Comments Regarding the Five-Year Review Report for the
Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site
(EPA ID#: GAD980556906) Dated February 2004
By Glynn Environmental Coalition
June 4, 2004
Contents
Contents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Executive Summary
---------------------------------------------------- --- 3
Site Borders
----------------------------------------------------- 3
Institutional Controls
------------------------------------------ 4
Cap
--------------------------------------------------------------
4
Surface Soils
--------------------------------------------------- 4
Subsurface Soils
----------------------------------------------- 4
Groundwater
--------------------------------------------------- 5
Conclusions
---------------------------------------------------- 5
Full
Glynn Environmental Coalition Comments Regarding the Five-Year Review
Report for the Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site (EPA ID#:
GAD980556906)
Dated February 2004
1.
Statement of Issues for Review
------------------------------------ 7
A.
Overview
---------------------------------------------------- 7
B. Performance Standards -----------------------------------
7
C.
Treatment Volume -----------------------------------------
9
D.
Treatment Method -----------------------------------------
10
E. Confirmation Sampling -----------------------------------
11
F. Landfill Cap ------------------------------------------------- 12
G.
Explanation of Significant Differences ------------------- 13
H.
Toxaphene Task Force Analytical Method --------------- 15
I.
Toxaphene Task Force Methodology
a. Summary ------------------------------------------ 15
b. Background --------------------------------------- 15
c. Statement of the Problem ---------------------- 16
d. Discussion
--------------------------------------- 17
e. Conclusion Regarding Toxaphene Task Force
Method 20
f. References
--------------------------------------- 20
2. Imapact of
Toxaphene Under-Reporting on Public Health --- 20
3. Comments on the
Five-Year Review Introduction Section -- 22
4. Comments on the
Chronology Section ------------------------ 22
5. Comments on the
Background Section ------------------------- 26
6. Comments on the
Remedial Action Section ----------------- 28
7. Comments on the
Remedy Implementation Section -------- 28
8. Comments on the
Review Process --------------------------- 28
9. Comments on the
Reviewed Documents --------------------- 29
10. Comments on the
Data Reviewed ---------------------------- 29
11. Comments on the
Site Inspection ---------------------------- 30
12. Comments on the
Technical Assessment ------------------ 30
13. Comments on the
Issues Section ----------------------------- 31
14. Comments on the
Protectiveness Statement --------------- 31
Attachment
1 – Comment 1,G – References for Toxaphene Task Force
Analytical Method
Discussion -------------------------------------- 32
Review of the Hercules 009 Superfund Site
Five-Year Review
Executive Summary
The Hercules 009
Five Year Review for the landfill cells (called the Five-Year Review,
Second Five-Year Review for Hercules 009 Landfill), dated February 2004,
was received for review. This document, prepared at the direction of the
Environmental Protection Agency by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah District, consists of reviewing five years of sampling data,
performs a simple—but not independent—above ground site inspection
(usually called a “walk-around”), and performs some simple interviews,
often only by telephone. No new, independent, or third-party analyses were
performed at the site. No review of the existing soil or water
chromatographic data was performed by an independent third-party reviewer;
any past conclusions on the data were accepted by the government agency
without disagreement. The Five-Year review is a legal requirement of
Superfund law imposed because hazardous waste still present on the site
has the potential to move off-site if the remedy fails.
The conclusion of the Five-Year review is that the “remedies continue
to operate as intended” (page 1, last line). However there are a
number of issues noted in the report that either contradict this
conclusion or make it impossible to understand how the conclusion was
reached with the information available. The report itself is poorly
organized, the study’s authors skip around from issue to issue presenting
observation and opinion in no particular order.
This “review of the review” for the Glynn Environmental Coalition will
begin with the site borders and institutional controls, work inward to the
site cap and surface soils, then downward to the study’s discussion of
subsurface soils, and finally address groundwater concerns arising from
spread of contamination by toxic colloid transport.
Site Borders:
Section III of the report states: “Land use in the area is
predominantly commercial and residential, with a shopping mall, bank, and
restaurant located approximately 1,000 feet north of the site.” And,
on page 10, section VI, subsection Site Inspection, the report states:
“An inspection…was performed by Mr., Steve Bath and Mrs. Sherry McCumber-Kahn,
both with the US Army Corps of Engineers…The entire area inside the fenced
boundary was visually inspected.”
It is surprising the
USACE could note the presence of nearby malls and banks “1,000 feet” from
the site, but missed a car dealership and elementary school adjacent to
the site along the “fenced boundary.” The investigators should have seen
both the school and the dealership when performing the walk-around.
Obviously there is a serious problem with either the site description, or
the inspection, or both. In fact, the site description is merely copied
from old material in the pre-Remedial Investigation reports, and the Corps
of Engineers did not conduct a site analysis. Accordingly, no actual Phase
I environmental assessment was performed under this Five-Year review,
making it less plausible than the background checking associated with a
typical real estate transaction.
Institutional
Controls: This site is legally
defined as a toxic waste landfill. The Record of Decision requires
“institutional controls,” a system of fences and gates that isolate the
site from any public access. The USACE report correctly notes that the EPA
and the responsible party have had five-years to comply with the legal
deed restrictions, but have not done so (page 6). Further, the site
inspection found holes in the fences, damage from fallen a tree, and that
many areas of the fence were “leaning outward” (page 11). However, the
Review states that the remedy is “functioning as intended.” It is
impossible to understand how the remedy could be functioning as intended
and at the same time be incomplete and falling apart.
Cap:
The report’s Executive Summary (unpaginated) states: “The landfill cap
appears to be in fairly good condition, requiring only minor maintenance…”
However, in the Site Inspection the same authors observed: “…large
areas with little to no vegetative cover…” and “…several areas of
erosion were detected…” This is not a trivial matter. Maintenance
problems have been described in every annual report since the first. A cap
that is supposed to last decades has shown problems of erosion since the
beginning, and after 5 years still does not support grass in some areas.
Note that landfill construction was not the monolithic structure called
for in the Record of Decision, or the extraction and re-landfilling
alternative called for in the ROD, but rather was an ex situ mixing
system added after public review. The surface holes through the cap could
easily be from movement and settling of the ex situ cells, which
would mean that movement within the site is continuing. The USACE has no
data showing this landfill treatment is stable, and, visibly, it is not.
Surface soils:
On page 6 the Army Corps of Engineers make an incorrect statement
regarding origins of the soils of the landfill cover: “The landfill
cover was constructed from soils excavated from the residential drainage
ditch areas.” Since no references were provided for this statement it
is not clear where the USACE obtained this information. In fact, the cap
is constructed of toxaphene contaminated surface and subsurface soils from
a neighborhood cleanup, toxaphene contaminated access roads, toxaphene
contaminated surface soils from activities around the landfill, toxaphene
contaminated dredge spoil piles removed from the adjacent creek, and
toxaphene contaminated surface soils from the adjacent schoolyards.
Accordingly, the landfill cover is toxaphene contaminated. Had the USACE
performed a thorough review they would have known the toxic origins of
these materials. Erosion of the cap exposing underlying cover materials is
serious since it is possible the eroded materials have some contamination
associated with them. Appropriate action is to order representative
surface soil sampling in the cap erosion areas to assure no contamination
has occurred from the breach. The USACE failed to make appropriate
recommendations regarding testing of eroded areas of the landfill cover.
Subsurface soils:
The USACE incorrectly states that in situ stabilization took place
at this landfill (page 5, Remedy Implementation, and elsewhere). In fact,
every one of the 512 sub-cells were exhumed, stored above ground, and
re-interred with above grade mixing. The process used, by definition, is
ex situ (removal), not in situ, meaning “in place”
treatment. In fact, site documents from the responsible party and the EPA
state that field trials for in situ stabilization were a failure
and in situ was a “technical impractability” for this waste. If the
USACE performed an actual Phase I environmental assessment then they would
have seen these documents, which were numerous, and then the USACE would
not repeat the myth that in situ was used on this site.
Accordingly, the public should have little confidence in the USACE’s
conclusion that this remedy is effective, since the investigators clearly
have no engineering understanding of the actual remedy.
Conclusions
Numerous other criticisms can be leveled at this report. These include:
-
Select use of documents from the
Administrative Record to defend the conclusions, rather than the entire
AR;
-
Ignoring toxaphene analysis by third
parties that indicate groundwater studies are inaccurate;
-
Failure to acknowledge that performance
standards agreed to in the ROD were never met;
-
Failure to note that actual remedial
treatment volumes were less than that indicated in the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility study; and,
-
Failure to discuss the impact of the
change in the cap design.
It is fair to say that the many contradictions in the report render it
useless as an objective view of the cleanup. Based on the site Background
and Remedial Actions sections of the Five-Year Report the US Army Corps of
Engineers did not perform a bona fide environmental assessment of
the remedy at this site. Instead of conducting a thorough examination of
issues they merely read a few old documents, made a few phone calls, met
with a few interested parties, and produced an unclear and undocumented
report on the state of the remedy at this site. Lack of an adequate
methodology for testing the polychlorinated camphene buried at the site
did not deter the USACE from concluding the remedy was meeting its goals.
The lack of engineering drawings and samples from beneath the landfill did
not impact their belief in the success of the remedy. Even the obvious
erosion and failure of the cap to support life failed to stop the USACE
from pressing their agenda of unqualified acceptance of this cleanup.
Page 19 of the report has a Protectiveness Summary (Section X.) that
begins: “The remedial actions at the site are expected to be protective
of human health and the environment upon proven attainment of
ground-water cleanup goals.” [Emphasis added]. Unfortunately, the
report provides no proof of protectiveness, and fails to provide a
framework for scientific provenance for this site. No assurances the
remedy is working or will work can result from this Five-Year review.
Executive
summary prepared by Dr. R. Kevin Pegg under a Technical Assistance Grant to the GEC.
Comments Regarding the Five-Year Review Report for the
Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site (EPA ID#: GAD980556906)
Dated February 2004
By Glynn Environmental Coalition
P. O. Box 2443
Brunswick, Georgia 31521
June 4, 2004
1.
Statement of issues for review
A.
Overview
The Five-Year Review
Summary Form, under Issues, inaccurately reports the GEC’s issues of
concern as decisions regarding excavation and method of sample analysis.
The GEC was very specific as to our issues of concerns at the December 2,
2002 meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers. Misrepresenting the issues
of concern expressed by the GEC is viewed as an attempt to narrow the
scope of the Five-Year Review to only the issues deemed important by the
EPA and to a subset of documents from the Administrative Record that
support their contention that the remedy is safe. It is important that the
Summary Form is compete and accurate due to use as a document to concisely
report current Site conditions and concerns about the protectiveness of
the remedy. The following issues were identified as important factors to
investigate during the Review at the December 2, 2002 meeting.
B. Performance Standards
The Performance Standard of 76 PPM
toxaphene for subsurface soils was established to address the source
areas, surface water, and groundwater at the Site.,
It was anticipated
that contaminants at the Site which do not have cleanup levels presented
in the ROD would be reduced to acceptable levels when cleanup levels were
met for the most toxic and most mobile contaminants for which cleanup
levels have been established. The EPA assured the community that the cleanup goal of 76 PPM toxaphene
for subsurface soils would be met by either stabilization or chemical
extraction.
The treatment method, In-situ Stabilization, was selected because it would
reduce the incremental risk associated with current Site conditions by
permanently treating all affected solids having constituent concentrations
exceeding remedial action levels.
In addition, by treating the soil in place, or In-Situ, the public and
school children would be further protected from fugitive emissions during
the Remedial Action. Of special concern is the elementary school
adjoining the Site to the east, and the car dealership adjoining the Site
to the North.
The EPA has made a fundamental change in
the scope and performance of the subsurface soil Performance Standard of
76 PPM toxaphene by changing the Performance Standard to the water table;
and has fundamentally changed the cost of treatment by reducing volume to
be treated. Furthermore, the Performance Standard was fundamentally
because the change does not enhance its protectiveness, or effectiveness.
The Five-Year Review failed to evaluate colloidal transport of toxaphene
to neighboring properties, or discuss the implications of leaving
untreated toxaphene sludge and contaminated soils below the groundwater
table.
EPA Region IV contends that when the
regional groundwater table is reached, they have met the intent of the
ROD; the ROD did not contemplate extensive groundwater de-watering which
would be necessary to treat below the regional groundwater table.,
,
, Contrary to
contentions of the EPA, de-watering was contemplated and discussed in the
Feasibility Study.
The Remedial Investigation clearly shows the sludge extended into the
observed groundwater table.
The authors of the ROD understood the sludge extended into the groundwater
table,
and the Site was deeper than historical records indicate.
It is accurate to say the ROD did contemplate treatment below the water
table but left the engineering specifications to be worked-out in the
Treatability Study using the Performance Standard of all subsurface soils
exceeding the Performance Standard of 76 PPM toxaphene. The EPA has
concluded previously that In-Situ Stabilization is an effective remedial
technology and would achieve the performance criteria specified in the ROD
for this Site.
The Five-Year Review failed to use toxaphene sludge depth data
from the Treatability Study and Supplemental Soil Analysis to quantify the
amount of untreated source area that would be left untreated. Data
concerning the amount of sludge and contaminated soil left untreated will
be needed to evaluate the potential for continued colloidal transport of
toxaphene to neighboring properties. Furthermore, the hydrology data from
the area continues to be questioned as to its accuracy.
C. Treatment Volume
The change in the subsurface soil
Performance Standard fundamentally reduced the treatment volume.
Discarding of source areas to be treated as determined by the methodology
specified in the ROD fundamentally changes the volume to be treated and is
a fundamental change in scope, performance, and cost. Subsurface soil
target concentrations were used to establish treatment boundaries for
subsurface soil and wastes for cost estimating purposed and a sampling
program was conducted to determine the actual volumes of surface soil and
subsurface soil requiring remedial action.
The ROD specified a sampling program to determine the actual volumes of
the source areas to be treated, and not the groundwater table. If the
groundwater table was to be used as the remedial boundary, all necessary
data to determine source area volume would have been present at the time
the ROD was written. The use of soil driven standards was further
clarified in the ROD; "Sludge and soil containing toxaphene exceeding
remedial action target concentrations will be treated in-situ in
conjunction with stabilization of consolidated surface soil". By their own
admission, the EPA does not expect excavation to meet the Performance
Standard or use the methodology specified in the ROD to determine
treatment boundaries of source areas.
The ROD is clear, the subsurface soil target concentrations are to be used
to establish vertical and horizontal treatment boundaries for subsurface
soils and waste, and a sampling program will be conducted to determine the
actual volumes of surface soil and subsurface soil requiring remedial
action.
A sampling program, not the water table, was to be used to determine the
boundaries of the source areas designated for treatment. Sampling
required under the ROD was conducted to determine the vertical and
horizontal boundaries of the source area to be treated during the
Treatability Study.
Discarding the delineated source areas identified for treatment in the
Treatability Study, a decision document for the Site, is a fundamental
change to the scope, performance, and cost of the remedy selected in the
ROD.
The Five-Year Review did not consider the
Treatability Study or the Summary Report for Supplemental Soil Analysis at
the 009 Landfill.
Treatability
studies and the Remedial Investigation consistently and repeatedly found
toxaphene sludge deeper than the historical descriptions of the landfill
cells. It is conspicuous that the Review fails to list these key decision
making documents in the Site Chronology section of the Review. The Review
has been based upon a very limited subset of documents from the
Administrative Record (AR) that support contentions that the Site Remedial
Action is protective. When the Administrative Record is examined as a
whole, data refutes contentions in the Five-Year Review that the Site is
not a continuing hazard and risk to human health and the environment.
D. Treatment Method
Fundamental changes were made to the ROD
specified treatment method of In-Situ Stabilization, to Ex-Situ
Stabilization of only source areas above the water table to form a cap
over the site.,
The fundamental
change in the treatment method made by the EPA also changed the
performance and scope of treatment because of the limitations identified
with Ex-Situ treatments.
In addition, cost of treatment is changed by a reduction in the soil
volume determined during the Treatability Study using the ROD guidelines.
Therefore, an amendment to the ROD is required because the changes do not
enhance protectiveness or effectiveness, reduce scope, performance, cost,
and are a fundamental reconsideration of the basic remedy selection
decision on which comment was taken.
The EPA incorrectly calls the current
treatment method In-Situ while describing Ex-Situ remedy. A very basic
difference exists between the two treatment methods. In-Situ
is in the original place and Ex-Situ is accomplished by excavation.
All descriptions of the current Remedial Action by the EPA describe
Ex-Situ Stabilization with extensive excavation.,
,
,
Inherent problems
identified with Ex-Situ at this Site in the RI/FS re-emerged.
Contrary to the contention of the EPA,
all toxaphene sludge was not treated because sludge extends below the
regional groundwater, and treatment was stopped before, or when, the
groundwater table was reached. Water table elevations at the site range
from 14 to 17 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level)
and the sludge extends down below 10 feet MSL.
The water table Performance Standard and cap alters scope, performance,
and cost.
The cap will not prevent transport of
contamination into the groundwater because source areas exist in soils
above Performance Standards over 12 feet below the water table. In
addition, horizontal groundwater flow will continue to allow colloidal
migration of contamination from source areas throughout the subsurface
soils.
A "Cap" is a fundamental change to the remedy selected in the ROD that
does not enhance performance or effectiveness, and changes the scope,
performance and cost.
E. Confirmation Sampling
Confirmation sampling to confirm
compliance with the ROD was planned only if Ex-Situ did not reach the
water table.
Elimination of confirmation sampling specified in the ROD is a fundamental
change in the scope, performance, and remedy selection decision process in
which public comments were taken. The change does not enhance
protectiveness or effectiveness and can not be handled by an Explanation
of Significant Differences.
The EPA magnified uncertainties already
associated with In-Situ. Uncertainties associated with In-Situ
stabilization are the variability of the treatment throughout the
treatment zone and incapability of the contractor to monitor treatment
results. These concerns were not addressed by the ROD required sufficient
overlap between treatment areas and by post-treatment sampling of the
treated zone and underlying soil.
The Remedial Action did not conduct the ROD specified post-treatment
sampling required under the ROD and further expands the uncertainties
associated with the selected treatment. The Five-Year Review contends
that the remedy is protective based upon opinion, speculation and hearsay,
not the data specified in the ROD to evaluate the completed Remedial
Action.
Changes in treatment volume and treatment
method assured the underlying soil for a depth of up to 12 feet do not
meet Performance Standards.
Levels up to 2600
PPM remain in the soils below groundwater level.
Fundamental changes to confirmation sampling do not enhance protectiveness
or effectiveness and fundamentally change the scope and cost.
The Five-Year Review confirms that colloidal transport of
toxaphene is taking place at the Site, but did not discuss the migration
rate or how untreated sludge and soil could contribute to continued
colloidal transport off-site to neighboring properties. Failure of the
Five-Year Review to evaluate past and current colloidal transport leaves
considerable doubt about protectiveness of the remedy to neighboring
properties.
F. Landfill Cap
Elimination of the clay component of the
cap is a fundamental change that does not enhance protectiveness or
effectiveness and can not be handled by an Explanation of Significant
Differences because it is a fundamental change in the scope, performance
and cost of the remedy selected in the ROD.,
Furthermore, the
treatment of consolidated contaminated soils with 3% Portland cement is a
fundamental change from formulations approved in the Treatability Study
(TS). No Treatability Study was performed on the 3% Portland cement
formulation. The proposed treatment is in non-compliance with the
Treatability Study, a Decision Document for the Site. Therefore, the
treatment is a fundamental change in the remedy and treatment methodology
specified in the ROD. The cap treatment does not enhance performance or
effectiveness and changes the scope, performance, and cost of the selected
remedy.
The Five-Year Review failed to compare the ESD mandated cap of
off-site soil screened and mixed in a pug mill before being mixed and
applied to the site, and the actual cap construction method, which was
placing the soil over the Site and mixing in some cement. No
confirmation sampling has been done to evaluate the ability of the cap to
resist rainwater infiltration. The placement of soil over the site and
mixing cement, which is in non-compliance with the ESD, could result in a
significant decrease in cap effectiveness. Significant is that the those
reviewing the Five-Year Review failed to note that neither the ROD or ESD
specified covers were constructed at the Site.
G. Explanation of Significant Differences
Five-Year
Review Summary Form, under Issues states that the August 1998 Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD) provided adequate explanation for the
changes made to the ROD concerning depth of excavation. The ESD states
that there will be “hydrostatic inflow”, “blow-in”, “unsafe working
conditions”, and “side sloping”, if the remedy specified in the ROD is
followed. Presumably the safety concern stems from a reported upwelling
of water under the site. The EPA requested study and quantification of
this reported phenomenon by Hercules that was so dangerous in 1996. No
data has been produced to support the contention that water upwelling
occur under the Site. The premise of the ESD is not supported by Site
data. To the contrary, the EPA and RP have never explained how
toxaphene migrated deep into soils underlying the Site against upwelling
water.
Under
CERCLA, supporting documentation for an ESD must be placed in the
Repository for public reading. No documentation has been produced by the
EPA or PRP to support the claims made about potential disastrous
construction conditions in the ESD. The ESD is no more than a collection
of rumors and hearsay that are not supported by Site data. A more likely
scenario is that the ESD was written in support of agreements made between
the EPA and Hercules during 1996, 1997, and 1998. There is documentation
in the Administrative Record to support this scenario, whereas there is
none to support the ESD.
The ESD
fundamentally changed In-Situ remedy specified in the ROD to excavation
and treatment, which reintroduce the need for dewatering with excavation
identified in the Feasibility Study. The Review accurately reports the
Remedial Action for the Site as excavation, a fundamental change in the
ROD.
EPA
Region IV contends that when the regional groundwater table is reached,
they have met the intent of the ROD; the ROD did not contemplate extensive
groundwater de-watering which would be necessary to treat below the
regional groundwater table.,
,
, Contrary to
contentions of the EPA, de-watering was contemplated and discussed in the
Feasibility Study.
The Remedial Investigation clearly shows the sludge extended into the
observed groundwater table.
The authors of the ROD understood the sludge extended into the groundwater
table,
and the Site was deeper than historical records indicate.
It is accurate to say the ROD did contemplate treatment below the water
table but left the engineering specifications to be worked-out in the
Treatability Study using the Performance Standard of all subsurface soils
exceeding the Performance Standard of 76 PPM toxaphene. The EPA has
concluded previously that In-Situ Stabilization is an effective remedial
technology through onsite In-Situ stabilization with vertical augers that
did achieve the performance criteria specified in the ROD for this Site.
H. Toxaphene Task Force Analytical Method
The Five-Year Review Summary Form, under Issues, states that the purpose
of the Toxaphene Task Force (TTF) was to create constancy between labs.
The records of the TTF agreement state a far different purpose, which is
to change the analytical method from one that detects “total toxaphene”
and “apparent toxaphene” used by toxicologists to evaluate risk to a
method that measures only “technical toxaphene”. A more detailed
discussion about the TTF analytical method follows.
I.
Toxaphene Task Force
Methodology
a.
Summary
The U.S. EPA, Georgia EPD, and Hercules Inc. met as the
"Toxaphene Task Force" (TTF) and developed a method for identifying and
quantifying the pesticide toxaphene in Brunswick, Georgia. The TTF method
has threatened human health by failing to detect or significantly under
quantifying toxaphene levels present in the environment. U. S. EPA and
the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry toxicologist have
documented why the TTF method fails to produce data that is useful in
making their decisions and recommendations to protect human health.
b. Background
The Glynn Environmental Coalition (GEC) is located in
Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia, where an insecticide mixture of
polychlorinated camphene (PCC), commonly called toxaphene, was
manufactured by Hercules Incorporated. Manufacturing of PCC took place at
Hercules Incorporated, Brunswick, Georgia, from 1948 to 1980.(1) PCC is
defined as camphene with 67% to 69% chlorine by weight, and is a complex
mixture of over 670 separate chemicals. (2)(3)(4) During the period PCC
was manufactured, PCC manufacturing wastes and PCC was discharged into the
estuary by way of Dupree and Terry Creek at a rate of 250 to 300 pounds of
PCC per day.(5) Fugitive emissions of PCC contaminated wind-blown dust,
water runoff, and vehicle traffic distributed PCC throughout the
neighborhoods around the Hercules Plant site. (6) In addition,
significant amounts of PCC were deposited into at least four landfills and
dumps in Glynn County.(7)(8)
In 1991, chemists from the EPA, EPD, and Hercules Inc.,
performed a limited study and developed a set of guiding principles for
the determination of PCC in groundwater, soil, and manufacturing waste
sludge samples from the Brunswick, Georgia, area.(9)(10) The results of
this limited study was the development of the "Toxaphene Task Force" (TTF)
methodology for the identification and quantification of PCC. The TTF
methodology was further modified in August 1997.(11) Even though the
August 1997 modifications were proposed for only specified areas and only
for soil and groundwater, the method has been used at Sites throughout
Glynn County and has been used to determine PCC's in fish tissue for human
health determinations.(12) The August 1997 method is also referred to as
the "Hercules Protocol".(13)
The ability of the agreed upon TTF method to accurately
identify and quantify PCC has been questioned by the Agency for Toxic
Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the EPA.
c. Statement of the Problem
The method developed by the TTF for the identification and
quantification of PCC in Brunswick, Georgia, seriously underestimates the
true amount present, and excludes the PCC chemicals that health officials
are most concerned about. Specifically, the TTF method fails to report
the "total toxaphene" and "apparent toxaphene" that are the basis of
recommendations by the EPA, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ATSDR
toxicologist to protect human health and establish cleanup levels at PCC
contaminated sites, such as the Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site.
Local, State and Federal health officials rely upon the
accuracy of data gathered on PCC levels to make recommendations to
minimize or eliminate exposure of citizens through consumption of
contaminated seafood, water, or contact with contaminated soil, sediments,
and sludge. Based on PCC data collected, interim actions are recommended
to protect the public in the form of seafood consumption advisories, and
emergency removal actions, while long-term remedies are developed. High
quality and accurate data is crucial in taking short-term actions and
recommendations, and developing long term remedial plans.
Health officials from the EPA and ATSDR have identified the
TTF method as seriously flawed in providing data meaningful to their
deliberations on the potential health ramifications from the consumption
of PCC contaminated seafood, and exposure to PCC contaminated air, soil,
sludge, sediments, and water. The EPA and ATSDR are specific in the type
and quality of data needed to make decisions protective of human health
and the environment. Likewise, the EPA and ATSDR have been specific in
the ways the TTF method has threatened human health by failing to detect
and understating actual PCC levels present. Most notable is that the TTF
method excludes the fraction of the 670+ PCC chemicals that are of concern
in making health based recommendations. Recent re-analysis of samples has
shown that the TTF method failed to identify the presence of PCC in
seafood at levels 52 times the EPA "do not eat" recommendation. The TTF
method has failed to accurately identify PCC in many other samples, or to
significantly understate actual levels of PCC present.
d. Discussion
Formation of the Toxaphene Task Force began at meeting on
September 30, 1991, at the Georgia EPD. It was agreed that previously the
regulatory agencies and Hercules had used a procedure that identified
"apparent toxaphene" when analyzing environmental samples.(14) Analysis
for "apparent toxaphene" is the criteria used by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to make health based recommendations for maximum
levels of PCC in food.(15) It was agreed that if the U.S. EPA, Georgia
EPD, and Hercules agreed upon the method and the findings of the task
force, it would be used by the EPA for any work relating to the Superfund
Site or any RCRA matters pertaining to the Hercules facility involving
toxaphene.(16) It was proposed that those in attendance meet again to
review the work of the task force and to discuss whether the samples do,
in fact, reflect toxaphene or some other product. Clearly, a decision was
made at the meeting to develop a PCC analytical method different from the
health-based method currently in use.
The report of TTF, released June 4, 1993, was described as a
very limited study of toxaphene analysis of real samples collected at the
Hercules facility in Brunswick, Georgia.(17) The TTF method was
designed to identify and quantify "technical toxaphene", instead of the
"total toxaphene" or "apparent toxaphene" used by toxicologist in
determining the potential risk to human health and the environment.
The TTF made specific changes in the identification and
quantification of PCC that result in a significant reduction of "total
toxaphene" and "apparent toxaphene". Quantification was limited to
the 4-6 major peaks on the "back half" of the toxaphene chromatogram while
many of the prominent PCC's found in the "front half" are associated with
unmodified technical toxaphene.(18)(19)(20)(21) The TTF further excluded
PCC from the quantification process by eliminating any peak which is
larger in proportion to the other component peaks in the sample than in
the toxaphene standard.(22) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in the
"apparent toxaphene" method, instructs to include all peaks, and notes
that relative heights and widths of matching peaks in the residue and
reference standard will probably differ. (23)
One chemist from the U.S. EPA noted that the "latter peaks" in
samples were decreased and the "early peaks" were increased in
environmental samples from Brunswick, and that the TTF method may
seriously underestimate the true concentration of toxaphene.(24)(25)
Because early and disproportionate peaks are eliminated from the
quantification in the TTF method, it produces much lower PCC
quantification results than those found using the U.S EPA approved
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) analytical method. The U.S. EPA Region
4 Environmental Services Division Laboratory analyzed split samples by the
TTF method and a contracted laboratory by the U.S. EPA approved CLP
method. Results showed that the TTF method either failed to detect PCC or
only identified as little as 3.2% of the PCC present.(26)
Seafood samples collected in 1997 by the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, and analyzed by the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division using the TTF method, were re-analyzed by the Skidaway
Institute.(27) While PCC was not detected in any sample (n=56) using
the TTF method, reanalysis detected PCC in every sample up to 26 parts per
million (PPM). Even when the EPA "do not eat" levels of 0.5 PPM was
exceeded by 52 times, PCC was reported as "not detectable" in fish by the
TTF method.(28) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a maximum
allowable PCC level of 5 PPM in commercially caught seafood sold in the
United States, until revoked in 1993.(29) In addition, in setting the
FDA level, it makes the assumption that the seafood will be diluted in the
Nation's food basket. The FDA also explicitly states that FDA maximum
allowable levels are not to be applied to a seafood source consumed by the
local population. The TTF method failed to find PCC at over five-times
the FDA commercial level, yet commercial seafood harvest continues within
the areas. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), food tolerance restrictions for toxaphene (PCC) range from 0.1 to
7 ppm. Therefore, the failure of the TTF method to detect toxaphene at
levels meaningful to the protection of human health and the environment
presents local health threats and may have national significance.
ATSDR evaluated the data produced by the TTF method and found
many concerns over it use.(30) The TTF method failed to accurately
identify and quantify a known amount of the PCC in the calibration
standard. They found that the composition of the weathered PCC in fish
differs from that in the technical-grade PCC, and the PCC adsorbed on soil
may have a different bioavailability than technical-grade PCC. In
addition, the TTF method seems to eliminate the option to conduct a total
area method that estimates the PCC concentration from all peaks in the
chromatogram.(31) The ATSDR concluded that the use of the "back half"
peak method (TTF method) is likely to result in significant
underestimation of PCC concentration, and the estimated dose could be 10
times higher if historical data are taken into account for dose estimation.(32)
The interview with Dr. Keith Maruya for the Hercules 009 Landfill
Superfund Site for the Five-Year Review resulted in an estimation of
toxaphene levels up to 10 times higher than reported by the TTF analytical
method. The EPA chemist, Lavon Revells, who was interviewed as part of
the Five-Year Review is on record admitting that the TTF method may
seriously under estimate the actual levels of toxaphene present.(24)
Local, State, and Federal health officials depend on PCC
data from the EPA, EPD, and Hercules Incorporated, in preparing remedial
plans and making recommendations to potentially exposed citizens around
contaminated areas. In addition, the Georgia EPD will NOT make a
consumption recommendation without data.(33) An analytical method that
fails to find the chemical of concern or that seriously understates the
actual levels present fails to protect human health. Bad data leads to
bad decisions and recommendations by local, State, and Federal officials
that result in health threatening exposure of the citizenry. The integrity
of the Nations food basket is compromised by flawed analysis that allows
contaminated seafood to be harvested and sold.
Corrective action plans required by the EPA and EPD are
promulgated on protection of human health and the environment.
Remedial actions that are based upon faulty or inaccurate data will fail
to fulfill the intent of the law, which is to protect human health.
Any analytical method that fails to find the chemical(s) of concern (COC)
at levels meaningful to the protection of public health is a threat to
public health. When a method is represented to be accurate at levels
meaningful to public health and fails to detect COC's, and the COC is
reported as not present, public health is jeopardized by the false belief
that the seafood, soil, water, or sediments are safe to consume or be
exposed.
e. Conclusions regarding TTF
The Glynn Environmental Coalition (GEC) believes that the U.S. EPA,
Georgia EPD, and Hercules have entered into an agreement that failed to
identify and under-reported PCC levels present. This agreement has led to
data that is a threat to human health and the environment because health
agencies are making seafood consumption and soil, sediment, and sludge
exposure recommendations based upon flawed data. In addition, remedial
actions by the U.S. EPA and Georgia EPD will not be protective of human
health and the environment because cleanup levels will not accurately
reflect true levels of PCC present.
The Five-Year Review acknowledges there are significant problems with the
TTF analytical method, but continues to maintain that the Site is safe
based upon unreliable data that is most certainly a gross underestimation
of actual toxaphene levels in all environmental media at the Site. The
Review does articulate why the toxaphene analytical data is questionable,
but does not discuss how a determination that the remedy is protective
could be made with admittedly questionable data.
f. References
See Attachment 1 for References for
Toxaphene Task Force Analytical Method Discussion.
2. Impact of Toxaphene under-reporting on public health
The Five-Year Review accurately identifies the Toxaphene Task Force Method
(TTF) as least protective to human health and the environment, but fails
to discuss the reports and data that substantiate failure of the TTF
method to identify toxaphene at levels significant to protection of human
health and the environment.
The protectiveness of the Remedial Action is called into
question due to the inability of the TTF method to identify and quantify
toxaphene at levels protective of human health and the environment. The
Five-Year Review does not evaluate the inadequacies of the TTF analytical
method in favor of stating that toxaphene analysis is a controversial and
complex subject beyond comprehension of the authors. The EPA has clearly
specified methods for identifying and quantifying toxaphene, such as the
current Method 8081B, Revision 2, which became the official EPA toxaphene
analytical method as of January 1998. Method 8081B modified the
analytical methods to eliminate the interference by other compounds such
as PCBs that were cited as a reason to develop the TTF analytical
method. The TTF method is not an approved EPA method.
ATSDR noted that the four-peak toxaphene identification and
quantification method utilized by the TTF method is no longer appropriate.
“The
precision of the four-peak-in-back-half method could have been high for
the Method 8080 with packed column back in September 1986. At that time,
the packed column in the gas chromatography produced only several peaks
(peaks u, v, w, x, y) in the back half of the chromatogram of technical
grade toxaphene. In the packed column chromatogram, the use of
four-peak-in-back-half method was precise because four out of the five
usable peaks in the back-half were included in the calculation. This
method produced estimated concentrations comparable to that calculated
from the total area method. The precision of the four-peak-in-back-half
method, however, was lost when the high resolution capillary column was
introduced into modern gas chromatography instruments.”
ATSDR also noted that the TTF method, also called "Procedures
for the determination of Toxaphene", was intended to be used by USEPA
Region IV and Hercules for determining toxaphene in soil, water, and
sediment samples in the Brunswick, GA area. Therefore the information
from ATSDR is relevant to the Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site. ATSDR
also noted that the TTF method was not in compliance with current EPA
approved analytical methods, and that the four peak toxaphene
identification and quantification method was no longer an valid EPA
analytical method . ATSDR stated, “Moreover, new versions of the Method
8081 using modern capillary columns are now available. The official
version of Method 8081A, December 1996, did not contain the language of
the "last four peaks only" which was retained in the January 1995 version
of the Method 8081A. The newer version of the Method 8081B, Revision 2,
January 1998, did not retain the language either.”
ATSDR has found data developed through the TTF method to be
insufficient for a Public Health Assessment. The Five-Year Review should
not make conclusions regarding the protectiveness of the Remedial Action
based upon data obtained by the TTF method, which is not an approved EPA
analytical method. Furthermore, the authors of the Review failed to
consult either ATSDR or a third-party toxicologist regarding their
speculation that the remedy continues to be protective and operate as
intended.
3.
Comments on the Five-Year Review Introduction section
The introduction concludes that the remedies have been constructed and
continue to operate as intended. The Five-Year Review does not reference
data, other than limited water samples, to support the opinion that the
Site is operating as intended. To the contrary, documents from the
Administrative Record that were not included in the Review rebut the
conclusion that that Remedial Action met the ROD specified remedial
goals. Conclusions that the remedy is protective are based upon opinion,
speculation, and hearsay rather than Site specific data.
4.
Comments on the
Chronology section
A. Overview
The Chronology of Site Events fails to list key decision making meetings
between the EPA and the Responsible Parties (RP). A review of the
Administrative Record (AR) indicates that fundamental changes were made in
the ROD during meetings from July 1996 through October 1996. During 1997,
documents support an agreement between the EPA and RP to make fundamental
changes to the ROD, including a change from In-Situ to Ex-Situ treatment
and elimination of confirmation sampling.
Even though many of the
fundamental changes were made in response to a reported upwelling of water
at the Site, no documentation was ever produced by the RP to support
upwelling of water at the site. The EPA requested supporting documentation
for this claim by the RP but none was ever received. The negotiation
that took place between the EPA and RP from 1996 to 1998 to fundamentally
change the ROD, and then implemented the agreement through an Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD) that lacked the supporting documentation
required under 40 CFR 300.435. Documentation supporting the ESD was
never placed in the Repository, as required by law. Many of following
documents from the Administrative Record, presented in dated order, were
not reviewed during the Five-Year Review contain key decisions and
agreements between the EPA and RP that fundamentally changed the ROD.
B. Actual chronology of site documents based on AR:
April 20, 1995 -
Hercules/EPA
meeting - discuss Cleanup Standards
May 19, 1995
- Hercules/EPA
conference call - review Cleanup Standards
May 30, 1995
- EPA response to
Hercules request to change Baseline Risk Assessment
June 12, 1995 -
Hercules request for meeting with EPA about surface soil cleanup standard
July 12, 1995 -
Hercules report for Off-Site Excavation
August 4, 1995
- Hercules request
for review of Risk Assessment to EPA
August 23, 1995
- Hercules
submission of Drainage Ditch Work Plan
October 17, 1995
- Hercules request
for meeting with EPA Region IV Administrator about surface soil cleanup
standard
November 9, 1995
- Hercules submits
Technical Memorandum 2B to EPA
December 5, 1995 -
Hercules/EPA
meeting - Baseline Risk Assessment (Steinberg/Hankinson)
January 1996 -
Hercules submission of Phase I results and Phase II grid sampling (school)
January 5, 1996
- Hercules letter
to EPA about surface soil cleanup standard
January 25, 1996
- Hercules/EPA
conference call - Technical Memorandum 2B
February 9, 1996
- EPA response to
Hercules request for new Baseline Risk Assessment
February 16, 1996
- Hercules
submits draft Final Treatability Study to EPA
February 26, 1996
- Hercules
submits Drainage Ditch Area Remediation report (trouble reaching MCL)
March 29, 1996
- EPA (Holdsworth)
to EPA (Yarbrough) about Treatability testing and inclusion of a Cap as
preferred remedy in the report by Hercules
April 16, 1996
- EPA reply to
inclusion of Cap in Treatability Study (disdain for inclusion)
April 18, 1996
- EPA approval of
Treatability Study Report
April 29, 1996
- Hercules response
to EPA disdain for Cap in TS report
April 29, 1996
- EPA approves
Hercules Work Plan to Collect Additional Groundwater Assessment
May 7, 1996 -
Hercules/EPA
meeting - Hercules argues for no stabilization of soils below 76 PPM
May 9, 1996
- Hercules proposal for
Phytoreremediation to EPA
May 9, 1996 -
Hercules/EPA conference call - Phytoreremediation, and discussion of
ability of in-situ to meet Performance Standards required by ROD
June 3, 1996
- Hercules submits
Remedial Design Work Plan
July 1, 1996
- Hercules requests
meeting with EPA to resolve Performance Standards for stabilization
July 15, 1996
- Hercules request
for non-residential cleanup standard from EPA
Hercules/EPA meeting
-
Performance Standards discussed; EPA instructs Hercules to submit a
Technical Memorandum proposing alternatives to the current set of
Performance Standards
September 11, 1996
- Hercules
submits Performance Criteria Technical Memorandum, per agreement with EPA
October 2, 1996
- Hercules/EPA
meeting - discuss and resolve the issues outlined in the Performance
Criteria Technical Memorandum
October 4, 1996
- EPA response to
Hercules Performance Criteria Technical Memorandum confirming agreements
made at the October 2, 1996 meeting
October 8, 1996
- Hercules submits
Drainage Ditch Area Remediation final report
October 25, 1996
- Hercules submits
revised schedule for RD to EPA
January 24, 1997
- Hercules Submits
preliminary design Report
March 7, 1997
- Hercules/EPA/GA-EPD meeting - Value Engineering
March 13, 1997
- EPA approval of preliminary design report
March 24, 1997
- EPA approval of preliminary design report
April 2, 1997 -
Hercules submits Soil Excavation Plan letter to EPA
April 1997 -
EPA verbal approval of Soil Excavation Plan letter
April 15, 1997
- Hercules submits Pre-Final Design Report
April 29, 1997
- Hercules submits
Performance Standards Verification Plan, and Operations and Maintenance
Plan
August 19, 1997
- EPA comments to
Hercules on Pre-Final Remedial Design Package, Performance Standards
Verification Plan, and Operations and Maintenance Plan
August 19, 1997
- Hercules/EPA
meeting - Discussion of EPA comments on Pre-Final Remedial Design,
Performance Standards Verification Plan, and Operations and Maintenance
Plan
September 1997
- Hercules comments
to EPA on Pre-Final Design
October 24, 1997
- RMT response to
EPA's comments on Pre-Final Design
November 19, 1997
- EPA
comments on Pre-Final Design Package
November 26, 1997
– RMT report, Summary Report for Supplemental Soil Analysis at the 009
Landfill, Brunswick, Georgia.
November 1997
- RMT Report for
Former Sludge Staging Area
January 20, 1998
- Hercules and RMT
response to EPA comments on Pre-Final Design
January 1998
- Hercules Design
Drawings for Culvert in East Drainage Ditch
January 15, 1998
- Remedial Action
Plan submitted
January 20, 1998
- Hercules response
to EPA comments on Pre-Final Design
January 30, 1998
- Remedial Design
submitted
February 2, 1998
- EPA comments
regarding design of the Eastern Drainage Ditch
February 3, 1998
- Hercules and RMT
response to EPA comments
February 17, 1998 -
Hercules and RMT response to EPA comments
February 25, 1998
- Hercules
and RMT response to EPA comments
March 1998
- Hercules response to
EPA letter regarding installation of culvert
March 2, 1998
- EPA Approval of
All Design Documents
March 25, 1998
- Hercules/EPA
conference - Pre-construction
May 18, 1998
- EPA letter to
Hercules relaying Glynn Environmental Coalition request to install
irrigation wells
May 28, 1998 -
Hercules and RMT response to address EPA's potential concern regarding
contaminated soils
June 1998
- RMT memo to EPA
addressing EPA Technical Assistance Grant Advisor's comments on Hercules
009 Landfill RD/RA
June 1998
- RMT plan to EPA to
address Glynn Environmental Coalition request to install wells
July 24, 1998
- Hercules response
to Congressman Kingston's office to address concerns raised by the Glynn
Environmental Coalition
August 19, 1998
- Hercules/EPA
meeting - Discuss results of field trial
August 27, 1998
- RMT letter to EPA communicating alternative treatment method
August 31, 1998
- Hercules
submittal of chromatograms of last round of groundwater monitoring.
September 9, 1998
- RMT
Technical Memorandum presenting results of the field demonstration
September 11, 1998
- EPA
approval to OHM's modifications to the stabilization process
November 1998
- Results from
sampling soils for Ex-Situ Stabilization
February 1999
- EPA requests two
samples of stabilized cover be obtained and tested
5.
Comments on the Background section
The Site description in the Background section is not only inaccurate, but
extremely misleading to anyone reading the Five-Year Review without ever
seeing the Site, and could result in a miscalculation of potential health
risks. Rapid development is taking place in the area. Evidently, the
same Site description used in the 1980’s continues to be used for the
Site, even though sufficient information was collected during the Remedial
Investigation, Feasibility Study, Treatability Study, and Remedial Design
to write a definitive description of the Site based on data. The
Background section contains information that is now known to be
inaccurate. Specific comments follow.
A.
The first paragraph is inaccurately states that stores, businesses and
residences are approximately 1000 feet from the site. Adjoining
the Site to the north is a car dealership, and adjoining the site
to the east is an elementary school. The location of adjoining business
and school should be key factors in evaluating the protectiveness of the
remedy. The Background should specifically state that an elementary
school abuts the Site.
B.
The second paragraph inaccurately describes Site contents. During the
Remedial Action, numerous full drums were encountered in the landfill.
EPA oversight of the Remedial Action was removed prior to full product
drums being encountered. The EPA only asked the RP about the full drums
encountered after the GEC asked about how the EPA was handling the
problem. Personal communications between the GEC and contractors
indicate numerous drums of product were encountered during the Remedial
Action. It is unknown how these drums of discarded product could effect
the protectiveness of the Remedial Action due to no confirmation sampling
as specified in the ROD.
The Five-Year Review failed to evaluate the effect of breaching full drums
during Ex-Situ stabilization. Confirmation sampling, as specified in the
ROD, would provide much needed information about the effect of breaching
full product drums during the Remedial Action.
C.
The second paragraph inaccurately describes Site landfill cell
construction and sludge thickness as 6 to 7 feet. Contrary to the
reported bentonite clay lining, only three of 32 borings found any
bentonite, and one boring found bentonite above the sludge layer.
Landfill cells were far thicker than the reported six or seven feet. Data
collected that shows the sludge extends over 20 feet deep should be used
to describe the Site. Notable is that the Background section is the only
place in the Five-Year Review that quantifies the thickness of the sludge,
whereas the actual depth of the sludge, over 20 feet deep, is not reported
in the Review. Sludge depth at the Site was never determined. Borings
were terminated before the bottom of the sludge was found.
Failure of the Five-Year Review team to demonstrate knowledge about actual
Site conditions raises doubt about the conclusion that the Site remedy is
protective. The Review team did not cite sound science or Site specific
data to support their conclusion. To the contrary, the review raised
significant doubts about sampling, analysis, and quantification of
toxaphene at the Site.
D.
The second paragraph describes Site contamination being found in drainage
ditches around the Site. Even though the ROD mandated a removal action
along the ditch banks, no removal action took place to remove known areas
of contamination in the drainage ditch area.
6. Comments on the Remedial Action sections
The Remedial Actions section, for the most part, accurately portrays the
remedial action specified in the ROD and the fundamental changes made to
the ROD during meetings between the EPA and the RP from 1996 to 1998. The
statement, “It was determined that treating soil below the groundwater
table could result in unsafe construction conditions”, was never supported
by data. To the contrary, the EPA asked for supporting data to support
the RP’s contention that upwelling would result in unsafe conditions, but
the data was never provided. The EPA never made a determination that
treating below the groundwater table would be unsafe, but did ask for data
to support the claim that was never received from the RP.
7.
Comments on the Remedy
Implementation section
A.
As noted by the Remedy Implementation section, the EPA was fully aware
that the selected remedy was a fundamental change to the ROD because
sludge would be left untreated, and the ROD specified goal of In-Situ
stabilization of all sludge and soil above the 76 ppm toxaphene remedial
action goal would NOT be met. No data has been presented to explain how
leaving sludge and soil above the 76 ppm toxaphene remedial goal would
stop colloidal transport to neighboring properties.
B. The Remedy Implementation section note that the cap
was made by placing contaminated soil over the Site and mixing in some
cement, but fails to note that the ESD required the soil to be screened,
mixed in a pug mill, and spread uniformly over the Site. The Five-Year
Review failed to evaluate how failure to follow the cap construction
method in the ROD and ESD have reduced protectiveness of the remedy.
Failure to do any confirmation sampling or study infiltration through the
cap leaves many uncertainties about the protectiveness of the remedy.
8.
Comments on the Review
Process
The purpose of the Five-Year Review is stated as to, “…evaluates the
implementation and performance of the selected remedy.” Insufficient
data exists to evaluate the performance of the selected remedy. The ROD is
specific about how to evaluate the remedy, and the Five-Year Review fails
to evaluate the remedy according to the guidance in the ROD. The
Five-Year Review can be most accurately described as a collection of
opinions and speculation about the protectiveness of the remedy.
Conclusions regarding the protectiveness of the remedy should be stated as
indeterminate until there is scientifically sound data collected that
demonstrates the remedy is protective.
9.
Comments on the Reviewed Documents
As noted in Comment 4 previously, the Five-Year Review was based upon a
subset of documents from the Administrative Record. Most noticeably
missing from the list of reviewed documents were the Treatability Study
and the Supplemental Soil Analysis that found toxaphene at far greater
depths than the Remedial Action was designed to address.
10.
Comments on the Data Review
A.
The data Review inaccurately describes the Site being monitored by 18
monitoring wells and 2 irrigation type wells since 1983. The irrigation
type wells were installed on the Site at the request of the GEC to
evaluate colloidal transport, and potential for colloidal movement of
toxaphene off-site via pumping by an irrigation well. The irrigation
wells were installed but removed before any usable data set could be
obtained. Existing monitoring well data is very suspect due to the
Toxaphene Task Force (TTF) method of analysis and quantification. The
Data Review did not provide data to evaluate colloidal transport, nor did
the Five-Year Review evaluate potential for continued migration of
toxaphene via colloidal transport. It should be noted that the water
sampling method was changed due to consistent and regular toxaphene
detection in groundwater samples. The Five-Year Review does not evaluate
how the change in sample collection methods could reduce reported
toxaphene in groundwater samples.
B. The Five-Year Review does identify the change in
toxaphene analysis and quantification methods as a factor in all results
by the TTF method being reported as non detect. Important to note is that
the TTF method has failed to find toxaphene in samples at levels of 26 ppm,
and the TTF method has detection limits that are irrelevant to protection
of groundwater and human health. The TTF method introduces much doubt as
to the ability to identify and quantify toxaphene that the best the
Five-Year Review can do is conclude there is an indeterminate health risk
and environmental impact from the Site.
11.
Comments on the Site
Inspection
A.
During the Site inspection, it was noted that there was erosion on the
north slope of the landfill. The Review failed to note if Site material
has eroded and migrated to the car dealership property adjoining the north
side of the Site.
B. The monitoring wells were noted to be in poor
condition and in need of maintenance. Due to the age of the monitoring
wells and the noted lack of maintenance, the wells should be examined and
depths compared to the original installation logs. The actual depths of
the monitoring wells could be far different now than when installed.
Failure to report current monitoring well depths adds further doubt and
uncertainty about the validity of the monitoring well data.
C. Without a complete list of documents in the
Administrative Record, those conducting the Review and evaluation of the
Repository at the Glynn County Library can not make a determination about
document completeness. To the contrary, the conspicuous incompleteness of
the documents reviewed for the Five-Year Review indicates that the
reviewers were never provided a complete list of the documents in the
Administrative Record. The Review reporting that the Repository,
“…appeared to be complete,” should be removed.
12.
Comments on the
Technical Assessment
A.
The Review accurately reports that the ROD was not used to establish
excavation depths in the landfill. In addition, the Review accurately
reports that the actual remedy was excavation, a fundamental change to the
ROD.
B. The Review reports the ESD provided adequate
explanation of the changes made to the ROD concerning excavation depths.
The ROD specified In-Situ, and not excavation as the remedy, which the
Review failed to note. In addition, the ESD was based upon speculation,
opinion, and hearsay that are not supported by documents or data in the
Administrative Record (AR). The Review team failed to consult the AR for
documentation that the ESD did in fact provide and adequate explanation
for the fundamental changes to the ROD specified remedy and depths of
treatment, as required by CERCLA. The Site Chronology section raises
doubts about the Review team ever having a complete AR to conduct the
Review.
C. The Review inaccurately describes the reason for
the changes to the EPA approved toxaphene analytical method. See Comment
1 for an in-depth discussion of reasons for changing the EPA approved
method to the Toxaphene Task Force method.
D. The Reviewers did identify the TTF method of
toxaphene identification and quantification as least protective, which
leave significant doubts about the protectiveness of the remedy, and
accuracy and conclusions of the Review.
13.
Comments on the Issues section
The GEC agrees with issues identified and recommendations for follow-up
actions by the Reviewers in Table 6 and 7. Until the issues identified
and recommendations are implemented, information needed to conclude that
the Site is safe will be unavailable. In addition, information identified
within the above comments should be evaluated as part of a complete and
comprehensive Five-Year Review.
14.
Comments on the
Protectiveness Statement
The protectiveness statement qualifies the assertion that the Site is
protective based upon using appropriate sampling and analytical methods.
Until the uncertainties surrounding past sampling and analysis at the Site
are resolved, a protectiveness determination can not be made. The Site
Protectiveness Statement should conclude that the determination is
Indeterminate at this time.
P. O. Box 2443