Mr. Jim McNamara, Unit
Coordinator
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Suite 1154
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-0900
Re: Notice of intent to amend
Permit Number HW-052(D&S) to Hercules Incorporated for a proposed soil and
sediment corrective action plan for Solid Waste Management Unit #5, the
former toxaphene production facility.
Mr. McNamara,
The enclosed comments are
regarding the proposed amendment to Permit Number HW-052(D&S) and
Corrective Action Plan (CAP), Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) #5 Area,
Hercules Brunswick Facility, Brunswick, Georgia, September 2007, prepared
by New Fields.
The following documents were
also reviewed in preparation to comment:
1.)
Hercules Inc. July 1999, RFI Phase II Work Plan, Volumes 1 and 2;
2.) Hercules Inc. June 2001, Draft Phase II RCRA
Facility Investigation Report (RFI), Volumes I, II and III;
3.) Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD),
March 5, 2002, Hercules RFI Notice of Deficiency (NOD);
4.) Response to Notice of Deficiency for RFI Report,
May 9, 2002, by New Fields;
5.) GA EPD SWMU Clean-up Guidance;
6.) OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04, Land Use in the
CERCLA Remedy Selection Process. (applicable to RCRA regulated facilities)
7.) Corrective Action Plan SWMU #5 Area Hercules
Brunswick Facility, Brunswick, Georgia, March 2003, prepared by New
Fields;
8.) Georgia Environmental Protection Division, July
24, 2003, Notice of Deficiency, SWMU #5 CAP.
9.) Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
February 19, 2004, Notice of Deficiency, SWMU #5 CAP.
The Glynn Environmental
Coalition requests the Georgia Environmental Protection Division take the
following comments into consideration and incorporate changes into the
proposed modification to the Hercules Incorporated Hazardous Waste
Facility Permit Number HW-052(D&S) and the SWMU #5 Corrective Action Plan.
Sincerely,
Bill Owens, President
Glynn Environmental
Coalition November 8, 2007, comments on Corrective Action Plan (CAP),
Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) #5 Area, Hercules Brunswick Facility,
Brunswick, Georgia, September 2007, prepared by New Fields.
General Comments
1.
The Glynn Environmental Coalition (GEC) is very concerned over the lack of
progress in cleaning up the 39 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) at the
Hercules Plant over the past 20 years. Notable is that the RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI) has not been completed, not a single Corrective Action
Plan (CAP) has been developed and implemented, while an additional 28
SWMUs have been identified. Inspections and investigations by the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have found numerous cases of leaking and poorly
maintained equipment, untrained personnel operating the Hercules Plant
(Plant), and at least 175 cases in which the Emergency Response Team has
been contacted regarding spills or releases at the Plant. The GEC notes
that the EPD has not used all the regulatory tools and resources available
to it to bring the Hercules Plant into compliance, and to facilitate a
timely cleanup of SWMUs; the GEC further notes that, in some cases, the
EPD has known of the need for SWMU cleanup for more than three decades.
2.)
With Permit HW-052(D&S), Hercules accepts the responsibility not to
disturb their neighbors, not to endanger others, and to clean up their
spills and releases. Hercules has not demonstrated the will or the
ability to operate in a manner that does not disturb their neighbors as
documented by the numerous complaints in the EPD records. Hercules has
failed to demonstrate the ability to operate in a manner that does not
endanger others as demonstrated by 175 Emergency Response Team records,
continued releases of toxaphene to Terry Creek, and the resulting seafood
contamination. Hercules has not demonstrated the ability to clean up
spills and releases as demonstrated by the Corporation's failure to
complete a viable RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) or Corrective Action
Plan (CAP) in the 20 years since the EPD ordered these actions in the 1987
Hazardous Waste Permit. Likewise, the EPD has not exercised regulatory
options available to protect neighborhoods, businesses, and schools around
the Hercules facility from adverse health and economic impacts, which is
the EPD's charge and responsibility.
The
CAP, as currently written, is a continuation both of Hercules' failure to
produce viable cleanup plans for the Plant, and of its history of
noncompliance; as written, the CAP further underscores the need for the
EPD use the regulatory tools at its disposal to bring the Hercules
facility into compliance in a timely manner. The following specific SWMU
#5 CAP comments address the specific failures of Hercules to perform their
regulatory obligations and duties under Permit HW-052(D&S), as
demonstrated in this and previous CAPs for the SWMU #5 area.
3.)
The SWMU #5 CAP should be considered only an interim action, and not
the final remediation for the toxaphene production area. Georgia SWMU
Guidance requires a RFI be completed prior to preparation of a CAP, or
establishing remediation levels. "Once the nature and extent of
contamination are known, the facility will develop a proposed CAP for
review by EPD. EPD will identify the SWMUs that must be considered under
the CAP and will identify media remediation levels based on the
information provided in the RFI Report". Until the RFI report is
completed, the EPD will be unable to identify remediation levels,
particularly for the groundwater in the SWMU #5 area. Future use of the
SWMU #5 area should be avoided until the RFI, CAPs for the other 39 SWMUs,
and a groundwater remediation plans are completed and implemented.
4.)
In the March 5, 2002 EPD NOD on the Hercules Plant 2001 RFI, the EPD
identified specific locations that needed additional vertical delineation,
and ordered Hercules Incorporated to complete the sampling and submit the
results by April 30, 2002. Hercules has failed to complete the vertical
delineation, including sampling location SS-248 and SS-264, which are
located within the SWMU #5 area. Evidently, the specific locations of the
SS-248 and SS-264 sampling points cannot be identified. The CAP does not
address how the vertical delineation requested by the EPD was performed
for areas that can no longer be identified. At a minimum, latitude and
longitude should be recorded for every sampling location so they can be
returned to at a future date and the data is meaningful and useable during
remedial activities.
5.)
The May 9, 2002, Response to Notice of Deficiency for RFI Report by New
Fields, Hercules set conditions upon which the EPD must concur before
conducting additional soil and groundwater sampling. Hercules Response 4
is a refusal to delineate dioxin in identified or suspected SWMUs. The
EPD is correct in demanding dioxin samples from the SWMU area, and not
"within the vicinity of the SWMU". Detection limits for dioxin data from
the SWMU #5 area are so high that the data is useless for determining
potential health risks. With meaningful data, dioxin would very likely be
another Chemical of Concern (COC) in the SWMU #5 area.
6.)
The CAP does not address the extensive groundwater contamination in the
SWMU #5 area.
A. With extremely high level of VOC in the groundwater, it is
not surprising that toxaphene in present in the groundwater above the
amount that can theoretically be dissolved in water. Within SWMU #5,
toxaphene was found at 2000 ug/l in sampling location PZ 1-4. The CAP
fails to address groundwater contamination, or how the proposed removal is
protective of groundwater. To the contrary, cleanup levels have been
established based on an industrial exposure scenario, which utilized
suspect assumptions. The ability of VOCs to increase absorption of
toxaphene through the skin should be included in the evaluation of
remedial action goals based upon exposure assumptions.
The
validity of the PZ 1-4 sampling data has been questioned by Hercules. To
resolve any uncertainty associated with the data from PZ 1-4, additional
sampling should be conducted to evaluate groundwater in the zone from the
water table to the depth of monitoring wells, which are reported to be
screened ~15 feet below ground level. Without additional VOC data, the
assumptions concerning absorption and biological availability of COCs are
suspect.
B. The SWMU #5 corrective action plan should
also be based on the protection of groundwater. The vertical delineation
of SWMU #5 is insufficient to delineate source areas in groundwater. Only
one groundwater sampling point, PZ 1-4, is within SWMU #5, and this is not
a properly installed monitoring well. Samples from PZ 1-4 indicate
extremely high levels of COC, which warrants further investigation by
installation of monitoring wells in the SWMU #5 area.
C. Georgia SWMU Guidance states, "Specifically, it
must be established during the RFI process (and supporting documentation
in the RFI report) that chemicals left in place or remediated to health
based levels are protective of human and ecological receptors as well
as groundwater quality (emphasis added) (in Georgia, all groundwater
is considered a potential source of drinking water)". In addition, "Risk
assessments and associated proposed remedial levels will not be accepted
by EPD for review unless all relevant components have been addressed and
the data submitted are of sufficient quantity, quality, and layout to
allow a critical and efficient review of the findings". As noted by the
EPD in the NODs on previous CAPs for the SWMU #5 area, data submitted is
insufficient in quantity and quality.
D. Background delineation is required in higher groundwater
pollution susceptibility areas. The Hercules plant is in a higher
groundwater pollution susceptibility area.
E. The CAP fails to discuss how the removal action supports
efforts to stop contaminated water releases regulated by the EPD under the
NPDES Permitting Program.
7.)
The CAP fails to incorporate groundwater data from the RFI. At a minimum,
RFI Figures 2-6 (Monitoring Well Locations), 5-12, 5-13, and 5-14
(Groundwater Delineation) should be included in the SWMU #5 CAP since they
contain additional information about the area. Furthermore, the inclusion
of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) data could result in far different
conclusions than reached in Attachment E, VLEACH Analysis, by virtue of the
ability of VOC to mobilize toxaphene in soils, to the air, and into
groundwater. Therefore, the conclusions in Attachment E, VLEACH Analysis,
are not useful in evaluating the potential transport of toxaphene from soil
contaminated with high levels of VOCs to groundwater.
8.) The
CAP fails to discuss the groundwater contamination in the SWMU #5 area, or
potential for groundwater contamination from adjoining SWMUs to mobilize and
transport toxaphene and other COC. The presence of VOCs, solvents, and Non
Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPL) in and surrounding SWMU #5, and their potential
to mobilize toxaphene, PCBs, and other COC into the groundwater should be
discussed in relation to setting cleanup levels and delineation of areas for
removal.
9.) The
May 9, 2002, Response to Notice of Deficiency for RFI Report by New Fields,
in Response to HHRA Comment 2, Hercules contends that, "The large
groundwater database available for the Hercules plant site provides more
than adequate information to assess the impact of soils on groundwater".
Even though Hercules contends that there is sufficient information to assess
the impact of toxaphene contaminated soils on groundwater, the CAP does not
contain an assessment of toxaphene contaminated soils on groundwater, or the
potential for VOCs or other solvents to transport toxaphene from soil to
groundwater. Significant levels of VOCs are present in the SWMU #5 area.
10.) The CAP fails sufficiently to delineate toxaphene vertically to
evaluate source removal both above and below the water table, and the
potential impacts on groundwater remediation. Toxaphene delineation in the
SWMU #5 area should include potential source areas above and below the
groundwater table. In addition, the CAP should discuss and explain how and
why toxaphene has reached 2000 ug/l in sample location PZ 1-4. If the
quality of the PZ-1-4 sampling point is in doubt, additional groundwater
sampling should be expedited to resolve the observed toxaphene in
groundwater at several orders of magnitude above drinking water standards.
11.)
The July, 24, 2003, EPD Notice of Deficiency on the SWMU #5 CAP Stated: "
EPD samples showed elevated levels of toxaphene in surface samples in this
area contrary to the findings shown in the RFI Report." The EPD sampling
results could not be found in the CAP. In addition, the EPD's observation
that samples they took resulted in higher levels being detected is a pattern
repeatedly observed with data produced by Hercules.
12.)
The CAP does not include a decontamination pad for vehicles leaving the SWMU
#5 exclusion zone. Due to the extremely elevated levels of contamination in
the area, a decontamination pad should be installed and all vehicles
decontaminated rather than just a visual inspection. As noted in the
February 19, 2004, Notice of Deficiency on the SWMU #5 CAP submitted by
Hercules, "Inspection and Cleaning procedures for equipment and vehicles
leaving the exclusion zone should be included in this CAP."
Comments
on Specific Sections of the Corrective Action Plan, SWMU #5 Area, Hercules
Brunswick Facility, Brunswick, Georgia, September 2007, prepared by New
Fields.
13.) A. Section 1.3 states that the groundwater is approximately 4-5
feet below ground surface. To the contrary, CAP Section 4.0 describes a
maximum excavation depth of 3 to 4 feet, which is represented as the water
table. Data was not provided to support either approximation of the depth of
groundwater below the surface.
B. Section 3.1 states the water table is 3-4 feet BGS (below
ground surface). No supporting documentation has been provided in the CAP
or RFI to support this statement.
C. Attachment D of the CAP states: "The well logs indicate the
presence of only moist and wet soils (groundwater) from three to five feet
of ground surface, but do not indicate standing water at these depths."
The CAP arbitrarily defines the groundwater as "moist and wet soil" rather
than the accepted definition of the level of water that would be found in a
surface aquifer well. The definition of the groundwater table used by
Hercules would result in the groundwater table being at the surface after a
rain event by virtue of the soil just being wet or moist. The premise
presented by Hercules for limiting the depth of excavations to 3-4 feet is
not supported by data. Furthermore, confirmation sampling would not take
place under this CAP when soil appears moist.
D. Section 1.3 should also include a discussion about the
production of the toxaphene clay and toxaphene xylene mixtures in relation
to the elevated levels in soil and groundwater at sample locations SS-284,
SS-246, and PZ 1-4.
14.)
Section 3.1 makes a number of unsupported statements and assumptions, and
uses inappropriate guidance documents.
A. The CAP states that the Remedial Action Objectives were based
on current and reasonable future use of the site. Future reasonable use of
the site is mentioned, but not analyzed. In light of Hercules' continuing
attempts to sell the facility, a discussion of probable future land uses and
reasonable worker exposure scenarios should be included in the CAP. At a
minimum, a discussion of residential uses should be included in the CAP.
The City
of Brunswick is anticipating the closure of Hercules due to the repeated
efforts of Hercules to sell the plant and is working to address the
ramifications to the community. The September 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Community Assessment stated:
"The Hercules site is the largest industrial site in
the City and is a major disruption to the regular urban fabric of the City
of Brunswick. The City must be prepared to handle the brownfield
remediation issues and have a redevelopment strategy to handle the potential
closure of the plant."
The CAP
must include residential Remedial Action Objectives in order to reflect the
efforts of Hercules to sell the facility and the City of Brunswick
Comprehensive Plan. Clearly, future use of the Hercules facility could
change significantly in the future due to Hercules' announced intention to
sell the Resins Division. "Sale of the Resins Division is a step in our new
strategy to focus on fewer markets".
B. In light of the extensive remediation required for 39 SWMU's
and construction (demolition) that is expected on the Hercules Plant Site,
exposure frequency for construction and remediation workers is unreasonably
short.
C. Institutional controls such as a deed restriction would be
needed to assure that the future industrial land use scenario proposed in
the CAP would be maintained. Anticipating industrial land use in the future
is inappropriate in light of Hercules' repeated attempts to sell the plant
and the vision presented in the City of Brunswick Comprehensive Plan.
D. It is nearly impossible to enforce different exposure
scenarios for the 39+ SWMUs already identified. Land use change at the
Hercules plant is very probable in the future, including residential uses.
The Remedial Action Objectives should be based upon the reality that
residential land uses will take place, and residential-use scenarios should
be utilized across the plant site for consistency.
Georgia
SWMU Guidance states, "Especially where there is some uncertainty regarding
the anticipated future land use, it may be useful to compare the potential
risks associated with several land use scenarios to estimate the impact on
human health and the environment should land use unexpectedly change."
The Hercules plant is located at the "Gateway to the Golden Isles of
Georgia". A potential buyer would most certainly consider the location of
the facility and value of the land for other purposes. Divestiture of some
of the 150+ acres would quickly recoup part of the purchase price. In
addition, different future land use scenarios need to be considered for
Route 17 and the St. Simons Island Causeway area, Parkwood Avenue (Hospital
area), Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the L Street corridor. A
significant portion of the Hercules Plant is unutilized or under utilized,
which could be divested by a future owner. An analysis of future land use
of the Hercules plant and the surrounding areas should be part of the RFI
and the CAP for SWMU #5.
E. The CAP toxaphene excavation criterion of 100 mg/kg
was used in the CAP, contrary to the standard Hercules was ordered to use in
the July, 24, 2003, Notice of Deficiency. The EPD wrote: "Hercules should
refer to the Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for
Superfund Sites (EPA, March 2001) for updated values." The correct value
for utility and construction workers is 330 mg/kg. Protection of
groundwater must be used as an excavation criterion, in addition to the
protection of workers.
F. An analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
in the SWMU #5 area must be part of the process of evaluating potential
absorption factors. The 30% absorption factor could be much higher when VOC
transport factors are included for skin and oral routes. Furthermore, the
high VOC levels in the SWMU #5 area nullifies the use of EPA Region I
guidance for pesticides with high soil sorption, which does not include the
VOCs variable.
The
assertion that toxaphene is the only criterion that exceeds excavation
criteria is incorrect. PCB 1254 was detected at 330000 ug/kg at sampling
location SS006A06 in the SWMU #5 area. The SWMU #5 area is also notable for
the other Chemicals of Concern (COC) that are at maximum levels detected on
the facility. This high frequency of maximum plant wide COC detections
indicates that the SWMU #5 area is a significant source area for soil and
groundwater contamination. Maximum plant wide COC detections in SWMU #5
include:
SOIL COC
AMOUNT ___ LOCATION
Mercury 19
mg/kg SS003A09
Acetone 71000 ug/kg
SS003A09
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 11000 ug/kg SS008A06
Ethylbenzene
1800000 ug/kg SS-284
Methyl ethyl ketone 160000 ug/kg
SS-284
Tetrachloroethylene 50 ug/kg
SS-222
Xylenes (total) 8100000 ug/kg SS-284
Naphthalene 730 ug/kg
SS-284
Toxaphene 55000000 ug/kg
SS-246
4,4 – DDD 3.8 ug/kg
SS-284
Lindane 0.16 ug/kg
SS-284
Parathion 35 ug/kg
SS006A06
Aroclor 1254 (PCB) 330000 ug/kg
SS006A06
Pentachlorodibenzofuran 310000 ng/kg
SS001A64
Phosphorothioc acid,
O,O-diethyl O-pyrazinyl ester 25 ug/kg
SS-284
Sulfide 1600
mg/kg SS003A09
WATER COC
AMOUNT LOCATION
Ethylbenzene 20000 ug/l
PZ 1-4
Styrene 55 ug/l
PZ 1-4
Tetrachloroethylene
9.6 PZ 1-4
Toluene 1200 ug/l
PZ 1-4
Trichloroethylene 1.2 ug/l
PZ 1-4
Xylenes (total) 100000 ug/l
PZ 1-4
Toxaphene 2000 ug/l
PZ 1-4
G. The Phosphorothioc acid, O,O-diethyl O-pyrazinyl ester
detection at soil sampling point SS-284 is of particular interest. Hercules
reports manufacturing Metron, more commonly called Methyl Parathion, from
1966 to 1968, which is also described as Phosphorothioc acid, O,O-diethyl O-pyrazinyl
ester in the analytical results. Since this is the only detection point on
the Hercules plant for Methyl Parathion, it is probable that the Methyl
Parathion manufacturing or packaging facility was located in the vicinity of
the Former Toxaphene Production Facility. The RFI and CAP should further
discuss this Methyl Parathion detection in relation to the location of the
1966 to 1968 Metron manufacturing facility operations. The CAP should
clarify that Metron, Methyl Parathion, and Phosphorothioc acid, O,O-diethyl
O-pyrazinyl ester are all the same chemical.
H. A cursory review of the SWMU #5 soil and groundwater data
indicates that COC are distributed throughout both soil and groundwater.
The approach in the CAP fails to craft a corrective action plan that removes
known and identified source areas from soil and groundwater.
I. The September 2007 SWMU #5 CAP contends the N Street Ditch,
"...do not provide suitable habitat for potential ecological receptors,"
and, "...potential aquatic receptors in the ditch will not likely be present
after removal of soil/sediment and improvement of the ditch with a
synthetic, concrete, or combination liner." As noted by the EPD in the
February 19, 2004, Notice of Deficiency on the SWMU #5 CAP submitted by
Hercules, "Furthermore, the Phase II RFI Risk report stated that "the
drainage ditch supports aquatic species and wildlife dependent on aquatic
resources and either overlaps with SWMUs or is susceptible to constituent
migration from the SWMU's. For these reasons, a screening level ecological
assessment should be developed for SWMU 5." First, there is no reason to
believe that aquatic species will avoid the area because of the material
used to line the ditch in a small portion of the waterway. The aquatic
species, and their predators, should be expected to re-inhabit the
waterway. Furthermore, no basis of support for the position that aquatic
species will leave the area has been presented. Second, the screening level
ecological assessment is not present in the current SWMU #5 CAP.
J. Attachment D - Hercules contends that, "... toxaphene has
never been detected in groundwater in this area, provides for a complete and
robust conclusion that the CAP is protective of groundwater." Hercules' own
data in Attachment E contradicts this finding with 2000 ug/l toxaphene in
PZ 1-4. Furthermore, the lack of sampling data for toxaphene in
groundwater in the SWMU #5 area cannot be used to conclude toxaphene has not
impacted groundwater. As noted in Appendix D, "...the groundwater data
available was collected from a depth of 15 feet bgs or greater. The high
levels of VOCs and toxaphene that are commingled in the SWMU #5 area makes
it highly probable that toxaphene is present in groundwater, as indicated by
the results from PZ 1-4.
15.
Section 3.2 cites Attachment E as the supporting document for contending
that the excavation criteria are protective of groundwater. The assumptions
and calculations presented in Attachment E are insupportable due to the lack
of any analysis of VOCs on toxaphene transport from soil to groundwater. As
noted in Comment 14. F., high levels of several VOCs have been detected in
the SWMU #5 area soil and groundwater. Any analysis of toxaphene transport
in soils, groundwater, or to the air must take the variables presented by
the VOCs present into account.
16.) A. Section 4 eliminates most, if not all, of the proposed
excavation by limiting excavation activities to 6 feet from existing
structures, tanks, rail lines, underground utilities, or facility
infrastructure, and as mentioned in Section 1.3, paved areas. There is no
compelling reason to limit excavation to 6 feet from structures, paved
areas, utilities, or infrastructure. Removal actions routinely work far
deeper and closer to structures and utilities.
B. Figures depicting the location of underground utilities and
facility infrastructure are conspicuously absent from the RFI and CAP. The
EPD has ordered Hercules to identify and provide a figure with utilities and
infrastructure in the July 2003 and February 2004 Notice of Deficiency on
previously submitted SWMU #5 CAPs. Hercules remains noncompliant by failing
to correct deficiencies in the CAP repeatedly identified by the EPD.
Furthermore, one of the first steps in the planning stages of any excavation
activity is to identify all underground structures present. The refusal of
Hercules to identify underground utilities and infrastructure indicates that
they contemplate implementing the alternative plan, a geotextile membrane
and aggregate cover.
C. Hercules misrepresented the findings of the geotechnical
consultant concerning the 6 to 8 feet excavation setback from structures and
roads. Attachment F, the letter from the ATC Associates Inc., clearly
states that, "An excavation free zone of 6 feet from the structures was
presented in the CAP for the area. The purpose of the site visit was to
verify if the 6-foot distance is appropriate." The purpose of ATC
Associates was to verify, and not to analyze, what was appropriate
protection of buildings, roads, and concrete slabs. Notable is what was
not done by the geotechnical consultant, including:
- The depth of the building foundations was not
determined.
- No effort was made to identify the type of foundation
present, and the inspection concluded that it is "likely" that the buildings
are on shallow foundations, and supports "appear" to be on shallow
foundations.
At a
minimum, the geotechnical consultant should determine foundation depth and
type, actually examine the soil and conditions, and make recommendations for
excavation depth next to buildings, roads, and other structures, and the
side slope angle to the maximum excavation depth.
The CAP
should demonstrate that existing structures, tanks, rail lines, underground
utilities, facility infrastructure, and paved areas can be avoided while
meeting the objectives of protecting human health, environment, and
groundwater. Since the CAP appears to eliminate some, if not all soil
excavation, it appears that the intent of the CAP is to establish criteria
that will assure that the alternative presented, installation of geotextile
with a crush run cover, asphalt cover, or concrete cover, will be the actual
remedial action. The CAP should demonstrate that the proposed removal
action would remove sufficient soil and groundwater contamination source
areas to obtain remedial goals.
Utilities and infrastructure should be relocated, if need be, to obtain
remedial action levels protective of human health, ecological receptors, and
groundwater. Without identifying the utilities and infrastructure in the
area, an analysis of the need to move potential obstacles to excavation can
not be conducted.
D. Previous SWMU #5 CAPs submitted by Hercules identified a
5-foot setback from buildings and other structures as the appropriate
distance. No explanation is provided for the increase to 6 to 8 feet. The
change appears to be capricious and provides further evidence that Hercules
has designated the distance to minimize excavation, and not for any
documented threat to structural integrity to nearby structures. A casual
observer would note that ditches along roads in Glynn County are routinely
deeper than 4 feet, and far closer to the road than 3 feet. The 6 to 8 feet
setback is not supported by empirical evidence, including the N Street
ditch.
17.)
Section 5 starts by stating, "For the SWMU #5 area, the success of
corrective action will be ensured by the sampling and analysis of
confirmatory samples from the bottom of the excavated areas." While this
statement may indicate that every excavated area will be sampled to confirm
the remedial action goals have been achieved, this is not the case at all as
the following caveat later in Section 5.0 indicates. "However, excavations
that reach the groundwater table in any excavation unit will be backfilled
and confirmatory sampling will not be performed." Attachment D of the CAP
states: "The well logs indicate the presence of only moist and wet soils
(groundwater) from three to five feet of ground surface, but do not indicate
standing water at these depths." The CAP arbitrarily defines the
groundwater table as "moist and wet soil rather than the accepted definition
of the level of water that would be found in a surface aquifer well. The
definition of the groundwater table used by Hercules would result in the
groundwater table being at the surface after a rain event by virtue of the
soil just being wet or moist. The premise presented by Hercules for
limiting the depth of excavations to 3-4 feet is not supported by data.
Furthermore, confirmation sampling would not take place under this CAP by
virtue of the soil appearing moist, which is a subjective determination.
18.)
Section 7.0 states Hercules desires that the area be available for the
operational needs of the facility. Without the consideration of soil impacts
on groundwater from SWMUs surrounding the SWMU #5 area, the EPD cannot
consider removing the SWMU #5 area from future concern during the RCRA
Corrective Action Process, as requested by Hercules. At a minimum, a
site-wide groundwater remediation plan is needed, and an explanation of how
the SWMU #5 CAP achieves the objectives of groundwater and human health
protection for current and future uses of the site. The SWMU #5 area should
not be reused until the RFI and groundwater remediation plans are completed,
and site-wide remediation plans are completed. The effectiveness of
groundwater remediation could be adversely affected by activity in the area
and cover areas needed for groundwater remediation locations. Furthermore,
the SWMU #5 area might be needed for remedial efforts addressing adjoining
SWMUs. Until Hercules demonstrates the ability to produce a viable and
complete RFI and CAPS for the 39 identified SWMUS, no further construction
should take place in any of the identified SWMUs.
19.)
Section 7.1.7.1, Real-Time Air Monitoring, needs to take a different
approach. Dust suppression should be conducted during removal operations,
and not just after monitoring equipment detects a problem. A dust
suppression plan should be a part of the CAP. At a minimum, dust
suppression should be initiated before limits are exceeded, as part of best
management practices, and part of the operational plan for the remedial
action.
20.)
Sections 7.1.4 states "... backfilled with clean soil from a local borrow
source or stump dirt from the plant industrial process." Whereas Section
7.1.6 states, "All excavated units will be backfilled with clean
soil, obtained from a local borrow source that is off the facility
property," as the source of backfill soil." (emphasis added) The CAP should
be consistent in stating the source of backfill material. If the stump dirt
is stockpiled in an identified SWMU, all backfill should come from an
off-site source.
21.)
Section 7.1.7.3 states, "All samples submitted will be prepared using an
in-house extraction method based on NIOSH Method 5039. The in-house method
is not described in the CAP. Furthermore, the EPD has requested Hercules
provide the "in-house extraction method" in the July 2003 and February 2004
Notice of Deficiency. This is yet another example of Hercules noncompliance
with previous requests for information to complete the CAP.
All
samples collected during the SWMU #5 remedial action should be analyzed by a
laboratory that is certified to do such work by the EPD. Toxaphene results
should be reported as total toxaphene and analyzed by the current EPA
approved Method 8081B. The CAP should clearly state the method and version
that will be used for analysis.
Hercules Intends to Sell Resins Division, Enters Discussions With
Potential Buyer, Business Wire, February 22, 2000.
|
P. O. Box 2443