United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-89/108
September 1989
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Whitehall Municipal Wells, Ml
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-89/108
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle ''•='
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Whitehall Municipal Wells,:MI
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/29/89
7. Author(s)
Performing Organization Name and AddreM
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Pro(ectrra»loWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* and AddreM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 ;;
IX Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) >V
The Whitehall Municipal WelTs site is in Whitehall, Michigan, and includes.production
well 3 (PW3) which is the the^'focus of this .Record of Decision. Perchlbroethylene (PCE)
has been detected in the soil;rand ground water. The suspected source of the PCE is a
nearby dry-cleaning operation1" which leaked PCE until the problem was corrected in 1981.
In 1980 the State identified PW3 as the source of contamination in the municipal
drinking water supply and recommended that the city use PW3 only on an. emergency-basis-.
The State continued to monitor the well, 'and until October 1988 the city used the well
only on an as-needed basis at''reduced pumping rates. Results from the remedial
a^nvestigation conducted in 198.8-89 revealed only low levels of contamination in the
^;ells; no contaminant exceeded Maximum Contaminant Levels or Maximum Contaminant Level
pGoals. In September 1989 the->city permanently abandoned PW3 because of the well's poor
production capacity, and because new wells and storage facilities built since 1980 have
reduced the need for PW3. . 'f_. .
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action because the findings of
the remedial.investigation indicated that contaminant levels in the site's wells do not
exceed any State or Federal drinking water standards or-criteria and there is no longer
a continuing source of contamination. There are no present worth or O&M costs
associated with this remedial action.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Whitehall Municipal Wells,' MI
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None -.
b. WenUfiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
21. No. of Pages
29
22. Price
272 (
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page Is based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports.
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound report—for example, each volume In a multlvolume set—shall have Its 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. E
2. Leave blank. "v
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. Author(s). 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.lnformation 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 COSATI Subject Category List Since the
majority of documents are multidisciplinary In nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object The appllcation(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary posting(s). .. -
18. Distribution Statement Denote public releasability, for 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.
•ft GPO: I983 0 - 381-526(8393) OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
(4-77)
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Whitehall Municipal Wells Site, Whitehall, Michigan
STATEMENT OF BASIS
The decision document presents the selected remedial alternative for the
Whitehall Municipal Wells Site (the site) developed in accordance with tnn
Conprehensive Environmental Response, Condensation, and Liability Act of 1930,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan to the extent practicable.
This decision is based upon the contents of the Administrative Record for
site.
The State of Michigan concurs with the selected ranedial alternative.
DESCRIPTION OF THE "
The results of the Site Investigation (S1!) Follow up and the Remedial
Investigation (RI) show that no health risks currently exist from, drinki-ig the
water from the production well 3 (PW3). Furthermore, the Fd3 has been
permanently abandoned by the City of Whitehall. Therefore, the selected • •
remedy, for this site is "Kb Further Action."
The conditions at the site pose no current or potential threat to human health
or the environment. Therefore, no further remedial action is necessary.
Because no further remedial "action is necessary, the statutory requirements of
CERCLA Section 121 fdr remedial actions are not applicable. Because this
remedy will hot result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-
based levels, the 5-year review will not apply to this action.
DATE - k-
-------
Attachments: 1. Sunmary of Remedial Alternative
2. Connunity Relations Responsiveness Summary
3." Administrative Record Index
-------
-------
WHITEHALL MUNICIPAL WELLS SITE
WHITEHALL, MICHIGAN
SUTflftRY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SEPTEMBER 1989
-------
SITE rtpTCPIPPION AND HISTORY
The Whitehall Municipal Wells site (T.12N., R.17W., Sec. 27) is located ^n the
northeast portion'Of Whitehall, Michigan, south of the White River (See figure
l). The exact boundaries of the site are unknown because the source(s) of the
groundwater contamination have not been identified. However, the nearby
laundronat/dry cleaner is a suspect due to its proximity and the known leakage
of perchloro|thylene (PCE) into the soils at the facility. On May 18, 1981,
soil samplesvvere collected, around the facility and chenical analysis revealed
1.0 mg/kg of/; PCE. Since that time, the facility changed hands and the new
owner has eliminated the PCE leakage problem. The study area for this sire
includes the .area between Colby Street (Business Route U.S. 31) on the south;
the west side of the Oakhurst Cemetery on the east; Franklin Street on the
west; and the, ravine and backwaters of the White River on the north and
northeast (See figure 2). Located within these boundaries is Whitehall
Production Well 3 (PW3).
The initial indication of contamination in FW3 was found in October 1980. A
routine quarterly analysis of the city's water supply by the Michigan
Department off Public Health (MDPH) revealed the presence of PCE in a sample
collected froffethe Whitehall City Hall. Subsequent resampling and analysis
confirmed the vpresence of the contaminant and eventually PW3 was determined to
be the source ,of the problem. In early 1981, MDPH recommended that the city
use PW3 only on an emergency basis and that it be eventually replaced. The
initial response from the city was to take PW3 off-line and increase pumplge
in PW2,4, and.5 to maintain an adequate water supply. The city has continued.
to use PW3 button an as needed basis at reduced pumpage rates until October
1988. Since 1982, the MDPH has sampled FW3 on a quarterly basis and the well
has shown no contamination. However, the city permanently abandoned the FW3
as of September 1, 1989. The predominant factor in permanent closure is not
the previous contamination of the well, but rather its poor production
capacity due tp its age and extensive rehabilitation costs. Also, a new well
. and storage 'facilities built since 1980 have reduced any need for obtaining
water from PW3;~
Residential wells located northeast of PW3 were tested as part of the Remedial
Investigation-%BI). Samples collected from homes along Peterson Road in May
1982 indicated that the area groundwater was contaminated with volatile
organic compounds. Additional sampling indicated that the Whitelake Landfill
and Shellcast, Inc. were the source of this contamination, and a separate
issue from the" ones involving FW3. In April 1985, Shellcast and Whitelake
Landfill entered into a consent agreement with the U.S. EPA to provide a
permanent alternate water supply to the resideiTces whose wells were
contaminated. ": Both Shellcast and Whitelake" Landfill are currently in the pre-
remedial stage and waiting for the final scoring process for possible
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NFL).
-------
-.-
•TZW ^*V fr -Ji r I 'rHg V">>ir ^-•vy^^i.i-,
/'JWfiH^hail tJ I ^i^J/SJJXSKl -^"'4^j
I^puU^C VK>-i±^£&^ r-^7 -ITK^
! ?-• vk \:. A1155
SOURCE: USCS
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
GREENHOUSES | I
PETERSON ROAD
ABANDONED
I RE AILMENT
PLAN^
J
MUNINCIPAL WELL
PW-3
WASH KING
LAUNDRY
500
SCALE
100O
7000FEET
FIGURE 2 SITE UOUNDARV MAP
-------
-2-
In September 1984, the FW3 site scored high enough to be placed on the NFL of
sites eligible for investigation and cleanup under the Superfund program. In
May 1986, Ecology and Environment, Inc. was contracted to perform a site ^^
Investigation (SI) follow-up. On April 1988, Black and Veatch was contractd^P
to perform an RI.
comnunity Relations History
A Comnunity Relations Plan was developed by the U.S. EPA and a repository was
established at the Whitehall Municipal Library, 414 E. Spring, Whitehall. On
August 12, 1989 the Proposed Plan was distributed and placed into the
repository following publication of a brief analysis of the Proposed Plan.
mis publication also provided notice of the August 24, 1989 Public Hearing
and the period for submission of comments. The Public Hearing was held at the
Whitehall City Hall. A response to contnents received during the Garment
period is included in the Responsiveness Summary. The .Administrative Record
has been placed in the repository.
SITE CTARACTERISTICS
Site Geology
Muskegon County is located on the western flank of the Michigan Basin, a major
geologic feature of the upper Midwest. Bedrock units underlying the county
dip gently to the east, toward the center of the basin. Uhconsolidated
deposits in the region are the result of successive episodes of intense
Pleistocene glaciation. In Muskegon county, physiographic features are the
direct result of late Wisconsinan glacial, glaciolacustrine, and glaciofluvii
processes. Surficial features have been further modified by subsequent "
Holocene environments. •
Surficial deposits in the site area are approximately 250 feet thick and
comprised of till, alluvium, and lacustrine sands. The Whitehall Moraine is a
lateral moraine fbrmed during the final recession of the Michigan l-jpbe of the
Late Wisconsinan glaciation. The texture of the till comprising the moraine
has been described as predominantly clay and silt, with lesser amounts of fine
sand (USGS 1983). Examination of surficial relief and local boring logs
indicates that the extreme southeast portion of the site area lies upon the
moraine. The thickness of the surficial sand unit is at least .100 feet in the
immediate vicinity of the site.
Site Hvdroqeology
The two principal aquifer systems in the Whitehall area are the water table in
the Pleistocene deposits and the artesian aquifer in the Marshall Formation.
Although it is heavily utilized for water supplies* in many areas of Michigan,
the Marshall Formation is virtually untapped in northwestern Muskegon County
(Western Michigan University 1981). In the immediate vicinity of the site,
groundwater is encountered at depths ranging from 45 to 60 feet.
-------
-2 S&D
FIT-A
HANSON ST
OAKHURST
CEMETERY
COLBY ST.
FIGURE 3
WHITEHALL MUNICIPAL WELL SITE
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
FIT"E
U.S. EPA's Well
SLOCUM ST
Cit's Well
-------
-3-
Based on topography, groundwater flow at the site would be expected to move to
the northwest-west, to the White River, White Lake, and Lake Michigan.
Previous hydrogeologic investigations of the site area have confirmed that
groundwater flow is generally to -the northwest, with a westerly component.
mean value for groundwater velocity of 379 feet per year was calculated for
this site.
SITE Hft/P^iiTGATICU PTrrm-up AND RnyfFnLAL INVF-yrrrgyTICN SUMMARY
The SI follow-up (from May 1986 to April 1988) and RI (from March 1988 to May
1989) were conducted to determine the nature and extent of contamination at
the Whitehall Municipal Wells Superfund site. During the SI follow-up, five
cluster wells were installed in addition to the monitoring wells put in by the
Ecology and Environment, Inc (See figure 3). A Risk Assessment was done to
evaluate the level of risk to the human health and the environment. Field
activities, conducted by the U.S. EPA, took place between May, 1987 and May,
1989.
During that time groundwater samples and soil samples (during SI follow-up)
were collected.
This allowed the U.S. EPA to gather sufficient data to determine if the level
of contamination at the site would have an adverse impact on the human health
and the environment. The findings of the SI follow-up indicate the following:
A) Groundwater;
Groundwater samples were analyzed for organic compounds (See
Table 1) and inorganic constituents (See Table 2). Six of the
monitoring well samples (sampled in 1987) contained organic
pesticides (alpha, delta, and gamma-BHC; heptachlor; aldrin;
heptachlor epoxide; and endosulfan sulfate). The distribution
and concentrations of the pesticide compounds did not form a
discernable pattern at the site. Pesticides were not found in
any of the samples taken in January 1988. The other
contaminants, i.e., 1,1,1-trichloroethane, phenol, toluene,
benzene, and benzoic acid, which were observed in some
monitoring wells, also did not form a discernable pattern nor
consistent" source. EW3 did not contain any organic
contaminants.
The presence of pesticides could be attributed to their .
application in residential, commercial, and agricultural.
settings. The agricultural application in orchards to the
south and east are likely sources for these compounds. The
absence of pesticides in the samples taken in January 1988 is
probably due to the fact tliat they are applied during the
spring and summer. Also, high groundwater flow velocities in
the area create a very dynamic media where both dilution and
migration contribute to the reduction of contaminant levels-.
-------
B.R.
57
OAKHURST
CEMETERY
e
o
z
o
Ul
c.
COLBY ST.
FIGURE 4
WHITEHALL MUNICIPAL HELL SITE
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Soil Saling Locations
-------
lAdlt J
or w.vious oitGAiiic Rnuns (in uc/i)
i or 3
DATE 12-68
tTEO WELL MM IS
DUIIOS SAMPLER 08V
O.ENE CHLORIDE
(OFORN
. TRIIIALOHETIIAHE
.IOEHE CHLORIDE
III
XHLOROETIIYIEME
111 10
, TRICIIlOnOCTUAHC
HE
AIIONE
4.
12-00 12-00 12-00 12-On 12-00 ' 12-00 12-00 '• 1-00 1-00 (.QB 1-00 1-00 1-68
MM 3S POP 230 Ol-ink 1 Field Obnk 5 III. ink 6 0 lank 7 IIH IS "'MS MH 3S HH 30 IW 4S MV 40
OKV OftV 06V Ol.ink. Of.V U.'.V Of.V (f.E (OUP) [£( [jf (fc[ (QUP)
nftV EiE ui
5505
/
»
S
79
3J 4J 5 4J
2J
U "
13 M 43 29
'IIC ACID
.-DIIC
.-OIIC
.-one
.CIILQR
II
.CIILOR-EPOXIOC
ULFAII-SULFATE
\
lirL-2-PCMTAMOIIE
EIIE
VUHE
2 CTHYLIICXYL) PIIIALAIE
•N OISUIFIDE
nOSOOIPHCIIUAHUIE
?J
ST1MATCD VALUE . •
ISO DETECTED IN ASSOCIATED OLAHK
4V, BLACK 4 VEATCII FOR EPA; t&E, ECOLOGY & (NVinONHCNT FOR EPA; Fldl, FISIIOr.CK, 1IIOHP50II, CAR & IIUUtR f(Xl HIJIULAXE LA/IUIIll.; HJPII. MICHIGAN
>F PUOLIC HEALTH; EDI, ENVinOHNENTAi DATA. I HC. FOR CUT OF WHITEHALL
OHCEHTTIAT I ON EXCEEDS HCL ' .
OHCEHIllATlOHEXCtCOS HAI[R QUALITY CniTtlllA FOR THE CROIECTipH OF PUnLIC IICAlJIi .
-------
MIIUIAJU ur ciuviuu'. CHCAHIC nr.uiis (in ur;/i)
r/.r.r 2 di 3
UEIECHD
COHPOWIOS
OAIC i-OB
Mill MM SS
SAW.ER UE
1-00 1-00
PW-3 I) lank 1
ILL lit
I-UU
II land 2
UE
o o;
UK IS
UE
on;
UK in
I/.E
u -«/
IM JD
IU
II ll/
IIUI-I
ur
o-o/
001-3
tit
n M;
in t
UE
o o;
MM ?u
f«
0 fl/
IW ?S
(AC
o-o;
»IW 3S
lit
no/
MM 4S
UC
eo;
Olink
(if
CIIIORIUC
llllOAOrOflH
IOIAL TnillALOMtlllAllE
viuruociiE ciiionioE
OlHltlit
icinACiiionotiiinfHE
I.2J
10
ACdonc
I.I.I. IMICIILOROCIIIAHE
IIIICIIKMOCTHEIlE
IU
4J
10LUENC
2-flUFAHOME ,
PlirilOL
OLHIOIC AC 10
AlPIIA-OIIC
OfLTA-OllC
U 3.4
21 JS 7.0J 3J
o.o;; o.n o.o6i3
i.i
6J
.osof
.030
CAJIrtA-OHC
lltPIACHLOn
Al Oft III
0.090 J
6.1
IIEPIACIILOR-EPOXIOE
EIIOOSULFAH-SULFAIE
UI-N-OUrUPIIIAlAIE
0.024J 0.14J
0.15
7.3 9.6
OJ
4-MEIIIYL-2-PENIAIIOIIE
M-XYLEHE
0/P-XYLEHE
I./J
I.3J
UIS-(2 EIIIVUICXU) PIIIALAIC
CAJUIOH OlSUiriOE
1.6
6J
'Ji
30
flj
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
0 - ALSO OnECfEO IM ASSOCIAITU OLANX
1 - 04V, DUCK ft VLAICII FOR EPA; UE. ECOLOGY ft ENVIROIINCNr FOI El'A; F1CII. MSH OLCK, HlUll'SON. C/Ut ft IIUULR fWI WIIIKIAXE LANOtllL; HIPII, NICIIICAN OtPI.
Of PUULIC IIEAL1II; EOi, ENVIRONNEHrAL DAIA, INC. FOII CIIY OF VIIIIIHALL
2 - CONCCNIIUTION EXCEEDS HCL-
3 - CONCENTRAnOH EXCEEDS MAIEJV QUALITY CR11ERIA fOrt HIE I'nOICCIION Of PUULIC IICALlll
f • UNntADAfllE
-------
1AOLC I
suiiwnr or nnvious one A/I ic ncsuus (i/i uc/i)
PAGE 3 Of 3
(MIC
UCICCICO M£tl
COMPOUNDS SA/IPICA
nniirunc CIILOAIDE
cnionoronrt
lOfAl inillAlONCIIIANC
viiiruoliic cinoniDE
BEMIEIIC
KinACiaonoEiiiuEiiE
9-2-07
PIIP 23 0
ncii
.".0
3-20-06
001-1
HDI'll
s
3-20-06
001-2
IIUI'll
7
7
1
3-20-OC
001-3
IIOPII
B.
3
10-31
I'M- 3
•IUPII. .
1
1
2-10-01 2-10-01 2-10-01
l'lf-3 UOI-2 UOI-3
IIUI'll (1)1 (01
4 « 5
2-16-01 2-1601 2-16-01
l'U-3 001-1 001-2
(01 (01 (01
0
2-16-01
001-3
COI
S
1-0-61
PM-3
COI
0
3
1-0-01
PM-3
COI
S
ACCIOHC
I.J.I. lAICIILOROClllAflC
ifliciiionocinciif
IO(UC«C
2-OUIAHOIlC
UlHiOIC AGIO
AIPIIA-OIIC
0(11A-OHC
CAMA.OIIC
HCPIACHLOfl
ALORIH
.095J
.14
llfPIACIIlOft-CPOXIOC
(IIOOSOLf/UI-JUlfAU
OI-U OUmPTllALAlf
n-xniut
ois-(2 cniniiou) PIIIAUIC
CAJIOOII OISULFIDC
ii-nnnosooiPii(iiriA»iiii£
J- ESIIMAIEO VALUE
0 - ALSO OOECIEO IN ASSOCIATED DLAMK
1 - OAV. OLACK I VCAICII FOH EPA; UE. (COLOCT 4 CHVJIIOII/Or (OR (PA; HCII. FISH UCCK, IIIOMI'SOX, C/JI & IIUDUl I Oil WllJU^Xt UUlUFIll; IDI'll, HtClltUVt DIFf.
Or PUOLIC IILAilll; COI, CNVJftOIUlENIAL OAIA, INC. (Ul CI1Y OF HIII1LIIALL
2 - COHCCNDUIIOH EXCEEDS HCL
3 - COHCEHmAIION UCEEDS MAI EH QUALIH tniHRIA TOR 1IIC mOUCIION Of I'UOLIC III All II
-------
TAlll.L ?
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS 1IIORCAIIIC RESULTS- (IN UG/L)
PAGE 1 OK 5
DATE
DETECTED WELL
COMPOUNDS SAMPLER
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
CAMUUH
'^IFOMIUM
CUPPER
LEAD '*
MANGANESE
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
12-88
MU IS
BfcV
17.3 B
4.4 B
<
23.3
12-80
MU IS (DUP)
BfcV
18.2 B
• *
4.2 B
' .
6.0 B
''••'
26.6
12-88^
MU ID
BfcV
25.2 B
6.3 B
,
13.5 B
'' 12-80
MU 2S
DfcV
30.8 B
43.0 B
9.8 B
3.2 B
23.8
9.1 B
424
12-00
MU 2D
OfcV
15.4 B
5.3 B
9.1 B
46.5 fi
12-08
MU 2D
OfcV
30.6
15.4
4.6
12.2
12.9
47.3
(DUP)
B
B
B
B
12-68
MU 3S
BfcV
56.4 B
7.5 B
2.9 B
8.4 B
50.1
12-88
MU 3D
BfcV
37.0 fi
6.8 B
2.7 B
14.8 fi
12-88
MU VS
BfcV
24.0 B
7.0 B
22.8
12-88
BOT-1
BfcV
15.4 B
5.3 B
9.2 B
12.2 B
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
B - VALUE IS ABOVE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LIMIT BUT BELOU CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMIT (CRDL)
1 - BfcV, BLACK & VZATCB FOR EPAj EfcB, ECOLOGY fc ENVIRONMENT FOR EPA; PTCU, FISO BECK, THOMPSON, CAR fc 1IUBER FOR
UBITELAKE LANDFILL; MDPH. MICHIGAN DEFT. OF PUBLIC IJEALTU; EDI, ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. INC. FOR CITY OF WHITEHALL
2 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS MCL
3 .CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TUE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
4 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS PROPOSED MCLG
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF PREVIOuWMORGAN 1C RESULTS (III UG/L)
PAGE 2 OF 5
^ :
DETECTED
COMPOUNDS
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
DATE
WELL
SAMPLER
12-68
MU 4D
BIV
12.7 B
l?-88
MW 5S
BIV
28.4
12-88
MW 5D
DiV
20.4 1)
22.7 B
12-ao
PRP 2 3D
1UV
27.9 0
12-80
FIELD/DUNK
luv
30.2 U
3.6 B
1-88
MW IS
EiE
20.1 B
1-88
MW IS
(DUP)
ElE
19.4 B
1-88
MW ID
EfcE
25.8 B
1-88
MW 2S
ElE
37.6 B
1-88
MW 2D
ElE
12.4 B
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MANGANESE
NICKEL '
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
4.4 B
6, 3 D
51.9
6.1 B
12.6 B
40.5 '
4.6 D
3.5 D
28.6
2.7 B
12.0 B
10.8 B
4.2 B
10.5 B
5.7 B
172
18.8 B
8.4 B
ESTIMATED VALOK A
VAJLOE IS ASdVS INSTRUMENT DETECTION LIMIT DOT BELOW CONTRACT DETECTION LIMIT (CRDL)
BIV, BLACK & VZATCB FOR EPA| EtB, ECOLOGY t ENVIRCiJMSNT FOR EPA; FTCU, FISH BECK. THOMPSON. CAR & UUBER FOR
VBITELAKE LANDPILL| MDPE. MJCHICAW DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH; EDI. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. INC. FOR CITY OF WHITEHALL
CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS MCL
CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TUB PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS PROPOSED MCLG
-------
TAIJLK
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INORGANIC RESULTS (IN UG/L)
PACE 3 OF 5
DATE
DETECTED WELL
OMPOUNDS SAMPLER
ALUMINUM
itARlUM
;ADMIUM
CHROMIUM
OPPER
i.EAD
1ANCANESE
•JICKEL * ' ' '
:ELENIUM
jILVER
/.INC
< - ESTIMATED VALUE
1-88
MW 3S
EtE
47.8 B
» ' '
26.7
26.3 B
24.3
» - VALUE IS ABOVE INSTRUMENT DETECTION
1-88
MW 3D
EfcE
26.1 B
16.2
LIMIT
I - BfcV, BLACK t VEATCH FOR EPA| EtE. ECOLOGY
VUITELAKE LANDFILL | MDPH, MICHIGAN
> - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
} - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
• /
'. - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
MCL
WATER QUALITY
PROPOSED MCLG
1-80
MW 4D
EtE
468
14.7
15.0
31.4
37.2
1010
1-00
MW 4S
EtE
33.4
B 24.9 B
4.0 0
14.3 B
*
1-00
MW 4D (DUP)
EtE
201
14.0 0
16.0
47.7
9.9
37.2
1-88
MW 5D
EtE
19.1 B
14
2.4 B
39.4
1-88 1-88
BLANK MW SS
(MUNIC. WELL) EtE
EtE
21.0 B
8.0 B
79.3 67.8
3.2 B
7.4 B 94.7
BUT BELOW CONTRACT DETECTION LIMIT (CRDL)
( ENVIRONMENT FOR EPA;
DEPT. OF PUBLIC
HEALTH; EDI.
CRITERIA FOR TUE PROTECTION
FTCU, FISH BECK, THOMPSON. CAR ( HUBER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA,
OF PUBLIC HEALTH
INC. FOR
CITY OF WHITEHALL
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INORGANIC RESULTS (IN UG/L)
PAGE 4 OF 5
DETECTED
COMPOUNDS
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MANGANESE
NICKEL \
SELENIUM
SILVER
i INC
DATE 8-87
WELL MW ID
SAMPLER EfcE
113
49
2.7
12
2?
750
16
10
31,800
8-87
MW IS
EfcE
92
38
1.6
11
232
,369
29
18
15,700
8-87
MW 2D
EfcE
202
22
2.5
16
25
660
20
12
32,900
8-67
MW 2D
EfcE
107
41
1.4
13
232
261
10
11
13,400
8-87
(DUP) MW 2S
EfcE
250
152
5
24
2
1109
3°3
22
45,100
8-87
MW 3D
EfcE
247
43
3.8
7.3
2
619
30
16
46,000
8-87
MW 3S
EfcE
239
46
3.3
4.6
2
578
35
9.8
36,000
8-87
MW 4D
EfcE
917
109
3.5
5.5
2
609
38
46,300
6-87
MW 4S
EfcE
367
97
4.9
15
2
872
26
9.3 .
52,500
J - ESTIMATED VALUE *
B - VAWI IS ABOVE INST1UMENT DETECTION LIMIT BUT BELOW CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMIT (CRDL)
1 - BfcV, BLACK 4 VEATCB FOR EPAj EfcE. ECOLOGY fc ENVIRONMENT FOR EPAj FTCQ, PISQ BECK, THOMPSON, CAR t UUBER FOR
VHITELAU LANDFILLi MDfti. HICUIGAN DEPT. OF PUBLIC UEALTU; EDI, ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. INC. FOR CITY OF WHITEHALL
2 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS MCL
3 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TOE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
4 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS PROPOSED MCLO
-------
TABLE \>
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INORGANIC RESULT!
PACE 5 OF 5
(IN UG/L)
DETECTED
COMPOUND
DATE
WELL
SAMPLER
8-87
MW 50
EfcC
8-8?
MU 5S
E&E
8-8?
80T-
ElE
1
8-87
80T-3
EtE
8-87
FIT
ElE
E
8-87
Blank
ElE
8-87
BLAJJK(PU3)
EiE
8-87
PW-3
ElE
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MANGANESE
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
100
35
3.6
14
7892 .
16
13
44,700
247
24
1.0
8.6
3082
38
22
13,900
2.3
5.5
125J
102
142
183
534
6.4
7.6
4432
31
39,600
471
26
1.7
21
2 4 13'OJ
466* 24
132* 2.5
29
26. 5J
36,600 133 7.4JS
J - ESTDUTED VALOR . •*
B - VALUE IS ABOVE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LIMIT BUT BELOW* CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMIT (CRDL)
1 - BfcV, BLACK & VEATCB FOR EPA| E(B. ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT FOR EPAj FTCH, FISH BECK, THOMPSON, CAR I BUBER FOR
VBITELAKH LANDFILL; MDPH, MICBIGAN DEPT. OF P'JSLIC 11EALTU; EDI. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. INC. FOR CITY OF WHITEHALL
2 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS MCL
3 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TlJE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC BEALTU
4 - CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS PROPOSED MCLG
JS - FIELD BLANK MED 355 SHOWED CONTAMINATIONS FOR Cu (85.8 UC/L) AND Zn (26.5 UG/L) THEREFORE ALL Cu. Zn DATA WERE ESTIMATED
-------
-4-
All monitoring well samples collected on August 12, 1987,
contained elevated inorganic concentrations of cadmium,
chromium, lead and nickel and may represent background
conditions. FW3 did not contain any inorganic contaminants.
B) Soil;
A limited number of soil samples were collected (including the; area
nearby the laundromat/dry cleaner) that showed virtually no ;
contamination (See figure 4). Two set of samples were taken. One
from the surface, and the second set was taken from the
subsurface (3 feet).
The findings of the of the RI indicate the following:
A) Groundwater;
Groundwater samples were analyzed for over 150 organic and
inorganic compounds which make up the Hazardous Substance List
(HSL) . Three samples showed concentration of acetone above the
detection limits of laboratory methods. Acetone is a cannon -^
contaminant which may have a source other than the groundwater
samples collected. Chloroform was detected in the field blank
and three trip blanks and 2- butanone was detected in one of
these blanks. The source of these compounds are unknown.
However, acetone, chloroform and 2-butanone are .common
laboratory introduced contaminants. The contaminants detected
were all below the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or maximum
contaminant level goals (MZLGs) for drinking water. Similarly,
inorganic concentrations reported for all samples did not
exceed the drinking water standards.
B) Hydrogeoloqic Mpdelipg S.tvtfly pesults
In addition to the groundwater sampling, Black and Veatch
conducted the hydrogeologic modeling study to evaluate the
potential for contaminated groundwater from beneath either the
Whitelake Landfill or the Shel least site being drawn into
municipal well FW3 during pumping. Results indicate that
continuous, long term pumping of FW3 at rates of 150 to 300
gallons per minute (gpsn) should not draw in any contaminated
groundwater from beneath the Whitehall Landfill or the
Shellcast site. However, continuous, long term pumping of FW3
at 500 gpm could draw in contaminated groundwater from the
Whitelake Landfill and/or Shellcast site.
According to the director of public works from the City of
Whitehall, the maximum pumpage rate was 350 gpm, and the
routine pumpage rate was at 250 gpm when it was being used.
Also, EW3 was not being used more than seven hours straight at
a time. As of Sepf.ember 1, 1989, the municipal well 3 has been
permanently abandoned.
-------
-5-
RISK ASSESSMENT
Only one scenario, dealing with the ingest ion of contaminated groundwater by
people, was evaluated. This was because groundwater is the only medium of
concern.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic
Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential
carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term
"upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from
the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk
highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human
extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied.
Reference doses (RFDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting
noncarcinogenic effects. RFDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are
estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive
individuals, that are not likely to pose appreciable risks of adverse health
effects. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the
amount of chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared
to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal
studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for
the use" of animal data to predict effects on humans). The uncertainty factors
hplp ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate .the potential for adverse
noncarcinogenic effects, to occur.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake level
with the cancer potency factor. These risks are probabilities that are
generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., IxlO"7 or 1 E-7). An excess
lifetime cancer risk of IxlO"6 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an
individual has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the
specific exposure conditions at a site.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a
single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of .the
estimated intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium
to the contaminant's reference dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants
within a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably
be.exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. .The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media.
-------
-6-
The risJc assessment was performed under a scenario where PW3 would still be
operational. Under this scenario, the following conclusions can be made.
Using a hazardous index approach, developed to assess the overall potential
for noncarcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals, when the index
exceeds unity there may be concern for a potential health risk. However, the'
hazardous index is simply a numerical index to help identify potential
exposure problems. Based on the groundwater data obtained from monitoring
wells, only zinc exceeds unity with the value of 7.5 (See Table 3). There are
many uncertainties associated with this number as will be discussed later.
For potency carcinogens, rislcs are estimated as probabilities. As noted
above, the risk is a product of chemical daily intake and carcinogenic potency
factor. Based on the groundwater data on the monitoring wells, the
carcinogenic risk is within 10~4 to 10~7, generally the agency's acceptable
target risk range for protection of public health (See Table 3) .
In interpreting the risk assessment , many uncertainties have to be taken into
account. First, in doing the risk calculations, the highest one-time
concentration was used instead of a most probable case scenario. Secondly,
the data set used had poor quality control (QC) compared to other data sets
which showed little or no contamination. Furthermore, the data used was not
the most recent. For example, the Black and Veatch, round showed lead present
in some of the monitoring wells but at levels well below the detection
limit; zinc was detected but at levels well below the MZL. U.S. EPA results
showed no contamination of concern. Therefore, because the Black and Veatch
and U.S. EPA data is more recent and does not have the QC concerns of the
earlier FIT data, the lower zinc and lead levels may be more representative of
actual site conditions. Finally,. PW3 hcts not shown any contamination since
1982. •
In summary, the most recent data on PW3 and surrounding monitoring wells under
the worst case scenario , indicate that there is presently no- noncarcinogenic
risk at the site. The carcinogenic risk is within 10~4 to 10~7, generally the
agency's acceptable target risk range for protection of public health. With
the permanent abandonment of PW3, any risk remaining at the site has been
eliminated. The exposure to past contamination from FW3 was most likely
subchronic and for short duration.
Documentation of Siqnificg
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative described in
the proposed plan.
The Selected Remed
The findings of the PW3 RI showed no contaminants that exceeds any state or
federal standards or criteria for drinking water. Also, there is no longor a
continuing source of contamination. Therefore, no further action is
recommended at the Whitehall Municipal Wells site.
-------
Chemical
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthai ate
Lead
Zinc
Table 3
Chemical-Specific Risk
Chronic Hazard Index
(NonCarcinogenic Risk)
0.136
7.500
Total Carcinogenic Chemical
Specific Risk
8.4 x 10"6
3.8 x 10"5
NA
Cancer potency factor and Reference dose not available for lead.
NA Zinc does not exhibit any carcinogenic effects.
-------
-7-
Statutorv Determinations
The conditions at the site pose no current or potential threat to human he
or the environment. Therefore, no further remedial action is necessary.
Because no further action is necessary, the statutory requirements of CERCTA
Section 121 for remedial actions are not applicable. Because this remedy win
not result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health based
levels, the 5-year review will not apply to this action.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining orvjite
above health-based levels, this remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency* Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, and the Michigan Department of Public Health concur with
the assessment that the site poses no unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment.
-------
ATTACHMENT II
-------
Community Relations Responsiveness Sumnary
Whitehall Municipal Wells Site
Whitehall, Michigan
September, 1989
The purpose of this comunity relations response sunmary is to document the
community relations activities along with citizen comments and Agency
responses.
The selected remedy of no further action was presented in the August 14, 1989
Public Proposed Plan and at the public hearing. There has been sane negative
public reaction to the selected remedy before or during the comment period.
The City of Whitehall, Muskegon County and the State of Michigan concur with
the Agency's decision. ;,
OMUNITY RELATIONS
A community relations plan was submitted to and approved by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in September 1989. Citizen
concerns surfaced only recently, not on the Whitehall Municipal Wells Site,
but on the Whitelake landfill Site located nearby. The landfill was recently
permitted by the state to expand its boundaries and volumes of intake. There
are also neighboring chemical companies that are of concern to the citizens.
Efforts have been marie to maintain contact with "the citizen group and to
address their concerns as much as possible. An informal meeting was held with
the citizen group on August 9, 1989.
The dates of the public comment period, the date and the location of a publi'
hearing and a summary of th€! Proposed Plan were announced through a legal
notice in local newspaper.
The Whitehall Municipal Wells Proposed Plan, which includes a description of
the investigation findings and conclusions, was mailed to those on the
community relations mailing list and was available along with the
Administrative Record and information repositories at the Whitehall Municipal
Library in Whitehall.
The public hearing was held at the Whitehall City Hall, 405 Colby Street, on
Thursday, August 24, 1989 to discuss the Remedial Investigation and the
preferred alternative. Approximately 30 people were at the hearing. Following
presentations by U.S. EPA, several people expressed comments.
Comments raised during the public comment period, which are relevant to the
Proposed Plan, are summarized below. The comment period was held from August
14 to September 13, 1989.
-------
-2-
RJBLIC COMENTS AMD
Comnent; Cue of the commenters was concerned about chemicals showing up below
the health based levels, and wanted to know if a qualitative approach has
been taken in assessing the risk from the site.
EPA Response; "Die production well 3 has not shown any contamination since
1982. The surrounding monitoring wells have shown occasional contaminants at
very low levels. Some of the drenicals like acetone and toluene can be
attributable as lab contaminants. Due to the geology of the site, the aquifer
is very susceptible to contamination and it would not be unusual to have some
contaminants detected from time to time at low levels. There is no
consistency to the contaminants showing up and there is no consistent source
to be found.
Garment; One private citizen expressed concerns about the water quality from
the whole area and wondered why the production well 3 is being shut down
permanently when the well has no contamination problem. He also predicted
that if the well 3 is used on a regular basis the well will pick up
contaminants from the surrounding areas.
EPA Response; EFA did not require the City of Whitehall to permanently shut
down the well. The City has done this on its own. According to the Director
of Public Works for the City of Whitehall, the main reason for this shut down
is economical. It is the oldest well in. the city and has had a problem with
sand sucking. It is not economically feasible to rehabilitate the well, and a
new production well is taking care of the water needs.
A pumping test, at 700 gallons per minute (gpm), was conducted from the
production well 3 in 1986 to see whether extensive pumping can draw any
contaminants from the surrounding areas. After three days, no contaminants
were detected in the production well. Currently, the pumping capacity from
the well 3 is down to 220 gpm due to lack of maintenance. If the pumping test
at 700 gpm did not draw any contaminants from the surrounding areas, it is
doubtful that it will at 220 gpm. At any rate, the production well 3 is now
permanently sealed and cannot be used.
Comment; Another private citizen raised an issue regarding the additive
effect of the chemicals tested.
m
EPA Response; The production well 3 has not shown any contamination .since
1982. The chemicals detected at low levels from the surrounding monitoring
wells do not have known synergistic effects with each other. The risk
assessment did consider the additive effect of chemicals. The additive risk
for the carcinogenic chemicals is still" within the acceptable range of IxlO"4
to IxlO"7.
-------
-3-
Commenti One ccnment requested the formation of a citizen work group and
asked if there will be a five year review at the Whitehall Municipal Wells
site.
EPA Response; Currently, there is a citizen group in existence and there
should be no difficulty formalizing the group. EXiring the public hearing, the
Muskegon County Health Department offered their help in forming a citizen
work group.
The proposed remedy does not leave any contaminants above the health based
levels, and therefore, there will no five year review at the site.
-------
III
------- |