U-ttrd 'jKMfaw
£pVi.T9rtJ!»r!if P"Tjs»eSon
*,qvvf
O^IM Ef
E'-<-;*nor *r«3
^•>-vd-u Hanias-i*
EP*?cor.:s.i^j;
,V"I !5M
«EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Novaco Industries, Ml
-------
tprftu f*t ^ r"" " 'w f.'w
TTifawT Kg. 'J
E?vROD/R05-a6/aD: 1
3 •tC"IKT s *CC«U'ON iO
4. Tl T(_« ANQ IMATITLC
SLjpERfvrra recopd qt Dzctsrcr."
fSovaco Ind-jstrieS/ MI !
5 «fPc«T o*n
Jtinii "y T . 1 Q\:*3 -fi
fl ON^ASiiA'iQN COS!
J. 4'uTf'ON.llil j
i irtipiPQ'nMtNO Q«5*^ f A?'C* "!'0"T V."
B *|MFOMUINii OMQ*Nl2*^lCm K***i *NB 'OO'IU
IQ iP |H Q^ui n a!m £. l,4 M £ T s q
Ti""C£nr"Pi*CT.O^*^T t.O"""
I j 30^ntSQ"iM& minC' "<»M« AND *05'*0*»0*lk»G AQINC CCD*
~QQ/OQ
13 suPfUWNTJBf lOTIS
ir^iiTMCT
Novae© Industries l3 * one-tui Lduiq i scU i'-y t ":3t occupies a 2.5-acre ract sft-au; t
pare?* of :o=3ted at ft«lL Sur^erf teM Poad, at the intersection Appro* irate. -
sillier, o£ conta~ina*<*d -iro^nri watrf viii 2? ¦?*-.c •---<*d t *c-n ir.e 3csnrt '2?i - .
a
r*OT15
U no c«"»"*Cii
2Q jicum r' ClA»» , T'lil s*t*t
jjang
23 »*'Ct
|PA f«w]'|]l.l [ti<- <-771 m«vi«u» IO"'Ot
-------
iPA/ROO/R0S-36/032
fJovaco Industries, MI
16, AESTP-ACT (continual)
applying the mil«acont approach. local capital coac tar the selected
rcradia1 action is eatliMtsd -0 be S560.CCO with tota1 C^H costs
approximately $419,000 for & S-year f«c-od.
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site: Novaeo Industries, Temperance, Michigan
Documents Reviewed
T have reviewed the following documents describing the analysis of cost-
effectiveness of renedial alternjdves for the Nnvaco Industries site:
- Novate Industries Remedial Investlgit1Report
- Novaco Industrie' -easibil1ty Study
Description af Selected V iv_
- Groundwater Extr^tion
- Qnsite Treatment of Groundwater and discharge
«¦
- Operation and Maintenance
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Envlrannental ^spefse, Corpensati3n, ar j
Liability Act of 1950 {CERCLA}, and the Nationi! Cantinge-icy Plan (4D CF2
Part 300}. I have determined that Groundwater Extraction to Below Drinking
Water Standards viith Onsite Treatment ar.d Discharge at novjco Industries is a
tast-effectlve remedy that provides adequate protection of public health,
welfare and ttie erwironr,ent. The State of Michigan ha? beers consult~d anil
wlt.j uio Lpp.vjv^j remj. In addition,, vhe scticr, wi1 require fyt^rt
operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued effectiveness af
the re.iedy. These activities wi - De consider*- par: of the approved action
arid eligible for Trust Fund nonies for a p*niad dc I y^ar.
Onsite Treatment
Groundwater Extraction
Groundwater Monitoring
Abandon Monitoring No lis
-------
S-j-rnify of Ftereoial Alternative Select ieri
Novaco Industries
Temperance. Michigan
Site- locat_1qn and J3e s cri_pt tan
Novaco industries. Is a one-b-j 11 ^in5 fac"s 1 ity located at 9C11 Su-r-erf^ic
Road, at the intersection of Sumerf iel d end Pi eh 1, Temperance. Michigan
The site lies SO nUes south 0' Detroit a-.d 5 nlles ^crth of Toledo, Ona
(see figure 1}. and one mile north of La^bertvUle and 4 ni les west of
Temperance (see figure 2). The facility occupies a 2.fi-acre rectar.gul ir
parcel...
The Novaco Industries study area consists of Novaco tr.dustrl es, Veterans zr
Foreign Wars (VFW} Post 9555 and the Koyer residential property (see fisj^
3).
The site geology consists of glacial outwish sand? and gravels overlying
i ires tone bedrock at an approxirate depth af 25 feet. The weathered
1ir.estone zone ts underlain by relatively competent 1irestone. Groundwater
occurs in both the shallow sand and gravel/weathered limestone aquifer and
the deeper competent Irestone aquifer. There is a hydraulic potential for
downward leakage into the limestone aquifer which is intensified by the la:*
of a day or inperyiojs till layer separating the aquifers. The flow
direction in both aquifers is toward the north, northwest.
The site is bordered, on the north, east ard sojth by residential and agricul-
tural areas and an the west by the V'eterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post ,
The study area is relatively flat and grasscovered.
There is no public sewer or water within one mle of the No*aco Industries
study area. Appropriately 65 residences, located within 1/2 ni1e of tie
site, have private wells and septic tanks. In the dowr.gradierct groundwater
flow direction and within 1,000 feet of Ncwaco Industries, tnere are e^nt
nones and businesses thait have individual water supply wells located in * ^e
sand/gravel aquifer or the lirestone aquifer, or are screened across scti
aqulfers,
SUe History
A helow-grourd plating tank located w'thin the Novaco 'nrlvstries bu i1d ^:
leaked an unknown quantity of cnrcnic acid into the groundwater on or Le*.-T
June 13 . 1979J. Witnin 24 days fol Ic^ir.q Novaco industries detection c' :-
C C! * , Ci.r^.!flUi~IWZj • , jV'« J ' il-i a'' f.Jv-LCO j _ « ™ s v ~ ~ >- r ft ~ 1 1 ¦ 1 ~ ^ ~
VFW Post's well which is screened in both the shallow and deep aqui ferA
year 1 ater» chroni j~i was detected in tne residential we1-1 west of the . ¦ •«
P as t. This w
-------
o S id MiJ»i
t
-i-
0 S 10 15 Kiipwi'i mi - a
LOCATION
NQVACO INCLST5 IS *S
-------
FIGURE 2
VICINITY MAP
VOVACO INDUSTRIES f-S
-------
j Jitl HnfCfT
0
$ «int^Bli-aHrn6«N^!-ri.l, UK.*r*>-*
K^ogy ind ifwlrpflflMiil, lnc>
ill n. R j^^tON I
m&-6&09-01
iawu uotm* «u#
p*m IB— S®"-WI
»mi(B p. HElS
H&VACQ H4DU3TTMES TEWfllMlCt, Ht
~ *J,n kNa HUiilli
-------
Fron until \Sdl, the Michigan a-part.-wnt of Natural Resources luy*V; 3rd
tSe rcon«*ge County Health Department monitored tne groundwater. No ad.i't i c.al
„•-?! 1 5 were to a& CCrtanl njt^d d'jrir] th^t period, and chrciVjn concen-
trations in the three wells ior.ed above, jererally declined, Howeve",
heitavalenL chronitii concent rat. i an s were r.ea sjrQd jp to J-M ,'lLlO "nlCrogra~s per
liter (ug/1) dun nj this ti-*re. Tne Federal drink inj water Contan nant
Level for cnromurn is St) ug/1.
NovatO Endustri.eS. [nc. was dis^ol^ed by tne MicMydn Department of Ca~rarce
on juiy 23, 1983. It is believed that fiovaco transferred its .5-ss.e's to
Bedford Indust'-i es, Inc. in 1235, which ;n turn has leised the land and
building to TM• Industries* Inc. The operators, of TMI „ tr.c. ar£ Terry did
Glen Pjrsil and Dflrryl 3rac't cT*Qniui
concent rat ior.s were detected, Total zhrani jn concent r*: '.c.s wert? detected
t..?l«3w the typical background level of —jst soils o* ICO parts pe~ million
» - ¦ r*--- <¦ ^—,Trz V'""? *. ¦• ^ '* - '' "
an.j f ron monitoring usl's ^-!- ,• *.« :i S.J-'i, and iCiin fro- :JaviCO in'jjSw >
new wall on April 211 llz*. Tr- sa-pies were ar-^lyzed for J.S. r;5". *.ror:.iry *r
ar.d organic priority pollutants. :
-------
EljriyTi was c£t?t^C-C-eO it concentratl ons above t^e fe:l^reC3.jse different 1 a&oratory rethods were
used {i.e., A.A. Furnace with a detection 1 i-i- for total chrc-^un of 0.5
ug/1 versus 1CP with a detection Hilt for total chrg.nl u* of 6 ug/l) ~ The
Central Regional Laaoratory (C^L) va^t ard he*a*jlent, Trivalent Is. tie
naturally occuri ng fan of chrsiiun ard Is relatively harnless. He*ava^ont
chroniu-i is nan-rade -and is toxic. Hexivi' ent chroni-jn is used in various
industrial processes sych as plating ay to parts (is .v^s done at tne Novaca
facility) . Evidence has shown that *arqe ii-OS-is of hexavalent chrcnijn in
drinking w-jcer cm cause toxic reactions, "he mjc-r h^mn health haz-jrJ rrz
hexavalent c^ra-iiur, ernes ingestion, altncugn it n.js been obse^/ed to
cause lung cancer and a vi-iety of respiratory conp!icat tons *n n-nans jft^r
it has Seen inhaled. Since tie path of e'i:.jn any concentration",
of chrome; however, the patent*jl exists for tue plji^ to ledt i^to tne
deeper aquifer and c^ntjni nat-j tne d r i n '< "i 15 wrter supply.
-------
Table 1
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION MONITORING WELLS
Tetai Hmvtlcru
Mcr.itorir.7 C*t* Cf.recai'jn Chrcr^i
"•11 Nurt«r
SmrbIiA
l-jq'U .
1 Lff / 11
kw :
1/71/6*
41
u u
12/J»/B4
i ll
It u
6/ii:»i
0.5'J
IS c
MV-2
4/21U4
<1
10 u
9
to f
irmts
C,5 V
12 U ¦
HV-2*
4/21/B5
0.5 U
J.D C
J/27/tS
0. 5 U
2 0 C
HK-1
4/23/14
3
10 -j
II/I8/M
4 C
10 y
6/11/BS
C.5 U
io y
»"-4
4/J3/84
61D
3 Zt5
I2/19/M
1,640
S,510*
:,s i'
:e t:
j/57/es
2.3
ID L?
K*"- * I
6/13/85
£90
150
J/27/15
420
«0
Sfh". 4b
6/13/»5
D.S. 'J
10 TJ
9/n/ti
0.5 y
10 U
KW-5
4/H/S 4
2 U
li c
12/iE/il
n
ic y
6/ii/es
0.2 u
10 u
Kv-Sn
6/1 3.'B 5
0.5 *J
is u
9/27/B5
0.3 I!
IS U
4/*4/?4
2 U
ID U
12/:i/bi
1
i: c
4/:2/bs
C.5 U
ID c
4/J5/B5
3.3
c
9/i7/fiS
0,3 "U
3D L"
KV-1
4/24/B4
fl
10 u
12/19/11
1
2 0 t
4 /! 3 / B s.
C.5 U
10 U
KK-a
4/2«/64
1,6*0
i rs:o
12/19/64
3,220
:,:«c
6/13/15
J00
11C
*/2?/>S
3?0
3*J
KW-J
12/19/14
6 Lr
15 U
6/15/65
D.S "J
1; v
MW--10
J2/1B/M
ID
ID -
6/U/a?
0.3 V
10 U
KV- 11
12/15/H
1 L*
;c v
6/12/1)
0.3 U
to y
WW-12
JJ/3I/B4
e U
io u
-
6/12/15
e*5 l;
io y
HK-13
12/I5/B4
I u
10 V
6/11/BS
c„s u
1G u
*?ct«l ar.d hexivj lent cf.rc^iw^ eerieenir« 5 ic^.i irt
-------
„ } -
Altemati ve Evaluation
5 'lirw.T.iw threats fro-1 and adcqy.n*ly protect against the s?reM
of contaUnited groundwater frci tie sand/«jravel aqul,er.
Q Adequately protect against current or future contact wltl ard
ingestion" 0f contaminated groundwater.
Alternatives tnat treat or dispose of hazardous substances
at an off si te facility.
2. Alternatives that attain applicable or relevant federal
putiMc health or en vi ron~ient al standards» guidance, or
advisories.
3. Alternatives that exceed applicable or relevant federal
public health or ervvifomental standards, G'JIddncet °r
advisories.
4. Altemati ves tnat prevent or ninlnue present or future
nl oration of hazardous substances and protect ng.nari health
jnd tne envi rcr.rent, nut do not at tan the applicable or
relevant federal public health or er'.viron-ental standards.
ijui dance* or advisories*
5. The '>a action" alternjti ve.
The SWftn alternators asseibled for screenit-3 ar-f listed in idSie 2.
fail invu ic-irunji s w w w ¦ 3
federal la* or policy. The categories include:
Table ?.
altemative 1:
No Action
Gro-jn^Hiter v.oni t :H -!.j and Alternative
Water Supply
Alternative 3 i
ij ro u r rf it tj r Extraction to Hr 'J at or
Standards with 3rt>site T'eafient and
Discharge
Alternative h;
irc.n'i^iSte'" i*tract ion to Or' nV "--j Uat^r
Stand iris w» *h 3 ff > i - -2 3*SP3M«.
-------
Alternative 5:
Ground*-iter £ ttractioi to 'Jrinkinj Water
Standards ifitn Onsite Treit.-ent and
Discharge ard Verticil IJarr iEnstil 1 acion
Mtenuti ve d iirDjncridtd- ion to 5 ug/l with OnsUe
Tre(i"nt,r>t and Discharge
h 31 e rr, a 11 VP 7 G ro j n dwat •? r Extract ton to 6 ij j/1 with jffsUe
01 spos.sl
The al'erndtives were screened for technical feasibility, envi r:n->?rt il
public hca*tl Irpdcts, and costs. After this initial screeni ng, alter*" it i
5 *as el ~ntrated because K did not provide greater protection to puOlic
health ana the en vi ronnent and cost about twice as ¦' 'jch as the Other
a 3ternat iv$? , Alternatives 5 md 7 were e11 r.i nited fceca-j s*> they ire stni*.ir
to alternatives 3 and -1 except for d 1 f f erect levels of c 1canjp, Altemati ve
3 and i were redefined to jCh 1 e»¦jg/1 (ahich is t'ne
Six*? as the Federal Standard)* but if fcdditi on the State uf
Michigan is authorized to retire cleanup to background
(less than D.5 jg/l for total dissolved chraniun S". Novaco
Industrles)« It is important to tleanup to hele«i c2ri.-,?' Vi.it t echnol-: jy csnnot be r-;
upon z o detect» a .?or? rpasonb le vkjjnjp objective ^ojld consist of i
of milestones as described beljw;
° v,t 1 ostone No. 1: The extraction ~joI I systt;r* wcu'd he ooe"t^-
until 5j ug/1 (or lo^er) tctal lisSo'v^d chroniji is achieve*
in every i j r 11 o r i n g ^ e 1 1 -and l.' .< t r .i c t '< o n •! 1 ¦.
-------
-ID'
" Ki Sestone No. 2: T m e? spending on the perfcrmnce
of tne extraction well system in achieving "<1 lestores No. I ind
2, U.S. E?A and MDNR wojld participate in the decision to can;1ny
P'jnp 1 ng« For Path alternative 3 and 4„ groundwater nonl to-*1 n$
would continue b-?ycr.d tne extraction period In ttileStone 2. "K-e
extraction wet Is, pumps, ana treatment p*» ant wauld rera*n in pt ace
for an additional period of ti^e in the event that chr cnn.n con-
centrations rise or new contaHnatien is d4 ^covered.
Alternati ves 3 and A incorpo-vt>? this ni1estone approach to^aQ'jifor c"!e?nijrj.
Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and £ were eval uated in det) 11 in the i~S [conststent ni
4Q CFR Part 300, 6 3 (, i) ].
The detailed assessment evaluated r.cre specifically the pubsic health and
environmental considerations, institutional considerations, and costs and
technical considerations, The technical evaluation 1ncluC«s performance,
reliaii 1 i ty, inplerientaPi 1 ity and safety-
Alternative 1: No Action
The "no action" alternative wo^il not require 4ny rtorlc to be dcre at the
sue* This alternative wo^ld not protect public neaUh and the envl rpn-e^t
because it mould leave a potentiil for further contamination of <-esi denti<'
wells»
Cost for Alternative * - Nc Action
Capital
U-t
Present Worth
; i • *,pp;.* i i,,* 2: r,r'"nr^.1 ~.or "?r>;* *»r inc *n:l A't^r"i ve Water 5;.,r"_?Vv
Alternative 2 includes gro'^ndwate- .-.jnitjr 1 ^ j ani installation of in a1, tern
mater supply to residents unose w-ills hec;^-? :ont3ni nated in the futu^ and
reasjre total chromigm concentrations over 5" >j'J 1 < -he alternative w jt
would be a public -jel I -system, shared orl vate or private wens. All
affected hcr^s ..-ould Pe served. Committed we'-5 -*3u-rt be abandoned. r,r
* a t o r nor' tDfi ng ,j 3 u 1 d ^e required; for a 3 0 - y e i r .1 -2 r% 01, eve^y S! < innf s.
Alt^augh -he al t*™ati vn wou^d provide ar'-?:tpl resiliences with a new pujj1
11 / p r i v a t e well systeii it wo j 1 d tfa not Zi 'O'.o v e the ch ro~.» '¦J"' ,rcn <¦
s 3 n dj 1" a v e 1 aquifer nor w©ul>i it prev"--' t-i-i; ~ ":riS 1 bl e mi j rjt i on of con^m!
jroundrtatef Into the limestone aquiNrt
i«*i.
^ i ? ¦
11 ^
-------
public *el 1 /private sy sten is a proven technology. T^e wel 1 s are -eisi ly
installed and const r-jct; on would take a few Jay a per we i 1. Tne .jl'.enr.iv.?
*cu 1J r.yt r^e-t the "axing^ concentration linits for ^ro.-nilwate- protection
under RCrlA. nor would It >»*t the U.S. £PA SraurdwAcer Protect 1 on Strjtesy
(!j'«Pb>» Tnis i s because cont.vnnati orv deternire.i to he a Hazardous waste is
a r*?suU of a chenical spill nust be narked in accordance nun 3C3A. Tne
;iixini nun cent ni nation for chra-niun tinker RC^A is 50 u>j/1 . which, is the- s 3^
.-is the Federal drinkifiQ water standard. The Ij'hPS classifies the cont J:"i "^t*
aquifer at Hass IK Groundwater c^edn^p of i Class II aquifer is subject t
current requirements under 3 C R A.
In addition, the alterrati ve would not tm» Michigan Water RescjrcMS
Csxntssion Act Z*5. This Act eStablisnes water quality standards a-d give';
the State of K1cftf?an tne autnority to -urnt<3In groundwater quality t^ re1..]*
issuance of an hPQES permit. It also requires cleanjp $f groundwater to a
level which reets their "nor-degrKaticn" policy- Degradat ion is de^neal ft'?
a chanje in groundwater quality f ron lotal hacicgruund conditions. Und*r
authority of this act, tie Mm* could detemine that the .groundwater at tne
site does not meet the standards of the act and require cleanup to bact^r^un
level s..
Cost for Alternative 2: Groundwater Moritorirq and Alternative Mater Supply
Capital
*0«:i
?r*jsent Worth
S $,000
a,200 - 23.030
97,020
Alternative 3: Groundwater Extract ion to 5e1qw Drinking Hater Standards wv
flnsi te~Treatner>t and Discharge
Contanlnated groundwater would be e*tract*G f**on tie 53rd/qnvel aqjifer
until total chroniun concentrations rer-ai ni -ig in the aquifer are be' z<* th-*
erinking wat?r standard of SO 'jg/1. f>*t~ic"ed u.iter would se treit^d
onsit'l tiy elect rcchenl ca 1 r$duct1on/ion es.ci-in^ polishing And then discur
to Indian Creek. Alternative 3 includes groundwater extraction,
treatment and disposal, groundwater "c.: t o H n $ £>"d tne a^andon-n^nt of ~)f' -
¦„el 1 s. Sludge left over frcn the treU^nt process K assj^ed ts hazar;j
jnd requires disposal in 3 hazardous msf? 'a.-Jf 111 subject to co-.pl •:
Sa-rpHng of the siui^e wi'. 1 ieter.nin^ if -• t 15 ^jr^aus. The alternative
£ 1 *?ctrochei-iicat redact1 on jirirary tre<3t ..'Ojld effectively remove ^e*iv~
cnroil'j-i frc- the extracted grojr.1.ot-;r to concentrations fce'Ovr :>D ' 1 i" :
trivalert chroniji concentrations to> ICO j$/«. len exchange
w^gld furtner reduce the n* 1 a v a 1 e ~ t c h r 0 -11 u i concentrations ts 'b ^ 10 m 5 j,,-
This «djTd r^^ve the threat tc pu^Hc health and t'ne env 1 r0nient.
" 0 A ri costs are expectV-i to vary over 3 ,ienod of several ^enrs; t^e'd^*;,
a ran<55 froo the lowest cost to tne hignest cost "s licljc-i'i in aK
tables.,
-------
Groundwater extraction wells are commonly used to remove contaminants from
aquifers at hazardous waste sites. Onslte treatment by electrochemical
reduction is a proven and reMable technology. Extraction welts ar.d the
onsite treatment plant are easily installed, The construction time 1 s
estimated! to be 1 to 3 months, Groundwater extraction would occur eve" a
3 to 4 year period. The groundwater qual-.y m alternative 3 wojld -nee*, the
raxisi-jrn concentration Unit for chromium under RCRA which Is the same as the
drinking water standard, Tne alternative would also meet GUPS water goals/
Discharge to Indian Creet n>jst neet the technical requi renents of the SPD£S
program. - The Hlchigan DNS has indicated they will issue a Michigan PoHutar
Discharge Eltnination System (M^GES) permit to themselves to cover this
action at Novaco. It appears that the proposed discharge should meet tie
discharge requirenents. In addition, construction of the Header pipe and
discharge pipe will require a quarry pernit to authorize excavation, and
canst ruction of the outfall structure in Indian Creek would require a dredc^
anij fill pernlt.
The Hater Resources C omission Act 245 and the Michigan Environmental Prote:
Act 127 give the MDTiR authority to require cleanup of the groundwater to
achieve certain groundwater quality standards* Act 127 states that no one s
pollute, i.T.pa1 r, or cause ham to the environment. The state has the author
to determine if allowing the contaminated groundwater to rena1n at the site
would be inconsistent with this Act. Under this alternative the total chrcr
concentration In the groundwater would be reduced to below 50 ug/1„ ft Is
expected that MDr<¦? wiil Interpret these acts to require clean-up to bark.5rcj
water quality conditions and find the proposed cleanup insufficient without
Milestone approach.
Cost for Alternative 3; Groundwater Extraction to Below Drinking Water
Standards with Qnsite Treat rent, and Disposal "
Capital SS6D.OO0
OiM 8,030-95,001}
Present Worth S33? .037
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction :o Below Drinkinq Water Standards
wUh Off site Disposal ~ '
Alternative £ would clean up the aquifer to belo* drinking water standard'.
wcu fsJ Dr es,ti'act£d $; on trie sind/^ravel aquifer unt
total chroniun concentrations remaining in the aquifer are below the dri nki-
water standard of 50 ug/1. The extracted: vuter would be disposed of at cue
South f-?ri
3, affording the sa^e protection.
Groundwater extraction we?! s are coTcn',/ used ta rerove ccntamtnants from
aquifers at hazardous waste sites installitign of a sewer is a praven a-
reliable technology. The we'ls and sewer are easily Installed with conserve
tine of about 6 months,
-------
The extracted groundwater would tit disposed 3f through <1 force1n at the
Soutn Monroe County h'WTP in Bedford Township, If alternative h is selected,
5ev£rsl problens arid potent 1 a 1 sojrces o' additional costs srise. First. <-¦*•?'
he*a*alent chromSun concentrations in the extracted groundwater are expected to
exceed The Monroe Ketropol itan Water Pollution Control Systen Industrial
Pretroatnent Standard of & ug/1, U.S. EPA would be required to obtain i ^ai «er
fro-n thi-s regulation in irplenenting this reiedy. Furthermore. the WrfT? does
want to accept this waste because the corttaiinated water nay affect their si u-^v
management prpgran, Presently the plant receives 1 ittle industrial waste and
consequently produces a sludge that is used for cropland application, wneroas
tiie chront-jn cantrifelted by the groundwater pulping progran is not expecteJ^tc
render tlie sludge hazardous* it nay warrant re-eva1 uation of tne practice
cropland disposal. A1though this alternative appears less expensive than
alternative 3, there are hidden costs* If Bedford township needs to change
their sludge nanayerent practice as a direct result of accepting the waste
frQ-i the Novaco site, they would require a written guarantee f ron U.S. EPA
that the agency would pay for such a progran did a cash bend to support tie
The groundwater quality in alternative i would reet the naxirui concentration
Unit for chro:* ->iy .'j, :-c d^p. >s,-ia i c .; \> r_,iv c, , --
tjovico because it identifies nixirun concentrations 'or constituents m
crojr.d^ater. Itie maxingn :oncentracion for ciro;-iun under RCRA is .'J ug. K
which also is ttie prinking water stano^. Tne no action and the ¦jreunfiwat^^
roni tori ng and alternative water S-Jpply j^'ernatwes would no^ he in.
wi'.h tMe concentration Units recui <"ed under RC3A. Alternatives 1 and -
would not tie in compliance wSch tne because th^<-e wculd not be any
cleanup either to drinking wate^ standards or bjckgrojnd.
guarantee.
Capital
0AM
^resent Worth
S56Q ,0CQ
8 ,003-23 .COO
5S33.065
-------
-14*
snail pollute, inpair, destroy, or otherwise cijsa ham to the enviro-rent.
This act can be intefpr^ted broadly .*r, d the SR ray conclude ma>, the ua^a^o
[ndu&trios stud/ area violate-; this act because the contain itu i groundwater
j npa 5 r J, destroys, or otncrvise causes h,j-n U Me en/ir^vwnt.
The Water Resources C o i * i s s i Dr. Act Z^S autncri^el the (adopt-on if *4ter >,ise^ on a ;>o >i cy of
"nondegradhiti en." Degradation H defined as a change 11 groundwater qual \ '.y
frar: local bac' s - -
0,5 >jq1) r.i'jjnt "he reac ied in 13 to 13 years, Provisions are ". r_1 uded 1 n
alternative 2 to provide residences with new wel 1 s snould their existirg :
be cone conta i' nated in the future.
The major health concern associated with both A":e *nit ives 1 a^d Z is tha.
hnxivalent chr?-1un night nitrate dowruard fro i tn-? s and/gr^e1. aouJ • er^-.r- ¦
c-ic- "1 cqu*. 1 e r. .iert'iy, th^ lir^scgne c^r t3i-, .0
c'nro-ilun, Host residential wells in the vicinity of Movaco Inc^stnes • ri.v
frj-y the 1 'l-snitone aquifer. The potcnt^l for cr-;ss-cortanint'en v-
aquifers exists s^nce ther^ is no extensive cl.?y liyer present b-neat1".
r;ovaco Industries study area anc! a dowward hy-3'i-jl i: gradient exists. M -
pot^it ^at vipacts of al t ^rnat v/-?s 1 and 2 ^re that surface water q'ja i ty 2 ¦ ^
aquatic life ^ay be adversely 'Jficlnd should cont-ninatec gr
into Indian [r^kt ard that restrict iyns nay 10 be p • JceC on t. e i0C 1 -1
of future residential ^Hs, ^Iso, iltemati ves : and 2 wojld not ceet jp?-.'
federal ir-i state regulations Mclgding RC^At tne U.S. EPA jU3S. '^c^ ¦}!.*
tnvironnental ^rote-f-ion Act 127. ano ife :^cMgm .Jater resources
Act 245. For these r?asnnsT iltemat 1 ves 1 aid 2 were el inlirit-;d.
-------
- 15 -
Alternatives 3 and a w^ulc; cl^an uo the sa^d/gravel jqyi'ef by *>d groundwater onsi'.-? w> tn itischir^e to
Indian Creek; (A11 e mat * ve 3} or dispute if tne -jnt rested, e*tractert grojn ;¦„ iMr
to CMC South Monroe County Wastewater Treatment p*,jnt {:."^TP) (Alternative c-.
The tine req-jired f Qf eitner jl ternati v>? 3 cr 4 to dean gp the aquifer 15
est indeed at 3 to 4 years.
3otn alternatives remove chroiiun fry. the ¦jrcundwatsr ar..j achieve tie 5.1 re
lev^l of cleanup * s th ir. 'he sane d~e fra-ne, Alternatives 3 aid <1 pro/i"?
the treatment and disposal af extracted groundwater using technologies that -are
reliable and protective of public health and tne envsronrent,
ClIternative 4 has a disadvantage in that the 1n1t1.il xaxi-njn expected discni*-;^
concentrition far hexavalent chrc^iun exceeds. KVJTP's pretreatnent standard
(i.e., 300 ug/1 versus 5 u 9 /1 allowable). F-urthemore, the Wl.'T3 offici al S live
stated abjections to receiving extricted groundwater frcn the Novaco Ind'jSt'i•'< i
5 f te, because the additional chroni'„n waste 1oad might adversely irpact Souti
Monroe County's "hWTP's current practice of disposing of its sludge on cropl m
See Table 3 for d cost S'.-riafy,
Recomerded Alterrati ve
The National 31T and Hazardous Substance^ Contingency Plan (NC?) £43 CPR
300.c3(j) ] states that the appropriate extent of remedy sh-jll be determine i
th« lead agency's selection gf the rer^dial r.easure which the agency deter-;
is cost-effective (i.e., the lowest cost alternative th.it is technologies1/
feasible and reliable 2nd *nicn effectively nitigates and ninir-izes damage
and provides adequate protect lor. of pjblic healthy wel f a re, or the e^vi r-ar -a't .
3,jsed on the evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of each p^ooosed a . e * ¦ ¦ j 1'
the cements received frcn the public and the HONS, the following alternative
has been determined to be cost-effective as defined by the SC?:
Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction tp Below printing Hater Standards wisn
Jnsite Treatmentand Pi sposa 1,
An extraction weHfield, a treatment slant consisting of elect^cne^ci:
reduction, precipitation, filtration, and. ion .*t and he - 1
Creek, applying the 1 estjr-1 ap^reich.
y. temati ve 3 will provide severj- ^en^f'ts inclgo-ng:
* ?enova1 of chrjii ji ccntiii nation ""n the sj-nd/grav-1
aquifert thjs prote:tlnj the lower H~^stone ^quif^r
0 Cleanup ttne of app'-o*irately 4 years
-------
A1 terriiiU vc
Mo Alii an
liruurnlw.1 ¦ Miin tr •>!"> flj
.-.nil Allerruit, i vc 1" -Ujr
Gra-jniUJJler Eatra tion to
1-L'tLW l)rink lmj Ui-IlT
J>L jrnUrsIs w i tli Ui iL^
I rc ,i t niij i> L .1 rs-:1 I Hi :o\*l
lirouniJwitlt Ls.tr.' tiun to
lit'low Drink intllW
264,000
T a_b I c 3
Cost Suitij ry
Present Worth
- 0 - - 0 -
Si 12yfif)fl/2D yrs S
-------
® Elimination of the potent'a I for r-^nlc-Ua i ingestion
of corHani rrated gro'.-ndnate'"
* £1 intnatiorv of the need to place restrictions on fit jre
¦well construct ion
u Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regul ations i ncludtng RC3A, ;he 'J,S. E?A draft GW^S,
Hater Resources Comisstcn At: 245, Xichl "]an Environ-
repeal Protection Act 121, N?3E5 pi"'-, find ar-Sient
water quality criteria*
The capital cost of th1s .sHernat 1»e is 5550,000. Tne State ot Mich 1 gan aqf^es
to contribute ten percent of the remedial action.
Alternative 3 and 4 afford the saie protection nut alternative 4- wo-j'd o* in
violation of the VitJIP's pretreatnent standard';. U.S. EPA wpyld be required tg
obtain a waiver fron the WliTP standards if alterrative 4 wore selected. S'-cK 3
waiver is lively to be opposed oy h^TP official who ire not presently railing
to accept the extracted groundwater due to its irp*et on the^r slodoe "iinageren
prograi. F1 nd H y „ U*S.. EPA is developing pol icy proposing thdt CE3CLA di scKar$
10 a U.vTP snotj 1 d he in fuH corp 1'. jnce witn C te treatment, and *el 1 abandon-en*. Z' 15 rcnito-i r:;
we'Is. Annual OAK costs are based on bO-^on flcwT ZZ ^our per day. 355 d3ys
per year. Table 4 shows tne breakdown of QSH costs.
CpT-iinity delations
Copies of the F5 were rade available to the public on r*ay 9. 19^5. The "'onr.:-?
Cogftty Health Departnent ar-d the Bedford Tow-snip Munic -pal Bvild'ng serve J .is
"epositories for thts docu-er.t. The r"NR issues a press re'eases *n tne
Monroe Evening Ne^s and the Toledo 6"ad* mr 0 jn: q the dates of the pj^lic
cornent period and the puhi i ; reeti n$.
The hi hUz re^lmi was r^M or "-y 'J, i-vaft, -;t tv-w «»11 L;^-t-^l-£.
11 jt.ii* r.hgrg- i r pmy^rty value i-1" 1
yhj wsuM 11 iy *>r the c ^e-ir.jp. It was requeste;1 ^t. tne '>'*ec mi; to include
tre Mor.rce County Public Library, 3^ J for.j To .vn v n * p branch, .js 1 r p p 0 s 11 n >"y
since it H open in the evenino. Tnis wis ¦ """eJi-3'.ely.
-------
-H-
Table 4
Clr.&ite Trea*~ent {Alternative 3)
labor
Material
Sl'Jdcje Disposal1*
Poa-ir
Backlash Q1sposal
S43.DOO
6,000
3,000
7,-3.10
16,000
P;j ,000
Groundwater Extraction
Ponltoring (seven points) S5.0QD
Powe r 1,000
P .Doo
Groundwater Mop 1tonig
S3 ,000
Abandon yonitorlnq WgHs
SIS.000*
Currently CE^CLA requires that the 0.5. EPA pays 90 percent of OiH for the fi
year, fltauthortzAlign pay require tne agency to pay 90 percent or 0&M e^pa^
for the first five yei^s.
STgl^e a s s j i e £ t a ae hard rcio u s an J j 1 d require special handl in] and c ^
dlsposal.
*KTt
-------
A,HhO'jL}h m.joy concerns ware jjresented And question-: as«-ed, for-ul c?t^" s,
either verbal or written, mere no" Suani tted. Eecajse of this, a respon-
s 1 veness suTinary does n-)t accoipar.y tn i s J o c u » n t.
£nforcedent
A prellninar^ search for resp^ns^ble parties regaled that Sava^ InJustne*
nC4 defunct. The details of the transfer of its isset> i^nd 1'• abi«iti es i ir
as yet uikflown „ but the property 1 s preset swned siy sed f o^.1 , .-j-jstri^s,
wHich in turn leases U to T^' Industries, ire.
Tne U.S. RPA sent out .lotice and Information, Request letters on '»
1935 to identified Potentially Resptnsi&le Parties (RSPsh loiters *er?
retjrned undated aid responses were rot received from tna other t*s. Lett
rtere sent to: (1J Darryl Brooks* famer principal of Navacs In^stries; •, Z,
Novaco Industries, Inc.; {3) Tf tj Industries, Inc.; ar d [i) ftcbe^t
Registered Aci^nt for Bedford Industries and TMI Industries. Darryl arcsts
contacted U.S. EPA In late February, 19S5, re.;jesting a r.eeti nj to ¦I'.scjss ^
act Wities at ths site. A ^e&tin3 was set for '-".1r c h 3, 1936 In ^h.icaio, ^-
Mr. Brooks failed to attend. There has been no further contact with -iln
despite repeated attempts.
Q'je to t^e unwtl 1 i nijnes 5, of the PRPs to r*&po"d to '^S E^A inquiries* 1* is
recontended that Super'und -nunles te cbl igated for the site so that reiedia
measures nay be undertaken.
~Schedule
Complete Enforcenent Negotiation? 04/10/36
Approve Remedial Action 06/2.' '15
A*ard I AG Contract for Design 07/01/36
Star: Design Q7/o;/^d
& . t•ifj7
Complete Design
Award 1A3 Contract for Construction D-"-/QX ="i>
c.-r t '"onstrjrt ior*
Complete Construction
- i / >y E 7 -
35/:i/9i
~ The current schedule ml* be ef'ecti vo if fu-i'i a .'SUabie f.jr^i* • ^ % 11
pending reauthor 1 iJtion. If funds are 1st av^li-1^ a r.e* scned'jia . ¦ *
developed»
Future Actions
aroundnater r-'oni*_dHng -vtH cont^je t*a yeorj e*truction '5 -v
Fifteen xon 1 taring wells rvt 11 be ihinita'-^d.
------- |