9
8
9
R
O
D
A
N
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
H H & E1 with ARARs
o Removes o Fund-
92% of balanced
PCBs approach
from for
harbor TSCA
•
o Most o Other
highly ARARs in
oontami- compliance
rated
materials
taken off-site
o Long— term
management required
o Slip 3 o No TSCA
removed waiver
from needed
environ-
ment
resulting
in greater
than 96% PCB
removal from
Harbor
o On-site o Short-term
contain- NPDES
ment re- variance
designed required
for TSCA
compliance
based on
protective-
ness
jjong-cerm Heouccion
Effective- in T, M, V2
ness
o Uncertain o Reduction
due to need in mobility
for long-term only due to
management of fixation
wastes both before
on-site and containment
off-site
(landfill)
o Reduction
in volume
because most
highly
contaminated
materials
taken off-site
o Off-site o Preference
destruc- for treatment
tion is met; T,M,V2
permanent reduced
o On-site
management
of contained
wastes required,
but concentration
in cells will
be less than
500 ppm (ave.
50 - 90 ppm)
janorc-Tjerm ompnemenc.— uosc £>cace
Effective- ability Acceptance
ness
o Likely o Moderate o $21 o Full
air and difficulty million acceptance
water due to at POD
releases dredging and
during slurry wall
dredging and construction
excavation
o Engineering o $27 million
controls at 20%
employed to RD completion
minimize
releases
o Same as o Same as o $19 o Full
above but above million acceptance
releases at ROD
less because
Slip 3 cutoff
before dredging
and dewatering
occurs in Slip 3
1
L Human Health and the Environment
2 Toxicity, Mobility and Volume
uannumvy
Acceptance
o Accept
cleanup,
do not
accept
economic
impact
during
construction
o Full
acceptance
Irterm
it assured
Trust fund
-------
OMC SITE —
REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETED
BYPASS CULVERT
WEST CONTAINMENT CELL
r - """ // ///
/ // //
EAST CONTAINMENT CELL
LONG TERM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SLIP 3 CONTAINMENT CELL
RELOCATED SLIP A LARSEN MARINE
Figure 4
-------
On-site containment cells will have significantly lower average
PCB concentrations than the cells envisioned in the 1984 ROD.
These Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) compliant cells have
been designed with strict engineering standards and will be
managed by the OMC trustee with oversight by U.S. EPA and IEPA.
Every 5 years, the integrity of the cells will be assessed.
Some short-term air releases may occur during the dredging and
excavation process. Engineering controls will be employed to
reduce possible emissions.
Attainment of Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate
Section 121 (d) of SARA requires that remedial actions meet
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) of other environmental laws. These laws may include:
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) , the Clean
Water Act (CWA) , the Clean Air Act (CAA) , the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) , and any State law which has stricter
requirements than the corresponding Federal law. A "legally
applicable" requirement is one which would legally apply to the
response action if that action were not taken pursuant to Section
104 or Section 106 of CERCLA. A "relevant and appropriate
requirement" is one that, while not legally applicable to the
remedial action, addresses problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the site that their use is well
suited to the remedial action.
The following is a description of the ARARs for the different
components of the remedy and an explanation of how this remedial
action meets those requirements:
1. Containment Cells
TSCA regulations are generally considered applicable or relevant
and appropriate when PCB concentrations are greater than 50 ppm
and disposal occurred after February 17, 1978. Although PCBs
were originally disposed at OMC prior to February 17, 1978,
excavation and re-disposal of PCB material will occur on-site as
part of the planned remedial action. Thus, TSCA regulations
governing disposal are considered applicable for those portions
of the remedy which involve on-site disposal of material
contaminated above 50 ppm.
In general, TSCA disposal regulations at 40 CFR 761.60 require
that non-liquid PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 ppm be
disposed of in one of three ways:
i) incineration in a TSCA compliant incinerator
ii) disposal in a chemical waste landfill that meets TSCA
-------
10
requirements
iii) treatment with a method that provides equivalent
destruction as incineration.
In addition, in the case of dredged sediment contaminated at
levels above 50 ppm, TSCA regulations at 761.60(a)(5)(iii) allow
an additional option: an alternate disposal method approved by
the Regional Administrator.
The primary requirements for the alternate disposal method for
dredge materials are: (1) "... based on technical,
environmental, and economic considerations, indicates that
disposal in an incinerator or chemical waste landfill is not
reasonable and appropriate ..." and (2) "... the alternate
disposal method will provide adequate protection to health and
the environment ..." It was determined that neither
incineration nor construction of a new upland landfill were
reasonable or appropriate. These assessments are documented in
the Administrative Record. The alternate disposal method was
recommended and approved because it was based on stringent
engineering standards and long-term facility management which
would assure the protection of public health, and could be
implemented in a timely manner.
At the OMC site, dredged sediments above 500 ppm from Slip No. 3
and from the crescent ditch and oval lagoon over 10,000 ppm will
be treated to remove at least 97 percent of PCB contamination.
The residual sediments may contain levels above 50 ppm. The
disposal method for these residual sediments, containment in Slip
No. 3 and in the West Containment Cell, have been approved as an
alternate disposal method pursuant to TSCA regulations at 40 CFR
761.60(a)(5)(iii). Therefore, disposal of the sediment residuals
is fully compliant with TSCA regulations. The highly contami-
nated PCB extracts from the treatment process will be disposed
off-site in accordance with TSCA and/or other applicable
regulations.
The East Cell will contain soils from the parking lot area.
These soils will not be excavated and treated. The containment
cell will be designed in the same manner as the Slip No. 3 and
the West Containment Cells. This East Cell is not subject to
TSCA approval since it does not contain excavated sediments.
2. Water Treatment and Discharge
Discharges of treated wastewaters to the "waters of the United
States" are regulated by the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Control of these discharges is normally through the issuance of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
which sets forth conditions and effluent limitations for each
discharge point.
-------
11
There are two discharge scenarios at OMC; the discharges that
will occur due to the remedial action operations and those that
are presently subject to an existing NPDES permit (IL0002267).
Because of the effect of construction related activities on the
characteristics of the present discharges, modification of the
existing permit has been proposed. This modification is being
handled in compliance with all permit conditions, including
public comment opportunity.
However, due to the uncertainty in the time frame for issuance of
an effective permit, interim effluent limitations are proposed
within the framework of this ROD Amendment. These are as
follows:
Effluent
Concentration Limit
Outfalls 001. 006 and 008
PCB's 5 ppb daily maximum
Outfalls 007. and 014
PCB's
Outfalls 015 and 016
PCB's
TSS
5 ppb daily maximum
1 ppb 30 day average
5 ppb daily maximum
30 mg/1 daily maximum
Monitoring
F r ecruenc v
Weekly
Twice
weekly
Each
Precipitation
Event-^/
*/• A Precipitation Event shall mean a 0.3 inch rainfall in a 24
hour period as monitored on or near the Site.
These interim effluent limitations are contingent upon approval
of a Best Management Practices plan (BMP). The BMP plan will
specify contingency actions which will be triggered when
specified concentration limits are exceeded. Exceedances of the
interim limits are subject to penalties under provisions of the
Consent Decree. These interim limits are effective from
commencement of construction of the new slip until formal permit
modifications become effective or until completion of the
construction schedule for In-Place Containment (IPC) cells,
whichever occurs first.
Discharges resulting from construction related activities are
considered "on-site" under the Superfund program and are exempt
from the procedural requirements of NPDES (including the
requirement to have a discharge permit from the State). However,
substantive requirements of the Clean Water Act must be complied
-------
12
with. Thus, for this site, technology based effluent limits have
been established for each discharge depending on the
characteristics of the waste water and volumes to be treated.
Based on EPA's Best Professional Judgement, the specified
effluent limitations and accompanying requirements can be
considered equivalent to those that can be achieved through the
application of Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable.
The CWA also requires monitoring of the discharge to assure that
limits are being met (40 CFR Part 122.44(1)).
There are five (5) categories of water produced during remedial
action.
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Category 4:
Category 5:
Upper Harbor Dredge Water
Slip 3 Dewatering
North Property Construction Water
Soil Treatment Process Water
Containment Cells Operation & Maintenance
Water
Each category of water will meet specific discharge limits. In
the event that limits may not be met, Best Management Practices
(BMP) will be initiated to optimize treatment system efficiency
and prevent violations of the specified limits. Table 2 shows
how the effluent limits and BMP are used to ensure compliance
with the CWA. Exceedance of any limits are subject to penalties
under the Consent Decree.
Once construction is complete, water discharge in categories 1-4
will cease. Category 5 water will be reviewed in conjunction
with the NPDES permit and will continue to be monitored.
3. Air Emissions
Non-promulgated advisories or guidance documents issued by the
Federal or State government do not have the status of ARARs;
however, where no applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements exist, or for some reason may not be sufficiently
protective, non-promulgated advisories or guidance documents may
be considered in determining the necessary level of protection of
human health.
Currently, there are no promulgated organic chemical standards
for air emissions. While TSCA regulates PCB emissions from
incinerators, the innovative soil processing envisioned at this
site do not have technology specific emission standards.
-------
Table 2: Compliance Strategy for Rpmnrtinl Action Discharge
ft
Category 1:
Dredge
Hater
Category 2:
Slip 3
Deuatering
Category 3:
Construction
Hater
Category 4:
Soil Process
Hater
Category 5:
Pall Hater
•".vaunaiu
technology
Sedimentation
Coagulant, sand
filtration
As above with
carbon adsorption
Sand, filter,
carbon adsorption
As above
As above
rEt. ouzacoon
(flow)
3 months
(1000 gpm)
6-8 months
(100 gpm)
Duration
uncertain
(100 gpm)
Duration
uncertain
(5-10 gpm)
long-term
(10 gpm)
Ktrj-uenc
limit
15 ppb
5ppb
5 ppb
5 ppb max.
1 ppb 30
day average
1 ppb 30
day average
LtUGBLLy
discharge
location
Upper
Harbor
Upper
Harbor
Upper
Harbor or
North Ditch
NSSD1 or
approved
location
As above
ncntcor
frequency
Daily
Daily
Daily
Soil
processor —
weekly;
carbon system
daily
Weekly for
6 months,
decreasing
over time
Acuon xevej.
trigger
5ppb
1 ppb on 2
consecutive
days front
first carbon
unit
As above
Not specified
1 ppb on 3
consecutive
dates
LtLKBiy
BMP
actions
Additional
coagulant,
carbon
Change carbon
filter
As above
Not specified
Change carbon
filter
1 North Shore Sanitary District
-------
13
Therefore, protectiveness levels win need to be established
during the design phase. These levels will be based on health
advisories and an exposure scenario which is protective of
workers and community, and/or State standards. The work plan
specifies carbon adsorption technologies on the air emissions
point sources. In theory, zero emissions of PCBs may be
achieved. However, other contaminants of concern may require
specific limits (e.g., particulates , NOX). When on-site pilot
testing is completed and operating conditions are known, emission
standards and appropriate criteria will be developed.
Cost-Effectiveness
The 1989 proposed remedy is more protective and offers greater
long term effectiveness than the 1984 selected remedy. The on-
site extraction of PCBs with subsequent off-site destruction
means that significantly less PCBs will be left on-site or in the
environment. This 1989 proposed remedy is estimated to cost $19
million. The 1984 selected remedy was estimated at $21 million;
at 30% design completion, the costs had escalated to $27 million.
The 1989 proposed remedy is the most cost-effective solution.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to th
-------
PROJECTED SCHEDULE ^
REMEDIAL DESIGN AND ACTION ^
REMEDIAL DESIGN
BUILD NEW SLIP
BUILD SLIP NO. 3 CELL
BUILD WEST CELL
DREDGE UPPER HARBOR
TREAT SEDIMENTS
EXCAVATE NORTH DITCH
DEWATER SLIP NO. 3 - PLACE FINAL CAP
BUILD EAST CELL
1988
19
••
B9
-
•M-
mm
—
••
19
—
•
90
•••
•
"•
—
<2>
-i'
mm
1991
•
••
"••n
<|> DELAYS MAY OCCUR DURING WINTER MONTHS. 1
<£> UPPER HARBOR DREDGING CANNOT OCCUR DURING BOATING SEASON (APRIL 30 • OCTOBER 30).
-------
OMC/Waukegan Harbor Responsiveness Summary
Waukegan, Illinois
I. Responsiveness Summary Overview
II. Background on Community Involvement
III. Summary of Significant Comments
Received During the Public Comment
Period and EPA Responses
IV. Remaining Concerns
I. Responsiveness Summary Overview
In accordance with CERCLA Section 117, a public comment period was
held from October 12, to November 14, 1988, to allow interested
parties to comment on the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Consent Decree and new proposed remedy as outlined
in the Explanation of Significant Differences. A public meeting was
held October 18, at which time EPA answered questions and accepted
comments from the public. A few requests for comment period
extension were received by EPA. These requests were also received by
the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ published the
notice of lodging in 53 Federal Register 41252, dated October 20,
1988 in accordance with 28 CFR 50.7. The DOJ comment period began
October 20, and extended 30 days until November 29, 1988. As a
result of the requests for time extension, both DOJ and EPA extended
the public comment period until December 5, 1988. In total, this
represents a 55 day comment period for EPA and a concurrent 46 day
comment period for DOJ.
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to document EPA's
response to comments received at the public meeting and during the
public comment periods held by EPA and DOJ. As this is only a
summary document, the comments are paraphrased. The reader is
referred to the information repositories for copies of the original
written comments and transcript of the public meeting. The
repositories are at the WauJcegan Public Library, Waukegan City Hall
and at the EPA office in Chicago, Illinois. All responses to
comments summarized in this document are considered EPA's final
decision for actions at the OMC/Waukegan Harbor site.
II. Background on Community Involvement
The Explanation of Significant Differences was released at the
beginning of the public comment period on October 12. The public
comment period extended 30 days until November 14. A public meeting
was held October 18. Comments received in writing and at the meeting
are supportive of the modified remedy. An extension to the public
comment period was granted until December 5.
-------
The community sentiment supports "putting to rest" the contamination
problems, the stigma of which has plagued the commercial and
recreational fishing industry in the area. They particularly support
the construction of a new slip for Larsen Marine. Temporary closure
of Larsen Marine was required in the 1984 ROD.
III. Summary of Significant Comments Received During the Public
Comment Period and EPA Responses.
A. Summary of Comments Received at the Public Meeting Held
October 18, 1988.
1. Mr. Loren Baker, Director
Public Affairs OMC
OMC supports the remedy. They feel it is both cost-
effective and environmentally sound. However, Mr. Baker emphasized
that OMC believes PCBs have never presented an immediate hazard in
the harbor. .
2. Mr. Charles Isley, President
and Chief Executive Officer
Waukegan Lake County Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Isley congratulates the regulatory Agencies and OMC for
developing a plan which is nondisruptive to the businesses and
community as possible.
3. Mr. Jerry Larsen
Larsen Marine
Mr. Larsen congratulates EPA and OMC for coming up with a
remedy that solves the problem without harm to other businesses, such
as Larsen Marine.
4. Mr. Cameron Davis
Lake Michigan Federation
Mr. Davis supports the fact that action is finally going to
begin on the PCB problem. He also states two concerns: First, the
public comment period is not long enough given the size of the
Consent Decree and work plan. Second, Mr. Davis does not believe the
50 ppm cleanup level is sufficiently protective of the ecological
environment of the Great Lakes.
Mr. Davis also submitted written comments which incorporate
the above statements. The Agency defers this response to the section
of the Responsiveness Summary which addresses written comments.
5. Mr. Don Freeborn, Executive Director
Waukegan Port District
-------
Mr. Freeborn supports the remedy.
6. Ms. D.J. Davis, Staff Assistant
Congressman John Porter
Ms. Davis read a statement on behalf of Congressman Porter.
Mr. Porter urges the citizens of Waukegan to support the cleanup.
7. Mr. Lew Clark
Mr. Clark is a boater in the Waukegan area. He is pleased
that the harbor will no longer be perceived as a toxic waste dump.
He also supports a remedy that is not disruptive of his boating
activities.
Response
The Agency notes that comments received generally reflect a
sentiment which strongly favors this remedy and expedient
implementation of it. EPA and OMC have taken into consideration the
community concerns which were expressed in 1984 while negotiating and
developing this 1989 remedy. EPA will continue to keep the community
updated and informed as design and construction proceed. Fact sheets
and press releases will be issued periodically.
B. Summary of Written Comments and EPA Response
There are three (3) groups of written comments received. These
are as follows:
1. Written statements which were read at the Public
Meeting
2. Statements which support the 1989 remedy without
reservation
3. Comments concerning technical and legal issues
1. Written statements as read at Public Meeting
The following organizations submitted to EPA a copy of
statements read at the public meeting held in Waukegan.
a. Mr. Jerry Larsen
Larsen Marine Service
b. Mr. Lauren M. Baker
Outboard Marine Corporation
c. Waukegan Park District
d. Mr. Charles Isely, III
Waukegan/Lake County Chamber of Commerce
-------
Response
EPA acknowledges receipt of the above written statements. Response
has been provided in the previous section.
2. Statements which support the 1989 remedy without reservation.
EPA has received twelve (12) written statements which show full
support of the remedy, express appreciation for relocating Larsen
Marine, and recognize that the temporary inconveniences associated
with a closed upper harbor serve a greater environmental and economic
good for the community as a whole.
a. Mr. Norman Drummond, AICP
Norman Drummond and Assoc. City Planners
b. Mr. Andrew B. Davis
Pioneer Press
c. Mr. Fred C. Borghardt
Fred C. Borghardt AIA Architect, LTD.
d. Mr. Bafrie T. Smith
Smith Associates
e. Mr. Chas. S. Moyer, Jr.
owner, Skipper "Why Not"
f. Mr. Michael V. Ostrowski, Ed. D.
g. Mr. William H. Billington, Jr.
h. Mr. Henry Rich
i. Mr. Richard Withrow
j. Mr. Robert Burchmore
Harris Bank Winnetka
k. Mr. Peter Koukos
1. Ms. Marilyn Eccles,
Madison Avenue Restaurant
Response
EPA appreciates the support of the community.
3. Comments concerning technical and/or legal issues.
a.) Ms. Marjorie Sennholt and Ms. Carolyn Sevcik, on behalf of the
Lake County League of Women Voters submitted a request for public
comment period extension and expressed concern about the adequacy of
the "50 ppm line" in protection of health and environment.
Response
As a result of the few requests for public comment period extension,
EPA did extend the comment period until December 5. EPA's response
to the "50 ppm line" question is discussed on page 8.
b./) Dr. Mary Woodland submitted several questions on behalf of the
Lake Michigan Inter-League Group, League of Women Voters.
-------
Summary
Dr. Woodland questioned EPA's compliance with Annex 2 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and questioned several technical
aspects of the project including continuity beneath the site of the
clay till, the experience and longevity of plastic liners, and the
design life of the project.
Response
The questions about Annex 2 compliance are discussed on page 6. The
continuity beneath the site will be confirmed in pre-design field
investigations which are scheduled for fall and winter (1988/1989).
The high density polyethylene liners are state-of-the-art technology,
and, while specific projections of liner longevity are not possible,
measures are being taken to prolong the liner's useful life. For
example, the containment cell cap is a layered system designed to
protect the plastic liner from situations which would compromise its
integrity such as freeze/thaw effects. Soils placed on top of the
liner will also provide protection.
Further, OMC is obligated to maintain the integrity of the
containment cells.
c.) Mr. Colin K. Thacker submitted comments on behalf of the Lake
County Health Department.
Summary
Mr. Thacker feels the ground waters beneath the site should be tested
for PCBs and actions taken if warranted. He also feels the Waukegan
Harbor drinking water system should be monitored and that all
monitoring programs and results be forwarded to his office for
review.
Response
The containment cells are designed, in part, to encompass the
existing ground water contamination. The ground water data indicate
significant contamination only in the source areas (which will become
the containment cells). After remedial action, at least 4 monitoring
wells per cell will be installed, and other wells as determined
necessary during the design phase. Should EPA find that actual
conditions are different than anticipated, EPA can seek additional
remedial actions pursuant to Section VI and XVI of the Consent
Decree. Appendix VII of the Work Plan presents the monitoring
frequency.
The monitoring program conducted during remedial action currently
does not include the drinking water intake for Waukegan. Instead,
monitoring will be conducted adjacent to the dredging area. Should
-------
there be releases, additional monitoring further from the dredging
area may be needed. The drinking water intake is a significant
distance from the dredging in the harbor. There isn't a need to
monitor at that distance if there is no problem adjacent to the
dredging.
The Department of Health, as a political subdivision of the State of
Illinois, should work with the State to ensure that all local,
legally applicable public health standards are identified and met.
d.) Mr. Cameron Davis submitted ten (10) comments on behalf of the
Lake Michigan Federation.
Summary
Mr. Davis feels the 1989 remedy falls short of what is necessary to
protect human health and aquatic resources. He also states that the
plan is inadequate because it does not address what is referred to as
"No Man's Land" and fails to provide the public participation
envisioned in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA).
Specific comments and Agency response follow:
Comment
1. EPA should detail the Consent Decree's relationship with a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) contemplated by the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA).
Response
The proposed remedial action is taken pursuant to the requirements of
CERCLA as amended by SARA. Under this statute, protection of the
environment and the human health are the ultimate goals. CERCLA
cleanups such as that in the instant case must achieve these goals
taking into account several factors which include compliance with
applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs),
preferences for permanent solutions, and community acceptance among
others. The proposed remedial action also contains a RAP hereinafter
"OMC RAP". The definition of the OMC RAP is found in Section II of
the proposed Consent Decree. It is defined as the following:
"Remedial Action Plan" or RAP means the plans for the implementation
of the remedial design, remedial action, resource restoration, and
operation and maintenance and monitoring to be undertaken at the site
as set forth in Appendices III through VII and any modifications
thereto made in accordance with the provisions of this Decree and all
plans approved hereunder."
The RAP under the GLWQA hereinafter "GLWQA RAP" is defined in
Subparagraph n of Article VI of the GLWQA as measures to ensure the
development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans for Areas of
Concern pursuant to Annex 2.
-------
The GLWQA RAP for the "Area of Concern" which encompasses the
proposed remedial action has not been developed. According to the
Great Lakes Water Quality Board (GLWQB), the State of Illinois has
primary responsibility for developing the GLWQA RAP. The Great Lakes
Water Quality Board is the principal advisor to the International
Joint Commission (UC) (see Preface to the 1987 Report to the IJC on
Great Lakes Water Quality by the GLWQB). Pursuant to Article VI
Section I of the agreement, the IJC role is to "assist in the
implementation of the agreement".
A timeframe for completion of the GLWQA RAP is still undeterminable.
While the delay in the development of the GLWQA RAP apparently
centered around litigation (see page 54 of the 1987 Report), this
1987 Report also states that completion dates of all RAPs, were
underestimated given the time and resources needed to develop GLWQA
RAPs. It is expected that the specific timetable for development of
the Waukegan Harbor Area Of Concern RAP will be established in the
not too distant future. Further, as stated in Appendix A to the 1987
Report on Great Lakes Water Quality entitled "Progress in Developing
Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin",
the OMC CERCLA RAP is expected to be a starting point for preparing a
GLWQA RAP. 'When the GLWQA RAP timetable has been established, U.S.
EPA anticipates that Illinois will complete the RAP and submit it to
the IJC for review.
EPA therefore believes that it has not violated the GLWQA as stated
by the commentor. EPA also notes that in most of the designated
Areas of concern where some form of remedial action is ongoing or has
already taken place, GLWQA RAPs have not been developed and reviewed
by IJC prior to some form of remedial action being implemented.
The commentor also stated that since the OMC RAP has not undergone
IJC review, that public comment as requested by the GLWQA is somehow
rendered meaningless.
The proposed remedial action has had the benefit of public input in
several forms. Pursuant to Section 117 of SARA, EPA held a 30 day
public comment period during which time a public meeting was also
held. As a result of requests for time extensions, the public
comment period was extended for a additional 25 days. In accord with
28 CFR 50.7 an almost concurrent public comment was held by the
Department of Justice. Additional opportunities for public
participation were provided on two separate occasions in 1983 and
1984, and a public meeting held in 1984 in connection with
consideration of a remedy having essentially the same scope as the
proposed remedy. To the extent that the GLWQA RAP incorporates a
remedy under the same scope as that of the OMC RAP, EPA believes that
meaningful public comment opportunities have been provided and that
EPA's responses have been well documented in 1984 and in the context
of this responsiveness summary for the 1989 modified remedy.
-------
8
Comment
2. EPA should consider the contaminant issues associated with the
Corps of Engineers (COE) dredging project and the potential economic
and environmental harm which may result from not addressing the "No
Mans Land" area.
Response
EPA has determined that the cleanup program defined in the proposed
Consent Decree protects human health and the environment. Thus, EPA
does not believe that the objectives of SARA require dredging of the
so-called "no man's land". Having concluded that the proposed
Consent Decree remedy protects human health and the environment, it
is not necessary for EPA to anticipate and address speculative
scenarios regarding disposition of sediments that are beyond the
scope of the proposed remedy. While EPA understands that the COE is
considering the possibility of dredging the area referred to as the
"no man's land", dredging this area has not traditionally been the
responsibility of COE, and EPA is not aware that COE has reached any
decision concerning this matter. Thus, it would be premature to
attempt any evaluation of the nature or adequacy of any COE dredging
and disposal program that might be undertaken by the COE. The COE,
through their Environmental Impact Statement process, will determine
the amount of sediment removal and the appropriate disposal method
for their navigation channel dredging objectives.
In its comment, the Lake Michigan Federation appears to assume that
the in-place containment cells contemplated under the Consent Decree
could readily accommodate disposal of the sediments which the
commenter believes should be removed from the "no man's land".
However, the containment cells described in the RAP do not have
sufficient capacity for disposal of the volume of sediments present
in the "no man's land", and significant changes to the current
remedial design would be necessary to address sediments from this
area. EPA does not believe that such design changes are necessary
because the remedy as described in the RAP already meets the
requirement of CERCLA.
Comment
3. The 50 ppm threshold is policy-based and does not take into
account ecological and human health considerations.
Response
The 1989 remedy proposes only certain changes to the 1984 proposed
remedy. One element of the remedy which has not changed is the
designated project line corresponding to an area where sampling
results have shown the average sediment concentration to be less than
50 ppm. This has been referred to as the "50 ppm line". Public
comment on this element of the remedy was conducted in 1984,
-------
revisiting the issue is unnecessary since there are no new data which
would change the rationale for this decision. However, some
additional discussion may clarify the Agency's perspective.
The CERCLA remedial selection process requires EPA to consider the
extent of cleanup necessary to protect human health and the
environment, the feasibility of remedial alternatives and the cost
effectiveness of various remedial options that meet protectiveness
requirements. EPA does not believe that removal of all contaminated
sediments is either feasible or necessary to provide protection of
human health and the environment.
The 1981 HydroQual, Inc. Report evaluated concentration ranges for
residual PCBs in sediment and projected possible impacts to human and
aquatic resources. The report concluded that residual concentrations
between 100 and 10 ppm left after dredging would result in a PCB
influx to Lake Michigan which approached zero. This, therefore,
determined the protectiveness range. It represents a range which, if
achieved, would virtually eliminate the Waukegan Harbor as a
contributor to further contamination in Lake Michigan.
Based on the HydroQual Report, any remedy that establishes a sediment
cleanup level of 100 ppm or less could be considered protective of
human health and the environment. In order to provide an extra
margin of safety and account for uncertainties inherent in the
modeling process, EPA decided to require cleanup to the "50 ppm line"
in order to assure protection of human health and the environment.
Remedial alternatives based on a sediment cleanup level below 50 ppm
raise technical and cost-effectiveness concerns. EPA had to consider
the technical limitations inherent in the available dredging
technology. Any dredging technique would involve some resuspension
of sediment into the water column, and resettling back into the
sediment. It may be difficult to assure that lower sediment levels
could be achieved given the technological limitations. Such a
technical challenge isn't necessary since protectiveness can be
achieved by the 50 ppm level. Given these key concerns, along with
other criteria of concern (see ROD, Table 1), it became clear that
the most conservative approach required to meet the protectiveness
goals was represented by the 50 ppm concentration line.
It should be emphasized that the decision regarding cleanup levels
necessary to protect human health and the environment was based on
site specific data. Site specific data were used in the HydroQual
model. The final Agency decision with respect to the 50 ppm line was
based on the model and other site specific conditions, and not on the
basis of a mechanical application of the 50 ppm TSCA action level for
dredged materials.
Furthermore, the Agency believes that average PCB concentrations
below the "50 ppm line" are lower than 50 ppm. Data contained within
reports referenced by some commenters were determined to be unusable
because unconventional analytical methods were used. Inconsistent
-------
10
analytical methods and/or questionable quality, assurance made it
difficult to compare results on the same basis. However, EPA did not
eliminate or ignore data, instead, a data sensitivity analysis was
needed. OMC subsequently performed Kriging analysis. Kriging
analyses develop a statistical "best fit" concentration contour line
based on the data input. The Kriging analysis was done for several
data scenarios. One scenario used all available data without regard
to analytical method. Another scenario used only the data for which
the quality was not in question. The comparison of these scenarios
showed only minor differences in the location of the "50 ppm line".
This exercise demonstrated that the data determined to be unusable
were not a sensitive factor in delineation of the "50 ppm line".
Lake Michigan Federation also asserts that the 50 ppm clean up
threshold will not result in compliance with the water quality
standards, the GLWQA objective in whole fish, the IJC criteria of 10
ppm for sediment or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife proposed criteria of
.05 ppm. The cited criteria listed for sediment and fish do not
constitute binding requirements of federal or state law and are not
considered ARARs that must be achieved through implementation of the
selected remedy. As further explained in NRDC response to comment 10
(see page 23) implementation of the proposed remedy essentially
eliminates PCB influx to the Lake from the site.
Dredging the Upper Harbor to the chosen 50 ppm threshold result in
greater than 96% removal of PCBs from the entire harbor area. This
is the cost-effective approach to achieving the protectiveness goals.
Finally, although EPA does not regard dredging beyond the 50 ppm line
to be necessary for protection of human health and the environment,
EPA notes that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("COE") regularly
conducts navigational dredging projects in certain areas beyond the
"50 ppm line". Although the routine COE dredging operations do not
extend all the way to the 50 ppm line that would be dredged as part
of the Superfund remedial action, EPA understands that the COE is
considering the cost effectiveness of extending their dredging
project to meet the 50 ppm line. Should this occur, there would be
some additional removal of low level contaminated sediments, although
it is difficult to predict the impact of such navigational dredging
operations on final PCB concentrations in any areas dredged by the
COE.
Comment
4. EPA should have a "demonstration program" to display the Taciuk
process.
Response
The request for performance information based on actual site data
was also received at the public meeting. As a result of these
requests, EPA will ensure that the community is appraised of on-
-------
11
site pilot scale performance results when that information is
available. It should be noted that the Administrative Record
contains performance data on this process from bench scale studies
performed in Canada.
Comment
5. EPA should appoint a citizens Advisory Committee for the Waukegan
Harbor area.
Response
EPA does not initiate such committees, but would cooperate with such
a committee if it were formed. EPA intends to keep all parties
informed of site progress through fact sheets, press releases and
other appropriate means.
Comment
6. The Consent Decree does not indicate whether soils in the new
Slip 3 have been tested for PCBs.
Response
Soil borings were taken around this area prior to the 1984 ROD.
This area is not considered PCS contaminated.
Comment
7. Plans to eliminate the"outfall at the west end of slip 3 are
unclear.
Response
It appears that the commentor is referring to an outfall which was
closed in 1976.
Comment
8. A liner is advisable underneath the storage tanks to control
possible leakage.
Response
EPA assumes the commentor is referring to the storage tanks used to
temporarily store the PCB extracted oil. The Spill Containment and
Counter measures (SPCC) Plan program requirements will guide the
design details associated with this element of the remedial action.
If there are leakage problems, OMC will be required to remediate
them.
-------
12
Comment
9. It is unclear what responses are planned if dioxins or furans
are emitted during the treatment process.
Response
Section 4 of the Work Plan for Treatment of Select Soils and
Sediments discusses air emissions. It states that data gathered
during the pilot tests conducted on-site is needed prior to
identifying the type of contaminants and, therefore, the necessary
pollution control equipment. Moreover, commencement of all field
activities is subject to approval by U.S. EPA. It should be noted
that the design of the Taciuk processor already includes a carbon
adsorption system for air emissions. This is state-of-the-art
technology. Action levels which trigger contingency plans will be
included in the design.
Comment
10. PCS removal criteria in Appendix 4, appear to be biased toward
lower levels through averaging.
Response
Each sample taken is split three ways. If the analysis of the first
split is high, the other two splits are analyzed. Since they all
represent the same sample, the reanalysis serves more as a quality
control check on the laboratory performance than as a bias. Standard
performance troubleshooting procedures would suggest that one be
certain of the results before taking corrective actions.
e.) Messrs. James F. Simon and Patrick G. O'Malley submitted
sixteen (16) comments on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. (NRDC).
Comment
1. A proper clean-up of Waukegari Harbor is essential.
NRDC emphasizes that the cleanup of Waukegan Harbor must be done
carefully because mistakes in the cleanup plan and/or process could
result in failure to remove the hazards or even increase the danger
by further distributing PCBs throughout the environment.
Response
EPA agrees with the commentor that the proposed remedial action for
Waukegan Harbor site must be implemented with care to assure
protection of public health and the environment. All elements of the.
remedial action will be executed in compliance with ARARs.
-------
13
The proposed Decree includes numerous provisions designed to assure
that the required remedial work is undertaken with care. For
example, the Decree includes provisions that:
1. establish technology-based requirements for various aspects of
the remedial action, including:
a. use of best hydraulic dredging equipment and techniques
available for removing contaminated sediments from Slip 3 and from
the Upper Harbor (see IPC Work Plan, Appendix II, §4.5.3, pi and
§4.5.4);
b. for containment cell construction, including limits on the
permeability of IPC walls (see Appendix III, Table 1, pp A. 2, B.2-3);
2. require maintenance of an inward hydraulic gradient in
containment cells in order to prevent leaks from the cells (see
Consent Decree, Part V.D.I; IPC Work Plan, Appendix II, §4.8; 0 & M
Plan, Appendix VII, §4.0;
3. establish stringent discharge limits to minimize discharges
(see IPC Work Plan, §4.6.14.2);
4. require EPA review and approval of various work plans, design
submissions and other documents pertaining to implementation of the
remedy (see Consent Decree, Part V.D.2);
5. facilitate close supervision over the process by EPA and the
State (see Consent Decree, Parts X.A [appointment of Remedial Project
Manager and State Project Coordinators to oversee implementation of
the Work]; IV.C and XIV [provisions for reimbursement of governmental
oversight costs]; IX.A [reporting requirements to keep EPA and the
State apprised of developments during implementation of the remedy];
and VI [providing for periodic EPA review of the effectiveness of the
remedy, with a reservation of rights to seek additional relief in the
event that EPA determines that the remedy is not protecting health
and the environment]);
6. monitoring requirements for surface water discharges (Appendix
III, §4.6.14), air emissions from the soil/sediment treatment process
(Appendix IV. §4.1), ambient air monitoring at the site boundary
(Appendix III, §3.5), and groundwater monitoring (Appendix VII,
§3.0);
7. require reporting of any unanticipated releases during the
remedial action (see Consent Decree, Part IX.C);
8. require adherence to quality assurance project plans and health
and safety plans during implementation of the remedial action (see
Consent Decree Part V.D [work must be conducted in accordance with
RAP and approved pursuant thereto]; RAP is defined in Part III.L of
Decree to include the QAPP and Health and Safety Plan);
-------
14
9. require compliance with applicable laws (see Consent Decree,
Part IV.E.I and 3);
10. allow the RPM to halt work if conditions present an imminent
and substantial endangerment (see Consent Decree, Part X.D.);
11. reserve the rights of the United States and the State to take
additional response actions and seek additional relief from OMC in
the event of a breach of the requirements of the Decree, or in the
event that information received after entry of the decree indicates
that the remedial action is not protective of human health and the
environment (see Consent Decree, XVI.D. and E).
EPA agrees with the commentor's observation that the site currently
"poses substantial risk to human health and the environment".
Several factors mentioned by the commentor in this connection - the
proximity of the site to heavily populated areas, the persistence and
toxicity of PCBs, the tendency of PCB's to bioaccumulate - suggest
the importance of proceeding with the cleanup expeditiously, as well
as carefully.
Comment
2. The primary goal of the cleanup must be to protect human health
and the environment.
NRDC quotes the SARA directives which mandate the Agency to select a
remedy which is protective of human heath and the environment,
complies with ARARs and is cost-effective. NRDC emphasizes that cost
cannot be a justification for failure to meet the protectiveness
standard.
Response
EPA again agrees with the commentor's position. EPA feels this
Record of Decision adequately documents those findings and that the
Administrative Record provides all the necessary support for those
findings. EPA has complied with SARA in amending the 1984 ROD.
Comment
3. EPA has chosen a PCB-separation technology that is largely
untested and that threatens human health and the environment.
NRDC states that the Taciuk process selected by EPA is largely
untested, leaves extremely high amounts of PCBs in the residual
soil, and like the bench tests, will release PCBs and furans into
the environment. NRDC also feels that additional testing is
necessary before EPA can determine if the process will be protective
of health and the environment. NRDC also attached more specific
-------
15
comments which challenge this process from Mr. Paul McGough of the
Resources Conservation Company.
Response
Several points within this comment require clarification. The
proposed Decree includes a PCB treatment performance standard that
will assure effective removal of PCBs from the highly contaminated
soils and sediments removed from designated "Treatment Areas". This
performance standard requires that any treatment process employed by
OMC shall result in the removal of at least 97% of the PCBs present
in the material to be treated. See Decree, Part III.J at p. 10.
Taciuk is one of 2 extraction processes examined in detail by OMC;
the other extraction technology is known as the B.E.S.T. process,
whose vendor, Mr. McGough, furnished NRDC with criticism of Taciuk.
Data provided by Taciuk and B.E.S.T. indicate that both of these
treatment processes should be capable of meeting the treatment
performance standard set forth in the proposed decree. In this
context, the choice of treatment technology vendors is appropriately
left to OMC. Nothing in the proposed Decree requires OMC to use
Taciuk process; nor will OMC's selection of Taciuk as a treatment
contractor relieve it of responsibility for implementing additional
measures, including reprocessing of materials or use of an alternate
treatment process if the Taciuk process does not achieve the removal
levels required by the Decree. See Consent Decree, Parts V.D.7 and
XI.E.2.
Although it is true that the Taciuk process was originally developed
for shale oil extraction, results of pilot studies demonstrate
effectiveness of this process with PCB laden soil and sediment. In
any case, as noted above, OMC would be required to provide treatment
until the performance standard of 97% removal efficiency is achieved.
The commentor refers to shortcomings in methodologies of the Taciuk
process. Although NRDC does not specifically identify the perceived
methodolical shortcomings, EPA assumes the problems relate either to
the inability of the lab test to demonstrate conclusively that the
Taciuk process will achieve the 97% extraction performance standard
or to the test emissions data for evaluating the type of emissions
problems which may be present during full scale operation.
With respect to the attainment of the required extraction efficiency,
the Consent Decree clearly states in Section V that whatever
treatment methodology is used, the performance standards must be met.
With respect to emission testing, EPA does not believe that any
methodological flaw renders the pilot testing inadequate for purposes
of determining whether such treatment can be conducted in a manner
which will protect human health and the environment during full scale
operations.
In/any event, as suggested by the commentor, the proposed remedy does
contemplate additional testing of any PCB treatment process, in the
-------
16
form of an on-site pilot test which must be approved by EPA prior to
the general operation of the system. See §4.1 of Appendix IV to the
proposed Decree, and Part V.D.2 of the Consent Decree.
Both IEPA and USEPA will require close supervision of either
technology to assure protection of health and the environment. This
effort includes an on-site pilot test prior to EPA approval of the
selected system (Taciuk). The pilot test will help refine the
emissions control equipment. It is true that small amounts of PCBs
and furans were released during the bench scale testing. It is
likely that furans were in the feed stock, and not created as a
result of the treatment process, since the Taciuk process is
anaerobic and operates at a lower temperature where furans and
dioxins should not be formed. However, the pilot testing will be
closely scrutinized for these and other chemicals. In addition,
either technology will be monitored during operation for stack and
fugitive emissions. See appendix IV to the Consent Decree for a more
detailed explanation of the monitoring requirements.
The Taciuk process is an established technology with a new
application to Superfund problems. SARA Section 121(b)(l)(G) states
that "The President shall select a remedial action that is protective
of human health and the environment, that is cost effective, and that
utilizes permanent solution and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.w
(emphasis added). EPA feels Congress intended to support and
motivate the scientific community to develop and use technologies
such as Taciuk and B.E.S.T. EPA recognizes that some risk is
inherent in progressing toward this goal. We therefore intend to be
conservative in the approach to protection of health and the
environment during remedial action. During the design phase very
stringent Health and Safety Plans will be developed which include
appropriate contingency plans to ensure adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
Comment:
4. EPA has improperly chosen a short-term rather than a permanent
remedy.
NRDC feels the selected remedy is short-term because "substantially
contaminated sediment and soil "remain in the on-site containment
cells.
Response
Contrary to the implication of the commentor, SARA Sl2l(b)(l) does
not preclude selection of remedies which include provisions for
containment of hazardous substances; rather 512Kb)(1) expresses
statutory preference for remedial action in which a principal element
is/treatment that permanently reduces the volume, toxicity or
mobility of the hazardous substances.
-------
17
The remedy set forth in the proposed by consent Decree satisfies the
SARA §121 preference for remedies that permanently reduce the
volume, toxicity, mobility of hazardous substances.
As discussed above, the proposed consent decree requires treatment of
soils and sediments from "Treatment Areas" containing the most highly
contaminated materials on site by means of a PCS extraction process
that will remove 97% of the PCBs from the materials to be treated.
EPA and OMC estimate that in total 16,000 cubic yards containing
742,000 pounds of PCBs win be treated by the extraction process.
By contrast, the 217,700 cubic yards of soil remaining in the
containment cells, contain approximately 334,000 pounds of PCBs.
Thus, the PCB extraction process required as part of the proposed
remedy would apply to soils and sediments containing a large part of
the total mass of PCBs at the site. The extraction process would
strip at least 97% of these PCBs from the treated materials. Thus,
the treatment process would significantly reduce the maximum
concentration of PCBs remaining at the site.
Under the proposed Decree, the extracted PCBs must be destroyed in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. See Consent
Decree, Part V.D.l.(b). Under applicable TSCA regulations, the only
method currently authorized for disposal of the extracted PCBs is
incineration in a TSCA approved incinerator. See 40 C.F.R. S761.75.
Thermal extraction of PCBs extracted from "Treatment Area" soils and
sediments will permanently and significantly reduce the total mass of
PCBs now found at the Waukegan Harbor site. Off-site destruction
with an incineration method would convert the PCBs into non-toxic
combustion products, thereby also reducing the toxicity of the
wastes. Thus, the proposed remedy satisfies SARA requirements by
providing permanent and significant reductions in the volume and
toxicity of hazardous substances from the Waukegan Harbor site.
The combination of treatment (not recommended in the 1984 ROD) and
containment for soils and sediments is protective, cost-effective,
and satisfies SARA'S preference for treatment.
Comment
5. The proposed containment would not meet the criteria applicable
to a PCB Landfill under TSCA and RCRA Regulations.
NRDC states that EPA has not complied with TSCA requirements,
specifically, the prohibitions to disposal where there is a hydraulic
connection between the groundwater and surface water. In addition,
the monitoring and closure requirements of RCRA have not been met,
Response
-------
18
Under TSCA regulations found at 40 CFR 761.60 Alternate Disposal
Methods are allowable, provided criteria listed are met. The
Administrative Record and this ROD amendment specify how TSCA has
been complied with. While TSCA regulations found at 40 C.F.R.
§761.75(b), address chemical waste landfill siting requirements, (see
especially subparagraphs (1), (3), and (5) of this regulation), other
sections of the TSCA regulation allow for alternate disposal methods
in appropriate circumstances. See 40 C.F.R. Section 761.60(a)(5)
(iii). The commentor should refer to the constantelos memo
"Compliance with TSCA ARARs at the Waukegan Harbor Hazardous Waste
Site and Application for Alternative Disposal of PCS Contaminated
Sediments" dated 9/12/88; and, the Adamkus memo "Application for
Alternative Disposal of PCB Contaminated Sediments at the Waukegan
Harbor Waste Superfund Site" dated 9/2/88. Briefly, it was
determined that construction of an approvable upland landfill was not
feasible. Site selection studies conducted identified only one
upland location for building an approvable TSCA landfill. Greater
public exposure was a consideration due to dewatering and off-site
transportation of contaminated materials. The complexities involved
in the administrative process leading to the selection of a new
landfill site in the State of Illinois were several. Moreover, it
is unlikely that any new landfill could be constructed and permitted
without a delay of 12 to 24 months. All parties agree that it is
more desirable to achieve a cleanup sooner than to delay work for an
undetermined period of time to obtain siting approval. The proposed
remedial action meets the criteria for an alternate disposal method. {
Therefore, EPA has complied with TSCA requirements.
The commentor states that the proposed remedy does not comply with
ARARs under RCRA. Pursuant to Section 121 of SARA remedial actions
such as that reflected by the proposed Consent Decree must meet
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
of other environmental laws, including RCRA.
A "legally applicable" requirement is one which would legally apply
to the response action if that action were not taken pursuant to
Section 104 or Section 106 of CERCLA. A "relevant and appropriate"
requirement is a provision of Federal or State law that, while not
"applicable" to the remedy, is designed to apply to problems
sufficiently similar that their application is considered
appropriate.
RCRA is not applicable in the present case because the jurisdictional
prerequisites are not met. RCRA regulates the'management and
disposal of solid and hazardous waste. The site never accepted
hazardous waste for treatment, storage or disposal after the
effective data of RCRA. Moreover, available data do not support the
conclusion that the site contains any "lifted" or "characteristic"
RCRA hazardous wastes. Therefore the jurisdictional prerequisites of
RCRA are not met and therefore RCRA is not applicable.
-------
19
Making a determination of whether RCRA is relevant or appropriate to
a particular site requires looking at several site specific factors,
as well as the specific goals and objectives of the statute and
regulations, and the substances covered by the requirement
thereunder. The overall determination requires the Agency to
exercise its best professional judgment regarding the similarity
between the circumstances and conditions presented by the CERCLA site
and those addressed by particular RCRA requirements.
It is EPA's determination that RCRA is not relevant or appropriate to
the proposed remedy for the Waukegan Harbor site. As stated above
the overall objective of RCRA is to regulate the management and
disposal of hazardous or solid waste. However, the substance for
which this remedy is designed is PCBs. PCBs will be stored, treated
and monitored for under the proposed remedy. PCBs are not regulated
under RCRA; furthermore, TSCA regulations contain specific provisions
defining appropriate requirements storage and disposal of PCBs,
including PCS contaminated soils and dredged materials. RCRA is also
considered not relevant and appropriate because to the extent any
hazardous substances other than PCBs may be present above background
levels their presence is negligible relative to the PCBs present.
Even though EPA does not believe that RCRA requirements are relevant
and appropriate to the Waukegan Harbor remedy, in connection with
the design for the proposed PCB containment cells the Agency did
consider and incorporate certain features commonly associated with
RCRA landfills. Thus, the proposed containment cell coverings will
comply with the RCRA regulations as outlined in 40 C.F.R. 264.310 and
groundwater monitoring wells will be placed around the perimeter of
each cell.
Based on the above discussion EPA therefore disagrees with the
commentor's assertion regarding RCRA ARARS.
Comment
6. EPA has not demonstrated that the proposed containment would
prevent ground water contamination.
NRDC quotes a 1981 EPA report which rejects the option of containing
PCB wastes in Slip 3; a critical feature of the 1989 amended ROD.
Response
Prior to adoption of the 1984 ROD, EPA evaluated use of containment
cells and concluded that this remedial component would effectively
reduce risks from releases at the site. Thus, prior to issuing the
1984 ROD, EPA had proposed to convert Slip 3 into a containment cell,
as does the current proposed remedy. Under that proposal, highly
contaminated sediments would have been contained within the slip 3
cell. Although EPA did not ultimately adopt this approach in the
1984 ROD, EPA did not reject use of Slip 3 as a containment cell due
-------
20
to concerns about the feasibility of containing materials within Slip
3. Rather, EPA modified its proposed remedial action to avoid use of
Slip 3 because of public comments that expressed concerns about
community impact of closing Slip 3.
In 1989, the recommended engineering controls have changed
substantially. The cut-off wall will have 16 feet of soils which
provide a "buffer zone" between the cell and the open water. The
cell will contain significantly lower levels of PCBs, it will be
capped with a synthetic liner as well as a soil cap, dnd will meet
other protective design criteria (see Appendix III, Table 1). A
critical difference is also the internal hydraulic containment system
employed in this remedy which will draw water inward, preventing
ground water from escaping outward. (See Decree, Part V.D.9,
Appendix III, §4.8 and Appendix VII, $4.0.)
EPA does not believe that future ground water contamination will
occur as a result of the 1989 remedy. However, if that does happen,
corrective actions will be triggered and paid for by contingencies
set out in the Consent Decree (see Appendix VII, §3.0). In addition,
U.S. EPA has reserved its right to require additional response action
under CERCLA Section 106 or to take additional response action
pursuant to CERCLA Section 104 upon its determination that such
action is necessary to assure protection of human health and the
environment. See Consent Decree, Parts VI, XVKD).
Comment
7. EPA has improperly chosen off-site rather than on-site treatment.
NRDC asserts that EPA proposes an off-site remedy that should be
considered the "least favored" under SARA. EPA, in favoring off-
site treatment, has not specify the method, location or manner of
transportation.
Response
With regard to the commentors discussion of SARA, EPA assumes that
the commentor is referring to 42 U.S.C. 9621(b). Assuming this
clarification, the commentor takes the language of the statute out of
its relevant context.
Section 121(b)(l) of SARA provides:
Remedial actions in which treatment to permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances,
pollutants and contaminants are to be preferred over remedial actions
not involving such treatment. The off-site transport and disposal 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).
-------
21
512Kb)(1) of SARA is designed to discourage uncritical recourse to
remedies which simply transport hazardous substances from one site to
another without any effort to reduce the volume, toxicity or mobility
of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. This
provision does not purport to discourage remedies which include some
off-site transport and disposal where the remedial action flojSS
include provisions for reducing the volume, toxicity and mobility of
the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. Nor does
§121(b)(1) of SARA create preference for conducting the treatment
component of remedy at the on-site location, as long as the remedial
action results in a reduction of the volume, toxicity and mobility of
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.
Since the remedy in the proposed Consent Decree does provide for
permanent and significant reductions of volume, toxicity and
mobility, the use of off-site disposal facilities is fully consistent
with SARA §121.
This remedy actually has two treatment steps. EPA has referred to
them as the on-site PCS extraction and the off-site PCS destruction.
The portion of the remedy to be implemented off-site is the
destruction of the PCS oils extracted from the soils and sediments.
The ROD and Consent Decree are silent on the method, location and
manner of transportation of the extracted PCBs for several reasons.
First, and most importantly, these decisions will be determined by
the applicable laws in place when off-site destruction of the
extracted PCBs actually occurs. The TSCA regulations currently call
for incineration of all liquids which contain greater than 500 ppm
PCS. While an incineration-equivalent process could be used, none
are currently permitted. This effectively limits the options
available in the market place. Secondly, the compliance status of
licenced disposal facilities change periodically. Thus, it would not
be appropriate to designate facilities until it is time to use them.
Finally, the decree does require transportation and disposal in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations (see Consent Decree,
Parts IV.E.I and 3, and V.D.Kb)).
The proposed remedial action meets the statutory preference of
Section 121. The proposed remedial action calls for the treatment of
certain contaminated sediments prior to off-site transport and
destruction. Moreover, as a result of the extraction treatment
system to be used on-site, the volume of material taken off-site is
far less than envisioned in the 1984 ROD. Approximately 392 cubic
yards (20 truck loads) are expected to be taken off-site compared to
the 11,200 cubic yards (570 truck loads) of material anticipated in
1984.
Comment
8. EPA has arbitrarily excluded a large portion of the site from
cleanup.
-------
22
NRDC reiterates the concern posed by the Lake Michigan Federation
about the "No-Mans Land" below the 50 ppm project line.
Response
See response to Lake Michigan Federation, comment number 3, page 9.
Comment
9. EPA's proposed no-action level of 50 ppm for PCBs in the sediment
is not adequate to protect human health and the environment and is
contrary to law. In this comment, NRDC raises many of the same
points presented in Lake Michigan Federations's comment 3. In
addition, NRDC implies that 40 C.F.R. Section 761.135 establishes a
soil decontamination standard of 1 ppm for PCBs, and that the remedy
must achieve a proposed sediment cleanup standard of .05 ppm.
Response
Many of the points raised by NRDC in this comment are addressed above
in EPA's response to Lake Michigan Federation's comment no. 2. In
this response, EPA will address NRDC's suggestion that EPA has
adopted a 1 ppm standard for cleanup of PCBs in soil.
Contrary to NRDC's suggestion, there is no numerical PCB cleanup
standard in 40 C.F.R. 5761.135. There are some numerical standards
in 40 C.F.R. §761.125, which is part of the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup
Policy set forth in Subpart G of Part 761; however, none of the
provisions of the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy establishes a 1 ppm
standard for cleanup in soils. On the contrary, the policy
contemplates cleanup of PCB-contaminated soils to levels ranging from
10 ppm to 50 ppm or higher, depending on the setting of the spill.
See e.g., 40 C.F.R. S761.125(C)(V)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(v)(a)(d)(n),
(c)(4)(v). The only reference in 40 C.F.R. §761.125 to 1 ppm relates
to the concentration of back soils that will be used to cover
residual PCBs not removed as part of the spill cleanup. Such
references do not amount to adoption of a 1 ppm soil cleanup
standard.
Furthermore, EPA does not regard the TSCA Spill Cleanup Policy as an
ARAR which must be attained at the conclusion of CERCLA cleanups.
In the first place, the policy has not been adopted as a legally
binding regulation through the codification process; while EPA may
consider such policies in the process of selecting a remedial action,
it does not regard such policies as ARARs. In the second place, on
its face, the Policy applies only to spills occurring after May 4,
1987. See 40 C.F.R. §76l.20(a). Thus, the provisions of the Policy
are not applicable to the Waukegan Harbor cleanup, which addresses
cleanup of PCBs discharged long before May 4, 1987.
EPA; has recognized that older spill sites present different
considerations regarding the pervasiveness of contamination, the
-------
23
types and magnitudes of likely exposure and the difficulty of cleanup
than the typical electrical equipment spill considered by the Agency
in developing the Policy. See 40 C.F.R. §761.20
-------
24
Consent Decree is protective of human health and the environment, as
required by Section 121(b) of CERCLA.
Implementation of the proposed remedial action will eliminate
Waukegan Harbor as a continuing source of PCBs to Lake Michigan and
result in water quality values at the mouth of the Harbor that
approximate ambient values in the near shore. See Hydroqual, Inc.
Report.
EPA disagrees with NRDC's assertion that the remedial action will not
rectify contributions made by the site to the Lake. EPA in selecting
this remedy considered that other sources make the substantial
contribution to the PCB Water Quality problem in the Lake. For
example, the HydroQual Report estimated that the Waukegan Harbor site
may contribute between 10 and 20 kilograms of PCBs to Lake Michigan
annually in the period prior to any removal of contaminated Harbor
sediments, whereas it is suggested that atmospheric sources may
contribute between 900 and 4600 kilograms of PCBs to the Lake
annually, and another 500 to 1000 kilograms enters the Lake as a
result of dry deposition and other point source discharges.
In addition, the HydroQual Report included modeling studies
indicating that water quality outside Waukegan Harbor is not highly
sensitive to sediment cleanup levels in Waukegan Harbor.
Given the significance of other current source contributions to Lake
Michigan, any water quality sample taken in the Lake after the
remedial action would reflect contamination from multiple other
sources. Thus, the Agency has endorsed a remedy which results in a
manifold reduction of the PCB influx to Lake Michigan which
effectively eliminates the OMC site as a contributor to water
quality problems in Lake Michigan. EPA has determined that the
selected remedy, leading to the overall reduction in the loading of
PCBs to Waukegan Harbor and Lake Michigan, will provide the most
substantial, direct, rapid and feasible contribution to the full
achievement of the designated uses of these waters. The selected
remedy if taken in conjunction with other Agency efforts and natural
processes will reduce the PCB load to Lake Michigan will result in
the eventual virtual elimination of the PCB problem in the Lake.
Finally, the HydroQual Report concludes that a source removal at the
site, such as that which would be represented by the proposed
remedial action would essentially eliminate the influx of PCBs to
Lake Michigan. This conclusion is also corroborated by the 1987 OMC
Risk Assessment.
NRDC also states that the remedy will exacerbate existing water
quality conditions. Although EPA recognizes the need for care in
implementing the remedial action (see Response to NRDC Comment #1),
the Agency believes that the proposed consent Decree and the RAP
include adequate provisions to minimize short-term impacts of
dredging activities and that the remedy will enhance rather than
exacerbate environmental conditions.
-------
25
Prior to adoption of the 1984 ROD, EPA evaluated remedial
alternatives which did not involve removal of contaminated sediments
from the Harbor, including proposals for solidifying, fixing,
treating or burying the contaminated sediments in place. For reasons
set forth in the RI/FS (the 1984 ROD), EPA concluded that these other
remedial actions did not reliably assure adequate protection of human
health and the environment. EPA remains convinced that dredging
represents an important element of any reliable, protective remedy
for the Waukegan Harbor site. At the same time, EPA has recognized
the need to take appropriate steps to minimize short-term impacts
resulting from dredging operations. This is one of the reasons that
the highly contaminated sediments from Slip 3 will be removed only
after the slip has been sealed off from the Harbor. The dredging
will temporarily resuspend some amount of sediment into the water
column. This is unavoidable with any selected technology for
removing contaminated sediment from the Waukegan Harbor site.
The proposed Consent Decree includes numerous provisions to minimize
adverse impacts from dredging activities. For example, the RAP
attached to the Consent Decree requires use of the best available
hydraulic dredging techniques and equipment to control releases
during dredging activities. See Appendix III, Section 4.5.3-4.5.4.
OMC will have the burden of demonstrating that the selected
technology is, indeed, the best available.
EPA also considered this resuspension issue when reviewing the
design possibilities of the remedial action. Thus; as previously
stated, waters generated during dredging and dewatering of Slip 3
sediments will be returned to Slip 3. There will be no discharges
from this operation during this period back to the Harbor. The
dredged sediments will be sent to a treatment area for removal of
PCBs.
In the next step, the dredgings from the upper Harbor will be placed
in the Slip 3 containment cell. During this phase of dredging
operations, OMC will be required to maintain a silt curtain and oil
booms across the mouth of the Harbor to prevent or minimize migration
of resuspended sediments to Lake Michigan. See Appendix III, Section
4.5.4. Water from the upper Harbor dredging operations will be
treated using sand filtration and coagulants before such waters are
returned to the upper Harbor. See Appendix III, Sections 4.5.4 and
4.6.14.2 (Category 1 water). The PCB concentration of such
discharges may not exceed 15 ppb, and OMC will be required to
implement best management practices to reduce PCB levels in such
discharges whenever this dredge water effluent exceeds 5 ppb. Ibid.
Although NRDC has observed that the treatment system for Upper
Harbor dredging waters is not designed to remove dissolved PCBs from
this effluent, EPA believes that the proposed treatment system will
effectively remove the vast majority of PCBs present in such
effluent. It is generally recognized that PCBs have a strong
-------
26
tendency to attach themselves to suspended solids. For this reason,
PCBs can be removed to a large degree by the coagulation and
filtration processes required for treatment of the Upper Harbor
waters. Available data do not support NRDC's assertion that there
are massive quantities of PCBs present in the water column that would
remain untreated during the Harbor dredging operations.
After completion of the Upper Harbor dredging, the Upper Harbor will
be treated with coagulant to settle suspended sediments prior to
removal of the silt curtain. See Appendix III, Section 4.5.4. As
part of the required predesign activities, OMC will evaluate various
alum/polymer coagulant mixes, and OMC will be required to use the
most effective coagulant mixture evaluated. See Appendix III,
Section 2.2.3. Upon completion of the Upper Harbor dredging, Slip 3
will be continuously dewatered to compact the dredgings and the
waters will be treated by filtration and carbon adsorption. See
Appendix III, Section 4.6.14.2 (Category 2 water).
In the case of the flows from Slip 3 during dredging, it was
estimated that effluent concentrations following coagulation and
filtration would be at levels approximately equal to or less than
Harbor concentrations. Therefore, no significant advantage was
judged to be gained through the addition of a carbon adsorption step
at this stage of the remedial action. Also, the addition of a carbon
step would complicate the treatment process and might slow it during
a period in which rapid completion of the dredging is important.
EPA disagrees with NRDC's assertion that various discharge
limitations established pursuant to the Consent Decree fail to comply
with the substantive requirements of the Clean Water Act. The
Consent Decree establishes discharge limitations for each of 5
categories of effluent that will be generated as a result of remedial
actions required to implement the selected remedy. See Appendix III,
§4.6.14. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree provides for a
modification of the limitations applicable to discharges of
stormwater and non-contact cooling water from certain outfalls
regulated under OMC's currently effective NPDES permit for the
Waukegan Plant. See Consent Decree, Part IV.G. All of the discharge
limitations established pursuant to the Consent Decree are consistent
with the substantive requirements of the Clean Water Act, as required
by Section 121(e) of CERCLA. Under the Clean Water Act discharges of
pollutants are regulated under the NPDES permit system.
The State of Illinois is authorized to administer the NPDES program
pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1251 et sea. In determining effluent
standards, Illinois law adopts the standards set forth in Sections
301 and 302 of the Clean Water Act, Sfifi Section 309.141 of the Rules
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board promulgated under the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act. These requirements include,
for conventional pollutants, application of the Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), and for all toxic and other
pollutants, Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT),
-------
27
in addition to any applicable effluent standards of the Illinois
Water Quality Standards, Section 304, if more stringent.
In establishing the discharge limits applicable to the S categories
of effluent identified in §4.6.14 of Appendix III, the Agency
considered the substantive requirements of the CWA necessary to set
technology based effluent limits as listed in 40 CFR 125.3(c)(3).
Such considerations included the volume of water to be treated, the
effectiveness of the proposed treatment technologies (based on
studies from other sites with similar conditions) , and the overall
PCS removal efficiency. EPA feels that the technologies required in
the Consent Decree represent state-of-the-art contaminant removal
technologies; therefore the effluent levels to be achieved are, in
EPA's Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) in accordance with Section
402(a)(l) of the CWA, those that reflect the use of BAT for this
site.
In addition, as a conservative measure to further reduce the
discharges to the lowest possible levels, EPA required CMC to develop
and obtain Agency approval of a Best Management Practices Plan that
would identify additional measures to reduce pollutant concentrations
whenever effluent values approach the specified discharge limits.
For example, although the effluent limit specified for category 1
dredge water is 15 ppb, when 5 ppb is reached, OMC will be required
to implement management practices such as adding additional coagulant
(to facilitate the settling of sediment-bearing PCBs) in order to
enhance the level of treatment provided. EPA believes that such BMP
requirements will assure that the specified effluent limit is met or
more likely, that the effluent concentration is substantially less
than the allowed limit.
Section 301(b)(l)(C) of the CWA generally required point source
discharges to meet effluent limitations necessary to assure
compliance with water quality standards or BAT, which ever is more
stringent by July 1, 1977. However, under Section 304(1)(1) of the
CWA, States can extend the compliance with water quality standards
until 1992 under certain conditions. States are required to develop
and submit to EPA for approval, lists of waters that cannot
reasonably be expected to attain water quality standards despite
application of technology-based effluent limitations, including BAT,
due to toxic pollutants. As part of any submission to EPA under
Section 304 (1M1MD), States are required to develop an individual
control strategy for reducing discharges of toxic pollutants to
levels that are sufficient in combination with controls on point and
non-point sources of pollution, to achieve applicable water quality
standards no later than 3 years after the establishment of the
control strategy. See CWA, Section 304 (l).
Pursuant to Section 304(1) of the CWA, the State of Illinois
submitted to U.S. EPA a list identifying Waukegan Harbor/Lake
Michigan as an area that is not-expected to meet applicable water
quality standards due to discharges of PCBs. EPA has reviewed and
-------
28
agreed to Illinois»s listing of the Waukegan Harbor site pursuant to
Section 304(1)(1). IllinoisVs submission included a proposed
individual control strategy (ICS) for the Waukegan Harbor site
designed to reduce toxic pollutant discharges sufficient to achieve
applicable water quality standards. In accordance with Section
304(1)(2) of the CWA, EPA will either approve or disapprove the
State's ICS for the Waukegan Harbor site by June 4, 1989. Assuming
EPA approves the State's ICS, the deadlines for achieving water
quality standards for PCBs at the Waukegan Harbor site will be no
later than June 4, 1992. EPA believes that June 4, 1992 represents
an expeditious deadline for progress toward attainment of water
quality standards through implementation of the Illinois ICS for the
Waukegan Harbor site, recognizing that an integral component of the
ICS is the removal of contaminated sediments from the Harbor. Since
the proposed permit modification is in compliance with Section
304(1)(2), it is clearly in compliance with the CWA.
Prior to the deadline for achieving applicable water quality
standards under the approved Illinois individual control strategy for
Waukegan Harbor, OMC will have completed required dredging
operations, removed a massive amount of PCB-contaminated sediments
from the Harbor, and eliminated all discharges associated with
dredging activities ("category 1" discharges).
Before the final compliance deadline in the approved Illinois ICS,
OMC will also have completed the dewatering of Slip 3 sediments (thus
eliminating "category 2" discharges), completed excavation of the
North Ditch and construction of the East and West Containment Cells
(thus eliminating further "Category 3" discharges), and completed the
required extraction of PCBs from the specified highly contaminated
soils (thus eliminating discharges of "Category 4" water). It should
be noted that the long term ground water collection system ("Category
5") does not have a discharge location specified and is not
terminated at the end of construction. The Consent Decree specifies
the discharge location options of the local municipal sewage
treatment plant North Shore Sanitary District (NSSD) or a location
approved by EPA. In contemplating the discharge location, EPA will
consider any limits and conditions imposed on OMC by its NPDES
permit, so as not to result in any inconsistency between the NPDES
permit compliance with the CWA, and the "Category 5" requirement for
substantive compliance with the CWA.
Since these discharges (Categories 1 -4) will be eliminated prior to
the deadline for achieving applicable water quality standards, EPA
believes that the effluent limits established in Appendix III,
Section 4.5.14 satisfy the requirements of the CWA.
As noted by NRDC, the proposed Consent Decree would authorize a
modification of effluent limits applicable to discharges of
stormwater and non-contact cooling water from seven outfalls
regulated under OMC»s currently effective NPDES permit. See Consent
Decree, Part IV. The outfalls that would be affected by the
-------
29
relaxation are known as outfalls 001, 006, 007, 008, 014, 015 and
016. From the standpoint of volume, most of the effluent discharged
from these outfalls is non-contact cooling water which OMC obtains
from Waukegan Harbor; a significantly smaller portion of the effluent
for which modified limits would be established comes from stormwater
runoff which is discharged on an intermittent basis. Outfalls 001
and 006 return non-contact cooling water (originally taken from
Waukegan Harbor) back into the Harbor. Outfalls 007, 008 and 014
discharge primarily non-contact cooling water (obtained from the
Harbor) into Lake Michigan (via the North Ditch, in the case of
Outfall 014). Outfalls 015 and 016 discharge stormwater, including
roofwater runoff, into lake Michigan via the North Ditch.
EPA has determined that the proposed modification of such effluent
limitations is consistent with the substantive requirements of the
Clean Water Act. The basis for this determination is set forth
above. At the time OMC's currently effective NPDES permit was issued
in 1983, a PCS discharge limit of 1 ppb was considered an acceptable
limitation. The permit allowed OMC to achieve this effluent
limitation through the implementation of a Best Management Practices
(BMP) Plan. EPA believes that the dredging and construction
activities required by the proposed Consent Decree may temporarily
affect the quality of stormwater and cooling water effluent that can
be attained through application of the management practices that are
considered to represent BAT and BCT for these discharges. For
example, construction activities will temporarily increase fugitive
dust levels at the Waukegan Plant. PCBs can adhere to dust particles
that may be deposited on roof and yard areas where runoff water is
collected and discharged by means of point source outfalls identified
above. Increased dust levels will temporarily add to the suspended
solids and PCB content of stormwater runoff at the plant. Although
the Decree requires OMC to employ best management practices to
minimize the impact of construction activities on its stormwater
discharges, EPA does not believe that such practices can assure
consistent attainment of the original permit limit in the face of the
changed conditions presented by the remedial construction activities.
Similarly, EPA believes that dredging activities in the upper harbor
will have a temporary impact on OMC's ability to consistently achieve
existing effluent limits applicable to discharge of the non-contact
cooling water which is drawn from the Harbor. Under the Consent
Decree, OMC would be required to suspend use of its Upper Harbor
cooling water intakes during the dredging operations in order to
minimize uptake of sediments that are resuspended during the dredging
process. Upon completion of the dredging operations and treatment of
Harbor waters using coagulants that will facilitate settling of any
suspended sediments, OMC will resume use of cooling water from the
Upper Harbor.
EPA believes that the application of best management practices
cannot assure consistent achievement of the existing permit limits
-------
30
during the period of required remedial construction activities.
Therefore, interim limits consistent with Section 304(l)(l)(d) are
needed.
The proposed modifications of the permit effluent limitations issued
in 1987, but never effective, place a 5 ppb daily maximum on
discharges to the Harbor and the storm water only discharges to the
North Ditch (which is classified as a general use stream by IEPA).
For discharges of cooling water/storm water to the Lake the limits
are proposed to be modified to 5 ppb daily maximum and 1 ppb monthly
average.
To conclude the discussion about discharges from OMC with respect to
the 5 categories of construction related waters and the existing
NPDES permit modification to accommodate construction related changed
conditions, EPA feels the specified technologies meet or exceed BAT
for this site in conjunction with the BMP requirements and the
compliance deadlines set by Section 304(1)(2), all discharges at OMC
met the requirements of the CWA. It should also be emphasized that
daily monitoring between the carbon filter units is required, with
trigger levels for best management practices set to guard against the
daily maximum occurrence. NRDC asserts that there is insufficient
monitoring of discharges during remedy implementation. With daily
carbon filter monitoring, it is difficult to suggest that more is
needed. Carbon adsorption is a steady process for which saturation
time can be calculated fairly accurately given loading rates and
accurately measured at levels before the trigger level occurs.
NRDC has stated that EPA has not demonstrated how the proposed
remedial action is consistent with 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(e).
Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(e,) the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency has an approved Continuing Planning Process. In
1979, the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) prepared a
Water Quality Management Plan for the area including the site in
accordance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. Section
1288). This Water Quality Mangement Plan called for a PCB removal
plan to be developed and implemented by OMC in 1980. This Water
Quality Management Plan was also certified by the state in 1980 and
incorporated by reference under the Section 1313(e) of the Clean
Water Act into the State of Illinois Water Quality Management Plan.
The Illinois Water Quality Management Plan which incorporates the OMC
PCB removal plan was certified by the State in 1983.
While the OMC PCB removal plan contemplated cleanup of the site by
1980, the parties were in the midst of litigation which prevented
this dealine from being met. EPA, however has determined that the
proposed remedial action is consistent with the Illinois Water
Quality Management Plan (which contains the OMC PCB removal plan) and
therefore the remedial action is consistent with Section 1313(e) of
the Clean Water Act.
-------
31
NRDC has also suggested that the Consent Decree should specify that
OMC or the Trustee will be liable for payment of civil penalties in
the event of violations of the effluent limitations set forth in the
Consent Decree. EPA believes that it is unnecessary to include such
a provision in the Consent Decree since CERCLA clearly imposes civil
penalty liability for the failure to comply with any provisions of
this Consent Decree. See Section 122 (1) and Section 109(a)(1)(E),
(b)(5) and (c)(5).
Comment
11. EPA's proposed cleanup does not adequately protect air quality
in the Waukegan, Illinois area.
NRDC expresses concern about the release of PCBs and furans re-
sulting from the extraction process. They feel the Work Plan fails
to provide detailed plans for preventing emissions and
that the four monitoring stations are not likely to detect air-
borne releases.
Response
The Work Plan describes the concept of what will be done (in greater
detail than Work Plans generally contain). The design deliverables
are intended to provide all the detail needed to demonstrate
compliance with the Work Plan.
The Treatment Health and Safety Plan will detail the number and
location of air monitoring devices necessary to protect public and
worker safety, as well as corrective action/contingency plans. These
are standard requirements for health and safety plans. These plans
will be reviewed and approved by the EPA Air Division and a number of
other public health professionals. The four monitoring stations
referred to in the Work Plan are only those around the treatment
processor. The Treatment Health and Safety Plan will address the
monitoring requirements for ambient air quality as described in S3.5
of Appendix III. That section states that air monitoring will take
place at the site boundary. Furthermore, EPA always has the right to
stop work whenever public health or the environment are, or
potentially may be, threatened.
With respect to the commentor»s statement that on-site monitoring is
inadequate to detect off-site PCS migration, EPA had determined that
initially, perimeter sampling is the appropriate first step in such
detection monitoring.
Comment
12. The Consent Decree defers critical decisions, thereby
eliminating the opportunity for the public to participate. NRDC
submitted a list of these "decisions".
-------
32
Response
The decisions referred to by NRDC are actually detailed
implementation plans. The decisions which direct plan development
are the Performance Standards embodied in the Work Plan and Consent
Decree. These are the critical decisions for which public comment
has been solicited. The ROD and Consent Decree are conceptual
documents that depend on further engineering design for development
of the details. Each step of the design and construction must be EPA
approved. The design documents will be reviewed by EPA experts in
their respective fields. Upon completion, each will be placed in the
information repository. EPA will be keeping the public informed
through fact sheets and news articles.
The remedial selection (ROD) process envisioned in SARA and the NCP
is not intended to finalize or lock in all details of a remedial
action prior to the completion of remedial design work. Rather, the
RODs adopted by EPA have consistently allowed details of the remedial
action to be resolved upon consideration of information developed and
design decisions made as part of the remedial design process which
commences after issuance of the ROD. The public comment procedures
of §117 of CERCLA contemplate that EPA will receive public comments
on the proposed plan for remedial action; this section does not
contemplate that EPA will conduct an ongoing public comment process
before acting on each of the design plans and other submissions that
are required to proceed with implementation of the remedy.
Comment
13. The commentor suggests that the remedial action is limited by
the amount of money available, that the amount of money available has
in effect a cap of 19 million dollars.
Response
The conunentor has incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the
Consent Decree. Under the proposed Consent Decree, the obligation to
perform the work is not limited by cost considerations. It is true
that Exhibit A to Appendix II of the proposed decree establishes a
payment schedule providing for OMC to pay $19 million to the Trust
Fund which will directly manage the remedial work at the site.
However, this payment schedule does not represent a "cap" on OMC's
obligation to fund the trust. Rather, the proposed payment schedule
represents an effort to assure that the initial funding of the Trust
is realistic, minimizing the need for frequent recourse to provisions
requiring supplement payments by OMC to the Trust.
Other provisions of the Consent Decree clearly establish that the
funding levels provided in Appendix II, Attachment A do not represent
a "cap" on OMC»s cleanup responsibilities. For example. Part IV.C.2
of the Consent Decree provides that "in the event the financial
reports of the Trustee show that the projected expenditures of the
-------
33
waukegan Harbor Site Trust exceed projected Trust funds, CMC shall
pay additional amounts to the Trust sufficient to fund the difference
within a time sufficient to assure the uninterrupted and timely
completion of the work."
In addition to provisions for supplemental funding of the Trust, the
proposed Decree makes it clear that OMC retains responsibility for
completing all remedial work and achieving all Performance Standards
established in the Consent Decree. See Consent Decree, Parts IV. B,
IV.D and V.D.7.
Comment
14. The commentor states that the administrative record does not
support the proposed remedy and that the 1984 Record of Decision
(ROD) was superseded by the 1986 SARA amendments to CERCLA.
Response
The proposed remedial action as embodied by the proposed Consent
Decree and its appendices represents the culmination of a ten year
process. EPA has clearly documented in the administrative record the
documents that support the proposed remedial action. Since U.S. EPA
has essentially taken the 1984 ROD remedy and made distinct changes
and improvements to that remedy, the 1984 ROD and the administrative
record supporting that decision are a part of this record. The
changes and improvements to the 1984 ROD are clearly documented in
several documents in the administrative record, including the
explanation of significant differences document. U.S. EPA therefore
believes that the administrative record is complete.
The commentor suggests that the SARA amendments to CERCLA have in
someway superseded the 1984 ROD. While the SARA amendments do not
supersede the 84 ROD, the commentor is correct that certain
amendments to the law did cause U.S. EPA to review the 1984 remedy.
Most notably was SARA'S preference for permanent reductions in the
toxicity, mobility and volume of hazardous substances pursuant to
Section 121(d). The significant differences between the two remedies
reflect U.S. EPA's compliance with this SARA preference. The 1984
remedy called for the off site disposal of the dewatered PCBs. The
1989 remedy requires that 97% of the PCBs be removed from all treated
sediments onsite. Thus while the SARA amendments do not supersede
the 1984 ROD, EPA has met the amendments preference for the permanent
reduction in the toxicity, mobility and volume of hazardous
substances.
Comment
15. The commentor requests a clarification of the basis for the
covenant not to sue in the proposed Consent Decree.
Response
-------
34
The U.S. EPA's basis for the proposed covenant not to sue include
the criteria mandated by Section 122(f)(l) of SARA. In addition,
U.S. EPA considered and evaluated the factors found in Section
122(f){4) of SARA.
Specifically, the covenant not to sue is in the public interest for
the following key factors:
(1) The remedy is effective and reliable; it compares
favorably to the 1984 ROD by requiring the destruction
of large mass of PCBs, by including the requirement
for an inward hydraulic gradient, by minimizing
handling that could create exposures.
(2) The Decree has performance standards for significant
components of the remedy including the extraction
process, permeability of containment cells and
ground water contaminant levels triggering
remedial action.
(3) The trust fund remains available in the event
additional work is needed.
(4) The remedial action is carried out by a potentially
responsible party.
Additionally, the covenant would also expedite response action for
the following reasons:
(1) Fund dollars are not currently allocated for the
Waukegan Harbor project to allocate funds for this project would take
an estimated 6 to 12 months to obligate such funds and additional
time to execute the administrative tasks such as contractor
selection.
(2) To the extent that the proposed remedy involves use of
Slip 3, the remedy requires acquisition of a property interest in
Slip 3. The public acceptability of the proposed remedy depends on
creation of a new Slip to replace existing marina facilities. OMC
has reached voluntary agreement with the owner of Larsen Marine and
is in the midst of negotiations with E J & E Railroad.
(3) If EPA and the State decided not to acquire interest in
Slip 3 property, there would have to be a substantial redesign of
remedy that would result in delaying the cleanup.
(4) The Covenant only affords protection as long as OMC is
in compliance with proposed Consent Decree. See Section XVI.E of
the ^proposed consent Decree.
-------
35
(5) The Covenant and Decree only become effective if EPA
adopts the remedy at the conclusion of remedial action.
Thus, the covenant is consistent with the requirements of SARA.
Comment
16. The conunentor essentially summarizes a number of points made
throughout the comments. Specifically, the commentor states the
following:
(1) The requirements of SARA have not been met,
(2) the administrative record does not support the remedy and,
(3) full opportunity for public participation has not been made.
Finally, the commentor proposes EPA withdraw the Consent Decree.
Response
U.S. EPA has answered each of the commentor's allegations in prior
responses and directs the commentor to the following responses:
responses V, VII and XIV with respect to item (1) response XIV with
respect to item (2) and responses to the Lake Michigan Federation and
response XII of the section with respect to item (3).
Finally, U.S. EPA does not believe that any of the comments received
during the comment period have disclosed information requiring U.S.
EPA to withdraw the proposed Consent Decree. U.S. EPA does believe
that the proposed remedy does comply with the applicable laws, and is
fully protective of human health and the environment and therefore
for these reasons recommends entry of the decree.
f) Mr. Jeffrey C. Fort of Gardner, Carton & Douglas submitted
comments on behalf of Outboard Marine Corporation. OMC provided 9
documents which are a part of the Administrative Record.
Response
U.S. EPA acknowledges receipt of these comments but finds it
unnecessary to provide review or comment on these documents.
IV. Remaining Concerns
No remaining concerns from the public comments received have
been identified.
------- |