New us EPA RECORDS CENTER REGION 5 · 2020. 10. 5. · The Site potentially responsible parties (PRPs) signed a remedial action consent decree (CD) with EPA and began remedy construction

us EPA RECORDS CENTER REGION 5

4G1776

Third Five-Year Review Report

for the

Butterworth #2 Landfill Superfund Site Grand Rapids, Kent County,

Michigan

PREPARED BY:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

June 2014

Approved by: Date:

fhll t Richard C. Karl, Director Superfund Division

^ -a7-/v

[This page intentionally left blank.]

11

Table of Contents List of Acronyms v Executive Summary vii Five-Year Review Summary Form ; ix

I. Introduction 1 II. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 2

Recommendations 2 Institutional Controls 4 Status of ICs and Follow-up Aetions Required 4 Operation and Maintenance 6

III. Five-Year Review Process 6 Administrative Components , 6 Community Notification and Involvement 6 Document Review 7 Data Review : 7 Site Inspection 8 Interviews 8 Site Inspection Photographs 9

IV. Technical Assessment 13 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents 13 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy seleetion still valid? 14

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? 15

V. Issues/Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 16 VI. Protectiveness Statement 16 VII. Next Review 17

Appendix A 17 I. Site Chronology 18 II. Background 18

Physical Characteristics 18 Land and Resource Use 18 History of Contamination 19 Initial Response 19 Basis for Taking Action 20

III. Remedial Aetions 20 Remedy Selection 20 Remedy Implementation 20

Appendix B 23

111

Table of Contents (cont'd)

FIGURES

Figure 1

TABLES

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

Site Map

Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2009 FYR • Status of Recommendations from the 2009 FYR Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs Issues/Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Historical exceedances for ammonia during review period 2009-2013

IV

List of Acronyms

ACL Alternate Concentration Limit ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BL Butterworth Landfill BSG Butterworth Site Group cBOD Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand CD Consent Decree CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSO Combined Sewer Overflow EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESD Explanation of Significant Differences FAV Final Acute Value FYR Five-Year Review GSI Groundwater/Surface Water Interface IC Institutional Control MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality NCP National Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PRP Potentially Responsible Party RA Remedial Action RAO Remedial Action Objective ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager RTSB Radio Tower and Station Building UU/UE Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure VI Vapor Intrusion


VI

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), has completed the third Five-Year Review (FYR) for the Butterworth Landfill #2 Superfund Site (BL Site or Site) located in Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan. The purpose of this FYR is to review information to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. Completion of the third FYR at the BL Site was triggered by the completion of the second FYR report on September 21, 2009.

The 180-acre BL Site is located in a predominantly industrial area about one mile southwest of downtown Grand Rapids. The Site is bounded by the Grand River to the south. Interstate 196 to the west, Butterworth Street to the north, and a Consumers Power substation to the east. The City of Grand Rapids operated the landfill, which received both residential and industrial wastes for disposal. EPA placed the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983.

In September 1992, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the BL Site to prevent direct contact with landfill contaminants and to reduce contaminant migration into groundwater, surface water, and air. The selected remedy included installing a State of Michigan Act 641 solid waste cap over the landfill, placing institutional controls (ICs) on the property, establishing Alternate Concentration Levels (ACLs) for contaminated groundwater, and monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and river sediment.

EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) in September 1998, and then amended it in December 1998, to establish State of Michigan-developed groundwater/surface water interface (GSl) criteria as the ACLs for the site to replace the ACL process outlined in the 1992 ROD. The ESD also changed the cover requirement for the Radio Tower and Station Building (RTSB) area of the Site to a 12-inch soil cover instead of an Act 641 solid waste cap.

The Site potentially responsible parties (PRPs) signed a remedial action consent decree (CD) with EPA and began remedy construction in 1999 and completed construction in September 2000.

Upon review, EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, finds the BL Site remedy protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. The remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements contained in the ROD and the ESD, continues to function as designed, and immediate threats have been addressed. To be protective of human health and the environment over the long term, effective ICs should be finalized and complied with, and a vapor intrusion (VI) study should be conducted in accordance with EPA guidance that includes an analysis of methane migration at the property boundary.

Because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain in place at the BL Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE), EPA plans to conduct the fourth FYR at the site within five years of the completion of this FYR report.

Vll


Vlll

•••1

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Butterworth #2 Landfill

EPA ID: MID062222997

Region: 5 State: Ml City/County: Grand Rapids/Kent County

IX

Issues and Recommendations Identifled in the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): 1 (Site-Wide)

Issue Category: Monitoring OU(s): 1 (Site-Wide) Issue: Ammonia levels in GSI monitoring wells exceed the existing GSI

criterion for ammonia.


Recommendation: Determine the impact of the ammonia GSI exceedances.

Affect Current Protectiveness

Affect Future Protectiveness

Implementing Party Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No No Settling Defendants EPA/MDEQ July 2015


Issue Category: Institutional Controls OU(s): 1 (Site-Wide) Issue: Effective ICs must be implemented, monitored, maintained and

Enforced


Recommendation: Finalize restrictive covenants as access easements consistent with the Michigan model, including annual certification.




Milestone Date

No Yes Site Owners EPA/MDEQ July 2014


Issue Category: Monitoring OU(s): 1 (Site-Wide) Issue: Methane gas may present a vapor intrusion hazard. OU(s): 1 (Site-Wide)

Recommendation: A vapor intrusion (VI) study should be conducted in accordance with EPA guidance that includes an analysis of methane migration at the property boundary.




Milestone Date

No No Settling Defendants EPA/MDEQ June 2015

X

OUl & Site-wide Protcctivcness Statement(s)

Protectiveness determination:

Short-term protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term because the remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements ^ contained in the ROD and the ESD, the remedy continues to function as designed, and immediate threats have been addressed. To be protective of human health and the environment over the long term, effective ICs should be finalized and complied with, including maintenance and enforcement of the ICs and long-term stewardship, and a vapor intrusion (VI) study should be conducted in accordance with EPA guidance that includes an analysis of methane migration at the property boundary.

XI


xn

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is or will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify protectiveness issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations for actions to be taken to address them.

EPA conducts FYRs pursuant to Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 121 states:

''If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list offacilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews. "

EPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), which states:

"If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such actions no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.'"

EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, has conducted a FYR of the remedial actions implemented at the BE Site in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Remedial Project Manager (RPM) conducted this review from March 2014 to May 2014. This FYR report documents the results of the review.

This is the third FYR of the BE Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the signature date of the last FYR report for the Site, which was September 21, 2009. The FYR is required because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

EPA will make this FYR report available on EPA's website and place it in the Site information repository at the Grand Rapids Public Library, 713 Bridge Street, NW, Grand Rapids.

11. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

Protectiveness Determination and Status of Recommendations from the 2009 FYR

EPA signed the second FYR report for the BL Site in September 2009 and determined that the remedy was protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. Table 1 (below) presents the protectiveness statements made in the 2009 FYR report.

Table 1: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2009 FYR

OU# Protectiveness Determination Protectiveness Statement

1 (Site-wide)

Short-term Protective

The remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. All threats at the Site have been addressed through the construction of the landfill cap, Site perimeter fencing and signage, and the amendment of a local ordinance, which, as revised, prohibits installation of groundwater wells at the Site and the surrounding area. Long-term effectiveness of the remedial action will continue to be verified through continued groundwater and landfill cap monitoring. Continued monitoring of groundwater and the fmalization of the Grand River pore water sampling data report and accompanying risk analysis will help to determine any potential future actions regarding Site groundwater, including current ammonia exceedances. Currently, these exceedances do not impact the protectiveness of the remedial action. Additionally, long-term protectiveness of the remedy requires compliance with effective ICs. Compliance with effective ICs will be ensured by implementing effective ICs and through long-term stewardship by maintaining, monitoring and enforcing those ICs, as well as maintaining the Site remedy components. To that end, an IC work plan will be required, which will require that restrictive covenants be recorded at currently unrestricted areas and existing covenants be evaluated for consistency with Michigan law to ensure future enforceability and long-term stewardship.

EPA recommended in the 2009 FYR report that the Settling Defendants finalize the Grand River pore water sampling report to determine the impact of ammonia exceedances in the GSI monitoring wells and to implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce effective ICs at the Site. Table 2 (next page) presents a summary of Site issues and the status of the actions taken to address them.

Recommendation 1

During the previous FYR period, the Settling Defendants conducted groundwater monitoring at the Site in accordance with the Site O&M plan. They completed the Grand River pore water

sampling effort in 2008 and submitted a pore-water data report that summarized the results in March 2009. MDEQ also sampled the GSI monitoring wells in fall 2008.

Table 2; Status of Recommendations from the 2009 FYR

Issue Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions Party Responsible

Oversight Party

Original Milestone Date

•......1. . 1,1.. ---im

Current Status

Ammonia levels exceed GSI criterion

Determine the significance of the results.

Settling Defendants

EPA March 2010

In progress

Effective ICs must be implemented, monitored, maintained, and enforced

Submit an IC work plan proposing to implement restrictive covenants at the Site; evaluate existing covenants for consistency with Michigan law; and include other IC evaluation activities. Submit a long-term stewardship plan.

Site ovraers EPA December 2009

In progress

Due to the eomplicated nature of GSI data, and because ammonia GSI levels have remained consistent over the years at no observed risk to receptors, EPA decided to further assess the process for determining risks from ammonia in the River during this past five-year period before moving to address the significance of the ammonia exceedances. Thus, in March 2014, EPA provided comments on the March 2009 pore water data report and then met with the Settling Defendants in April 2014 to discuss its comments. EPA plans to review any responses to its comments from the Settling Defendants before any revisions are made to the data report. Once the report is completed, the risk evaluation required by the 2009 FYR report can then be conducted. EPA will consider information provided by MDEQ's GSI investigative work when providing subsequent commentary on the Grand River pore water sampling report.

Recommendation 2

The required IC work plan was not drafted but the required development of restrictive eovenants is underway. Most of the ICs requirements in the 1992 ROD have now been met, but some remain to be completed. EPA noted in the 2009 FYR it would evaluate the proposed restrictive covenant that the City had submitted (for the portion of the Site it owns) with respect to the State of Michigan model covenant, which was then under development, to determine the appropriate format for a restrictive covenant that would satisfy the requirement for long-term effectiveness of

ICs. The State published its model restrictive covenant on MDEQ's web page in April 2011 and has since made minor revisions to the covenant language during this review period.

As outlined below, an ordinance creating a buffer zone and prohibiting non-remedy related groundwater extraction is in place and is functioning as intended; however, restrictive covenants prohibiting uses that would interfere with the remedy have not yet been recorded for the Site except for a relatively small area (the RTSB area) that is operated by a radio broadcasting company. The other Site owners, the City of Grand Rapids and Consumers Energy Company, have each provided EPA with a restrictive covenant, styled as a "restrictive covenant and access easement" that generally follows the State of Michigan model language and meets the requirements of the CD. Once a required survey of the covered areas is complete, the restrictive covenants will be readied for execution and recording. EPA will then require that each of the Site owners annually certify the enforceability of the restrictive covenants.

Institutional Controls

ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and that protect the integrity of the remedy. ICs are required at the BL Site to assure the long-term protectiveness for the areas that do not allow for UU/UE, and are required also to maintain the integrity of the remedy. Long-term protectiveness at the Site requires long-term stewardship, including compliance with use restrictions, to assure the remedy continues to function as intended into the future.

The 1992 ROD.and 1999 CD contain specific requirements for Site access rights, conducting IC evaluation activities (such as title work) and implementing and recording approved IC instruments. The required ICs will ensure that EPA and MDEQ can conduct regular Site inspections and that annual Site inspection reports are submitted. A summary of the implemented and planned ICs for the Site is listed in Table 3 (next page). A map, which depicts the current conditions of the Site, and areas which do not allow for UU/UE, will be developed as the IC evaluations activities are completed.

Status of ICs and Follow-up Actions Required

Long-term protectiveness of the remedy requires effective ICs to be implemented and monitored. Specifically, the 1992 ROD required ICs that would restrict future development of the landfill area, prohibit the installation of groundwater drinking water wells, and create an isolation zone surrounding the landfill property.

EPA has determined that the RTSB area already has a restrictive covenant on it, but the rest of the Site does not. To prohibit future Site use, the Settling Defendants have prepared draft restrictive covenants, each styled as a restrictive covenant and access easement, but generally following Michigan's model restrictive covenant language. Upon EPA and MDEQ approval of the language and, after the properties are surveyed, the instruments will be executed and recorded. EPA anticipates that these restrictive covenants will be recorded by July 2014. The

restrictive covenants will contain annual certification requirements so that long-term effectiveness and durability can be assured.

EPA determined in the 2009 FYR report that the City of Grand Rapids had passed an ordinance to address groimdwater use on Site, including a buffer zone aroimd the Site property created by an amendment of the ordinance in May 2002, by prohibiting the installation of groimdwater wells.

Once all of the ICs are in place, EPA will monitor their effectiveness through a long-term stewardship plan, as well as requiring maintenance of the Site remedial components.

Table 3: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs

Media, engineered ontrols, and areas that do lot support UU/UE based n current conditions

ICs Needed

ICs Called for in the Decision Documents

Impacted Parcel(s)

IC Objective

Title of IC Instrument Implemented and Date (or planned)

iutterworth Landfill •roperties - Constructed laps on landfills

Yes

ICs to restrict future development of the landfill area, prohibit the installation of groundwater drinking supplies, and create an isolation zone surrounding the landfill property

Entire Site

Prohibit interference with landfill cap; prohibit commercial, industrial, or residential use of the Site

A restrictive covenant is in place for one of the privately owned areas within the Site. It has been reviewed for consistency with Michigan law and found to be adequate. Updated restrictive covenants, styled as restrictive covenants and access easements, for the remainder have been prepared using the existing State of Michigan model restrictive covenant and presented to EPA for approval. When a survey is prepared, they will be recorded.

)ther Remedial lomponents Yes


Entire Site

Prohibit interference with remedy components except proper maintenance

Updated restrictive covenants, styled as restrictive covenants and access easements, for the City and utility corridor, have been prepared using the State of Michigan model restrictive covenant, and presented to EPA for approval. When a survey is prepared, they will be recorded.

iroundwater - current area tiat exceeds groundwater leanup standards on-Site

Yes

ICs to restrict future development of the landfill area, prohibit the installation of groundwater drinking supplies, and

Entire Site

Prohibit groundwater use until cleanup standards are achieved; then industrial use only.

City ordinance prohibits groundwater extraction. Restrictive covenants, styled as restrictive covenants and access easements, have been prepared to bind any futiue owners to the prohibition against interfering uses, including groundwater uses.

create an isolation zone surrounding the landfill property

jroundwater - current area hat exceeds groundwater leanup standards off-Site

Yes


Area of groundwater plume as identified in annual data reports

Prohibit groundwater use until cleanup standards are achieved

City ordinance prohibits groundwater extraction in buffer zone surrounding Site

Operation and Maintenance (0«&M)

The Settling Defendants eonduct O&M aetivities at the Site that include:

• Landfill cap maintenance • Groundwater monitoring • Landfill gas monitoring • Maintenance of surface water controls to prevent siltation and erosion of the landfill cap • Maintenance of the site fence

III. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Administrative Components

On January 10, 2014, EPA sent an email formally notifying the Settling Defendants and MDEQ that the FYR process was beginning. Dion Novak, EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM), led the FYR. Judith Alfano, MDEQ assisted in the review as the support agency representative.

This review consisted of the following components:

• Community Involvement and Notification • Document Review • Data Review • Site Inspection, and • FYR Report Development and Review

Community Notification and Involvement

EPA published a notice in the local newspaper, the Grand Rapids Press, on April 24, 2014, stating that it was conducting a FYR at the Site and that the review results would be available in

July 2014. The results of this FYR and the report will be available on EPA's website and in the Site information repository located at the Grand Rapids Public Library, 713 Bridge Street, NW, Grand Rapids. Document review

EPA reviewed relevant Site documents during the FYR including the 1992 ROD, the 1998 ESD (and ESD amendment), annual groundwater monitoring reports prepared by the Settling Defendants, the 2009 FYR report, the March 2009 draft pore water sairipling report and EPA commentary on this report (March 2014), a memorandum prepared by Settling Defendants summarizing the previous five years of Site monitoring (March 2014), and EPA/Settling Defendant/MDEQ correspondence on Site technical issues.

Data Review

Groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the Site since , the start of the Remedial Investigation. Table 5 (see Appendix B) provides recent groundwater monitoring results for ammonia summarized from the annual monitoring reports. The ammonia and other constituent data have been consistent with previous annual reporting, both for constituents detected and their respective concentrations. Ammonia concentrations at the Site GSI wells range from non-detect to 73 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which exceeds the site-specific GSI criteria for ammonia of 2 mg/L. The ammonia concentrations are consistent with the 2009 FYR data, although the latest annual sampling results show a slight downward trend in concentrations at some wells.

In previous FYR reports, EPA concluded that the ammonia exceedances were not impacting the overall protectiveness of the remedial action due to the absence of any identifiable impacts on Grand River water quality. EPA had recommended that sampling in the river accompanied by a risk analysis was required to provide a definitive conclusion on the significance of these ammonia exceedances. The Settling Defendants conducted the recommended GSI sampling in 2008 and submitted a report to EPA in March 2009. MDEQ also sampled the GSI wells in 2009. After collecting additional data, EPA, MDEQ, arid the Settling Defendants are now working to finalize the pore water report and its conclusions and recommendations. Because the concentrations of ammonia detected during this FYR period are consistent with previous data, EPA believes that the conclusions from the previous FYR reports remain valid in that the remedy is protective in the short term because no adverse impacts are noted on Grand River water quality. Long-term protectiveness will be assessed through an analysis of risk in the River. MDEQ has recommended a process for updating or revising the site-specific ACL for ammonia by determining if an adjustment is warranted based on the 2009 pore water sampling data, current information, and applicable standards. EPA plans to complete the ammonia GSI review process by July 2015.

The 2009 FYR report indicated that EPA had not made a final determination for the reduction of sampling intervals for Site groundwater monitoring subsequent to starting a two-year trial period of single-point sampling. EPA has requested information from the Settling Defendants regarding a comparison between the previous interval sampling and the single-point sampling approved for the trial period and will provide feedback as part oTthe pore water report evaluation by July 2015.

Landfill gas monitoring continues as part of O&M activity. Landfill gas is monitored at 12 gas probes along the northern property boundary outside of the fill areas and at 9 gas wells constructed in the fill material. Methane is monitored at these locations and was sporadically detected above the compliance criterion at one probe during the review period. However, this gas probe did not have measurable positive pressure when methane was found above the compliance criterion. In addition, there were no compliance exceedances for methane in the surrounding locations, which indicates that no significant landfill gas migration is occurring. The issue of potential VI was raised during this review period and the absence of positive pressure at the gas probe locations as well as the lack of exceedances for methane in the probers indicates that the potential for VI at the Site is low. However, an assessment of the potential for vapor intrusion should be conducted due to the continued detections of methane in the landfill area, the presence of the RTSB in the area where the 12-inch soil cover was installed pursuant to the BSD, and associated development surrounding the Site. The VI study should follow EPA guidance and should include an analysis of methane migration potential at the property boundary.

Site Inspection

Dion Novak, EPA RPM, Amy Gahala, EPA geologist, and Judy Alfano, MDEQ project' manager, conducted an inspection at the Site on May 22, 2014; The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy, including the presence and integrity of Site fencing to restrict access, the integrity of the cap, and the condition of the monitoring wells. No significant issues were identified regarding the cap, the drainage structures, or the Site fencing (see Site photos, next page) and all remedial components are functioning as intended.

No inappropriate land or groundwater use was noted during the Site inspection and data review. In December 2013, the City reported that people were residing in temporary shelters on the Site near the river. All evidence of their presence has since been removed and the trespassers did not appear to have impacted any of the remedial components. Bikers and rurmers were observed on the Site access roads, but access continues to be restricted with fencing and signage. Proper signage was observed at each of the two entrances listing the Site's Superftmd status and advising Site users to stay on the trails while on-site.

Several areas near the southeastern comer of the capped area were observed to have minor disturbances in the surface vegetation. The Settling Defendants have indicated that the disturbances resulted fi-om Site infrastmcture improvements and that reseeding of these areas would be completed as soon as the Site was dry enough. EPA observed that the identification tags for the monitoring wells require replacement, which the Settling Defendants have agreed to complete.

Based on the inspection and discussions with the Site owners, EPA is not aware of uses of the Site and groundwater that are inconsistent with the stated objectives of the ICs.

Interviews

No interviews were conducted during this review process. The Settling Defendants prepared an O&M report that summarized the past five years of O&M at the Site, but no significant community interest in Site activities during this time period was reported.

Site photos taken during the FYR site inspection:

Bike trail extension at southeastern entrance to site looking southwest.

Area of stressed vegetation along southeastern-capped area looking north.

Gate at northwest comer of site where bike trail allows access to site looking north.

Sign on gate at northwest comer of site looking south. Sign announces site Superfund status and advises trail users to stay on the trail.

Southeast comer of site looking north at electrical tower. Picture location is at far eastem side of landfill cap.

10

GSI-32A monitoring well location along Grand River looking southeast.

Radio Tower and Station Building (RTSB) area looking north.

11

Western slope of landfill cap looking south

Combined Sewer Overflow ditch in center of Site looking north

12

m-

im0in my-f

Fence along northern property boundary north of RTSB area

UIHEi2^

IV. Technical Assessment

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

Answer; Yes

The review of documents, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), risk assumptions, and the results of the Site inspection, indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD and ESD. The stabilization and capping of contaminated soils has achieved the remedial action objectives to prevent the direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soil at the Site.

Site access is restricted at present with fencing and signage, as required by the ROD. The Site owners are in the process of finalizing proper ICs, with the appropriate input from MDEQ and EPA, as required by the CD. The updated ICs, in the form of restrictive easements, follow the State of Michigan model.

In previous FYR reports, EPA had concluded that the presence of ammonia in the groundwater at levels above the State of Michigan's GSI criteria in the Site monitoring wells did not pose any adverse risk. Additional monitoring data collected during this latest five-year period has not changed this conclusion. The 2009 FYR report recommended that the Settling Defendants complete sampling in the Grand River to provide additional information to more fully address the significance of the ammonia exeeedances. This sampling was completed in March 2009 and EPA submitted comments in March 2014. The Settling Defendants have submitted an amendment to this previously completed work, which is currently under review by EPA. EPA

13

plans to provide review comments by July 2014 and will consider MDEQ's review comments on the sampling report into the assessment for future risk.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

Answer: Yes

All of the Site contaminants being monitored are below GSI criteria established in the Site decision documents with the exception of ammonia. There were no changes in the toxicity factors for the contaminants of concern that were used in the baseline risk assessment, and there were no changes in the standardized risk assessment methodology that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy. There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

EPA recently received information from the Settling Defendants regarding a revised assessment of the Grand River relating to allocation for dissolved oxygen near the Site. The information provided suggests that the Grand River is no longer classified as impaired and may impact dissolved oxygen allocation in setting ammonia ACLs. Preliminary review of this submitted information suggests that the Grand River was on the impaired list for e coli concentrations due to combined sewer overflows during storm events. The majority of those overflow events have been eliminated due to the separation of sanitary and storm sewers. The removal of e coli impairment to the River does not affect dissolved oxygen demand, which would not impact the ACL determination for ammonia. EPA and MDEQ plan to evaluate this information to determine any impacts on the Site, including potentially updating the ACL for ammonia.

Changes in exposure pathways

There have been no ehanges in exposure pathways since the ROD was signed.

Changes in toxicity and other contaminant characteristics

There have been no changes in contaminant characteristics during this reporting period that would impact remedy protectiveness. As mentioned above, EPA will be evaluating the recently received information regarding Grand River allocation as it relates to the Site.

Changes in risk assessment methods

There have been no changes in risk assessment methods that would impact remedy protectiveness.

Expected Progress towards meeting RAOs

The performance of the remedy is progressing as expected, and it is anticipated to continue to do so. All of the groundwater contaminants are below regulatory standards, with the exception of ammonia. These ammonia exceedances have been discussed in, previous FYR reports and the

14

continued evaluation of the pore water sampling data mentioned as it relates to GSI sampling results will help EPA to determine future actions, if necessary. Groundwater monitoring is following the procedures contained in the remedial action work plan and the Site O&M plan. The Site will meet all appropriate standards at the completion of the remedial action.

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

Answer: No

There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site that would impaet the protectiveness of the remedy. EPA determined in the 2009 FYR report that ammonia exceedances were not significant but identified the need for additional sampling in the Grand River. This has now been completed. EPA also determined in the previous FYR report that some of the ICs were not in place at the Site, and that this impacted the long-term proteetiveness of the remedy. ICs, in the form of access easements, are being finalized for the Site owners to record. Because these ICs are now in approvable format and only need property surveys to be completed consistent with the Michigan model, this should be completed by July 2014.

MDEQ had previously questioned the adequacy of the Site monitoring well network to monitor progress towards achieving ACLs in Site groundwater (but it did not raise the issue for this FYR report). EPA notes that the current groundwater monitoring system underwent extensive State review and was approved by MDEQ at the time of installation. Also, the GSI monitoring data are showing eonsistent results over time, confirming that the network is suitable for Site monitoring. Specifically, monitoring data has shown consistent ammonia concentrations in the GSI monitoring wells and, over the past several years, has shown decreasing concentrations at some of the GSI monitoring well locations. EPA and MDEQ vvdll work with the Settling Defendants to maintain an adequate monitoring network for the Site as necessary.

EPA and the City of Grand Rapids continue to discuss the potential for Site redevelopment. EPA completed a solar reuse assessment for redevelopment in November 2013 and provided the report to the City for their internal use and planning.

EPA previously approved an extension to an existing bike trail that utilizes the Site access roads for connection to the City bike trail network on the northwest and southeast sides of the Site. The construction of this trail extension was completed in December 2009 and this use is ongoing, as was observed during the May 2014 Site inspection.

Long-term proteetiveness of the remedial action will continue to be verified through groundwater and landfill cap monitoring. Continued monitoring of groundwater, and the completion of the Grand River pore water sampling data report and subsequent risk analysis, will help to determine any potential future actions regarding Site groundwater, including any action to address the exceedances of the ammonia ACL. Currently, these exceedances do not impact the protectiveness of the remedy.

15

V. Issues/Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Table 4: Issues/Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

1# Issue Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions Party Responsible Oversight Agency Milestone Date Affects Protectlveness? (Y/N) 1# Issue Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions Party Responsible Oversight Agency Milestone Date Current Future

(Site-ide)

Ammonia Exceedances

Evaluate the site-specific ACL for ammonia and update as needed.

Settling Defendants

EPA/ MDEQ

July 2015

N N

(Site-ide)

Effective ICs must be implemented, monitored, maintained, and enforced

Record restrictive covenants as access easements consistent with Michigan model, including annual certification

Site owners EPA/ MDEQ

July 2014

N Y

(Site-ide)

Potential for vapor intrusion in RTSB and neighboring properties due to methane detections

A VI survey using appropriate EPA guidance should be conducted to include an analysis for methane migration at the property boundary

Settling Defendants

EPA/ MDEQ

June 2015

N N

VI. Protectlveness Statement

The remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term because the remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements contained in the ROD and the BSD, the remedy continues to function as designed, and immediate threats have been addressed. To be protective of human health and the environment over the long term, effective ICs should be finalized and complied with, including maintenance and enforcement of the ICs and long-term stewardship, and a vapor intrusion (VI) study should be conducted in accordance with EPA guidance that includes an analysis of methane migration at the property boundary.

VII. Next Review

The next FYR report for the BL Site is required five years from the completion date of this review.

16

Appendix A

Site Chronology

'Date ^ Event.

12/82 Site proposed to the National Priorities List (NFL) 9/83 Site finalized to the NFL

7/90 Removal Action completed for approximately 1,100 tons of FCB-contaminated soil

9/92 ROD signed, calling for Act 641 landfill cap and the establishment of ACLs for groundwater 8/94 Remedial Investigation completed 2/98 Remedial design completed 10/98 BSD signed 12/98 BSD amended to call for groundwater-surface

water interface criteria as ACLs 5/99 BFA approval of RA workplan 6/99 BFA approval to begin RA construction 2/00 Phase 1 construction completed 9/00 • Phase 2 construction completed 9/04 First FYR completed 9/09 Second FYR completed 9/09 MDBQ GSI groundwater investigation 12/09 BFA approves change in landfill gas monitoring

frequency from weekly to monthly 1/09 City of Grand Rapids design charrette work

completed which assisted in creating and refining future Site redevelopment activities

2/09 BFA contractor review of City conceptual master plan

2/09

i

BFA contractor development of a draft review process for the Site to help future evaluation of reuse concepts for the Site

3/09 BFA receipt of BSG pore water sampling report 8/09 BFA receipt of data report summarizing MDBQ

GSI sampling 9/13 Skeo solar energy feasibility analysis 2/14 BFA comments on BSG pore water report 3/14 Initial meeting to discuss BFA comments on

BSG pore water report

17

II. Background

Physical Characteristics

The BL Site is located in Kent County, Michigan, about one mile southwest of downtown Grand Rapids. The Site is approximately 180 acres, and its approximate boundaries are the Grand River to the south. Interstate 196 to the west, Butterworth Street to the north, and a Consumers Power substation to the east. A combined storm water outfall crosses the Site from north to south. The Site is within the 100-year floodplain of the Grand River.

Land and Resource Use

The area immediately surrounding the Site is predominantly industrial. To the west of Interstate 196 are gypsum mining and processing facilities. Metal reeyeling facilities and the Consumers Power substation are located to the east. Across the Grand River is the Grand Rapids Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is permitted by the State of Michigan to discharge to the Grand River just south of the Site. Between Butterworth Street and the landfill are several light industrial facilities. To the north of Butterworth Street are a residential area, a ballpark, and a zoo.

The Site is owned by the City of Grand Rapids, with the exception of a utility corridor in the northeast portion of the Site and two relatively small areas that are privately owned, of which one is the location of a privately owned radio-broadcasting tower. Current site use is industrial, and there are discussions underway to determine appropriate future uses of the site. EPA is working with the City of Grand Rapids to develop appropriate end uses for the site property based on the level of cleanup provided by the remedy.

History of Contamination

The Site was operated by the City of Grand Rapids and used for both residential and industrial waste. Landfilling was performed in three general areas at the Site. Prior to 1967, the area to the east of the storm water outfall was used as a municipal landfill (Old Butterworth Dump or Butterworth #1). This portion of the Site was operated as an open landfill where daily cover of refuse was not provided. The City often burned the refuse to reduce its volume.

After the enactment of Michigan Act 87 in 1965, and consistent with the federal goal of eliminating open dumping, the City closed the Old Butterworth Dump around 1967 and opened a new fill area, Butterworth Landfill #2. This new area was situated in what is now the southwest comer of the Site.

An additional area, Butterworth #3, was subsequently opened. The combined size of Butterworth #2 and #3 was about 80 acres. Local residents and industries used these areas to dispose of waste. In addition, this area was allegedly used to dispose of liquid wastes such as solvents and paint sludges.

The landfill reportedly received municipal solid and industrial wastes, allegedly in drums, which were buried or simply dumped in liquid form on a working surface. Records indicate that from

18

1967-1971, about 3,000-4,000 yards of waste per day were received at the landfill. Initial Response

EPA placed the Site on the NFL in September 1983. In 1988, the surface soil/test pit assay conducted during the remedial investigation located a hot spot of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at levels of 800 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and total chromium at levels of 43,000 mg/kg. EPA initiated a removal action to remove this contamination, which was completed in June 1990. ^

Basis for Taking Action ^

Hazardous substances released at the Site in each medium include:

Soil

Arsenic Beryllium -7 Chromium Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCBs , Dieldrin

Groundwater

Antimony Arsenic 1,1, -dichloroethane Vinyl chloride Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate Ammonia Biological oxygen demand (BOD)

Exposure to soil and groundwater through inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact is associated with significant human health risks, due to exceedances of EPA's risk management criteria for either the average or reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. In groundwater, the compounds that caused 95 percent of the elevated risk levels were antimony, arsenic, 1,1-dichloroethane, vinyl chloride, bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate and PCBs. The contaminants in soil that caused 95 percent of the elevated risk levels were arsenic, beryllium, chromium, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs and dieldrin.

19

III. Remedial Actions

Remedy Selection

EPA signed a ROD for the Site on September 29, 1992. The remedial action objective (RAO) was to reduce contaminant migration into groundwater, surface water and air, and to prevent direct contact with contaminants. The hiajor components of the Site remedy include the following:

1. Removal of exposed drums containing hazardous materials, substances or waste, and disposal off-site at a permitted Subtitle C disposal facility;

2. hnprovement of Site cover to meet the Michigan solid waste cap requirements with the inclusion of a frost protection layer (Act 641);

3. Establishment of ACLs for groundwater;

4. Groundwater, surface water and sediment monitoring;

5. ICs to prevent future development of the landfill area and to prohibit the installation of groundwater water supply wells on the property; ^

6. Mitigation of wetlands; and,

7. Additional monitoring well installation

On October 23, 1998, EPA signed an ESD for the Site,~which it subsequently amended on December 24, 1998. As amended, the ESD provided that GSI criteria developed by MDEQ, would be the ACLs for the Site and changed the capping requirements in the RTSB area to a 12-inch soil cover. The 1998 ESD also replaced surface water, river sediments, and biological monitoring v«th GSI performance monitoring.

Remedy Implementation

The remedy was constructed in two phases by the Settling Defendants that, in 1999, had entered into a CD with the United States to resolve their CERCLA liability at the Site. The first phase included the following activities:

Installation and development of GSI monitoring wells Clearing and grubbing of the Site Sampling of GSI monitoring wells Site regrading Cap placement on the western side of the combined sewer overflow (CSO) ditch

20

The second phase included the following activities:

Cap placement on the eastern side of the CSO ditch Continued sampling of GSI monitoring wells Placement of a compacted soil layer over the RTSB area, immediately west of the CSO ditch Construction of Site access roads Installation of Site fencing Site seeding

The Site achieved construction completion status when EPA signed the PCOR on September 27, 2000.

EPA and MDEQ determined that all RA construction activities were performed in accordance with specifications. All of the contaminants in groundwater at the Site have achieved their respective ACLs, with the exception of ammonia. After all groundwater cleanup levels are met, EPA will issue a Final Closeout Report.

A chronology of significant events following remedy construction is as follows:

Date Event

December 2000 EPA approves change in landfill gas monitoring frequency from monthly to weekly

February 2001 On-site excavation to install new radio tower anchor exposes waste-Settling Defendants fix problem April 2001

March 2001 MDEQ changes final acute value (FAV) for vinyl chloride to 870 ppb, updating ACL for future GSI monitoring

January 2002 MDEQ changes FAV for manganese to 19,000 ppb, updating ACL for future GSI monitoring

February 2002 EPA approves change in landfill gas monitoring frequency from weekly to monthly

May 2002 City of Grand Rapids passes groundwater ordinance, restricting groundwater usage in Site areas, required as an IC under Site CD

September 2002 MDEQ changes FAV for barium to 7,100 ppb, updating ACL for future GSI monitoring November 2002 EPA approval to modify sampling program to

reduce the analytical requirements for sampling March 2003 EPA approves change in landfill gas monitoring

frequency from monthly to quarterly August 2003 MDEQ clarifies the ACL for BOD and cBOD

(FAV remains at 10 ppb)

21

September 2003 EPA approval for the reduetion in interval sampling for groundwater for a 2-year trial period

June 2007 Initial Region 5 bathymetric survey work to assist in design of pore water sampling program in Grand River

July 2007 EPA sediment eoring program in Grand River in advanee of pore water sampling

April 2008 Intrusive work in RTSB area for system upgrade. Cap penetrated by contractor and repaired by contractor under guidance of BSG

June 2008 Region 5 bathymetric river survey work eonfii Illation of previous results

July 2008 PRP pore water sampling of Grand River according to EPA approved workplan

September 2008 MDEQ sampling program of Site GSl wells January 2009 City of Grand Rapids design eharrette work

completed which will assist in creating and refining future Site redevelopment issues

February 2009 EPA contractor review of City conceptual master plan

February 2009 EPA contractor development of draft plan review process for Site to help future evaluation of reuse concepts for Site

August 2009 Receipt of data report by EPA summarizing MDEQ 2008 sampling

November 2009 Bike trail extension completed connecting western leg of existing bike trail to Consumer's Energy property to the east

November 2010 c

Weston groundwater sampling as contractor to MDEQ

July 2012 Grass fire on east side of landfill

22

APPENDIX B -Map, Data Table Figure 1 Site Map

L e&ENP

s - C30ST 0*5 KMIJ.NT AJ. C0N«UJ.1 ANT«

nmflMRmsneMoir msi BfTTIRICKM LMCni. 6RMC H

2013 AMiM. HCHTORMb REPORT

CSG^95iO

Table 5 Historical exceedances for ammonia during review period 2009-2013 Tabto2

Jufy ind October 2010 Excoodenco Reports Buttemorth LindflD, Grartd Rapids, Hichifian

fuaatera r.iwr ASl- SMDCBto' . 1 \ ' SawUDATt - . 1 RESULT 1 p' 'sooEEoeNn , JubfMW ^Jitroaen. Ammonia 2 G5M>2A 7/19/2010 — -^g ACL NUroqen. Ammonia mort. 2 GSk03A . 7/21/2010 66 ACL itilrooen. Ainmonia mo/L 2 GSb03A DUP 7/21/2010 5.8 ACL Nitrooen. Anvnofda tm- 2 GSI-10A 7/20^010 38 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mg/L 2 GSM OA OOP 7/20/2010 3.4 ACL Mitrooen. Ammonia mo/L 2 GSI-IIA 7^^0r20^0 35 ACL Nitrodtr). Ammonia mod. - 2 GSM7A 7/21/2010 . 13 ACL Nl'jooen. Ammonia mod. 2 GSb21A 7/20/2010 25 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mod. 2 GSI-22A 7/20/2010 21 ACL NiUDoen. Airmonia mod. 2 OSU23A 7/19/2010 61 ACL NitroQon. Ammonia mq/L 2 GSI-24A 7/19/2010 14 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mod. 2 GSb25A 7/I9/2O10 t4 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mod. ? r;5o-77A 7nflA0ie 43 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mod. 2 GSI-28A 7/19C010 19 ACL N.trooen. Ammonia rw/l. 2 GSI-28A DUP 7/19/2010 15 ACL Nitrooen, Ammonia mod. 2 .GSk29A 7/20/2010 3.5 ACL Nitroaen, Ammonia mod. 2 6SI-30A 7/20/2010 10 ACL Nttrboen. Ammonia Zl 2 . GSI-31A 7/20«010 8.7 ACL OsUibsr.atO.. . ' . . . J • ^ Nitroaen. Ammonia mqd. 2 0SM)2A 10/4/2010 66 ACL Nitroaen. Ammonto mad. 3 GSM)3A 10/7/2010 5 ACL NiOOQon, Ammonii OKd. 4 OSI-03ADUP • 10>7/2010 5.3 ACL Niroaen. Ammonia mad. 9 GSM OA 10/50010 B.9 ACL

mod. 6 GSM1A 1QAO01Q 52 ACL Ncrooen. Ammonia mod. 7 GSM7A ia«ooio 11 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mod. B CSblOA 10/6001Q 3 ACL Nitroaen. Ammonb mod. 9 GSt.20A 10/60010 6.4 ACL

mod. 10 GSI-21A 1G/50010 4.6 ACL NitroQca Ammonia mod. 11 GSI-22A 1Q/5/201Q 24 ACL Nitrooen, Ammonia mod. 12 GSI-23A 1Q/50010 7.5 ACL Nitrpoen. Ammonia moiL 13 GSb23ADUP 10/50010 9 ACL Nerooen. Ammonia mod. 14 GSI>24A 10/40010 14 ACL Nitroaen. Ammonia mod. 15 GSI-2M 10/40010 24 ACL N Itrofl enj^unmortla mod. 16 GSI-2aA 10/40010 24 ACL Nitrooen. Anvnonia mod. 17 GSI-27A lOMOOlO 73 -AL NArogen, Ammonia mod. 18 GSI-28A 10/4/2010 45 ACL Nitroaen. Ammonia mod. 19 -v. GSI-28ADUP 1IV4O0t0 51 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mod. 20 GSI-29A 1Q/50010 8.1 ACL Nitrooen, Ammonia mod. 21 GSk30A ia«2oio 19 ACL Nitrooen. Ammonia mod. 22 GSI-30AOUP 1Q«0010 23 ACL NHrooen. Ammonb 23 G5I-31A 1Q/50010 10 ACL

Table 5 (cont.) July 2011 Exceedance Report

Butterworth Landfill, Grand Rapids, Michigan

PARAMETER UNIT ACL SAMPLE ID SAMPLE DATE RESULT EXCEEDANCE

Nitrogen, Amnnonia mg/L 2 GSI-29A 07/19/11 3.5 ACL

Nitrogen, Ammonia mgA. 2 DUP-4 07/21/11 5.4 ACL

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSI-3A 07/21/11 6.3 ACL


Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 LHW-2 07/21/11 6.9 ACL

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 LHW-1 07/21/11 7.1 ACL



Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 DUP-3 07/20/11 9.3 ACL

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 Q3I-31A 07/20/11 9.4 ACL

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSI-17A 07/21/11 10 ACL


Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 DUP-1 07/18/11 12 ACL





Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 DUP-2 07/19/11 15 ACL



Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSI-27A 07/18/11 45 ^ ACL


25

Table 5 (cont.) November 2012 Exceedance Report

Butterworth Landfill - Grand Rapids, Michigan PARAMETER UNIT ACL SAMPLE ID SAMPLE DATE RESULT EXCEEDANCE

Arsenic ug/1 680 GSi-18A 11/13/12 710 ACL



Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSMOA 11/14/12 10 ACL


Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSi-16A 11/12/12 2.1 ACL





Nitr^en, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSi-23A 11/15/12 20 ACL

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSi-24A 11/15/12 14 ACL





Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2 GSi-29A 11/14/12 5.3 ACL




26

invironmental Protection Agency

Home Search Report My Sites Administration Logout Documentation^

Site : BUTTERWORTH #2 LANDFILL (MID062222997) Site Institutional Controls Summary

Published by Jamiel Dawson on 08/04/2008 Click To View

Exlended Suinnaiy Edit I Mode '

All Institutional Controls are Implemented at this Site: •

jUb Jjisky 10 Name Site ID Context CERCLIS ID Region Region Context State IC Required 0502576 BUTTERWORTH #2 LANDFILL MID062222997 05 Ml Yes

ID Name

2017 SITEWIDE

Area ID Area ID Context Subarea Media of

00 Operable Unit (5773) (5774) (2352, EPA Attomey) (2351, Remedial Project Manager)

Organization

ID Name Is Media Use Restriction Contaminated?

5773

5774

Ground Water

Soil

Yes

Yes

(3851) (3850) (3849)

(3853)

Objective

(4809) (4810)

(4819)

Engineering Control

ID Objective Purpose Description

4809 Prohibit Dermal Contact

4810 Prohibit Drinking of Groundwater

V:;B-tBStSS! Required from Decision

Document?

Yes

Yes

4819 Protect integrity of an Engineered No on-site excavation - ROD. Easement Remedy being finalized. Yes

Use Restriction

(3849)

(3850) (3851)

(3853)

Resources

(5060)

(5059) (5060)

(5059)

•USE RESTRICTION Ariri/Fdit/trieM,

ID Restriction Type

3849 Establish Ground Water Management Zone

3850 Prohibit ingestion Exposure

3851 Prohibit Ground Water Weil instaiiation/Construction

3853 Prohibit Any Activity that May Disturb the integrity of an Engineering Control

Description Resource (5059) (5060)

(5059) (5060)

(5059) (5060)

(5059)

Event

(5037) (5038)

(5037) (5038)

(5037) (5038)

(5037)

ffliesaSSiiSS ID Engineering Control Type Description Objective

://sems.epa.gov/sems/icts/documentFormCtrl.do[10/21/2013 12:15:18 PM]

Environmental Protection Agency

1046 Cap (4819)

ID 10 Document Class

Document Document Class Category

Class

Document Document Document Document Document Source Life Span Life Span Title ID

Conditions

Document ID Context

Event Sensitivity

Consent 5059 Enforcement Decree Enforcement

(CD)

5060 Instrument ordi^g^^ Local

6997 Monitoring Review Informational

7278 Instrument cwenS® P^°Prie«ary

Federal

Local

Federal

State

05: 150561

05: 27QQ66

SDMS ID -Superfund Document Management System ID




(5037) Public

(5038) Public

(6895)

(6896)

Restricted (Confidential)


ID Name

5037 CD

IC Event Class Event Type Actual Date Planned Date

Enforcement Document Issuance

5038

6896

6895

Local Ordinance

Restrictive Covenant

Five Year Review

, , , Document Implementation

implementation

.. ... Document Issuance

04-02-1999

06-21-2002

12-31-2009

09-23-2009

Individual

(2351, Remedial Project Manager) (2352, EPA Attorney)

(2351, Remedial Project Manager) (2352, EPA Attorney)

(2351, Remedial Project Manager) (2352, EPA Attomey)

Organization

(2412, Issuing/Implementing Organization)



Sensitivity


Public



INDIVIDUAL Add/ail/Pelele ID First Name Last Name 2351 Dion Novak 2352 Thomas Williams

Middle Initial Phone Number 312-886-4737 312-886-0814

Email Address [email protected] [email protected]

Organization (2412, Remedial Project Manager) (2412, Associate Regional Counsel)

|hRr;ANi7ATinM Addft^tilt/PfilRte, ID Organization Formal Name 2412 USEPA

Organization Type Federal Govemment

Phone Number Email Address Web Site

ID Comments 809

n

;://sems.epa.gov/sems/icts/documentFormCtrl do[10/21/2013 12:15:18 PM]

Environmental Proteclion Agency

EPA Home I Accessibility I Privacy and Security Notice I FQIA I NoFEAR Act I Contact Us Last updated on 8/21/2010

://sems.epa.gov/sems/icts/documentFormCtrl.do[ 10/21/2013 12:15:18 PM]

Institutional Controls for Butterworth #2 Landfill | US EPA Page 1 of 4

Institutional Controls

EPA Home > Suoerfund > Sites > Suoerfund Information Systems Institutional Controls Report for Butterworth #2 Landfill

Institutional Controls for Butterworth #2 Landfill CERCLIS ID: MID062222997

Institutional controls are required for this site. This site requires ICs because a decision document, such as a Record of Decision, has documented some level of contamination and/or remedy component at the site that would restrict use of the site. These ICs are required to help ensure the site is used in an appropriate way and that activities at the site do not damage the cleanup components. These ICs will remain in place for as long as the contamination and/or cleanup components stay on site. The matrix below is a general summary of the restrictions at this site at the date of this report. The information in this matrix is a general description of the restrictions at the site only. The following site contacts should be consulted if there are questions on the ICs for this site.

Site Contact(s):

Dion Novak, Remedial Project Manager Phone; 312-886-4737 Email: [email protected] Thomas Williams, Associate Regional Counsel Phone: 312-886-0814 Email: [email protected]

The following chart shows EPAs media-specific use restrictions and their corresponding Instruments that have been implemented by EPA for protecting human health, the environment and remedial engineering on this site. Instruments are documents used by EPA or other organizations to implement the use restrictions at a site. To know about other media-specific use restrictions that are planned but not implemented at this site, please contact the Regional Office using the Site Contact listed above. Note that where multiple entries occur, it will impact more than one pathway.

ICs are generally defined as administrative and legal tools that do not involve construction or physically changing the site. Common examples of ICs include site use and excavation restrictions put in place through State and local authorities like zoning, permits and easements. ICs are normally used when waste is left onsite and when there is a limit to the activities that can safely take place at the site (i.e., the site cannot support unlimited use and unrestricted exposure) and/or when cleanup components of the remedy remains onsite (e.g., landfill caps, pumping equipment or pipelines). Effective ICs help ensure that these sites can be returned to safe and beneficial use.

Disclaimer: This information is being provided by EPA as an informational tool to further

http;//www.epa.gov/ictssw07/public/export/05/MID062222997/MID062222997_report.H... 10/21/2013

http://www.epa.gov/ictssw07/public/export/05/MID062222997/MID062222997_report.H

Institutional Controls for Butterworth #2 Landfill I US EPA Page 2 of 4

assist the public in determining the types of restrictions that may be in place at National Priorities List sites being addressed by EPA under the Superfund program. In addition to the areas addressed by the institutionai controis identified on this web site there may be other areas on the property that require restrictions on use of the property that are not captured in this EPA database. States and other entities may have impiemented laws or restrictions appiicabie to this site. The information provided herein does not repiace a titie search or meet "Ail Appropriate Inquiry" requirements. U.S. EPA encourages users to review the Site files to obtain information regarding remedy components, containment systems and the iand use for which cleanup standards were selected for these sites. More information and links can be found on the site profiie page from which this page was accessed, and EPA regional offices may also be contacted.

Report generated on August 04, 2008

Collapse All

Media Where IC Applies (Multiple

entries where more than one

pathway Is impacted)

Restriction Type Instrument

B Ground Water

Establish Ground Water Management Zone Page 3. (1) Purpose and Intent. The City of Grand

Rapids has entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Environmentai Protection Agency concerning environmental remediation at the Butterworth Landfiil. A provision of that Consent Decree requires the City to enact an ordinance to prohibit the driliing or use of groundwater weils within approximately 700 feet of the east and west perimeter of the Landfiii, and within 200 feet of the north perimeter of the Landfiii, and between the Butterworth Landfiii and the Grand River along the south perimeter of the Landfiii. This restriction is needed in order to protect the pubiic from consumption and other contact with potentialiy hazardous contaminants which may be contained in water drawn from any such welis, and also to prevent the migration of any contaminated groundwater which may exist underneath or in the vicinity of the Landfiii, which may occur if groundwater is drawn from weils in ciose proximity to the Landfill. This section is intended to comply with that provision of the Consent Decree and, at the same time, protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents and occupants of property in close proximity to the Landfill. (3) Water Wells Prohibited. From and after the effective date of this ordinance, no person shail instali or use or ailow or permit or provide for the Instaliation or use of a groundwater weil on any affected premises within

http;//www.epa.gov/ictssw07/public/export/05/MID062222997/MlD062222997_report.H... 10/21/2013

http://www.epa.gov/ictssw07/public/export/05/MID062222997/MlD062222997_report.H

Institutional Controls for Butterworth #2 Landfill I US EPA Page 3 of 4

the Butterworth Landfill Restricted Zone.

Please Click Here to View Document Document Issuance, Impiementation June 21, 2002 [8 pages, 444.5Kb

Ground Prohibit Ingestion Water Exposure

Page 3. (1) Purpose and Intent. The City of Grand Rapids has entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Environmental Protection Agency concerning environmental remediation at the Butterworth Landfill. A provision of that Consent Decree requires the City to enact an ordinance to prohibit the drilling or use of groundwater wells within approximately 700 feet of the east and west perimeter of the Landfill, and within 200 feet of the north perimeter of the Landfill, and between the Butterworth Landfill and the Grand River along the south perimeter of the Landfill. This restriction is needed in order to protect the public from consumption and other contact with potentially hazardous contaminants which may be contained in water drawn from any such wells, and also to prevent the migration of any contaminated groundwater which may exist underneath or in the vicinity of the Landfill, which may occur if groundwater is drawn from wells in close proximity to the Landfill. This section is intended to comply with that provision of the Consent Decree and, at the same time, protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents and occupants of property in close proximity to the Landfill. (3) Water Weils Prohibited. From and after the effective date of this ordinance, no person shall install or use or allow or permit or provide for the Installation or use of a groundwater well on any affected premises within the Butterworth Landfill Restricted Zone.

Please Click Here to View Document Document Issuance, Implementation June 21, 2002 [8 pages, 444.5Kb About PDFl

Ground Prohibit Ground Water Water Weil

Installation/Construction

Page 3. (1) Purpose and Intent. The City of Grand Rapids has entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Environmental Protection Agency concerning environmental remediation at the Butterworth Landfill. A provision of that Consent Decree requires the City to enact an ordinance to prohibit the drilling or use of groundwater wells within approximately 700 feet of the east and west perimeter of the Landfill, and within 200 feet of the north perimeter of the Landfill, and between the

http;//\vww.epa.gov/ictssw07/public/export/05/MlD062222997/MlD062222997_report.H... 10/21/2013

Institutional Controls for Butterworth #2 Landfill | US EPA Page 4 of 4

Butterworth Landfill and the Grand River along the south perimeter of the Landfill. This restriction Is needed In order to protect the public from consumption and other contact with potentially hazardous contaminants which may be contained In water drawn from any such wells, and also to prevent the migration of any contaminated groundwater which may exist underneath or In the vicinity of the Landfill, which may occur If groundwater is drawn from wells In close proximity to the Landfill. This section Is intended to comply with that provision of the Consent Decree and, at the same time, protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents and occupants of property in close proximity to the Landfill. (3) Water Wells Prohibited. From and after the effective date of this ordinance, no person shall Install or use or allow or permit or provide for the Installation or use of a groundwater well on any affected premises within the Butterworth Landfill Restricted Zone.

Please Click Here to View Document Document Issuance, Implementation June 21, 2002 [8 pages, 444.5Kb About PDF1

[ Collapse All ]

http://www.epa.gOv/ictssw07/public/export/05/MID062222997/MID062222997_report.H... 10/21/2013

http://www.epa.gOv/ictssw07/public/export/05/MID062222997/MID062222997_report.H

Jovak^ Dion

Tom: Eleder, Bonnie lent: Friday, June 13, 2014 3:10 PM "o: ^ Novak, Dion Jc: Eleder, Bonnie; Prendiville, Timothy; Adier, Kevn; Short, Thomas; Frey, Rebecca lubject: FYR Coordinator sign off for: Butterworth Landfill #2 5-Year Review attachments: BLECMTSbworth3rdFiveYearReviewReportv2djn61214kb.doc

li Dion,

"hank you for sending me the sign-off package for the Butterworth Landfill #2 5-Year Review (FYR) via emails dated i/13/2014, and which included the FYR Report, Superfund Indicators Consistency Checklist, and both environmental idicators worksheets (Els). I have attached a marked up version of the main tx)dy of the FYR Report with a few Bvisions and formatting items identified. Due to the size of the document, I deleted the Appendices and photos for the ttachment.

Vith these addressed as appropriate, via this email I am signing off as the FYR Coordinator on the FYR sign-off package, "he Els were signed off via a separate email.

lease include a copy of this email as my formal FYR Coordinator "sign-off' in the FYR sign-off package.

hank you, onnie ********************* onnie L. Eleder YR/EI/SWRAU Coordinator

[legion: ^ State: M ( EPA ID: Site Name: i>o (^o Q nd// M \Q062-2.2.Z'?^-7

Human Exposure Evaluation Flowchart

3 . Are there Complete Human Exposure pathways between contaminated ground water, soil, surface water, sediment, or air media and human receptors such that exposures can

be reasonably expected under current conditions? v/

Response: ' Reference:

Sufficient data date:

Yes

2. Have all long-term human exposure-related cleanup goals been met for the entire site?

Response: ^

Reference: ^ ^ '20l ̂ Py

2. Have all long-term human exposure-related cleanup goals been met for the entire site?

Response: ^

Reference: ^ ^ '20l ̂ Py

Current Human Exposures Under

Control and Long-Term Human

Health Protection Achieved (HHPA)

Resulting Current Human Exposure Determination:

Section Chief Signature Date

EI Coordinator Initials, Da;te

No

i

Yes 5. Is the site Construction Complete, is the remedy

operating as intended, and are engineering and institutional controls (if required), in place and

effective?

Response: ~ Reference: ^ SV^j FY0^

A iLUiWltCHUh fl

If one or more criteria from Step 5 are not

met

Current Human Exposures Not Under Control

(HENC)^ Under Control date:

Current Human Exposures Under Control (HEUC)

Current Human Exposures Under

Control and Protective

Remedies in Place (HEPR)

Region: 5 State: Site Name and EPA ID: / / M ( V OG Z2.Z2.

Estimated Under Control or Sufficient Data Date: eon^c;|

RPM:. Kkiat /^r>^ 5-P I^ Section Chief: Ik. El Coord.:.

Superfund Migration of Contaminated Ground Water Under Control

Worksheet

Definition: Is the migration of contaminated ground water being controlled througfi engineered or natural processes?

Q. Does tfie site currently have contaminated ground water or did site conditions warrant EPA's investigation or remediation of ground water contamination in the past?

Insufficient Data/No

insufficient Data .

Stept. Based on the most current data oiTdiS^site. has all available relevant/ significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to ground water been considered in this determination? I PV

List Reference Document(s): a(\m\ • OiMphirs hj")' ' ' step 2. Is ground water known or reasonably suspected to be 'contaminated" above appropriately protective risk-based 'levels' (applicable promulgated standards, as well as other appropriate standards, guidelines, or criteria) as a result of a release fromthesite? -2-0^ 2-

Superfund Site Indicators Consistency Checklist

This Indicators Consistency Checklist serves to promote consistency among various indicators in the Superfund Remedial Program. It should be used as a tool and as guidance for understanding Indicators for ail Final NPL, Deleted NFL, Proposed NFL and SAS sites.

' The Checklist should be completed/updated whenever there is an initial determination or update on the following: Current Human Exposure Environmental Indicator, Contaminated Groundwater Migration Environmental Indicator, Site-Wide Ready for Anticipate Use, or Cross Program Revitalization Measure.

This Checklist should be reviewed and updated as appropriate as your site project develops, including at such milestones as: Record of Decision, ROD Amendment, Explanation of Significant Differences^ Remedial Design, Preliminary Construction Completion, Final Construction Completion, Institutional Controls implementation, and Five Year Review (FYR) determinations, including FYR amendments.

The Checklist should be submitted as part of the signroff package for the Superfund Division for all Five Year Reviews and Five Year Review Amendments.

Environmental Indicators: Determinations are Site-Wide.

Scope of Indicator: Environmental Indicator Determinations are required at Final NPL, Proposed NPL, and Superfund Alternative sites.

HUMAN EXPOSURE

If the Human Exposure determination for this site is:

_ Current Human Exposures Not Controlled

Then: The FYR protectiveness statement for at least one portion of the remedy must be remedy is not protective. Jhe site cannot be Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use.


insufficient Data

Then: The FYR protectiveness statement for at least one portion of the remedy must be protectiveness cannot be determined until further infomiation is obtained. The site cannot be Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use.

If tl^ Human Exposure determination for this site is:

_y Current Human Exposures Controiied

Then: The FYR protectiveness statement for all of the site remedy operable units must be remedy is protective in the short term. -The site cannot be Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use.


Current Human Exposure Controiled and Protective Remedy in Place (Construction Compiete, remedy operating as intended, ICs in place and effective)

Then: , ; The FYR protectiveness statement for all of the site remedy operable units must be remedy is protective in the short term and is expected to be protective in the iong term. ICs must be in piace and effective for the entire site. The sHe may be Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use.

If the Human Exposure determination for this site is ~ Long-Term Human Health Protection Achieved (ail human exposure-related cleanup goals met for the

entire site)

Then: FYR protectiveness statement for ali of the site remedy operable units must be remedy is protective (in the short term and the long term). ICs rpust be in place and effective for the entire site. The site may be Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use.

CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER MIGRATION

If the Contaminated Groundwater Migration determination for this site is:

Contaminated Groundwater Migration Not Under Control

Insufficient Data

/ v Contaminated Groundwater Migration Under Control

The Contaminated Groundwater Migration Environmental Indicator does not have a direct bearing on the FYR protectiveness statement or the Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use indicator unless:

• There are current human exposures to the contaminated groundwater. Then the FYR protectiveness statement must be that the remedy is not protective in the short of long term and the Human Exposure Environmental Indicator should be Current Human Exposures Not Controlled. The site is then also not Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. ^

• There are reasonably anticipated future human exposures to the contaminated groundwater. Then the FYR statement must be that the remedy is not protective in the'long term (at least - there may be other site-specific reasons why the remedy may not be protective in the short term), unless ICs that will prevent future exposure to the contaminated groundwater are in place and effective. If there are reasonably anticipated future human exposures to contaminated groundwater and no effective ICs in place, then the Human Exposure Environmental Indicator cannot be Current Human Exposure Controlled and Protective, Remedy in Place or Long-Term Human Health Protection Achieved, and the site is not Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use.

Institutional Controls:

Scope of ICs: ICs are required as determined by site decision document(s) and current evaluation. ICs may apply site-wide or for distinct parcels of land, and are not necessarily based on operable unit. In order for ICs to

2

be considered In place and effective the following must be met (check all that apply):

the ICs cover all physical areas that do not support unlimited use/unrestricted exposure (UU/UE) and the ICs physical description of the non-UU/UE areas are accurate based on current conditions for the entire site (e.g., groundwater ordinance covers the ehtire plume area, legal description of cap in restrictive covenant has been mapped or undergone other verification);

all needed land use restrictions/objectives are stated in and covered by the IC; ^title work shows recording and that no other existing property rights will interfere with the site remedy or

cause undue exposure (for restrictive covenants and other proprietary controls only), ^there is current compliance with the land use restriction determined by a recent inspection; and ^further compliance with the restrictions is expected because: (1) there is a legal basis for enforcing the use

restriction against current and future owners; or (2) ORG. and Superfund Program Branch Chiefs concur that the totality of the circumstances support the expectation of future compliance with restrictions.

IF: . ' ICs are NOT required based on site decision document(s) and the site is cleaned up to UU/UE;

THEN: The site may be Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. The site HE El should be Long Term Human Health Protection Achieved. The site FYR protectiveness statements should be protective in the short-term and protective in the long-tenv.

IF: " ICs are NOT required based on site decision document(s) and the site is not cleaned up to UU/UE;

THEN: The site is not Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. The site Human Exposure Environmental Indicator may be Current Human Exposures Not Controlled, Insufficient Data, Current Human Exposures Controlled, or Current Human Exposures Controlled/Protective Remedy in Place. The site Human Exposure Environmental Indicator may not be Long Term Human Health Protection Achieved. The site FYR protectiveness statements may be protective in the short term and must be not protective,in the long term.

IF: " V ICs are required based on site decision document(s) but are NOT in place and/or effective; THEN: The site is not Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. The sjte Human Exposure Environmental Indicator may be Current Human Exposures Not Controlled, Insufficient Data, or Current Human Exposures Controlled. The site Human Exposure Environmental Indicator may not be Current Human Exposures Controlled/Protective Remedy in Place or Long Term Human Health Protection Achieved. The site FYR protectiveness statements may be protective in the short term and must be not protective in the long term.

IF: ICs are required based on site decision document(s) and are in place and effective;

THEN: The site may be Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. The site HE El may be any of the five categorizations. The site FYR protectiveness statements may be protective in the short term and may be protective in the long term.

IF: ICs are required based on current evaluation, but are not properly documented In a decision document and

not in place and effective; THEN: The site is not Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. The site HE El may be any of the five categorizations. The site FYR protectiveness statements may be protective in the short term and must not be protective in the 'long term. The need for ICs should be properly documented in the site record as soon as possible.

IF: ICs are required based on current evaluation, but are not properly documented in a decision document, and

are in place and effective; THEN: The site may be Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. The site HE El may be any of the five categorizations. The site FYR protectiveness statements may be protective in the short term and may be protective in the long term. The need for ICs should be properly documented in the site record as soon as possible.

other, please explain

Five Year Review Protectiveness Statements: Determinations are made for eaeh Operable Unit Remedy. • ^ '

Scope of FYRs: FYR are required at sites where a remedial action was selected pdst-SARA, and the remedial action leaves hazardous substances on site above health-based limits under one or more land use scenario{s),; FYRs are also conducted at sites: (1) where a remedial action was selected pre-SARA, and the remedial action leaves hazardous substances on site above health-based limits under one or more land use scenario(s) and (2) where the remedial action is anticipated to take a long time (over 20 years) to reach the cleanup goals which will then allow unlimited use and unrestricted access.

FYR protectiveness statements are specific to an operable unit remedy. If there are multiple operable unit remedies at a site, there may be different FYR protectiveness statements for each operable unit remedy. In cases where there are different protectiveness statements for different operable unit.remedies at a site, the least protective" protectiveness statement in a FYR dictates the protectiveness of the site-wide Human Exposure El determination. Considering the "least protective" protectiveness statement in the FYR...

If the FYR protectiveness statement is:

Remedy is protective

Then the site is considered protective in the short term and protective in the long term. The site must be categorized as Long Term Human Health Protection Achieved. The site may be Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. If ICs are heeded, they are in place and effective as documented by the 10 checklist beginning on page 2.


Remedy will be protective once the remedy is complete, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled...

Then the site is considered protective in the short term and not considered protective in the long term. The site must be categorized as Cuirent Human Exposures Controlled or Current Human Exposures Controlled -Protective Remedy in Place. If ICs are needed, they may be in place and effective, as documented by the IC checklist beginning on page 2; and the site may be Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use.

If the FYR protectiveness statement is: ^

X Remedy is protective in the short-term, however, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions need to be taken...

Then the site is considered protective in the short tenv and is not considered protective in the long term. The site must be categorized as Current Human Exposures Controlled or Current Human Exposures Controlled-Protective Remedy in Place. If ICs are needed, they may be in place and effective, as documented by the IC checklist beginning on page 2; and the site may be Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use.


Remedy is not protective, unless the f