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

-------