oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Share your opinions
EPA invites comments on its proposed
cleanup actions for the Barrel Fill
site. Public input helps the Agency
determine the best course of action.
EPA encourages people to attend a
public meeting on Wednesday, June
22, 6:30 p.m., at Northwestern High
School, 5650 Troy Road, Springfield,
and submit statements during the
public comment period May 31-
June30, 2011.
There are several ways to offer
comments on the proposed cleanup
plan:
• Orally or in writing at the June 22
public meeting.
• Fill out and mail the enclosed
comment form.
• Via the Internet at: epa.gov/region5/
cleanup/tremont/pubcomment.html.
• Fax to Patricia Krause at 312-697-
2568 or email krause.patricia@epa.
gov.
For more information
Project documents, including the
administrative record containing
detailed information that will be used
in the selection of the cleanup plan
and the complete proposed plan are
available online at: www.epa.gov/
region5/cleanup/tremont.
See list of official document
repositories on P. 5
Excavation, New Waste Cell
In Proposed Cleanup Plan
Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site
Tremont City, Ohio
May 2011
As part of its plan to clean up the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund site, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to dig up all the waste
and contaminated soil, separate the liquid waste from the hazardous and
nonhazardous solid waste, build an on-site waste cell with a liquid collection
system, consolidate the solid waste and contaminated soil in the waste cell,
and cover the consolidated materials with a hazardous waste landfill cap.
Also under the proposed plan, a special underground wall would be built
around the waste cell with a leakage collection system. The liquid waste
would be transported off-site for treatment and disposal. The hazardous
and nonhazardous consolidated waste in the on-site waste cell would be
stabilized or if it is determined to be a liquid, transported off-site for disposal.
Stabilizing the waste prevents chemicals from moving into the environment.
EPA will not select a final cleanup plan until after it reviews comments
received from the public at a meeting and public comment period (see left-
hand box for ways you can participate in the decision-making process).
The Agency is issuing the proposed cleanup plan under the authority of
the federal Superfund law. EPA may modify the proposed cleanup plan or
select another option based on new information or public comments so your
opinion is important. This fact sheet summarizes the complete proposed plan
and other technical documents available on the Tremont City Barrel Fill
website or in the official site repositories.1
Under its recommended cleanup alternative, EPA would supervise digging
up all of the pollution and contaminated soil from 50 waste cells in the Barrel
Fill site and then dispose of the hazardous and nonhazardous solid materials
in a specially built cell on the property. Liquids drained from drums along
with other liquid waste would be moved to an off-site facility for treatment
and disposal. A hazardous waste cap over the new cell would be constructed
with compacted clay and other materials. The bottom of the cell would
be sloped to collect and remove liquids. In addition, to make sure the area
is contained and to prevent ground water from entering the waste cell, a
slurry wall that starts at the ground surface and extends 50 feet down would
surround the Barrel Fill location. A slurry wall is a special barrier made from
a watery mixture. A second liquid collection system would be installed
inside the slurry wall. Agency experts believe the excavation and off-site
treatment and disposal of all liquid waste, combined with secure, on-site
management of the hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste, will effectively
protect human health and the environment over the long-term.
'Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA,
known as the Superfund law) requires publication of a proposed plan for site cleanup. The proposed plan
must be made available to the public for comment. This fact sheet summarizes more detailed information
contained in the investigation studies conducted for the Barrel Fill site. Those studies and other documents
are available for review at the official site repository located in the Clark County Public Library,
Springfield, Ohio, or the EPA Region 5 offices in Chicago.
-------
Contacts and more resources
These EPA representatives are available to answer
questions and share more information. If you need
special accommodations at the June 22 public meeting,
contact Patricia Krause by six days before the meeting.
Patricia Krause
EPA Community Involvement Coordinator
Superfund Division
312-886-9506
krause .patricia@epa.gov
Jena Sleboda Braun
EPA Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Division
312-886-0272
sleboda.j ena@epa.gov
EPA toll-free: 800-621-8431, 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
weekdays.
On the Web
Site information is also posted on the Web at:
www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/tremont
GAG
A community advisory group or CAG for the site
is called Citizens for Wise Approaches Toward
Environmental Resources (CF/Water). This group has
been actively involved in monitoring issues at the barrel
site.
EPA and Ohio EPA extensively studied the Barrel Fill
site, and EPA approved what are called the "remedial
investigation and feasibility study." Those studies
were completed by the parties potentially responsible
for the pollution (called PRPs in EPA terms). The
remedial investigation determines the nature and extent
of contamination at the site while the feasibility study
identifies and evaluates possible cleanup options for the
property. Those options are presented in more detail later
in this fact sheet.
The Barrel Fill site is located at 3108 Snyder-Domer Road,
about 1 1/2 miles west of Tremont City, Ohio, in Clark
County and about 3 1/2 miles northwest of Springfield.
The Barrel Fill location covers 8.5 acres on the northwest
corner of a larger, 80-acre property that also includes
the Tremont City Landfill and the Tremont City Waste
Transfer Facility.
Site history
In 1976 Ohio EPA issued a permit for a chemical landfill
that would dispose of various hazardous waste from the
Barrel Fill site. From 1976 to 1979, about 51,500 drums
and around 300,000 gallons of industrial waste were
disposed of in 50 waste cells about 15 to 20 feet deep. This
waste included glues, resins, paint sludge, paint scrap and
waste, soap, shampoo, detergent, asbestos, oils and other
industrial compounds.
Disposal of liquid, biodegradable waste (margarine,
corn syrup) from food industry sources occurred next to
the Barrel Fill site between 1979 and 1980. All disposal
operations at the site stopped in 1980 and a soil cover of
three to four feet was placed over the area. Soil was added
in subsequent years and now the cover over the waste cells
ranges from 10- to 17-feet deep.
EPA began investigating conditions at the Barrel Fill
location in 1997 in response to community concerns about
pollution releases. The Agency did find some leaks from
the waste cells and concluded more study was needed.
In 2002 EPA negotiated a legal agreement with the
responsible parties. The legal agreement required the PRPs
to investigate the contamination and to reimburse EPA for
any oversight costs the Agency incurred.
Site pollution
The investigation by the PRPs found most of the waste
cells were intact but did show high levels of contaminants
at the Barrel Fill site. The underground waste and
drums contain a variety of "contaminants of concern"
at concentrations that exceed established safety levels.
Contaminants of concern are substances that pose a
significant current or future health risk at the site.
Levels of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), semi-volatile
organic chemicals (SVOCs) and metals were detected
in the liquid and solid waste held in the waste cell water
samples, surrounding waste and in shallow ground water.
Ground water is an environmental term for underground
supplies of water. SVOCs are also found in the surface
water while VOCs and metals have contaminated the soil.
Results of sediment (mud) sampling conducted next to the
Barrel Fill site near Chapman Creek also showed elevated
contaminant levels.
Risks to people and environment
The investigation at the property included a human
health risk assessment that studied risks to maintenance
workers and trespassers, the most likely people to be
exposed to pollution on the site. The assessment concluded
contaminant levels in the air, soil and surface water do
not currently pose a significant risk. However, the study
did find elevated risk to human health from future ground
water contaminants leaking into surface water. The
assessment did not evaluate the risk of contamination
to the underground layer of rock and other material
containing drinking water (called an aquifer). But EPA has
concluded contaminants will move toward the drinking
water aquifer in the future if no cleanup action is taken.
Therefore, EPA has considered the drinking water aquifer a
factor in its evaluation of cleanup alternatives.
-------
There is no current risk to human health and the
environment from the site. However, future health risks
could occur from the following:
* Exposure to pollution for maintenance workers
digging in the Barrel Fill site
* Exposure to pollution for maintenance workers and
trespassers from ground-water contamination moving
to surface water
* Exposure to humans from using the drinking water
aquifer in the event of a pollution release from the
Barrel Fill property
* Exposure to plants, fish and wildlife from the release
of Barrel Fill contaminants to the surface water
In a proposed plan released last June, EPA recommended
Alternative 4a, one of 11 cleanup alternatives considered
for the Barrel Fill site. After evaluating additional cleanup
alternatives submitted during an extended comment
period, EPA developed Alternative 9a. In this latest
cleanup plan the Agency evaluated both Alternatives
4a and 9a against nine criteria required by law (see
explanation of criteria on P. 4).
Both Alternatives 4a and 9a include the following
elements:
* Fencing and signs will be placed around the site.
* Institutional controls such as prohibiting certain
future land uses and the use of site ground water will
be placed on the property to prevent or limit human
exposure to hazardous and nonhazardous waste.
* Long-term ground-water monitoring will be
implemented to verify the effectiveness and reliability
of the cleanup.
* Contingency planning will be done in case officials
must take action if unexpected conditions occur
that may adversely affect the cleanup-for example,
contaminated ground water moving off-site or
contaminated substances remaining on-site affecting
ground or surface water.
The following are summaries of the cleanup options:
Alternative 4a: Excavate liquid and hazardous
waste and transport off-site for treatment and
disposal; consolidate nonhazardous solid waste
and contaminated soil in an on-site waste cell for
nonhazardous solid waste - This cleanup option involves
excavation and removal of contaminated soil above and
below the Barrel Fill waste cells, removal of the waste
inside the cells, and transportation of the waste and
contaminated soil to an off-site facility for treatment and
disposal. Alternative 4a includes construction of a new7
waste cell for solid, nonhazardous waste and polluted
but nonhazardous soil. Hazardous and liquid waste and
hazardous soil would be transported off-site for treatment
and disposal. Alternative 4a also includes relocation of an
unnamed tributary east of the Barrel Fill site to help with
the installation and operation of the new solid waste cell.
Cost: $56.9 million
Alternative 9a: (this is EPA's recommended cleanup
option) Excavate all waste and transport liquid waste
off-site for treatment and disposal. Build a double-
lined engineered waste cell with a liquid collection
system. Consolidate hazardous and nonhazardous
solid waste and contaminated soil in the waste cell.
Place a cap over the cell and install a slurry wall
around the cell along with a liquid collection system -
This alternative excavates all hazardous solid and liquid
waste, nonhazardous solid waste and contaminated soil.
Liquid waste would be removed from excavated drums
and then transported off-site for treatment and disposal.
An engineered waste cell containing a bottom clay
liner and a flexible membrane liner, which is a sheet of
strong synthetic material, would be built and designed
to contain both nonhazardous and hazardous solid waste
and contaminated soil. The waste cell would be capped
and a system to collect liquids and prevent leaks would be
installed. A slurry wall would be installed around the waste
cell for the purpose of isolating the waste and ground
water at the site. Another liquid collection system would
be installed as a back-up. Any liquid collected would be
pumped to an on-site storage tank for eventual treatment
and disposal. Cost: $27.7million
of
All of the cleanup alternatives from the June 2010
proposed plan and this latest one were evaluated against
the nine criteria (see comparison chart P. 5). EPA selected
Alternative 9a as its recommended alternative because it
best meets these criteria. Both of the alternatives presented
in this proposed plan protect human health and the
environment and comply with state and federal laws.
Both alternatives are effective in the long term because
they treat mobile liquid waste and stop contamination
from moving. Alternative 4a, by treating the waste off-site,
significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of all
solid hazardous wastes. Both alternatives present concerns
of short-term effectiveness since there is risk to workers
and the community because of excavating a large volume
of waste.
Risk to the community would be less for Alternative 9a
because less waste would be transported off-site. Both
alternatives would pose a risk to potentially contaminating
-------
ground water during excavation, though removing
water from the waste cells would lessen this risk. Both
alternatives can be implemented but with difficulty
because of the large amount of waste. Alternative 9a is
about half the cost of Alternative 4a because of disposing
of and treating less waste off-site.
EPA will fully evaluate state of Ohio acceptance for
Alternative 9a after the end of the public comment period.
Before Alternative 9a was created, Ohio supported
Alternative 4a. Public input on these alternatives will
be fully evaluated after EPA receives public comments
to the proposed cleanup plan. As noted above, EPA has
determined Alternative 9a is the most appropriate for the
Barrel Fill site.
EPA defines principal threat waste as source materials
considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that
generally cannot be reliably contained or would present a
significant risk to human health or the environment should
exposure occur. EPA considers the liquid waste within the
Barrel Fill to be the principal threat waste.
Alternative 9a will remove the mobile liquid waste
from the site and consolidate the on-site solid waste in
a double-lined engineered cell. The cell would include
a liquid collection system, a hazardous waste cap and
be surrounded by a slurry wall with a liquid collection
system. Liquid waste that presents a threat of release to the
environment would be removed from the site. The solid
waste that can be reliably contained by the engineered
waste cell and slurry wall would be managed on-site for
the long term.
Alternative 9a also meets all EPA cleanup action objectives:
• Prevent human exposure to ground water
contaminants at levels that can increase cancer or
noncancer risk
• Prevent contaminated ground water from moving to
and polluting surface water
• Prevent human exposure to hazardous indoor air
substances for residents living near the Barrel Fill site
• Prevent direct human contact to hazardous waste
• Stabilize or eliminate hazardous substances in drums,
barrels, tanks or other bulk storage containers that
may pose a threat of release
• Prevent future ground water contamination
• Ensure that the cleanup action protects human health
and the environment in the event of a catastrophic
release of contamination from the drums
• Prevent movement of contaminants to the surface, the
nearby tributary, the drinking water aquifer, and to
future indoor air
Explanation of evaluation criteria
EPA compares each cleanup option or alternative with
these nine criteria established by federal law:
1. Overall protection of human health and the
environment examines whether an option protects
living things. This standard can be met by reducing or
removing pollution or by reducing exposure to it.
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) ensures options
comply with federal and state laws.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence
evaluates how well an option will work over the long-
term, including how safely remaining contamination
can be managed.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through
treatment determines how well the option reduces the
toxicity, movement and amount of pollution.
5. Short-term effectiveness compares how quickly an
option can help the situation and how much risk exists
while the option is under construction.
6. Implementability evaluates how feasible the option
is and whether materials and services are available in
the area.
7. Cost includes not only buildings, equipment,
materials and labor but also the cost of maintaining the
option for the life of the cleanup.
8. State acceptance determines whether the state
environmental agency (in this case Ohio EPA) accepts
an option. EPA evaluates this criterion after receiving
public comments.
9. Community acceptance considers the opinions
of nearby residents and other stakeholders about the
proposed cleanup plan. EPA evaluates this standard
after a public hearing and comment period.
-------
Next steps
EPA is recommending Cleanup Alternative 9a be
implemented as the best balance of the evaluation criteria
among all the cleanup options.
The Agency in consultation with Ohio EPA will evaluate
public reaction to the recommended cleanup alternative
during the public comment period and meeting before
deciding on a final cleanup plan.
EPA will respond in writing to all significant comments in a
"responsiveness summary" that is part of the final decision
called a "record of decision" or ROD. The ROD will be
announced in a local newspaper advertisement and will be
placed in the local information repository for public review.
Read the documents
You can read the government documents associated
with the Tremont City Barrel Fill site at these official
repositories:
Clark County Public Library
Reference Services
201 S. Fountain Ave.
Springfield, Ohio
Tremont City Municipal Building
26 E. Main St.
Chart comparing all prior cleanup options with the nine Superfund criteria
Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Alt. 1
O
O
O
O
N/A***
N/A***
$0
Alt. 2
•
•
O
O
•
•
$7.3M
Alt. 2
•
•
O
O
•
•
$13.8M
Alt. 4
•
•
•
•
®
®
$60.6M
Alt.
4a/4b
•
•
•
•
®
®
$56.97
59.1M
Alt. 5
•
•
•
•
®
®
$60.5
Alt.
5a/5b
•
0**
•
•
®
®
$57.47
60.6M
Alt. 6
•
•
•
•
®
®
$61.2M
Alt. 7
•
•
®
®
®
®
$22.5M
Alt.
9a*
•
•
•
•
®
®
$27.7M
EPA will fully evaluate state of Ohio acceptance for the recommended alternative (Alternative 9a)
after the end of the public comment period. Before EPA presented Alternative 9a, the state of Ohio
supported Alternative 4a.
EPA will fully evaluate community acceptance of the recommended alternative after the end of the
public comment period. Before EPA presented Alternative 9a, the community was generally in
favor of Alternative 4a.
® Partially meets criterion
O Does not meet criterion
• Fully meets criterion
* EPAs recommended alternative
** Alternative 5a would require a waiver of Ohio's solid waste construction requirements, since this alternative would not use an
FML at the bottom of the solid waste cell
***
N/A: not applicable, since a cleanup is not being done in the No-Action Alternative
-------
EPA Recommends
Cleanup Plan for
Barrel Fill Site
Tremont City, Ohio
(details inside)
•sjaqi} papAoaj}o apeuu jaded uo pajuud si jaaijs }oe} SILJJ_
UB||OBr M LL
punpedng
g uojBsy
AouaBy
I61U80IUOJIAU3
-------
Use This to Write Your
EPA is interested in your comments on the proposed cleanup plan for the Tremont City Barrel Fill site. You may use the
space below to write your comments and submit at the June 22 public meeting, or detach, fold, stamp and mail to Patricia
Krause. Comments must be postmarked by June 30. If you have any questions, please contact Parti directly at 312-886-
9506 or toll free 800-621-8431, 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., weekdays. Comments may also be faxed to Patricia at 312-697-
2568 or sent by the Internet at epa.gov/region5/cleanup/tremont/pubcomment.html.
Name
Affiliation
Address
City State ZIP.
-------
Fill
Fold on Dashed Lines, Tape, Stamp, and f
Name ______________
Address ________^
City State
Zip
Patricia Krause
EPA Community Involvement Coordinator
Superfund Division (SI-7J)
EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, II 60604-3590
------- |