vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Excavation, New Waste Cell
In Proposed Cleanup Plan
Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site
Tremont City, Ohio May 31, 2011
To prevent contamination migration at the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 5 (U.S. EPA) is proposing to: (1) excavate all of the waste and
contaminated soils in the Barrel Fill; (2) separate the liquid waste from the solid waste; (3) build
an on-site waste cell with a leachate collection system; (4) consolidate the hazardous and non-
hazardous solid waste, and contaminated soils into the waste cell; (5) cover the consolidated
solid waste with a hazardous waste landfill cap; (6) build a slurry wall around the consolidated
waste along with a leakage collection system; and (7) transport the liquid waste off-site for
treatment and disposal at approved facilities. The solid waste consolidated on-site will be
stabilized as needed, or transported off-site for disposal if it is determined to be a liquid. Long-
term management, maintenance and monitoring of the waste cell will be implemented. The
groundwater will be monitored for the release of chemicals from the waste cells and appropriate
institutional controls implemented to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the remedial action.
After excavation of the drums, liquids currently stored in drums within the waste cell will be
decanted from the drums and collected for off-site treatment and disposal. The drums will then
be crushed and any additionally released liquids collected for off-site treatment and disposal.
Liquid non-containerized wastes will be pumped and collected for off-site treatment and
disposal. Any non-containerized waste, including sludges, that remains after pumping will be
extracted by other methods and disposed of and treated off-site; or be stabilized as needed to
make the wastes less mobile and then consolidated in a new engineered waste cell. The new
waste cell will be constructed with a compacted clay liner and flexible membrane liner (FML) at
the bottom of the cell. The excavation and off-site treatment and disposal of all liquid and
sludges, combined with secure, on-site management of the remaining solid hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes and contaminated soils will effectively protect human health and the
environment. Long-term monitoring of groundwater, along with post-closure care and the
current institutional controls limiting access and use of the Site, will provide additional
protectiveness in the long term.
Public comment needed
The purpose of the Proposed Plan is to facilitate public comment on U.S. EPA's preferred
cleanup alternative. The plan includes background information about the Tremont City Barrel
Fill Site; identifies remedial action objectives (RAOs) which need to be accomplished during
-------
cleanup; describes Alternative 4a, set out in the June 2010 Proposed Plan and Alternative 9a;
compares these two alternatives; identifies U.S. EPA's preferred cleanup alternative, and
provides the rationale supporting selection of U.S. EPA's preferred cleanup alternative.
The public is encouraged to comment on this Proposed Plan. U.S. EPA will be accepting
comments for at least 30 days from the issuance of this Proposed Plan. You are also encouraged
to attend and participate in a public meeting to be held during the public comment period at
Northwestern High School, 5650 Troy Road, June 22, 6:30 p.m.
This document is issued by the U.S. EPA , the lead agency for the Site activities. U.S. EPA, in
consultation with its State partner, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), will
select a final cleanup plan for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site. This will occur after review and
consideration of information given by the public during the comment period and public meeting.
The final cleanup plan will be announced in a local newspaper and presented in a U.S. EPA
document called the Record of Decision (ROD). This final plan could differ from this Proposed
Plan, depending on information or comments U.S. EPA receives during the public comment
period.
Documents to review
You are also encouraged to review the supporting documents for the Tremont City Barrel Fill
Site located at the Clark County Public Library in Springfield, Ohio and the Tremont City
Municipal Building in Tremont City, Ohio. The supporting documents include the Remedial
Investigation (RI) Report, Feasibility Study (FS), FS Addendum, FS Addendum 2 (FSA 2), U.S.
EPA's approval with modifications letters for the FS and FS Addendum, and the previous June
2010 Proposed Plan. The RI Report presents information on the nature and extent of
contamination at the Site, and the FS identifies, evaluates, and compares different cleanup
alternatives.
About the Tremont City Barrel Fill site
The Tremont City Barrel Fill Site is located at 3108 Snyder-Domer Road, about 1.5 miles west
of Tremont City, Ohio and about 3.5 miles northwest of Springfield, Ohio (Figure 1). The Site
occupies 8.5 acres and is located on the northwest end of the larger, 80-acre property that also
includes the Tremont City Landfill Site and the Tremont City Waste Transfer Facility Site
(Figure 2). An intermittent surface water body, called the unnamed tributary, lies northeast and
east of the Barrel Fill.
The Site is not on U.S. EPA's National Priorities List (NPL), but is being addressed under U.S.
EPA Region 5's Superfund Alternative Approach Program. A site is eligible for this program if
site contaminants are significant enough that the site would be eligible for listing on the NPL, a
long-term response action is expected at the site, and there is a willing, capable potentially
responsible party (PRP) that will negotiate and sign an agreement with U.S. EPA to perform the
investigation or cleanup. PRPs are those entities that are potentially responsible for contributing
to contamination at a site.
In 1976, Ohio EPA issued a permit allowing the Barrel Fill to be used for the disposal of various
solid wastes and chemical sludges. From 1976 to 1979, approximately 51,500 drums and
-------
300,000 gallons of industrial waste were disposed of in 50 unlined waste cells dug approximately
15-20 feet into native soil. Drums were placed in layers in each of the cells. Wastes disposed of
in the cells included glues; resins; still bottoms; paint sludge; paint scrap and waste; soap,
shampoo, and detergent waste; asbestos slurry; oil sludges; and other compounds. During 1979
and 1980, land application and shallow injection of liquid, biodegradable wastes (margarine,
corn syrup, and other similar wastes) from food industry sources occurred next to the Barrel Fill.
After all Barrel Fill disposal operations ceased at the end of 1979, a soil cover 3-4 feet thick was
placed over the Barrel Fill. Additional cover was added during the 1980s to address settlement
issues, resulting in the current soil cover, which islO-17 feet thick over the waste cells.
U.S. EPA began an initial assessment of conditions at the Barrel Fill in 1997 in response to
concerns raised by the Citizens for Wise Approaches Toward Environmental Resources
(CF/WATER), which is now a local community advisory group (CAG), U.S. Representative
David Hobson, and U.S. Senator Michael Dewine. In consultation with CF/WATER, Ohio EPA,
and the owner/operator of the Barrel Fill, U.S. EPA planned and conducted three phases of field
investigation which resulted in U.S. EPA's March 2002 Site Investigation Summary Report. The
report concluded that releases had occurred at the Barrel Fill, and that conditions warranted
further investigation.
In 2002, U.S. EPA negotiated a legal agreement called an Administrative Order by Consent with
the PRPs, requiring the PRPs to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
at the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site and to reimburse U.S. EPA for costs to oversee the RI/FS.
The RI was conducted to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to assess current
and potential future risk the contamination may pose to human health and the environment. The
FS evaluates cleanup alternatives based on evaluation criteria established in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), the federal rules governing U.S. EPA's Superfund program.
In November 2006, U.S. EPA approved the RI Report. The report showed that, although the
buried drums were corroding, they were still largely intact and had not, for the most part,
released their contents. The RI Report also reported elevated levels of contaminants within the
Barrel Fill; however, it identified very limited release of contaminants to the surrounding
groundwater. See Site Pollution and Summary of Site Risks section below.
In November 2008, U.S. EPA, in consultation with Ohio EPA, issued an approval with
modifications letter for the July 2008 FS. In January 2009, the PRPs submitted an FS Addendum
that included variations of the excavation cleanup alternatives and an additional containment
cleanup alternative. U.S. EPA issued an approval with modifications letter in February 2010 for
an April 2009 revised FS Addendum.
In June 2010, U.S. EPA issued a Proposed Plan to the public for U.S. EPA's preferred remedial
action for the Tremont Barrel Fill Site at that time, Alternative 4a. Alternative 4a includes
complete excavation and off-site disposal of all liquids and solid hazardous wastes; and on-site
consolidation of remaining non-hazardous solid wastes and contaminated soils in an engineered
solid waste cell. The extended public comment period for proposed Alternative 4a ran from June
10, 2010 through August 11, 2010. Chemical Waste Management (CWM), a PRP, commented,
submitting new information on two additional remedial alternatives for consideration by U.S.
-------
EPA. U.S. EPA reviewed and evaluated the information and subsequently developed Alternative
9a. A description and evaluation of Alternative 9a can be found in U.S. EPA's May 2011, FSA
2. In this Proposed Plan, U.S. EPA is evaluating Alternatives 4a and 9a against seven of the nine
criteria required by CERCLA, the Superfund Law. The remaining two criteria will be evaluated
following the comment period for this Proposed Plan.
In order to share updates about the Site, U.S. EPA participates in annual meetings sponsored by
CF/WATER. CF/WATER has remained actively engaged in monitoring and permitting issues at
the Barrel Fill Site throughout U.S. EPA's involvement.
Scope and role of the response action
The response action that will be selected by U.S. EPA will be the final action for the Site and
will meet all of the RAOs described later in this document. If long-term monitoring indicates
that additional remedial actions are necessary, they will be addressed in a separate, future
decision document.
U.S. EPA's overall strategy for cleaning up the Site is to remove the liquid wastes from the Site
for off-site treatment and disposal; and consolidate on-site remaining solid wastes in a new
engineered cell. The engineered cell will include both a geotextile and clay liner; leachate
collection and a hazardous waste cap; and be surrounded by a slurry wall with a leakage
collection system. The liquid wastes, which are the wastes that present the greatest threat of
release to the environment, will be removed from the Site for off-site treatment and disposal.
The solid wastes, which can be reliably contained within the Barrel Fill with the proposed
engineering controls, will be managed for the long term. Long-term operation and maintenance
and groundwater monitoring will start after the remedy construction and for the purpose of cost
estimation, is assumed to continue for 30 years. However, the operation and maintenance and
monitoring will be required for as long as necessary to protect human health and the
environment. Institutional controls, in the form of restrictive covenants, have been recorded at
the Site and run with the land. These covenants prevent the use of the Site and groundwater at
the Site for anything other than the remedial action and monitoring at the Site, and prohibits
residential use at the Site. This will provide redundant measures to ensure the protection of
human health and the environment.
Site pollution and summary of site risks
U.S. EPA uses a risk assessment to identify if hazardous substances require cleanup. The RI
Report and subsequent re-analysis of the RI data showed that the waste and drums buried in the
Barrel Fill contain a variety of contaminants that, if exposed to humans or the environment,
would present an unacceptable risk. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), and metals were detected at elevated levels in samples collected from the
drums, cell water, and surrounding waste; and at concentrations above screening levels in
samples of the on-site water table and shallow groundwater unit. No releases of site-related
contamination to the deeper groundwater units that are appropriate for drinking water use were
identified; and few, off-site releases above drinking water standards were identified near the
Barrel Fill in aquifers not classified for drinking water use. There did not appear to be impact
from the Barrel Fill to the deep drinking water aquifer. The high concentration and volume of
toxic liquid waste in the Barrel Fill, however, presents a long-term threat of future release of
-------
hazardous substances to the deep drinking water aquifer. The Barrel Fill contaminants also
present a future risk of ecological exposure in surface water via the groundwater-to-surf ace water
discharge pathway.
The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) presented in the RI considered two general
receptor populations to be present at the Site as currently used: maintenance worker and
trespasser. Based on the related risk estimates, potential impacts to ambient air, surface soil, and
current surface water conditions do not pose unacceptable risk to these receptors. There is a
future risk to maintenance workers if they uncover Barrel Fill waste materials. There is a future
risk to maintenance workers and trespassers if there are future releases of contaminants above
unacceptable levels to the unnamed tributary.
The HHRA did not evaluate risk due to potable use of groundwater because of the unlikely
migration of chemical contaminants to the deep drinking water aquifer currently used as a
potable drinking water source, under any reasonably predictable period. However, U.S. EPA has
concluded that, given the high concentrations of toxic and mobile contaminants in the Barrel Fill,
there is an unacceptable future risk of contaminant migration to the deep drinking water aquifer
absent remedial controls; this is an important basis for action at the Site.
The Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment concluded that there is a potential for the
Barrel Fill contaminants in the Water Table Unit and the waste cells to migrate with groundwater
and discharge to surface water. The concentration of these chemicals would result in a
potentially unacceptable future ecological risk in the unnamed tributary.
In summary, the RI Report showed that there is no current, unacceptable risk to human health
and the environment presented by the Site. Future, unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment, however, may occur under the following possible exposure scenarios:
Exposure to maintenance workers digging in the Barrel Fill;
Exposure to maintenance workers and trespassers from the groundwater-to-surface water
pathway, in the event of a release of Barrel Fill contaminants to surface water;
Exposure to humans from potable use of the deep sand and gravel aquifer, in the event of
a release of Barrel Fill contaminants to the deep sand and gravel aquifer; and
Exposure to ecological receptors from the release of Barrel Fill contaminants to the
surface water.
Remedial action objectives
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are goals for protecting human health and the environment.
Risk can be associated with current or potential future exposures. RAOs were developed for the
Site based in part on the contaminant levels and exposure pathways that present future
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
The RAOs for the Barrel Fill Site are as follows:
-------
Prevent human exposure to groundwater COCs greater than a cumulative total excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"5 or a target organ hazard index greater than 1.0 for
reasonably anticipated exposures;
Prevent discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface water in excess of ecological
criteria;
Prevent human exposures to hazardous substances in indoor air to a resident living on the
Barrel Fill Site;
Prevent direct contact human exposures to hazardous substances in the wastes;
Stabilize or eliminate hazardous substances in drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage
containers that may pose a threat of release;
Prevent future contamination of groundwater;
Ensure that the remedial action is protective in the event of a catastrophic release of
contamination from the drums; and
Prevent migration of Site contaminants above risk-based levels to the Site land surface,
the unnamed tributary, the deep sand and gravel groundwater unit, and to future indoor
air.
Cleanup alternatives
This Proposed Plan will present detailed information for Alternative 4a, which was presented as
U.S. EPA's preferred remedial alternative in the June 2010 Proposed Plan; and Alternative 9a,
which was developed by U.S. EPA from new information received during the public comment
period on the June 2010 Proposed Plan.
The reader is encouraged to read the June 2010 Proposed Plan, in which U.S. EPA evaluated 11
clean up alternatives for cleaning up the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site, including Alternative 4a,
against seven of the nine criteria required by CERCLA, the Superfund law. In the current
Proposed Plan, Alternative 4a and Alternative 9a are presented together and evaluated against
seven of the nine criteria required by CERCLA.
Alternative 4a and Alternative 9a include the following common elements:
Fencing - Placing fencing and signs around the Site;
Institutional controls - Preventing or limiting exposure to wastes using environmental
covenants or other land use restrictions to prohibit inappropriate land use and use of Site
groundwater;
Long-term groundwater monitoring - Monitoring shallow and deep groundwater zones on
a long-term basis to verify effectiveness and reliability of the remedy; and
Contingency planning - Taking action if unexpected conditions occur that may adversely
affect the remedy; for example, contaminated groundwater moving off-site. U.S. EPA
would document a decision to take such an action in an Explanation of Significant
Differences or in a ROD Amendment.
Cleanup Alternative 4a: Excavate liquid and hazardous waste and transport off-site for
treatment and disposal; consolidate remaining non-hazardous solid waste and
contaminated soils on-site in an engineered cell
-------
Alternative 4a includes: (1) removal of all wastes and contaminated soils in the Barrel Fill; (2)
off-site treatment, recycling, and disposal of liquids and solid hazardous waste; (3) construction
of a solid waste cell; (4) consolidation of the non-hazardous solid wastes and contaminated soils
in the solid waste cell; and (5) construction of a non-hazardous solid waste cover over the solid
waste cell.
The on-site, newly constructed waste cell will be consistent with the pertinent provisions of Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-27-08 for sanitary landfill facility construction. The new
waste cell will be constructed with a liner of compacted low-permeability clay, and the bottom of
the cell will be sloped to facilitate the collection and removal of leachate. The bottom of the
waste cell would not be expected to need a flexible membrane liner due to the presence of the
compacted clay liner and the low-permeability geology beneath the Barrel Fill. Consistent with
OAC 3745-27-08, a non-hazardous solid waste cap will be installed over the newly constructed
cell, and surface water control structures will be installed.
Long-term operation and maintenance of the new solid waste cell will include leachate
management, surface water management, waste cap maintenance, and groundwater monitoring,
consistent with OAC 3745-27-14 (post-closure care of sanitary landfill facilities).
Alternative 4a also includes relocation of the unnamed tributary east of the Barrel Fill in order to
promote effective installation and operation of the new solid waste cell.
Cost: $56.9 million
Cleanup Alternative 9a (U.S. EPA's Preferred Cleanup Alternative): Excavate all Barrel
Fill waste; treat and dispose of all liquid wastes off-site; build a double-lined engineered
waste cell with leachate collection; reconsolidate all solid hazardous and non-hazardous
waste, and contaminated soils in the engineered waste cell; place a hazardous waste cap
over the engineered cell; install a slurry wall around the newly constructed waste cell along
with a leakage collection system.
Alternative 9a involves full waste excavation, treatment and disposal of all liquid waste off-site,
and consolidation of all solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and contaminated soils in an
engineered waste cell on-site.
The existing soil cover will be removed and staged before the excavation of the drummed and
uncontainerized waste (including cell water). All liquid waste, both containerized and
uncontainerized, will be disposed of and treated off-site at a treatment, storage, and disposal
facility or at a publicly owned treatment works. Liquid wastes will be removed from the
excavated drums by first decanting and collecting the liquids. All drums will be crushed and any
released liquids resulting from the drum crushing will be collected for off-site treatment and
disposal. Liquid non-containerized waste will be pumped from the Barrel Fill and collected for
off-site treatment and disposal.
Any non-containerized waste, including sludge, remaining after pumping will be extracted by
other methods and treated and disposed of off-site, or stabilized as needed to make the wastes
less mobile and consolidated in a new engineered waste cell.
-------
An engineered waste cell will be constructed to hold the solid hazardous and non-hazardous
waste, and contaminated soils. The engineered waste cell will include a bottom clay liner along
with a flexible geotextile membrane liner. The waste and soils consolidated in the engineered
waste cell will be covered by a hazardous waste cap. A leachate collection system will be
installed above the bottom liner, and leachate will be pumped to on-site storage tanks for
eventual off-site treatment and disposal.
A slurry wall, keyed into the low permeability till beneath the engineered waste cell, will be
installed around the engineered waste cell for the purpose of physically isolating the waste and
groundwater at the Site. A leakage collection system will be installed beneath the engineered
waste cell inside the slurry wall as a back-up system to collect any liquid not collected by the
leachate collection system. Any liquid collected in the leakage collection system will be
transported off-site for appropriate treatment and disposal.
Cost: $27.7M
Explanation of the nine evaluation criteria
U.S. EPA uses the following nine criteria to evaluate and compare cleanup alternatives. See the
table below showing the summary of this evaluation.
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment: Alternatives are evaluated
to determine whether they can protect human health and the environment from
unacceptable risks posed by hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at the Site
by eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures.
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs):
Alternatives are evaluated to determine whether they attain requirements under federal
and state environmental laws and regulations, or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence: Alternatives are evaluated for the degree of
long-term effectiveness and permanence they provide and for the degree of certainty that
the alternative will prove to be successful.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment: Alternatives are
evaluated to determine the degree to which they employ recycling or treatment to reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances; including how they use
treatment to address principal threats posed by the Site.
5. Short-term effectiveness: Short-term impacts on the community, workers, and the
environment during implementation of alternatives are evaluated along with the time it
takes to achieve protection.
6. Implementability: The ease of implementing alternatives is evaluated, considering
technical difficulties and reliability of a technology, coordination with other offices and
agencies, and availability of services and materials.
7. Cost: Capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and net present value of these
costs are evaluated.
8. State Acceptance: The state's position and key concerns on the preferred alternative and
other alternatives are considered, as well as the State's comments on ARARs or proposed
use of waivers.
-------
9. Community Acceptance: The community's support of, reservations about, or
opposition to components of the alternatives is considered. This assessment is completed
after comments on the Proposed Plan are received.
Comparative evaluation of alternatives
U.S. EPA evaluated Alternative 4a and Alternative 9a against the first seven of the nine criteria
discussed above. U.S. EPA will fully evaluate these alternatives against the last two criteria (state
acceptance and community acceptance) following the receipt of public comments. U.S. EPA is
recommending Alternative 9a as the preferred alternative because it provides the best balance among
the first seven evaluation criteria. Both Alternative 4a and Alternative 9a meet U.S. EPA's threshold
criteria of protecting human health and the environment, and complying with all state and federal
ARARs.
Both Alternative 4a and Alternative 9a are long-term effective and permanent, because they
effectively treat all of the liquid waste and prevent any migration of contamination that would result
in an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
Both Alternative 4a and Alternative 9a significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
waste by treating all of the highly mobile liquid waste. Alternative 4a also significantly reduces the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of all solid hazardous wastes by treating the wastes off-site.
Both alternatives present concerns of short-term effectiveness. These alternatives present short-term
risks to the workers and community due to excavating a large volume of waste. Risk to the
community would be less for Alternative 9a than for Alternative 4a because Alternative 9a would
transport less waste off-site. Both alternatives would present risk from potentially contaminating
groundwater during excavation; although, dewatering the waste cells would minimize this risk.
Alternative 9a would produce less greenhouse gas emissions than Alternative 4a due to less waste
being transported off-site. Time to achieve protection would be comparable for both alternatives.
Both alternatives would be implementable, albeit difficult, due to excavating a large amount of waste
in a previously disturbed environment.
Alternative 9a is about half the cost of Alternative 4a ($27.7 million compared to $56.9 million).
Alternative 9a is significantly lower in cost than Alternative 4a due to disposing of and treating less
waste off-site.
U.S. EPA will fully evaluate State of Ohio acceptance for the preferred alternative, Alternative 9a,
after the end of the public comment period. Before U.S. EPA presented Alternative 9a in FSA 2, the
State expressed its support of Alternative 4a.
U.S. EPA will fully evaluate community acceptance for Alternative 9a after the end of the public
comment period. Before U.S. EPA presented Alternative 9a in FSA 2, the community was
generally in favor of Alternative 4a.
Next steps
Based on the evaluation above, U.S. EPA has determined that Alternative 9a is the most
appropriate cleanup alternative for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site.
-------
Alternative 9a provides the best balance of the evaluation criteria among the two alternatives.
Alternative 9a is protective of human health and the environment, meets all Federal and State
ARARs, and meets all of the RAOs. This alternative is effective in the long term and permanent.
This alternative reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the hazardous substances in the
highly mobile liquid waste that presents the principal threat of release to the environment. The
consolidated non-hazardous and hazardous solid waste will be reliably contained on-site in the
double-lined engineered cell with a hazardous waste cap and secondary slurry wall containment.
Alternative 9a uses permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable and is cost-effective.
U.S. EPA, in consultation with Ohio EPA, will evaluate public reaction to the preferred cleanup
alternative during and after the public comment period before deciding on a final cleanup
alternative. Based on new information, community input, and/or State input, U.S. EPA may
modify its preferred alternative or choose another. U.S. EPA encourages the public to review
and comment on the cleanup alternatives presented and evaluated here.
U.S. EPA will respond in writing to all significant comments in a Responsiveness Summary,
which is part of the final decision document called the ROD. U.S. EPA will announce the
selected cleanup alternative in a local newspaper advertisement and will place a copy of the
ROD in the local information repositories.
The following chart compares all of the cleanup alternatives to the nine Superfund remedy
selection criteria. This chart is similar to the chart presented in the June 2010 Proposed Plan,
except that Alternative 9a is now included in the comparison of alternatives, and Alternative 9a
emerges as U.S. EPA's preferred alternative rather than Alternative 4a.
Chart comparing cleanup options with the nine Superfund remedy selection criteria
Evaluation
Criterion
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
Alt. 1
O
O
O
O
N/A***
Alt. 2
O
O
Alt.3
O
O
Alt. 4
ฎ
Alt.
4a/4b
ฎ
Alt. 5
ฎ
Alt.
5a/5b
0**
ฎ
Alt. 6
ฎ
Alt.7
ฎ
ฎ
ฎ
Alt.
9a*
ฎ
10
-------
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State
Acceptance
Community
Acceptance
N/A***
$0
$7.3M
S13.8M
ฎ
S60.6M
ฎ
$56.97
59. 1M
ฎ
S60.5M
ฎ
$57.47
60.6M
ฎ
$61. 2M
ฎ
$22.5M
ฎ
$27.7M
U.S. EPA will fully evaluate State of Ohio acceptance for the preferred alternative (Alternative 9a)
after the end of the public comment period. Before U.S. EPA presented Alternative 9a, the State of
Ohio supported Alternative 4a.
U.S. EPA will fully evaluate community acceptance of the preferred alternative after the end of the
public comment period. Before U.S. EPA presented Alternative 9a, the community was generally
in favor of Alternative 4a.
Fully meets criterion
Partially meets criterion
O Does not meet criterion
*
**
***
U.S. EPA's preferred 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
U.S. EPA is interested in your comments on the proposed cleanup plan for the Tremont City
Barrel Fill Site. Submit them at the (insert date here) public meeting, or detach, fold, stamp and
mail a completed form from the Proposed Plan fact sheet to the U.S. EPA Community
Involvement Coordinator. Comments must be postmarked by (insert date here). If you have
any questions, please contact Patricia Krause directly at 312-886-9506, or toll free at 800-621-
8431, 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., on weekdays. Comments may also be faxed to Patricia at 312-697-
2568 or sent via the Internet at epa.gov/region5/publiccomment/tremont-pubcomment.htm.
Share your opinions
U.S. EPA invites comments on its proposed cleanup plan for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site.
Public input helps U.S. EPA determine the best course of action. U.S. EPA also encourages
people to attend the upcoming public meeting on Wednesday, June 22, 6:30 p.m., at
Northwestern High School, 5650 Troy Road, Springfield, Ohio.
There are several ways to offer comments on the Proposed Plan: Orally or in writing at
the public meeting;
Electronically via the Internet at: epa.gov/region5/publiccomment/tremont-
pubcomment.htm; and/or
Fax to Patricia Krause at 312-697-2568.
Comments can be submitted to U.S. EPA from May 31 - June 30, 2011.
Contact U.S. EPA
These U.S. 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 .
Patricia Krause
U.S. EPA Community Involvement Coordinator
Superfund Division
312-886-9506
11
-------
krause.patricia@epa.gov
Jena Sleboda Braun
U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Division
312-886-0272
Region 5 toll-free: 800-621-8431, 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., weekdays
For more information
Project documents, which contain detailed information that will be used in the selection of the
cleanup plan, are available for review on the U.S. EPA Web site at
www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/tremont and at the site information repositories at:
Clark County Public Library Reference Services
201 S. Fountain Ave.
Springfield, Ohio
Monday - Thursday, 9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Saturday 11 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Sunday 1 p.m. - 5 p.m.
Closed Friday
Tremont City Municipal Building
26 E. Main Street
Tremont City, Ohio
12
-------
Figure 1: Tremont City Barrel Fill Site in Relation to Tremont City, Ohio
Barrel Fill Site
Own*
n,
p *
a *
3 #
Tremont City
? _
r -
S 5
1.23Q
13
-------
Figure 2: Tremont City Barrel Fill Site in Relation to Tremont City Landfill Site
and Tremont City Waste Transfer Facility Site
Legend
] Tierrait C?:y Landl?
~ Waste Transit Faulty
"?ซiriซIF P IWH^ rn irUtwl 'i*|F IVHW rt*^: rtwrl i-
"Twrf-apdMtna ;rซซi ป
rA nwy ivf MI n- cfvmgii ^*s itKH Hid m^i sA jnp 6
1 u- J Jy TJ IDBJ
14
------- |