second five year review report (signed) - … · the decision documents? ... attachment 4 - site...
TRANSCRIPT
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
376775
Second Five-Year Review Report
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street Landfill) Superfund Site
Kalamazoo, Michigan
September 2010
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
Chicago, Illinois
Approved by:
I2u^ cl/e " I ' ^ o y ^
Richard C. Karl, Director Date Superfund Division
(This page left blank intentionally)
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms 6 Executive Summary 7 Five-Year Review Summary Form 8
I. Introduction 11
II. Chronology of Site Events 11
III. Background 11
Physical Characteristics 11
Land and Resource Use 11
History of Contamination 11
Initial Response 12
Basis for Taking Action 12
IV. Remedial Actions 13
Remedy Selection 14
Remedy Implementation 14
Institutional Controls 14
System Operations/Operation and Monitoring (O&M) 16
V. Progress Since the Last Five Year Review 17
VI. Five Year Review Process 19
Administrative Components 19
Community Involvement 19
Document Review 19
Site Inspection 19
Data Review 20 Interviews 23
VII. Technical Assessment 23
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by 24
the decision documents?
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, 24
cleanup levels and remedial action objectives
used at the time of remedy selection still valid?
Question C: Has any other information come to light that 25
could call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy?
VIII. Issues 25
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 25
X. Protectiveness Statement 25
XI. Next Five Year Review 26
Tables
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events
Table 2 - Annual System O&M Costs
Table 3 - Institutional Controls Summary Table
Table 4 - Progress Since Last Five-Year Review Summary
Table 5 - Issues
Table 6 - Recommendation and Follow-up
Figures
Figure 1 Moist Area on East Side of Landfill
Figure 2 - Seep Area on East Side of Landfill
Figure 3 Wetland Mitigation Pond
Figure 4 - Site Location Map
Figure 5 - Site Monitoring Well Locations
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Site Maps
Attachment 2 - Deed Restrictions
Attachment 3 - Community Notifications
Attachment 4 - Site Inspection Checklist
Attachment 5 - Interview Survey Forms
Attachment 6 - List of Documents Reviewed
Attachment 7- Site Inspection Photos
List of Acronyms
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulafions
CRA Conestoga-Rovers and Associates
ICs Institutional Controls
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PRP Potenfially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
Rl/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Executive Summary
The selected remedy for the Michigan Disposal Service Superfund Site (the "Site") included recompacting the existing landfill's clay layer, adding a 24-inch protection layer, adding a 6-inch vegetation layer and installing gas vents over a 22-acre portion of the landfill. The remedy also included constructing a new cap over the remaining 30 acres of the landfill consisting of a 6-inch vegetation layer, 24-inch frost protection layer, geosynthetic clay liner and a gas-venting layer. In addition, the remedy modified the leachate collection system, required the installation of monitoring wells for periodic monitoring in accordance with the Groundwater/Surface Water Interface Monitoring Plan, and required the implementation of insfitufional controls (ICs). ICs include notice to future property owners and recordation of activity and use restrictions in the chain of title for the Site.
The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy met the requirements of the ROD and the final ROD Amendment. The remedy is functioning as designed. There are no immediate threats and the remedy is protective in the short-term. Long-term protectiveness requires an evaluation of the lateral extent of methane gas migration to determine if a more aggressive landfill gas system is required. An Institutional Control Study Plan (IC Plan) will also be required to ensure implementation of ICs.
Five-Year Review Summary Form
Site name (from WasteLAN): Michigan Disposal Service Superfund Site (Cork Street Landfill)
EPA \D (from WasteLAN): M I D 0 0 0 7 7 5 9 5 7
Region: 5 State: Ml City/County: Kalamazoo County
NPL status: Final
Remediation status Complete
IVIultiple OUs?* NO Construction completion date: 09/28/2002
Has site been put into reuse? NO
Lead agency: EPA Region 5
Autlior name: Karen Mason-Smith
Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: EPA Region 5
Review period:" 05/06/2009 to 12/10/2009
Date(s) of site inspection: November 12, 2009
Type of review/: Post-SARA
Review number: Second
Triggering action: Previous Five-Year Review Report
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): December 10, 2004
Due date (five years after triggering action date): December 10, 2009
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.
Issues: • Analytical data results from the 2009 O&M Report show that elevated levels of methane
gas are migrating from the landfill. • ICs are in place, but need to be reviewed to determine effectiveness. • MW-4S & M-1 have not been sampled since April 2002. • Confirmafion sampling is needed to determine if a seep from the landfill is hazardous. • Monitoring wells M-1 and W-3 need to be replaced to address zinc exceedances.
Recommendations and FoIIow-up Actions: • Measure the lateral extent of landfill gas migration. • Prepare and implement an IC Study and Work Plan. • Perform quarterly sampling at monitoring wells MW-4S and M-1. • Perform confirmafion sampling of the seep on the east side of the landfill. • Replace galvanized wells M-1 and W~3 to address zinc exceedances.
Protectiveness Statenient(s): The remedy is functioning as designed and is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. The immediate threats have been addressed adequately.
Long-term protectiveness requires an evaluation of the lateral extent of the methane gas migration to determine if a more aggressive landfill gas system is required.
Long-term protectiveness requires compliance with effective ICs. Compliance with effective ICs will be ensured by implementing effective ICs, which must be maintained, monitored and enforced by developing long-term stewardship procedures as well as maintaining the remedy components at the Site. An Institutional Control Study has been requested from the City to conduct IC evaluation activities. Next, an IC Work Plan will be required (or an IC Plan developed by EPA) to ensure that ICs are effectively implemented, monitored, maintained and enforced.
Date of Last Regional Review of Human Exposure Indicator (From WasteLAN): 07/15/2009
Human Exposure Survey Status (from WasteLAN): Current Human Exposure Controlled and Protective Remedy In Place
Date of last Regional Review of Ground Water Migration Indicator (from WasteLAN): 07/15/2009
Ground Water Migration Survey Status (from WasteLAN): Contaminated Groundwater Migration Under Control
10
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street Landfill) Superfund Site
Kalamazoo, Michigan Second Five-Year Review Report
L INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. A five-year review report documents the methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.
The Agency is preparing this Five-Year Review report pursuant to the Comprehensive, Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 121 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 states:
If the 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 of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken from such reviews.
The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), conducted the second five-year review of the remedy implemented at the Site. EPA conducted this review for the Site from May 2009 through September 2010. This report documents the results of the review and inspections conducted at the Site.
This is the second five-year review for the Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the First Five-Year Review for the Site completed in December 2004. The five-year review is required because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). This review is in the Site files and local repositories for the Site.
11
II. CHRONOLOGY
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events Event
EPA Proposes Michigan Disposal Service Site to NPL Final NPL Listing RI/FS Remedy Selected in Record of Decision Remedial Design Remedial Action ROD Amended to eliminate pump and treat Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Interface (GSI) Plan Preliminary Completion Report based on ROD Amendment First Five-Year Review Report O&M Plan Gas Probes Installed Seep Sampling Work Plan Second Five-Year Review Site Inspection
Date 10/15/84
Feb. 1990 06/04/1987 09/30/1991 06/12/1998 12/01/1999 09/25/2002
2002 09/25/2002 12/10/2004 11/17/2004 06/30/2005 07/21/2006 11/12/2009
III. BACKGROUND
Physical Characteristics
The Site is an inactive landfill located in Kalamazoo County, Kalamazoo, Michigan, and is situated on approximately 68 acres of land. The Site is bounded on the south by Interstate 94, on the west by the Conrail Railroad, on the north by Cork Street and the Lakeside Refinery Co. (a solid waste transfer station), and on the east by Davis Creek and the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks. Davis Creek is not used recreationally.
Land and Resource Use
The immediate area surrounding the property is industrial with the surrounding area exhibiting mixed industrial, commercial and residential land uses. The nearest residences are more than a mile from the Site. The nearest business. Lakeside Refinery Co., is one-quarter of a mile from the Site.
History of Contamination
During its operation from 1925 to 1961, the property was owned and operated by private parties as a general refuse municipal landfill. In 1961, the City of Kalamazoo (City) bought the property and began accepting wastes from local residents, businesses and industries. A tee-pee shaped incinerator, called a Wilco burner, was used to incinerate a majority of the waste with the ash being deposited at the Site. In 1968, the Site became licensed by the state to receive only inert waste, and incineration ceased at the Site to comply with new air pollution regulations. In
12
addition, at that time, the landfill was closed for public use. However, the City continued to dispose of its own inert waste there until 1981. In March of 1981, the City sold the property to Dispos-0-Waste, now known as Michigan Disposal Service Corporafion (MDS).
Initial Response
The Site was proposed for the National Priorifies List (NPL) on October 15, 1984. On December 3, 1987, the City of Kalamazoo, MDS and the U.S. EPA entered into a Consent Order (EPA Docket No. V-W-87-C-035) for performance of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (Rl/FS). The Site was finalized on the NPL in February of 1990.
The predominant contaminants that were identified during the 1987 RI/FS included heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatics (PNAs), and several other semi-volafile organic compounds (SVOCs). The 1998-1999 groundwater samples yielded detectable concentrations of heavy metals and VOCs.
In July 1991, EPA and MDEQ issued a proposed plan for public comment. The proposed remedy consisted of groundwater extraction and leachate collection with treatment and discharge to the City's publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and closure and containment of the landfill, including installafion of a gas venting system, monitoring of groundwater wells, fencing and institutional controls.
On July 17, 1991, EPA and MDEQ held a public meeting in Kalamazoo to solicit comments on the proposed plan. A public comment period was held from July 11, 1991 to September 8, 1991. EPA and MDEQ responded to both verbal and written comments received on the proposed plan. On September 30, 1991, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), including a responsiveness summary for the Site, which embodied the proposed remedy, as outlined above.
The EPA Amended the 1991 ROD in September 2002. The ROD Amendment relied upon information collected in the pre-design studies, in conjunction with supplemental groundwater quality and stream flow data analysis, which provided data to support changes in the cleanup action for groundwater at the Site. Based on these data, the current Groundwater/Surface Water Interface (GSI) quarterly monitoring, and the June 1995 amendments to Part 201 of Michigan Act 451, EPA concluded that a feasible response for groundwater at the Site would require monitoring and a periodic re-evaluation of the groundwater discharge across the GSI into Davis Creek.
Basis for Taking Action
In addition to the closure of the solid waste landfill in accordance with solid waste regulations, the 1991 ROD and 2002 ROD Amendment identified the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs):
13
• Prevent or reduce the release of contaminants from the landfill into the various environmental media including air, groundwater, surface water and sediment of Davis Creek.
• Ensure that chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are not exceeded outside the boundaries of the landfill;
• Prevent or reduce off-Site migration of contaminated groundwater; and
• Prevent or reduce the potential risk to human health associated with exposure to contaminated groundwater and/or landfill waste at the Site.
IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Remedy Selection
The final remedy discussed in the ROD, as amended, contains the following components:
• Upgrading the previously capped 22-acre portion of the landfill by re-compacting the clay layer, and by adding a 24-inch protection layer, 6-inch vegetation layer and gas vents;
• Construction of a new cap on the remaining 30-acre portion of the landfill consisting of 6-inch vegetation layer, 24-inch frost protection layer, geosynthetic clay layer (GCL) and gas venting layer in accordance with MDEQ Standards and RCRA Subtitle D cover requirements;
Land use restrictions to prevent contact with waste and groundwater use restrictions to prevent ingestion of contaminated groundwater;
Installation of an extension to the leachate collecfion system;
• Installation of monitoring wells and performance of periodic groundwater monitoring as detailed in the January 2002 Groundwater/Surface Water Interface (GSI) Monitoring Plan. The following contingent remedy for groundwater treatment is also selected for the Site: design and implementation of a groundwater extraction system with discharge to the City of Kalamazoo's POTW if monitoring indicates that there are long-term exceedances in the GSI monitoring wells; and
Installation of fencing and warning signs to restrict access.
Remedy Implementation
On May 14, 1998, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to the City of Kalamazoo and MDS (the "Respondents") to perform the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) as described in the ROD. Pre-design (pre-RD) field acfivifies began in January 1998. The Respondents completed these activities in January 1999. The work was performed in
14
The Respondents completed these activities in January 1999. The work was performed in compliance with the ROD, the AOC, and in accordance with the Work Plan that EPA and MDEQ approved in October 1997. These studies included vertical profile sampling and monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling and analysis, wetland delineation and sampling, and performance of a groundwater utilization study, waste delineation survey, and pre-design report. The purpose of these studies was to develop sufficient data to estimate the horizontal and vertical extent of groundwater contamination at the Site, qualitatively assess potential impacts to public health and envirormiental receptors of any Site-related contamination, and determine the extent of waste over which the surface cap was to be constructed.
The groundwater studies showed that the quality of groundwater discharging from the Site is not causing an environmental risk to Davis Creek. Groundwater has been impacted due to recharge through landfill waste from the Site. The predominant contaminants that were identified in the 1991 ROD included heavy metals, VOCs, PNAs, and several SVOCs. The 1998-1999 groundwater samples yielded detectable concentrations of heavy metals and VOCs that exceed Generic GSI criteria at monitoring wells located adjacent (i.e. within 20-30 ft) to Davis Creek. Although GSI criteria were exceeded at some monitoring wells that were sampled in 1998 and 1999, new point of compliance monitoring was established in 2001. A Mixing Zone Determination (MZD) was conducted to establish Site-specific GSI criteria to protect Davis Creek, and additional point of compliance wells were installed closer to the creek. Although the GSI criteria have been exceeded at some monitoring points located in the landfill portions upgradient from the creek, the MZD criteria have not been exceeded at point of compliance wells to date, nor is it expected that the MZD standards will be exceeded at the point of compliance wells in the future.
Field activities for construcfion of the landfill cap began in late April 2000. The landfill cap was completed at the end of June 2002, and its construction included:
• Mobilization and startup, installation of temporary facilities and controls; • Site clearing, grubbing topsoil stripping, and structural demolifion; • Waste excavation and relocation; • Paper mill sludge stabilization, implementation of soil erosion and sediment control
measures; construction of a cap upgrade for the 22-acre portion of the landfill, wetland mitigation;
• Mulfi-layer landfill cap construction for the 30-acre portion of the landfill; grouting of waste below 42-inch sanitary sewer; installation of access roads, culverts, and drainage ditches;
• Passive vent construction; installation of chain link fences and gates; and • Site restoration including seeding and mulching; demobilization from the Site.
Institutional Controls
ICs are required to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and that protect the integrity of the remedy. ICs are required to assure the long-term protectiveness for any areas that do not allow for UU/UE.
15
The ROD provides that ICs be imposed, such as deed restrictions, to prohibit the installation of water wells at or near the Site and any future development that might disturb contaminated soils.
Evaluation of Current Conditions, Existing ICs and Planning for Additional ICs, if Necessary
The Site is located in a mixed-use area. Cleanup goals for soil and groundwater allow commercial/industrial use. In accordance with the remedy outlined in the ROD, MDS imposed activity and use restrictions on the Site and recorded them in the chain of title on July 24, 1997 (Attachment 2).
Table 3 below identifies those areas that do not support UU/UE and summarizes the institutional controls for those restricted areas. EPA requested the Respondents to develop maps, which depict the current conditions of the Site and areas that do not allow for UU/UE, as part of the IC Work Plan discussed below.
Table 3. Institutional Controls Summary Table
Media, Remedy Components & Areas that Do Not Support UU/UE based on Current Conditions
Landfill cap (Attachment 1)
Areas of soil other than capped areas
Groundwater at Site and Off-Site Areas that exceed groundwater cleanup standards
Objectives of IC
Prohibit interference with landfill cap; Prohibit residential, commercial or industrial uses of Site
Prohibit residential use and any use that would interfere with the remedy
Prohibit groundwater use until cleanup standards are achieved
Title of IC Instrument Implemented
Declaration of Deed Restrictions (Attachment 2 -under review)
Declaration of Deed Restrictions (Attachment 2 -under review)
Declaration of Deed Restrictions (Attachment 2 -under review) and local groundwater ordinance
Evaluation of Current Compliance: Access to the Site is restricted by a fence. Based on the Site inspections and interviews, use is consistent with implemented ICs, and the IC objectives set
16
forth in the ROD.
Evaluation of Long Term Stewardship: Long-term protectiveness at the Site requires compliance with use restrictions to assure that the remedy continues to function as intended. To assure proper maintenance, monitoring and enforcement of ICs, planning for long-term stewardship (LTS) is required. LTS procedures will be reviewed and a corresponding plan will be developed. The plan will include regular inspection of ICs at the Site and annual certification to EPA that ICs are in place and effective. Additionally, use of a communications plan and use of a one-call system should be explored.
Evaluation of Existing ICs and Follow-up Activities
The City of Kalamazoo will undertake an IC Study consisting of specific IC evaluafion acfivifies to explore whether the ICs are functioning as intended, to ensure long-term protectiveness of the remedy. The purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing ICs and determine if additional work is needed to enhance the reliability of them.
The IC Evaluation Activities shall include:
- mapping the Site based on current conditions and identifying current boundaries of restricted areas associated with the Site and areas which will not allow for UU/UE, (preferably in both paper and GIS format), and evaluation of the physical areas of the recorded deed restrictions to assure that all areas are covered by the ICs;
- evaluating the legal description(s) contained in the existing deed restrictions to ensure it covers the UU/UE areas;
- evaluating property title work to confirm ownership and determine whether some interest, such as a mortgage or utility easement, might defeat the efficacy of the institutional controls;
- evaluating the effectiveness of the current Declaration of Deed Restrictions to ensure it prevents the installation of groundwater wells near the Site;
- evaluating the necessity of the well advisory required by the ROD;
- evaluating the existing Declaration of Deed Restrictions to determine if all objectives are included in an IC and that the IC embodies the appropriate objectives/restrictions;
- evaluafing the current Declaration of Deed Restricfions to assure that it is enforceable by City of Kalamazoo; and
- evaluating the long-term stewardship procedures at the Site.
Once the IC evaluation activities have been completed, an Institutional Control Work Plan will be developed by the City of Kalamazoo (and/or an IC Plan prepared by EPA) to incorporate the results of the IC evaluation activities and plan for corrective measures as needed to ensure long-
17
term protectiveness of the remedy. The objective of the plan is to ensure that effective ICs are in-place and that the ICs are monitored, maintained and enforced. If sufficient ICs are not in-place or if existing ICs require changes, EPA will request that the Respondents consider new model language that the State of Michigan has been developing in recent months, to ensure that such instruments are enforceable under state law. This model language is in the final stages of development and EPA is evaluating these alternate instruments.
The IC Work Plan will include a schedule and plan for additional IC evaluation activities, if needed, and steps for long-term stewardship to ensure that effective ICs are monitored and maintained.
System Operations/Operation and Maintenance
The City of Kalamazoo is conducting long-term monitoring and maintenance activities at the Site according to the O&M Plan approved by EPA on November 17, 2004. O&M activities are expected to continue at the Site for an indefinite period of time that is quantified as thirty years for planning purposes. Site O&M activities, including ground water monitoring and inspections; have been ongoing since the last Five-Year Inspecfion. A detailed discussion of Site O&M, GSI, wetland/surface water, and landfill gas monitoring is in Section VI of this Five-Year Review. In addition, EPA is reviewing a revised GSI Plan submitted recently by CRA.
Site Operation and Maintenance
O&M activities will continue at the Site for an indefinite period, quantified as thirty years for planning purposes. Site O&M activities, including groundwater monitoring and inspections, have been ongoing since the last Five-Year Inspection.
Consistent with historic practices, future O&M activifies will include inspections of the Site, likely performed simultaneously with ground water sampling. The inspections will consist of visual examination of the Site. In particular, the landfill cap will continue to be inspected for settlement, erosion, plants with taproots, and burrow holes. CRA records inspection observations and maintenance recommendations in the field. CRA performs cap and fence maintenance as necessary to maintain cap integrity and limit access to the capped area.
Oi&M Costs
Table 4 shows the O&M costs. The O&M costs associated with the Site include monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual inspections of the landfill, wetland areas, surface water management structures and ditches; mowing of the grass cover; maintenance; groundwater and surface water sampling; gas probe quality monitoring and landfill gas system maintenance and monitoring. The estimated annual O&M costs vary from approximately $92,000 to $129,000 for routine maintenance. Additional maintenance activities required at the Site, such as fence maintenance or vegetation reseeding, will require an estimated additional expenditure once every five years.
18
Table 4: Annual System Operations/0«&M Costs Date
From 01/2009 01/2008 01/2007 01/2006
To Present 12/2008 12/2007 12/2006
Total Cost rounded to the nearest $1,000
92,000 118,000 129,000 114,000
V. PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
This is the second five-year review for the Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street Landfill) Site. The first five-year review was completed and signed on December 10, 2004. A status of progress since the last five-year review, with completion dates, is summarized below in Table 5 (See Section VI Five-Year Review Process, Data Review).
19
Table 5 - Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review Summary Summary of Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review for Recommendations/Follow-up Actions
Responsible Party
Oversight Agency
Date Completed
Affects Protectiveness Current Future
1) Continued maintenance of the remedy components and performing five-year reviews to ensure these requirements are maintained. Follow-up: Ongoing
2) PRP addressed the sloughing problems near sedimentation basin No. 2 / wetland, by using riprap instead of soil to repair the manmade wetland and prevent this problem from occurring in the future. Foliow-up: O&M at the wetland was completed in December 2009 in accordance to the 2004 O&M Plan.
3) PRP addressed the area of moisture on the east side of the landfill and developed a work plan to ascertain if this moisture represents leachate or simply moisture from surface drainage. The 2006 sampling results were below detection levels of GSI criteria. Follow-up: EPA approved a Seep Work Plan on 07/21/06. PRP needs to follow-up with re-implementation of ongoing seep sampling.
4) To address the zinc exceedances, PRP replaced wells constructed of galvanized materials with polyvinyl chlorinated (PVC) wells constructed of some other material, which did not contain or contribute to groundwater zinc, or any of the contaminants of concern for the Site. Then a period of monitoring for 3 quarters was conducted to determine if zinc levels remained above the generic GSI criterion. Follow-up: Galvanized wells M-1 and M-3 need to be abandoned & replaced with PVC wells.
5) Gas probes were installed to monitor whether methane gas was migrating from the landfill. Follow-up: 2009 O&M Monitoring Reports consistently show elevated levels of methane gas above 25% LEL.
6) To address the potential long-term ineffectiveness of the Declaration of Deed Restrictions, it is recommended that an IC Plan be submitted within 6 months of this five-year review. The IC Plan will develop a strategy for obtaining restrictive covenants or easements that run with the land, and thereby, prohibit disturbance of the cap and groundwater use at the Site. Follow-up: EPA submitted an IC Plan request letter to the PRPs in November 2009.
PRPs
PRPs
EPA and MDEQ
EPA and MDEQ
Ongoing
12/2009
N
N
PRPs EPA Incomplete N Y
PRPs EPA Incomplete N
PRPs EPA 06/30/2005 N
PRPs EPA Incomplete N
20
VL FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Administrative Components
The Michigan Disposal Service five-year review team was led by Karen Mason-Smith, EPA Remedial Project Manager. Cheryl Allen and David Novak, the EPA Region 5 Community Involvement Coordinators; Rich Murawski, EPA Office of Regional Counsel; Mary Schafer, State Project Manager with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); Gavin O'Neill and Jodie Dembowske, from Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, also assisted in the five-year review process for this Site.
The five-year review consisted of a Site inspection and review of relevant documents and interviews. The completed report will be available in the Site information repository, EPA Region 5's Record Center and the EPA website for public view. The Site repository is located at the Kalamazoo Public Library. This five-year review includes the following components:
Document Review Data Review Community Involvement Press Release Site Inspection Legal Review Interviews
Community Involvement
The public was notified of the five-year review in December 2009 through a press release and newspaper ad in a local newspaper. No comments were received.
Document Review
The document review analyzed several records, including the following: Record of Decision, ROD Amendment, September 2009 Revised Groundwater Surface Water Interface Monitoring Plan, Operation and Maintenance Plans, GSI Monitoring Reports, and various correspondence (Attachment 5).
Site Inspection
On November 12, 2009, Karen Mason-Smith, EPA RPM, conducted the Five-Year Review inspecfion of the Site accompanied by Mary Schafer and Bill Bolio of MDEQ, as well as Carolyn Rufiand, Mike Wetzel and Bob 0*Day of the City of Kalamazoo, and Gavin O'Neill of CRA.
21
The landfill cap appeared to be in good condition with covered vegetation, and showed no erosion gullies or surface breaks. The fencing around the perimeter of the Site appeared to be in good shape and signs were clearly posted.
The inspection of the Site revealed minor burrowing by animals in several locations on the landfill (Attachment 7). An area along the eastern edge of the landfill, adjacent to the area where the old leachate collection trench meets the new leachate collection trench continues to be moist at the surface, as shown below in Figures 1 and 2. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate that the seep discovered during the first five-year review inspection in 2004 is still present today (Attachment 7).
Figure 1 - Moist area along eastern collection leachate edge of trench (October 2004)
Figure 2 - Road with seepage near leachate collection trench (October 2004)
Data Review
Ground Water and Surface Water Monitoring
Quarterly GSI monitoring has been performed at the Site since 1998 pursuant to the GSI Monitoring Plan. GSI monitoring activities were performed most recently in June and September 2009. The GSI monitoring activities include groundwater and surface water sampling and taking surface water and static ground water level measurements.
Consistent with historic practices, long-term ground water monitoring will continue to be performed at the Site through the collection of ground water samples from a network of monitoring wells. GSI sampling locations pursuant to the approved 2002 GSI Monitoring Plan consist of 16 monitoring wells at 10 locations, including 5 well pairs and/or clusters. Of the 16 wells, 10 required quarterly monitoring in the shallow zone and 6 required annual monitoring in the deep zone.
Wetland and Surface Water Monitoring
Wetlands were created as part of the landfill closure and have been monitored consistent with the approved 2004 O&M Plan to evaluate the success of the wetland mitigation activities and to assess impacts to the long-term integrity of the wetlands. Bailey Contractors completed
22
construction of the wetland in fall 2004, as illustrated below in Figure 3.
The O&M Plan required monitoring and maintaining the wetlands for five years. The 5-year monitoring period commenced in fall 2004. No further monitoring of the wetlands is required following December 2009, which was the fifth and final monitoring period. The November 2009 five-year review revealed that the wetland mitigation pond is functioning successfully and wildlife, including an egret, utilized it (Attachment 7).
Figure 3 - Wetland Area and Sedimentation Pond No. 2 (October 2004)
Site Operation and Maintenance
Inspections of the landfill are conducted on a quarterly basis. Areas throughout the landfill are checked to ensure the various components of the landfill cover system are operational. As the Responsible Party, the City of Kalamazoo's contractor, CRA, performs required quarterly inspections in accordance with the approved 2004 O&M Plan. The most recent quarterly O&M reports submitted to EPA provides results from inspections at the Site conducted in June and September 2009, during the second five-year review period. These efforts consisted primarily of inspection and general upkeep of the consolidation area.
The cap has been, and will continue to be, examined for settlement, erosion, plants with taproots, and burrow holes. Inspection observations and maintenance recommendations will continue to be recorded in the field.
Seep on East Side of Landfill
The area of moisture on the east side of the landfill along the access road could possibly be from a minor leachate outbreak given its proximity to the "old" leachate collection trench that stops just adjacent to the "new" leachate collection trench. EPA approved a Seep Sampling Plan on July 2006. CRA collected seep samples in December 2006, including three samples from shallow trenches excavated along the toe of the slope immediately west of the eastern access road
23
and two samples from leachate collection manholes (i.e., MH-G#4). The analytical results were compared to Michigan Part 201 generic GSI criteria, which are conservative and protective of Davis Creek. Davis Creek would be the receptor if the seep were to flow or migrate off-Site. The 2006 seep analytical results were below GSI compliance criteria, and do not pose a hazard to human health or the environment. However, EPA recommends that the City of Kalamazoo continue to monitor the seep.
Landfill Gas System Maintenance and Monitoring
Landfill gas (LFG) system maintenance and gas probe quality monitoring is also conducted at the Site. LFG and barhole sampling was completed in April 2006 at Lakeside Refinery Co., which is a solid waste transfer station that is adjacent to the Site, due to elevated readings in the gas probes. Lakeside Refinery Co. is located in trailers that sit on concrete slabs. The LFG sampling results from the trailers were below levels of concern and considered non-hazardous. The sampling results were presented in the O&M Progress Report dated July 2006. The City of Kalamazoo maintains that the results of the 2006 LFG sampling support its position that methane gas is not migrating off-site.
Gas monitoring of the eight gas probes at the Site was completed by CRA on June 22, 2009 and September 23, 2009. Monitoring is conducted for the existing gas probes and manholes along the sanitary sewer lines at the landfill. During the June 2009 gas-monitoring event, detectable levels of methane were reported at MH-3 and MH-4 along the sanitary line, and along the leachate collection system at MH-H#1, MH-G#2, MH-G#3 and MH-G#4.
In September 2009, methane levels exceeded 25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) at three of the gas probes (GP-3, GP-4 and GP-8) located along the northwest and east edges of the landfill. Methane levels ranging from 0.0 to 57.3 percent by volume were reported. Carbon dioxide readings ranging from zero to 18.9 percent by volume were recorded while oxygen readings ranging from zero to 15.1 percent by volume were recorded.
Migration potential is considered possible if methane concentrations, in excess of 25 percent of the LEL for methane (1.25 percent by volume) in monitoring probes, are found outside the limit of the refuse. The limit of the refuse is close to the perimeter of the Site.
The extent of the methane gas migration from the landfill will need to be evaluated further in order to determine whether the landfill gas is migrating laterally, and to ensure that the remedy is operafing properly and successfully. In addition, EPA recommends that more information be collected to determine if a more aggressive LFG monitoring plan is needed.
Groundwater/Surface Water Interface (GSI) Monitoring Plan
The GSI Monitoring Plan does not give a standard for zinc, although zinc was detected in the past above Generic GSI criteria in monitoring wells constructed of galvanized materials. MDEQ provided site-specific Mixing Zone Determination (MZD) criteria of 1200 |ag/L for zinc. Several of the galvanized monitoring wells were abandoned and replaced with PVC wells in 2006 that currently do not show zinc results. It should be noted that due to the steep slopes around
24
monitoring wells M-1 and W-3, these galvanized wells were not replaced. Monitoring well W-3 has been monitored in the quarterly sampling events for the Site.
It should be noted that monitoring wells M-1 and MW-4S have not been sampled since April 2002. Quarterly sampling of M-1 and MW-4S will be conducted unfil sufficient data is collected to justify reduced monitoring.
Unionized Ammonia Monitoring
Unionized ammonia was detected in eight of the ten monitoring wells where samples for nitrogen ammonia were collected during the September 2009 sampling event. Although the 1999 GSI Monitoring Plan did not provide standards for unionized ammonia, MDEQ calculated Site-specific MZD criteria of 680 ug/L for unionized ammonia, using the pH and temperature of the receiving water body. The unionized ammonia values calculated by CRA were below the Final Acute Value (FAV) obtained from the Michigan Rule 57 Water Quality Values. If a constituent's concentration in any well exceeds the FAV, a confirmational groundwater sample for the constituent(s) of concern will be collected within three weeks of validation of the analytical data. If the confirmatory sample contains the constituent at a level below the FAV, subsequent sampling will default back to the normal monitoring frequency that is specified in the GSI Monitoring Plan.
Interviews
The EPA RPM conducted interviews with Gavin O'Neill (CRA Project Manager), Mary Schafer (MDEQ Project Manager) and Carolyn Rutland (City of Kalamazoo Project Manager), for purposes of this Five-Year Review (Attachments 4 and 5).
VIL TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Yes. Nothing observed at the Site would be an imminent threat to the integrity of the cap in the short-term and the fence around the Site is in good condition.
Regarding ICs, a local ordinance restricting groundwater use and a Declaration of Deed Restrictions are in place. Based on inspections, review of monitoring data and interviews with local officials, there appears to be compliance with land and groundwater use restrictions.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Yes. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
25
Changes in Standards and Things to be Considered
The Federal Drinking Water Criteria or Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic has been changed. The arsenic MCL change does not affect the Site directly.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
No. There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy in the short-term. There is new information that may call into question the protectiveness of the remedy in the long-term. Current data from gas probes at the Site indicate methane gas is migrating from the landfill at elevated levels. The lateral extent of landfill gas migration will need to be determined.
VHI. ISSUES
Issues identified in this five-year review are listed below in Table 5.
Table 5 - Issues Issues
1) Seep on the east side of the landfill continues to produce moisture in this area from surface drainage. Confirmation is needed to deteniiine if it is still a non-hazardous liquid or leachate. 2) Galvanized monitoring wells M-1 and W-3 need to be replaced to address zinc exceedances. 3) O&M Monitoring Reports consistently show elevated levels of methane gas from the landfill above 25% of lower explosive limit (LEL). 4) ICs are in place but need to be reviewed to determine effectiveness. 5) Monitoring wells M-1 &
MW-4S have inadvertently not been sampled since April 2002.
Affects Current Protectiveness (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
Affects Future Protectiveness (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
26
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
Table 6 below lists the primary recommendations and follow-up actions for this second five-year review. In addition, using the EPA-approved July 21, 2006 work plan, EPA recommends that the PRPs continue to monitor the seep on the east side of the landfill to ascertain if this seep represents leachate or moisture from surface drainage. Monitoring wells M-1 & MW-4S, which have not been sampled since April 2002, should also be monitored on a quarterly basis until sufficient data is collected.
Table 6 - Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Recommendations/Follow-up Actions Responsible Party
Oversight Agency
Milestone Date
Affects Protectiveness
Current Future
1) Replace galvanized wells (M-1 and W-3) with wells constructed of some other material, which will not contain or contribute to groundwater zinc, or any of the contaminants of concern for the Site. A period of monitoring for 3 quarters will need to be conducted to determine if zinc levels have remained above the generic GSI criterion. If the criteria are exceeded, contingency actions as described in the ROD Amendment should be performed.
2) Evaluate data from LFG monitoring probes to determine the lateral extent of methane gas migration and whether a more aggressive remedy for LFG is needed.
3) To address the potential long-term ineffectiveness of the deed restrictions recorded at the Site:
(a) an IC Study shall be completed and submitted to EPA for review and approval within seven months of this five-year review;
(b) an IC Work Plan will be submitted within one year of this five-year review. The IC plan will develop a strategy for obtaining restrictive covenants or easements that run with the land and thereby prohibit disturbance of the cap and groundwater use at the Site.
PRPs EPA 03/30/1 N
PRPs EPA 06/30/11 N
PRPs EPA 04/30/11 N
PRPs EPA 09/30/11 N
Y
Y
Y
27
X. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
The remedy is considered protective in the short-term. There is no evidence of a landfill cap breach, groundwater use, or exceedance of GSI standards. The remedy is expected to be protective of human health and the environment in the long-term upon attainment of groundwater cleanup goals, through performing groundwater monitoring utilizing GSI criteria and implementation of a groundwater extraction system with discharge to the City of Kalamazoo's POTW, if monitoring indicates there are long-term exceedances in the GSI monitoring wells.
Gas probes have been installed since the last five-year review, and there is current data, which positively affirms that landfill gas is escaping from the landfill at substantial concentrations at or near the property boundary. Analytical data results from landfill gas monitoring events showed elevated levels of methane that exceeded 25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) at two of the gas probes (GP-2 and GP-3) in June and September 2009 (CRA, September 2009; October 2009). In order for the remedy to be demonstrated to remain protective in the long-term, the PRPs must evaluate the lateral extent of landfill gas migration needs to determine if a more aggressive landfill gas system is required.
Long-term protectiveness requires compliance with effective ICs. Compliance with effective ICs will be ensured by implementing effective ICs, which must be maintained, monitored and enforced by developing long-term stewardship procedures as well as maintaining the site remedy components. An Institutional Control Study has been requested from the City of Kalamazoo to conduct IC evaluation activities to determine if the ICs are functioning as intended to ensure long-term protectiveness of the remedy. Once the IC evaluation activities have been completed, an Institutional Control Work Plan will be required from the City of Kalamazoo to plan for any corrective measures to ensure long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
XI. NEXT FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
The next five-year review will be completed five years from the signature date of this document.
28
ATTACHMENT 1 - SITE MAPS
29
o
sn>^ryi^i«MIPDW>hc 1
o w n ajJi-iMoaokN
ro
VWftWB»
- mOPERTVLIW; B U J M n i f KfclVER
EKIff l lkloWONITDIWiCWQI LOCATION (tWWUCNSO .'.(DNnCBlNG • ' i B ± LOCATION e«V5 PROBE UXATION
figup&a
MOMITORfNG WELL LOCATIONS CORK STTREET LANDRLL SITE
W:
ATTACHMENT 2 - IC STUDY REQUEST LETTER AND DEED RESTRICTIONS
32
^ ^ ^ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRO^fMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mi '1. ^ m . , ^ ^ 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD V ^ CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
November 23,2009 Reply to attention of: SR-6J
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Carolyn Rutland City of Kalamazoo Department of Public Services Environmental Services Division 1415 North Harrison Street Kalamazoo, MI 49007-2565
Mr. James J. De Kruyter Michigan Disposal Service Corporation 161 E. Michigan Avenue Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 48908
Re: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street) Landfill Superfund Site Kalamazoo, MI Institutional Controls Investigation/Study Unilateral Administrative Order, Docket No.: V-W-98-C46
Dear Ms Rutland:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") is undertaking an initiative to evaluate institutional controls ("ICs") at Super^md sites. ICs may be needed to restrict \ises of sites where on-site hazardous substances remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). ICs may be necessary to prevent interference with Superftmd remedy components. A description of EPA's IC initiative may be foimd in "Strategy to Ensure lastitutional Control Implementation at Superfund Sites," OSWER No. 9355.0-106 (2004), htlp://www.epa.gov/superfund/policv/ic/strategv.htm.
EPA is seeking the cooperation of potentially responsible parties as part of this nationwide effort. The purpose of this letter is to seek your assistance in evaluating ICs for the Clork Street Landfill Superfund Site located in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Specifically, EPA is requesting that you demonstrate that existing proprietary controls have been properly recorded and are free and clear of all liens and encvurvbrances. Such a demonstration shall include; a) a Title Insurance
Commitment using ALTA Commitment Form 1982 as amended "for information only purposes" by a title company; b) copies of docimients referenced in the title commitment; c) copies of the existing proprietary controls showing the recording stamp; d) copies of encumbrances, utility right of ways, leases and subleases impacting restricted areas; e) m ^ and geographic information system (GIS) information that identifies parcel numbers and botmdaries of current encumbrances (such as utility easements) that impact restricted areas; and f) copies of subrogation agreements for encumbrances.
Please provide EPA with a notice of intent to comply with this request within 7 business days of the date of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Karen Mason-Smith, Remedial Project Manager, at 312-886-6150. Legal questions may be directed to Richard M. Murawski, Assistant Regional Counsel, at 312-886-6721. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
i\aM>ajii\^^(^^-^~A^y3h^ Karen Mason-Smith Remedial Project Manager
fD)i©iO¥in ^TAV_ o r MICHIGAN " ^ ^ v ^ -" -
iiB«1948 0137 cooNTY OF KALAMAZOO RCCCIVLJ rOR RECORD
0 2 2 1 . ^ 0 ATTACHMENT IV ,_„ ... r,n nm o cu
neeJ ggatrlcrlffP" °" WtcMgan Disposal Senrlrn Coric Sfcr^y^ \\- Landfill Superftmd Slt; e-% g^J^T^^Jt^w^^
CLERK-REGISTER Michigan Olapoaal Service Corporation, owner in fee simple of the real estate described below, hereby imposes restrictions on the described real estate, also known as the Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street) Landfill Superfund Site (hereafter "the Site") in Kalaouizoo, Kalamazoo County, State of Michigan:
A parcel of land in Section 36, Town 2 South, Range 11 West, City of Kalamazoo, County of Kalamazoo, Michigan being more particularly described as fcllsvs:
Commencing at the Northwest Comer of Section 36, town 2 South, Sange 11 West; Thence H89"47'23"B on the North Line of Section 36 1507.89 Feet (Recorded as 1533.03 Feet) to its Intersection with the West Line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad; Thence Southeasterly on the West Line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad on a curve to the left 34.20 feet (Recorded as 34.23 feet), said curve having a radius of 1546.49 feet, a central angle 01*16*02", and a chord of S15*26'58"8 34.20 feet,- to the South Line of Cork Street and the place of beginning of this description; thence continuing Southeasterly on the Westerly line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad on a curve to the left 712.52 feet (Recorded as 718.24 feet), said curve having a radius of 1546.49 feet (Recorded as 1563.49 feet), a central angle 26*23*52", and a chord of S29*23*55"B 706.23 feet (Recorded as S28*41*37'*E 745.23 feet); thence S42*28*51**S on the West line of the Grand Tnmk and Western Railroad 1575.94 feet (Recorded as 542*28*52**8 1569.88 Feet); thence S03*12*46'*W on the West line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad 23.76 feet (Recorded as S03*57*37'*W 23.46 feet); thence S42*28"51"B on the West line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad 252.76 feet to the Northerly line of Highway 1-94 (Recorded as S42*28*50"B 254.03 feet more or less); thence S45*38"10"W on the North line of Highway 1-94 201.36 feet (Recorded as S45"36*38"V 240.39 feet more or less); thence Westerly on the North line of Highway 1-94 on a curve to the Right 887.96 feet (Recorded as 974 feet more or less), said curve having a radlua of 5579.65 feet (Recorded as 5579.58 feet), a central angle 9*00*56", and a chord of S50*08*38''W 387.05 feet; thence S35*20'54"K on the North line of Highway 1-94 50.00 feet, thence Westerly on the North line of Highway 1-94 on a curve to the right 941.41 feet (Recorded as 720.13 feet), said curve having a radius of 5629.65 feet (Recorded as 5629.58 feet), a central angle of 9*34*^2", and a chord of S59*26*32"V 940.31 feet; thence S64*13*58"W on the North line of Highway 1-94 47.91 feet (Recorded as S64*19*38"W 42.42 feet) to the Eaat Line of the Conrail Railroad; thence N00*17'50"W on the East line of the Conrail Railroad 1396.91 feet (Recorded as N00*17'52"W 1399.12 feet); thence Northerly on the East line of the Conrail Railroad on a curve to the Left 728.89 feet (Recorded as 719.58 feet), said curve having a radius of 3911.15 feet (Recorded as 3869.77 feet), a central angle 10*40*40", and a chord of
nB£R1948 0138
N05*38*10"W 727.83 feet (Recorded as N05*37*29"W 718.55 feet); thence N10*58*30''W on the East line of the Conrail Railroad, 219.36 feet, thence H89*32*26"E 133.91 feet, thence N70*26'35"E 107.67 feet, thence N51*17*37"B 97.23 feet, thence H20*45'19"E 123.22 feet, thence N00*39*02"W 107.18 feet, thence N26*37'36"W 138.32 feet, thence N12*44'13-W 176.13 feet, thence N14*09*44"W 287.34 feet to the place of beginning.
This parcel contains 59.736 acres, more or less. Subject to all easements and restrictions of record.
The following restrictions are Imposed upon the Site, Its present and any future owners (including heirs to the above described real estate), their authorized agents, assigns, employees, or persons acting under their direction or control, for the purposes of protecting public health or welfare and the environment, preventing interference with the performance, and maintenance, of any response actions selected and/or undertaken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"), or any party acting as agent for the U.S. EPA, pursuant to Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). Specifically, the following deed restrictions shall apply to the Site as provided for in paragraph nine (9) of the Consent Decree:
1. There shall be no consimiptive or other use of the groundwater underlying the Site that could cause exposure of huauna or animals to the groundwater imderlylng the Site;
2. There shall be no residential, commercial, or agricultural use of the Site, including, but not limited to, any on-site excavation, landfllllng, mining. Invasive construction, drilling, and installation of drinking water production wells, except as approved by U.S. EPA;
3. There shall be no use of the Site that would allow the continued presence of humans at the Site, other than the presence necessary for the Implementation of any response actions selected and/or undertaken by U.S. EPA pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, including such response actions taken by other responsible parties under a Judicicl or adsinistretive order. A prohibited use of the Site Includes, but is not limited to, recreational use;
4. There shall be no installation, removal, construction or use of any buildings, wells, pipes, roads, ditches or any other structures or materials at the Site except as approved, in writing by U.S. EPA;
5. There shall be no tampering with, or removal of, the containment or monitoring systems that remain on the Site as a result of implementation of any response action by U.S. EPA, or any party acting as agent for U.S. EPA, and which is selected and/or undertaken by U.S. EPA pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA; and
-2-
»fi«194B 0139
6. There shall be no use of, or activity at, the Site that may interfere with, damage, or otherwise impair the effectiveness of any response action (or component thereof) selected and/or undertaken by U . S . EPA, or any party acting as agent for U.S. EPA, pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, except with written approval of U.S. EPA, and consistent with all statutory and regulatory requirements.
The obligation to Implement and maintain the above restrictions shall nai vlth the land and shall remain in effect until such time as U.S. EPA files with the Court a written certification stating the above restrictions are no longer necessary to meet the purposes of thia Decree.
IN WITNESS WHBREOF, HichiaJi DJapcBal Sscvice Gcgporation Deed Sescrictions to be executed the "/ dav of - JSK
has caused these 1993.
[ I i i a e r c T J/^eiraesident ^{inser t Address] 161 E. Michigan tSD, H aHaoBiBO, ME ( I n s e r t Phone Number] (616) 381-0159
A2608J
WITNESSED IBYj
1 / < ^ -GARY A. POD
MARY A. GBNIA
DRAFTED BY:
Gary A. Trepod HUBBARD, FOX,THOMAS, WHITE & BENGTSON, P.C.
5801 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48908-0857 (517) 886-7122
Subscribed and s%«Dm to before me this 10th day of July, 1997.
a. Gary A. Trfepod, Notary Pub] Ingham Cdunty, Michigan Act:ing in Eaton County, Michigan My Commission Expires: 11/18/2000
-3-
-01/10/00 MON 17:12 FAI 517 886 5292 GARY TREPOD il002
028897 IIBER204G P C l l G O ^^ ' ''' ''•' '•'^•^iiCA.w COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMESTAL PROTEC^IQMllftGiPJKgjj^ RECORD , , REGION V
I'V '98 JUL 9 m 9 25 in the Matter of: x^^i^^^^^l^^.C-J
Michigan Disposal (Cork Street Landfill) CLERX - RcCt'STER Superfund Site
City of Kalamazoo Michigan Disposal Service Corporation and Michigan Disposal Service Corporation Liquidating Trust
Docket Ho. V-W-98-C-464
Proceeding Under Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C.§ 9606(a))
NOTICE OF ONIIATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION
Notice is hereby given that a Unilateral Administrative
Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action was issued on May
14, 1998, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
regarding the following property located in the City of
Kalamazoo, County of Kalamazoo, Michigan:
Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Section 36, Town 2 South, Range West; Thence Ne9''47'23"E on the North Line of Section 36 1507.89 Feet (Recorded as 1533.03 Feet) to ita Intersection with the West Line of the Grand Trunlc and Western Railroad; Thence Southeasterly on the West Line of the Grand Trun)< and Western Railroad on a curve to the left 34.20 feet (Recorded as 34.23 feet), said curve having a radius of 1546.49 feet, a central angle 01°16'02", and a chord of 515"26'5B"U 34.20 feet, to the South Line of Cork Street and the place of beginning of this description; thence continuing Southeasterly on the Westerly line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad on a curve to the left 712.52 feet (Recorded as 718.24 feet), said curve having a
01/10/00 MON 17:13 FAX 517 886 5292 GARY TREPOD @003
radius of 1546.49 feet (Recorded as 1563.49 feet), as central angle 26''23'52", and a chord of S29"23'55"E 706.23 feet (Recorded as S28''41'37"E 745.23 feet); thence S42''28'51"£ on the West line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad 1575.94 feet (Recorded as S42''28'52"E 1569.88 Feet); thence. S03°12'46"W on the West line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad 23.76 feet (Recorded as S03''57'37"W 23.46 feet); thence S42''28'51"E on the West line of the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad 252.76 feet to the Northerly line of Highway 1-94 (Recorded as S42''28'50"E 254.03 feet more or less); thence S45''38'10"W on the North line of Highway 1-94 201.36 feet (Recorded as S45''36'38"W 240.39 feet more or less); thence Westerly on the North line of Highway 1-94 on a curve to the Right 887.96 feet (Recorded as 974 feet more or less), said curve having a radius of 5579.65 feet (Recorded as 5579.58 feet), a central angle 9"00'56", and a chord of S50'*08'38"W 887.05 feet; thence S35'"20'54"E on the North line of Highway 1-94 50.00 feet, thence Westerly on the North line of Highway 1-94 on a curve to the right 941.41 feet (Recorded as 720.13 feet), said curve having a radius of 562 9.65 feet (Recorded as 5629.58 feet), a central angle of 9''34'52", and a chord of S59'"26'32"w 940.31 feet; thence S64"'13'58"W on the North line of Highway 1-94 47.91 feet (Recorded as S64"ig"38"W 42.42 feet) to the East line of the Conrail Railroad; thence N00''17'50"W on the East line of the Conrail Railroad 1396.91 feet (Recorded as N00''17'52''W 1399.12 feet); thence Northerly on the East line of the Conrail Railroad on a cuifve of the Left 728.89 feet (Recorded as 719.58 feet), said curve having a radius of 3911.15 feet (Recorded as 3869.77 feet), a central angle 10°4D'40", and a chord of NOS'Se'lCW 727.83 feet (Recorded a N05''37'29"W 718.55 feet); thence N10°58'3C"W on the East line of the Conrail Railroad, 219.36 feet, thence N89''32'26"E 133.91 feet, thence N70''26'35"E 107.67 feet, thence N:n''17'37"E-37.23 feet, thence N20°45'19' E 123.22 feet, thence -NOO'*39'02"W 107.18 feet, thence N26°37'36"W 138.32 feet, thence N12'*44'13"W 176.13 feet, thence N14''09'44"W 287.34 feet to the place of beginning.
This parcel contains 59.736 acres, more or less. Subject to all e.aseinent3 and restrictions of record.
01/10/00 MON 17:13 FAI 517 886 5292 GARY TREPOD il004
WITNESSES:
V^ / . J ^^ y ,e M. Foreman
«a2046 U\^2
Subscribed and sworn before me tlLis 6th day of July. 1998.
K^hd^ne M. Foreman, Notary ^ ^ Notary Public Ingham County acting in Eaton, Michigan My Commisaion Expiree.- 6/21/2000
PREPARED BY:
Gary Trepod (P21561) HUBBARD, FOX, THOMAS, WHITE & BENGTSON. P.C. 5801 W. Michigan Avenue Lanaing, Michigan 48908-0857 (517) 886-7122
mF.-LITiMi dispOMl socica-doc
ATTACHMENT 3 - COMMUNITY NOTIFICATIONS
33
EPA To Review Michigan Disposal Services
(Cork Street) Landfill Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo County, Michigan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the effectiveness of the cleanup selected for the Michigan Disposal Services (Cork Street) Landfill Superfund site. Superfiand law requires regular five-year reviews either of sites where the cleanup is done or in progress, but hazardous waste remains on-site. These five-year-reviews are done to ensure that the cleanup remains effective and is protective of human health and the environment.
At the Michigan Disposal Services Site, EPA selected capping (covering) the site and monitoring the contaminated ground water as the cleanup method. Contaminants of concern at the site included volatile organic compounds, toluene, xylene, benzene and heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. A nearby creek showed elevated levels of lead and iron.
As part of this five-year review EPA will look at:
Site information. How the cleanup was done. How well the cleanup is working, and What are the future actions at the Site?
This review is currently underway, the results of which will be placed in the:
Kalamazoo Public Library 315 S.Rose Street Kalamazoo, Mich.
For questions or concerns regarding the cleanup remedy or the review, please contact the following person:
Karen Mason-Smith Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region 5 (SR-6J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-6150
34
ATTACHMENT 4 - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
35
Please note that O&M is referred to throughout this checklist. At sites where Long-Term Response Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as system operations since these sites are not considered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the Superftmd program.
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist (Template)
1. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street Landfill)
Date of inspection: 11/12/2009
Location and Region: Kalamazoo, MI; Region 5 EPA ID: MID0000775957
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: U.S. EPA Region 5
Weather/temperature: Sunny/61° F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) X Landfill cover/containment X Access controls X Institutional controls _ Groundwater pump and treatment _ Surface water collection and treatment 2LOther (Leachate collection system)
Monitored natural attenuation _ Groundwater containment
Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: X Inspection team roster attached (Section VI in 5-YR) X Site map attached (Attachment 1)
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager Gavin O'Neill (CRA) Project Manager Name Title
Interviewed X at site _ at office by phone Phone no. (519) 966-9886 Problems, suggestions; Report attached None
11/25/2009 Date
2. O&Mstaflf Name Title
Interviewed at site _ at office _ by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions; Report attached
Date
3 6
Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response 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 Michigan Department of Environmental Management (MDEQ) Contact Mary Schafer Project Manager 11/12/2009 (517)373-9832
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; _ Report attached See 5-Year Review Survey (Attachment 4)
Agency City of Kalamazoo Contact Bob O'Dav Industrial Inspection Supervisor 11/12/2009 (517)373-9828
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; _ Report attached ^None
Agency City of Kalamazoo Contact Carolyn Rutland Project Manager 11/12/2009 (269) 337-8365
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; _ Report attached See 5-Year Review Survey (Attachment 4)
Agency MDEQ Contact Bill Bolio Geologist 11/12/09 (517)373-9828
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; X Report attached MDEQ concerns with zinc exceedances in galvanized monitoring wells; moisture issue from potential leachate leakage; methane gas levels migrating trom gas vents into the air.
Other interviews (optional) Report attached.
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
O&M Documents X Oi&M manual X As-built drawings X Maintenance logs Remarks
37
X Readily available X Readily available X Readily available
Up to date Up to date
_Up to date
N/A N/A N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan X Readily available Contingency plan/emergency response plan _Readily available
Remarks
Up to date Up to date
O&M and OSHA Training Records X Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks
Permits and Service Agreements Air discharge permit Effluent discharge Waste disposal, POTW Other permits
Remarks
Gas Generation Records Remarks
Settlement Monument Records Remarks
Groundwater Monitoring Records Remarks
Leachate Extraction Records Remarks
Discharge Compliance Records _Air _ Water (effluent) Remarks
Daily Access/Security Logs Remarks
Readily available Readily available Readily available Readily available
Up to date Up to date Up to date Up to date
_ Readily available _ Up to date X N/A
_ Readily available
X Readily available Up to
Readily available
Readily available _ Readily available
Readily available
Up to date
date _N/A
Up to date
Up to date Up to date
Up to date
N/A _N/A
XN/A XN/A XN/A XN/A
XN/A
XN/A
XN/A XN/A
XN/A
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization _ State in-house _ PRP in-house
Federal Facility in-house Other
_ Contractor for State X Contractor for PRP _ Contractor for Federal Facility
38
O&M Cost Records XReadily available _ Up to date _ Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate Breakdown attached
Date
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From
From
From
From
From
01/09 Date 01/08 Date 01/07 Date 01/06 Date
To present Date
To 12/08
To Date 12/07
To Date 12/06 Date
To Date
92.000 Total cost
118.000 Total cost
129.000 Total cost
114.000 Total cost
Total cost
Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: None
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS _ Applicable N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged Location shown on site map XGates secured Remarks fence intact
N/A
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures _Location shown on site map Remarks signs posted on the perimeter fence
N/A
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
3 9
Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
Yes XNo Yes X No
_N/A N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) self reporting inspections and drive by Frequency quarterly inspection, continuous drive by/daily Responsible party/agency Contact
Title Name
Reporting is up-to-date Reports are verified by the lead agency
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Violations have been reported Other problems or suggestions: _ Report attached
Date
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Phone no.
N/A _N/A
N/A N/A
2. Adequacy _ ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate _N/A Remarks
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing _Locafion shown on site map 2LNo vandalism evident Remarks
Land use changes on site X N/A Remarks
Land use changes off site X_N/A Remarks
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads 2LApplicable N/A
1. Roads damaged Remarks
Location shown on site map X Roads adequate N/A
B. Other Site Conditions
40
Remarks Overall, the site is in good condition.
VII. LANDFILL COVERS X Applicable _N/A
A. Landfill Surface
:. Settlement (Low Areal extent Remarks
spots) Location shown on site map Depth
X_ Settlement not evident
I'.. Cracks Lengths Remarks
—
_Location shown on site map Widths Depths
\_ Cracking not evident
2: Erosion Areal extent Remarks
Location shown on site map Depth
X Erosion not evident
A: Holes Location shown on site map Holes not evident Area] extent various Depth < 1ft Remiirks - occasional animal burrows - repaired when observed
Vegetative Cover Grass X Cover properly established Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks
_ No signs of .stress
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Remarks
XN/A
Bulges Areal extent_ Remarks
_Location shown on site map Height
X Bulges not evident
Wet Areas/Water Damage X Wet areas/water damage not evident Wet areas Location shown on site map Areal extent Ponding Location shown on site map Areal extent_ Seeps Location shown on site map Areal extent Soft subgrade Location shown on site map Areal extent_
Remarks
4 1
Slope Instability Areal extent Remarks
Slides Location shown on site map X No evidence of slope instability
B. Benches Applicable JL^^A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landrdl side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1. Flows Bypass Bench Remarks
Location shown on site map 2C.N/A or okay
2. Bench Breached Remarks
Location shown on site map X N/A or okay
3. Bench Overtopped Remarks
Location shown on site map XN/A or okay
C. Letdown Channels Applicable X N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1. Settlement Areal extent Remarks
_Location shown on site map Depth
X No evidence of settlement
Material Degradation Material type Remarks
Location shown on site map Areal extent
X No evidence of degradation
Erosion Areal extent Remarks
Undercutting Areal extent_ Remarks
Location shown on site map _ Depth
X No evidence of erosion
Location shown on site map _ Depth
X No evidence of undercutting
Obstructions Type _ Location shown on site map Size Remarks
X No obstructions Areal extent
42
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type X No evidence of excessive growth
Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
3. Covor Penetrations X Applicable _N/A
Gas Vents Active X Passive Properly secured/locked X Functioning Routinely sampled X Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetrationNeeds Maintenance
_N/A Remarks
Gas Monitoring Probes X Properly secured/locked X Functioning X Routinely sampled X Good condition
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) X Properly secured/locked X Functioning X Routinely sampled X Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
Leachate Extraction Wells Properly secured/locked _ Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition lividence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance X N/A
Remarks
Settlement Monuments _ Located Routinely surveyed X N/A Remarks
E. Gas Collection and Treatment _ Applicable XN/A
Gas Treatment Facilities Flaring Thermal destruction Collecfion for reuse (jood condition _ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping Good condition _ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) (jood condition _ Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
43
F. Cover Drainage Layer X Applicable _ N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning X N/A Remarks outlet is a stone toe (i.e. no daylight pipes)
2. Outlet Rock Inspected X Functioning N/A Remarks
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds X Applicable N/A
1. Siltation Areal extent Depth N/A X Siltation not evident Remarks
2. Erosion Areal extent Depth X Erosion not evident Remarks
Outlet Works X Functioning _N/A Remarks
Dam Functioning X N/A Remarks
H. Retaining Walls X Applicable N/A
1. Deformations _Location shown on site map X Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement Rotational displacement Remarks
2. Degradation Location shown on site map X Degradation not evident Remarks
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge >L'^PP'>cable N/A
1. Siltafion _Location shown on site map X Siltation not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks
2. Vegetative Growth _ Location shown on site map X N/A _ Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent Type Remarks
44
Erosion Areal extent_ Remarks
Location shown on site map Depth
X Erosion not evident
Discharge Structure Remarks
2C_Functioning N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRJER WALLS _Applicable XN/A
Settlement Areal extent Remarks
Location shown on site map Depth
Settlement not evident
Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring_ Performance not monitored
Frequency Head differential Remarks
Evidence of breaching
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES 2LApplicable _N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable X N/A
I. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical Good condition _ All required wells properly operating Needs Maintenance XN/A
Remarks
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances 2(.Good condition Needs Maintenance Remarks
Spare Parts and Equipment Readily available Good condition _ Requires upgrade
Remarks N/A Needs to be provided
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable XN/A
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical Good condifion _ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Ciood condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
45
3. Spare Parts and Equipment Readily available _ Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks
C. Treatment System Applicable X N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) _ Metals removal Oil/water separation Bioremediation
Air stripping Carbon adsorbers Filters Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) Others Good condition _ Needs Maintenance Sampling ports properly marked and functional Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Equipment properly identified Quantity of groundwater treated annually
_Quantity of surface water treated annually Remarks
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) N/A _ Good condition _ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels _N/A Good condition _ Proper secondary containment Needs Maintenance Remarks
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances N/A Good condition _ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
5. Treatment Building(s) N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled _ Good condition
_ All required wells located Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data _ Is routinely submitted on time X Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests: X Groundwater plume is effectively contained X Contaminant concentrations are declining
46
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) Properly secured/locked _ Functioning _ Routinely sampled Good condition
All required wells located _ Needs Maintenance X N,'A Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site, which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective 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.).
Remedy to contain landfill waste and ensure groundwater impacts above site-specific criteria does not reach Davis Olmstead Creek.
- landfill cover system is in good shape and fiinctioning as expected - landfill gas vents appear to be effective at preventing buildup of gas beneath cap (i.e.
no pressure in gas probes)_ - Groundwater monitoring data demonstrates contaminants are not migrating to
the creek above site specific criteria
Adequacy of O&M
47
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
O&M activities are sufficient with several monitoring events being completed. U.S. EPA is currently evaluating a proposal from the PRP's contractor requesting reduced groundwater monitoring, including support data and a trend analysis.
Elevated methane is present at perimeter gas probes, however, no elevated pressure supporting
low potential for offsite migration. There are human receptors in close proximity to the site-
Elevated levels of methane gas are a major issue at the site that must be reevaluated in the
fiiture.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.
None Observed
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Reduction of groundwater monitoring scope.
48
ATTACHMENT 5 - INTERVIEW StJRVEY FORMS
49
50
M:.ichigan D i s p o s a l S e r v i c e s L a n d f i l l Supe r fund S i t e F i v e - Y e a r Review Conunent and I n f o r m a t i o n Survey
Name Carol.yn Rutland Organiza t ion : Ci ty of Kalamazoo
lejlephone No: 269-337-8365
Fax Ilo: 269-337-8535
E-Ma;.l Adclr€;ss: rutlandc@gmail. com
Cate Submitted: 11/30/09
S t r e e t Address: 1415 North Harr i son
Ci ty : Kaleunazoo
S t a t e , Zip: MI 49008
1. Wtiat i s your o v e r a l l impression of the c leaned-up p o r t i o n s of t h i s Superfund S i t e ? (gsnei-al sent iment)
The site looks great. The contoured, vegetated surface is an improvement to the former \incapEed landfill. The mitigation wetlands handle a majority of the surface runoff, are attractive, and provide wildlife habitat.
2. Aie you aware of any community concerns regarding the site administration related to conpleted clean-up activities? If so, please give details.
I am E.ot aware of any community concerns.
2. k re you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give dates, derails, and outcome(s) if known.
No.
4 . Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or operation?
No.
(Form cont inued on next page)
5 1
Michigan Disposal Services Landfill Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Comment and Information Survey-
Name : Carolyn Rutland Organization: City of Kalamazoo
Telephone No: 269-337-8365
Fax No: 269-337-8535
E-Mail Address: [email protected]
Date Submitted: 11/30/09
Street Address: 1415 North Harrison
City: Kalamazoo
State, Zip: MI 49008
5. Are you aware of any issues that may require changes to the completed remedial actions or the decision documents?
No.
6. Have any problems or difficulties been encountered regarding institutional controls or deed restrictions?
No.
7. Do you feel the completed remedies are functioning as expected? Why or why not?
Yes. The cap and cap-related elements regularly pass quarterly operation and maintenance inspections. The leachate collection system discharges to the City of Kalamazoo sanitary sewer without problems under the City's NPDES discharge permit. The fence is effective in restricting access to the site. The gro\indwater monitoring continues to demonstrate that the groundwater-surface water-mixing zone is clean of contaminants and no further action is necessary.
8.Are you aware of any issues, which may call into question the site's short-term or long-term protectiveness?
No.
9.Are you aware if there are any trends that indicate contaminant levels are increasing or decreasing?
The contauninant levels appear to be decreasing or constant.
(Form continued on next page)
52
Michigan Disposal Services Landfill Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Comment and Information Survey
^ame: Carolyn Rutland Organization: City of Kalamazoo
Telephone No: 269-337-8365
Fax No: 269-337-8535
E-Mail Address: [email protected]
Street Address: 1415 North Harrison
City: Kaleunazoo
State, Zip: MI 49008
10. Is there a continuous O&M presence? Please describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.
There is not a continuous O&M presence. The site is inspected quarterly, at a minimum. Groundwater and surface water are sampled quarterly. Other activities (e.g., mowing) take place as necessary.
11. Have; there been any significant changes in O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines? If so, do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy?
No.
12 . Have; there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site? If so, please give details.
No.
13. Do you have any other comments, concerns or recommendations regarding the project?
No.
(Form continued on next page)
53
Michigan Disposal Services Landfill Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Comment and Information Survey
Name: Mary B. Schafer Organization; Michigan Dept. of Environmental Management Superfund (MDEQ)
Telephone No:517-373-9832 Fax No: 517-335-4887 E-Mail Address; [email protected] Date Submitted: 11/30/09
Street Address: 525 West Allegan city; Lansing State: Michigan Zip; 48909
1. What is your overall impression of the cleaned-up portions of this Superfund Site? (general sentiment)
Overall. This landfill is inspected and issues addressed.
2. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site administration related to completed clean-up activities? If so, please give details.
I cun not aware of any community concerns regarding the site administration of the landfill.
3. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give dates, details, and outcome(s) if known.
It has been reported that on at least one occasion, a vehicular accident on the adjacent highway resulted in dcunage to the perimeter fence.
4. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or operation?
The city of Kaleunazoo does a good job of monitoring this site. A recent mistake in data collection has been noted by the City and is being corrected. (Two monitoring wells were mistakenly left off an updated list and have not been sampled for a while.)
(Form continued on next page)
54
Michigan Disposal Services Landfill Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Comment and Information Survey
Naiie: Mary B. Schafer Organization: Michigan Dept. of Environmental Management Superfund (MDEQ)
Telephone No; 517-373-9832 Fas: No: 517-335-4887 E-I Ia i l A d d r e s s ; Scliaf enii2€Smi . gov Date Sutimitted: 11/30/09
Street Address: 525 West Allegan City; Lansing State: Michigan Zip: 48909
What is your overall impression of the cleaned-up portions of this Superfund Site? ger.eral sentiment)
:)veiall. This landfill is inspected and issues addressed.
'- . Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site administration related to rompleted clean-up activities? If so, please give details.
r an. not aware of any community concerns regarding the site administration of the l.anc.f ill.
i . P r e you av/are of any events, incidents, or activities at the sit:e such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give dates, details, and outcome(s) if known.
It has been reported that on at least one occasion, a vehicular accident on the adjacent :iigbway resulted in damage to the perimeter fence.
•t. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's nanagement or operation?
The city of Kalamazoo does a good job of monitoring this site. A recent mistake in data collection has been noted by the City and is being corrected. (Two monitoring wells were mistakenly left off an updated list and have not been sampled for a while.)
(Form continued on next page)
55
Michigan Disposal Services Landfill Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Comment and Information Survey
Name: Mary B. Schafer Organization: Michigan Dept. of Environmental Management Superfund (MDEQ)
Telephone No: 517-373-9832 Fax No: 517-335-4887 E-Mail Address: [email protected] Date Submitted: 11/30/09
Street Address: 525 West Allegan City: Lansing State: Michigan Zip: 48909
5. Are you aware of any issues that may require changes to the completed remedial actions or the decision documents?
No.
6. Have any problems or difficulties been encountered regarding institutional controls or deed restrictions?
The institutional controls need to be updated. That is being addressed.
7. Do you feel the completed remedies are functioning as expected? Why or why not?
The landfill does have a seepage area. It is likely a result of the subsurface drain construction rather than a problem, but it should be watched.
8. Are you aware of any issues, which may call into question the site's short-term or long-term protectiveness?
Methane gas continues to be an issue at this site. The levels have exceeded criteria at times in several locations. In the recent past. This situation deems follow up evaluation.
9. Are you aware if there are any trends that indicate contaminant levels are increasing or decreasing?
I am not aware of any significant trends on the site. The unionized ammonia does spike periodically and may need to be evaluated further.
(Form continued on next page)
56
ATTACHMENT 6 - LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
57
•
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR
SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, June 4, 1987 Record of Decision, September 30, 1991 Administrative Order on Consent, August 27, 1996 Restrictive Covenants, Kalamazoo County Filing Date - July 10, 1997 Unilateral Administrative Order, May 14, 1998 Remedial Design, June 12, 1998 Remedial Action, December 1, 1999
Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment, September 25, 2002 Preliminary Close Out Report based on ROD Amendment, September 25, 2002 First Five-Year Review, December 10, 2004 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, October 13, 2004 O&M Report (June 2009 Sampling), received on September 18, 2009
Revised Groundwater / Surface Water Interface (GSI) Monitoring Plan, received on September 18, 2009 O&M Report (September 2009 Sampling), received on November 16, 2009
58
ATTACHMENT 7- SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
59
imm^
Figure 1 - Leachate Collection System, Nov. 12, 2009
60
Figure 2 - Leachate Collection System Manhole,
Nov. 12, 2009
Figure 3 - Landfill Cap Eastside; Perimeter Fence
Nov. 12, 2009
61
Figure 4 - Landfill cover with gas probe, Nov. 12, 2009
Figure 5 - Landfill cover, Nov. 12, 2009
62
Figure 6 - Landfill cover at south end, Nov. 12, 2009
Figure 7 - Landfill Cap; Gas Probe with New Wind Vane,
Nov. 12, 2009
63
Photo 8 lU^^il Cap Eastside with Gopher Damage,
Nov 12, 2009
Figure 9 - Green Seepage; Moisture on Gravel Road Eastside,
Nov. 12 2 009
64
Photo 10 - Gas Vent; Landfill Cap in SE corner
near 1-94; Perimeter Fence Nov 12, 2009
Photo 11 - East Perimeter Road with seepage near
Leachate Collection Trench, Nov. 12, 2 009
65
Photo 12 East Perimeter Fence and Manhole that
drains to Davis Creek, Nov. 12, 2009
Photo 13 - East Perimeter Fence & Drainage Ditch
with overgrown grass, Nov. 12, 2009
66
Photo 14 - East Perimeter Access Road, Nov. 12, 2009
Photo 15 - Ditch Draining to Davis Creek on East End,
Nov, 12, 2009
67
Photo 16 - Developed Wetland Mitigation and Sedimentation
Pond No. 2, Nov. 12, 2009
Photo 17 - Developed Wetland and Surface Water,
Nov. 12, 2009
68
Photo 18 - Damage from Animal Burrowing,
Nov. 12, 2009
Photo 19 - Damage from Animal Burrowing,
Nov. 12, 2009
69