U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V
POLLUTION/SITUATION REPORT #159
KALAMAZOO RIVER/EN BRIDGE SPILL - REMOVAL
SITE # Z5JS
MARSHALL, MICHIGAN
LATITUDE: 42.2395273; LONGITUDE: -84.9662018
Page 1 of 10
-------
To: Susan Hedman, U.S. EPA Regional Administrator
James Sygo, MDEQ
Michelle DeLong, MDEQ
Dr. Linda Dykema, MDCH
Lt. Barry Reber, Michigan State Police, Emergency Management
Deb Cardiff, Kalamazoo County
Lt. Paul Baker, Kalamazoo County Sheriffs Office
James Rutherford, Calhoun County Public Health Department
Durk Dunham, Calhoun County Emergency Management
Scott Corbin, Allegan County Emergency Management
Mike McKenzie, City of Battle Creek
Cheryl Vosburg, City of Marshall
Christine Kosmowski, City of Battle Creek
From: Ralph Dollhopf, U.S. EPA, Federal On-Scene Coordinator
Date: 9/24/2012
Reporting/Operational Period: 0700 hours 8/23/2012 through 0700 hours 9/6/2012
/. Sue / kiki
Site Number: Z5JS
Response Authority: OPA
Response Lead: PRP
Mobilization Date: 7/26/2010
FPN#: El 0527
Response Type:
Incident Category:
NPL Status:
Start Date:
Emergency
Removal Action
Non-NPL
7/26/2010
2. (Ipcralions Sec/ion
• The organizational response structure consisted of the following Branches: 1) Submerged Oil;
2) Containment; 3) Kalamazoo River System; and 4) Waste Management.
2.1 Submerged Oil Branch
2.1.1 OSCAR Group
• No activities were conducted during this operational period.
2.1.2 Submerged Oil Science Group
• Enbridge continued the pilot test on select sediment cores, including chemical and fingerprinting
analyses. Results of the pilot testing will be used to evaluate the UV inspection process for evaluating
sediment cores.
• Sediment cores collected during the agitation effects study continue to be held pending the results of the
pilot testing to validate the UV inspection screening process.
• Water and sheen samples collected during the agitation study were submitted for oil fingerprinting
analyses.
• Sediment cores collected for the submerged oil quantification program are being held in cold storage
pending the results of the pilot testing to validate the UV inspection screening process.
Page 2 of 10
-------
Site-wide monitoring continued with Late Summer Reassessment 2012 (LSR 2012) poling at select
target locations, many of which were recommended for monitoring by Net Environmental Benefits
Analysis (NEBA).
Teams conducted sediment trap baseline survey at Phase II Sediment Trap locations.
2.1.3 Submerged Oil Compliance Group
No activities were conducted during the reporting period.
2.2 Containment Branch
2.2.1 Containment Compliance Group
Enbridge continued to obtain land owner access to install selected Phase II sediment trap enhanced
structures and Cylindrical Sampling Devices (CSDs).
2.2.2 Containment Recovery Group
Pursuant to the Emerging Oil Management Program (EOMP), Enbridge, U.S. EPA, and MDEQ
continued to track the location, response, and sheen differentiation test results of each identified location
of sheen. Teams recorded and documented sheen observations in the main channel and overbank areas,
and conducted sheen testing as necessary. Sheen observations were reported back to Operations Section
Chiefs for response and/or monitoring. See Table 1 for information regarding the total number of sheen
differentiation tests conducted, and the results of those tests.
U.S. EPA, MDEQ, and Enbridge continued to implement the decision matrix for responding to
observations of oil sheen.
Daily sheen management activities continued with sheen sweep boats conducting routine recovery
activities at Ceresco Dam (MP 5.25 to Ceresco control point), MP 21.25 - MP 28.0 and the Morrow
Lake Delta/Morrow Lake, along with other ongoing sheen sweep responses as determined necessary.
See Table 2 for information regarding the total number of sheen responses by date.
As of September 6, 2012, a total of 800 feet of surface hard boom is deployed at the Ceresco Control
Point. Additionally, a total of 8,400 feet of surface hard boom and 5,350 feet of subsurface half curtain
is deployed at the E4 Containment system boom locations. Teams removed debris accumulated within
the boomed areas.
Teams performed weekly visual inspections of the 6 currently-installed Phase I sediment trap locations.
Teams continued to conduct inspection, adjustment, and video monitoring activities of the E4
Containment system boom and half curtain locations.
2.3 Kalamazoo River System Branch
2.3.1 Talmadge Creek/Kalamazoo River Remedial Investigation Group
No activities were conducted during the reporting period.
Page 3 of 10
-------
2.3.2 Kalamazoo River Compliance Group
Restoration and stabilization activities were conducted at various Kalamazoo River Bank Erosion
Assessment (KRBEA) sites.
The public comment period for Enbridge's Source Area MDEQ permit application closed on September
4, 2012.
2.3.3 Kalamazoo River Remedial Action Group
Enbridge conducted preparation activities for the Source Area removal project which will commence
upon issuance of the MDEQ Permit.
2.3.4 Talmadge Creek/Kalamazoo River Monitoring Group
Monitoring of erosion control devices continued.
Water level and flow rate information continued to be downloaded daily from three USGS gauging
stations at Marshall, Battle Creek, and Comstock.
Collection of daily water and sediment temperature readings were collected where operational tasks
were being performed.
Enbridge conducted weekly monitoring of buoys and signage along the Kalamazoo River.
2.5 Waste Management Branch
A summary of equipment and boom decontaminated during this reporting period is presented in Table 3.
Quantities of soil, debris, and liquid shipped off-site during the reporting period are presented in Tables
4 and 5.
The total amount of recovered oil from the inception of the response has been estimated using actual
waste stream volumes, analytical data, and physical parameters of oil-containing media. A summary of
the estimated volume of recovered oil is presented in Table 6.
3. I'hitii/mi:
3.1 Situation Unit
Situation Unit personnel observed and documented progress in operational areas, documented locations
of oil globules and oil sheen through field observations and weekly over-flights. Personnel reported
observations of sheen/product (globules) to Operations for follow-up testing and/or response, consistent
with the EOMP. See Section 2.2.2 for additional details regarding the EOMP.
Photographs were taken and distributed to project participants during Operations, Command and
General Staff, and Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Group meetings.
Enbridge continued to maintain an odor response team; however, no odor complaints were received
during the operational period. Air monitoring and sampling information is included in Tables 7 and 8.
Page 4 of 10
-------
3.2 Environmental Unit
On August 29, 2012, U.S. EPA and Enbridge met to discuss U.S. EPA comments (provided to Enbridge
on August 22, 2012) regarding the Kalamazoo River Hydrodynamic Transport Model Report. While a
few of the U.S. EPA comments were discussed, Enbridge requested a subsequent meeting to allow them
more time to respond to U.S. EPA comments.
The pilot study for validation of the UV inspection process for sediment cores continued. This also
includes evaluating the sediment cores for the possible presence of oil-mineral aggregate (OMA), which
may not be visible using current core inspection/UV processes.
Field data/measurements collected during the agitation experiment are currently being compiled.
Enbridge and MDEQ continued to review and track RI progress.
3.3 Documentation Unit
The Documentation Unit continued organizing and archiving electronic and paper files.
3.4 Resource Unit
The Resources Unit continued to support production of Incident Action Plans (IAPs), supported the
planning efforts of operations, and provided information to Logistics personnel in order to properly
prepare and procure resources.
4. C omimuul
4.1 Safety Officers
Safety personnel continued conducting work-site safety inspections and implementing the plan for
integration of public safety and worker safety on the Kalamazoo River.
4.2 Public Information
The number of public inquires reported by Enbridge for this period is presented in Table 9.
5. i'inancc
The current National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) ceiling is $52.7 Million. Approximately 88.8% of
the ceiling has been spent through September 2, 2012. The latest average 7-day burn rate was $21,075.
These cost summaries reflect only U.S. EPA-funded expenditures for the incident. A summary of these
expenses is presented in Table 10.
(>. Scientific Support C oorrfination (iroup (SSC(i)
Recommendations regarding the Net Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA), agitation effects study
and quantification of submerged oil are being reviewed by the FOSC.
SSCG and Enbridge forensic chemists continued periodic conference calls to examine the oil
fingerprinting results and compare procedures for applying oil fingerprinting results to measuring Line
6B oil remaining in the Kalamazoo River sediments.
Page 5 of 10
-------
~ Participating Untitles
• Entities participating in the MAC include:
o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
o Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
o Michigan Department of Community Health
o City of Battle Creek
o City of Marshall
o Allegan County Emergency Management
o Calhoun County Public Health Department
o Calhoun County Emergency Management
o Kalamazoo County Health and Community Services Department
o Kalamazoo County Sheriff
o Enbridge (Responsible Party)
• For a list of cooperating and assisting agencies, see SITREP #51 (Sections 3.2 and 3.3).
-------
Table 3 - Equipment Decontamination
Location/Media
Total
September 2012
August 2012
5
4
3
2
1
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
Frac Tanks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vac. Trucks-Tankers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Roll-Off Boxes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yellow Iron (light)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yellow Iron (heavy)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jon Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Air Boats
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Boom (linear ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous Items
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 4 - Soil and Debris Shipped C
>ff Site (as of 9/5/2012)
Waste Stream
Cumulative
Disposal Facility
Haz Soil (yd3)
19,644
Envirosafe (Oregon, OH)
Non-Haz Soil & Debris (yd3)
(Excluding Ceresco Dredge)
76,443
SET/C&C
Non-Haz Soil & Debris (yd3)
(Excluding Ceresco Dredge)
64,815
Westside Recycling (Three Rivers, MI)
Non-Haz Soil (yd3)
(Ceresco Dredge Only)
5,562
EQ/Republic (Marshall, MI)
Haz Debris (yd3)
12,075
EQ/Michigan Disposal (Wayne, MI)
and Republic (Marshall, MI)
Non-Haz Household Debris (ton)
1,757
SET/C&C
Non-Haz Impacted Debris (ton)
7,065
Shaded items are discontinued waste streams.
Table 5 - Liquid Shipped Off-Site (as of 9/5/2012)
Stream
Destination Company
Destination Location
Cumulative Volume
(gallons) f
Non-Haz Water
Battle Creek POTW
Battle Creek, MI
1,143,280
Non-Haz Water
Dynecol
Detroit, MI
981,792
Non-Haz Water
Liquid Industrial Waste
Holland, MI
1,376,757
Non-Haz Water
Plummer
Kentwood, MI
416,726
Hazardous Water
Dynecol
Detroit, MI
3,594,579
Oil
Other Material
Enbridge Facility
Griffith, IN
766,288
1,405,525
Treated Non-Haz Water
Liquid Industrial Waste
Holland, MI
370,200
Treated Non-Haz Water
Plummer
Kentwood, MI
4,976,140
Hazardous Water
Safety Kleen "
825
Treated Non-Haz Water
Dynecol
Detroit, MI
150,700
Treated Non-Haz Water
Battle Creek POTW
Battle Creek, MI
1,968,700
Total
17,151,512
Shaded and italicized items are discontinued waste streams.
"|" Cumulative quantities may not reconcile with previous reports (due to auditing).
a New Age lab water and methanol mix generated by mobile laboratory.
Page 7 of 10
-------
Table 6 - Estimated Recovered Oil (as of 9/5/2012)
Estimated Oil
Volume in
Waste Stream Containing
Destination
Destination
Waste Stream
Recovered Oil
Company
Location
(gallons)
Soil - (Impacted Soil & Debris)
C&C Landfill
Marshall, MI
13,814
Soil - (Impacted Soil & Debris)
Envirosafe/
Westside RDF
Oregon, OH
278,665
Geotube Sediment - (Impacted
Sediment)
Envirosafe/
Westside RDF
Oregon, OH
1,298
Debris - (Roll Off Boxes with
Impacted Sorbents, boom, pads,
plastic, PPE, vegetation, and
biomass)
EQ Michigan
Belleville, MI
34,072
Frac Tank City - Influent to Carbon
Filtration System
C&C Landfill
Marshall, MI
8,109
Dynecol
Detroit, MI
Frac Tank City - Water
Liquid Industrial
Waste Services, Inc.
Kentwood, MI
46,176
Plummers Env. Inc.
Holland, MI
BC POTW
Battle Creek, MI
Ceresco Pretreatment System
C&C Landfill
Marshall, MI
90
A-l Pretreatment System
C&C Landfill
Marshall, MI
9
Oily Water - RPP
Enbridge Facility
Griffith, IN
766,288
Total
1,148,520
Shaded items represent discontinued waste streams
Table 7 - Real Time Air Monitoring Counts Performed by Enbridge
Monitoring
Location
Total
September 20]
L2
August 2
012
5
4
3
2
1
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
Odor Response
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Work Area
48
0
0
0
0
6
9
5
10
9
10
0
10
3
2
Page 8 of 10
-------
Table 8 - Samples Col
September 2012
August 2012
Sample Type
Total
5
4
3
2
1
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
Surface Water
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
Private Well
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Groundwater
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sediment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Soil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Product
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dewatering
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sheen
26
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
ected By Enbridge
Table 9 - Public
nquiries Received by U.S. EPA and Enbridge
Location/Med
Total
September 2012
August 21
312
6
5
4
3
2
1
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
Marshall Community Center
23
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
14
1
3
0
0
1
1
Oil Spill Public Information Hotline
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
Website
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total Public Inquiries
26
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
15
1
3
1
0
2
1
Table 10 - Financial Summary
Item
Expended (Cumulative)
(as of 9/2/2012)
ERRS Contractors
EQM (EPS50802) T057
T060
LATA (EPS50804) TO 19
ER LLC (EPS50905) T040
Total ERRS Contractors
$ 1,199,522
$ 213,636
$ 1,161,082
$ 683.330
$ 3,257,571
Other Contractors
Lockheed Martin (EPW09031) - TAGA Support
Lockheed Martin (EPW09031) -Biodegradability Study
T&T Bisso (EPA:HS800008)
Total Other Contractors
$ 198,379
27,357
$ 882.087
$ 1,107,823
START Contractor - WESTON (EPS50604) T030-Response
T032-Sampling
T037-Doc Support
Total START Contractor
$ 27,106,042
$ 183,567
$ 1.715.175
$ 29,004,784
Response Contractor Sub-Totals
$ 33,342,821
U.S. EPA Funded Costs: Total U.S. EPA Costs
$ 6,088,381
Pollution Removal Funding Agreements - Total Other Agencies
$ 2,051,535
Indirect Cost (16.00%)
$ 3,598,252
Indirect Cost (8.36%)
$ 1,422,095
Cost Documentation/Billing Admin Fee (2.93%)*
$ 272,066
Total Est. Oil Spill Cost
$ 46,775,149
Oil Spill Ceiling Authorized by USCG
$ 52,700,000
Oil Spill Ceiling Available Balance
$ 5,924,851
Shaded items are discontinued
* Effective on EPA Enbridge costs billed to USCG for bills issued after 6/5/12.
Page 9 of 10
-------
Table 11 - Personnel On-Site
Agency/Entity
September 2012
August 2012
5
4
3
2
1
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
U.S. EPA
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
2
START
14
14
1
0
1
1
14
16
17
17
0
13
16
16
MDEQ
5
0
0
0
0
4
5
5
5
4
0
0
4
5
MDEQ Contractors
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
5
4
0
3
5
5
USGS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
Calhoun County Public Health
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calhoun County (CC) EM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
City of Battle Creek
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
City of Marshall
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kalamazoo County Public Health
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kalamazoo Sheriff
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MDCH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Michigan State Police EMD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Allegan County Emergency Mgmt.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MDNR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Enbridge - Operations Center
38
7
2
0
2
4
37
49
40
40
0
12
46
49
Enbridge - Kalamazoo River
7
2
0
0
3
2
10
13
15
14
0
8
14
16
Enbridge - Containment
11
10
3
0
8
8
11
11
12
13
0
6
10
11
Enbridge - Submerged Oil
12
0
0
0
0
0
10
11
19
19
0
16
19
18
Enbridge - Waste Management
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
3
3
0
1
3
3
Enbridge - Security & Flaggers
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Enbridge - Communications Ctr.
4
3
0
0
0
1
3
3
4
4
0
0
4
4
Total
102
42
10
4
18
25
101
119
128
123
4
63
126
134
*Enbridge Operations and Field include Enbridge and contractors as reported by Enbridge
Page 10 of 10
------- |