letter re: resa's comments on the proposed plan

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

370772

DykEMA

August 11,2010.

Diana L. Embil Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA - Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Mail Code: C-14J Chicago IL 60604

Patricia Krause Community Involvement Coordinator Superfund Division U.S. EPA - Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Mail Code: C-14J Chicago IL 60604

Dykema Gossett PLLC 10 South Wacker Drive Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60606

WWW.DYKEMA.COM

Tel: (312)876-1700 Fax:(312)627-2302

Jerome I. Maynard Direct Dial: (312) 627-2185 Email: [email protected]

Via Facsimile and Overnight Courier/Mail

Re: Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfimd Site, Comments to Proposed Plan

Dear Diana and Patricia:

1 am writing as common counsel to the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfimd Site PRP Group known as RESA to submit comments to the Proposed Plan for remedial action at the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfimd Site ("the Site"). U.S. EPA ("the Agency") issued the Proposed Plan ("PP") on approximately June 10, 2010 and extended tlie period for submission of comments to August 11, 2010. Attached are RESA's comments to the Proposed Plan. Please add this letter and the attached comments to the Site Administrative Record.

RESA recognizes the distinction in the Agency's National Contingency Plan between a "site administrative record" on which a remedy decision is based and the "site administrative record file," as noted in Ms. Embil's letter dated August 6, 2010. However, in this instance of the Tremont City Barrel Fill matter, it is virtually impossible to identify the formal "site administrative record" on which the PP decision was based. RESA has repeatedly requested that the Agency identify specifically which materials beyond tlie statutory RI, FS and FSA are in tlie site administrative record, including which materials constitute a "modification" to the RI, FS or

California | Illinois | Michigan | Texas | Washington D.C.

http://WWW.DYKEMA.COM

mailto:[email protected]

DykEMA

Diana L. Embil Patricia Krause August 11,2010

FSA as approved by the Agency as referenced by Agency personnel in meetings with RESA and the public. To date, the Agency has refused to do so. Thus, RESA has to assume that any and all materials in the Site administrative record file are part of the site administrative record.

RESA objects to the Agency's denial of RESA's request that the deadline for submission of comments to the PP be further extended to August 28, 2010 on the grounds that the site administrative record ("SAR") on which the PP is based was not completed until July 28, 2010, that the FOIA requests submitted by RESA still have not been fully responded to, and that it remains unclear which materials in the SAR file comprise the actual materials on which the Agency based its PP decision. It remains unclear which materials constitute the "modification" to the remedial investigation ("RI") and the feasibility study ("FS") as approved by the Agency that the Agency referred to during meetings with RESA and during the June 22, 2010 public meeting. It is virtually impossible to submit focused and complete comments to the PP until the SAR is complete and until the Agency clarifies which materials it relied upon in making its decision on the PP.

The Agency denied RESA's reasonable request for a modest 17 day additional extension in the public comment period, an extension clearly contemplated under the Agency's National Contingency Plan ("NCP") which states tliat: "Upon timely request, the lead agency will extend the public comment period by a minimum of 30 additional days." 40 CFR 3O0.430(f)(i)(3)(C), emphasis added. The Agency issued its PP on approximately June 7, 2010 but continued to add materials to the SAR, including in Update #26 a massive diunp of 390 documents comprised of 34,090 pages of materials on July 27, 2010 and provided to RESA on July 28, 2010. The only reason for the Agency to have added those materials is in support of its decision on the PP, making those materials relevant to comments on the PP, Despite as huge effort, RESA has been unable to access and review all of those materials by the Agency's arbitrary August 11, 2010 deadline for submission of comments to the PP.

The Agency also unreasonably and arbitrarily denied RESA's request that the public comment period be extended to at least 30 days beyond the date when the Agency completed its response to RESA's Freedom of Information Act ("FOL\") request submitted on April 16, 2010.' RESA submitted that request in anticipation of providing its comments to the PP. RESA reasonably agreed to several extensions of the deadline for the Agency to respond to that request. The Agency denied RESA's request for the extension in the PP public comment period in correspondence dated July 12, 2010. The Agency still has not responded fully to RESA's FOIA requests. RESA's members are the interested parties who are most at risk for the consequences of the Site remedial decision made by tiie Agency yet tlie Agency continues to arbitrarily and

' RESA has received a partial response from an Agency office in Washington, D.C. but still has not received a response from the Agency's Region 5 office, the office which compiled the SAR and which made the PP decision.


DykEMA

Diana L. Embil Patricia Ki ause August 11,2010

capriciously deny RESA the opportunity to fully review the materials the Agency relied upon in making that decision.

For all of the above reasons, RESA reserves its right to request that additional comments be added to the Site Administrative Record if ftirther review of materials related to the Agency's remedy decision making process so requires.

As noted in RESA's comments to the PP, attached, the Agency's PP decision making process was fundamentally flawed and is not consistent with the Agency's NCP. The Agency has built an SAR that makes it virtually impossible to determine which materials the Agency relied upon in reaching its PP, a necessary prerequisite to RESA, or any other interested party, being able to submit accurate and comprehensive comments to the PP. The Agency's continued refusal to extend further the comment period is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. The Agency should withdraw its PP, complete its SAR and after a complete review of the SAR, reach its decision on a PP. RESA is confident tliat a thorough review of all of SAR materials with a proper weighting of the scientific data would result in decision different from that made by the Agency on approximately June 10, 2010 in its published PP.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this matter.

Best regai'ds,

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

'Jerome I. Maynard

cc; R. Murawski, US EPA J. Tanaka, US EPA K. Kaletsky, OEPA


RESA Comments to Proposed Plan August 11,2010

Tremont Barrel Fill PRP Group Comments to US EPA Proposed Plan

August 11, 2010 '

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2002, eight companies known as Responsible Environmental Solutions Alliance or "RESA" entered into a voluntary administrative consent order with U.S. EPA ("the Agency") to conduct a CERCLA remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI and FS") for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site ("the Site"). Eight years and $8 millions dollars later, the RI/FS was completed and the Agency must now make its decision regarding the preferred remedial action for the Site. In June 2010, the Agency announced its preliminary decision to select a remedial action. Alternative 4a, requiring the removal of all of the Site wastes and off-site disposal of all hazardous wastes, and the re-disposal of non-hazardous waste into an on-Site unlined waste cell. The Agency's process in making that decision was fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the Agency's own regulations for making such decisions, the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"). The Agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and should be modified such that the final remedy selected by the Agency is Alternative 7, enhanced containment with liquid waste removal.

After the RI/FS was completed, the Agency Region 5 team that had overseen the Site investigation work by RESA reached the same conclusion that RESA had: the glacial till beneath the Site would protect the deep potable aquifer from potential Site impacts. Based upon that determination, the RESA and the Agency both agreed that Ahemative 7, enhanced containment with liquid waste removal, was the preferred remedial alternative. Ohio EPA, the same agency that made a similar determination when it issued a permit for the Site facility in 1976, arbitrarily reversed itself and strongly opposed leaving the wastes in place, even if enhanced monitoring and liquid waste removal systems were to be added. The Agency's National Remedy Review Board ("NRRB") was asked to review the Region 5 team's preliminary decision and provide the NRRB's comments. After its summary review of only a portion of the scientific data, the NRRB raised some "concerns" regarding the recommended remedial action, based upon Agency "precedence" for removing drums and the implementability of Alternative 7, without specifically citing any data or scientific evidence as bases for its concerns. While precedence may be important to the Agency for the purposes of consistency, it does not have the force of regulations or even policy in determining the appropriate remedial action for a Superfund site. In response to pressure firom the State and its headquarters-based NRRB, whose roles are limited to those of advisors to the Region 5 team, Region 5 reversed itself and selected a remedial action that requires removal and off-site disposal of all of the hazardous wastes at a vastly higher cost. Region 5 made this new decision despite the fact that no new data had been gathered and no new scientific conclusions were generated. Region 5's decision requiring removal and off-site disposal of all of the hazardous wastes is not based upon any fact, scientific data or conclusion of law and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.


I. THE AGENCY'S REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS WAS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED

The first question is whether the Agency followed the NCP-required procedures in selecting Alternative 4a for its Proposed Plan ("PP") at the Site. The Agency did not.

Prior to selecting a remedy at a site where action is being taken pursuant to CERCLA authority, the Agency must adhere to NCP process requirements in investigating conditions at the site (the RI) and in evaluating the feasibility of implementing the available remedial alternatives against the statutory re.quirements in CERCLA (the FS). The Agency must then review all of the information generated in the RI and FS and select the appropriate remedial action that will prevent unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Fundamentally, CERCLA is a science and risk based statute, and the NCP regulations that define the procedures to be used in deciding whether remedial action is required also require consideration of the uncontroverted scientific data and conclusions.

The Agency's preliminary decision to select a waste excavation remedial action was fundamentally flawed because the Agency failed to follow the requirements of the NCP and thereby mischaracterized and misapplied the remedy selection criteria as applied to the excavation remedial alternatives and to the containment with hazardous liquid removal and treatment alternative (Alternative 7). As a result of the Agency's compromising its remedy selection process the Agency reachecj a wrong conclusion. The Site Administrative Record ("SAR") and SAR file demonstrate that the Agency predetermined its desired outcome and then inappropriately manipulated the process to reach that outcome.

The Agency initially determined that Alternative 7, enhanced containment with liquid waste removal, was its preferred alternative and recommended Alternative 7 to the NRRB in a document styled "National Remedy Review Board Consideration, Tremont City Barrel Fill Site, August, 2009" ("the NRRB Consideration"). In making this determination and recommendation, the Agency Region 5 team (that has worked on this Site for over eight years) recognized that Alternative 7 equaled or exceeded the effectiveness evaluations of the excavation alternatives while being much more cost effective. The Agency found, appropriately, that there would be no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment if Alternative 7 were to be implemented.

In response to objections by Ohio EPA (the same state agency that permitted the Site facility in the mid-1970s and determined that the location and operafions of the facility were protective of human health and the environment) and questions raised by the NRRB which reviewed only a relafively minor part of the SAR, the Agency then went back and reformulated its comparison of the balancing evaluation criteria an attempt to justify its selection of a different remedial alternative that is no more protective of human health and the environment than Alternative 7, but which costs more than twice as much. In August 2009, the Agency determined that Alternative 7 was "long-term effective and permanent." NRRB Consideration at 32. In June 2010, however, it stated that Alternative 7 is "not thought to be fully long-term effective and permanent, because a

RESA Comments to. Proposed Plan August 11,2010

percentage of the hazardous liquid waste from the Barrel Fill will eventually migrate to the deep sand and gravel aquifer." PP at 14. No new studies were done or new data gathered after August 2009 that would even arguably explain such a radical change in the Agency's conclusions regarding Alternative 7. The Agency now attempts to justify spending approximately $57,000,000 on Alternative 4a, or $35,000,000 more than Alternative 7, by merely reciting some undefined "percentage" without even attempfing to quantify any risk that would be mitigated by that expenditure. As explained below, the NCP requires that decisions on remedial action be based upon an estimation of risks. The Agency's selection of Alternative 4a has no such basis.

In fact, the only quantification of the possible impact on the deep aquifer in the SAR determined that no significant quantities of Barrel Fill wastes will ever reach that aquifer, regardless of remedy selected. See discussion and analysis in Section II below at pages 15-23. A fate and transport evaluation of the movement of the wastes through the till beneath the Site indicated that any wastes released from the Site would be attenuated to such an extent that virtually none would ever reach the deep aquifer. Thus, even under conservative worst case scenarios, there will be no unacceptable risks to the deep aquifer. The Agency's conclusion that an additional $35,000,000 must be spent to protect an aquifer that is already protected is arbitrary and capricious.

The Agency Arbitrarily Overrated Excavation Alternatives and Underrated Alternative 7

A comparison of the Agency's evaluafion of the remedial alternatives in August 2009, with its conclusions in June 2010, demonstrates how the Agency misappropriated valid scientific conclusions in trying to belatedly justify its selection of Alternative 4a. In selecting the preferred remedial alternative, the NCP requires that the Agency evaluate each alternative in the FS based upon nine criteria. The first two criteria are threshold criteria: 1) overall protection of human health and the environment; and 2) compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. These threshold criteria must be met for an alternative to be considered further. The next five criteria are "primary balancing criteria" and are comprised of: 3) long-term effectiveness and permanence; 4) reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment; 5) short-term effecfiveness; 6) implementability; and 7) cost. The final two criteria are modifying criteria: 8) State acceptance and 9) community acceptance. These final two criteria cannot be applied until after closing of the public comment period. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(1).

In its August 2009 submission to the NRRB, the Region 5 team correctly detemiined that Alternative 7 met the threshold criteria, and after applying the balancing criteria, was the preferred remedial action. By June 2010, Region 5 in its PP described Alternative 4a as being preferred after it arbitrarily changed the evaluation of Alternative 7 against some of the balancing criteria. A review of the Agency's comparative analysis provided in its PP and other documents contained in the SAR as well as documents provided by the Agency under Freedom of Information Act requests illuminates this arbitrary change:


Criterion 1, Protection of Human Health and the Environment: All alternatives' protect human health and the environment and are consistent with RESA's Table 10 (July 2008 FS Report) and Table 8 (April 2009 FS Addendum Report).

Criterion 2, Compliance with ARARs: All alternatives comply with ARARs, although Alternative 5a requires a waiver, and the alternatives are generally consistent with RESA's Table 10 (July 2008 FS Report) and Table 8 (April 2009 FS Addendum Report).

Criterion 3, Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence: The NCP states the following with respect to this balancing criterion:

Alternatives shall be assessed for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford, along with the degree of certainty that the alternative will prove successful. Factors that shall be considered, as appropriate, include the following:

(1) Magnitude of residual risk remaining from untreated waste or waste residuals remaining at the conclusion of the remedial activides. The characteristics of the residuals should be considered to the degree that they remain hazardous, taking into account their volume, toxicity, mobility and propensity to accumulate.

(2) Adequacy and reliability of controls such as containment systems and institutional controls to manage treatment residuals and untreated waste. This factor addresses in particular the uncertainties associated with land disposal for providing long-term protecfion from residuals; the assessment of the potential to replace technical components of the alternative such as a cap, a slurry wall, or a treatment system; and the potential exposure pathways and risks posed should the remedial action need replacement.

40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(C).

The Agency's cleanup option comparison chart in its PP, which shows how well the remedial alternatives meet the criteria for selection of the

' Unless otherwise noted and for purposes of this document, the No Action alternative is not being considered as an alternative.


appropriate remedial action, rates the FS's three containment alternatives and five excavation alternatives equally regarding the two threshold criteria. PP at 16. However, the Agency then inappropriately underrated the Alternative 7 and overrated the excavation alternatives on how well they meet the balancing criteria. In its presentation to the NRRB, Region 5 determined that Alternative 7 "is long term effective and permanent." ' NRRB Consideradon at 32. Region 5 also determined that Alternative 7 "reduces the majority of the toxicity, mobility, and volume of liquid principal threat waste by extracting and treating the liquid waste." Id. Despite those determinadons, Region 5 in its PP said, inexplicably, that Alternative 7 does not fully meet criteria 3 and 4, long term effecfiveness, and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume, while stating that the excavadon alternatives all met those criteria. PP at 14, 16. One can only conclude that Region 5 caved to the pressure from the State and the NRRB and changed its determination even though there was no new scientific evidence or data that could be used to try to justify such a change. Making that change in response to pressure from advisors renders the Agency's selecdon of Altemadve 4a arbitrary and capricious.

The fact that the Agency arbitrarily changed the scientific conclusions in the SAR and its own correct conclusions on remedy selection is demonstrated by its attempt to justify the selection of Alternative 4a by reference to an unquantified alleged risk to the deep aquifer. The Agency in its PP indicates that Altemadve 7 is "not thought to be fully long-term effecdve and permanent, because a percentage of the hazardous hquid waste from the Barrel Fill will eventually migrate to the deep sand and gravel aquifer, which is a potable water source." PP at 14. This statement relates to the magnitude of residual risk that is to be considered under the long-term effectiveness and permanence criterion in the NCP. In evaluating the magnitude of residual risk, however, the RI (which was approved by the Agency) stated that there is no risk from the migration of contaminants to the deep sand and gravel aquifer even with no remedial action. See analysis in Secdon II below at pages 11-15. In other words, the magnitude of residual risk to the deep sand and gravel aquifer from all remedy alternatives is within acceptable limits.

Based on the above and using the rationale provided in the PP, a comparison of long-term effectiveness and permanence indicates that Alternatives 4 through 7 are comparable and Alternatives 2 and 3 are less long-term effective and permanent. Without any new evidence or data being submitted to the SAR, the Agency nevertheless reversed its decision on the long-term effectiveness of Alternative 7. Such a reversal carmot be made without providing a basis in the SAR.

Criterion 4, Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment: The ranking of this criterion by the Agency is consistent with


RESA's Table 10 (July 2008 FS Report) and Table 8 (April 2009 FS Addendum Report).

Criterion 5, Short-term Effectiveness: The Agency's equal ranking of Remedial Alternatives 4 through 6 and Remedial Altemadve 7 on short-term effectiveness is inappropriate because:

o The short term risks to which the community would be exposed during implementation of Altematives 4 through 6 obviously are much greater than for Altemative 7. Altematives 4 through 6 would require a much greater number of trucks and miles traveled than Remedial Alternative 7 would. (July 2008 FS Report, Appendix F) The risk to the community of traffic injuries and fatalities is direcUy related to the number of tmcks and the number of miles traveled to complete the remedy as they relate to traffic injuries and fatahdes. The type of materials hauled in tmcks may have some relevance, but is much less significant than tmck number and miles traveled when evaluating overall short-term risk to the community. Accordingly the statement in the PP that "Altemadve 7 presents short-term risks from ... transporting hazardous liquid off-site" is of little significance and no basis of comparison to the other remedy alternatives is provided. PP at 14.

o The potential adverse impacts on workers during remedial action are much greater, and the effectiveness and reliability of protective measures are much less, for Alternatives 4 through 6 than Altemative 7 because:

• Altematives 4 through 6 require far more work hours to implement than Altemative 7 and are therefore riskier based solely on number of hours worked regardless of any protective measures that may be employed.

• The type of work activities necessary to expose, excavate, handle, sample, transport and dispose of over 50,000 dmms and large volumes of uncontainerized liquid wastes inherently have far more occupational risk associated with them than the installation and operation of 50 sumps adjacent to waste cells even if the sumps were installed using excavation techniques.^

o The potential environmental impacts of the remedial action and the effectiveness and reliability of protective measures are considered to be relatively equal for Altematives 4 through 6 and Altemative 7. All of these measures will require hauling solids and liquids, although

^ The sumps in Altemative 7 could be installed using an excavator instead of a drill rig. Such details are more appropriately considered during remedial design than during remedy selection.


Alternative 7 will likely entail the hauling of more liquids over the course of the remedy than Altematives 4 through 6. Altematives 4 through 6, however, would necessitate the hauling of far more total waste during remedy implementation.

o Altemative 7 will require less time to implement than Altematives 4 through 6.

o The Agency recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions for Altemative 7 would be less than for Altematives 4 through 6. PP at 14.

o The above analysis clearly demonstrates that Altemative 7 achieves greater short-term effectiveness than Altematives 4 through 6.

Criterion 6, Implementability: The Agency's equal ranking of Remedial Altematives 4 through 6 and Remedial Altemative 7 on implementability is inappropriate because:

o The level of difficulty associated with implementing Altemative 7 compared to Alternatives 4 through 6 is much lower. The level of difficulty in excavating, removing and disposing of over 50,000 dmms submerged in liquid wastes that are buried more than 10 feet deep is clearly extremely high. In comparison, Altemative 7's installation and operation of sumps adjacent to waste cells is much more easily and safely accomplished. The installation of sumps uses proven standard techniques including Geoprobe drilling and geophysics. Further, sumps are commonly used to remove, and have proven to be successful in removing, liquids from landfills as part of leachate collection systems.

o The difficulty of implementing additional remedial actions, if ever necessary, associated with Altemative 7 has been overrated. As Altemative 7 is implemented, most of the liquid wastes will be removed as they are released from dmms (sumps), and the water table inside the cells will be lowered by operation of the cutoff and water table capture systems. Excavation activities in these conditions will be much easier and safer than in the conditions envisioned for Remedial Altematives 4 through 6. Although there will be future dmm degradation, the drum contents will be contained by the low-permeability environment in which they are located and will be removed by the redundant liquid waste/groundwater capture and pumping systems that would be installed. In addition, the methods and health and safety procedures that would be required to excavate and handle dmms in their current condition will essentially be the same as a future action to remove waste not contained in dmms. In other words, all the health and safety methods and procedures to handle the dmms will be at a high level of difficulty to implement regardless of the condition of the dmms.

RESA Comments to Proposed Plan August 11,2010 I

o The effectiveness of Altemative 7 will be monitored using established methods in use at many landfill sites, including evaluation of the volume and quality of leachate collection from the sumps and the water table interceptor system in the 1075 Intertill, and in monitoring groundwater quality.

o In addition, conducting a pilot study to provide information on the constmctability and performance of the sumps could alleviate many of the Agency's stated concerns regarding implementability issues. In fact, a review of documents received from the Agency through FOIA requests shows the Agency 's willingness to consider the value of conducting a pilot study to aid with implementability determinations. The NRRB indicated in comments on draft documents that pilot tests on Altemative 7 sump installation and operation should be undertaken. However in its final document titled "National Remedy Review Board Recommendations for the Tremont City Barrel Fill," the NRRB decided to omit an overt recommendation of pilot testing because of concems that such a recommendation could bind the Agency to perform a pilot test and implementation would take too much time. These concems were illustrated by a comment made by Meredith Fishbum of the Agency's Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation ("the OSRTI") on the recommendation of a pilot study: "If the Region chooses to not take the Board's recommendation [to conduct a pilot test], this information likely can be used by parties to claim that the Region's decision was arbitrary and/or capricious." See chain e-mail dated from 8/17/09 to 9/23/09 and corresponding attachments dated 8/13/09, 8/26/09 version with 8/31/09 e-mail, and a different 8/26/09 version with 9/9/09 e-mail, attached as Exhibit 1.

o The above analyses clearly demonstrate that Altemative 7 achieves greater implementability than Altematives 4 through 6.

• Criterion 7, Cost: The ranking of this criterion by the Agency is consistent with RESA's Table 10 (July 2008 FS Report) and Table 8 (April 2009 FS Addendum Report).

• Criteria 8 and 9, Community and State Acceptance: These modifying criteria can only be applied after the public comment period closes.

In sum, RESA's evaluative comparisons of the cleanup options in its draft FS and FSA and the Agency's evaluative comparisons in August 2009 match up ahnost perfectly. The result was the Agency's recommendation of Altemadve 7 as the preferred cleanup option in its submission to the NRRB. Only after the NRRB raised "concems" and the State objected did the Agency arbitrarily and without scientific support revise its evaluative comparisons between Altematives 4 through 6 and Altemative 7 to ensure that an excavation altemative could be selected. In essence, the Agency "cooked the books"


to reach a desired outcome. Such a process is not contemplated by the NCP and is arbitrary and capricious.

The Agency Compromised its Remedy Selection Process In Its Detailed Comparative Analysis of the Options

In addition to the analysis above, the Agency failed to comply with the NCP in its detailed comparative analysis of the altematives. The NCP states that "The detailed analysis consists of an assessment of individual altematives against the nine evaluation criteria and a comparative analysis that focuses upon the relative performance of each alternative against those criteria." 40 C.F.R. § 400.430(e)(9) (emphasis added). The essential element missing from the Agency's comparative analysis is the relative perfomiance of each altemative when they are compared with one another. As stated in the Agency's Guidance for Conducting RI/FS Under CERCLA: "The purpose of this comparative analysis is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each altemative relative to one another so that the key tradeoffs the decisionmaker must balance can be identified." EPA/540/G-89/004OSWER Directive 9355.3-01 October 1988.

The Comparison Chart in the PP on page 16 and presented at the June 22, 2010 Public Meeting in PowerPoint slide 38 in fact does not compare the altematives with each other, but simply states the level at which each altemative complies with the individual evaluation criteria. This deficiency was noted by the OSRTI (comments by Emie Watkins, Amy Legare, and Melanie Culp on the draft Tremont City Barrel Fill Site Fact Sheet / Proposed Plan) where it states "[t]he evaluation of the nine criteria chart, while informative, does not adequately characterize to what extent each altemative fulfills the criteria. Specifically, it is not clear how those altematives that "partially" or do not fulfill

-the criteria requirements fail to measure up. Nine criteria evaluations need to be expressed in text form rather than symbolically." See 3/5/10 e-mail from OSRTI's Emie Watkins to Ron Murawski attaching OSRTI's comments at p. 4, attached as Exhibit 2.

RESA in the draft FS and FSA utilized a text format in its chart comparing the altematives against each other. This text format is much more typical of the format used by Region 5 at other Superfund sites than is the symbol format used by the Region in this case. Converting the text form in the draft FS to the symbolic chart form, and utilizing a similar system that compares the altematives with the criteria, yields a revised chart (attached as Exhibit 3). The key elements of the text in the comparison are:

1. All altematives meet the threshold criteria of protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs, which means they all are all eligible for further selection consideration based on the comparative evaluation of the balancing criteria provided above.

2. The excavation remedies provide the highest level of long-term effectiveness and permanence and reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, followed closely by Altemative 7, with Altematives 2 and 3 providing the lowest level when the altematives are compared to one another.


3. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide the highest level of short-term effectiveness and implementability, followed by Altemative 7, with the excavadon alternatives providing the lowest level when the altematives are compared to one another.

4. Altematives 2 and 3 are the lowest cost altematives with Altemative 7 falling into the mid-range cost and the excavation altematives being the most costly.

Further the NCP states that "Each remedial action selected shall be cost-effective. Cost effectiveness is determined by evaluating the following three of the five balancing criteria noted in the NCP to determine overall effectiveness: long-term effectiveness and peiTnanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, and short-term effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is then compared to cost to ensure that the remedy is cost effective: "[a] remedy shall be cost effecdve if its cost is proportional to its overall

. effectiveness." 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(l)(i)(B).

Based on the above, Altemative 4a as well as the other excavation altematives should not have been considered cost effective, particularly when compared to Altemative 7. Given the excavation altematives' low ranking of short-term effectiveness and the comparable ranking of Altemative 7 with respect to long-term effectiveness and pennanence, Altemative 7 is clearly the most cost effective.

In sum, the Agency's Region 5 Site team correctly and appropriately determined after a review of the complete SAR that Altemative 7 met the NCP requirements as the preferred remedial altemative. The State and NRRB in their advisory roles then raised baseless concems about that determination. Region 5 caved in to the resuhing pressure and reversed itself by selecting Altemative 4a in its PP. No new scientific evidence or data was added to the SAR to provide a basis for this reversal. Instead the Agency then went back and changed its conclusions and determinations in comparing the remedial altematives by overrating the excavation altematives and underrating the containments altematives. The Agency picked its remedy, then created unsupported and unsupportable conclusions as it manipulated the record in an attempt to back up that decision. Such a decision-making process is fundamentally flawed, is not consistent with the NCP, and is arbitrary and capricious,

II. THE AGENCY'S SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE 4a IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SITE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

As stated above, the SAR contains no data or scientific evidence upon which the Agency could base its conclusion that excavation of the Site wastes is necessary. There are no quantitative assessments of risk or even potential risk to human health or the environment upon which such a decision could be justified. For this reason, the Agency fails to meet the threshold requirement that would authorize it to choose a remedial action in the first place: that the site poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. In fact, the only data in the RI and in the SAR reaches the opposite conclusion: that there is no long or short-term risk of exposure to Site contaminants in the potable (deep) aquifer. Instead, the Agency relies upon unsupported statements such as "[hjowever, since approval of the RI Report, EPA has concluded that contaminant

10


migration to the lower groundwater zone is likely to occur in the future, absent remedial controls. Therefore, EPA has considered the deep sand and gravel aquifer potable use exposure pathway in its evaluation of remedial altematives.." PP at 6. The Agency's selection of Altemative 4a, is not, and cannot be supported by a fundamentally flawed and baseless conclusion regarding the potential future risk to the deep aquifer. That faulty conclusion in tum is based upon two invalid assumptions, neither one of which is supported by scientific data: 1) that the conductivity of the tills beneath the Site will allow significant quantities of wastes to reach the aquifer in a reasonable time and at levels that would cause unacceptable risk; and 2) that containment in place with liquid removal is an unproven technology to treat principal threat wastes.

Lack of Required Quantitative Risk Assessment

The Agency approved an RI that concluded that a calculation of risk or potential risk to the deep aquifer was not required because the very long travel times and substantial attenuation factors for contaminants traveling to the deep aquifer made it virtually impossible that Site contaminants would reach the deep aquifer in significant quantities. However, in the June 2010 PP, the Agency now indicates that Altemative 7 is not "thought to be fully long-term effective and permanent, because a percentage of the hazardous liquid waste from the Barrel Fill will eventually migrate to the deep sand and gravel aquifer, which is a potable water source." PP at 14. A review of the Agency's comparative chart of the altematives indicates that Altemative 7 "partially meets" the long-term effectiveness and permanence criteria. PP at 16. There are no materials in the SAR on which the Agency could base such a reversal of its conclusions.

The NCP requires the following in its evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence, as demonstrated by the following relevant sections:

(C) Long-term effectiveness and permanence. Altematives shall be assessed for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford, along with the degree of certainty that the altemative will prove successful. Factors that shall be considered, as appropriate, include the following:

(1) Magnitude of residual risk remaining from untreated waste or waste residuals remaining at the conclusion of the remedial activities. The characteristics of the residuals should be considered to the degree that they remain hazardous, taking into account their volume, toxicity, mobility and propensity to accumulate.

(2) Adequacy and reliability of controls such as containment systems and institutional controls to manage treatment residuals and untreated waste. This factor addresses in particular the uncertainties associated with land disposal for providing long-term protection from residuals; the assessment of the potential to replace technical components

11

RESA Comments to Proposed Plan August 11, 2010

of the altemative such as a cap, a slurry wall, or a treatment system; and the potential exposure pathways and risks posed should the remedial action need replacement.

40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(C)(l, 2). As provided above, the first criteria that shall be considered is the "magnitude of residual risk remaining from untreated waste or waste residuals remaining at the conclusion of the remedial activities." The magnitude of risk, as provided in the NCP, is a component of the RI/FS process as follows:

(d)(1) The purpose of the remedial investigation (RI) is to collect data necessary to adequately characterize the site for the purpose of developing and evaluating effective remedial altematives. To characterize the site, the lead agency shall, as appropriate, conduct field investigations, including treatability studies, and conduct a baseline risk assessment. The RI provides information to assess the risks to human health and the environment and to support the development, evaluation, and selection of appropriate response altematives. Site characterization may be conducted in one or more phases to focus sampling efforts and increase the efficiency of the investigation. Because estimates of actual or potential exposures and associated impacts on human and environmental receptors may be refined throughout the phases of the RI as new information is obtained, site characterization activities should be fully integrated with the development and evaluation of altematives in the feasibility study.

(d)(2) The lead agency shall characterize the nature of and threat posed by the hazardous substances and hazardous materials and gather data- necessary to assess the extent to which the release poses a threat to human health or the environment or to support the analysis and design of potential response actions by conducting, as appropriate, field investigations to assess the following factors: (i) Physical characteristics of the site, including important surface features, soils, geology, hydrogeology, meteorology, and ecology; (ii) Characteristics or classifications of air, surface water, and ground water; (iii) The general characteristics of the waste, including quantities, state, concentration, toxicity, propensity to bioaccumulate, persistence, and mobility; (iv) The extent to which the source can be adequately identified and characterized; (v) Actual and potential exposure pathways through environmental media; (vi) Actual and potential exposure routes, for example, inhalation and ingestion; and

12


(vii) Other factors, such as sensitive populations, that pertain to the characterization of the site or support the analysis of potential remedial action altematives.

(d)(4) Using the data developed under paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, the lead agency shall conduct a site-specific baseline risk assessment to characterize the current and potential threats to human health and the environment that may be posed by contaminants migrating to ground water or surface water, releasing to air, leaching through soil, remaining in the soil, and bio-accumulating in the food chain. The results of the baseline risk assessment will help establish acceptable exposure levels for use in developing remedial altematives in the FS.

40 C.F.R. § 300.430(d)(l, 2, 4). The NCP cleariy requires that the Agency assess risks as the basis for making a decision that remedial action is required. The Agency appropriately approved the RI's conclusion that such a specific risk assessment was not required for the deep aquifer based on the lack of threat to that aquifer. The Agency then reversed itself and selected Altemative 4a without performing the required risk assessment on which to base such a decision.

1

This risk pathway was not quantified in the approved RI Report because such risks were clearly not significant. RESA provided calculations in the July 2008 FS that results in a dilution factor of approximately 4.87 million if contaminants were to migrate from the bottom of the waste cells to the deep sand and gravel aquifer. Applying this dilution factor to the highest concentration of any constituent found in any sample from the Site (and not adjusting for constituent solubility) does not result in a single exceedance of an MCL in the deep sand and gravel aquifer. MCLs define the cleanup standard that must be met in potable aquifers. The long travel times of contaminants coupled with the associated dilution through the low permeability tills beneath the Site made it intuitively obvious that risk quantization was not required. Using the most conservative (protective) assumptions, re-calculated values of travel time (without any attenuation) and dilution (as the only attenuation factor) that are post-RI Report (based on a 10'* cm/sec vertical permeability, the thinnest till section along with the thirmest intertill section and connectedness of intertills as evidenced by "most of their flow being horizontal") provide the following: ,

• Calculated contaminant travel times on the order of several hundred years.

• Dilution of contaminants on the order of 4.8 million times.

The result is the same - a clear conclusion that there is no risk to the deep sand and gravel aquifer from any downward migration of contaminants from the Barrel Fill.

13


To fiirther demonstrate this concept, attached to this document as Exhibit 4 is an analysis of the effects of dilution on contaminant concentration of Barrel Fill constituents even if they could migrate to the deep sand and gravel aquifer. This analysis is based on the dilution factor derived from a 10'* cm/sec vertical hydraulic conductivity of the till and the average thickness of the intertills as measured in the field. Applying that dilution factor to the highest concentration of any constituents detected in any sample at the Barrel Fill (and not accounting for constituent solubility) does not result in a single exceedance of an MCL in the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

Given the above, it follows that:

1. The Agency has not completed NCP required risk assessments with respect to exposures of contaminants in the deep sand and gravel aiquifer and has no basis to assert that "[ujnacceptable risk, in the event of a potential, future release to receptors of the deep sand and gravel aquifer." (June 22, 2010 EPA PowerPoint, slide 21.)

2. Utilizing data from the Barrel Fill, undisputed hydrogeologic parameters based on the SAR, and assuming no remedial action is undertaken, not a single exceedance of an MCL^ is predicted for contaminants that might migrate from the Barrel Fill to the deep sand and gravel aquifer. This is further evidence that the Agency's statements regarding risk associated with the deep aquifer are without merit.

The lack of a quantitative risk assessment was not lost on the NRRB, as it noted the following in review of the Region 5 recommended remedial action, Altemative 7:

Our document makes an obscure reference at the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3 that future, unacceptable risk to human health or the environment may occur from the following exposure scenarios. This being said, we do not have a clear statement that the potential for dmms eventually leaking to groundwater and surface water is the risk trigger for taking this proposed action at the site. This type of statement is definitely required. We also would like to see statements that the risk may occur statement made on page 2 is backed up by statements that all these bulleted future risks are outside of EPA's acceptable risk range, and then provide actual risk numbers in this section. Clarity on why this action is needed and why our Agency is taking an action at this site is lacking in this draft.

It is unclear from the limited information presented in the document how deep the contamination flows from within the barrel fill, or how it has no discemable effect on groundwater. We state that a lower drinking water aquifer is not showing an impact but how extensive was it tested? Additionally, it should be stated (for remedial action objective purposes)

^ MCLs are appropriately characterized as an ARAR from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the analysis provided herein does not constitute a risk assessment.

14


if the contamination exists in a drinking water aquifer so that the remedy will need to meet MCLs. The public should know if we plan to restore groundwater at the site.

See 3/5/10 Emie Watkins of OSRTI e-mail to Ron Murawski, attaching OSRTI's comments, at pp. 1-2, attached as Exhibit 2.

There is no evidence in the SAR that the Agency conducted the risk assessments as required in the NCP to arrive at the following statement: there is an "[ujnacceptable risk, in the event of a potential, future release, to receptors of the deep sand and gravel aquifer - not quantified in the risk assessment." (U.S. EPA PowerPoint presentation, June 22, 2010, slide 21). Yet that statement provides the entire and only justification for selecdon of Altemative 4a over Altemative 7. In sum, the Agency in its PP selects a remedial action purportedly based upon a risk to the deep aquifer without taking the necessary first step of estimating that risk. The Agency's selection of Altemadve 4a which will cost more than $35,000,000 more than the equally effecdve Altemative 7 without estimating the risk avoided by that expenditure is arbitrary and capricious.

Hydrogeology

The Agency.and RESA agree that the hydrogeology beneath the Tremont Barrel Fill site consists of "[a] series of low-permeability tills (clay, mostly) and intertills of fine sand exist beneath the waste cells." In addition, "groundwater flow from the intertills is mostly horizontal" and "flow from the Water Table and 1075 Intertill is mostly to the unnamed tributary east of the Barrel Fill." June 22, 2010 Agency PowerPoint, slide 16. In addition, the Agency stated that "[wjaste cell water and water adjacent to the waste cells are highly contaminated," "Water Table contaminant levels 90 feet downgradient of waste cells were below [groundwater] screening levels" and "contamination in lower groundwater zones was less than in upper zones and difficult to trace to the Barrel Fill." June 22, 2010 EPA PowerPoint, slides 16, 20.

These undisputed hydrogeological interpretations lead to the following conclusions:

• The till beneath the Barrel Fill is of very low permeability. Although there has been significant discussion during the course of the RI/FS as to the exact value of the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the tills, there is agreement that the till permeability is very low. This fact is significant because the timeframe for groundwater and contaminants to flow through the till is long and the quantity (and mass) of contaminants that flows through the till is neghgible. The latter fact is particularly important when the quantity/mass of contaminants is mixed with much higher volumes of water contained in the intertills. This successive mixing of contaminants with each intertill that would occur at some fiiture time significantly decreases contaminant concentrations as they theoretically migrate slowly downward through the tills and intertills beneath the Barrel Fill.

15


• Groundwater flow in the intertills is mostly horizontal. For groundwater flow to occur horizontally in the intertills as demonstrated during the RI, there must be connection of those intertills throughout even if there are relatively small areas where the intertills pinch out. Accordingly, the intertills are laterally (horizontally) connected. With respect to transport of contaminants, the flow of contaminants (in groundwater) in the intertills is also mostly horizontal. This fact, coupled with the very low conductivity of the till itself, means that a much smaller quantity (mass) of contaminants flows vertically downward than would flow horizontally. Mixing of contaminants with each intertill that would occur at some distant future time significantly decreases contaminant concentrations as they migrate slowly downward through the tills and intertills beneath the Barrel Fill.

• Contaminant Movement from the Waste Cells is Limited to the Water Table. Despite identification of relatively high levels of waste contaminants in the waste cells and in the Water Table immediately adjacent to the waste cells, contaminant levels 90 feet down gradient of the waste cells were below screening values indicating that those contaminants have not moved 90 feet in the thirty years since the closure of the Barrel Fill. Contamination in lower groundwater zones was less than in upper zones. Finally, the extremely low level contaminants identified in the deep aquifer carmot be traced to the Barrel Fill. In fact, even using the Agency's conductivity number of 10" , those contaminants could NOT have come from the Barrel Fill in the 34 years since the wastes were first placed in the cells. These facts all indicate the effectiveness of the Barrel Fill, as it exists today and without improvement, as a waste containment stmcture. As the Agency indicated repeatedly during the Public Meeting Proposed Plan presentation on June 22, 2010, there is no current risk to human health and the environment. Region 5 understands this as indicated by an excerpt from a Region 5 supervisor's (Joan Tanaka) e-mail message dated November 4, 2009:

Regarding protectiveness: the Barrel Fill has held large quantities of hazardous waste (including an estimated approximate 1 million gallons of hazardous waste liquids) for approximately 30 years. There are very little releases of contamination to the most shallow gw [groundwater] aquifer, which is really an intertill, and may not be a class I aquifer capable of serving as a drinking water source. There is one well in the shallow intertill, outside of the waste boundary, with an exceedance of MCL(s), but just barely. The nature geologic materials under the waste is very tight.

See 11/4/09 email of Joan Tanaka, attached as Exhibit 5.

16

RESA Comments to Proposed Plan ' August 11,2010

Along with the Agency's statement that "contamination in lower groundwater zones was less than in upper zones and difficult to trace to the Barrel Fill" (EPA June 22, 2010 PowerPoint, slide 20), RESA offers the following excerpt from page 16 of EPA's Consideration to NRRB, dated August 2009:

[Tjhere is no strong evidence of low levels of contamination in the deep sand and gravel aquifer being attributable to the Barrel Fill.

There is no dispute between any of the hydrogeologists who have reviewed the data regarding the hydrogeology of the Site that the till is very tight. The Agency's Site team correctly concluded that there was virtually no chance of significant contamination reaching the deep aquifer. However, in response to pressure from advisors and the State, the Agency reversed those conclusions and added unsupported statements to the SAR regarding the Site hydrogeology in an attempt to justify selection of an excavation remedial action.

Hydraulic Conductivity

The Agency indicated that it (along with Ohio EPA) determined that the RI Report estimate of vertical hydraulic conductivity beneath the Barrel Fill was "unreasonably low." June 22, 2010 PowerPoint, slide 18. The Agency has never provided the scientific basis for this conclusion. In fact, there is no data or scientific evidence in the SAR upon which such a determination could be based. During the RI, several conductivity tests were performed, all of which indicated that the till conductivity was in fact extremely low, near the extreme low end of known conductivities in such material. Further, as RESA has noted on numerous occasions, additional evaluation of the hydrogeologic information collected during the RI has been undertaken. This has included significant work undertaken by RESA in consultation with both the Agency and Ohio EPA which is contained in the SAR. The additional work on hydrogeologic characterization of the vertical permeability (hydraulic conductivity) of the till beneath the Barrel Fill can be captured in a series of excerpts from the SAR as provided below.'*

In his memorandum dated August 6, 2007, Mr. Bob Kay, a hydrogeologist who worked on the Site for the Agency stated:

H&A's assumption of a permeability in the 10"* cm/sec range seems justified by the permeability tests from the Shelby tube sampling (RI table II). Although these values are based on samples collected from fairly small amounts of till material in areas peripheral to the BFOU waste, this is an accepted, commonly used method of analysis and I see no reason why it shouldn't be used here.

"* See the documents listed in the May 24, 2010 U.S. EPA Memorandum titled "Information Concerning U.S. EPA's Re-evaluation of and Conclusions Conceming the Hydrogeology Beneath the Barrel Fill; Tremont City Barrel Fill Site, Clark County, Ohio" which is also contained in the SAR.

17


August 6, 2007 Bob Kay Memorandum to Ron Murawski, pp. 2-3.

In his memorandum dated July 19, 2007, Matthew Justice, a hydrogeologist from Ohio EPA who worked on the Site, stated at page 3:

Ohio EPA does not disagree glacial till between the barrel fill and the "1075" sand, may be as low as 10'* cm/sec.

In addition, in his July 19, 2007 memorandum, Mr. Justice used such values in calculations of travel time for groundwater beneath the barrel fill in the same memorandum. Obviously, the Ohio EPA hydrogeologist would not have used values that he did not think were appropriate and supported by the Site scientific data.

RESA submitted its Technical Memorandum 2 evaluating Site hydrogeological conditions dated September 2007. That Memorandum stated:

All things considered, the practical conclusion from the hydraulic conductivity testing conducted on the unweathered till between the 1075 and 1050 Intertills is that it is low and below 10'* cm/sec. ...

The methods/test used to make this determination did not indicate the presence of features that would impart significant vertical permeability.

Taken as a whole, it is concluded that the vertical hydraulic conductivity beneath the Barrel Fill and more specifically between the 1075 and 1050 Intertills is very low with a calculated range between 10" cm/sec to 10" cm/sec depending on the calculation method. These values are at the very lowest range of measurement capabilities of hydraulic conductivity. The variability by calculation method is likely related to the low values themselves. To refine the estimates beyond this range does not change the interpretation, nor does it serve any useful purpose. As presented by Kruseman and deRidder (1990) in their section on Leaky Aquifers, "average results of the calculations... are the most accurate values possible and ...aiming for any higher degree of accuracy would be to pursue an illusion."

Technical Memorandum 2 at 101.

In addition to the above, significant hydrogeologic testing was undertaken by Mr. Herb Eagon on the same tills^ on a site adjacent to the Barrel Fill. In his report dated

^ The work conducted by Mr. Eagon was on tills that were lower in elevation than those of the Barrel Fill, but were of the same or similar as the till sequence found at the

18


September 2000, Mr. Eagon wrote the following regarding the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the till:

The most appropriate value for hydraulic conductivity is the 5.0 x 10"* cm/sec derived from the large field-scale test [aquifer test]. ...

The information provided above clearly establishes that hydrogeology experts who either studied the site or reviewed information conceming such studies arrived at a consensus that the till vertical hydraulic conductivity was at least as low as approximately 10"* cm/sec. These matters were discussed among many of these experts on May 20, 2008 in a meeting in Chicago.

Subsequent to the above work, RESA submitted documents including the FS that calculated groundwater flow quantities, dilution factors and conservative travel times using 10'* cm/sec, as well as other lower values. Included in the FS was a three-dimensional groundwater flow model that used particle-tracking to aid with a continued understanding of contaminant fate and transport based on a 10'* cm/sec vertical hydraulic conductivity of the till. This information was provided at the request of the Agency to aid in its considerations of the FS report. The Agency thereafter unilaterally removed virtually all of this information from the FS as part of its approval with modifications dated November 25, 2008, despite having no scientific data or evidence or other legitimate reason for doing so.

RESA also developed a three-dimensional groundwater flow model simulating a vertical hydraulic conductivity of 10" cm/sec for the tills beneath the Barrel Fill as a check on the accuracy of the model using 10"* cm/sec vertical hydraulic conductivity of the till . The 10' cm/sec model resulted in the disappearance of the water table that is known to exist at the site. In other words, the model could not duplicate what is actually observed at the site unless vertical hydraulic conductivity of the till was 10"* cm/sec or lower. Facts, as demonstrated by multiple scientific studies approved by the Agency or Ohio EPA, show that the hydraulic conductivity of the till beneath the Barrel Fill is at most 10'* cm/sec. Based upon that hydraulic conductivity, no significant quantity of contaminants from the Barrel Fill could ever reach the deep aquifer, even assuming a catastrophic release of the contaminants from the barrels in the future.

During a May 2007 CF/Water meeting, the Agency Site RPM (Ron Murawski) indicated that the Agency was considering a 10'* cm/sec vertical hydraulic conductivity estimate to be acceptable and that travel times based on that estimate were on the order of 2,000 to 3,000 years from the bottom of the waste cells to the deep sand and gravel aquifer. In August 2009 the Agency in its submission to the NRRB stated that: "U.S. EPA estimates the overall vertical groundwater flow from the Barrel Fill to the deep sand and gravel aquifer to be about 10' cm/sec, equating to a time travel of vertical

Barrel Fill.

19


groundwater contamination to be about 1,000 years." NRRB Consideration at 14. Further, the Agency concluded:

The hydraulic conductivity beneath the Barrel Fill is very low; it is thought to be 10' cm/sec or less. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a release from the Barrel Fill to the deep sand and gravel aquifer will be very slow and will take about 1,000 years. Furthermore, there are three intertills between the bottom of the Barrel Fill and the deep sand and gravel aquifer that will serve as waming monitoring points.

NRRB Consideration at 20.

In an attempt to justify its reversal of its decision in August 2009 that Altemative 7 was the preferred remedy, the Agency added a Memorandum to the SAR dated May 24, 2010. That memorandum referenced as a supporting document a letter from Ohio EPA dated January 4, 2008, signed by Pete Whitehouse. The SAR would be incomplete without inclusion of the following responses to that Ohio EPA letter:

• The Ohio EPA letter states: "Laboratory permeability data presented in the RI is inconsistent with laboratory permeabiHty data generated by previous investigators. In 1976, a consultant working for the owner/operator in support of the permit application for the Barrel Fill conducted borings to 40 feet below the original ground surface. Speaking of glacial till overlying shallow sand seams encountered in borings, the consultant stated 'The till is a mixture of all sizes of particles, with silt (.0625 to .0039 mm) dominant, and is not very permeable (laboratory measurements of permeability yield values between 10' and 10" cm/sec).'" Whitehouse letter at pp. 8-9.

In evaluating the reference provided by Ohio EPA, no laboratory test results were found, there was no discussion of the procedure that was used to measure the permeability of the sample and there was no documentation of the number of samples tested. In short, there is no evidence in the SAR other than the statement alone that even indicates testing was completed. The reference is completely unverified.

• Ohio EPA also cites a reference from the Site Investigation Summary Report ("SIS Report," TN&A, March 2002) which stated: "laboratory permeability tests conducted by the USGS during EPA's site inspection investigations found that the finer-grained till underlying the Barrel Fill exhibits a hydraulic conductivity of 10" to 10 cm/sec." Whitehouse letter at p. 9. In the referenced report, TN&A provided no USGS reference document in its reference list, provided no testing procedures, did not provide the number of samples tested or the testing results. We have reviewed the SAR and cannot find the USGS document that contains this information, assuming one exists. Again, the reference is completely unverified and is not included in the SAR..

20


Given the above, it is clear that there is agreement between the Agency, Ohio EPA, and RESA that a vertical hydraulic conductivity value of 10"* cm/sec for the tills beneath the Site is an acceptable estimate on which to base fate and transport calculations. It is also clear that groundwater or contaminant travel times through that till are very long, and it is further clear that the Agency did not calculate the fate or concentration of contaminants that could eventually reach the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

Therefore, the Agency's conclusion that there is an "[ujnacceptable risk, in the event of a potential, future release, to receptors of the deep sand and gravel aquifer" cannot be based upon the SAR. June 22, 2010 PowerPoint, slide 21. RESA provided sound, supportable calculations in the July 2008 FS that results in a dilution factor of approximately 4.87 million if contaminants were to migrate from the bottom of the waste cells to the deep sand and gravel aquifer. As shown on the attached table. Exhibit 4, applying this dilution factor to the highest concentrations of any constituent found in any sample from the Barrel Fill testing (and not adjusting for constituent solubility) does not result in a single exceedance of an MCL in the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

Till Uniformity

The Agency states that a re-evaluation of the RI data showed that tills and intertills were "not as uniform as depicted in the RI Report." June 22, 2010 PowerPoint, slide 18. RESA never asserted that the tills and intertills were uniform and this is a misinterpretation of conceptual drawings. More importantly, the uniformity of the tills and intertills is irrelevant to the conclusions regarding hydrogeological conductivity which were based upon actual field tests. The data gathered in actual field tests done with the Agency's approval and oversight are the most important, accurate and relevant data for assessing fate and transport of contaminants moving into the till.

The RI did not describe or illustrate the tills and intertills as imiform. On the contrary, cross-sections'" produced in the RI Report (one of which. Figure 27, was used at the Agency's June 22, 2010 PowerPoint presentation as slide 17) contain sands identified on boring logs. In addition, these sands are consistent with those identified by the boring logs contained on the Barrel Fill Boring Log Spreadsheet supplied by Ohio EPA in July and August 2008 and that are referenced in the May 24, 2010 Agency Memorandum. In short, the cross-sections in the RI are based upon uncontroverted facts. The tills and intertills are clearly not uniform; however their thicknesses are factual and based on boring observations, which are in agreement with the July 3 and August 5, 2008 boring log analysis provided in the Agency's May 24, 2010 memorandum.

* The geologic cross-sections were Figures 27 through 31 in the RI Report, one of which (Figure 27) was provided during the Agency's June 22, 2010 presentation. Given the scale of the cross-sections, very thin (less than 0.1 feet) sands were not able to be shown on the cross-sections in all cases. Conceptual sections (Figures 41 and 42) were created to illustrate flow concepts. These sections were clearly labeled as conceptual and not to scale.

21


There is no explanation in the SAR of the significance or relevance of till and intertill uniformity, and RESA can only surmise that the Agency's reference to uniformity may in fact be a commentary on connectedness of the intertills. The connectedness of the intertills is important as it provides the mechanism for preferential horizontal groundwater (and possibly contarninant) flow when compared to vertical flow through the tight tills. RESA interpreted intertills at similar approximate elevations to be connected based upon field tests. The cross-sections clearly show those interpretations. The basis for these interpretations of coimectedness are several fold and include the following:

• The presence of seeps at elevations corresponding to the intertills described throughout the SAR. These seeps are clearly identified in the March 2002 SIS Report. Based on TN&A's work, seven seeps adjacent to Barrel Fill and Tremont City Landfill were found at 1082, 1080, 1075, 1078, 1058 and 1058. These elevations correspond to both the 1075 and 1050 Intertills and will only occur if the intertills are connected and groundwater flow is lateral. As stated in the SIS Report: "Lateral migration of groundwater contaminants within these units [intertills] is known to occur (i.e., the presence of contaminants in nearby surface seeps)." SIS at p. 6-4. Further, the investigators write "Consistent with Eagon (2000), the [groundwater] model recognizes the numerous shallow subhorizontal sand zones underlying the Site that divert a portion of infiltrating groundwater to surface seep locations (especially during and following precipitation events)."^ SIS at p. 8-6.

• In addition to documents in the SAR on intertill cormectedness, Julie Weatherington-Rice provided testimony to the Ohio Environmental Review and Appeals Commission (ERAC) for a site immediately adjacent to the Barrel Fill. In her testimony she states that the intertills are laterally continuous and discharge at seep locations along the small tributaries found at or adjacent to the site: "No. What I am saying is that when I have sand at this boring and sand at the next boring at the same elevation and sand at the next boring at the same elevation and sand in the next boring at the same elevation and on and on, it is an appropriate decision to show that as a continuous sheet, because what it means is that my potential for intercormection exists in that whole horizon." J. Weatherington-Rice ERAC testimony of 10/21/97 at pp. 1509-10. Her testimony is based on evaluation of boring logs and correlations with documented seeps and her primary conclusion is that the intertills are connected and transmit groundwater and contaminants laterally across the site.

^ For sake of completeness, the SIS Report states that downward hydraulic gradients at the Site indicate downward movement of groundwater. RESA has never disputed that downward groundwater flow occurs; the real issue is how long it takes to reach the deep aquifer and the quantity of groundwater/contaminants that flows downward. The SIS Report did not make such quantifications nor did it reflect any testing for vertical hydraulic conductivity.

22

RESA Comjiients to Proposed Plan August 11,2010

• Finally, Eagon (2000) documents the presence of intertills at elevations that are in general agreement with the intertills found beneath the Barrel Fill.

• The documented response of monitoring wells within the 1050 Intertill during the aquifer testing performed at the Site confirms that the intertills are connected. Although aquifer tests were not imdertaken in the 1075 Intertill, the deposition of the each of the intertills is the same; these tests support the conclusion that the intertills are cormected.

• Finally, the similarity of water levels within each of the intertills (and the lack of similarity of water levels from other intertills), coupled with all of the other information provided above, is further evidence of connection.

Every researcher associated with the Barrel Fill site has come to the same conclusion - the intertills are connected. To our knowledge, not one has asserted that they are uniform. The significance of cormection is that groundwater flow in the intertills is mostly horizontal. June 22, 2010 PowerPoint, slide 16. In other words, there must be connection for horizontal flow to occur. Uniformity is not important.

Although there is no explanation for the Agency's attaching significance of till and intertill uniformity in the SAR, uniformity could play a role in calculation of till and intertill thicknesses. Thickness would affect travel time calculations with thinner till units resulting in shorter contaminant fravel times. To account for thickness variability, RESA prepared Table 2 in the July 2008 FS Report that provided travel time estimates based on minimum, average and maximum till thicknesses observed and recorded at the Barrel Fill. Using a minimum observed thickness (anywhere beneath the Barrel Fill), groundwater travel times using 10"* cm/sec resulted in a calculated travel time of over 2,000 years.

Also of note is intertill thickness and its affect on contaminant dilution. When intertills are interpreted as being thicker, the amount (volume) of groundwater that flows within the intertills (horizontally) would be greater, thereby causing greater dilution. This evaluation/calculation was not completed for this project; however the result would be to only increase the effects of dilution as contaminants travel downward. Accordingly, the contaminants may travel more quickly, but their concentration would be less than that calcula:ted by thinner intertills. Even without performing this calculation (that is keeping intertills with a thickness as interpreted from boring logs), the dilution factor for groundwater contaminants traveling downward from the bottom of the waste cells to the deep sand and gravel aquifer was over 4.5 milhon times (July 2008 FS Report). Increasing intertill thickness would only result in increasing this dilution factor.

In sum, the data generated during the several Site investigations all come to the same conclusions: that the till is very tight and that the several intertills are not uniform but are connected, allowing horizontal flow of groundwater and possibly contaminants through the intertill. Based upon actual Site data, calculations using most conservative assumptions demonstrate that contaminants from the Barrel Fill will never reach the deep aquifer in significant quantities. There is no significant risk to the deep potable aquifer

23


from the Barrel Fill. The Agency's reliance on possible future risk to that aquifer as the basis for selecting Altemative 4a is not supported by the SAR and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

CONCLUSION

The Agency employed a flawed process when it reversed its initial, and correct, preliminary decision that Altemative 7 met the NCP criteria for selection as the preferred remedy. The Region 5 team that has sole authority for selecting the appropriate remedy abrogated that role to the State and to the NRRB when the Agency reversed its correct decision and selected Altemative 4a in the Proposed Plan. The Agency's justification for that decision, based upon potential future risks to the deep aquifer, is based only upon two fundamentally flawed conclusions: 1) that the Site poses an unacceptable risk to the deep drinking water aquifer without providing any quantitative data for such a conclusion; and 2) that the use of sumps in the cells to remove liquid principal threat wastes is unproven. The only scientific analyses in the SAR concluded that Site contaminants would not reach the drinking water aquifer in quantities that posed an unacceptable risk. The approved RI also indicated that even if some constituents eventually reached the aquifer after many, many years of travel, the concentrations would be so attenuated as to be virtually undetectable. In addition, three separate and independent analyses of the till conductivity, two of which were approved and accepted by Ohio EPA, prove that the till conductivity is at most 10"*. Finally, the use of sumps to remove liquid principal threat waste is proven technology currently in use at other sites under the oversight of the Agency.

Based upon all of the scientific evidence in the Site Administrative Record, the Agency's original decision that the wastes could safely be contained in place with augmented containment actions and liquid removal was correct. The Agency's subsequent reversal of that decision was based upon a premature and inappropriately dominating concern regarding State and community acceptance, rather than scientific data or facts. The Agency's decision that the wastes must be removed from the Site cells is not supported, is arbitrary and capricious and does not meet the legal or technical requirements of CERCLA.

24

Tremont FOIA 3 of 5: Memos Amy Legare to Doug Ammon 06/23/2010 12:24 PM

Amy R. Legare U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OSRTi/ARD/SARDB 5828 Potomac Yard South MC 5204P 703-347-0124

..— Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM •

From: John Frisco/R2/USEPA/US To: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Charles Openchowski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date; 08/17/2009 02:43 PM Subject: Tremont City Barrel Memo

Ttemonldraft1.doc

Amy ~ I'm not sure how to save my markup in quick place so I'm doing it this way. Also, Charles indicated I need to watch how I reply to ensure that my thoughts dont reach out to more folks than necessary. I had only a few comments — the main one involving the addition of a sentence indicating that the drums are in good condition and intact. This is important since ifs a key component in the decision to remove them. If they were deteriorated and leaking, the region's proposal would make a bit more sense. I also noted that you did not go into much detail on the effectiveness of the sumps. That's probably okay in terms of our response. As we had discussed, there is a lot of concern that the drum contents will ever make it to the sumps as opposed to seeping down into the underlying ground water. Expecting the liquids to flow into a sump when the bottoms of these cells were not designed with this in mind is way more than optimistic. Some stuff will get there, but much will not. How long this will all take - whether the stuff is even all compatible (hopefully, none of that nitro and glycerin thing) ~ make it not difficult to say that the proposed remedy will be effective (as you indicated) but really impossible to make that determination. However, since it seems you intended to be more general, I did not add specifics about the concerns.

Lastly, I'm not sure which division directors were involved in deleting the paragraph that better describes how we go about our reviews. If anything, it helps clarify our process ~ something I think would be beneficial to include. However, I dont object to removal of the language. Also, I'm okay with changing decision maker to division director That could not have been done way back when since RAs tended to sign RODs then.

• Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM •

From: John Frisco/R2/USEPA/US To: Charles Openchowskl/DC/USEPAi/US@EPA Cc: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/18/2009 05:38 PM Subject: Re: Tremont City Barrel Memo

Actually, there are a number of extra details if you are interested -

To begin with, these cells were not constructed with lined, smooth/flat bottoms with slopes to a low point

Exhibit 1

where the sumps would be installed. In reality, they are unlined, rough, somewhat porous, uneven and likely dont have a single low point That's why much of the liquid that does eventually leak from the drums may not find its way to the sumps. Liquid will sit in spots and fake the path of least resistance ~ which could be straight down.as well as horizontal. Where to actually locate the sumps within the individual cells could be a challenge. The assumption being made is that one could identify the low points (assuming they exist) and drill there. In addition ~ given the nature of the material, it's also likely that these sumps will undoubtedly clog up in relatively short order Unclogging them in the usual way (backwashing with water under pressure) may not be a good idea since it adds water to the system which would become tainted ~ this could increase the downward or outward hydraulic gradients promoting a higher level of contaminant migration. Also -- it was not really discussed at the meeting but is the region certain that none of the material is incompatible? You would hate to have these various liquid mixtures combine/get together and create a larger problem (the nitro and glycerin comment was just an exaggerated illustration, although incompatibility is an issue to at least consider if one were to proceed). You caught the other two points ~ one being there is no way to know how long it will take for all the drums contents to leak out and the other, that you would not know when you got there since the quantity of available material is unknown.

Now going home. If you want to discuss further, I'm in all week. Charles Openchowski/DC/USEPA/US

Charles - . I; Openchowski/DC/USEPA/US To John Frisco/R2/USEPA/US@EPA

08/18/2009 05:06 PM cc Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject Re: Tremont City Barrel MemoQ

Amy, the extra details John describes on sumps might be a good addition, we did spend a fair amount of time talking about this, and it does bear directly on whether the preferred alternative makes sense ~ thanks

John Frisco Amy ~ I'm not sure how to save my markup in q... 08/17/2009 02:43:35|PM

From: John Frisco/R2/USEP/VUS ro: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Charles Openchowskl/DC/USEPA/US(a)EPA Date: 08/17/2009 02:43 PM Subject: Tremont City Barrel Memo •

[attachment "Tremont draft 1 .doc" deleted by Charles Openchowski/DC/USEPA/US]

Amy ~ I'm not sure how to save my markup in quick place so I'm doing it this way. Also, Charles indicated I need to watch how I reply to ensure that my thoughts dont reach out to more folks than necessary. I had only a few comments - the main one involving the addition of a sentence indicating that the drums are in good condition and intact. This is important since it's a key component in the decision to remove them. If they were deteriorated and leaking, the region's proposal would make a bit more sense. I also noted that you did not go into much detail on the effectiveness of the sumps. That's probably okay in terms of our response. As we had discussed, there is a lot of concern that the drum contents will ever make it to the sumps as opposed to seeping down into the underlying ground vyater. Expecting the liquids to flow into a sump when the bottoms of these cells were not designed with this in mind is way more than optimistic. Some stuff will get there, but much will not. How long this will all take ~ whether the stuff is even all compatible (hopefully, none of that nitro and glycerin thing) ~ make it not difficult to say that the proposed remedy will be effective (as you indicated) but really impossible to make that determination. However, since it seems you intended to be more general, I did not add specifics about the concerns.

Lastly, I'm not sure which division directors were involved in deleting the paragraph that better describes

how we go about our reviews. If anything, it helps clarify our process - something I think would be beneficial to include. However, I dont object to removal of the language. Also, I'm okay with changing decision maker to division director. That could not have been done way back when since RAs tended to sign RODs then.


From: RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US To: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Sharon Jaffess/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Joan Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/26/2009 04:38 PM Sutjject: REGION 5 COMMENTS ON THE 8/26/09 NRRB DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS MEMO FOR THE __ TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL SITE

Amy, here are Region 5's comments and input on the August 26, 2009 NRRB draft recommendations memo for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site:

1. Here is an Overview of the Proposed Action:

Region 5 recommends that Alternative RA-7 be implemented at the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site. Alternative RA-7 is a containment and treatment alternative, and leaves the waste, including the 51,500 drums, in place. It has an estimated cost of $22.5 million and includes the following components:

• INSTALL A DOWNGRADIENT COLLECTION TRENCH T O COLLECT RESIDUAL, 1075 INTERTILL GROUNDWATER;

• INSTALL AN UPGRADIENT GROUNDWATER DIVERSION STRUCTURE TO DIVERT GROUNDWATER FROM ENTERING T H E B A R R E L FLLLI

• INSTALL O N E SUMP AT T H E EDGE O F EACH O F 50 WASTE CELLS T O COLLECT LIQUID WASTE;

• PUIvlP LIQUID WASTE PERIODICALLY FROM THE SUMPS USING PORTABLE PUMPS. PUMPED LIQUID W I L L INCLUDE BULK LIQUID WASTE, T H E PERCHED W A T E R T A B L E . A N D LIQUID WASTE FROM T H E B A R R E L F I L L DRUMS AS THEY RELEASE THEIR CONTENTS OVER TIME;

• TRANSPORT LIQUID WASTE OFF-SITE FOR DISPOSAL A N D TREATMENT; • REGRADE A N D REVEGETATE THE EXISTING WASTE CAP; • PERFORM GROUNDWATER MONITORING; A N D • IMPLEMENT INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.

Region 5 believes that Alternative RA-7 presents the best balance of the nine criteria.

2. Add Kelly Kaletsky to the list of Ohio EPA participants in the Web conference.

3. In the 9 Criteria section. Region 5 doesn't believe that there's an unknown volume of waste material. The volume and nature of the waste are documented and were somewhat verified (albeit with a small sample size) during RI sampling. Region 5 recommends that the phrase "unknown volume of waste material" be stricken from the paragraph.

4. In the 9 Criteria section, it would be helpful for the NRRB to clarify the objective of the recotnmended pilot study of the RA-7 liquid collection/extraction system. The Board notes that it is difficult to state that the preferred alternative will be protective and will treat the principal threat waste to the maximum extent practicable. Is the Board suggesting that a successful pilot study will allay these concerns? If not, does the NRRB have suggestions on what could allay these concerns?

5. In the ARARs section, as a result of the NRRB's draft comments. Region 5 has added to its ARARs table 40 CFR Part 265 and State RCRA-related ARARs as applicable requirements.

Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM •

From: Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS To: RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Joan Tanaka/R5/USEP/VUS@EPA, Sharon Jaffess/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Dale: 08/26/2009 05:14 PM Subjecl: Re: REGION 5 COMMENTS ON THE 8/26/09 NRRB DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS MEMO FOR

THE TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL SITE

Thank you. Another draft will come your way before I sign it

Amy R. Legare U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OSRTI/ARD/SARDB 5828 Potomac Yard South MC 5204P 703-347-0124

RONALD MURAWSKI Amy, here are Region 5's comments and inp... 08/26/2009 04;38:08lPM

Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM

From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US To: RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Sharon Jaffess/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Joan Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date; 08/31/2009 11:40 AM Subject: REGION 5 COMMENTS ON THE 8/26/09 NRRB DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS MEMO FOR THE

TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL SITE

Amy, here are Region 5's comments and input on the August 26, 2009 NRRB draft recommendations memo for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site:

1. Here is an Overview of the Proposed Action:

Region 5 recommends that Alternative RA-7 be implemented at the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site. Alternative RA-7 is a containment and treatment alternative, and leaves the waste, including the 51,500 drums, in place. It has an estimated cost of $22.5 million and includes the following components:

• INSTALL A DOWNGRADIENT COLLECTION TRENCH TO C O L L E C T RESIDUAL, l 0 7 5 INTERTILL GROUNDWATER;

• INSTALL AN UPGRADIENT GROUNDWATER DIVERSION STRUCTURE TO DIVERT GROUNDWATER FROM ENTERING T H E B A R R E L F ILL ;

• INSTALL O N E SUMP AT T H E EDGE O F EACH O F 5 0 WASTE CELLS T O C O L L E C T LIQUID WASTE;

• P U M P LIQUID WASTE PERIODICALLY FROM T H E SUMPS USING PORTABLE PUMPS. PUMPED LIQUID W I L L INCLUDE BULK LIQUID WASTE, T H E PERCHED W A T E R T A B L E , A N D LIQUID WASTE FROM T H E B A R R E L F I L L DRUMS AS THEY RELEASE THEIR CONTENTS OVER TIME;

• TRANSPORT LIQUID WASTE OFF-SITE FOR DISPOSAL A N D TREATMENT; • R E G R A D E A N D REVEGETATE THE EXISTING WASTE CAP; • PERFORM GROUNDWATER MONITORING; A N D

• IMPLEMENT INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.

Region 5 believes that Alternative RA-7 presents the best balance of the nine criteria.

2. Add Kelly Kaletsky to the list of Ohio EPA participants in the Web conference.

3. In the 9 Criteria section. Region 5 doesn't believe that there's an unknown volume of waste material. The volume and nature of the waste are documented and were somewhat verified (albeit with a small sample size) during RI sampling. Region 5 recommends that the phrase "unknown volume of waste material" be stricken from the paragraph,

4. In the 9 Criteria section, it would be helpful for the NRRB to clarify the objective of the recommended pilot study of the RA-7 liquid collection/extraction system. The Board notes that it is difficult to state that the preferred alternative will be protective and will treat the principal threat waste to the maximum extent practicable. Is the Board suggesting that a successful pilot study will allay these concerns? If not, does the NRRB have suggestions on what could allay these concerns?

5. In the ARARs section, as a result of the NRRB's draft comments. Region 5 has added to its ARARs table 40 CFR Part 265 and State RCRA-related ARARs as applicable requirements.

Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM

From: Meredith Fishburn/DC/USEP/VUS To: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Benjamin Lammie/DC/USEP/VUS@EPA Date: 08/31/2009 04:18 PM Subject: RRB: Tremont City Barrel Fill

Amy,

My comments are attached in MS Word Track Changes. I have not run them by Ben (or anyone else for that matter) so if you have any questions about them, please do not hesitate to ask me. (I thought it more important to make sure to just get my comments over to you...)

-Meredith

Tfemont draft 2.doc

Meredith D. Fishburn, Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (2272A) Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202.564.4790, Fax: 202.501.0269 [email protected] .

- — Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM

From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US To: Richard Campbell/R4/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/09/2009 12:52 PM Subject: tremont draft


this is the latest w/ your edits and input from R5


Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS on 09/09/2009 12:50 PM •

From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US To: Amy Legare <[email protected]> Date: 09/08/2009 04:45 PM Subject:

Tfemont diaft 3.doc


Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM

From: - Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS To: RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEP/VUS@EPA Date: 09/09/2009 03:29 PM Subject: Re: REGION 5 COMMENTS ON THE 8/26/09 NRRB DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS MEMO FOR

__ THE TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL SITE

Hi Ron - give me a call about # 4 below. I'm at home today, 703-660-1298, until 4:30 EST. I'm in the office tomorrow. Thanks.


RONALD MUR/\WSKI Amy, here are Region 5's comments and inp... 08/26/2009 04:38:08|PM

•- Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM - —


From: RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US To: Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS@EPA Cc: Sharon Jaffess/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Joan Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/18/2009 08:28 AM Subject: Re: REGION 5 COMMENTS ON THE 8/26/09 NRRB DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS MEMO FOR

THE TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL SITE

Amy, for the latest NRRB draft memo below, Region 5 recommends the following changes:

General comment:

"Preferred alternative" is a phrase identified with the Proposed Plan. Region 5 prefers the phrase "recommended alternative" throughout the NRRB memo to describe Alternative RA-7. The preferred alternative to be noted in Region 5's upcoming Proposed Plan may or may not be the recommended alternative.

in the "9 Criteria" section:

Current wording; "Based on the material shared with the Board it is difficult to evaluate the relative performance of the alternatives with respect tqthe nine criteria."

Region 5 recommended wording: "Based on the material shared with the Board, it is difficult to evaluate the performance of the recommended alternative with respect to the nine criteria."

(The recommended wording is consistent with the rest of the paragraph in the memo, which is devoted to a discussion of Alternative RA-7 (the "recommended alternative," according to the general comment above)).

Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS

Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS 09/11/2009 02:02 PM ''"° ^'^y Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc Joan Tanaka/R5/USEP/VUS@EPA, RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Sharon Jaffess/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject Re; REGION 5 COMMENTS ON THE 8/26/09 NRRB DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS MEMO FOR THE TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL SITEE?^

Here is the last draft. I hope that I've modified the 9 criteria paragraph to satisfy #4 below. Let me know. Next steps are for Charies Openchowski to review for legal issues and then Lois Gartner for grammar. Then I'll sign.

Tremont draft 3.doc


AmyJ.egare Thank you. Another draft will come your way bef... 08/26/2009 05:14:37|PM RONALp MURAWSKI Amy, here are Region 5's^comnients andjnp_ 08/26/2009 04:38:08|PM


From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US TQ: Lois Gartner/DC/USEP/VUS@EPA Date: 09/22/2009 07:51 AM Subject: NRRB Tremont-final edits

Please edit as needed. Tremont final draftdoc


• Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM •

From: Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS To: Richard Karl/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: OSWER OSRTI RRB, James Woolford/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth

Southeriand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elliott Gllberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Reeder/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/23/2009 03:53 PM Subject: National Remedy Review Board Recommendations Memo for Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund

Site

Attached is a copy of the Board's recommendations memo for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site. Thank you for your support and the support of your managers and staff in making this a successful review.

Tremont Fhal.pdf


- — Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM

From: ' Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US To: Ernie Watkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Dale: 09/23/2009 03:53 PM Subjsci: Fw: National Remedy Review Board Recommendations Memo for Tremont City Barrel Fill

Superfund Site

FYI



From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US To: Richard Karl/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: OSWER OSRTI RRB, James Woolford/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth

Souther1and/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elliott Gilberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Reeder/DC/USEP/VUS@EPA, RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/23/2009 03:53 PM Subject: National Remedy Review Board Recommendations Memo for Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund

Site

Attached is a copy of the Board's recommendations memo for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site. Thank you for your support and the support of your managers and staff in making this a successful review.

iHM'-.

Tremont Final.pdl


• Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEP/VUS on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM —•

From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US To: Meredith Fishburn/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/25/2009 09:21 AM Subject: Re: Fw: National Remedy Review Board Recommendations Memo for Tremont City Barrel Fill

Superfund Site _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I just flat out missed them. The NCP citation - the focus was on expectation for treatment vs. practicable. I'm surprised that between Charles and Rich that it hasn't been raised before. I think that both should have been cited. As for the format of the citation -1 rely on Lois and Charies to get that correct. Lois is

OSRTI's communications specialist as well as our facilitator. I've asked Lois to help me remember the proper format for the citations. The sentence on the pilot was changed per R5.


Meredith Fishburn Hi A m y , ^ I have some questions since you did... 09/23/2009 05:G5:58|PM

— - Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM

From; Meredith Fishburn/DC/USEP/VUS To: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/28/2009 09:36 AM Subject: Re: Fw: National Remedy Review Board Recommendations Memo for Tremont City Barrel Fill

Superfund Site

I'm not that concerned about the format of the citations (i.e. 40CFR...), that's not that important except that it looks funny to me. I think, though, even in the Federal Register the format is "40 CFR" (i.e. with a space b/w them).

I do like your idea of citing to both .430(a)(iii)(A) and .430(f)(ii)(E) for that one place. That would make me feel more comfortable. >•

Thanks!

Meredith

Meredith D. Fishburn, Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (2272A) Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202.564.4790, Fax: 202.501.0269 [email protected]

/Vmy L-egare I just flat out missed thern. The NCP citation - th... 09/25/2009 09:21:17|AM Meredith Fishbum Hi Aniy, So I have some questions since you did... 09/23/2009 05:05:58|PM


From: RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US To: Ernie Watkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Joan Tanaka/R5/USEP/VUS@EPA, Wendy Carney/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Diana

Embil/R5/USEPA/US@EPA i3ate: 02/18/2010 08:15 AM


Subject: R5 SFD DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE NRRB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BARREL FILL

Ernie, as you read in my February 10th e-mail, I distributed for comment the draft Proposed Plan for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site.

FYI, the first attachment below is the NRRB's recommendations memo. I included the second attachment as requested at the end of the NRRB memo. The second attachment is R5 SFD's draft response to the memo.

Amy, please distribute the R5 SFD draft response as appropriate.

Thanks.

ScanOOl .PDF tcbfNRRBSFDresponselA.doc

Forwarded by Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US on 06/23/2010 12:23 PM —

Froir,: Amy Legare/DC/USEPA/US To: RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Diana Embil/R5/USEP/VUS@EPA, Ernie Watkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joan

Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Wendy Carney/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/24/2010 10:11 AM ^ ^ 3 ^ ^ - ___ Re: R5 SFD DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE NRRB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BARREL FILL

Thank you Ron. The draft response is fine, however, regions tend to use a memo format rather than a letter format. I will be working with Ernie and Melanie Culp on comments on the draft Proposed Plan.

Amy R. Legare U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OSRTI/ARD/SARDB 5828 Potomac Yard South MC5204P 703-347-0124

RONALD MURAWSKI Ernie, as you read in my February 10th e-ma... 02/18/2010 08:15:50lAM

Deliberative Process - Privileged - Do not cite or quote

^^''IH'% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY

RESPONSE

MONTH XX, 2009

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: National Remedy Review Board Recommendations for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site

FROM: Amy R. Legare, Chair National Remedy Review Board

TO: Richard Karl, Director Superfund Division U.S. EPA Region 5

Purpose

The National Remedy Review Board (the Board) has completed its review of the proposed cleanup action for the Tremont City Barrell Fill Superfund Site in Tremont City, Clark County, Ohio. This memorandum documents the Board's advisory recommendations.

Context for Board Review

The Administrator announced the Board as one of the October 1995 Superfund Administrative Reforms to help control response costs and promote consistent and cost-effective decisions. The Board furthers these goals by providing a cross-regional, management-level, "real time" review of high cost proposed response actions prior to their being issued for public comment. The Board reviews all proposed cleanup actions that exceed its cost-based review criteria.

The Board evaluates the proposed actions for consistency with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and relevant Superfimd policy and guidance. It focuses on the nature and complexity of the site; health and environmental risks; the range of altematives that address site risks; the quality and reasonableness of the coot estimates for altematives; regional, state/tribal, and other stakeholder opinions on the proposed actions; and any other relevant factors.

The Board review is intended to help control remedy costs and to promote both consistent and cost-effective decisions. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Tremont City Barrel Fill 1 Version # 1 - 8/13/09

Plan (NCP) mandates, in addition to being protective, all remedies must be cost-effective, evaluates the proposed actions for consistency with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and relevant Superfimd policy and guidance. It focuses on the nature and complexity of the site; health and environmental rioks; the range of altematives that address site risks; the quality and reasonableness of the cost estimates for altematives; regional, state/tribal, and other stakeholder opinions on the proposed actions; and any other relevant factors. The Board will consider the nature of the site, risks posed by the site, regional, state, tribal and potentially responsible party (PRP) opinions on proposed actions, the quality and reasonableness of the cost estimates, and any other relevant factors or program guidance in making our advisory recommendations. The overall goal of the review is to ensure sound decision making consistent with current law, regulations, and giiidance.

Generally, the Board makes advisory recommendations to the appropriate regional division director decision malcer. The Region will then include these recommendations in the administrative record for the site, typically before it issues the proposed cleanup plan for public

^ comment. While the Region is expected to give the Board's recommendations substantial weight, other important factors, such as subsequent public comment or technical analyses of response options, may influence the Region's final decision. The Board expects the regional division director decision maker to respond in writing to its recommendations within a reasonable period of time, noting in particular how the recommendations influenced the proposed cleanup decision, including any effect on the estimated cost of the action. It is important to remember that the Board does not change the Agency's current delegations or'alter in any way the public's role in site decisions.

Overview of the Proposed Action

Ron - please send me a summary for this section.

NRRB Advisory Recommendations

The Board reviewed the information package describing this proposal and discussed related issues with Region 5 staff (Ron Miirawski, Joan Ttinaka, ai\d Diana Embil) and Ohio EPA staff (Mark Allen and Cindy Hafner) Ron - please confirm these names on August 3, 2009. Based on this review and discussion, the Board offers the following comments:

9 Criteria

Based on the material shared with the Board, it is difficult to evaluate the relative performance of the altematives with respect to the nine criteria. Due to the unknown volume of waste material, the unknown time to dmm decay, and the unknown performance of the sumps, it can not be stated is difficult to state that the preferred altemative will be protective as well as treat principal threat wastes to the maximum extent practicable (40 CFR Section 300.430(a)(iii)(A). The Board reconmiends that the Region consider a pilot study to determine if the sumps will perform as expected.

Tremont City Barrel Fill Version # 1-8/13/09

National Consistency

The Board notes that the preferred altemadve could diverge from the typical dmm-only site remedy which is to remove the dmms/barrels. This is particularly relevant in this case based on the Region's belief that the drums are mostly still intact. The Board recommends that the Region closely coordinate with the Office of Superfimd Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI).

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

The Board notes that the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure and post-closure care requirements found in 40CFR 265.111, 265.117, and 40CFR 265.310 and ground water monitoring requirements found in 40CFR 265.90-95 (or state equivalent) are not among the ARARs identified in Table 3 of the package. These requirements would be applicable to Alternatives altematives 2, 3, and 7. Specific applicable provisions include the substantive requirements pertaining to the design and maintenance of the final cover system, post-closure care, and maintenance/monitoring of a leak detection system. The Board recommends that the Region review Table 3 to assure that all possible ARARs are included.

We commend the Region's collaborative efforts in working with the Board and stakeholder groups at this site. We request that a draft response to these recommendations be included with the draft Proposed Plan when it is forweirded to the OSRTI Site Assessment & Remedy Decisions (SARD) Branch for review. The SARD Branch will work with both your staff and the Board to resolve any remaining issues prior to your release of the ROD. Once your response is final and made part of the site's Administrative Record, a copy of this letter and your response will be posted on the Board's website (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/).

Thank you for your support and the support of your rnanagers and staff in preparing for this review. Please call me at (703) 347-0124 should you have any quesfions.

cc: J. Woolford (OSRTI) P. Anderson (OSRTI) E. Gilberg (OSRE) J. Reeder (FFRRO) D. Ammon (OSRTI) D. Cooper (OSRTI) NRRB members

Tremont City Barrel Fill Version # 1- 8/13/09

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/

Deliberaljve Process - Privileged - Do not cite or quote

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

I \S^/ / f OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY

"*:r;, ' ^ . - f RESPONSE

MONTH XX, 2009

MEMORANDUM




Purpose

The National Remedy Review Board (the Board) has completed its review of the proposed cleanup action for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site in Tremont City, Clark County, Ohio. This meinorandum documents the Board's advisory recominendations.


The Administrator announced the Board as one of the October 1995 Superfund Administrative Reforms to help control response costs and promote consistent and cost-effective decisions. The Board fijrthers these goals by providing a cross-regional, management-level, "real time" review of high cost proposed response actions prior to their being issued for public comment. The Board reviews all proposed cleanup actions that exceed its cost-based review cn'teria.

The Board review is intended to help control remedy costs and to promote both consistent and cost-effective decisions. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) mandates, in addition to being protective, all remedies must be cost-effective. The Board will consider the nature of the site, risks posed by the site, regional, state, tribal and potentially responsible party (PRP) opinions on proposed actions, the quality and reasonableness of the cost estimates, and any other relevant factors or program guidance in making our advisory recommendations. The overall goal of the review is to ensure sound decision making consistent with current law, regulations, and guidance.

Tremont City Barrel Fill 1 Version # 2 - 8/26/09

Deliberative Process - Privileged - Do not cite or quote Generally, the Board makes advisory recommendations to the appropriate regional

division director. The Region will then include these recommendations in the administrative record for the site, typically before it issues the proposed cleanup plan for public comment. While the Region is expected to give the Board's recommendations substantial weight, other important factors, such as subsequent public comment or technical analyses of response options, may influence the Region's final decision. The Board expects the regional division director to respond in writing to its recommendations within a reasonable period of time, noting in particular how the recommendations influenced the proposed cleanup decision, including any effect on the estimated cost of the action. It is important to remember that the Board does not change the Agency's current delegations or alter in any way the public's role in site decisions.


Ron please send me a summary for this section. *' . * f,

NRRB AdvisQry Recommendations •'''''''^%. :%.. ' -''

The Board reviewed the information package describing this proposal and discussed related issues with Region 5 staff (Ron Murawski, Joan Tanaka, and Diana Embil) and Ohio EPA staff (Mark Allen and Cindy Hafner) on August 3, 2009 Based on this review and discussion, the Board offers the following comments.

9 Criteria

Based on the material shared with the Board it is difficult to evaluate the relative performance of the alternatives with respect to the'rnine criteria. Due to the unknown volume of waste material, unknown time to drum decay, and ufiknown performance of the sump pumps it is not possible for the Board to accurately evaluate whether the preferred altemative will be protective of human health and the environment, or whether the preferred altemative is consistent with the preference for treating principal threat wastes to the maximum extent practicable (see CERCLA^..121(b) and|40CFR^300.430(a)(iii)(A)), [The anticipates that the drum contents will be removed by the sump pumps and not seep down to the underlying ground water. The information presented to the Board did not contain information indicating that the cells of the barrel fill were designed to facilitate this action. These cells were not constructed with lined, smooth/flat bottoms with slopes to a low point where the sumps would be installed. The cells are described as unlined, rough, somewhat porous, and uneven in size plus are not likely to have a single low point to facilitate removal by the sump pumps. (The Board recommends that the Region consider a pilot study to evaluate whether the sumps will perfoiTn as expected.]

National Consistency

The Board notes that the preferred altemative does not appear to be consistent with other drum-only site remedial actions where the dnams/barrels have been removed. [This is particularly relevant in this case based on the Region's belief that the drums are mostly still intact. The

Tremont City Barrel Fill Version # 2- 8/26/09 2

C o m m e n t [ M D F l ] : (a)(iii)(A) says, EPA expects to use treatment to address principal waste threats posed by a site, "wherever practicable."

300.430(l)(ii)CE) says "maximum extent practicable."

Either or obviously works but the citation should correspond... so if you want to keep "maximum extent practicable", the citation should be changed to (0(ii)(E).

De le t ed : section

De le ted : Section

C o m m e n t [MDF2]; if the Region chooses to not lake (he Board's recommendation, this infomiation likely can be used by panies to claim that the Region's decision was arbitrary and/or capricious.

C o m m e n t [MDF3]: Is there any database that can be checked to ensure this statement is true? 1 know people said this on the phone call but is there some harder evidence that this is the case?

Deliberative Process - Privileged- Do not cite or quote

Board recommends that the Region closely coordinate with the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI).

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

The Board notes that the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure and post-closure care requirements found in 40 j£CFR 265.111, 265.117,^65.310 and ground water ,..-•[ Deleted: and4OCFR~ monitoring requirements found in 40 CFR § 265.90-95 (or state equivalent) are not among the ARARs identified in Table 3 of the package. These requirements normally would be applicable to Altematives 2, 3, and 7. Specific applicable provisions may include the substantive requirements pertaining to the design and maintenance of the final cover system, post-closure care, and maintenance/monitoring of a leak detection system. The Board recommends that the Region review Table 3 to assure that all possible ARARs are included and appropriate incorporated into the remedy selection process and decision documents.

We commend the Region's collaborative efforts in working with the Board and stakeholder groups at this site. We request that a draft response to these recommendations be included with the draft Proposed Plan wjien it is forwarded to the OSRTI Site Assessment & Remedy Decisions (SARD) Branch for review. The SARD Branch will work with both your staff and the Board to resolve any remaining issues prior to your release of the ROD. Once your response is final and made part of the site's Administrative Record, a copy of this letter and your response will be posted on the Board's website (http.7/www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/).

Thank you foryour support and the support of your managers and staff in preparing foi this review.^ Please call me at (703)-3,47-0124 should you have any questions.

cc: J. Woolfbrd (OSRTI) ^ " I f e j : .JK?^' P. Anderson (OSRTI) -'- "^»'r^-^0 E*Gilberg (OSRE)

,,: • •J^.Reeder (FFRRO)- , " ' ' ^W ' [>l|Ammon (OSRTI) , . 7

D. Cooper (OSRTI) „' NRRB members

Tremont City Barrel Fill Version # 2- 8/26/09

http://http.7/www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/

Deliberative Process - Privileged - Do not cire or quote

:s

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 i OFFICE OF

• = • SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY "-;., • ,s-' RESPONSE

' ' ^ ' . • t , : l ; ^ • * - * - •

MONTH XX, 2009

MEMORANDUM




Purpose

The National Remedy Review Board (the Board) has completed its review of the proposed cleanup action for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Superfund Site in Tremont City, Clark County, Ohio. This memorandum documents the Board's advisory recommendations.


The Administrator announced the Board as one of the October 1995 Superfund Administrative Refonns to help control response costs and promote consistent and cost-effective decisions. The Board furthers these goals by providing a cross-regional, management-level, "real time" review of high cost proposed response actions prior to their being issued for public comment. The Board reviews all proposed cleanup actions that exceed its cost-based review criteria.

The Board review is intended to help control remedy costs and to promote both consistent and cost-effective decisions. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) mandates, in addition to being protective, all remedies must be cost-effective. The Board will consider the nature of the site, risks posed by the site, regional, state, tribal and potentially responsible party (PRP) opinions on proposed actions, the quality and reasonableness of the cost estimates, and any other relevant factors or program guidance in making our advisory recommendations. The overall goal of the review is to ensure sound decision making consistent with cuirent law, regulations, and guidance.

Tremont ci ty Barrel Fill 1 Version # 2 - 8/26/09

Deliberative Process - Privileged - Do not cite or quote Generally, the Board makes advisory recommendations to the appropriate regional

division director. The Region will then include these recommendations in the administiative record for the site, typically before it issues the proposed cleanup plan for public comment. While the Region is expected to give the Board's recommendations substantial weight, other important factore, such as subsequent public comment or technical analyses of response options, may influence the Region's final decision. The Board expects the regional division director to respond in writing to its recommendations within a reasonable period of time, noting in particular how the recommendations influenced the proposed cleanup decision, including any effect on the estimated cost of the action. It is important to remember that the Board does not change the Agency's current delegations or alter in any way the public's role in site decisions.


Aitarnaiive RA-7 Is a coiitainme!'! and treatment aiterng'.ti'j'l. and leave.s the 'A'gste. including tl e 51.500 ijitin;s. !n place. ;l lias an estimiited cos; of s22.15 riillioiiar-icl includes the following components;

; insiijil 3.n«wn(jrad!ent coiiec'ion iieneri to coiiecl rssidijal.4075 Inteilili cjroundwater :... •"^ii'fli'sn •iporadion; arnijndvvstor divKraion atrtiCtiire'to ciivisrt Qroundw?itflr froni entering tha

: .'•'.'siali »ng .sjrnp a! 'he edge gl.C!igif6±:tiDjwaiite (•.aUsJq coiiecr liquid waste; '_ Pump iiquid wvasts pe-ricdically tion' fe'surrios using portable'"piimps.- Pumped liquid will incltide

i)uik liciLiid wasitH. tha [)eri:hed Water TJabia'afid-liquid waste frorn.:tHe Barrel Fill dm-ns as they IvM^ssjheiiicontems^ijyeniiTig^ %, i ;''S¥SS;:.„ .:-'

I .taiisgortjiguid waste c j f ^ s i s ^ • Req-acie wKi reveqelate'ItiB existing waste-cai5: v ' '.„ -_.PSLf?>LD5..3raUCidvyijii.iTiohH^ and >•, "

impieiTiert institutional coruroS a

• I Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Region S b&iieves that Ak&fnaiiva RA^? presents the be%t"balance of the nine criteria.

NRRB Advisory Re'cbmmendatidhs Deleted: Ron - please send ine a summaiy for tliis section.

The-Board reviewed,the infontiation package describing this proposal and discussed related issii'esriwith Region 5 staff (Ron Murawski, Joan Tanaka, and Diana Embil) and Ohio EPA staff (Mark Allen; lvv.lli.jN,jlciskY, and Cindy Hather) on August 3, 2009. Based on this review and disciissibn, the Bpard offers the following comments:

9 Criteria

Based on the material shared with the Board it is difficult to evaluate the relative performance of the altematives with respect to the nine criteria. Due to the unknown time to drurh decay, unknown performance of the sump pumps, and uncertainty about fate and transport of contaminants once lelensed From the containers, it is not possible to accurately evaluate whether the preferred altemative will be protective of human health and the environment, or whether the preferred alternative is consistent with the preference for treating principal threat wastes to the maximum extent practicable (see CERCLA section 121(b) and 40 CFR Section Tremont City Barrel Fill Version # 2- 8/26/09

2

Deliberative Process - Privileged - Do not cite or quote 300.430(a)(iii)(A)]. The preferred altemative anticipates that the drum contents will be removed by the sump pumps and not seep down to the underlying ground water. The information presented to the Board did not contain information indicating that the cells of the barrel fill were designed to facilitate this action. These cells were not constructed with lined, smooth/flat bottoms with slopes to a low point where the sumps would be installed. The cells are described as unlined, somewhat porous, and urilikely to have a single low point to facilitate removal of liquids by the sump pumps. ...Ihc fî^ârd.believesJjiaUi^ ue caiiiiiii; ây w-fh ceitairtv tlia; it will alh)v till of the concur •..[

[National Consistencvi

The Board notes that the preferred altemative does not appear to be consistent with other drum-only site remedial actions where the drums/barrels have been removed. This is particularly relevant in this case based on the Region's test pit obseiâtions that the driimsare mostly still intact. The Board recommends that the Region clos^Jy coordinate with the OfficQAOf Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI).1;i:r '^:S^

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement^:(XRARS)

The Board notes that the Resource; Conservation and Rero.very Act (RCRA) closure and post-closure care requirements found in 4 6 G M " 2 6 5 . 1 1 1, 265.117,'and40CFR 265.310 and ground water monitoring requirements found in 40GER:265.90-95:ôr state equivalent) are not among the ARARs identified in Table 3 of the package.'' TfieseTequirements normally would be applicable to Altematives 2,'3,{and 7. SpecificJapplicable provisions may include the substantive requirements pertainingSto the design and mainteriance of the final cover system, post-closure care, and maintenance/monitoring of a leak detection system. The Board recommends that the Region review Table 3 tb'assure that applicable RCRfA ARARs are included and appropriately incorporated into the remedyrsejectioritprpcessand'decision documents.

We commend theRegiori'scollaborative efforts in working with the Board and stakeholder groups at this site. We request that a draft response to these recommendations be included With the draft Proposed Plari;when it is forwarded to the OSRTI Site Assessment & Remedy Decisions (SARD) Branch for review. The SARD Branch will work with both your staff and the B'oard to resolve^ny remaining issues prior to your release of the ROD. Once your response is final*and-made part of the site's Administrative Record, a copy of this letter and your response will be postedoathe Board's website (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/).

C o m m e n t [ E P A l ] : I disagree. 1 can't say that I have a better .answer as to how sump performance cari be assessed, but a pilor study could not yield any conclusive infonnatton within a reasonable study period. Going this route would delay iinplementatjon of the full scale remedy, for many years,.perhaps decades..!

De l e t ed ; The Boarxl recommends that ihe Region consider a pilot snjdy to evaluate whether the sumps will perform as expected.

C o m m e n t [EPA2]::Tliis is the big issue at tliis site I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing statutory, NCP, and preamble language regarding the.non-binding expectation that principal threat waste be treated. My conclusion - if the region is convinced tliat an alteniatiye that I^ves the drums in place is.: protective, it shoolid be within their' discretion to do so. Oiie.thing thai was clear during the review - there are significant diiftrences of opinion between the PRPs, the State, and EPA about Ihe certainty associated.v^th predicted migration and, hence, protectiveness.. 1 don't think the Board review really.gets into.enough distail to take a position on.this certaiiity issue, but we could add some broad language to this comment if desired: .

Thank you for your support and the support of your managers and staff in preparing for this review. Please call me at (703) 347-0124 should you have any questions.

cc: J. Woolford (OSRTI) P. Anderson (OSRTI) E. Gilberg (OSRE) J. Reeder (FFRRO)

Tremont City Barrel Fill Versions 2-8/26/09

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/

Deliberative Process - Privileged - Do not cite or quote D. Ammon (OSRTI) D. Cooper (OSRTI) NRRB members

Tremont City Barrel Fill Version » 2- 8/26/09

OSRTI's cotnments on Tremont City Barrel Site draft Proposed Plan fact sheet Ernie Watkins fo: RONALD MURAWSKI 03/05/2010 04:49 PM Cc: Doug Ammon, Joan Tanaka, Amy Legare, Melanie Culp

Ron,

We have been very busy conducting reviews on a number of significant sites with major site issues over tlie past thee w/eeks including your own, and I apologize for the delay in getting our comments forwarded to you. Since this is a significant RRB-reviewed site, our preference here at HQ would be for you folks to modify the Remedy Review Board package to use as your Proposed Plan by changing the selected remedy to drum removal rather than publishing your current fact sheet. We will be expecting better and more complete information presented in your draft ROD package and I hope you will use these comments to that end. We are available next week if you want to discuss our comments further.

Thanks,

Ernie

Regional Coordinator USEPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (5204?) Washington, DC 20460

Tel: (703)603-9011 FAX: (703) 603-9102

Physical Address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2777 Crystal Drive (One Potomac Yard) Room S-5838 Arlington, Virginia 22202

OSRTI's comments on idrafl Tremont City BBL Fill PPLan.doc

Exhibit 2

Ernie Watlcins', Amy Legare's, and Melanie Gulp's comments on the draft Tremont City Barrel Fill Site fact sheet

Significant concerns:

We do not understand why we received a fact sheet instead of a true Proposed Plan. This is a very significant site in terms of volume of waste disposed and potential remedial costs and it therefore required a Remedy Review Board review. OSRTI's present review is handicapped tremendously by not having the opportunity to review and consider a true proposed plan. In the future, when we receive the draft ROD, we will necessarily need to make more detailed comments that we would have preferred to make at this stage. However, because of the lack of detailed information presented in the present document, we have found a number of significant concems during our review.

There was no justification provided for our preferred altemative of 4a over any of the other altematives. Text coverage on why we are recommending 4a and picked the altemative over the others must be added.

The document lacks all of the following important information, which needs to be added: A The scope and role of this decision B RAOs C NPL status/SA status D Specifics on risk

1. Our preferred altemative is not addressing groundwater to surface water risk

It is not clear what the contaminants of concern are for the site and the extent to which they exist. Furthermore, the risk for each receptor and contaminants of concern are not adequately described in a way that indicates we would be triggered into action at this site. (Is the asbestos slurry a risk?)

With approximately 51K barrels buried at the site, and over 300K gallons of industrial waste disposed at this site according to the document, we find ourselves asking whether the PRPs sample shopped during their performance of the RI? The extent of the groundwater contamination is not characterized as being impacted. How is it possible that there is or are no MCL exceedences? Are we to take it that there were no impacts to groundwater at all? Are we saying that nobody near the site ever had a well that showed site impacts? Are there municipal wells near to the site that could potentially have a zone of influence over the site? If it is tme that there is no current risk at all firom the site then we are basically developing this remedy only on future potential for risk, is that the case? More details provided on these issues in this document would be helpfiil.

Our document makes an obscure reference at the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3 that future, unacceptable risk to human health or the environment may occur from the following exposure scenarios. This being said, we do not have a clear statement that the potential for drums eventually leaking to groundwater and surface water is the risk trigger for taking this proposed action at the site. This type of statement is definitely required.

We also would like to see statements that the risk may occur statement made on page 2 is backed up by statements that all these bulleted future risks are outside of EPA's acceptable risk range, and then provide actual risk numbers in this section. Clarity on why this action is needed and why our Agency is taking an action at this site is lacking in this draft.

It is unclear from the limited information presented in the document how deep the contamination flows from within the barrel fill, or how it has no discemable effect on groundwater. We state that a lower drinking water aquifer is not showing an impact but how extensive was it tested? Additionally, it should be stated (for remedial action objecfive purposes) if the contamination exists in a drinking water aquifer so that the remedy will need to meet MCLs. The public should know if we plan to restore groundwater at the site.

Are we certain that there were no sediment impacts on the stream mentioned in the document? Did the PRPs perform their sediment sample testing and collect their samples at any distance downstream? Did above the bank, storm sediment-scour events occur since 1980 and if so, did storm scour transport downstream get looked into? Did sediment samples get screened by particle size, so that only fine grained sediment was analyzed? Was or is the State aware of any fish kills while the site was in operation? We say on page 2 that sediment sampling results exceed ecological screening criteria and yet two paragraphs down we state that "there is no current, unacceptable risk to human health and the environment ft^om the site. These two sentences on their face seem like a contradiction.

The Proposed Plan puts forward a number of excavation altematives and yet does not state/document whether the altematives will have air monitoring criteria, whether excavation altematives will have air volatile impacts to the local airshed, nor does it relate whether air volatilization when excavating has been considered. Since we are indicating the short-term impacts are part of the 9 criteria review, we should put some indication in this draft that air volatilization'during site excavation work will not put site workers, or nearby citizens at risk.

When we re-route the tributary in Altemative 4a and perhaps others, we will cause an ecological risk and a major impact on the stream ecology to occur. What is the likely impact of re-routing this tributary? How will this impact be mitigated, and will the stream be restored to a functioning ecosystem?

The nine-criteria evaluation does not provide adequate information to the public on why our selected altemative is the best fit of all the altematives being considered. Our present table looks as if either of the altematives numbered 4 through 6 could have been selected.

Is the Barrel Fill Site connected to the Tremont City Landfill? What is the cleanup status at the adjacent areas? There should be more transparency and linkage between the three sites (barrel fill, sanitary landfill, and waste transfer sites).

The Region's comments to the Remedy Review Board indicated that the RCRA post closure ARARs requirements and groundwater monitoring requirements have been revised but there was no ARARs discussion presented within this draft document.

We believe that five-year reviews will be required and necessary at this site. Please indicate that five-year reviews will be required for all of the proposed altematives.

Page comments

Page 3 Top of the page Please correct the statement at the top of the page and make the seven criteria read nine criteria. Then to clarify, make the sentence say something similar to: the last two of the nine criteria i.e.. State acceptance and community acceptance will be evaluated following the receipt of public comments prior to the issuance of our Record of Decision (ROD).

Page 3 Top of the page under the bullet for Institutional Controls we might want to add/modify the sentence to include provisions for keeping an off-site ground water user from intercepting or pulling groundwater off of this site. We are also wondering if the local community has municipal well fields near the site and if so, how far their wellfields' zone-of-influence might create issues in the future?

Page 3 Cleanup Altemative 2, second paragraph We should state that the groundwater flow to manholes goes to a wastewater treatment system. Otherwise we're left with the understanding that the flow to the manhole then ends up in a storm sewer which then on to the nearest surface water thereby missing the on-site treatment. \

Page 4 Referring to our statement that we will segregate soils into clean and dirty stockpiles based on observation and "field screening", please identify what screening criteria we will use for segregating the non-hazardous, solid, dmmmed waste into an on-site solid waste cell?

Page 4, last sentence in Cleanup Altemative 4. Suggest revising water treatment facilities to wastewater treatment facilities.

Page 4 EPA's preferred cleanup altemative is given a parenthetical at the bottom of the page but we do not have any text that distinguishes why we prefer this altemative.

Page 5, Clean up Altemative 4a top of page Again, please identify what screening criteria we will use for segregating the non-hazardous, solid, dmmmed waste into an on-site solid waste cell?

Page 5, Cleanup Altemative 4a Explain why the liner may not be needed, when will it be known if it is needed, how will the need be determined?

Page 5 (Alt. 4a and 4b) described the "relocation of the tributary east of the Barrel Fill". Where is this tributary? A map would help identify a lot of locations discussed in the

document. Have we considered what the impact of re-routing the tributary east of the Barrel Fill will have on the aquatic ecosystem? How does rerouting the stream fit in with our threshold criterion with respect to protection of the environment?

Page 5 We presume the difference in cost between 4, 4a, and 4b have to do with off-site waste transport but if this is the case it would be helpful to clarify this point.

Page 5 next to last paragraph we should consider either using either the same term for our discussion of stabilization. It probably would be easier for the public to understand metals rather than the term inorganics now being used.

Page 6 Cleanup Alt 5a We don't understand why a waiver of the liner requirement is being considered.

Page 7 Next Steps section

We need to describe why we are recommending altemative 4a in this section.

We should state specifically that we may modify or change our preferred altemative based on commimity and/or state input.

Please provide details on where the Admin Record files are located and provide street addresses and the hours of normal operation.

Page 8 The evaluation of the nine criteria chart, while informative, does not adequately characterize to what extent each altemative fulfills the criteria. Specifically, it is not clear how those altematives that "partially" or do not fulfill the criteria requirements fail to measure up. Nine criteria evaluations need to be expressed in text form rather than symbolically. In addition, there is nothing that makes altemative 4a standout as the best fit for the nine criteria analysis. Our table looks as if either of the altematives numbered 4 through 6 could have been selected. Is this our intention?

; - - , ; > - ^ * ^ - • ' : • ' • •• V ' • •

Evaluation

Criterion

Overall Protection

of Human Health

and the

Environment

Compliance with

ARARs

Longterm

Effectiveness and

Permanence

Reduction of

Toxicity, Mobility, or

Volume through

Treatment

Short Term

Effectivness

Implementability

Cost

State Acceptance

Community

Acceptance

Alt. 1

o

o

o

o

N/A***

N/A***

$0

Alt. 2

•

<S)

®

o

•

• $7.3M

Alt. 3

•

(§>

®

o

•

• $13.8M

Alt. 4

• . . . - . • •

•

#

•

•

® ®

$60.6M

Alt.

4a*/4b

•

•

•

•

® (S>

$56.9/

59. IM

Alt. 5

•

•

•

•

® ®

$60.5M

Alt.

5a/5b

•

•

•

•

<s> ®

$57.4/

60.6M

Alt. 6

•

•

•

•

<s> ®

$61.2M

Alt. 7

•

•

•

®

•

• $22.5M

Ohio EPA has.indicated support for the U.S. EPA prefered alternative

Will be evaluated after the public comment period

Fully meets criterion (5)Partially meets criterion Q O o e s not meet criterion

* U.S. EPA's preferred alternative

Alternative 5a would require a waiver of Ohio's solid waste construction requirements,

since this alternative would not use a flexible membrane liner in the solid waste cell.

N/A: not applicable, since a cleanup is not being done in the No-Action Alternative

Exhibit 3

EFFEaS OF DILUTION ON MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS

TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL

TREMONT CITY, OHIO

Page l o f 6

Chemical Name

Groundwfater

Criteria*

Maximum

Liquid Drum

Result

Maximum Frac

Tank Water

Maximum

Monitoring

Well GW

Dilution Frac Tank Monitoring

attenution Drum - 1 0 ' ' Water -10'^ Well GW -10'^

Factor to Deep cm/sec DAF cm/sec DAP cm/sec DAF

S&G Applied to Max Applied to Max Applied to Max

10' cm/sec Result Result Result

Metals (UG/L)

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Cyanide

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

36000

6

10

2000

4

5

100

730

1300

200

11000

15

730

2

730

50

180

2

260 11000

66700 63.8 699

28300

3.3 906

1830000 328

358

5360

729

4370000

8360

199000 50200

2.3 1340

17000000 531 7.8

10800000 142

173 10400

184000

4.7

184

2380

9.5 19.9

2790000

374

175 550

1.7 435000

229 981000

8280 0.34

469

47500

3.2 39500

160 361 1170

30000

10.7

364 912

1.7

2.3 316000

52 25.7

145 10.6

94100

43.7

129000 7760 0.12

73.8 36600

3.8 1.5

118000 1.4

57.2 198

4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060

0.01369031 0.00001310 0.00014347 0.00580863 0.00000068 0.00018596 0.37561112 0.00006732 0.00007348 0.00110015 0.00014963 0.89695114 0.00171591 0.04084514 0.01030365 0.00000047 0.00027504 3.48928360 0.00010899 0.00000160 2.21672135 0.00002915 0.00003551 0.00213462

0.03776636 0.00000096 0.00003777 0.00048850 0.00000195 0.00000408 0.57265301 0.00007676 0.00003592 0.00011289 0.00000035 0.08928461 0.00004700 0.20135219 0.00169949 0.00000007 0.0000962,6 0.00974947

NA 0.00000066 0.00810745 0.00003284 0.00007410 0.00024014

0.00615756 0.00000220 0.00007471 0.00018719 0.00000035 0.00000047 0.06485962 0.00001067 0.00000527 0.00002976 0.00000218 0.01931421 0.00000897 0.02647750 0,00159276 0.00000002 0.00001515 0.00751222 0.00000078 0.00000031 0.02421973 0.00000029 0.00001174 0.00004064

Pesticides (UG/L)

4,4-DDD

4,4-DDE

4,4-DDT

Aldrin

0.2

0.28

0.2

0.004

37000 8.5

46000 1.4

4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060 4,872,060

0.00759432 0.00000174 0.00944159 0.00000029

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Haley & Aldrich, inc.

C:\Documents and Settings\sasa.lFIRMNET\My Documents\Olktemp\Ditution on MAX_RESULTS-D5.xlsx:MAX RESULTS Exhibit 4 lO-Aug-2010

EFFECTS OF DILUTION ON MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL TREMONT CITY, OHIO

Page 2 of 6

Chemical Name Groundwater

Criteria*

0.01

0.17 -

0.03

-0.0042

220

_ 2

_ 0.2

0.19

0.4

0.2

40

Liquid Dri

Result

16000

-12

0.18

-3.7

4.2

25000

8.9

370

-410

-44

Maximum Maximum Frac

Tank Water

Maximum

Monitoring

Well GW

0.12

0.17

0.1

-0.097

---

0.077

----

13

---

.

------- •

----

Dilution

attenution

Factor to Deep

S&G

10° cm/sec

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

Drum -10'°

cm/sec DAF

Applied to Max

Result

0.00328403

NA

0.00000246

0.00000004

NA

0.00000076

NA

0.00000086

0.00513130

NA

0.00000183

0.00007594

NA

0.00008415

NA

0.00000903

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00005747

0.00012315

NA

0.00131361

Frac Tank

Water -10'^

cm/sec DAF

Applied to Max

Result

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Monitoring

Well GW -10"°

cm/sec DAF

Applied to Max

Result

0.00000002

0.00000003

0.00000002

NA

0.00000002

NA

NA

NA

0.00000002

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000267

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC DIeldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Methoxychlor Technical Chlordane Toxaphene

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (UG/L) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,2-oxybis(l-Chloropropane) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene

75

3.6

3600 110 730

7.3

73 36

490

30

120

------

280 600

-64O0

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. C:\Documents and Settings\sasa.lFIRMNET\My Documents\Olktemp\Dilution on MAX_RESULTS-D5.xlsx:MAX RESULTS lO-Aug-2010

EFFECTS OF DILUTION ON MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS


TREMONT CITY, OHIO

Page 3 of 6

Chemical Name

Groundwater

Criteria*

1800

1

-0.15

--

3.7

--

150

-180

3.3

290

370

-0.04

1800

3

3600

0.92

0.2

0.92

-0.92

--

0.000052

4.8

7300

18000

3,4

Maximum

Liquid Drum

Result

5400

---

1000

---

140

--

1000

---

61

100

--

160000

18

----

31000

-370

14000000

1800

-IS

Maximum Frac

Tank Water

---------------

• -

----------. --

3.2

---

Maximum

Monitoring

Well GW

-------------------

3.9

--------

5.6

-11000

-

Dilution

attenution

Factor to Deep

S&G

10'° cm/sec

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

. 4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

.4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

Drum -10""

cm/sec DAF

Frac Tank

Water -10"°

cm/sec DAF

Monitoring

Well GW - 10"°

cm/sec DAF

Applied to Max Applied to Max Applied to Max

Result

0.00110836

NA

NA

NA

0.00020525

NA

NA

NA

0.00002874

NA

NA

0.00020525

NA

NA

NA

0.00001252

0,00002053

NA

NA

0.03284032

0.00000369

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00636281

NA

0.00007594

2.87352767

0.00036945

NA

0.00000308

Result

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000066

NA

NA

NA

Result

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000080

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000115

NA

0.00225777

NA

2-Methylphenol

2-Nitroaniline

2-Nitrophenol

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

3-Methylphenol

3-Nitroaniline

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol

4-Chloroaniline

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether

4-Methylphenol

4-Nitroaniline

4-Nitrophenol

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Acetophenone

Anthracene

Atrazine

Benzaldehyde

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzolajpyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Biphenyl

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Butyl benzylphthalate

Caprolactam

Carbazole

Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

C:\Documents and Settings\sasa.lFIRMNET\My Documents\Olktemp\Dilution on MAX_RESULTS-D5.xlsx:MAX RESULTS lO-Aug-2010

of 6



TREMONT CITY, OHIO

Chemical Name

Chrysene

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Dibenzofuran

Diethyl phthalate

Dimethyl phthalate

Di-n-butylphthalate

Di-n-octyl phthalate

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Hexachloroethane

lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

Isophorone

Naphthalene

Nitrobenzene

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

Pentachlorophenol

Phenanthrene

Phenol

Pyrene

Pyridine

Volatile Organic Compounds (UG/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene

1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene

Groundwater

Criteria*

9.2

0.09

24

29000

360000

3600

1500

1500

240

0.04

0.86

220

4.8

0.09

71

6.2

3.4

0.0096

14

1

-22000

180000

-

200

0.05

5

5

340

-

Maximum

Liquid Drum Maximum Frac

Result Tank Water

--

170

130

1600

150

210000

- •

--

8300

---

38000

7700

20000

440

320

58000

120

6600 IS

-310

1500000

--

82000

24

• - '

Maximum

Monitoring

Well GW

---1

--------------------

7000

2.3

-1900

250

0.55

Dilution

attenution

Factor to Deep

S&G

10"° cm/sec

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

Drum -10"°

cm/sec DAF

Frac Tank

Water - 1 0 °

cm/sec DAF

Monitoring

Well GW -10"°

cm/sec DAF


Result

NA

NA

0.00003489

0.00002668

0.00032840

0.00003079

0.04310292

NA

NA

NA

0.00170359

NA

NA

NA

0.00779958

0.00158044

0.00410504

0.00009031

0.00006568

0.01190461

0.00002463

0.00135466

NA

0.00006363

0.30787796

NA

NA

0.01683066

0.00000493

NA

Result

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000308

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Result

NA

NA

NA

0.00000021

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00143676

0.00000047

NA

0.00038998

0.00005131

0.00000011


C:\Documents and SettingsVsasa.lFIRMNEAMy Documents\Olktemp\Dilution on MAX_RESULTS-D5.xlsx:MAX RESULTS lO-Aug-2010

of 6 EFFECTS OF DILUTION ON MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS TREMONT CITY BARREL FILL TREMONT CITY, OHIO

Chemical Name

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane(DBCP)

1,2-Dlbromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide)

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloropropane ^

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

2-Butanone

2-Hexanone

4-Methyl-2-pentanone

Acetone

Benzene

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Bromomethane

Carbon disulfide

Carbon tetrachloride

Chlorobenzene

Chloroethane

Chloroform (Trichloromethane)

Chloromethane

cis-l,2-Dichloroethene

cis-l,3-Dichloropropene

Cyclohexane

Dibromochloromethane

Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)

Ethylbenzene

Isopropylbenzene

Methyl acetate

Methyl cyclohexane

Methyl Tert Butyl Ether

Groundwater

Criteria*

70

0.2

0.0007

600

7

5

5.5

75

1900

--

610

5

0.18

8.5

8.7

1000

5

100

4.6

6.2

1.5

70

-35000

0.13

390

700

-6100

5200

13

Maximum

Liquid Drum

Result

130000

890

-

-16000

2900

3000

23000000

29000

980000

2800000

81

--

55000

51000

---

53000

----

140

290000

6100

140000

3100

-

Maximum Frac

Tank Water

---

0,18

---•

20

20

24

0,77

-------

0.61

----

-0,44

----

Maximum

Monitoring

Well GW

0.12

---

19

---

460

-0.62

1100

1.2

-0.27

0.17

9.9

-3.9

1000

5.7

33

150

-0.7

0.23

17

0.87

--

0.91

0.3

Dilution attenution

Factor to Deep

S&G

10"° cm/sec

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

Drum - 1 0 °

cm/sec DAF

Frac Tank

Water -10"°

cm/sec DAF

Monitoring

Well GW - 1 0 °

cm/sec DAF


Result

0.02668276

0.00018267

NA

NA

NA

0.00328403

0.00059523

0,00061576

4,72079546

0.00595231

0.20114694

0.57470553

0.00001663

NA

NA

0.01128886

0.01046785

NA

NA

NA

0,01087835

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00002874

0,05952307

0.00125204

0.02873528

0.00063628

NA

Result

NA

NA

NA

0.00000004

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000411

NA

0.00000411

0.00000493

0.00000016

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000013

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.00000009

NA

NA

NA

NA

Result

0.00000002

NA

NA

NA

0.00000390

NA

NA

NA

0.00009442

NA

0.00000013

0.00022578

0.00000025

NA

0.00000006

0.00000003

0.00000203

NA

0.00000080

0.00020525

0.00000117

0.00000677

0.00003079

NA

0.00000014

0.00000005

0.00000349

0.00000018

NA

NA

0.00000019

0.00000006

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. C:\Documents and Settings\sasa.lFIRMNET\My Documents\Olktemp\Dilution on MAX_RESULTS-D5,xlsx:MAX RESULTS lO-Aug-2010

of 6



TREMONT CITY, OHIO

Chemical Name

Methylene chloride

m-xylene

o-Xylene

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene

Toluene

trans-l,2-Dichloroethene

trans-l,3-Dichloropropene

Trichloroethene

Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)

Trifluorotrichloroethane (Freon 113)

Vinyl chloride

Xylene (total)

Groundwater

Criteria*

5

10000

10000

100

5

1000

100

-5

1300

-2

10000

Maximum

Liquid Drum

Result

1400000

280000

69000

540000

52000

2900000

--

24000

810000

--

650000

Maximum Frac

Tank Water

0.1

1.9

1.1

--

4.6

--

0.13

---

3.2

Maximum

Monitoring

Well GW

92

1.4

0.6

-1.9

6.8

1.6

-13

15

-8.2

4.6

Dilution

attenution

Factor to Deep

S&G

10"° cm/sec

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

4,872,060

Drum -10"°

cm/sec DAF

Frac Tank

Water -10"°

cm/sec DAF

Monitoring

Well GW -10"°

cm/sec DAF


Result

0.28735277

0.05747055

0.01416239

0.11083607

0.01067310

0.59523073

NA

NA

0.00492505

0.16625410

NA

NA

0.13341378

Result

0.00000002

0.00000039

0.00000023

NA

NA'

0.00000094

NA

NA

0.00000003

NA

NA

NA

0.00000066

Result

0.00001888

0.00000029

0.00000012

NA

0.00000039

0.00000140

0.00000033

NA

0.00000267

0.00000308

NA

0.00000168

0.00000094

Notes and Abbreviations:

* - Groundwater Criteria are Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or if MCLs do not exist other applicable screening criteria (PR6 or RBC).

Bold Red Font: Indicates result is greater than Groundwater Criteria

NA- Not Applicable


C:\Documents and Setting5\sasa.lFIRMNET\My Documents\Olktemp\Dilution on MAX_RESULTS-D5,xlsx:MAX RESULTS lO-Aug-2010

Fw: FOIA ~ Tremont RobinM Anderson to: Doug Ammon 06/10/2010 09:37 AM

Robin M, Anderson OSRTI 703.603.8747 off, 703.603.9102 fax 5202P Mail Code

. — Forwarded by RobinM Anderson/DC/USEPA/US on 06/10/2010 09:36 AM —•

From: Joan Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US To: RobinM Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Charles Openchowski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diana Embil/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Ernie

Watkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ignacio Arrazola/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, RONALD M U RAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Dale: 11/04/2009 08:31 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Triggering Minimum Tech Landfill Requirements

Robin,

Can you please provide us a copy or link to the OSWER directive or piece of guidance that you are relying on for the Siliva Lov^rance definition of "when does taking the waste out of the units result in a new unit"? We have read the October 1989 OSWER Directive 9234.2-04FS RCRA ARARs: Focus on Closure Requirements an6 March 13, 1995, Use of Area of Contamination (AOC) Concept during RCRA Cleanups, from Michael Shapiro, Stephen D, Luftig, and Jerry Clifford, thanks.

Regarding protectiveness: the Barrel Fill has held large quantities of hazardous waste (including an estimated approximate 1 million gallons of hazardous waste liquids) for approximately 30 years. There are very little releases of contamination to the most shallow gw aquifer, which is really an intertill, and may not be a class I aquifer capable of serving as a drinking water source. There is one well in the shallow intertill, outside of the waste boundary, with an exceedance of MCL(s), but just barely. The nature geologic materials under the waste is very tight The Region does not believe it is necessary for protectiveness to augment the natural till materials in order to contain any contaminants that may be present in the non-hazardous solid waste that remains onsite after the hazardous waste is disposed off-site. The state of Ohio agrees with this position; although they do believe that their solid waste disposal rules are ARARs nonetheless. Given this circumstance, they believe their disposal rules can and should be waived. The Region doesn't understand why it is an ARAR in the first place.

Joan Tanaka, Section Chief Section #4 Remedial Response Branch #2 Superfund Division U.S. EPA, Region 5 (312)-353-5425

RobinM Anderson I am a little confused on the municipal solid wast... 11/03/2009 12:21:38|PM

From: RobinM Anderson/DC/USEPA/US To: Ignacio Arrazola/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Charles Openchowski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diana Embil/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Ernie

Watkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joan Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, RONALD

Exhibit 5

MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 11/03/2009 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Triggering Minimum Tech Landfill Requirements

I am a little confused on the municipal solid waste liner reg requirements ~

the Federal standards allow for a performance standards - that the landfill will not leak above MCLs levels or a design standard - Given that we also do not want our waste disposal to exceed MCLs - why could be not use the performance standards mode of compliance (note the regulations and EPA guidance talks in terms of "new units" or "lateral extensions" these concepts do not come into play for an existing unit ~ so I think that the Silvia Lowrance definition of when does taking the waste out of the units result in a new u nit would seem to come into play.

In any event ~ we also do not want our waste management area to leak (there is the CERCLA protectiveness issues which works in conjunction with the ARARs issue)

From a regulatory standpoint - for purposes of performance standard in lieu of a liner ~ the point of compliance is as follows: (d) The relevant point of compliance specified by the Director of an approved State shall be no more than ISO meters from the waste management unit boundary and shall be located on land owned by the owner of the MSWLF unit.

Under CERCLA ~ the point of compliance is ~ the contaminated groundwater should not migrate downward and should not extend past the waste management unit.

The EPA Guidance on landfill design is as follows: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/techman/subpartd.pdf

4.2.3 Technical Considerations Demonstration Requirements For approval of landfill designs not conforming to the uniform design standard of a composite liner system and a leachate collection system (40 CFR §258.40(a)(2)), the owner or operator of the proposed MSWLF unit must demonstrate to the Director of an approved State that the design will not allow the compounds listed in Table 1 of §258.40 to exceed the MCLs in ground water at the relevant point of compliance. The demonstration should consider an assessment of leachate quality and quantity, leachate leakage to the subsurface, and subsurface transport to the relevant point of compliance. These factors are governed by site hydrogeology, waste characteristics, and climatic conditions. The nature of the demonstration is essentially

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/techman/subpartd.pdf

an assessment of the potential for leachate production and leakage from the landfill to ground water, and the anticipated fate and transport of constituents listed in Table 1 to the proposed relevant point of compliance at the facility. Inherent in this approach is the need to evaluate whether contaminants in ground water at the relevant point of compliance will exceed the concentration values listed in Table 1. If so, then the owner or operator needs to obtain sufficient sitespecific data to adequately characterize the existing ground

Robin M. Anderson OSRTI 703.603.8747 off, 703.603.9102 fax 5202P Mail Code

lgnacip_Arrazola CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILE... 11/03/2009 11:31:58|AM RqbmM Anderson 8 CST (9 EST) works for me. We can use my ca... 11/03/2009 07:46:45|AM RONALD MURAWSKI Thanks, Robin. Can you, Ernie, and OGC m,., 11/03/2009 08:37:27|AM RobinM Anderson Attached below are the URLs for two memorand... 11/02/2009 03:12:27|PM