CALL (812) 333-8888 FOR MORE INFORMATION OR E-MAIL info@copa.org
| |||||||||||||||
CALL (812) 333-8888 FOR MORE INFORMATION OR E-MAIL info@copa.org | |||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
Library: Memos: EPA | |||||||||||||||
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS TERTIARY LAGOON, ABANDONED LAGOONS AND TRICKLING FILTER WINSTON THOMAS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
1. Comment: One commentor stated that Alternative 6 in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) includes requirements that have not been agreed to by the parties. Issue one involves long-term maintenance of erosion controls and surface drainage. CBS Corporation (CBS) believes the City of Bloomington should be responsible for long-term maintenance. Response: The City of Bloomington will be responsible for post closure care of the Winston Thomas site. CBS will be responsible for maintenance of the soil cover on the tertiary lagoon until a decision (estimated to be two years) is made as to the final depth of soil cover is determined. If the excavation achieves a PCB concentration of 1 ppm or less, no soil cover will be required and the City of Bloomington will assume post closure care.
2. Comment: One commentor stated that the requirement in the EE/CA that any water, collected in the trickling filters after their cleaning, will be drained to an approved outfall is incorrect and that CBS will not take responsibility for draining the trickling filter after completion. Response: The EE/CA assumed that drainage of the trickling filters would be required prior to their demolition by the City of Bloomington. After remediation of the trickling filters and the cleanup standard of 10 ug/m3 is met, CBS will not be responsible for the drainage of the trickling filters. This issue will have to be addressed by the City of Bloomington prior to demolition.
3. Comment: One commentor has stated that it is unnecessary to place 10 inches of backfill on the abandoned lagoons and it is unnecessary to place any fill on the tertiary lagoon. Response: For long-term protection of ecological receptors, U.S. EPA requires a 12 inch soil cover over the abandoned lagoons and tertiary lagoon. However, based upon a projected future use of the tertiary lagoon by the City of Bloomington, the U.S. EPA will require only 6 inches of soil cover initially after demonstration of meeting the cleanup standards. In addition, the requirement for the initial 6 inches of soil cover may be modified for any portion or portions of the tertiary lagoon after excavation if CBS demonstrates to the parties that PCB contamination levels are below 1 ppm, in which no soil cover shall be required. CBS may also demonstrate that placement of fill material for grading over the lagoons may be acceptable instead of a soil cover. An additional 6 inches of soil cover must be placed within two years after the completion of the excavation of the tertiary lagoon unless the City of Bloomington has started construction on a future use for the tertiary lagoon which would make additional cover unnecessary or CBS has presented data and information clearly demonstrating to EPA that leaving the existing soil cover over the tertiary lagoon will not result in a threat to human health or the environment.
4. Comment: One commentor states that the EE/CA references the Consent Decree regarding excavation of the clay liner in the tertiary lagoon and abandoned lagoons according to the buffer zone requirement and this is incorrect. CBS also states that the parties had decided that the material would be excavated according to previous sampling data and confirmation sampling results, and this approach is what is described in the draft Scope of Work. Response: The reference to the requirements within the Consent Decree are for informational purposes only and are considered only as a possibility. CBS is correct that material will be excavated according to previous sampling data and confirmation sampling results.
5. Comment: One commentor states that Table 2-2 of the EE/CA indicates that the clay liner from 0"to 12" in the tertiary lagoon (27,000 cubic yards) will be removed. CBS does not agree with the 12", and states that removal should be based upon sampling data and confirmation sampling. Response: The commentor is correct that final volumes for excavation are based upon the cleanup numbers calculated in the EE/CA. The 27,000 cubic yard value is used as an example of possible excavation volumes.
6. Comment: One commentor states that Table 2-2 in the EE/CA indicates that 16,200 cubic yards of material would be removed from the abandoned lagoons. CBS estimates that previous sampling data indicates that only 8,800 cubic yards will require removal to meet the cleanup standard. Response: The volume of 16,200 cubic yards is a "worst case" estimate. The actual volume to be excavated will be based upon meeting the cleanup criteria of 15 ppm PCBs on average with a not to exceed value of 25 ppm.
7. Comment: One commentor states that CBS has not agreed to flush and cap the site piping as discussed on page 25 within the EE/CA. Response: This Section in the EE/CA is discussing the 1985 Consent Decree requirements. CBS is required to and has agreed to address piping that contain PCB contaminated material and CBS will have to properly clean, abandon, remove or plug the piping.
8. Comment: One commentor states that U.S. EPA should be using the previously approved Digester/Drying Bed Work Plan as a guide for the future air monitoring limit during the remediation of the tertiary lagoon, abandoned lagoons and trickling filter. In addition, CBS states that the EE/CA references high volume air monitoring occurring at the work area. Response: The commentor is correct that the sludge digester/Drying Bed Work Plan used a standard of 10,000 ug/m3 for particulate matter. The U.S. EPA agrees that the particulate standard for the remediation of the tertiary lagoon, abandoned lagoons, and trickling filter will be consistent with the levels used during the remediation of digester/drying beds. In addition, perimeter fence line air monitoring is appropriate.
9. Comment: One commentor states that Table 3-1 of the EE/CA refers to a spring water monitoring plan for the abandoned lagoons and that CBS has not agreed to such a plan. In addition, CBS states that a groundwater monitoring plan will be developed after the removal action is completed. Response: Table 3-1 in the EE/CA does discuss spring water monitoring at the abandoned lagoons. In a footnote, however, U.S. EPA states that CBS may route the spring water through a pipe or culvert to avoid contact with, and contamination by, contaminated soil. This will eliminate the need for sampling. CBS is correct that a groundwater monitoring plan is going to be developed after remediation is completed. The possibility exists that U.S. EPA may require spring water monitoring as part of the groundwater monitoring requirements.
10. Comment: One commentor states that the EE/CA is inaccurate in calculating costs of treating the water within the tertiary lagoon. CBS claims that the EE/CA indicates that all 16 million gallons of water will require treatment at 10 cents per gallon and that a significant amount of water does not exceed the 10 ug/l treatment level and can be drained off without treatment. Response: The EE/CA has used costs for treatment of all the tertiary lagoon water as a worse case. The water within the tertiary lagoon will be subject to treatment standards developed by the City of Bloomington Utilities and discharge to the Dillman Road facility will require approval by the City.
11. Comment: One commentor states that the EE/CA may be "double counting" the cost for treatment of water from the tertiary lagoon. In Table D-1, a cost of $1,660,000 is part of the common costs for all the alternatives. In alternative 6, the preferred alternative, the EE/CA includes a $750,000 cost for water treatment during material handling. Response: Water treatment costs are not being "double counted." An assumption was made that 10 percent of the water pumped from the tertiary lagoon requires treatment along with 100 percent of the water from the sludge dewatering process. These two sources add up to the 7,500,000 gallons of water. The cost at 10 cents per gallon is $750,000.
12. Comment: One commentor states that the cost estimates in the EE/CA for transportation and disposal for landfilling special waste at $45 per ton is incorrect. CBS indicates that they have received quotes of $30 to $35 per ton. In addition, CBS states that costs would be lower if a local disposal option is used. Response: The $45 value was used as a typical cost for special waste disposal and is not intended to prevent CBS from obtaining a lower quote than $45 per ton. CBS may be able to negotiate a lower price for disposal. Local disposal of PCB containing material from Winston Thomas site does not appear to be an option.
13. Comment: One commentor states that in discussing "implementability" the EE/CA states that because of schedules and constraints with-the unique qualifications of contractors that competitive bidding may not be possible for certain aspects of the project Response: The EE/CA references competitive bidding, because that is the norm on most projects. If CBS believes that competitive bids are not possible, then U.S. EPA will not interfere with the contractor selection. All contractors will have to be identified to (and approved by) U.S. EPA prior to mobilization to ensure that they are qualified.
14. Comment: One commentor stated that the project will require formal approval of Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) pursuant to Flood Control Act (IC 14-28-1) for the portion of the project which occurs in the floodway of Clear Creek. Response: CBS will be required to comply with IC 14-28-1 if activities occur in the floodway of Clear Creek.
15. Comment: One commentor states that the EE/CA on Page 4 and page 70 is incorrect in that 100 ug/100cm2 is not the standard for non-restricted access area for the trickling filter stone. Response: The commentor is correct that 10 ug/100cm2 is the standard for non-restrictive use for the trickling filter media. It is proposed that the trickling filter media will be used for non-restrictive use. Therefore, the 10 ug/100cm2 standard will apply.
16. Comment: One commentor stated that IDEM must be included in the decision/evaluation process involved in development of groundwater and surface water monitoring plan. Response: The State of Indiana is a party to the 1985 Consent Decree and has been involved in the decision making at the Winston Thomas site and will continue to be involved in the decision making.
17. Comment: One commentor stated that post-remediation samples indicated additional excavation should be conducted outside the drying beds. Response: CBS has been made aware by U.S. EPA of the contamination outside the drying beds and CBS has submitted a Sampling and Analysis Plan for the governmental parties to review as part of the cleanup associated with the first Amendment to the Consent Decree.
18. Comment: One commentor suggested that the costs associated with monitoring (i.e. groundwater and surface water) operations and maintenance should be considered in the EE/CA. Response: The governmental parties will receive from CBS for review, comment, and approval the groundwater monitoring plan for the Winston Thomas site at the completion of the remediation. The U.S. EPA does not agree that calculating costs associated with groundwater monitoring during the operation and maintenance phase of the project is worthwhile at this time. CBS is responsible for groundwater and surface water monitoring and those costs do not have a bearing on remedy selection.
19. Comment: One commentor suggested that in Section 5.4.4, Page 69, paragraph 2 should read "disposal of PCB materials with concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, in general ..." Response: The sentence in the EE/CA reads Disposal of PCB material exceeding 50 ppm, in general ... is correct and no change is required.
20. Comment: One commentor suggested that Table 3-1 is incorrect in the special waste disposal criteria should be < 50 ppm for PCBs and not <= 50 ppm for PCBs. Response: The commentor is correct that the requirement is < 50 ppm for disposal of PCBs in a special waste landfill.
21. Comment: One commentor indicated that Table 3-1 under the sampling frequency with the West Side of Clear Creek that the 30' x 30' 6'intervals should be 6". Response: The commentor is correct that the interval is 6" but the grid size in the Table is correct at 25" x 25".
22. Comment: One commentor indicated that the Indiana Department of Natural Resources will need to know the location of any proposed "in-state" disposal sites and that ARARs may depend upon disposal site location. Response: IDEM is a party to the Consent Decree and it would be appropriate that IDEM notify the IDNR as to the in-state disposal sites.
23. Comment: One commentor listed additional ARARS that must be met if furans or dioxins are present in the contaminated media. Response: No furans and dioxins have been discovered in the media, therefore the additional ARARs do not apply. The State of Indiana has provided a list of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for the chosen remedy.
24. Comment: One commentor has indicated that in Alternative 1 and Alternative 6 in the EE/CA, The ARAR 329 IAC 4 would be applicable and that IDEM provided approval for alternative disposal of sludge and sludge contaminated debris from this site during the 1997 remediation of the sludge drying beds and the digesters. This approval allows for materials contaminated with < 50 ppm PCBs to be disposed at a special waste landfill which has been approved to accept special waste. Response: The U.S. EPA anticipates that IDEM will approve disposal of material < 50 ppm PCBs in a special waste landfill.
25. Comment: One commentor has indicated that in Alternative 1 and Alternative 6, that 329 IAC 10 would be applicable and that no authorization from IDEM is required, because municipal wastewater treatment plant sludge and debris contaminated with < 50 ppm PCBs is considered a generic special waste. Response: CBS will be disposing of the municipal wastewater treatment sludge and debris contaminated with < 50 ppm PCBs in a special waste landfill.
26. Comment: One commentor indicated that effective July 9, 1998, disposal requirements for special waste will be based on the percentage the waste is below the RCRA characteristic hazardous waste limits. The generator of wastes that are greater than or equal to 75% of the RCRA limits must obtain written authorization from IDEM prior to disposal at any municipal solid waste landfill. The generator must obtain a special waste verification approval from the special waste landfill for wastes which are less than 75% of the RCRA limits. All wastes that are destined for a non-special waste landfill must first be certified by IDEM. Response: ARARs are "frozen" at the time of signature of the Action Memorandum. Therefore, the July 9, 1998, requirements for a special waste landfill will not be applicable or relevant and appropriate. The standards that will take place in the rule to be effective on July 9, 1998 will not significantly increase the protectiveness of the remedy. The State will continue to review all work plans and all actual work at the site.
27. Comment: One commentor indicated that in Alternative 2 within the EE/CA the disposal must comply with 329 IAC 4-1-5 (7). Response: This citation is similar to 40 CFR 761.60 and CBS is required to comply with this requirement.
28. Comment: One commentor indicated that Alternative 4 (thermal treatment) must comply with 326 IAC 5-1-2, 326 IAC 9-1-2, 326 IAC 14, 329 IAC 4 and 329 IAC 4-1-5(9). Response: The U.S. EPA agrees that if thermal treatment was the chosen alternative that the above reference ARARs would be applicable.
29. Comment: One commentor indicated that once trickling filter stones were decontaminated per 329 IAC 4-1-5(11), the stones would no longer be regulated by 329 IAC 4. Response: U.S. EPA anticipates that the stones will be decontaminated to under 10 ug/m3 for PCBs and may be used in a non-restrictive manner.
30. Comment: One commentor stated that the 1 ppm Remedial Action Objective (RAO) required for the abandoned lagoon should be extended to include the tertiary lagoon areas (both wet and dry). Since the 3/6/97 risk-based cleanup goals (in Appendix B) where calculated, it now appears according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that the 15 ppm level that is protective for human health is not protective of the environment/ecological systems. The exposure pathway is still open to the birds and other wildlife. Response: U.S. EPA calculated a 15 ppm value on average for PCBs, with no value to exceed 25 ppm was acceptable based upon the future industrial/commercial use of the property. This was agreed to by the other governmental parties. The procedures used in the focused risk assessment for Winston Thomas follow Agency policy and guidance. The abandoned lagoons Remedial Action Objective is also 15 ppm for PCBs, with a not to exceed 25 ppm PCB value. The commentor is correct that the U.S. EPA ecological experts and Fish and Wildlife are concerned about the 15 ppm value, not to exceed 25 ppm PCBs. To alleviate the risk to ecological receptors, a one foot soil cover will be placed over the abandoned lagoons and tertiary lagoon along with proper drainage controls.
31. Comment: A number of commentors stated that the PCB material should be treated before landfilling and that disposal without treatment is inappropriate. Response: The commentors are correct that U.S. EPA prefers treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume. In the case of the Winston Thomas cleanup, treatment is not practical due to the difficult deadlines imposed by the court, beginning remediation in the spring of 1998, and the cost and implementability of a treatment remedy. In addition, the limited technology available to remediate PCBs also hinders a treatment remedy. off-site disposal in a commercial landfill is common practice and disposal must meet the requirements of the CERCLA Off-site policy.
32. Comment: One commentor states that it should be clarified that off-site disposal will be-in a commercial, out-ofstate, permitted facility. Response: The PCB material will be disposed of in a commercial landfill. Material with PCB concentrations less than 50 ppm PCBs can be disposed of in a special waste landfill and material equal to or greater than 50 ppm PCBs must be disposed of in a Toxic Substance Control Act landfill. If CBS notifies the U.S. EPA that they would like to dispose of PCB material within Indiana and the facility meets the CERCLA Off-Site Policy, then the U.S. EPA will allow disposal in a commercial facility within the State of Indiana.
33. Comment: One commentor states that on Page 34 of the EE/CA, the OSHA/NIOSH paragraph is not an environmental ARAR under Superfund and should be removed from the EE/CA and placed in the site specific health and safety plan. Response: The U.S. EPA disagrees that the OSHA/NIOSH paragraph should be removed. CBS is required to meet the OSHA/NIOSH requirements and they would be considered ARARs. In addition, the site specific health and safety plan will also contain more detail on the OSHA/NIOSH requirements.
34. Comment: One commentor did not want the use of restrictive covenants placed on the Winston Thomas site or other properties contaminated with PCBs within the Bloomington area. Response: Restrictive covenants are frequently used at contaminated sites to prescribed the future uses of the property where hazardous substances remain after cleanup. At Winston Thomas, low levels of contamination may be left after the cleanup is completed. Accordingly, some restrictions are appropriate to ensure that the risk of exposure to any contaminants left behind are minimized. Restrictions are also appropriate to ensure that the integrity of the cleanup measures are not compromised. The City of Bloomington, owner of the Winton Thomas property, has stated that the property is going to be used for industrial/commercial purposes after the remediation. This is consistent with TSCA cleanup levels applied to this site. Because the TSCA industrial/commercial cleanup standards were used, restrictive covenants preventing residential buildings, or businesses such as a day care facilities, from being constructed at the site, and preventing use of on-site water are appropriate.
35. Comment: One commentor suggested that there may be more effective or less expensive water treatment processes available other than carbon for treatment of water prior to discharge to the Dillman Road plant. Response: CBS has proposed to use carbon to treat the water in the tertiary lagoon, if necessary. Carbon has been shown to be very effective in treating water with PCBs and if CBS decides to modify its treatment method, the U.S. EPA will review the process to see if it is effective in meeting the discharge requirements put forth by the City of Bloomington Utilities.
36. Comment: One commentor was of the opinion that the EE/CA was seriously deficient due to the failure to examine alternative processes for removal, dewatering, and treatment of saturated sediment and sludge. Response: The EE/CA evaluated certain processes to address the contaminated sludge and sediment. The focus of the EE/CA, however, was on the review of applicable and proven technologies and this limited the range of treatment options. In reviewing the technologies to address the sludge, PCB contamination within the sludge made thermal treatment the preferred choice to take into detailed analysis. Based upon the difficult schedule the court has put forth, however, along with a request by the City to begin remediation by the spring of 1998, the options were limited as to EPA's approach.
37. Comment: One commentor stated serious concerns with the methods used and pathways analyzed for the risk based cleanup proposed by the U.S. EPA. The commentor states that the risk analysis does not address uncertainty and variability and, thus, the results might be misleading. In addition, because all potential routes of exposure and exposure scenarios are not included, the proposed cleanup criteria may not be protective of human health or the environment. A more detailed investigation of legitimate pathways of concern is needed and uncertainty estimates should be included before this analysis would be scientifically defensible. Response: EPA's human health risk evaluation determined that a cleanup criterion of 15 ppm for PCBs would be protective of human health for Winston Thomas given the current and future use of the site. U.S.EPA typically conducts baseline human health/ecological risk assessments to determine the current and potential risks posed by a site, whether remediation is needed, and, if so, the scope of remedial action based on current/future land use and contaminants of concern. A streamlined (focused) risk evaluation is intermediate in scope (between a limited risk assessment for removal actions and a baseline assessment) and is performed to determine whether cleanup should be undertaken, the exposures to be addressed, and appropriate cleanup levels. The intent of U.S.EPA's Cleanup Criteria document of March 6, 1997, was to expeditiously provide a focused assessment of human health risk in order to determine PCB cleanup goals at Winston Thomas, because it was already determined that cleanup measures would be undertaken. The analyses focuses on the current and most reasonably anticipated future land use for the short term (CBU maintenance and utility facility) and longer term (commercial or light industrial), the exposure scenarios and their respective exposure pathways (oral and dermal) that would be expected to produce the highest exposure levels to PCBs at the site, and hence would be protective of lesser exposures as well. EPA made preliminary comparisons to determine that the scenarios involving on-site construction or utility workers and all types of maintenance workers would lead to the greatest uptake of PCBs using the dominate exposure routes (dermal, ingestion). other exposure scenarios that were considered included trespassers of all ages, office workers, casual visitors, etc. Residential scenarios were not considered appropriate given the land use plans, and deed restrictions will be in place preventing residential use. Many of the issues mentioned in the uncertainty discussion involve standard health effects issues for PCBs. Variability issues were also acknowledged and Reasonable Maximum Exposures were used whenever possible to produce a conservative but realistic outcome. It is important to recognize that margins of safety have been built into the analysis. In addition, soil coverage will further reduce exposure potential. The U.S. EPA did not complete an ecological risk assessment at the Winston Thomas site but did consult with U.S. EPA ecological experts and the Fish and Wildlife Service. While a cleanup goal of 1 ppm for PCBs would also have been appropriate, coverage of the excavated areas with 12 inches of soil will greatly reduce potential exposures to wildlife to any residual PCBs.
38. Comment: One commentor stated that methods to prevent airborne transport of PCBs during remediation must be identified and evaluated. This is recognized as an important mechanism for PCB transport, and it is not acceptable to assert that wind erosion and volatilization will be controlled without examining the specific methods available to do so. Response: A number of places within the EE/CA reference the control of air emissions during the remediation. CBS will be using a dredge to remove most of the material within the tertiary lagoon. The dredge vacuums up the contaminated material while the material is under the water within the tertiary lagoon. This procedure will eliminate airborne PCB emissions. In addition, air monitors will be placed around the Winston Thomas site during the remediation along with dust monitoring devices. The Health and Safety Plan and Air Monitoring Plan will contain additional detail on prevention of airborne transport of PCBs.
39. Comment: One commentor stated that promising treatment technologies are scrutinized in great detail and landfill operators should be held to the same high standards. A demonstrated ability to meet permit conditions is essential, and convincing proof that the PCBs will be contained for as long as they remain a threat is very important. Response: The commentor's concern is well taken and contaminated material that is disposed of in an off-site commercial landfill from a Superfund site must meet the requirements of the CERCLA Offsite rule 40 CFR 300.440. This rule requires that the facility meet the most stringent standards and be in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations.
40. Comment: One commentor was concerned about the accuracy of PCB field test kits in the determination of hot spot delineation. Response: PCB field test kits will be used as a screening tool for the PCB excavation by CBS. PCB test kits will not be used for final verification sampling. CBS will be required to use the EPA laboratory method 8081 or 8082 for PCB analysis.
41. Comment: A number of commentors stated that the EE/CA does not provide a thorough, critical analysis of the various alternative technologies available, and that the decision to dispose of the PCB contaminated material in an off-site landfill was determined prior to development of the EE/CA. Response: The focus of the EE/CA was on proven technology based upon the schedule imposed by the Court and the concern that the City of Bloomington wanted the Winston Thomas cleanup to begin in the spring of 1998. Since a non-time critical removal action was determined to be the appropriate remediation method, an EE/CA was required and is used as a basis for the Action Memorandum. The remedy was not predetermined but alternative treatment technologies that did not have actual performance data for a full scale removal action were not evaluated in detail. Treatment is the U.S. EPA's preferred alternative, but considering the difficult schedule and the past objections to implementation of thermal treatment, off-site disposal in appropriate, permitted landfills is the best balance of the alternatives.
42. Comment: One commentor stated that several potentially promising technologies such as Eco-Logic and Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) were readily dismissed as being comparable to thermal desorption. Furthermore the commentor states that thermal desorption is not comparable since thermal desorption does not result in the destruction of PCBS. In addition, the commentor states that the EE/CA fails to recognize the benefits of destruction technologies that are not based upon combustion. Both BCD and Eco-Logic offer the potential to destroy PCBs without coincident dioxin and furan formation. Response: The intent of the EE/CA was to look at proven technologies based upon the ambitious schedule ordered by the court, along with considering implementability, cost, and community acceptance. The Eco-Logic and BCD processes have not been implemented on a wide scale and costs associated with the Eco-Logic process were greater than other thermal treatment processes. The commentor's concern that thermal desorption is not comparable to the other processes is incorrect, because the condensed material from the desoprtion unit usually is incinerated in an off-site commercial unit. If thermal treatment were the preferred option, then thermal desorption would have been seriously considered. As stated in the EE/CA, the BCD process is very similar to thermal desorption and air emissions must be controlled with the BCD process as with thermal desorption.
43. Comment: One commentor stated that vaulting is readily dismissed in the EE/CA without any real analysis. The authors conclude that the costs are excessive but provide no data to support this assertion and clear impression that any calculations were done to assess the potential costs and benefits of this option. In addition, the commentor states that the authors comment on page 57 of the EE/CA that "vaulting does not provide a permanent final solution. The vaults would have to be maintained in perpetuity". The commentor states that this does not appear to be a concern when any other form of land disposal is examined. Response: The cost associated with vaulting would be much greater than land disposal in a permitted landfill and without an additional reduction in risk. Additional maintenance by the responsible party over time on the vault(s) would add to the cost compared to land disposal. By contrast, permitted landfills are already required to have financial assurance mechanisms in place to guarantee closure and post-closure. In addition, the PCBs would still remain in the Bloomington area and from our opportunities to gage public acceptance of proposed removal alternatives, it appeared clear that any disposal of PCBs in the Bloomington community would be met with substantial opposition. Considering the difficult schedule and all the issues associated with treatment, the land disposal option is the best balance of all the factors.
44. Comment: One commentor states that the public did not have input into the process and not enough time was given to review and comment on the EE/CA. Response: The U.S. EPA disagrees with the commentor. The public has had valuable input and the rejection of the proposed placement of a landfill at Bottom Road is a good example. Community acceptance is a factor, but not the only factor the U.S. EPA takes into consideration. The public has been extremely concerned with placement of a landfill at Bottom Road or any other local disposal option and U.S. EPA has taken their concerns into consideration when discussing the local disposal option with Judge Kennard Foster, and in coming to its own decisions. The statute spells out a 30 day public comment period and U.S. EPA has provided a technical assistance grant to COPA for contractor help in the review of the technical documents.
45. Comment: One commentor states that the removal action objective and the proposed remedy is contrary to the Consent Decree criteria and requirements and the objective is too high. The commentor states the Consent Decree, on Page 90 states (1) achieve a level of removal and destruction of PCBs and material contaminated with PCBs equal to or greater than the degree and extent of removal and destruction provided by this Consent Decree including the degree of destruction required of the incinerator. Response: The intent of the Consent Decree provision discussed by the commentor, Paragraph 114(i), was to allow CBS (previously known as Westinghouse) to take advantage in the developments in technology to unilaterally propose an alternative method of remedying the PCB contamination if CBS can prove: (1) that its method would provide at least the same level of removal and destructive efficiency required in the incineration method set forth in the Consent Decree; (2) that the proposed method would be at least as environmentally sound as the incineration remedy set forth in the decree and would not result in any harmful environmental impacts, and (3) the proposed method would be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The recommended changes in the cleanup activities at Winston Thomas set forth in the EE/CA will be proposed as a change to the Consent Decree, but not through Paragraph 114(i). Rather, these changes have been agreed to by all of the Consent Decree parties as part of an overall review of alternatives to the incineration method, arising in part from renewed concerns by some or all of the Consent Decree parties as to the acceptability of the incineration method by the Bloomington area community. Consequently, the requirements of Paragraph 114(i) are not applicable to the changes described in the EE/CA as it would be if CBS unilaterally proposed a change.
46. Conment: One commentor states that the removal action objective is too high. The commentor states that the risk assessment did not take into consideration the risk to either the adult construction, industrial, or site maintenance worker that could be pregnant, carrying a child, nursing a baby, or women of child bearing age. Response: The assumptions used in development of the focused risk assessment for industrial/commercial scenarios are standard across the country. A women who is pregnant or nursing will not be in danger of exposure to unacceptable levels, even if she was a construction, industrial or site maintenance worker. The health based values used by U.S. EPA (e.g., Aroclor 1016) specifically take into account reproductive impacts and, in addition, have margins of safety.
47. Comment: One commentor states the EE/CA did not take into consideration other contaminants of concern that should have been assessed and included in any risk based removal action, The commentor states chlorinated benzenes are reported to have been the principle component of aroclor mixtures. In addition, the commentor indicates that heavy metals, dioxins, and furans were not sampled for and the toxicity of those compounds flaws the risk assessment. Response: The commentor is correct that chlorinated benzenes, heavy metals, dioxins, and furans were not sampled for during any of the site investigations. U.S. EPA concluded that PCBs are driving the risk at the Winston Thomas site and the investigation focused on PCBs. In regards to dioxin and furan sampling, the U.S. EPA again is of the opinion that PCBs are driving the risk at Winston Thomas. In the evaluation of recent data for PCBs, dioxins, and dibenzofurans from whole fish and fish fillets collected within Clear Creek show that PCBs dominate the chemical contamination and resulting risks to human health and wildlife. Samples from fish in Clear Creek show the maximum toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for dioxins and dibenzofurans found in whole fish was 5 ppt, while PCBs levels were 400,000 times higher at about 2 ppm (1.9 ppm for a spotted sucker) in edible fish (fillets). The ratio of dioxin toxicity to PCB toxicity using cancer potency values, respectively, of 1.56E-5 (mg/kg-bw-day)-1 and 2.0 (mg/kg-bw-day)-1 is 75,000. The total dioxin and dibenzofuran TEFs need to be five times higher in fish before they reach the risk levels derived for PCBs. It should be noted that the comparison is worst case, as whole fish PCB data was not available. National surveys show that whole fish have about twice the contaminant levels as fish fillets. Therefore, about ten times the amounts of dioxin and dibenzofurans, as TEFs, would be needed before they equaled the cancer risks from PCBs. In regards to non-cancer (e.g., reproductive and immune risks) a ratio of 20,000 is found between the PCB reference dose of 2E-5 mg/kg-bwday as compared that for dioxin of 1E-9 mg/kg-bw-day. Therefore, concentration levels for the dioxin and dibenzofurans would need to be at least 20 fold greater to match those non-cancer risks from PCBS. Therefore, the U.S. EPA feels that if any dioxins are present, excavation of PCBs will address any derivative chemical. In addition, the toxicity characteristic leaching potential (TCLP) test was completed on sludge from Winston Thomas and the results show that the sludge was considered non-hazardous. This test included the leachability of metals.
48. Comment: One commentor stated that the EE/CA did not address groundwater and is concerned that the EE/CA is the last phase of the cleanup of the site. Response: This phase of the EE/CA is the last phase for remediation of soil/sludge, excluding some new information that could be discovered in the future. Groundwater is not addressed in this EE/CA but a groundwater monitoring plan is required to be submitted to the governmental parties. if contamination in the groundwater poses risks to public health and the environment, then a groundwater cleanup phase will be required.
49. Comment: One commentor states that other areas of contamination exist within the boundaries of the Winston Thomas site and additional areas should be sampled. Response: The U.S. EPA has discussed this issue in depth with the City of Bloomington and U.S. EPA's consultant, EarthTech, regarding additional contaminated areas within the Winston Thomas site. Generally, no other areas require sampling. An area outside the units to be remediated (near the grit station) will be sampled to determine if PCB contamination exists near that location. The City has indicated that they have inspected the culverts and that no further sampling is required. 50. Comment: One commentor states that the fence has not been maintained and access has not been eliminated. Response: The commentor is correct that in certain instances the fence around Winston Thomas has not prevented access and the U.S. EPA is in the process of ensuring that the fence is maintained. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The Cast | The Tragedy
| The
Comedy | The
Ending | News
| Library
| Seating
Plan | Top
|
Home |
CALL (812) 333-8888 FOR MORE INFORMATION OR E-MAIL info@copa.org | |||||||||||||||
The Coaltion Opposed to PCB
Ash in Monroe County, Inc. is a nonprofit organization. | |||||||||||||||