EPA Region 5 Records ctr.

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111

391083

Second Five-Year Review Report for

Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site Wyandotte

Wayne County, Michigan

March 2011

PREPARED BY:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5

Chicago, Illinois

Date:

Five-Year Review R.eport

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

Five-Year Review Summary Form .................................................................................................2

I. Introduction ....................................................................... , .............................................. 4

II. Site Chronology...............................................................................................................5

III. Background ......................................................................................................................6 Site Name, Location and Description ..................................................................................6 Land and Resource lTse .......................................................................................................6 History ofContaminat'~on ...................................................................................................6 Initial Response........... . . .... ...................................... . . ..... . .................................................... 7 Basis for Taking Action .......................................................................................................7

IV. Remedial Actions ............................................................................................................8 Remedy Selection ................................................................................................................8 Remedy Implementation ..................................................................................................... 10 Institutional Controls .......................................................................................................... 10

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ............................................................. 11

VI. Five-Year Review Process ................................................................................. 11 Administrative Compol1ents ............................................................................................... 11 Community Notification and Involvement ......................................................................... 11 Document Review ............................................................................................................... 11 Data Review ........................................................................................................................ 12 Site Inspection ..................................................................................................................... 12

VII. Technical Assessm'ent .................................................................................... 12

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ............. 12

action objectives (RAGs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? ................. 12

the protectiveness of the remedy? ....................................................................................... 13 Technical Assessment Summary ........................................................................................ 13

VIII. Issues ................................................................................................................. 13

IX. '~ecommendations and Follow-up Actions ..................................................... 13

X. Protectiveness Statement(s) ............................................................................ 13

XI. t~ext Review ....................................................................................................... 14

Tabll:!s Table 1

Attachments Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9

Chronology of Site Events

Site Map Park Area Declaration of Restrictive Covenant List of Documents Reviewed Inspection Report Public Notice Advertisement Comments from State Title Commitment Photographs

ii

List of Acronyms

ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Agency United States Environmental Protection Agency CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COCs Contaminants of Concern CPC Contaminant(s:, of Potential Concern FCOR Final Close Out Report FS Feasibility Study IC Institutional Ccntrols MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality NPL National Priorities List NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollutic:'lll Contingency Plan PCOR Preliminary Close Out Report PPB Parts per billion PPM Parts per million QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RA Remedial Action RD Remedial Design RAOs Remedial Action Objectives RI Remedial Investigation ROD Record of Decision EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UAO Unilateral Administrative Order

iii

Executive Summary

The Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site (LEC or the site) is located in Section 17, RIlE, T3SN in the City o)f'\Vyandotte, Wayne County, Michigan (see Attachmentl). The City of Wyandotte is located about 6 miles southwest of the City of Detroit. The 1996 Record of Decision (ROD) addrf:~st:d both surface and subsurface soil cyanide contamination, and site restoration. The remedy included the following major components:

• Excavation and disposal of shallow and deep contaminated soil; • Resampling of locations identified in the remedial investigation which showed

contaminant levels above cleanup standards to determine the extent of contamination; and

• Restoration of residential areas affected by excavation.

Construction of the remedy was performed in 2 phases, with the last phase completed in June 2003. The site was eventually deleted from the National Priorities List on July 1,2005.

The 1996 ROD concluded that, because the selected remedy will not result in hazardous subst,Ulces remaining on-site above unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UUIUE), the five year review will not apply to this action. However, the 2001 ROD Amendment specifically addressed a change to the remedy for the part of the site referred to as the Park Area (see Attachment 2), where waste, approximately 6 feet thick, was found 3-4 feet below the surface. The v:aste found in the Park Area appeared to be general household waste disposed of many years ago and consisted of things such as broken glass, rags, shoes and other garbage. This waste was different from the cyanide-contaminated soil waste excavated as part of the 1996 ROD but was contaminated with lead and arsenic above applicable Michigan cleanup standards. Leadwa5 found to be as high as 4,510 mg/kg, while arsenic was detected as high as 31 mg/kg. For comparison, site-specific background levels for these two contaminants were 60 and 14 mg/kg, n;:spectively.

The 200] ROD Amendment selected institutional controls (rCs) and monitoring and maintenance of the clean fill cover as the most appropriate remedy for the Park Area portion of the LEe Site. The institutional controls were intended to permanently restrict the use of the land and groundwater in the Park Area. Although the RI found that ground water did not present unacc.;!ptable risks to human health and the environment, rcs restricting the use of ground water under tht! Park area were taken as a precautionary measure. This five year review is focused solely on the Park Area of the site because, as described above, the 1996 ROD remedy that was implemented did not result in leaving hazardous substances above levels that allow for UU/CE.

On Aplil 15,2002, the City of Wyandotte filed a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant with the Wayn;! County Register of Deeds (see Attachment 3). The Covenant states that the City of Wyandotte shall restrict the uses of the Park to uses compatible with the selected remedy.

Based on a review of all relevant documents (see Attachment 4), discussions held with City offici21s, and the result of the Site inspection (see Attachment 5), it is determined the remedy is functioning as intended in the 2001 ROD Amendment. There were no changes in the physical

conditions, standards, to be considered guidelines or exposure pathways that affect the Park area. No other events have affected the protectiveness of this remedy.

The remedy is protective of human health and environment because all remedial actions are functioning as intended by the decision documents and no evidence of exposure is occurring. The restrictive covenants, as detailed in the 2001 ROD amendment are in place and effective. The City of Wyandotte Michigan implemented in 2002 the restrictive covenants as described in the DAD. The cover on the Park area remains in place and prevents exposure to underlying contamination.

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name: Lower Ecorse CreE~k Dump Site

EPA ID: MID985574227

NPL status: Deleted

Remediation status: Complete

Multiple OUs?- NO Construction completion date: September 1, 1998

Has site been put into reuse? YES

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA

Author name: Ross del Rosari,o

Author title: Remedial Project iManager IAuthor affiliation: EPA Region 5

Review period:-- 04/2010 to 1:Y2010

Date(s) of site inspection: 08/31/2010

T"yp_e of review: Post-SARA

Review number: Second

Triggering action: First Five-Year Review Report (6/1/06)

Triggering action date (from WasteL.AN): June 6,2006

Due date (five years after triggering action date): June 6,2011 -

2

I

Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.

Issue!;:

There are no issues currently associated with the Park Area of the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site.

Rec:ommendations and Follow-up Actions:

There are no recommendations or follow-up actions currently associated with the Park Area of the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site.

Protectiveness Statement(s):

Tht remedy is protective of human health and the environment because all remedial actions are fUllctioning as intended by the decision documents and no evidence of exposure is occurring. The restrictive covenants, as detailed in the 2001 ROD Amendment are in place and effective. The City of Wyandotte, MI implemented in 2002 the restrictive covenants as des';;ribed in the VAO. The cover on the Park area remains in place and prevents exposure to underlying contamination.

EPA has determined that the Site conditions continue to meet the goals ofthe 1996 ROD (lJld the Ie continues to meet the objectives set forth in the 2001 ROD Amendment and the VAO. Ba::;ed upon this review, including a review of the IC instrument and intt::rview with the Ci.ty

engineer, EPA determined that the ICs are adequately implemented, monitored and enforced. As a result of this Five Year Review, the Institutional Controls Trac:king System (lCTS) will be updated.

Oth er Comments:

None

3

Ftve-Year Review Report

I. Introduction

The purpose of Five-Year Reviews is to detennine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and recommendations to address them.

The Agency is preparing this Five-Year Review pursuant to CERCLA §121 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 states:

Ifthe President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation ofsuch remedial action to assure that human health and the environment lire being protected by the remedial action being implemented In addition, ifupon such review it is the judgment ofthe President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104j or [106j, the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list ofjacilities for which such review is required, the results ofall such reviews, and any actions taken as a result ofsuch reviews.

The agency interpreted this requin:::ment further in the National Contingency Plan (NCP); 40 CFR §300.430(f)( 4 )(ii) states:

Ifa remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow /(Ir unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation o/the selected remedial action.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 completed the first Five-Year Review of the remedial actions implemented at the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site in Wyandotte, Michigan on June l, 2006. This report documents the results of the second Five­Year Review for the site. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) provided support in the development of this Five-Year Review.

The triggering action for this review is the date the first Five-Year Review was completed, which was June 1, 2006. It is being perfonned because the selected remedy for the Site included leaving hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants on Site, specifically in the Park area, above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

4

--

--

II. Site Chronology

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date

Initial e liscovery of problem or contamination: 1989 residential owner reported blue soil to Wayne Co HeaIth Department

Pre-J\PL responses:

ATS[IR Health Consultations 11189,07/90, 11/90 & 03/91

USEPA removal actions 12/89,08/91,01/93, 11193

ATS['R issued Public Health Advisory 08/13/93

NPL listing:

Pro po sed January 18, 1994

Final May 31,1994

Deleted July 1,2005

Remov,II actions 12/89,8/91, 1193 11193,03/95, 12/07

RemeJi al InvestigationlFeasibility Study Final RI: 02/96 Final FS: 04/96

Record Of Decision July 17, 1996

Superfund State Contract Remedial Activities September 23, 1997

SSC Anlendment #1 March 22, 1993

SSCAnlendment #2 December 22, 1999

SSCAnlendment #3 August 25, 2000

Actual r emedial action start May, 1998

Cons-JUt:tion dates May 1998 - September, 2000 and September 2002 - June, 2003

Prelirninary Close-out Report September 1, 1998

July 13,2001RODArnendment

Enforce]nent document: UAO with City of February 12, 2002 Wvandotte, :vIichigan

L-:..­

. ConslrU(~tion completion date June 2003

5

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date

January 28, 2005 Final Close-out Report

June 1,2006First Five-Year Review Report Completed

August 15, 2008SSC Closeout

August 30, 2010 FYR inspection of Park Area

III. Background

Site Name, Location, and Description

The Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site is located in Section 17, RIlE, T3SN in the City of Wyandotte, Wayne County, Michigan (Attachment 1). The City of Wyandotte is located about 6 miles southwest of the City of Detroit. The Site includes six residential blocks centered on the 400 block ofNorth Drive. The Detroit and Toledo Railroad tracks are located east ofthe residential area. The Ecorse River borders the Site to the north and west. Directly north of the Ecorse River are the Downriver Communities Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Plant and the abandoned Great Lakes Steel Foundry. Two lots located at 2303 Oak Street are also included as part of the 1996 definition of the Site (Attachment 1). The Oak Street Site is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the North Drive properties and the comer of23rd Avenue and Oak. Street. Residential properties dominate the landscape of the Site, with the creek just to the north. The focus ofthis report is part of the site referred to as the Park Area (Attachment 2).

Land and Resource Use

The Park area is about 1 acre in size and has a small playground equipment area, swing set, pavilion and basketball court, but most of the property is grass covered and is for general recreational use (Attachment 2). The facility is owned by the City of Wyandotte, Michigan. Through conversations and correspondence, the City of Wyandotte has stated that they intend to continue to use this property as a park into the foreseeable future. Areas around the site are expected to remain residential.

History of Contaminatiol}

Before 1930, land near the banks of the Ecorse River in Wyandotte was comprised of wetlands. A 1937 aerial photograph shovved the wetlands and small brook that flowed to the river between Lots 23/24 (470/480 North Drive) and Lot 27 (446 North Drivet In addition, a 1951 photograph indicated that most of the wetland area had been filled and that residential development along North Drive had occurred.

6

By 1957, the river had been rechanneled, resulting in the confluence of the north and south branches of the river being relocated from north of Lot 43 (304 North Driv,e). Extensive fill is evident north of the Ecorse River. Modifications to the river in the early 1980s involved straightening the south bank of the river at the rear of several residential properties in the area, reponedly using construction debris as fill. Interviews with local residents indicate that the homes on North Drive were built from about the 1920s through the 1980s.

In 1989, the owner of the residence at 470/480 North Drive (Lots 23/24) reported to the Wayne Coun~J Health Department (WCHD) that workers excavating on their property had encountered blue-colored soil. Subsequently, WCHD contacted the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A TSDR), and both agencies subsequently contacted EPA for further investigation. During the investigation, EPA found a large area of soil contaminated with ferric ferrocyaaide. It was suspected that the waste came from a coal-gasification plant. Blue-colored water was observed in the basement sump ofthe house on Lots 23/24, along with blue stains on the basement walls of the house.

Initial Response

The information presented below pertains to the residential areas of the LEe Site only.

The ATSDR issued health consultations on the Site in November 1989, July 1990, November 1990, and March 1991. In these consultations, ATSDR concluded that the Site posed a significant health threat and recommended that residents avoid contact with contaminated areas until pcnnanent measures could be completed.

In December 1989, the EPA covered the areas of visible contamination at the Site with six inches of clean wpsoil, to provide a temporary cover while further investigation went on and a permanent solution was developed. After it was reported that the new soil was eroding away, additional soil was added to the cover in August 1991. In January, 1993, the owner of the residence at Lots 23/24 reported that his basement had flooded with blue-colored water. EPA investigators found that these waters contained high concentrations of cyanide.

In November 1993, the EPA began a time-critical removal action at the Sitt:. Based upon EPA soil sampling results, cyanide-contaminated soils from around the residences at Lots 23/24 and Lots 91/92 were removed and disposed of off-site. The foundations at both residences were also found to be deteriorated by the acidic nature of the waste. Repairs were made by EPA to both foundations. The excavation of contaminated soil around the residence and Site restoration were complete by January 1994.

Basis f,)r Taking Action

The final remedial investigation (RJ) report was released to the public in February 1996, followed by the release of the final feasibility study CFS) on April 15, 1996.

7

The July 1996 ROD documented that the threats posed by this Site to human health and the environment are primarily from cyanide-contaminated soil. Although other contaminants are present (e.g. semi-volatile organic compounds), they do not pose an unacceptable risk.

A portion of the RIfFS focused on isolated spots of contamination found in the Park. Sampling of the Park during the RI revealed 3 small areas of subsurface soil with lead and/or arsenic above cleanup standards. When excavation continued at the Park in March 2000, a layer of debris was found three to four feet beneath the surface. This material had no similarities to the cyanide waste found elsewhere at the Site.

When the debris was sampled, elevated levels of lead and arsenic slightly above the State of Michigan's cleanup standards were found. Nine test excavations were dug to determine the extent of this waste layer. Those tests showed that the layer of debris exists under most of the Park and is about six feet thick with three feet of clean fill abo\'e the waste layer. However the material does not continue onto adjacent properties. None of the material in any of the test pits exhibited the same physical characteristics as the cyanide-contaminated waste found on other properties. The debris appears to be general household waste disposed of many years ago and consisting of things such as broken glass, rags, shoes and other garbage.

Based upon the results of the test pit work it was estimated that 10,000 cubic yards of material would need to be removed from the Park Area to meet the requirements of the 1996 ROD and address the lead and arsenic exceedances. A ROD Amendment was signed in 2001 which selected the existing 3-foot soil cover with appropriate Institutional Controls to address this contamination in the Park area.

IV. Remedial Action~;

Remedial Action Objectives

Implementation of the selected remedy will achieve the following remedial action objectives:

• Reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances present in surface and subsurface soils at the site;

• Minimize the risk of drainage waters carrying the contaminants, via drainage systems or cracks in foundatiors into basements of homes on the site; and

• Minimize the possibility of acidic or basic soils associated with the contamination from coming in contact \\-jth and damaging foundation walls or utility lines.

Remedy Selection

The 1996 ROD addressed both surface and subsurface soil cyanide contamination, and Site restoration. The remedy included the following major components:

8

• Excavation and disposal of shallow and deep contaminated soil; • Resampling of locations identified in the Remedial Investigation which showed

contaminant levels above cleanup standards to determine the extent of contamination; and,

• Restoration of residential areas affected by excavation.

The Finell Remedial Action (RA) Report was approved by EPA on December 17,2003. The repon documented the remedial actions implemented by EPA as described in the 1996 ROD. These actions were performed on areas other than the Park area. The actions were taken from May J 998 through September 2000 and from September 2002 through June 2003.

The 2005 Final Close-Out Report (2005) for the Site stated that "The Five-Year Review will include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the deed restrictions on the park area property, cmd the condition of the soil cover." Consequently, the 2006 Five-Year Review focused on the Park area.

Surface soil sample results from 15 locations around the Park area, taken during the RI, did not contain contaminants above State of Michigan cleanup standards. Additionally, as previously mentioned, the City of Wyandotte has stated that they intend to continue to use this property as a park into the foreseeable future. Given the volume of waste in the Park Area and the current Site conditions with the waste material being located below at least three feet of clean fill, preventing the public from coming in contact with the contaminants, and the low level threat posed by the waste, EPA determined it appropriate to leave the waste in place if permam:nt land-use restrictions were put in place.

Based on the Agency's determination, the 2001 ROD Amendment selected institutional controls (lCs) mId monitoring and maintenance of the clean fill cover as the most appropriate remedy for the Park Area portion of the LEC Site. The institutional controls should permanently restrict the use of the land and groundwater at the Park area. Although groundwater has not been found to be contaminated, EPA included the requirement that groundwater use be off-limits, within the Park area, as an added safety measure. The remedy for all portions of the si.te, other than the Park area, resulted in no hazardous substances above health-based limits len on the site, consistent with the requirements of the 1996 ROD.

ICs are legal or administrative controls which protect the remedy and control use of the propt:rty. ICs are required when the implementation of the remedy does not allow for unrestricted use emd unlimited exposure (UUIUE). Therefore, the Park area which contains residual contamination must include ICs.

PurSUe.llt to r.,·lichigan Act 451 Part 201 and EPA's February 12,2002 Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO), the selected remedy for the Park Area requires restrictive covenants including, but not lim'tfd to, notice to future property owners of contamination at the Site and deed restrictions to reglilate the land use of the Park Area. The purpose of these restrictions is to prevent exposure to Site contaminants and prevent erosion ofthe existing soil cover. If for any reason deed restrictions are not placed on the Park Area property, then the original excavation remedy selected in the 1996 ROD will be implemented at the Park Area property.

9

Remedy Implementation for the Park Area

Proprietary institutional controls, lin the form of a restrictive covenant, along with maintenance of the clean fill overlying the derris waste, were implemented for the Park Area, consistent with the 2001 ROD Amendment.

The objectives of the ICs for the Park area are to protect the remedy and assure no inconsistent use of the soil or groundwater at that area of the Site. EPA detelmined that the use ofthe area as a public park is consistent with the recreational land use assumptions for the remedy and is an appropriate use of that area.

In March, 2002, EPA issued a UAO to the City of Wyandotte .. Michigan, directing the City to perform the selected remedial action for the remedy as described in the 2001 ROD Amendment. Since-all remedial actions described in the 1996 ROD were complete and since the City owns only the Park Area, the Order concerned only implementation of the remedy for the Park Area.

On April 15, 2002, the City of Wyandotte filed a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant with the Wayne County Register of Deeds (Attachment 3). The Covenant states that the City of Wyandotte shall restrict the uses of the Park to uses compatible with the selected remedy, specifically including the follo'wing provisions:

1. The Owner (City of Wyandotte) shall restrict activities at the Property (Park Area) that may interfere with a remedial action, operation and maintenance, monitoring, or other measures necessary to assure the effectiveness and integrity of the remedial action.

2. The Owner shall not allow extraction of any groundwater for domestic or industrial use through a well or any other device located within the Property.

3. The Owner shall at all times ensure isolation of the water layer by continuously implementing the operation and maintenance requirements set forth in paragraph 31 of the UAO and Appendix A ofthe Restrictive Covenant.

4. The Owner shall provide notice to EPA and MDNRE of the Owner's intent to convey any interest in the Property 30 days prior to consummating the conveyance. A conveyance of title, an easement, or other interest in the Property shall not be consummated by the Prope11y owner without adequate and complete provision for compliance with the terms and conditions of the Covenant.

5. The Owner shall grant EPA and MDNRE and each Agency's designated representative the right to enter the Property at reasonable times for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the ROD and lJAO, including the right to take samples, inspect the operation of the remedial action measures and inspect records.

The Restrictive Covenant runs with the Property and shall be binding upon all future owners, successors, lessees or assigns and their authorized agents, employees, or persons under their direction and control.

10

Annt;al operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the selected remedy for the Park Area were not available. However, the 2001 ROD amendment estimated that capital,;::osts were around $3,0(10; present worth costs were $35,340 and project completion of around 3 months.

v. Progress Since the Last Review

This J.S the second Five-Year Review for the LEe Site. There were no issues identified in the previous 2006 LEe Five-Year Review.

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components of the Five-Year Review Process

This second Five-Ye.ar Review for LEe was led by Ross del Rosario, EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM), assisted by Patricia Krause (CIC), and Matthew Baltussis from MDNRE (support agency).

The review, which began in April 2010, consisted of the following activitit'::s:

1. Do·;::ument Reviews; 2. Issuing a public notice advertisement; 3. Site Inspection; 4. Inkrviews; and 5. Five-Year Review Report Development and request for comments.

Community Notification and Involvement

A public notice advertisement (Attachment 6) was published in local area newspaper (The News­Herald) on September 9,2010, announcing EPA's intent to conduct the next five-year review of LEe. It invited the public to submit any comments and/or concerns it may have about the site to EPA.

No comments have been received to date. The results of the review and report will be made available at the local information repository at Bacon Memorial Library, Wyandotte, Michigan.

MDNjlli was provided an opportunity to review the draft report, but declined to do so in an email to EPA dated February 1,2011 (see Attachment 7). It requested that EPA send a fully execUled copy of the report to their office. when it is available.

Document Review

This Fiv{:-Y ear Review consisted of a review of relevant documents including operation and monitoring records and monitoring data. Attachment 3 lists the documents reviewed for this report.

11

A copy of the Title Commitment is presented in Attachment 8.

Data Review

The remedy for the Park Area is maintenance of the existing::; feet of clean cover, institutional controls and monitoring. There are no analytical data to review for this Five-Year Review.

Site Inspection

On August 10,2010, EPA, MDNRE, and representatives from Wyandotte, Michigan performed an inspection of the Site. A detailed trip report and photographs can be found in Attachment 4. Briefly, all parties walked the Site, inspecting the conditions of the cover and shoreline along the Creek.

Visual inspection of the Park showed the cover to be in good shape. There was no visual evidence of cracking, sliding, ~:ettling or breaches of the protective layer of soil. There was also no evidence of erosion of subsurface materials into the Creek. Photographs taken during the site inspection are included in this report (see Attachment 9). In summary, the inspection verified that the City of Wyandotte has complied with the terms of the {JAO.

VII. Technical Asses!~ment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended in the decision documents?

Yes

Based on a review of all relevant documents, the results of the title commitment (Attachment 7) and the result of the Site inspection, the remedy is functioning as intended by the 2001 ROD Amendment. The remedy implemented as per the 1996 ROD to address soil cyanide contamination met levels that allow for UU/uE and is therefore not subject to a FYR, including this one.

The soil cover was in good condition and was adequately providing a barrier to the hazardous substances underneath it.

The Restrictive Covenant has heen determined to be functioning as intended by the 2001 ROD Amendment and UAO. The Restrictive Covenant has been adequately implemented; it runs with the land and binds all future ov"ners, and the use restrictions adequately protect the integrity of the remedy and assure no future inconsistent land uses. The Restrictive Covenant grants to EPA and the MDNRE the authority to monitor compliance with the ROD and UAO.

Attachment 3 presents a copy of the restrictive covenant filed by the City of Wyandotte, Michigan with the Wayne County Register of Deeds, as required by the February 12, 2002 UAO issued by EPA to the City of \\' yandotte.

12

Ques":ion B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action object;vl~s (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

Yes

TherE have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Park Area that would affect th(~ protectiveness of the remedy. There are no changes in standards, "to be considered" (TBC) guidelines, or exposure assumptions from the 2001 ROD Amendment that would change the cleanup levels or remedial action objectives.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protetliveness of the remedy?

No

No other events have affected the protectiveness of the remedy and there is no other information that call~ into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

Technical Assessment Summary

Based on a review of all relevant documents, including the results of the title commitment (Attachment 7) and Site inspection performed in 2010, the remedy is functioning as intended by the 2001 ROD Amendment. There are no changes in the physical conditions, standards, TBes, guidelint:s, or exposure pathways that affect the Park area. No other events have affected the protectiveness of this remedy. The restrictive covenants required by 2001 ROD Amendment are in place and filed properly with the Wayne County Recorder of Deeds. There is no other information available that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

VII. Issues

There an: no issues currently associated with the Park area of the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site.

IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

There arE no recommendations or follow-up actions currently associated with the Park area of the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site.

x. Protectiveness Statement(s)

The remedy is protective.

The restrictive covenants, as detailed in the 2001 ROD Amendment, are in place and effectivc~.

13

The City of Wyandotte, Michigan implemented in 2002 the restrictive covenants as described in the VA~. The cover on the Puk area remains in place and prevents exposure to underlying contamination.

EPA has determined that the Site conditions continue to meet the remedial action objective of reducing risk of exposure to subsurface contaminants in the Park Area described in the ROD and the ICs for the Park Area continue to meet the objectives set forth in the 2001 ROD Amendment and the VA~. The original remedy set forth in the ROD that addresses cyanide-contaminated soils meets the other two remedial action objectives listed in Section IV above. Based upon this review, including a review of an updated title search, EPA determined that the ICs are adequately implemented, monitored and enforced. As a result of this Five Year Review, the Institutional Controls Tracking System will be updated.

XI. Next Review

The next five year review for the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site (Park area only) is required five years from the date of this review because hazardous substances are left in place above levels that allow for VV/UE.

14

Attachment 1

SITE MAP

---­ ~~-------- - ------- - - ------------ -

Superfund

, Site Location U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lower Ecorse Creek Dump EPA ID# MID980274179 Wyandotte, MI

State

~ o·"~=·"~=OO 1OO 2· ~Mm~~ """"~=======70"""- Site 1Figure 11

Proclueal by _ea Hidts u.s EPA RBpoon 5 on F~ 22. 2011 Image Dale2OOQl'201o

EPA 0Isdaimer PIe..... be _ thai arl!a1< dePc1ed .. the map haVe .,.,.". esIJmaIecI The ""'" does "'" ueale any rIghIs enlon:eabIe by any p;or1y EPA may reline or change _ daIa and map '" any 11_

Attachment 2

PARK AREA

471 Nath Drive •

EXCAVAnoN

LowerEco C DumpParkAr and R idential ExCIV tlon Ar a

Figure 3

Pi!kArea Soil CoverlW3ste

470 Ncr1h Onve •left in680 Nalh Drive

488 North Drive

G

479 North Drive •

AREA NOS. J.9

256 North Drive

Lower Ecorse Creek EXCAVATIONAREA NO. 6

194 North Drive

EXCAVATION AREA NO. 3

259 North Drive

EXCAVATION AREA NO. I

Park Area

• Properties with basement and foundation work

Attachment 3

Declaration of Restrictive Covenant

t t J , t ,

t -.1-

AmCIIMIjNT3

DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT

This Restric:tlve Covenant bas been recorded with the Wayne County Register ofDeeds for the purpose of '~rotecting public health, safety and welfare ami the environment

On July 13. 2001, the United States EnvironmenW Protection Ageru;y (U,S. EPA) iaaued a Record. ofDecisi:m Amendment #1 (ROD) selecting institutional controls as the remedy for the approximately one acre pan:c:J ofproPerty owned by the City cfWyandotte and located At 610 North Drive, Wyandotte, Wayne County, Michigan, (property) which is dcpi«od in the attached property survey and mere particularly described as:

tLob II, 12,13 a.od 14Bmmoos Orchard Sulxlivision of part ofPC 113 EcorscTwpnS RllE~ (

RCOJdcd in l.ib« 38, Page 30 WCR t t

Proporty Tax ID Number of Property: 57-00 1-04-00 11-000

As used herein, the term -Owner- shall mean at any given time the then current title bolder oftbe Property.

NOW TIll!REPORE the City ofWyandotte, in acoordanc.e with the ROD and U.S. EPA's [msert da.teJ Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) issued pursuant to Section 106(a) oftha Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. as amended (CERCLA), 42 US.C. § 9606(a), hereby imposes restrictions on the Proptrty and covenants and acknowledges thal: an approximately six foot thick layer of debris exists UDder moat of the Property and is covered by approximately three feet ofdean fin material. In the ROD. u.s. EPA determined that continuous isolation of this waste layer is necessary for protection ofluJman health and. the environment. Aocordinlly. the Owner shall re!trict the URIS ofthe Property to uses compatible with the remedy selected in the ROD specifically including:

1. The {)1.;mer shall restrict activities at the Property that may interfere with a remedial actioo. operation :lnd maintenance. monitoring, or other measures necessary to assure the effectiveness and ;ntegrity of the remedial action!

2. The Owner shall not allow extraction ofany groundwater for domestic or industrial use through a well or any other device located within the Property.

3. The Ovvner sbaH at all times ensure isolation of the waste layer by continuously implementing the operation and maintenance requirements set forth in paragraph 31 ofU.S. EPA's February 12,2002 UAO and Appendix A to this Restrictiv~ Covenant.

f 4. The Owner shall provide notice to U. S. EPA and the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) oftbc Owner's intent to ('..onvey any interest in the Property 30 days prior to conlll.Jf1unating tbe conveyance. A conveyance of title, an easement. or other interest in the Pre perty shall not be consummated by the Property owner without adequate and compleCe provisic'n for compliance with the terms and conclitions ofthi. Covenant

--~------------............-..

•••....?..............----------------------~ .......

, Palla-i12'. •S. The Owner abal1 grant to U.S. EPA. the MDEQ and each Agency'l deaigDated

reprtllSltal:iYee !lae risbt to eat. the Property at t'CIUOIIIIble times fur the purpoie ofmODitoriDg compliance with the ROD aDd UAO, including the right to tab aamples, inspect the o~n of the remediallCtion meuurelW inIpect nlCOIds.

This Ratridive CoveDant sbaIlrun with the Property aDd sha1l be bindina upoIl aU future owners, "OCIIIIO'1I, lesscc=s or ....... and their IUthorized qeatI, employees,. or penoria IGtin8 uDISer their direction a:ad toDtrnl, and &haD oontinue UDtil U.S. EPA. or its IOQeeUOr q.provea modificadonl or rac:iJIIoII oftbillltlltrictive Covenant. A copy otthis Rcstriocive Cc,veoant shAll be provided to all thture owners, heirs, IUCOeIIOn, 1essees, IIIisnI and trllllllf'cnJc. by the penoD ttaJIIfi:nirJI tho iDtereIt.

Ifany proviIiou ofthis IleItriative CoveaInt is held to be invalid by any court of competart juriscIiQIioD, tile iImlidity ofsuch proviliou sbeII not aftect the validity ofany other provisions bereot: AJlllIch other provisions sbaIl; continue unimpaired in full force aod effect.

The UDderIianad penon MIlCUting this ResIrictive Covenutt is the Owaer, or hal the e:iqJtea writtea permillion oftbe 0wDer. aad repleaeatl md oertifias that he (Ir Ibe is duly IUthorizIId and Iw been ClnpOWeI'«l to ox:eoute ~ deIiwr tbiI Restrictive Coveoaat.

IN WITNBSS WHEREOF, tho laid 0wDer oftbe abo~ Pmperty Iw CIIUICd this Rstrictive CoveoaDt to be eDICUted on this L day of Af6 \ ~ 2002.

~d..eJ

Sisned in the presence at':

~44.>(?'/ WItDCIS,. Mark A Kowalewski

STATE OF MICHIGAN COlJNTY OF WAYNE

The ~ iamuJu:ot was aetDowfedpd bof9re me thia ~ day ofk~by Le:ooard T. Sabuda, Mayor oftbe City ofWyandottc, a Michigan Municipdn::orpontion, on bohaIf ofdle CIty of Wyandotte. .

No . ~ Kelly Roberts Wayne County, MicJaisau My CommiJ!ion &pires: February 13, 200S

-'-------------------- ­

' ..

Page-1130"

ATTACHMENT A to RESTRICTIVE COVENANT

Tn the ':curse of routine maintenance of the Property (e.g., lawn mowing. garbaae oolJcction). the owner shall inspect the Property for any conditions which 1I1AY. in the eoutIe of I'CCRational use or pn~pil:!tion e\IC1lts. erode the a.pproximaleJy three foot layer ofclean tiD material. Tbe in.'>I'O~tions 9ba11 include the following ta8Ir.s:

(1) observing whether the vegetative cover is sufficient to prevent erosion in areas not covered by jmperme/ihle materials.

('1) observing whether grot.\lllClwater is being extracled for domestic or industrial UJC

through a well or an~' other device located within the Park: Al"t'JJ properly.

(3) observing whether any eJ:C8.vatioo or erosion on the property has exe«:ded eigfJlccn incbea in depth. 111(, owner mUll provide U.S. EPA with written notification If, during the course of any excavation wort or other activity, tbe layer of wasil: material is exposed. Such notiticatioD shall incl ude a description of the corra:tive measures taken to restore the clean soU exposuftl barrier 10 the original ground surface elevation. The owner must foUow appropriate bcalth and safety procedures before ucdertaldng any excavation or other activities that will exceed eighleen inches in depth.

(4) obaerving wiIether there is any other condition which may be lnCOnJisIDat with tbe remedy &eJected in the ROD. which requires maintenance of a clean soil exposure barrier above the debris.

j (S) observing whether any corrective measures (e.g .• reseeding. adding soil) arc I necessary to mainta[l~ the exposure barrier of approximately fhree feet of clean lOil. In the

CVCDt corrective measure& are necessary for any excavation or erosion OIl tbe property wbich has exceeded eightetn inches in depth, the OWner and any subgequent owner shall crea.tc and ftllain a written recolrd documenting impJemenlarion of the corrective meuuftl. 1be Owner and any IUbsequent 'lWner shall reatore all excavation and erosion areas to the original ground surfaoe elevation as soon as practicably possibl~.

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

-/",----­

i

Attachment 4

List of Documents Reviewed

CERCLA Unilateral Administrative Order For Remedial Action in the Matter of Lower Ecorse CE~ek Superfund Site Wyandotte, Michigan. March 14,2002.

CH2MH ill. 1996. Remedial Investigation Report Lower Ecorse Creek, Wyandotte, Michigan February 1996.

CH2MHili. 1996. Feasibility Study Report Lower Ecorse Creek, Wyandotte, Michigan. April, 1996.

City (If Wyandotte Declaration of Restrictive Covenant. April 15, 2002.

EP A. 19 ~6. Record ofDecision for the Lower Ecorse Creek Site, Wyandotte, Michigan. July 17, 1996.

EPA. 1998. Superfund Preliminary Site Close Out Report, Lower Ecorse Creek Site, Wyandotte, .Hic~higan. September 1, 1998.

EP A. 2000. Remedial Action Report Lower Ecorse Creek, Wyandotte, Michigan. September 20, :woo.

EP A. :WO 1. Record ofDecision Amendment #1 Lower Ecorse Creek Superfund Site, Wyandotte, }~fi('higan. July 13,2001.

EPA. 2003. 2002 Remedial Action Report Lower Ecorse Creek Wyandotte, Michigan. July 25, 20C3.

EPA. 2003. Final Remedial Action Report Approval, September 20, 2000 Report as Amended by July 25, 2003 Report, Lower Ecorse Creek Site, Wyandotte, Michigan. December 17, 2003.

EPA. 20(15. Superfund Final Close Out Report, Lower Ecorse Creek Site, Wyandotte, Michigan. January 28, 2005.

Attachment 5

Inspection Report

Site Inspection Report

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Date of inspection: August 31,2010

Location and Region: Wyandotte, MI EPA ID: MID 985574227

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: U.S. EPA - Region 5, assisted by MDNRE

Weather/temperature: PartIy cloudy; mid-80s.

Rem,:dy Includes: (Check all that apply) X Vegetative cover/containment in public park X Institutional controls

----.---------------------------------------------­Atta('hments: X Inspection team roster attached []

Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

I. NLme: Gregory Mayhew Asst. City Engineer 8/31/10 Title Date

Int.~rviewed X at site 0 at office 0 by phone Phone no. 734-324-4558 Probkms, suggestions; 0 Report attached _

2. O&M staff _Not required to be onsite Name

Int:rY1 ewed 0 at site 0 at office 0 by phone Phone no. ______ Problems, suggestions; 0 Report attached _____________

-

Title Date

I :

Local regulatory authorities and response agenCies (i.e., State and Tribal offi .;es, emergency response r office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning , office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency _ MDNRE-,----____ I I Contact _Matt Baltussis_- Senior Geologist. ____ 517-335-3140

Name

Title

Date Phon

i e no.

t.-- nth., Inte",lew, (optional) 0 Report attached:

~~IYheW and a member of hIs staff were interviewed at the site by Ross del Rosario ( RPM) and Matt

Baltussis (MDNRE). Mr. Mayhew answered questions on the I) current site conditions at the park 2) how the park is currently being maintained and 3) plans on improving the park via replacement of some park equipment. On #3, Mr. Mayhew suggested some steps to minimize or prevent any contact with contaminants found underneath the 3-foot vegetative cJVer. Tht!se mitigating steps include 1) removing only the top 6" of the concreted foundation; 2) adding more soil/amendments to the areas affected to raise the elevation so that bottom of new foundation will not come 111 contact with wastes; and 3) possibly regrading certain areas to promote better drainage. Mr. Mayhew indicated that he will send formal plans for the park improvements to EPA for review and approval sometime in the near future.

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1. O&M Documents N/A DO&Mmanual o Readily available o Up to date

0 N/A

o As-built drawings o Readily available o Up to date 0

N/A X Maintenance logs o Readily available o Up to date

0 N/A

Remarks

2.

3.

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan N/A Readily available

o Contingency plan/emergency response plan o Readily available

Remarks ._­ ---

O&M and OSHA Trainil1g Records N/A o Readily available

Remarks ._--­

o Up to date 0

N/A o Up to date

0 N/A

o Up to date 0

N/A

4. Permits and Service Agn'ements o Air discharge permit

o Effluent discharge

N/A o Readily available

o Readily available

o Up to date xN/A

o Up to date xN/A

I

o \Vaste disposal, POTW o Readily available o Up to date xN/A

o Other permits _________ 0 Readily available o Up to date xN/A

Remarks_______________________

5. Gas Generation Records N/A 0 Readily available o Up to date xN/A Remarks---------------------- ­

-

6. Settlement Monument Record N/A 0 Readily available o Up to date x·\l/A

Remar~______________________

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records N/A Readily available o Up to date [I

N/A Remarks______________________

8. Leachate Extraction Records N/A o Readily available o Up to date xN/A

Remarks______________________

9. Uischarge Compliance Records N/A [J Air o Readily available o Up to date

xNlA IJ Water (effluent) o Readily available o Up to date

xN/A Remarks______________________

10. ])aily Access/Security Logs o Readily available o Up to date xN/A

Remarks______________________

IV. O&M COSTS N/A

I. 0&1\1 Organization

2. O&M Cost Records

linanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS XApplicable [IN/A

-------

A. Fencing - There is fencing around the park area.

1. Fencing damaged - No D Location shown on site map Gates secured

D N/A

Remarks:Walk through of the site did not reveal any major damage to the fencing around the site

-

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other securit) measurt!S D Location shown on site map ON/A Remarks:Gates/fencing aDpear to be in good order. _____._._____

c. Institutional Controls (IC~)

1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs 110t properly implemented

D Yes xNo

D N/A

Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced 0

Yes xNo D

N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g, self-rep0J1ing, drive by) Frequency Responsible party/agency PRP has provided evaluation on effectiveness of deed restrictions put in place by county and railroad. Contact __Project Manager

Name Title Date

Phon e no.

Reporting is up-to-date 0

Yes DNo 0

N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency

D Yes DNo

0 N/A

Specific requirements in dl!ed or decision documents have been met DYes DNo D

N/A Violations have been reported

i

0

- -

Yes [] No []

N/A Other problems or suggestions: o Report attached _. -

-

2. Adequacy xlCs are adequate o ICs are inadequate [) N/A

Remarks:_Deed restrictions placed by the county and the railroad are in effect._.

D.

1.

2.

3.

--. ­-

Gene ral

Vandalism/trespassing o Location shown on site map XNo vandalism evident Remarks

Land use changes on site 0 N/A ~emarks

Land use changes off site 0 N/ A {emarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Road:• x Applicable ON/A

1. {oads damaged o Location shown on site map o Roads adequate 0 N/A

temarks .

B. Other Site Conditions

F~emarks:

VII. LANDFILL COVERS o Applicable XN/A

A. Landiill Surface

1.

2. ( :racks o Location shown on site maE o Crackins; not evident

3. Erosion o Location shown on site map o Erosion not evident

4. Holes

5. Vegetative Cover

Remarks .. _­

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock., concrete, etc.) DN/A Remarks -_.._--­

-

7. Bulges

8. Wet AreaslWater Dama'~e o Wet areas/water damage not evident

9. Slope

B. Benches

1. Flows Bypass Bench

2. Bench Breached

3. Bench Overtopped

C. Letdown Channels

1. Settlement

2. Material Degradation

3. Erosion

4. Undercutting

I

5. Obstructions

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth

D. Cover Penetrations 0 Applicable XN/A

I. Gas Vents

2. Gas Monitoring Probes

3. '\1onitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)

4. Leachate Extraction Wells

5. ~;;ettlement Monuments

E. GliS Collection and Treatment

2.

3.

I. r;as Treatment Facilities

(ias Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

(;as Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)

F. Cover Drainage Layer

2.

G.

1.

I 2.

I. Outlet Pipes Inspected

Outlet Rock Inspected

Detention/Sedimentation Ponds

Siltation

Erosion

Outlet Works ~. 4. [iam

H. Relairling Walls

1. Deformations

2. Degradation

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Di5charge

J. SiJtation

2. Vegetative Growth

3. Erosion

4. Discharge Structure

VIII. VER TICAL BARRIER WALLS o Applicable XN/A ,

1. Settlement

2. Performance Monitorinl~

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable XN/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

3. Spare Parts and Equipment

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines

1. Collection Structures, PUlmps, and Electrical

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves. Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

3. Spare Parts and Equipm'~nt

C. Treatment System

I

[-Treatment Train

I 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

i-· ! 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

5. Treatment Building(s)

6. Monitoring Wells

D. Monitoring Data N/A

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation N/A

I. Monitoring Wells

X. OTHER REMEDIES NIA

I fthere are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an insp{~ction sheet describing the physical nature and condition ofany facility associated with the remedy. An ex ample would be soil vapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. ) mplementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effecti ve and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e ., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

B. Adequacy ofO&M N/A

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of 0&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ( )fthe remedy.

c. I:arl)' Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scop.! of O&M or a high frequtmcy of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the reme dy may be compromised in the future.

D. Opportunities for Optimization N/A

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

Attachment 6

Public Notice Advertisement

.. ~,:, EPA Begin. Wevlew otLower Ecorse Creek Dump Superfund Site

. ' '. ' Wyandotte, Mlchlgln ,

u.s..........~Ar.acJ i. t<lIIdIIctiq • ii_ywmin oftbe lower &one C_k DaIp.......tbt.oatf"-'.k of \be &orJe River in Wymdoae. 'I1Ie SyperfwId l.w ~npIIr""'~,I1ef chll! ~.>1: beea cleucd up - wid! wille m.uaed OII-IIle - to mate IIIRI die cJeaup ciIadBeIlO protcc:t ~ople IDd 1M nrviroalDe#. ThiJ uUJc, secoIId the-yuT rmew~tbII.

BPA'. ckIaIp oI~~ wilm cyanide,.-ic, IDCI ~ hydrotullou coUIIIICI ~clgiq ..QlltdlaliDaIild 51 til aod diJpoIlag the JOy olf-. Haurdoua aubstaDces '--' ilia piIcc c:I-.p .. collt4iac>f IIId rcmnod willi cleur soil ill " pat _ of !be sire ~ IIIIlm......!gldla.lOil a)~cr mil ~ Uleotlbe lIIIdaad IfOUJId"aIr:!" the pIIk n Iir plaCe. TIle mIew frill fcctlll oa !III! COIIIroIJ In plaee _ !be pllk.

Molt iIIfanDaIian if aYliWli.e • !be BICOIl Memorial DiJtrict Librwy. 45 ViDnood. WymIoneIIId • www_pfnPmSl-.no...erCI:one. '!be miew should be completed by April. 201 I. The live-,.. Miew iUD qrporT11I1ity for you 10 tell EPA IbouI Ale COIIdiIioDa and any C~ lfIIJ U¥e. ec.tect:

I~-~ cAy~!1

d.1-t~-/OI I

.......~ CommaIiII)' (awl_at CouciillllDr 31~ tr-,pEidthpLp

YOII a.J _atIl i!epoD S lOll-free II 8(~-621-843t. 9:30 LID. \0 5:30 p.m.• _klbys,

£1'04 ....5 T1 W. J.a..1Ivd. . CIdr:ap, II. 6I8t

Attachment 7

State Response

Ross. In response to your inquiry below, the DNRE, including Matt and myself, is electing not to review t:1is draft work product. Please just plan to mail an executed copy of the final version so that we ha'Te it for our administrative record here in Michigan. Thanks!

Daria W. Devantier Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Remediation Division Superfund/Specialized Sampling Unit Chief 517-373-8436 517-373-0132 (fax) 42°43'54.87"N LAT 84°3:3'33.63"W LONG

-----Original Message---~-From: Delrosario.Rosauro@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Delrosario.Rosauro@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:35 PM To: Baltusis, Matt (DNRE: Subject: Re: Lower Ecorse Creek Dump

Hi, Matt. Just a headsup. Within the next few days, I plan to send you a draft 5-year review report on Lower Ecorse Creek Dump for your review/comment. There will be no recommendations or follow-up actions that need to be done on t:his site, based on what I've gathered. Consequently, I don't expect to get much feedback from reviewers. Assuming that to be the case, I'm hoping you can get back to me with your thoughts in less than the 30-day review period allowed for. In any case, your input's appreciated.

Ross 312-886-6195

P.S. - Who else besides yourself will give feedback to EPA?

Attachment 8

Title Commitment

GRB Environmental Services. Inc. Consulting Environmontal Engineers and Scientists

~~~------------------------OIIePamPIIZII-2j'i'PIoor·Nev. Ycrk. New yort. 10119 • Pbonc(212)~' Fu(212)~~I' www.ptIcnv.OJO.I

CI¢N: E$$ HI.003.021.ID.0&1 March 20, 2006

Mr. Fouad Dabahneh U.S. EPA Region 5, SR-6J 77 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604

Reference: EPA Con~t No. EP-W-05-013; EPA Task Order No. 0003; Work Order No. OU706.1C21; Task Ala, Title Commitment - Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site; Site TO No. 05GU

Dear Mr. Dababneh:

As directed in Work Crder No. IC21 (WO). received on January 27, 2006 GRB Environmental Serllict:s, Inc. (ORB) has acquired the services of a title company to prepare a Title Commitment for the above-referenced site. The title commitment, prepared by Mirmesotii Title Company of Livonia, Michigan. is lx:ing submitted as a draft to allow EPA to review the document and provide comment.

As directed in the WO and in subsequent discussions with you, the title commitment was limited to the target ar.~a of the UJwer Ecorse Creek Dump site known as the "Park". As an initial step in the pnject, TechLaw and GRB staff conducted a limited file review at the U.S. EPA Region S Records Center to determine if a title commitment or title search report had been condu.:ted at the target site before. TechLaw staff determined that although title search reports had been prepared for other areas that comprise the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site, none had been prepared for the specific target site. TechLaw then conducted online research of county tax assessor records and determined the tax parcel identification nllmber (PIN).

GRB identified several title companies in the Wyandotte area, via online research and calls to the Wyandotte banking and real estate communities. The identified companies were contacted! by pho1e to verify their interest in preparing a title commitment for information purposes (.nly, resulting in a list of five credible venliors. GRB then released a request for proposal to those vendors with a due date for the proposal of February 28, 2006. Four of the fiive companies then declined to respond to the RFP in spite ofthcir

File No: 310598

Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

COMMITMENT FOR TITI..E INSURANCE

SCHEDULE A

I. Commitment Date: N.....ber 2', 2006. Iss'.1C Date: Marcl OJ, 2006,

2. Pol icy (or Policies) to be issued: POLICY AMOUNT

(a) ALTA OWNER'S POUCY $1.000.00 Proposed lnsured: To Be Named uter

(b) ALTA LOAN POLICY Proposed Insured: Proposed Borrower:

(c) Proposed Insured:

J. Fee Simple interesl in the land described in this Commitment is owned, at the Commitment Date, by aey or Wya.dotte, A MkbJpa Maalclpal CorporatloD

4. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows:

Loti! 11,11, 13 uclI4, £lam.'. Orc..rd Sabdivilio., .. recorded I. Liller 38, Pap(I) 30 ofPlatl, W~lIe Co••ty honk.

COUOtenligned Miaaelat. Tille AJcaey

By;t{~If.~ Michael A. Cuschieri

.,.1

._------_._---

File No: 310598

Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSllRANCE

SCHEDULE B • SECTION II EXCEPTIONS

Effective Date: November 28, 1006,

Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care afto our satisfaction.

I. BuJldla,and ale restri("tiolll recorded In Llber 2022., Page 587 , Regbter No. 824278 and la Llber 1694, Pa.e 483, Re-gI!1tr No. A61627. WayDe COUDty Records which contliiD a ric~t of reverter. Said rlcb. of reverter ill terminated by instntlDent recordf'd in Liller ~051, Pace 477, Recbter No. CJ04705, Wayne COUDty Rtc:ol'1h. But, however, deleda, aay conDlln1, woditioD or res.rlctioa ladlcada, a prefereDte, limitation or dllcrlmlnatlon bued upon race, color,. religion, au, bandlcap, famliialitatlll or national ori,ill to the extent !lIIcb matten violale 41 lise .\604(Ci.

2. Subjeet to tbe RipanaD Rigbll ofotben In and to The EcoNle River ~'blc. Ilea Nort. ofaabJect property, u .bown 00 the recorded plat.

1Uc~1I oftbe United Stllte! of Ameriea, State or Mlcbiaaa, lIad tbe public u to any portioa oltle ••bjeet property lyia. below tbe orlJlnary bleb water mark ofTbe Ec:o", River. Riparia. rip" are aadler paraateed nor illlured.

3. SubJeet to tbe terms II ~d cndltlou oC a Declaration of Restrlcth'e Coveaant rec:orded ill Uber 359S8, Page 1118, Realster N·).102·248661, Wa)'lle County RecONh.

TAXES: Item No(.). 57-001-04-0011-000 2005 aty exempt lOOS COUDty esempt

ASSESSMENTS: NODe,

Water bUb are DOt eumlne,J, We '1'1'111 not Insure agaiDst loss or damage arillnl from tbe l'aiIure to pay nme.

Subject to taxel or Uleumeob Dot SbOWD l1li exlstilll lieD! by public: fe<'OrdS, but wblc:b Blay have a retroactive Iiea date Imp.m·,J hy operation of law.

This comtniunenlls invllid \/Illes.! the insuring Pmvi.ion, .r>d Schedule A arod B .t••',ache<!.

Attachment 9

Photos