FOSTER, SWIFT,COLLINS & SMITH, p.c.

0 0 0 0 0 3 5

CHARLES E. BARBIERI(517) 371-8155

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

313 South Washington SquareLansmg. Ml 48933-J193PH (517) 371-8100FX (517)371-8200

May 16, 1991

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL & FEDERAL EXPRESS

Mr. Dan O'RiordanUnited States EPARegion V (5PA-14)Office of Public Affairs230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. O'Riordan:

Re: Proposed Plan For Remedial Action,Verona Well Field Superfund Site(February, 1991)

We are writing this letter on behalf of Thomas SolventCompany, Thomas Solvent Company of Detroit, Inc., Thomas DevelopmentCompany, Thomas Solvent of Indiana, Inc., Thomas Solvent ofMuskegon, Inc., TSC Transportation, Inc., Richard Thomas, and LethaThomas (hereinafter the "Thomas parties") to provide you with publiccomments for purposes of a proposed plan for remedial action for theVerona Well Field Superfund Site (February, 1991). We understandthat public comments will be received through May 24, 1991. Wewould ask that this letter, along with its enclosures, beincorporated into the administrative record for purposes of therecord of decision for the site.

On behalf of the Thomas parties, we would indicate thatserious questions exist about whether the recommended remedialalternative is legally or factually justified and consistent withthe National Contingency Plan. In fact, the Thomas parties do notagree that the preferred alternative is necessary, appropriate,cost-effective, or consistent with the National Contingency Plan.The Thomas parties attach a memorandum prepared by Joseph D. Ritcheyof Heritage Remediation/Engineering, Inc. as Exhibit 1 and amemorandum prepared by ERM-North Central, Inc. as Exhibit 2.

In a nutshell, the comments contained in the HeritageRemediation/Engineering, inc. memorandum raise serious questions asto whether the remedial investigation warranted the types ofalternatives that were considered as a part of the feasibility study,Specifically, without waiving what is more fully stated in theHeritage Remediation comments, we believe that the risk assessmentmade unsubstantiated assumptions which overstate the risk at the

FOSTER, SWIFT,COLLINS & SMITH, P.C

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

Mr. Dan O'RiordanMay 16, 1991Page 2

site. For example, and without limitation, we would note thatassumptions about resumed use of allegedly contaminated privatewells, the persistence ot contaminants from the source to anyexposure point, and duration of any exposure are unproven. Theoverstatement of the risk has led to the consideration ofunnecessary remedial options. In addition. Heritage Remediationdoes not believe that a proposed new blocking well system is neededor cost-effective. In addition, alternatives that were consideredwere oversized and excessive in cost.

In addition, the comments offered by ERM reiterate that"the continued operation of the Verona Well Field has resulted insubstantial exacerbation of the groundwater plume from thecontaminated sites'* and that treatment of the contamination at thesites will not eliminate or significantly affect the existinggroundwater plume. In addition, ERM concludes that the treatment ofremaining contamination does not provide any meaningful reduction inrisk. ERM also avers that a Type B cleanup, as defined underMichigan's Act 307 rules and as recommended in the feasibilitystudy, cannot be achieved. ERM also submits that any remedy otherthan the continued operation of the blocking well system andgroundwater monitoring would not be cost-effective and consistentwith the National Contingency Plan since the remedy fails toconsider the absence of any evidence of contamination bypassing theexisting blocking system and depends on biased estimates of the massof contamination remaining on the sites.

In short, the Heritage Remediation and ERM commentsdemonstrate that the preferred remedial alternative identified bythe EPA is inappropriate and inconsistent with the NationalContingency Plan. Again, we would ask that this letter and the fulltext of the Heritage Remediation and ERM enclosures be incorporatedinto the administrative record and considered during the record ofdecision process.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free tocontact this office.

Very truly yours,

FOSTER, SWIFT, CQLLINS & SMITH, P.C.

harles E. Barbieri

CKB/bnmEnclosurecc: Craig Hupp

0 4 - 1 2 91 1 3 : 5 6 O4 1 9 47S 47)60 Herltane tnv Ser lg]002

HERITAGE REMEDIATION/ENGINEERING, INC.

5656 Opportunity DriveToledo, OH 43612Phone: 419/478-4396FAX: 419/478-4560

April 11, 1991

Mr. Michael WellmanFoster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.G.Attorneys at Law313 South Washington SquareLansing,MI 48933-2193

Re: Review of RI/FS Thomas Solvent Annex and Grand TrunkPaint Shop, Battle Creek, MIHR/E Project 60002

Dear Mike,

As per our discussion on Tuesday April. 8, 1991 we have prepared the attachedmemorandum regarding our review of the Public Comment Draft Feasibility Study reponfor the Verona Well Field prepared by CH2M Hill. As indicated previously these commentsdo reflect comments on the Remedial Investigation repon and associated TechnicalMemorandums prepared in 1990.

If you have any comments or questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,Heritage Remediation/Engineering,Inc.

LrfUf^K

/Joseph D. Ritchey,^/Engineering Manager

attachment

91JR2045.T1

04/12 91 13:56 ?J419 47S 456o .Heritage Env Ser 3)003

HERITAGE REMEDIATION/ENGINEERING, INC.

5656 Opportunity DriveToledo, OH 43612Phone: 419/478-4396 MEMORANDUMFAX: 419/478-4560

Date: April 11, 1991

To: Charles E. BarbieriFoster, Swift, Collins & Smith

From: Joseph D, Ritchey, P.E.Heritage Remediation/Engineering, Inc.

Re: Review of RI/FS Thomas Solvent Annex andGrand Trunk Paint Shop, Battle Creek, MlHR/E Project 60002

The following comments pertain to the Public Comment Draft Feasibility Study (FS) reportfor the Verona Well Field prepared by CH2M Hill. These comments also pertain to theRemdial Investigation (RI) report (August 1990) and associated Technical Memorandumsprepared in 1988 and 1989.

To summarize, our comments focus on the alternatives selected for detailed analysis. Theapproach taken seems to have been excessive without consideration of what is practical inthe estimates. For example, a no action alternative was considered, however, it wasrestricted to an alternative without institutional controls. We believe that if these controlswere imposed a more realistic evaluation could be made.

Prior to comments on the FS we present comments on the final RI.

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

Page 2-4 indicates that all domestic users of affected ground water were connected to thecity water supply in 1984. However, it was also reported that some of the affectedresidences have resume use of their private wells for water supply. The number and locationof ground water users should be documented. If there are no users, then the ground waterpathway should be eliminated from the risk assessment. If the users are not in the directionof ground-water flow, then the pathway may still be eliminated.

Page 4-4 refers only to ground-water sampling performed in March and April of 1989.There were a number of sampling events prior the these dates including August, 1984.Previous work was conducted by Warzyn, but little of it is presented in the final RI report.The reason that other data was not used should be discussed.

91JR2045.T1

U4 I .i HI 1 .')..') T '£f 4 I :* 4/i 4 , i o u Heritage hnv M>r (£004

Page 4-39 contains the assessment of the Paint Shop. The report seems to consider only the"known" source at the drum pit. There does not appear to be sufficient borings or ground-water samples around the Paint Shop and Car Repair Shop. Analytical results from boring27 which show shallow contamination is not indicative of the drum pit as stated in the RIreport. Rather, the shallow contamination suggests a source underneath or west of the paintshop.

Page 6-2 indicates that the assessment was made assuming that the contaminants at thesource will persist at the same concentrations to the exposure point. This is not reasonablebecause the compounds are known to naturally degrade. The long distance from RaymondRoad to the well field is especially likely to show degradation.

Page 6-16 indicates that the assessment was made assuming that exposures would persist for40 and 70 year periods. These levels are unrealistically high. Calculations should have beenmade using the average stay of current residence of the area.

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Ground Water Remedial Action Objectives

Page 3-17 of the draft FS presents the remedial action objectives. Objective 1A is to limitground-water contamination at the Verona Well Field production pumps to contaminantlevels below the presented cleanup objectives. Objective IB extends this further to includethe entire aquifer to the same levels. These objectives are not practical. Water to theconsumer must be below these levels but not necessarily all water in the aquifer.

The presented table of cleanup objectives (Table 3-5) includes 1,1-dichloroethene and vinylchloride at 58 and 15 parts per trillion. These as well as some other parameters show riskbased values below the maximum contaminant level (MCL). MCLs should be used whenavailable because they are promulgated or proposed as acceptable limits for drinking water.The magnitude of the difference between estimated cancer risk goals presented in Table 3-5compared to MCLs suggests excessive conservatism or inappropriate assumptions in the riskassessment.

Soil Remedial Action Objectives

Objective 2B is to reduce source area contamination to levels that will prevent ground waterto exceed proposed cleanup levels. Using the TCLP is an appropriate approach forevaluating acceptable soils contamination levels. However, this is restrictive in that theproposed ground-water cleanup levels are not appropriate. We believe that the generalresponse actions should be altered due to a more realistic risk assessment as stated above.

91JR2045.T1

04 12 91 1 3 : 5 3 ^419 478 4360 Heritage Env Ser 31005

Disposal options for recovered water excludes the POTW, but retains surface discharge withpretreatment. If pretreatment is included, discharge to the POTW is a viable option thatshould be retained. Page 4-21 describes thermal treatment technologies such as low andhigh temperature methods. We believe neither method would be cost effective and bothshould have been eliminated at the secondary screening level.

REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Page 5-2 resubmits that the risk assessment considers future exposures near the source areasthat could result from ingestion of ground water downgradient of the sources or fromexcavation of contaminated soil. The likelihood of these occurrences with and withoutinstitutional controls has not been evaluated.

Page 5-6 and Table 5-2 present the sitewide alternatives. A number of additionalalternatives should have been considered. A number of comments regarding the alternativespresented in the FS are made below and followed by additional alternatives.

Comments to Alternative 1 (No Action)

Page 5-12 states that with continued pumping of the Bailey Park wells contaminants fromthe Annex may migrate around the western edge of the existing blocking well system. Thelow probability that this would occur does not invalidate it as an alternative. A monitoringprogram could easily be implemented to detect any migration of contaminants around theexisting blocking well system with sufficient time to respond with additional correctiveactions. The existing blocking wells should adequately protect the Bailey Park wells.Furthermore, maintenance to the blocking well system is unlikely to suspend its operationfor such a period as to threaten the well field.

Comments to Alternative 2 (Modified Blocking Well System)

A modified blocking well system is not demonstrated to provide sufficient benefit for its costwhen compared to other pumping systems. Its location makes it somewhat redundant to theexisting blocking well system. Its location also does not efficiently recover the mostcontaminated gruunu water irom the Annex. These comments are applicable to all of thealternatives including the blocking wells.

9UR204S.T1

04 12 91 I . 1 : i i 9 "ZJ4 1 9 47S

Cnmmems to Alternative 4 TTn Situ Soil Treatmentl

The evaluated SVE system is reported to meet the soil remedial action objective in a periodof 2 to 5 years. This system is likely over-sized for the applied locations. A system thatmeets the soil objectives within a 10 year period is more appropriate due to its flexibility.A pilot test system is included in the FS, but it is probably not necessary due to the availableexperience at the Raymond Road location.

to Alternative 5 and 8

Alternatives 5 and 8 utilize soils incineration techniques. Incineration is clearly operationallydifficult and costly and should be eliminated from consideration.

Comments to Alternative 6 (Ground Water and In Situ Soil Treatmentl

Pages 5-39 and 40 summarize the combination ground water and SVE alternative. Thisalternative is reported to take 20 to 30 years to achieve remedial action objectives. Thescope of this alternative must be evaluated to best cleanup soil and ground-water to moreappropriate levels.

Alternatives for Consideration

Soil: SVE

SVE is a viable method to achieve cleanup levels in the source area soils. Aspresented previously, the amount of effort required to meet cleanup levels is notestablished.

Ground Water: Collection and Treatment

Ground-water collection and treatment is practical if it is applied to the mostcontaminated ground water. If deemed necessary, one alternative would be to installrecovery systems at the source areas. A second alternative would be to have anadditional recovery system located in the most contaminated portion of the Annexplume (in the vicinity of Chapin and Brigdin Streets).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk assessment should be revised. Source control using SVE is likely to be an adequateremedial action. Recovering contaminated ground-water at the sources will enhancecleanup, particularly in the high concentration areas. Clearly, the proposed new blockingwells are not needed. The scope of the remediation systems seems to be excessive. SVEand ground-water recovery systems of smaller scope than those presented should beconsidered. Finally, the cost of all systems seems indordinantly high. A simple review ofdesign engineering costs indicated that at least they are exorbitant.

yUR2045.Tl

MRY-15-1991 13=56 PPOM EPM-NOPTH CENTPHL. TQ 15173718200——300 P.003/008

COMMENTS ON PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFTFEASIBILITY STUDY

VERONA WELL FIELD, BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGANFEBRUARY 1991

INTRODUCTION

The subject Feasibility Study Report (FS) presents remedial action alternatives for the VeronaWell Field Site in Battle Creek, Michigan. The intent of EPA and MDNR is to use the reportto recommend remedial action alternatives for the Thomas Solvent Annex and the Grand TrunkWestern Railroad Paint Shop. In particular, these comments are directed toward theappropriateness of the possible actions with respect to cost recovery in accordance with theNational Contingency Plan.

The FS describes three properties with contaminated soil and ground water, namely the CarDepartment Paint Shop, the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility, and the Thomas SolventAnnex. All three are reportedly contributing to a ground water plume that is drawn toward andcould potentially affect the existing Verona Well Field (VWF). This plume is currently capturedby a line of existing blocking wells, many of which were originally part of the Verona WellField System. At the time the contamination was first discovered an array of local, state, andagency decisions were made that resulted in the continued operation of the VWF. In tact, earlydecisions by City and State officials resulted In increased pumping of the Well Field, inaccordance with a poorly founded concept that this would "clear" contamination from the VWFarea. The increased pumping and continued operation of the Vcrcna Well Field instead severelyexacerbated the extent of the ground water plume and created a contaminated ground waterregion between the contaminated sites and the existing blocking wells.

Given the circumstances that have occurred at the VWF, it is not appropriate to assign totalresponsibility for the current extent of the ground water plume to the site owner/operators and/or

EnvtofmnM Unwwi t¥mmnMHt- North Cmtr4, tat

_tN : PhL • _ _i i "_ , i -iijid——vJdU P. 004/008

other PRPs. Notwithstanding this strong objection to the basic premise of the PS, the remainingcomments herein are presented with respect to specific issues in the subject document.

Page 6-6, second paragraph, states, "currently there is no risk to the environment, thusAlternative 1 and the following alternatives would continue to be protective of the environment/

We believe this statement is well founded and supported by other information within the RI andthe FS. The remainder of the description in the FS regarding Alternative 1, provides reasonswhy Alternative 1 is not believed to be sufficient

1. There is a possibility of contaminants migrating around the blocking well system."

While the current blocking well system was derived from existing ground water pumpingwells, the current data indicate that the blocking well system has prevented contaminationfrom affecting the operating VWF immediately adjacent. The "possibility" ofcontaminants migrating around 'the blocking wells will be addressed by ground watermonitoring which will be required in any event. If future monitoring indicates thatcontaminants are indeed migrating around the system, then the existing blocking wellsystem could be expanded, rather than abandoned.

2. "Alternative 1 would not reduce the 1 x 10"1 risk associated with ingestion ofcontaminated ground water at the Annex or the 7 x 104 risk associated from ingestionof contaminated soil during the excavation at the Annex. Thus, it is not consideredprotective of human health."

With respect to ingestion of contaminated soil at the Annex, on Page 4-16, secondparagraph, the FS states, "while the surface soil at the Annex does not appear to be ahealth concern, the subsurface soil (deeper than two feet) exceeds a 1 x 10* cancer riskand a hazard index of 1."

l MMB0CH NVMVHMfnt • NMth CntMt, bic

1ENTPHL -.1 _51^3718200——000 P.005/008

Firstly, the soil contamination of concern is deeper than two feet which according to theRisk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) is normally not considered to pose arisk for ingestion. Secondly, the Annex is considered to have a potential for sitedevelopment by HP A. On the other hand, the Paint Shop Area with contamination underan operating rail site is not considered to have such potential. This arbitrary partitioningof the utility of institutional controls is not justified. Therefore, the risk called out onPage 6-6 does not represent a realistic scenario, firstly, because of the depth of the soils,and secondly, that it presumes that the site has the potential for development simplybecause it is currently unoccupied.

The same concepts were also applied to ingestion of ground water at the Annex. Again,the viability of institutional controls is arbitrarily discarded without justification.

3. With respect to compliance with ARARs, Alternative 1 is stated to be inadequate becauseit would not address the continued degradation of ground water at the known sourceareas. It is noteworthy! however, that although the other remedies under consideration(Alternatives 2 through 8) provide for removal of some contamination through vaporextraction or other soil treatment and source area ground water extraction, they can notreasonably be expected to meet MCLs or MCLGs nor the requirements of Michigan Act307.

4. On Page 6-13, under the heading of Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume, theFS states, "Alternative 1 would not achieve any reduction in the extent of thecontamination of the source area." Since the source areas are subject to continuinginfiltration of water there will, in fact, be future reduction in the extent cf contaminationat the source areas. At a number of Superfund sites, this process of passive flushing hasbeen considered by USEPA to satisfy SARAs preference for treatment. Therefore, theobjection to Alternative 1 in terms of reduction of contamination of the source area isinconsistent with current Superfund practice and Records of Decision (RODs) at otherUSEPA Superfund Sites.

15-1991 13=53 ~cOn EFM-'iCp-- CENTRAL ~Q 151^3^13200——000 P. 006/006

5. On Page 6-13, under Short Term Effectiveness, the Report indicates, "Remedial ActionObjectives IB, 2A, and 2B would probably never be met."

It is noteworthy that none of the other Alternatives can reasonably be expected to meetremedial action objectives 2A and 2B, The data strongly indicate the presence of densenonaqueous phase layers (DNAPts) which because of density will be below theunsaturated zone. These DNAPLs will not be affected by either vapor extraction orother forms of soil treatment of the unsaturated zone and can not be expected to becaptured by on-site ground water pumping.

In summary, Alternatives 2 through 8 call for greatly increased levels of treatment of unsaturatedzone soils and on-site ground water. The justification is that these alternatives would mitigateon-site risks and would meet various remedial objectives that would not be met by Alternative1. The existing data do not support these contentions. Rather, the data indicate that the risksthat may be mitigated are completely hypothetical in nature, and there is no evidence presentedin the PS that Alternatives 2 through 8 will in fact, achieve the remedial objectives even thoughthey result in greatly increased remedial costs.

The FS also contains a number of irrational or inappropriate concepts of treatment processes andremedial activities.

1. On Page 5-27, it states that "during the first year of operation ground waterwould be pretreated with activated carbon before air stripping..."

This process scheme is irrational. Tne wsl U> lemove «. pound of contamination via airstripping is significantly less than with activated carbon. Also, air stripping does notproduce a hazardous residual as activated carbon does. There is no indication in the FSthat activated carbon is needed because of the presence of compounds that could not beair stripped. Rather, carbon is looked upon as the first stage of a two-stage treatmentprocess. An objective analysis of technology would indicate that the first stage should

13:5d =PGM EPM-NQPTH CEN~-~L ^C 15173718200——300 P. 007/008

also be air stripping and activated carbon should be used only to remove constituent* thatare not amenable to air stripping, which is not the case at this site.

2. On Page 5-32, it states that "The State of Michigan requires any VOC emission betreated with the Best Available Control Technology."

A Superfund remedy is intended to mitigate risk to human health or welfare to theenvironment in a cost-effective manner. In addition, remedial actions that are selectedat a Superfund Site are not required to conform with local codes or policies, nor to obtainpermits. No risk analysis was presented in the FS to justify the need for treatment of theair stripper off gases. In the absence of such risk analysis, the requirement for treatmentof air stripper offgases is inappropriate.

3. On Page 3-13 and 3-14, the Michigan Environmental Response Rules are discussed andit states, "For this site, HPA and MDNR have determined that a Type B Cleanup basedon protection of public health and the environment is appropriate. "

This selection was not made with any rational analysis of the nature and the extent of thecontamination, In effect, it requires the application of technology beyond that inAlternative 1 because of the possibility that a Type B Cleanup can be obtained. Acareful analysis of the existing contamination pattern and the risk associated with thatcontamination indicates that a Type C Cleanup is appropriate because the risk is baaedon hypothetical models of exposure and the contamination likely can not be reduced toType B Levels. The requirement for additional treatment technology with the potentialof achieving a Higher cleanup goal when that potential is net supported by objectiveanalysis is not an appropriate activity for an NCP cleanup.

4. The remainder of the treatment alternatives are predicated in large part upon theestimates of the mass of contaminants which are described in Appendix A. On Page A-3, Table A-l indicates the variance in estimates for the mass of soil contaminationpresent For the 6 to 12 foot depth at the Paint Shop and for all depths at the Annex,

north (4fitr(LMC

'.CNIKHL _ ir i . _," lo^tJid——dk)0 P.008/006

there is a very large range between the maximum and minimum amount of contaminationpresent (derived using the "jackknife" technique). When "jackknifing" produces a largerange, it is a clear indication that the contamination at the site consists of one or morehotspots with the majority of the site at a much lower level of contamination. However,on Table A-l, the mass considered to be present over the entire site is essentiallyidentical with the maximum estimate and therefore the "benefit" of applying additionaltechnology to the site is artificially enhanced. It is more likely that the actual mass ofcontamination is closer to that shown in the column labelled "Minimum," which is onlyslightly more than one percent of the "Maximum" estimate. The exaggeration of theamount of contamination believed to be present is a significant factor in technologyselection and has clearly biased the analysis of alternatives and presumably therecommended Alternative for the proposed plan.

SUMMARY

In summary, the continued operation of the Verona Well Field has resulted in substantialexacerbation of the ground water plume from the contaminated sites. Because of thisexacerbation, treatment of contamination at the sites will not eliminate nor significantly affectthe existing ground water plume. The treatment of the residual contamination remaining at thesites does not mitigate any meaningful risk, as only by assuming some hypothetical level ofdevelopment at some of the sites can any exposure be considered to exist. In addition, the FScalls for a State of Michigan Type B Cleanup, which in all likelihood cannot be achieved.Therefore, the additional components of the remedy beyond those in Alternative 1 (continuedoperation of the hloeldng well system and ground water monitoring) do not constitute cost-effective activities in the context of the National Contingency Plan, as they are based onunrealistic scenarios of development, biased estimates of the mass of contamination remainingon the sites, and the failure to objectively consider the nature and extent of the contaminationremaining from site operations.

'OTHL P. 006