CASE STUDY - MAY 1988
WAUKEGAN HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE
Howard Zar, U.S. EPA Region 5
(312) 886-1491
SITE BACKGROUND
1. Where is the site located, how large is the site, and what are the major environ-
mental problems and sources of contamination?
The site occupies approximately 10 acres of Waukegan Harbor and portions of the
Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) property in Waukegan (Lake Michigan), Illinois.
Sediments of the harbor are extensively contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs, at concentrations exceeding 10,000 mg/kg dry weight in some places) from
chronic releases from OMC.
2. Under what authority is this project being pursued?
The Waukegan Harbor site is a federal Superfund site under U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) lead.
3. What federal, state, and local agencies have either prime responsibility for the project
or provide review and oversight? Did this involvement change over the course of
the project?
EPA has had prime responsibility for activities at the site since discovery of contamination
in the early 1970s. Other key participants include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA), Illinois EPA, Illinois Department of Conservation, and Illinois Department
of Transportation.
4. What is the time-frame, current status, and approximate cost of the project?
Contamination of the site was first observed in the early 1970s. Several investigations
have been completed since site discovery [including completion of the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process]. The total cost to date of studies,
negotiations, and remedial design is approximately $1.5 million. A Record of Decision
(ROD) was signed in May 1984 for cleanup costs of $21 million. The case has been in
litigation since the signing of the ROD. EPA is currently negotiating a settlement
with the potentially responsible party (PRP) to initiate remediation. In March 1985,
EPA revised cleanup estimates to $27 million based on preliminary remedial design. In
OMC's 1986 annual report to taxpayers, the company listed $15 million in environmental
liability, suggesting that estimated cleanup costs range from $15 to $27 million.
-------
SETTING PRIORITIES
1. What factor prompted the initial focus on the site? Why was this site given priority
over other potential sites in the region?
This site was given high priority for action primarily for two reasons: 1) very high
concentrations of PCBs were present in harbor sediments (in some places exceeding
10,000 mg/kg), and 2) there was a city of Waukegan emergency drinking water intake
in the harbor.
2. How were the magnitude and extent of the problem quantified (i.e., what factor drove
the analysis of the problem)?
PCB contamination of sediments in the harbor drove problem area definition. Data
from several sediment surveys (surface sediments and sediment cores) defined the
volume of contaminated material in the harbor. In addition to sediment surveys,
surface water and fish have been sampled in the harbor, and soils and groundwater at
the OMC facility have been sampled.
3. What factor drove the selection and implementation of remedial action?
The preferred alternative was selected primarily because of cost considerations for fund
balancing. The alternative selected for maximum protection of human health and the
environment had an estimated cost of $75 million. The preferred alternative is a
modification of this alternative.
4. Were specific ranking methods applied to different phases of this project? Which
methods were used?
No ranking methods were used during the course of this project. Hot spots were
identified as areas with sediment PCB concentrations in excess of 10,000 mg/kg dry weight.
CHOOSING ALTERNATIVES
1. Who has formal responsibility for the scoping and final selection of the alternative?
EPA and its contractor, FWS, and the Illinois EPA had prime responsibility for selecting
the preferred alternative.
2. What major alternatives were considered?
Approximately 75 alternatives were considered for remediation in Waukegan Harbor.
Alternatives were evaluated for in situ remediation, incineration, confinement in vaults,
and various treatment technologies.
-------
3. What procedure was used to evaluate the alternatives (e.g., cost benefit analysis,
evaluation criteria matrix)?
Cost/benefit analysis (including consideration of human health and environmental impacts)
was used to select the preferred alternative, with the final decision being driven by
fund balancing. The area targeted for remediation was determined based on a combination
of cost and environmental modeling. Modeling indicated that natural resources and
human health would be acceptably protected with the removal of all sediment contaminated
at levels at or above 100 mg/kg PCBs. Participating agencies applied a safety factor
of 2 to this estimate, thus deciding to remediate all sediment contaminated with PCBs
at concentrations at or above SO mg/kg dry weight.
4. What alternative was chosen? Was there an overriding regulatory or programmatic
requirement that drove the choice of the alternative?
In situ remediation was ruled infeasible early in the remedial evaluation process. The
preferred alternative involves removal of sediment from hot spots, solidification, and
disposal at a facility approved by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); and removal
of ail other contaminated sediment (i.e, with PCBs >50 mg/kg) and confined disposal on
OMC property. Disposal on OMC property will consist of construction of 1) slurry
walls to the depth of glacial till hardpan, and 2) an impermeable cap over the disposal
areas. Dredging undertaken as part of this project will be coordinated with dredging
in the federal navigation channel by the Corps of Engineers, with the net effect that
all contaminated sediments (i.e., including those with
-------
offered through Superfund (especially SARA for the onsite portion of remediation) and
TSCA.
3. What mechanisms were established for communicating with local interests and the
public? Did public perception of risks affect implementation of the project?
Public involvement during the ROD process included distribution of fact sheets and
several public meetings attended by area residents and citizen groups, the Sierra Club,
and Lake Michigan environmental groups. Public perception of risk has not affected
the project to date. Human health risks from this site were quantified during the
course of study and were generally acceptable to public users.
4. How long did it take, or is it expected to take, to implement the alternative?
The alternative has not yet been implemented. Once implemented, it is expected to be
complete in 2 years.
5. What criteria were or will be used to measure the success of remediation?
Specifications for the removal of sediment were determined based on the knowledge of
the volume (areal extent and depth) of contaminated material. Performance specifications
will be strictly adhered to during dredging. Soundings and some additional sediment
sampling will be conducted after dredging is complete to ensure that the specified
grade lines were achieved.
6. How successful was the alternative in solving the problem identified during the
setting of priorities?
Remediation of contamination in Waukegan Harbor has not yet begun.
------- |