&EPA This Update Will Tell You About • site background • the proposed cleanup plan • how you can learn more about the site United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Public Affairs Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, Illinois 60604 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin Proposed Plan for Cleanup of the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund Site Sheboygan County, Wisconsin May 1999 Figure 1. Location Map You Are Invited to a Public Meeting U.S. EPA will hold a public meet- ing to explain the proposed cleanup plan for the Sheboygan River and Harbor. Oral and written com- ments will be accepted at the meet- ing. Date: June 30, 1999 Time: 7 p.m. Place: Mead Public Library Rocca Meeting Room 710 North 8th Street Sheboygan, WI Public Comment Period U.S. EPA will accept written comments on the proposed plan during a 60-day public comment period from June 1 to July 30,1999. A pre-addressed comment form is included in this proposed plan. Introduction This Proposed Plan1 summarizes the alternatives that the United States En- vironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is considering for cleaning up contaminated sediment and soil at the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund site in Sheboygan County Wisconsin (Figure 1, Loca- tion Map). The Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS), and other docu- ments used to develop the Proposed Plan are available in the information repositories and administrative record listed on page 9. The purpose of the RI is to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the purpose of the FS is to evaluate alternatives to clean up con- tamination at the site. Public input on the alternatives and the information that supports these alternatives is an important part of the cleanup pro- cess. The public is encouraged to re- view and comment on the cleanup alternatives presented in this Pro- posed Plan (see sidebar). Site Background The Sheboygan River and Harbor site includes the lower 14 miles of the river from the Sheboygan Falls Dam down- Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires publication of a notice and a Proposed Plan for the site remediation. The Proposed Plan must also be made available to the public for comment. This proposed plan is a summary of information contained in the remedial investigation, feasibility study and other documents in the administrative record for the Sheboygan River and Harbor site. Please consult those documents for more detailed information. ------- Union Pacific Railroad Bridge Break Walls usylvania Ave. Limit of Site New Jersey Ave. Indiana Ave. Kohler Company UW Sheboygan County Cammjs )Waelderhaus -Dam Sheboygan FallsDam^ Tecumseh \\ Plant \ VvRiverjJ1 Bend Property Figure 2. Site Map Upper River Middle River Lake Michigan Lower River/Harbor Inner Harbor Outer Harbor Sheboygan Falls Kohler stream to, and including, the Inner Harbor. This segment of the river flows through Sheboygan Falls, Kohler, and Sheboygan before enter- ing Lake Michigan. As part of the RI, the river was di- vided into three sections based on physical characteristics such as aver- age depth, width, and level of con- tamination (see Figure 2, Site Map). The Upper River extends from the Sheboygan Falls Dam downstream 4 miles to the Waelderhaus Dam in Kohler. Tecumseh Product Company's Sheboygan Falls Plant is located on the Upper River and is considered the primary source of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) con- tamination. The Middle River extends 7 miles from the Waelderhaus Dam to the Union Pacific railroad bridge. The Lower River extends 3 miles from the Union Pacific railroad bridge to the Pennsylvania Avenue bridge in down- town Sheboygan. The Inner Harbor includes the Sheboygan River from the Pennsyl- vania Avenue Bridge to the river's outlet to the Outer Harbor. The Outer Harbor is defined as the area formed by the two breakwalls. Land use along the Upper River is industrial and residential in Sheboygan Falls. The Kohler Com- pany owns land adjacent to the Middle River in Kohler. Land use in this area consists of a horse farm, tree nursery, and the company's historic River Bend property and the Black Wolf Run golf course. The 800-acre, Kohler-owned River Wildlife Area is on the south side of the river adjacent to the Upper and Middle River. The wild- life area is used as a private hunting and fishing club. Land use adjacent to the Lower River and Inner Harbor is primarily commercial and indus- trial with some residential areas. A waterfowl (ducks, geese, etc.) con- sumption advisory exists for the Sheboygan River and Harbor. The Sheboygan River is not used as a public water supply, but it drains into Lake Michigan which is used as a drinking water supply by Sheboygan, Sheboygan Falls, and Kohler. Public water from the utilities are regularly tested and are safe to drink. There are no public beaches along the river or harbor. There is considerable sea- sonal fishing in the Inner Harbor and Lower and Middle River. Fishing is more limited in the Upper River. Ac- cording to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) surveys, most fishing occurs during spring and fall salmon and trout runs. A fish consumption advisory is in effect for Sheboygan River and Lake Michigan fish. Site History During routine sampling of fish from the Sheboygan River in 1977, the WDNR found unsafe levels of PCBs in the fish. The presence of PCBs and met- als was confirmed in 1979 during har- bor dredging. In the late 1970s, Tecumseh removed some PCB-con- taminated soil from its Sheboygan Falls facility. The site was placed on U.S. EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) in 1986. The NPL is a list of the nation's most serious uncon- trolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. Tecumseh prepared the RI between 1987 and 1990. The results of the RI are summarized below under "Site Contamination." During the RI, sev- eral areas of the most heavily con- taminated sediment were identified in the Upper River. U.S. EPA deter- 2 ------- mined that these areas should be ad- dressed as soon as possible. In 1990 and 1991, U.S. EPA asked Tecumseh to remove about 4,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from these "hot spots." This sediment was stored in two containment facilities atTecumseh's Sheboygan Falls plant. In addition, approximately 1,200 square yards of highly contaminated sediment were capped or "armored" in place to prevent contaminants in the sediment from entering the river. Information developed during these activities is described in a document called an Alternative Specific Reme- dial Investigation (ASRI) report. After numerous studies and tests of possible cleanup methods, the FS was completed in April 1998. The results of the FS are summarized under "Summary of Alternatives" on page 4. Site Contamination Investigations conducted during the RI located PCBs and eight heavy met- als in the river and harbor sediment. PCBs are the most hazardous con- taminant in the river and harbor and therefore the cleanup alternatives are primarily focused on cleaning up PCBs. Currently, PCB concentrations in sediment range from 0.27 parts per million (ppm) to 750 ppm, but tend to be highest in the Upper River and Inner Harbor. Sheboygan River sediment containing PCBs greater than 1 ppm is a concern. Fish tissue samples collected between 1990 and 1998 show smallmouth bass and white sucker PCB concentrations ranging from 1.3 ppm to 23.1 ppm. Carp had PCB levels ranging from 10.5 to 200 ppm. Fish containing PCB levels of approximately 1 ppm or higher are a concern. In general, the highest fish PCB concentrations were found near the Tecumseh plant and decrease downstream from the plant. Consumption advisories for fish and waterfowl taken from the Sheboygan River have been in place for years, mainly because of PCB contamina- Cleanup Goal Summary Considering human and aquatic health risk, 1 ppm of PCB is the cleanup goal for all river sediment. Based on hu- man and wildlife health risks, 10 ppm of PCB is the cleanup goal for floodplain soil. tion. These advisories are for the entire 14-mile stretch from Sheboygan Falls to Lake Michigan. PCB con- tamination is also present in ground water at the Tecumseh plant. In addition, floodplain areas along the river were found to have PCB- contaminated soil ranging from 4 to 220 ppm. Concentrations above 10 ppm in floodplain areas are a con- cern. Health Risk Assessment U.S. EPA evaluated the human health risk associated with contaminated river and harbor sediment and flood- plain soil. U.S. EPA assumed that the primary way people would come in contact with contaminated sediment is by eating fish from the Sheboygan River. Based on U.S. EPA's analysis, an adult eating two 8-ounce fillets from the Sheboygan River would in- gest PCBs at 184 times the recom- mended daily maximum level. To reduce risks to human health posed by high PCB levels, U.S. EPA's cleanup goal is to remove enough contaminated sediment to reach an average river PCB sediment concen- tration of 1 ppm within 30 years. PCB-contaminated sediment also poses a risk to fish and wildlife that come in contact with contaminated sediment or floodplain soil. U.S. EPA has analyzed ecological risk, in con- sultation with the natural resource trustees. Although the optimal clean- up goal would be to achieve 0.05 ppm PCBs in sediment and 0.81 ppm in floodplain soil, U.S. EPA has con- cluded that a cleanup goal of approxi- mately 1 ppm PCBs in sediment and Natural Resources Trustees U.S. EPA is the lead agency for the cleanup of the Sheboygan River and Harbor and other similar Superfund sites. U.S. EPA is given this authority un- der the Superfund law. How- ever, Superfund also gives sev- eral other state, tribal, and federal agencies responsibil- ity for protecting natural re- sources such as land, fish, wildlife, air, and water. These agencies are called trustees for these resources and Super- fund requires U.S. EPA to co- ordinate with them. The natural resource trustees involved in the Sheboygan River and Harbor cleanup are the WDNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Oceanic and At- mospheric Administration (NOAA). U.S. EPA works with these agencies during the assessments, investiga- tions, and planning for the Sheboygan River and Harbor site. The trustees share au- thority for fisheries, wildlife resources, and the public use of waterway resources such as the Sheboygan River and Harbor. The trustees are working with U.S. EPA to coordinate natu- ral resource concerns in the proposed plan for cleanup of the Sheboygan River and Harbor. The trustees are meeting to ensure that a pro- posed cleanup plan is devel- oped that includes protection and restoration of these re- sources. However, this pro- posed plan does not include the trustees' concerns. They will be incorporated into the overall site cleanup plan. 3 ------- 10 ppm in floodplain soil will ad- equately protect fish and wildlife.2 Summary of Alternatives Based on RI/FS reports and previous investigations, U.S. EPA evaluated several alternatives to address con- tamination in and near the Sheboygan River and Harbor. Because the level of contamination varies in different parts of the river, the proposed cleanup plan has five components: 1) Upper River sediment; 2) Middle River sediment; 3) Lower River and Harbor sediment; 4) floodplain soil adjacent to the river; and 5) ground water near Tecumseh's Sheboygan Falls plant. For the three river sedi- ment components, a long-term moni- toring plan which includes 30 years of fish sampling will be implemented. In evaluating the alternatives, U.S. EPA considered the level of protec- tion that would satisfy the concern of the natural resource trustees that fu- ture natural resource impacts are mini- mized. The natural resource trustees have concluded that, given the pro- posed cleanup level of 1 ppm PCBs in soft sediment and 10 ppm PCBs in floodplain soil, the natural resources will continue to incur some additional adverse impacts. Compensation for these impacts will be sought along with the cost of restoring the natural resources. U.S. EPA also considered the extent to which implementing the alternatives could bring about addi- tional adverse adverse impacts to natural resources. Upper River Sediment Approximately 46 separate areas of PCB-contaminated sediment have been identified in the Upper River, but because of recent flooding on the Sheboygan River, the location and size of some of these deposits may have changed since the deposits were origi- nally identified. U.S. EPA's goal is to reduce the current health risks to safe levels by removing a sufficient amount of PCB-contaminated sediment. Three alternatives were developed to ad- dress Upper River sediment. There are six sub-alternatives under the re- moval alternative. Alternative 1: No Action. No further action would be taken in the Upper River beyond dredging and armoring already completed. Fish and water- fowl consumption advisories would remain in place until monitoring in- dicates they can be dropped. Con- taminated sediment stored at the Tecumseh plant would be disposed of in a WDNR-approved landfill. Cost: $2.6 million. Alternative 2: Natural Recovery/ Monitoring. Sediment monitoring would be done every 5 years and an- nual fish monitoring would take place for 30 years. Periodic maintenance of already-capped areas would also con- tinue for 30 years. Contaminated sedi- ment stored at the Tecumseh plant would be disposed of in a WDNR- approved landfill. Cost: $4.8 million. Alternative 3: Removal. Six Upper River sediment removal sub-alterna- tives have been developed. The sub- alternatives vary in terms of the amount of sediment and PCBs that would be removed and build upon each other. For example, sediment removed under Alternative 3B in- cludes sediment removed under Al- ternative 3A. Sediment removed un- der Alternative 3C includes sediment removed under Alternative 3B which includes sediment removed under Al- ternative 3A. PCB percentages in- cluded in the FS represent PCB amounts in the river before the 1991 removal. PCB percentages in the fol- lowing six alternatives represent the remaining PCBs in the river (exclud- ing prior removal activities). All re- moval alternatives will likely use me- chanical dredging to remove the con- taminated sediment (see "The Dredg- ing Process" on page 5). The con- taminated sediment will then be placed in either a solid waste landfill or licensed hazardous waste landfill depending on the level of PCB con- centration. Contaminated sediment stored at the Tecumseh plant would be disposed of in a licensed hazard- ous waste landfill due to its high concentration. Alternative 3-1: Approximately 5,400 cubic yards of sediment containing 37 percent of the Upper River's PCBs would be removed from six highly contaminated areas. Cost: $12.2 mil- lion. Alternative 3-II: Approximately 7,500 cubic yards of sediment con- taining 68 percent of the Upper River's PCBs would be removed from 15 highly contaminated areas. Cost: $15.6 million. Alternative 3-HI: Approximately 8,900 cubic yards of sediment con- taining 79 percent of the Upper River's PCBs would be removed from 17 highly contaminated areas. Cost: $17.4 million. Alternative 3-IV: Approximately 13,800 cubic yards of sediment con- taining 85 percent of the Upper River's PCBs would be removed from 18 highly contaminated areas. Cost: $23.8 million. Alternative 3-IV-A (Recommended Alternative): Approximately 18,200 cubic yards of sediment containing 93 percent of the Upper River's PCBs would be removed from 26 highly contaminated areas. Cost: $31.4 mil- lion. This alternative represents a varia- tion of the removal alternatives pre- sented in the FS. Alternative 3-V: Approximately 22,500 cubic yards of sediment con- taining 98 percent of the Upper River's PCBs would be removed from 55 highly contaminated areas. Cost: $34.6 million. Middle River Sediment The Middle River contains relatively low levels of PCBs and some heavy metals. Average PCB levels are 2 ppm. Two alternatives were devel- 2A sediment concentration of 0.05 ppm is considered completely protective of fish and wildlife. A sediment concentration of 1.5 ppm is considered to have minor impacts on the most sensitive species. 4 ------- oped for the Middle River: Alternative 1: No Action. Similar to the No-Action Alternative for the Up- per River, nothing would be done in the Middle River under this alterna- tive. Fish and waterfowl consump- tion advisories would remain in place until monitoring indicates they can be dropped. Cost: $0. Alternative 2: Monitoring (Recom- mended Alternative). Due to the pres- ence of PCB contamination and the dynamic nature of the river, an exten- sive monitoring program would be implemented to gauge the condition of the river and potential human health impacts over time. Monitoring will provide valuable information on changing conditions that may war- rant removal of PCB-contaminated sediment. Although no cleanup is rec- ommended in the Middle River at this time, monitoring may indicate that a cleanup will be required at some point in the future. Cost: $1.8 mil- lion (does not include cost of pos- sible future cleanup). Lower River and Inner Harbor Sediment Seven alternatives were developed for the Lower River and Harbor. Al- ternatives 3, 5, and 6 were devel- oped by U.S. EPA and are not in- cluded in the FS. All alternatives other than Alternative 5 and 7 will require institutional controls to pro- hibit dredging and other activities in the Lower River and Inner Har- bor that would disturb sediment with unsafe levels of PCB contami- nation. Alternative 1: No Action. Similar to the No-Action Alternative for the Up- per and Middle River, nothing would be done in the Lower River and Har- bor under this alternative. Fish and waterfowl consumption advisories would remain in place until monitor- ing indicates they can be dropped. Cost: $0. Alternative 2: Natural Recovery and Monitoring. Sediment monitoring ev- ery 5 years and annual fish monitor- ing would take place for 30 years. Fish and waterfowl consumption ad- visories would remain in place until monitoring indicates they can be dropped. Cost: $1.2 million. A clamshell bucket similar to what may be used for dredging the Sheboygan River. The Dredging Process The exact dredging procedure will be developed during the upcom- ing design phase of the cleanup process. However, a typical dredg- ing and treatment process for con- taminated sediment is depicted be- low. The contaminated sediment will be dredged from the river bot- tom with a clamshell bucket (see picture at left). Then a filter press squeezes water out of the sediment, a process called "dewatering." The water is treated and returned to the river. The dewatered sediment is stabilized to make it easier to transport. It is then shipped by truck to a licensed solid waste or hazardous waste landfill. Dewatering is a commonly used technology to clean contaminated sediment. For example, the Lower Fox River site in Wisconsin, and the Manistique Harbor and Ford Outfall sites in Michigan have used dewatering. Dredged Contaminated Sediment wwwww ^WyNMAW Filter Press 6 Stabilizing Agent "Dewatered" Contaminated Sediment Stabilization To Hazardous Waste Landfill s ^ \ \ Treated Water ( ) I s? River Water Treatment 6 Example of Typical Dredging Process 5 ------- Alternative 3: Inner Harbor Sedi- ment Removal and Sediment Trap. Approximately 27,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment would be ex- cavated. A sediment trap would be installed to capture contaminated sediment and keep it from entering Lake Michigan. The sediment trap would also remove 3 to 10 percent of the PCB mass in the Inner Harbor. Cost: $16.2 million. Alternative 4: Inner Harbor Sedi- ment Capping. Approximately 35 acres of sediment in the Lower River and Inner Harbor would be covered with a geotextile fabric, 20 inches of course-grained stone, and 12 inches of 6- to 8-inch diameter stone. An- nual fish monitoring and 5-year sedi- ment monitoring would take place to evaluate the effectiveness of the cap- ping. Cost: $16.6 million. Alternative 5: Inner Harbor Sedi- ment Removal-Safe Navigational Depth (Recommended Alternative). Under this alternative, approximately 100,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment between the Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge and the Inner Harbor mouth would be dredged. This alter- native also includes dredging of the Inner Harbor to 14 feet and replacing the contaminated sediment with 2 feet of clean sediment to provide a safe navigational depth of 10 to 12 feet. Cost: $26.9 million. Alternative 6: Inner Harbor Sedi- ment Removal-Surface Sediment. Under this alternative, only the top 2 feet, approximately 117,000 cubic yards, of contaminated sediment would be dredged from the harbor and replaced with clean sediment. Cost: $33.4 million. Alternative 7: Inner Harbor Sedi- ment Removal. Approximately 960,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged between the Penn- sylvania Avenue bridge and the mouth of the Inner Harbor. The dredged sediment would be dewa- tered, stabilized, and disposed of in a WDNR-approved in-state landfill. Annual fish monitoring and 5-year sediment monitoring would also oc- cur. Cost: $340.7 million. All seven alternatives include main- taining the existing north and south breakwalls. The breakwalls protect Harbor sediment from Lake Michi- gan wave action and keep the highest levels of contaminated PCB sediment buried. Floodplain Soil There are four alternatives for clean- ing up contaminated floodplain adja- cent to the river: Alternative 1: No Action. Under this alternative, nothing would be done and floodplain soil would remain in its current state. Cost: $0. Alternative 2: Bank Soil Stabiliza- tion. The upper 12 inches of soil would be removed from the river bank (from the waterline to where mature vegetation starts). Areas sus- ceptible to erosion would be rehabili- tated to prevent erosion. Cost: $700,000. Alternative 3: Removal of Soil Con- taining More than 50 ppm of PCBs. Floodplain soil containing PCB con- centrations greater than 50 ppm would be removed and disposed of off site at a licensed hazardous waste landfill. Cost: $2.1 million. Alternative 4: Removal of Soil Con- taining More than 10 ppm of PCBs (Recommended Alternative). Flood- plain soil containing PCB concentra- tions greater than 10 ppm would be removed and disposed of off site at a licensed hazardous waste landfill. However, in some localized areas con- taminated soil with more than 10 ppm may be left in place to avoid impacts to high-quality forested habitat. Cost: $5.2 million. Ground Water Ground water at Tecumseh's Sheboygan Falls plant contains el- evated levels of PCBs. There are no other known areas of PCB-con- taminated ground water in the area. The four alternatives for addressing PCB-contaminated ground water are: Alternative 1: No Action. Under this alternative, natural processes would be expected to reduce/limit the ground-water PCB contamination over time. Cost: $0. Alternative 2: Investigation/Natural Attenuation/Source Identification and Control (Recommended Alter- native). Additional ground-water in- vestigations would occur to deter- mine the extent of the PCB contami- nation and the potential sources of the contamination. If additional sources of contamination are discov- ered, they will be addressed during the cleanup. Following this investi- gation, a decision will be made re- garding cleanup options including the potential for relying on natural attenuation (the natural breakdown of contaminants into less harmful components). However, if natural at- tenuation is inappropriate to clean up ground water, Alternative 3 will be selected. Cost: $600,000 (does not include cost of possible future cleanup). Alternative 3: Collection Trench and Treatment. This alternative includes collecting ground water in a ground-water collection trench, pumping out the water and treating it in the existing water treatment fa- cility at the plant. Approximately eight additional ground-water moni- toring wells would be installed. Ad- ditional investigation of hydro-geo- logic conditions at the plant would also occur. Cost: $1.9 million. Alternative 4: Facility Perimeter Cutoff Wall. Under this alternative, a wall would be built in the ground around the plant to isolate the con- taminated ground water. Five wells would be installed to pump the wa- ter to the surface for treatment. Ad- ditional investigation of hydrogeologic conditions at the plant would also occur. Cost: $3.7 million. Evaluating the Alternatives U.S. EPA used the following nine cri- teria to evaluate each of the alterna- tives described in the Proposed Plan. 6 ------- Evaluation tables (Figures 3-7) com- pare each alternative or set of alter- natives against these criteria. 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment deter- mines whether the alternative elimi- nates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment through institutional controls, engi- neering measures, or treatment. 2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require- ments (ARARs) evaluates whether the alternative meets Federal and State environmental statutes, regu- lations and other requirements that pertain to the site. 3. Long-term Effectiveness and Per- manence considers the ability of the alternative to protect human health and the environment over time and the reliability of such protection, in- cluding the degree of certainty that the alternative will prove successful. 4. Reduction of Contaminant Toxic- ity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment evaluates the alternative's effectiveness in the reduction of the harmful effects of principal contami- nants, their ability to move in the en- vironment, and the amount of con- tamination present. 5. Short-term Effectiveness consid- ers the length of time needed to imple- ment the alternative and the risks the alternative poses to workers, resi- Figure 3. Upper River Sediment Evaluation Table = Fully Meets Criteria = Partially Meets Criteria | | = Does Not Meet Criteria Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Natural Recovery / Monitoring Alternative 3-I 37% PCB Removal Alternative 3-I 68% PCB Removal Alternative 3-I 79% PCB Removal Alternative 3-IV 85% PCB Removal Recommended Alternative Alternative 3-IV-A 93% PCB Removal Alternative 3-V 98% PCB Removal Overall protection of human health and the environment ~ Compliance with Applicable or Relevant & Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ~ Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment Short-term Effectiveness N/A Implementability Cost $2.6 million $4.8 million $12.2 million $15.6 million $17.4 million $23.8 million $31.4 million $34.6 million State Acceptance The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the components of the recommended alternative and acceptance is withheld until after the public comment period. Community Acceptance Community acceptance of the recommended alternative will be evaluated after the public comment period. Figure 4. Middle River Sediment Evaluation Table 1 Recommended Alternative Alternative 2 Monitoring = Fully Meets Criteria = Partially Meets Criteria | | = Does Not Meet Criteria Alternative 1 No Action Overall protection of human health and the environment ' ' V//M Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ' ' | 1 1 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence I I V//M Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment I I 1 1 Short-term Effectiveness I I W//A Implementability Cost $0 $1.8 million State Acceptance The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the components of the recommended 1 alternative and acceptance is withheld until after the public comment period. 1 Community Acceptance | 7 ------- dents, and the environment during implementation. 6. Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibil- ity of implementing the alternative, such as the practicability and diffi- culty of construction, and the avail- ability of goods and services. 7. Cost considers the estimated capi- tal, operation and maintenance costs evaluated in the form of present worth costs. Present worth is the total cost of the alternative over time expressed in terms of today's dollars. 8. State Acceptance considers whether the WDNR agrees with U.S. EPA's analyses and recommendations of the studies and evaluations per- formed. 9. Community Acceptance will be addressed in the Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will include a re- sponsiveness summary, which pre- sents public comments and U.S. EPA's responses to those comments. Ac- ceptance of the recommended alter- native will be evaluated after the pub- lic comment period. Next Step U.S. EPA will consider public com- ments received during the public comment period before choosing a final cleanup plan for the site. All comments received during the pub- lic comment period will be addressed in a Responsiveness Summary, which will be included in the ROD. The ROD is the document that will outline the final cleanup plan. Figure 5. Lower River/Inner Harbor Sediment Evaluation Table = Fully Meets Criteria = Partially Meets Criteria | | = Does Not Meet Criteria Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Natural Recoveiy / Monitoring Alternative 3 Inner Harbor Sediment Removal and Sediment Trap Alternative 4 Inner Harbor Sediment Capping Recommended Alternative Alternative 5 Inner Harbor Sediment Removal ¦ Safe Navigational Depth Alternative 6 Inner Harbor Surface Sediment Removal Alternative 7 Inner Harbor Sediment Removal Overall protection of human health and the environment ~ ~ Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence I 1 Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ~ Short-term Effectiveness Implementability Cost $0 $1.2 million $16.2 million $16.6 million $26.9 million $33.4 million $340.7 million State Acceptance The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the components of the recommended alternative and acceptance is withheld until after the public comment period. Community Acceptance Community acceptance of the recommended alternative will be evaluated after the public comment period. Figure 6. Floodplain Soil Evaluation Table = Fully Meets Criteria = Partially Meets Criteria | | = Does Not Meet Criteria Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Bank Soil Stabilization Alternative 3 Removal of Soil with greater than 50 ppm PCBs Recommended Alternative Alternative 4 Removal of Soil with greater than 10 ppm PCBs Overall protection of human health and the environment ~ Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ~ Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment Short-term Effectiveness Implementability Cost $0 $700,000 $2.1 million $5.2 million State Acceptance The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the components of the recommended alternative and acceptance is withheld until after the public comment period. Community Acceptance Community acceptance of the recommended alternative will be evaluated after the public comment period. 8 ------- Figure 7. Ground Water Evaluation Table = Fully Meets Criteria = Partially Meets Criteria | | = Does Not Meet Criteria Alternative 1 No Action Recommended Alternative Alternative 2 Investigation/Natural Attenuation/Source Identification and Control Alternative 3 Collection Trench and Treatment Alternative 4 Facility Perimeter Cutoff Wall Overall protection of human health and the environment ~ Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ~ Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ~ Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ~ Short-term Effectiveness Implementability Cost $0 $600,000 $1.9 million $3.7 million State Acceptance The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the components of the recommended alternative and acceptance is withheld until after the public comment period. Community Acceptance Community acceptance of the recommended alternative will be evaluated after the public comment period. For Additional Information Anyone interested in learning more about the Proposed Plan for the Sheboygan River and Harbor site is encouraged to review the information repositories for the site located at the Mead Public Library, 710 North 8th Street, and the Sheboygan City Hall, 828 Center Avenue, 2nd Floor. An Administrative Record, which contains detailed information upon which the selection of the recommended alternative will be based, is also located at the Mead Public Library and at the U.S. EPA Region 5 office in Chicago. For further information about this Proposed Plan or the Sheboygan River and Harbor site, please contact: Tom Short, SR-6J Remedial Project Manager (312) 353-8826 short.thomas@epa.gov U.S. EPA Contacts Susan Pastor, P-19J Community Involvement Coordinator (312) 353-1325 pastor.susan@epa.gov U.S. EPA Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Toll Free: 1-800-621-8431 http:www.epa.gov State of Wisconsin Tom Wentland Project Manager Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Re- sources 4041 North Richards Street Milwaukee, WI 53212 (414) 229-0853 wentlt@dnr.state.wi.us Henry Nehls-Lowe Epidemiologist Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Services 1414 East Washington Avenue, Room 96 Madison, WI 53703-3043 (608) 266-3479 nehlshl@dhfs.state.wi.us 9 ------- I 1 Mailing List Additions | If you did not receive this fact sheet in the mail, you are not on the mailing list for the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund Site. To add your name, or to make a correction, please fill out this form and mail it to: I Susan Pastor U.S. EPA Region 5 Office of Public Affairs (P-19J) 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Name Addre ss I Affiliation I I Once you are on the mailing list, you will automatically receive information from U.S. EPsl regarding the Sheboygan River and Harbor Site. oEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 Office of Public Affairs (P-19J) 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Official Business, Penalty for Private Use $300 FIRST CLASS ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED Proposed Plan for Sheboygan River and Harbor Cleanup This fact sheet is printed on paper made of recycled fibers. ------- |