WESTON LETTER RE: WORK PLAN MEMORANDUM, HEALTH & … · 100 CORPORATE NORTH. SUITE 101 ROUTE 22 AND LAKESIDE DRIVE BANNOCKBURN. ILLINOIS 60015 (312)295-6020 MANAGERS DeSGNERS/CONSULTANTS

100 CORPORATE NORTH. SUITE 101ROUTE 22 AND LAKESIDE DRIVEBANNOCKBURN. ILLINOIS 60015(312)295-6020

MANAGERS DeSGNERS/CONSULTANTS

206682

21 October 1988

Ms. Angela PorterU.S. EPA Region V (5HS-11)230 S. Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Subject: Grand Traverse Overall SupplyCompany (GTOS) Site, MI/-REM II Work Assignment No. 391-5L3G

Dear Ms. Porter:

Per our recent telephone conversation, I am enclosing a boundcopy of a document containing the following items:

(1) Work Plan Memorandum;

(2) Health and Safety Plan for Initial Site Visit;

(3) ICF Technology's input for community relationstasks;

(4) Clement Associates, Inc.'s input for riskassessment tasks; and,

(5) 60% complete work plan - unedited, unreviewed,working copy of the work plan.

Since the work assignment was stopped abruptly, the submitteddocuments are incomplete. We understand that you need a copyof this document for files only to close the REM II workassignment, and there will not be any distribution of thisdocument. We request you to exercise extra precaution inhandling this document to prevent its use as a finaldeliverable by mistake or its use in planning any futureactivities on the site.

C0832

Ms. Angela Porter -2- 21 October 1988

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

Very truly yours,

ROY F. WESTON, INC.

Bakulesh H. Khara, P.E.Project Manager

BHK:kte

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Doug Ballotti, EPA Region V w/o Encl.Mr. J.W. Thorsen, WESTON w/o Encl.Mr. J.M. Burton, WESTON w/o Encl.

C0832

BAKULESH H. KHARA, P.E.

Registration

Registered Professional Engineer in the states of California(Civil Engineer), Florida, Illinois, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Fields of Competence

Project engineering and management in hazardous waste/water/wastewater field. Areas of expertise include investiga-tions, studies, design, construction and operation of waterand wastewater facilities. Remedial investigations andfeasibility studies for hazardous wastes sites. RCRA andCERCLA compliance evaluations and inspections. Regulationsand permitting.

Experience Summary

More than 12 years of engineering and project managementexperience in environmental engineering field, includingspecific experience in:

Hazardous Waste Management - All aspects of RCRA/CERCLAcompliance, including facility investigations, conceptengineering, feasibility studies, remedial actionprograms and designs, and permitting.

Water and Wastewater Field - Design experience includesconceptual design, process selection, plans andspecifications, bidding documents, equipment evaluationand selection, plant hydraulics, and cost estimates.Construction experience include constructionmanagement, field inspection, troubleshooting duringconstruction, plant start-up assistance, operation andmaintenance manual. Worked on treatment plants,pumping stations, and pipelines.

Project Management - Managed projects using multi-disci-plinary staff including architectural, structural,process, electrical, mechanical, instrumentation, andcivil engineering. Experience include manpower alloca-tion, scheduling, budget control, QA/QC, and coordina-tion with various entities involved in a project.

Credentials

B.E., Civil Engineering - University of Bombay, India (1972)M.S.C.E., Environmental Engineering - Texas Tech University

(1975)Diplomate, American Academy of Environmental EngineersAmerican Society of Civil EngineersWater Pollution Control Federation

American Water Works AssociationChi Epsilon, Civil Engineering Honor SocietyPhi Kappa Phi, National Interdisciplinary Honor Society

Employment History

1987 - Present WESTON1978 - 1987 PRC Engineering1975 - 1978 Greeley and Hansen Engineers1973 - 1975 Texas Tech University1972 - 1973 Central Public Works Department, India

Key Projects

Project Manager for a major national contract with U.S. EPA.Provided technical assistance for enforcement actions atmore than 60 hazardous waste sites. Work involved review ofdocuments such as closure plans, remedial investigations,feasibility studies, engineering designs for landfills,comprehensive groundwater monitoring evaluations, oversightof RI/FS, compliance inspections, and responsible partysearches. Work included both CERCLA and RCRA-relatedenforcement actions.

Designed a groundwater remediation program for an industrialclient in Michigan. The program included design andoperation of a pilot plant and design of a full-scale plantinvolving groundwater collection, treatment and recharge,and flushing the site with treated groundwater.

Designed a french drain trench system to intercept, collect,and contain groundwater from an industrial site in Illinois.

Project Manager for construction services for a 7.5 MGDsecondary WWTP, a 8 MGD tertiary WWTP, and various sewerprojects (6"-54" size) for a municipal client in Illinois.

Project Manager for sludge management studies for a 8 MGDWWTP in Iowa and a 64 MGD WWTP in Pennsylvania.

Project Manager for design and specifications for a 3 MGDexpansion and improvements for a WWTP in Illinois; and foradditions to a 64 MGD WWTP in Pennsylvania. Treatment unitsincluded clarifiers, aeration tanks, anaerobic digesters,sludge thickeners and dewatering systems, tertiary filters,nitrification towers, chlorination systems, grit removalsystems, and pumping stations.

Resident Engineer for a two-mile long 60" water main for awater authority in Illinois.

Studied alternative river level control structures topromote recharge of groundwater aquifer for a city in SouthDakota.

Conducted a NPDES permit studies for combined sewer over-flows for a county in New York.

Conducted a study of dissolved oxygen depletion in a 15-milelong effluent outfall pipeline for a city in Georgia.

Publications

Thomsen, Kurt 0., Bakulesh H. Khara, A.A. Aguwa, "ACollection/Treatment/Recharge/Flushing Groundwater Remedia-tion Program," 7th National Superfund Conference, HMCRI,December 1986.

Khara, Bakulesh H., "Utilization and Disposal of Residuefrom the Partial Oxidation of Cattle Manure," UnpublishedMasters Thesis, Texas Tech University, June 1975.

Kurt Stimpson


Characterization, hazard assessment and developmentof cleanup scopes of work for uncontrolled hazardouswastes sites. Implementation and supervision of hazar-dous waste si te cleanups. Personnel safety and con-tingency planning for emergency and remedial cleanupsof hazardous materials. Design and implementation ofextent-of-contamination studies for air. soil, surface andgroundwater.

P ro jec t des ign , i n i t i a t i o n and management ofmultidisciplmary aquatic ecological studies. Aquaticassessments, impact and monitoring studies of pointand nonpoint discharges. Habitat evaluations and pollu-tion ecology of aquatic and terrestr ial assemblages.Taxonomy and ecology of macroinvertebrates and f ish.

Experience Summary

Twelve years experience in managing multidisciplmarys t a f f s in the environmental consult ing industry. Super-vised and managed a 28-member s ta f f of engineers,geologists, chemists, and biologists in oil and hazar-dous material spill response, assessment, remedialdesign, and cleanup implementat ion. Supervisedassessments at over 125 hazardous waste sites in sup-port of U.S. EPA Emergency Response and Removal Pro-gram in Region V. Supervised the design and comple-tion of 17 major hazardous waste site cleanup actionsincluding 12 National Priority List sites.

Exper ience in scoping and supervis ing surfacecleanups of abandoned drum dumps, open lagoons,bulk tanks, closed and covered landfil ls, contaminatedsoils and groundwater. Supervised and reviewed safetyprocedures during site assessments and hazardousmaterial cleanups including personnel protection,decontamination procedures, and air monitoring usingdirect read-out instrumentat ion.

Conducted, reviewed, and managed aquatic studies forgovernment and industry. Studies were instituted formajor ut i l i t ies, pulp and paper mills, mining interests,and government agencies throughout the Midwest andnortheastern U.S. Sites, including: each of the St.Lawrence Great Lakes and the Illinois. Hudson, Ohio,Minnesota. Mississippi. Missouri and Susquehanna

Rivers and several small inland lakes, reservoirs andstreams. Responsible for study design. qua: i t yassurance/quality control, s tat is t ical applications andtechnical/editor ial report review.

Referee for several professional journals in the f ield offishery and aquatic ecology. Prepared over 100 technicalreports and published several papers and reviews forrefereed journals.

CredentialsB.Sc., Biology/Conservation — Eastern Michigan Univer-si ty (1971)

M.S.. Biology—Eastern Michigan University (1973)

American Fisheries Society

North American Benthological Society

ASTM Macroinvertebrate Methods Section Committee

7th Annual Madison Waste Conference

Hazardous Materials Control Research Ins t i tu te

Employment HistoryWESTON

Ecological Analys ts ( fo rmer lyHazleton Environmental Sciences:

U.S. Fish and Wildl i fe Service

McNamee. Porter and SeeleyConsulting Engineers

1982-Present

1973-1982

1972-1973

1967-1972

Key Projects

Designed, estimated, and supervised cleanup of a four -acre NPL site contaminated through historic dumpingof PCB-laden capacitors. Scope of work includedremoval and disposal of surface materials, extent -o f -contamination studies and installation of a clay cap

Designed and estimated cleanup of a NPL site contain-ing two lagoons contaminated with high concentrat ionsof various organic priority pollutants, 2,000 drums, con-taminated soils, bulk tanks, and scrubber ash. Totalsurface removal was completed in approximately ninemonths at a cost of $2.2 million.

Professional Profile9/85

Supervised a fast track design of an induced flowmethane recovery system for a closed and covered In-dustrial landfill. The project was undertaken as a resultof explosive concentrations of methane in nearbyresidences and was completed within one month.

Supervised the design, implementation, and completionof a $1.8 million CERCLA removal addressing 65,000burned drums, 12 bulk tanks, an 800-cu.-yd. sludge pit,and ccntaminated soils on a seven-acre NPL site.

Coordinated design and installation of a granularactivated carbon treatment system on a municipal wellcontaminated with TCE. System was designed and in-stalled within one month and successfully treated 1.5MGD for a period of six months.

Conducted over 50 oil spill prevention inspections in ac-cordance with 40 CFR 112 and provided on-site directionin the cleanup of two large oil spills in West Virginia.

Managed multidisciplinary aquatic impact studies atfour power plants in upstate New York.

Managed habitat evaluation studies for U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, St. Paul District, for use in impact assess-ment of Corps-built navigation channel maintenancestructures throughout the Upper Mississippi River.

Conducted highway corridor selection and impactassessment for CSAH 18 near Minneapolis, Minnesota;involved aquatic and wetlands surveys of several prairiepothold lakes for all biotic groups.

Conducted baseline monitoring studies of benthicmacroinvertebrate populations near a 2,100-MWEnuclear generating faci l i ty on Lake Michigan.

Conducted and prepared an environmental report forsiting two fossil-fueled generating stations on the Hud-son River, New York, and Lake Ontario, New York.

Conduc ted a b io log ica l s u r v e y of T r i b u t a r y5A-Onondaga County, New York, and prepareddocuments that led to state reclassification of thestream's use for a major chemical company

Conducted monitoring studies for winter navigation im-pact on the biota and habitats of the St. Mary's Rivernear Sauit Ste. Marie, Michigan.

Publications

DeLibero, F., K.S. Stimpson, "Multivariate Plotting inCommunity Analysis." Titles and Abstracts of Papers ofthe 24th Annual Meeting of the North American Ben-thological Society, 1976.

Geers, D.F., and K.S. Stimpson, "A comparative ex-amination of Paranais litoralis and variant forms ofPiguetiella michiganensis and Uncinais uncinata(Oligochaeta: Naididatae)." Paper presented at the Nor-theast Symposium on Benthic Biology, Colgate Univer-sity, Hamilton, New York, August 7-9, 1980.

Stimpson, K.S., J.R. Brice, M.T. Barbourand P.H. Howe,"In-shore Oligochaetes of Western Lake Michigan."Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 94(3):384-394, 1975.

Stimpson, K.S., J.K. Hiltunen and D.J. Klemm, "A guideto the freshwater Tubificidae (Annelida:Clitellata:Ogligochaeta) of North America." USEPA EMSL ReportNo. 600/3-82-003, 1982.

Stimpson, K.S., S.D. Springer and R. Lillich, "Bennett'sQuarry: A Case Study of an Immediate Removal of PCSWastes under Superfund." Proceedings, Seventh An-nual Madison Waste Conference. September 10-12,1984.

Edward A. Need, P.G.

Certification

Cert i f ied Professional Geologist in the State of Indiana;American Inst i tute of Professional Geologists.


Hydrogeologic studies; si te characterization of uncon-trolled hazardous waste facilit ies; groundwater monitor-ing programs for RCRA permitt ing; environmental com-pliance audits: remedial investigation planning: projectmanagement: assessment of organic and inorganicgroundwater contamination, evaluation of site suitabilityand permitt ing for sol id and hazardous waste landfi l ls;interpretat ion of geologic and hydrogeologic conditionsrelat ive to c iv i l engineering and construction projects,environmental sampling of groundwater, surface water,soil and sediment.

Experience Summary

S ix yea rs o f p r o f e s s i o n a l exper ience invo lv inggeological and hydrogeological aspects of environmen-tal and engineering problems with emphasis in CERCLAinvestigations, RCRA permitting and glacial geology.Responsibilities have included project management,geosciences s ta f f management, investigation planning;cost and schedule development and control; f ieldmanagement of monitoring well installation and en-vironmental sampling: monitoring well network design;site evaluation; and remedial action development. Proj-ects have involved uncontrolled and/or abandonedwaste sites: RCRA-regulated facilities with surface im-poundments and landfills; and contamination of soiland groundwater from wastes of wood treating, metalf i n i s h i n g , cement manu fac tu re , pe t rochemica l ,agricultural supply and foundry industries.

Credentials

B.A.. Geology—Williams College (1978)

M.S.. Geology —Universi ty of Wisconsin, Madison (1980)

M.S.. Water Resources Management —University ofWisconsin. Madison (1981)

American Insti tute of Professional Geologists

Geological Society of America

Associat ion of Groundwater Scient is ts and Engi- i

American Quaternary Associat ion

Employment History

1984-Present WESTON

1981-1984

1980-1981

Key Projects

D'Appolonia Consulting EngmInc./D'Appolonia Waste Manament Services. Inc.

Wisconsin Geological and Na'History Survey

Geosciences Manager in regional o f f i ce respons : •s t a f f of nine hydrogeologists, g e o l o g i s ' -geophysic is ts with respect to professional o •ment. pro ject assignments, technical performa" •qual i ty control for projects involving CERCLAves t i ga t i ons , RCRA permit t ing and grou r : • • •monitoring, and solid waste landfi l l permit t ing

Project Hydrogeologist and'Pr incipal Invest ig i ' -CERCLA site investigation at abandoned m..landfi l l adjacent to major river in north centraut i l iz ing geophysics, landf i l l gas surveys. rno~ 'wells and environmental sampling.

Pro ject Hydrogeologist and Principal Invest iga 'CERCLA site invest igat ion at closed liquid was ' - •ment and incineration faci l i ty in southwestern C'volvmg complex glacial stratigraphy and multiple p>groundwater system, and on-site managementperson f ield invest igat ion team performing a wide •of environmental sampling activities.

Project Hydrogeologist and Project Manager 'vestigation of possible groundwater contammaimajor alluvial aquifer from uncontrolled release c'centrated liquid ferti l izer, including setup of a sn-.-is i te laboratory, and training of plant staf f in labc\.operations and groundwater sampling; also -.r,negotiation assistance for development of a-ministrative consent order.


Project Hydrogeologist on mult idiscipl inary en-vironmental audit team for inspection of a cellophanemanufacturing faci l i ty which documented compliancewith exist ing regulations but also a relatively highpotential for future groundwater contamination due toinadequate spill-control structures in organic and in-organic chemical bulk storage areas.

Project Hydrogeologist for preparation of groundwatermonitoring section of PCRA Part B permit application aturanium hexa-f luoride processing faci l i ty adjacent to amajor river in southern Illinois, involving issues ofmonitoring seasonally perched water tables and the ef-fects of temporary groundwater flow reversals causedby flood stages in the river on the performance of thegroundwater monitoring system.

Project Geologist and Project Manager for investigationof heaving problems caused by interaction of clay soilsand spilled caustic soda at major chemical manufactur-ing faci l i ty.

Project Hydrogeologist for investigation of surface andgroundwater contamination resulting from disposal ofcement kiln dust in an abandoned, water-f i l led quarry.

Project Hydrogeologist on project involving extensivecontamination of shallow drinking water supply withvolatile organic solvents, requiring interaction withpublic interest organizations and state agencies (health,regulatory, scientific and legal).

Project Hydrogeologist for comprehensive study of soiland groundwater contamination at site of former wood-treating operation including investigation, feasibilityand remedial action design.

Project Geologist on multi-firm geotechnical engineer-ing team, responsible for evaluating glacial and

postglacial soil material with respect to feasibi l i ty ofCSO sewer construct ion and WWTP lake f i l l expansion

Publications

Need, E.A. and Costello, M.J., Hydrogeologic Aspec ts ofSlurry Wall Isolation Systems in Areas of HighDownward Gradients, in Proceedings of the fourth Na-tional Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restora-tion and Groundwater Monitoring. National Water WeilAssociation, Columbus. Ohio. 1984.

Schneider, A.F. and Need, E.A., "Lithologic andStratigraphic Evidence for a Late Mid-Woodfordian Proglacial Lake in the Lake Michigan Basin." GeologicalSociety of America Abstracts Vol. 15, No. 6, p. 680. 1983

Need, E.A.. "The Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Lowe'Milwaukee and Menomonee River Valleys. Milwaukee.Wisconsin." Lake Pleistocene History of SoutheasternWisconsin, Mickelson, D.M. and L. Clayton, eds.. Geos-cience Wisconsin, Vol. 7. pp. 24-42. 1983

Costello, M.J., Scherzer, D., Need, E.A., "Foundry Was teand its Reuse for Construction." Sixth Annual MadisonConference of Applied Research and Practice onMunicipal and Industrial Waste. Engineering and A-plied Science. University of Wisconsin ExtensionMadison, Wisconsin, 1983.

Need, E.A., Johnson, M.D.. and Mickelson, D.M.. TStratigraphy and Glacial History Along the Westp-Shorel ine of Wisconsin 's Bayf ie ld Pemnsi/îGeological Society of America Abstracts, Vol. 13. Nc -p. 311, 1981.

P. Krishnan, Ph.D., P.E.

Registration

Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Penn-sylvania.


Process/project engineering and management with em-phasis on industrial wastewater treatment and sludgedisposal and hazardous waste management and control.Areas of expert ise include problem definition surveysand wastewater characterization, laboratory/pilot scaletreatabi l i ty studies, process design of physical,chemical and biological treatment, sludge handling anddisposal and heavy metals removal, and environmentalpermitt ing.

Experience Summary

Sixteen years professional experience in various areasof environmental engineering related to industrialwastewater treatment. Project assignments covered awide range of industry: pulp and paper; petroleum refin-ing; pe t rochemica ls ; o rgan ic and intermediatechemicals; metals f inishing; sugar refining; edible oilrefining; tex t i le mills; automotive industry; gasoholmanufacturing; steel mills including coke manufactur-ing, coal gasif icat ion; paints and resins; steam and elec-tr ic power generation.

Credentials

B.E.. Civil Engineering—University of Madras, India

M.SC., Public Health Engineering —Universi ty ofMadras. India

Ph.D., Environmental Engineering —Oklahoma StateUniversity

Water Pollution Control Federation

American Academy of Environmental Engineers

Honors and Awards

Recipient of Willem Rudolfs medal for outstanding con-tribution in industrial waste control.

Employment History

1982-Present

1979-1982

1977-1979

1967-1977

Key Projects

WESTON

Davy McKee Corporation

Harza Engineering Company

WESTON

Planning and execution of pilot scale treatabil i tystudies, using sandfi lter-activated carbon and pilotscale evaluation of two stage centrifugation, for sludgedewatering and oil recovery for a petroleum refiningcomplex located in Marcus Hook, PA. Resulted indesign and construction of sandfi lter-activated carbonadsorption faci l i t ies.

Planning and execution of a 5-year wastewater surveyfor es tab l i shment o f was te load a l locat ion forwastewater discharge to the Delaware River, and evalua-tion of m-plant modifications for waste load reductionto achieve compliance with the existing dischargeregulations for a sugar refinery located in Philadelphia,PA. Resulted in meeting the discharge requirement withvarious in-plant modifications instead of end-of-pipetreatment.

Evaluated technical alternatives and economical evalua-tion of various sludge disposal options for sludgeresulting from biological treatment of wastewaterdischarges from a petroleum refining located in BatonRouge. LA and a pulp and paper mill located mPasadena, TX.

Pilot scale treatability studies using plastic media t r ick-ling f i l ter and activated sludge systems. Results wereused to obtain parameters for the design of biologicaltreatment facilities for a petrochemical complex locatedin Baton Rouge, LA.

Preparation of Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) fora hazardous landfill site containing PCB wastes.

Overseas assignment in Egypt for the wastewater treat-ment evaluation for an edible oil refining and a text i lemill.


Principal author of a comprehensive design guidelineson "Upgrading Existing Municipal Treatment Facilities"prepared for the Technology Transfer Group of the En-vironmental Protection Agency.

Publications

"Studies on the Response of Act ivated Sludge to ShockLoadings", 8/0 Tech and Bio Eng., Vol. 7, 1965

"Mechanisms and Kinectics of Substrate Utilization atHigh Biological Solids Concentration." Presented at the21st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,May, 1966.

"Wastewater from Production of Parchment Papers."Presented at the 3rd Mid Atlantic Industrial Waste Con-ference, University of Maryland, November, 1969.

"Dynamic Optimization for Industrial Waste TreatmentDesign", Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,Vol. 41, No. 10, 1969.

"System Optimization of Pulp and Paper IndustrialWastewater Treatment Design." Presented at the 1st In-ternational Congress on Industrial Water, Stockholm,Sweden, November, 1970.

"Systems Approach to Microscale Problems of WaterPollution Control." Presented at the American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, IL,December 1970.

"Use of Sand Filter Act ivated Carbon System forRefinery Wastewater treatment." Presented at the 26thIndustrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, May,1971.

"Non-Biological Treatment of Refinery Wastewater",Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 44, No11, 1972.

"Response of Activated Sludge to Quantitative ShockLoadings Under Variety of Operation Conditions." Jour-nal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48, 1976.

"Pollution Problems of the Steam Generating In-dustry—A state of the Art." Presented at the 8th AnnualPollution Conference, Chicago, IL, November 1975.

"Column Scaling Tests for Flocculant Suspension—Discussion of Technical Paper", Journal of AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No. EE1, February,1976.

WORK PLAN MEMORANDUM

FOR

GRAND TRAVERSE OVERALL SUPPLY COMPANY SITEGREILICKVILLE, MICHIGAN

FOR PREPARATION OFREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/

FEASIBILITY STUDY

MAY 6, 1987

Work Assignment No.: 391-5L3G

Document Control No.: 389-PP1-WM-EKFE

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.

. «»ntae. »° "-< "™ *•«. Sort. 1600pttnntrs 4 imn«0»m«of oonstyn/its Chicago. Mino« 80008

312 786-1313

23 April 1987

Mr. Gregory VanderlaanRegional Project OfficerU.S. EPA Region V230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Mr. Robert WhippoRemedial Project ManagerU.S. EPA Region V230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Project: REM II - EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939

Document No.: 389-PP1-WM-EKFE

Subject: Work Plan Memorandum for Grand Traverse OverallSupply Co. (GTOS) Site RI/FS


Dear Messrs. Vanderlaan and Whippo:

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. is pleased to submit this Work PlanMemorandum for the GTOS site RI/FS which reflects current EPAHeadquarters guidance on the Work Plan Phase.

Please note that the costs presented in this memorandum are based oncost data for Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON) and represent direct andindirect costs, with estimated fees. The detailed costs and fees willbe presented in the Work Plan and will be supported by optional form 60sfor REM II team firms participating in the Work Assignment. Alsoincluded in this Work Plan Memorandum for EPA's approval is a WorkAssignment Form representing the interim budgets requested herein.The dollars on the Work Assignment Form include estimated fees for allparticipating team firms. Signed conflict of interest statements willbe submitted under separate cover.

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC

Mr. Gregory VanderlaanMr. Robert WhippoApril 23, 1987Page 2

If you have any questions or comments, please contact one of us.

Very truly yours,


Yosnitani, P.E.ion V Manager

roved:

CDM Federal Programs Corporation

Steven PaquetteProject Operations Manager

Approved:

CDM Federal Programs Corporation

onatnan G. Curtis, P.E.Finance and AdministrationManager

cc: U. Joiner, Contracting Officer, U.S. EPAStephen E. Hooper, Project Officer, U.S. EPANancy Willis, Regional Coordinator, U.S. EPA

10502/39

100 CORPORATE NORTH, SUITE 10'ROUTE 22 AND LAKESIDE DRIVEBANNOCKBURN ILLINOIS 6001 5!3 '2| 295-602C

6 May 1987

Mr. Jun Yoshitani, P.E.REM II Regional Manager, Region VCamp Dresser & McKee Inc.200 W. Adams StreetSuite 1600Chicago, Illinois 60606

Subject: Work Plan Memorandum for Grand Traverse OverallSupply Co. (GTOS) site RI/FS

Project: REM II - EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939


Document No.: 389-PP1-WM-EKFE

Dear Mr. Yoshitani:

Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON) is pleased to submit thisrevised Work Plan Memorandum for the GTOS site RI/FS whichreflects current EPA Headquarters guidance on the Work PlanPhase. The revisions incorporate the changes requested byyour Annandale office.

Please note that the costs presented in this memorandum arebased on cost data for Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON) andrepresent direct and indirect costs, with estimated fees.The detailed costs and fees will be presented in the WorkPlan and will be supported by Optional Form 60s for REM IIteam firms participating in the Work Assignment. Alsoincluded in this Work Plan Memorandum for EPA's approval is aWork Assignment Form representing the interim budgetsrequested herein. The dollars on the Work Assignment Forminclude estimated fees for all participating team firms.Signed conflict of interest statements will be submittedunder separate cover.

Mr. Jun Yoshitani, P.E. -2- 6 May 1987

If you have questions or comments, please contact us

Very truly yours,

ROY F. WESTON, INC.

Bakulesh H. Khara, P.E,REM II Site Manager

Kurt S. StimpsonREM II Team Leader

BHK:KSS:kte

Attachment

cc: Glenn JohnsonNPMO Document Control

TABLE OF CONTENTSSection

1.0 rNTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Site Location and History 1-11.2 Site Status and Project Type 1-41.3 Overview 1-4

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2-1

2.1 Task 1 - Project Planning 2-1

2.1.1 Subtask 1.1 - Work Plan Memorandum 2-12.1.2 Subtask 1.2 - Evaluation of Existing 2-1

Information2.1.3 Subtask 1.3 - Prepare and Compile 2-2

Site Plans2.1.4 Subtask 1.4 - Identify Applicable or 2-3

Relevant and Appropriate Requirements2.1.5 Subtask 1.5 - Preliminary Identification 2-3

of Remedial Technologies2.1.6 Subtask 1.6 - RI/FS Scoping Meeting 2-32.1.7 Subtask 1.7 - Work Plan 2-4

2.1.7.1 Subtask 1.7.1 - Draft Work Plan 2-42.1.7.2 Subtask 1.7.2 - Technical Advisory 2-5

Committee Meeting2.1.7.3 Subtask 1.7.3 - Final Work Plan 2-5

2.1.8 Subtask 1.8 - Prepare Project Plans 2-6

2.1.8.1 Subtask 1.8.1 - Health and Safety Plan 2-62.1.8.2 Subtask 1.8.2 - Sampling and Analysis 2-6

Plan2.1.8.3 Subtask 1.8.3 - Quality Assurance 2-6

Project Plan

2.1.9 Subtask 1.9 - Task Management 2-72.1.10 Subtask 1.10 - Quality Assurance 2-82.1.11 Subtask 1.11 - Quality Control 2-8

2.2 Task 2 - Community Relations 2-8

2.2.1 Subtask 2.1 - Community Relations Plan 2-82.2.2 Subtask 2.2 - Task Management and 2-8

Administration2.2.3 Subtask 2.3 - Community Relations Support 2-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.0 BUDGET 3-1

4.0 SCHEDULE 4-1

5.0 PROJECT STAFFING 5-1

ATTACHMENTSA - COST SUMMARYB - LABOR HOURS AND COSTSC - EXPENSES AND ODCsD - SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIESE - SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABIZSF - PROFESSIONAL PROFILES

GTOS WP MemoSection: 1Revision: 1Date: 5/6/87Page: 1-1 of 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company (GTOS) site is located inGreilickville, Michigan, approximately 1-1/2 miles north of the citylimits of Traverse City, Michigan (Figure 1-1). The site is in the SE1/4 of Section 28, T28N, R11W, Elmwocd Township, Leelanau County,located just west of Highway M-22, on the north side of Cherry BendRoad and south of Cadar Creek (Figure 1-2).

Topographically, the study area is relatively flat, but the altitudesstart increasing about one mile west of the site. Cedar Lake Outlet(Cedar Creek) is a narrow stream which flows west to east from CedarLake, past and immediate north of GTOS site, over a 12-foot dam,finally into the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay.

The GTOS site is located on a peninsula projecting into Lake Michiganwith the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay to the east and Lake Michiganto the west. Regional geology consists of glacial deposits overlyingthe Antrim Shale. Glacial deposits in the area are predominantlysands, gravels, and clays. Surficial geologic materials in the studyarea consist primarily of sands and gravels. The near surface sandlayer is approximately 40-70 feet thick, overlaying lake claysapproximately 10 to 30 feet thick that act as confining beds. Asecond unit of sand and gravel occurs below the intervening lakeclays. Depth to bedrock, the Devonian-aged Antrim Shale, is probably500 to 600 feet in the area.

Groundwater flow in the near surface sands in the area is primarilyeastward toward the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay, but it is alsomodified locally within the vicinity of Cedar Creek by the Cedar CreekDam. The dam maintains a higher level of surface water in CedarCreek, resulting in steeper gradients on the groundwater surface andhigher levels of groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the dam.

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company performs commercial launderingand dry cleaning for industrial clothing. The laundry facility wasconstructed in 1953, and the dry cleaning facility was added in 1968.From the beginning until December 1977, the laundry wastes and processwastes from dry cleaning operations were discharged to seepage lagoonsand a dry-well on the site. Cooling water used in dry cleaningoperations was discharged to the Cedar Lake Outlet from 1968 to 1978.The company began discharging its laundry and process wastes to thesanitary sewer system in December 1977, and the cooling water was alsodiverted to the sanitary sewer system beginning in 1978. In 1979, thecompany excavated*and removed the dry well, and also excavated andpaved over the seepage lagoons. The company is operating on the siteat present, and is discharging the wastes into sanitary sewer system.

1"44°50'00"N

itsj

'00"N /£ V ' -''V \

>°°"¥l^ ""' - ?"" 'W

fc, !>&•! r*

44°47.6'N.08503§.7IW

Source: USGS Maps

FIGURE 1-1 GTOS SITE LOCATION MAP

CEDAR LAKEG"or>d Traverse Overall /Supply Company

Contamination hos beenconfirmed by severalsomple*.

. — _ Contamination found in\/\ only one of several

— samples.

Source: MDNR, 1978

FIGURE 1-2 GTOS SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

1-3


1.2 SITE STATUS AND PROJECT TYPE

In April 1978, traces of perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene(TCE) were detected in the water supply of Morris Elementary School,which is located immediately east of the GTOS site. The MichiganDepartment of Public Health condemned the school well water forconsumption and conducted sampling of additional wells in the area.The sampling program confirmed the contamination of 10 wells (Figure1-2). The GTOS site was considered the likely source of thecontaminants.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) performed abiological evaluation of the Cedar Lake Outlet in October-November of1978 to determine if wastewaters from the GTOS site, discharged intostream-side lagoons and to the Cedar Lake Outlet, had damaged theindigenous aquatic plant and canmunities in the outlet. The studyconcluded that the aquatic animal community in the Cedar Lake Outletfrom GTOS site to the Cedar Lake Dam was seriously degraded comparedto the upstream community.

The MDNR also conducted a hydrogeologic investigation of the site andsurrounding area in May 1979 to June 1980 period. The report on theinvestigation, issued in February 1981, concluded that GTOS site hadbeen the source of PCE and TCE contamination of the shallow useableaquifer in the area. However, the study also added that the deeperuseable aquifer, beneath the clay aquiclude, appeared to be protectedfrom the contamination.

The site was proposed to be included on the National Priorities List(NPL) in December 1982 because of groundwater contamination of theusable aquifer with PCE and TCE. The site was placed in the NPL at arank of 484 with a HRS score of 35.53 in September 1983.

The purpose for this Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)is to collect all necessary data to determine: the degree and extentof contamination at the site; to identify remaining sources ofcontamination; to evaluate the data with respect to their applicationto remedial alternatives; and to develop and evaluate the remedialaction alternatives with respect to technical, public health,environmental, institutional and cost consideration. This is afederal enforcement-lead site under the supervision of U.S. EPA RegionV Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Mr. Robert Whippo.

1.3 OVEKVILW

This work plan memorandum contains two tasks — Project Planningactivities and Community Relations planning — for the GTOS site, inaccordance with EPA Work Assignment No. 391-5L3G. These two tasksconsist of:


TASK 1 - PROJECT PLANNING

Subtask 1.1 Work Plan Memorandum

Subtask 1.2 Evaluation of Existing Information

Subtask 1.3 Prepare and Compile Site Plans

Subtask 1.4 Identify Applicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirements

Subtask 1.5 Preliininary Identification of Remedial Technologies

Subtask 1.6 RI/FS Scoping Meeting

Subtask 1.7 Work Plan

Subtask 1.8 Prepare Project Plans

Subtask 1.9 Task Management

Subtask 1.10 Quality Assurance

Subtask 1.11 Quality Control

TASK 2 - COMMUNITY REIATIONS

Subtask 2.1 Community Relations Plan

Subtask 2.2 Task Management and Administration

Subtask 2.3 Community Relations Support

This work plan memorandum identifies the objective, data sources,assumptions, and deliverables for each task. Also, a project scheduleand estimated labor costs, expense costs, and other direct costs areprovided for accomplishing Tasks 1 and 2.


2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 TASK 1 - PROJECT PLANNING

2.1.1 SUBIASK 1.1 - WORK PLAN MEMDRANDUM

Objective:

Data Sources:

Deliverable:

To describe the initial activities to be performedin order to prepare the Work Plan and Project Plans andidentify the level of effort, associated costs, andschedule.

1) Statement of Work (SOW) for Work AssignmentNo. 391-5L3G, GTOS site.

2) REM II Technical Operations Manual.

3) Report on Biological Evaluation of the Cterfor LakeOutlet near Traverse City, Michigan by MDNR,February, 1979.

4) Report on Phase I Investigation at GTOS by MDNR,December, 1979.

5) Report on Hydrogeologic Investigation at GTOS byMDNR, February, 1981.

6) Hazardous Ranking System File, November 8, 1982.

7) Summary of Groundwater Quality Investigations atGTOS by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., February 14,1987.

8) Maps of area.

Work Plan Memorandum

2.1.2 SUHTASK 1.2 - EVALUATION OF EXISTING INFORMATION

Objective: To obtain, review, and evaluate availableinformation about the site and identify data gaps to befilled during the RI. To conduct a site visit tosupplement and verify the available information.

o Kick-off meeting with RPMo Site reconnaissanceo Investigate site easements and permitso Discussions with EPA, Michigan

Department of Natural Resources(MDNR) , and local officials .

o Review of available data and reports

The results of the data review will be summarized in the Work Plan.

Data Sources:


The results of the site evaluation will also be usedto determine the health and safety requirements(level of protection) for on-site personnel.

1) EPA Region V Files

2) MDNR files

3) County and municipal files

4) USGS data

5) Additional data sources to be identified as partof this task

6) Site reconnaissance

Deliverable: "Description of current situation" section in theWork Plan.

2.1.3 SUBTASK 1.3 - PREPARE AND COMPILE SITE PLANS

Objectives: To show existing site features, includingwell locations, cultural features, surface drainage, andthe location of certain industrial and commercialproperties.

Data Sources: 1) Environmental Photographic InterpretationCenter (EPIC, Las Vegas, Nevada)

2) Observations from initial site visit

3) Township tax maps

4) USGS 7-1/2 minute topographic quadrangles,Traverse City, Michigan.

5) Information from Subtask 1.2.

Assumptions: 1) Aerial photography will be obtained by afly-over of the study area. An up-to-date sitetopographical plan will be developed. Thiseffort will be performed by EPIC.

2) Compiled site plans will be supplemented by sitesurveys to be conducted during the remedialinvestigation.

Deliverables: Input to draft sections in preparation of theWork Plan.


2.1.4 SUBTASK 1.4 - IDENTIFY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT ANDAPPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Objectives: To identify the applicable or relevant andappropriate public health or environmental standards tobe considered during remedial alternative identificationand evaluation. The results will be incorporated intothe Work Plan.

Data Sources: 1) Applicable Federal regulation2) MCLs/MCLGs3) Applicable Michigan regulations

Deliverables: Input to draft sections in preparation of the WorkPlan.

2.1.5 SUBTASK 1.5 - PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIALTECHNOLOGIES

Objectives: To identify potential remedial technologiesfor evaluation during the Remedial Investigation andFeasibility Study work efforts. To identify and screenpossible expedited response actions.

The range of alternative response actions will be basedon:

o Technologies for treatment or disposal on-site oroff-site;

o Technologies which attain applicable or relevantand appropriate Federal public health orenvironmental standards;

o Technologies which exceed applicable or relevantand appropriate Federal public health orenvironmental standards;

o No action alternative.

The evaluation of new and innovative remedial technologies will beincluded in this screening.

Deliverables: The results of this task will be discussed in theSubtask 1.6 scoping meetings and summarized in the WorkPlan.

2.1.6 SUBTASK 1.6 - RI/FS SCOPING MEETING


Objectives: To brainstorm with EPA on the nature and extent ofpotential site problems. To discuss the approach toevaluation of the site. To identify potential remedialtechnologies for input to an integrated RI/FS Work Plan.

Data Sources: 1) EPA's RPO/RPM resource staff2) MDNR representation3) REM II team Regional Manager, Site Manager,

Project Engineer, Project Geologist, and teamresource people.

Deliverables: Meeting minutes and input to Work Plan.

2.1.7 SUBTASK 1.7 - WORK PLAN

2.1.7.1 Subtask 1.7.1 - Draft Work Plan

Objectives: To develop a planning document that addressesspecific, discrete tasks to be performed as part of theintegrated Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study(RI/FS).

The draft Work Plan will consist of two volumes. TheWork Plan technical submittal will be presented in Volume

1. This document will identify discrete tasksand subtasks to be performed during the RemedialInvestigation and Feasibility Study, and will include thefollowing:

o Introductiono Description of Current Situationo Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate

Requirementso Preliminary Assessment of Remedial Technologieso Remedial Investigation Scope of Work:

- Field Investigation- Sample Analysis/Validation- Data Evaluation- Assessment of Risks- Remedial Investigation Report

o Treatability Study/Pilot Testingo Feasibility Study Scope of Work:

- Select Remedial Response Objectives- Remedial Alternative Screening and Analysis- Evaluation of Acceptable Alternatives- Feasibility Study Report

o Community Relations Activitieso Project Managemento Schedule of Deliverables

Data Sources:


o Referenceso Appendices

- Schedule- Staffing Plan- Subcontracting Plan- Special Equipment Needs

Volume 2 will consist of the cost submittal, which willprovide a budget directly related to each task andsubtask identified in the Work Plan technical submittal(Volume 1). The budget included in the draft Work Planwill include separate estimates for labor, expenses, andother direct costs presented separately on worksheetsfor each participant firm. Contract Pricing Proposalforms (Optional Form 60) for CDM Federal ProgramsCorporation and each member firm with cost exceeding$10,000 will also be provided.

1) Draft Work Plan input to chapters fromSubtasks 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6

2) REM II Technical Operations Manual

Deliverables: Draft Work Plan

2.1.7.2 Subtask 1.7.2 - Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Objectives: To brainstorm with EPA on the nature and extent ofpotential site problems. To discuss the approach toevaluation of the site. To identify potential remedialtechnologies for input to an integrated RI/FS Work Plan.

1) EPA's RPO/RPM resource staff2) MDNR representation3) EPA Headquarters Region V Contact, REM II team

Regional Manager, Site Manager, Project Engineer,Project Geologist, and team resource people.

Deliverables: Meeting minutes and input to Work Plan.

2.1.7.3 Subtask 1.7.3 - Final Work Plan

Data Sources

Objectives: To produce a final planning document forconducting the RI/FS study that incorporates commentsfrom appropriate agencies, industry, and the generalpublic.

Data Sources: Draft Work Plan, EPA and REM II comments, andresults of public scoping meeting.

Assumptions: EPA will advise on the public scoping commentsto be incorporated in the Final Work Plan.

Deliverables: Final Work Plan


2.1.8 SUBTASK 1.8 - PREPARE PROJECT PLANS

Objectives: To insure that the Remedial Investigation isconducted in a consistent manner that satisfies the EPAand REM II team requirements prior to execution.

The plans will provide procedures for the GTOS site forfield investigations, field sampling and laboratoryanalysis, QA/QC, and health and safety requirements forwhich data quality objectives are specifically designed.All of these elements, as discussed below, are presentedin an integrated format so that all pertinent informationis available in two reference documents.

2.1.8.1 Subtask 1.8.1 - Health and Safety Plan

A site-specific health and safety plan will be developed using inputfrom the site evaluation activity (Subtask 1.2).

The Plan will include the following:

o Personal protective equipment requirements keyed to the GTOSsite;

o Contingency plan and emergency procedures;

o Site personnel/activity safety monitoring program;

o Decontamination procedures;

o Field monitoring equipment.

The plan will be organized to apply to all field work. It is possiblethat the degree of protection will differ depending on the specificfield activity.

2.1.8.2 Subtask 1.8.2 - Field Sampling and Analysis Plan

A site-specific sampling and analysis plan based on the findings ofthe review of existing data will be developed. This plan will bedeveloped in accordance with the REM II Site Investigation ProcedureManual and will identify the number, type, and location of each sampletaken.

A plan detailing operations at the site, including site access andsecurity, contingency plans for restricting access to unauthorizedpersonnel, and the general operational planning of activities to beperformed at the site will also be included.

2.1.8.3 Subtask 1.8.3 - Quality Assurance Project Plan fQAPP)

A site-specific QA/QC Plan will be included in accordance with the REMII Quality Assurance Program Plan and the EPA Region V requirements.


Preparation of this document will be tailored to the specific samplingand analysis plan.

Data Sources: 1) REM II Guidance Documents

2) REM II Health and Safety Manual

3) Information from Subtasks 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7

4) EPA Region V, state and local directives andregulations.

5) Quality Assurance Program Plan for Performance andRemedial Response Activities at UncontrolledHazardous Waste Sites.

6) Work Plan

Deliverables: Draft and Revised Project Plans.

2.1.9 SUBTASK 1.9 - TASK MANAGEMENT

Objectives: To insure that all administrative and financialfunctions are maintained, the following activitieswill be performed:

Data Sources:

Assumptions:

Deliverables:

1)

2)

3)

4)

1)

2)

Prepare and submit monthly technical andfinancial progress reports;

Attend progress meetings;

Implement document control procedures and projectschedule controls.

Perform regular, ongoing work assignmentadministration.

Work Plan Memorandum

Management information system established for REM IIcontract (REMIS)

Monthly progress reports and management trackingreports will be prepared during the initial planningperiod in conformance with the standard monthly reportformat.

Monthly Progress Reports and Management TrackingReports


2.1.10 SUBTASK 1.10 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

Objectives: To conduct quality assurance activities (one systemsaudit and internal REM II QA)

Date Sources: 1) REM II Guidance Documents2) EPA Guidance Documents on Quality Assurance

Programs

Deliverables: Input to Monthly Progress Reports

2.1.11 SUBTASK 1.11 - QUALITY CONTROL

Ojectives: To conduct quality control activities

Data Sources: 1) Work Plan Memorandum2) REM II Guidance Documents

Deliverables: Input to Monthly Progress Reports

2.2 TASK 2 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS

2.2.1 SUBTASK 2.1 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN

Objectives: To prepare Draft and Final Community RelationsPlans for the RI/FS to be conducted for the GTOS site.

Data Sources: 1) Work Plan Memorandum.2) Work Plan.3) Discussions with Federal, State, and local

officials.

Deliverables: Draft and Final Community Relations Plans

2.2.2 SUBTASK 2.2- TASK MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Objectives: To insure that all adminstrative and financialfunctions are maintained during the preparation ofcommunity relations plan.

Data Sources: Management information system established for REM IIContact (REMIS)

Deliverables: Input to Monthly Progress Reports and ManagementTracking Reports

2.2.3 SUBSTASK 2.3 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUPPORT

Objectives: To provide technical support in the preparation ofcommunity relations plan.


Data Sources: l) Work Plan Memorandum2) Work Plan

Deliverables: Input to Draft and Final Community Relations Plan.


3.0 BUDGET

The costs associated with the initial tasks included under Section 2,Scope of Work, are presented in Attachments A, B, and C. Attachment Ais a cost summary, Attachment B presents labor hours and costs, andAttachment C presents expenses and other direct costs (ODC). Thesecosts are in accordance with our approved labor categories and reflectour understanding of the requirements of this project.


4.0 SCHEDULE

The schedule of activities by tasks and subtasks is presented inAttachment D. A list of the task deliverables, REM II approval dates,and the date the deliverable is due to EPA, is provided in AttachmentE.

GTOS WP MemoSection: 5Revision: 1Date: 5/6/87Page: 5-1 of

5.0 PROJECT STAFFING

Bakulesh H. Khara, P.E., Roy F. Weston, Inc., (WESTON) has beendesignated site Manager for the GTOS site assignment. His resume isinclude in Attachment F. Kurt S. Stimpson, Roy F. Weston, Inc., isthe WESTON Team Leader for Region V and will work closely with theRegional Manager's Office in monitoring the implementation of the workassignment. ICF will prepare the Community Relations Plan and attendscoping meetings. Clement Associates will provide assistance inpreparing on the exposure and public health evaluation. WESTON willprovide the primary technical staff. Resumes of the key staff membersare included in Attachment F.

ATTACHMENT A

COST SUMMARY

GTOS SITE


COST SUMMARY

TASK ELEMENT

PROFESSIONALMRS 1

SUPPORTHRS 1

EQUIP1

T R A V E Lf

ODCs SUbPUOL TOTAL* » *

FEE1

•/ESI. FEE

1.0 PROJECT PLANNlNB

. 1

.2

.3

. 4

.5

.61.7

1.8

1.91. 10

1 . 1 1

UP HetoEvaluation of E x i s t i n g InfoPrepare L Coe.pi It Site PlankI d e n t i f y App or R« I/ Appro keqPrill* Identif of Ree, TechRI/FS Scoping fleetingdork Plan.7.1 Draft Work Plan.7.2 TAC fleeting.7.3 F i n a l Work Plan

Project Plan». 8. 1 HIS Plan.8.2 SIA Plan.8.3 QAPPask Ngtt

fiual 1 1 y AtiuranciQ u a l i t y Control

TASK 1 SuBIUIAL

8012211244

11236

1961662

402481921003220

1 , 4 1 2

4,4055, 1664,2182,617

6,6552,925

8,8651 ,069

3,265

2,06110,1359, 188

9,2822,7121 ,598

74, 161

244

226

2216

584

16

129260

1 162416

492

63085

527127467400

1 ,291

85339

2552,012

1 ,2/32,764570339

1 1 , 164

04000000

00u

000000

400

01409800

1 10

50

140140

u

01 10

1 1010000

1 ,880

22515037510016040

26022u30

13035035035000

2,740

000000

000

000000

0

5 , 260

5,9416, 1002,8447,3923,415

10,5561 ,5143,634

2,44612,607lu,92l12,4963,2821 ,937

90,345

789891915427

1 , 109512

1,583227545

36/I ,8911 ,6381 ,874492291

13,552

6,u496,8327,0153,2718 ,5ul3,927

12, 1391 ,/414, 179

2,81314,49812,55914,3703, 7742,228

103,897

2.0 COnhUNl TY DELATIONS

2. 12.22.3

Coccunity Relations PlanTask Adai nCoie. R«l Support

TASK 2 SUBTOTAL

10185

114

4,482484302

5,268

5u0

5

10600

1 06

0

00

0

48500

485

1956060

315

000

u

5,268544362

6, 174

7908254

926

6,058626416

7, 100

TOTALS 1,526 79,429 497 11,270 400 2,365 3,055 0 96,519 14,4/8 110,997

ATTACHMENT B

LABOR HOURS AND COSTS

GTOS SITE


LABOR HOURS AND COSTS

PMFISSIO* 4 PWESSIUM. 3 PMJFESSUML 2 PMFISS10*. 1 TLCMUCM. 2 TEOHICH. I IOT*. THX LIE CLERICAL 3 CLDllLd 2 OiSICA I IOIM. SUfOn IQ1M.W2.B l/ffi M0.48 »/* MO. SO 1/tC H0.32 »/(# U2.21 t;« 124.40 t/* 13.80 I/* 121.21 I/W $14.62 I/* Ltt

IttELOBfltfAIS ——cm «us IOCS HU6 I KUS K1I6 I fOJ6 I HUB HUfiS HUB rOJS I fOJIS HU6

1.0 r*U£CT PUMUJC

1.1 trite m-atut x 2,% o

1.2 E.ai of Ltist lolo PP I-1KT1I 14 1,299 8

1.3 ft ej Co* Site Pint Ifl-SllW 12 1,114 0

1.4 ID to/tel/feiro ta) Ffl-fKri 16 1,485 8

4M

404

10 408 40 1,213 0

32 1,306 60 1,819 B

0

258

0 BO 4,405 16

0 122 5,1* 0

461

0

2B 1,142 24

1.5 Pre lee»t of ft» leci Pfl-fWI 24 2,228 JO 3,024 24 979 14

l.k W/fS Su»m fcetifV) Hfl-f«fT 21 2,W 0 0 8 326 0

721

485

424

0

25B 40 lit, 112 4,218 8 230 14

0 0 0 «4 2,61? 0 0 i

0 0

0 0

0 112 6,6S 0

0 it 2,925 fi

0 22

230 8

170

1C

297

127

467

I/O

22

t,

22

16

630 104 5,036

C 126 5,251

527 134 4,745

127 bO 2,745

467 134 7,122

400 52 3,325

1.7 ftrk PI a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ v \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u \ u \ \ \ v \ \ \ \ \ u \ u \ \ \ \ \ \ u ^ u \ \ u \ \ \ \ \ \ u \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m v u \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u u \ \ \ \ \ m \ \ \ u u \ \ \ \ U H « \ \ \ \ \ \ u u \ \ u \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u \ m \ \ u \ \ uuu \umuu \u \uuuu \ \ \ \ \ u \1.7.1 Dill I tok Plan PPI-*>U 40 3,713 0 0 60 2,448 40 1,21! 16 M 40 976 196 8,865 8 230 50 1,061 0 0 58 1,291 254 10,1561.7.2HC Mine. Ffl-miJ B 7 4 3 0 0 8 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 I, Of* 0 0 4 85 0 0 « 8 5 2 0 1,1541.7.3 Final *rk Plan n>l-t«IU 10 928 24 1,452 8 326 12 364 0 0 B 195 62 3,265 0 0 16 339 0 0 16 339 78 3,605

1.7 SutlOl* 58 5,384 24 1,452 76 3,101 52 1,577 16 515 48 1,171 274 13,199 230 70 1,485 78 1,715 352 14,914

1.8 Project Plant \ \ \ \ U \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U V U \ \ \ ' A \ U \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U \ \ \ U \ \ U \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U \ \ \ U \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > , \ U U \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U1.6.1 H I S Plae PPUfSPU B 741 4 2(2 24 979 0 0 0 0 « 98 40 2,061 0 0 12 255 0 0 12 255 52 2,3lt1.8.2 SM Pitt m-SMU 32 2,970 16 «6i 40 1,632 80 2,426 24 773 it 1,566 248 10,135 8 230 84 1,782 0 0 92 2,012 340 12,1471.8.3<*H> rfl-ONV 32 2,970 16 96i 80 3,2M 40 1,213 24 773 0 0 192 9,188 0 0 60 1,273 0 0 60 1,273 252 10,460

aKia. 1.1 SbtTDTM.

1.9 Tedi/Fitan Up! FTl-MM*1.10 Quality Auuratce PPHMUi.n ituiiir tauoi ppi-awa

1*3, 1 3*10161

2.0 anuuTY KLATiae

2.1 tue» tel Pl» ai-a*Ul2.2 luk MHI dtl-MMlll2.3 CIM M SMjfurt do-oaf

IMK 2 UIOIM.

72

1002412

we

0

0

0

0

6,683

9,2822,2281,114

36,20(1

000

0

36

0

8B

142

2185

34

2,177

0

4W

4M

8,598

1,270484302

2,05»

144

0

0

0

326

7500

75

5,875

u0

0

13,301

3,06000

3,060

120

000

326

500

5

1,638

0

0

0

9,0)4

15200

152

48

0

0

0

80

000

0

1,546

000

2,577

000

0

60

0

00

148

000

0

1,464

000

3,611

000

0

410

1003220

1,412

10185

114

21,384

9,2822,7121,598

74,161

4,482484302

5,2*1

B

4080

96

000

0

230

1,152230

0

2,765

000

0

156

761616

396

500

5

3,309

1,612339339

8,399

10600

106

0

000

0

000

0

0

000

0

000

0

164

1162416

492

500

5

3,539

2,764570339

11,164

106j0

106

644

2165636

1,904

10685

114

24,923

12,0463,2811,937

85,325

4,598484302

5,374

101*. 36,200 176 10,644 401 16,361 331 10,036 80 2,577 148 3,611 l,52» 79,429 2,762 401 1,505 0 497 11,270 2,023 90,699

ATTACHMENT C

EXPENSES AND ODCs

GTOS SITE


EXPENSES AND ODCs

TASK ELEMENT

1.0 PROJECT PLANNIN6

1 . 1 HP H*»o

1 .2 E»al of E«ist Info

1.3 Prtp I Ceple Si t* Pins

1.4 ID App/h«l /Appro Req

1.5 Pre Idtnt of Ktm T«ch

1.6 RI/FS Scoping fleeting

1.7 Murk Plan1.7.1 Draft Mark PI anI. 7.2 TAC fleeting1.7.3 Final Hork Plan

SUBIASK 1.7 SUBTOTAL

1 . 8 Project PI ansl.B. 1 H I S Plan1.8. 2 SIA Planl.B. 3 UAFP

SUBTASK l.B SUBTOTAL

1.9 Task Mgit1.10 Q u a l i t y Assurance1 . 1 1 Bual i ty Control

TASK 1 SUBTOTAL

2.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS

2. 1 Coe.* Rel Plan2. 2 Tatk Ad.i n2. 3 LU«« Kel Suppor t

u^ . >u.-,;~.

EQUIPMENT PERREH1S 190.00CODE * DAYS

PP1-DELOE

P P l - l N T R T

PPI-SIMAP

PP1-PROPT

PPi-PRQPT

PP1-PROPT

PP1-HKPLNPPI -WKPLNPP1-XKPLN

PPI -HSPLNPPI -SAH NPPl-UUAPP

PPI ADHINPP1-QUALTPP1-8LIACL

C R l - C R P L NC R l - A D M l NCK 1 - LKSuP

0

400

0

0

0

0

000

0

0u0

u

000

400

0

u

"

-

0

0

4

0

0

0

00u

0

00

0

0

000

4

30u

'

, % » x \ \ •, \ t « r t N a t b > • r > i > i .• < i >>.<••

Dltfl SUBSISTENCE TRANSPOR- T O T A Lt/DAY IJo.iJO I/DAY T A T 1 0 N EXPENSES

1 DAYS f i t

0

0

360

0

0

0

000

0

00

u

0

0

00

J60

2/0

0u

0

3

4

0

2

0

3J0

6

0'i'I

4

U

00

19

00

•'

'

1

0

9o

11' 0

0

60

U

90900

180

06060

120

00

0

570

0

0

(J

•>

0

50

buO

0

50

50

5u500

100

05050

100

10000

950

21500

:,5

0

540

980

0

1 10

50

1401400

280

0110110

220

10000

2,280

485

IEROI GRAPHICS/ M A I L / SUPPLIES TELE- COMPUIEOBLUEPRINTS COURIER PHONE

I I 1 » » »

75

50

25

25

50

10

1000

100

200

50150150

350

7500

860

450 200 2u

4b5 . bS

0

25

50

0

0

10

100

10

20

10

3030

70

u00

175

0uu

0

loo

25

50

25

60

0

1000

100

200

50150150

350

7500

885

8000

80

0

0

200

0

u

0

0200

20

000

y

000

220

0

0

0

0

50

5u

50

50

50

2C

500

20

70

202020

6U

10000

500

502020

90

0

0

0

0

0

0

000

0

000

0

10000

100

202020

60

TOTALODCs

1

225

150

375

too

160

40

260,20

230

510

130350350

830

35000

2,740

1956060

315

i , i 6 5 2,765 945 i 75 965 220 590 160 3,055

ATTACHMENT D

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

GTOS SITE WORK PLAN MEMORANDUMSCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

Task

1.0 PROJECT PLANNING

1.1 Work Plan Memorandum

1.2 Evaluation of Existing Information

1.3 Prepare and Compile Site Plans

1.4 Identify Applicable or Relevant/Appro. Requirements

1.5 Preliminary Identification ofRemedial Technologies

1.6 RI/FS Scoping Meating

1.7 Work Plan

1.8 Prepare Project Plans

1.9 Task Management, QA and QC

2.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS

2.1 Community Relations Plan

1987

Apri 1 May June July August Sept.

I

ATTACHMENT E

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

Subtask Deliverable Submittal Date to EPA

1.1 Work Plan Memorandum 4 May 1987

1.7.1 Draft Work Plan 3 August 1987

1.7.3 Final Work Plan 31 August 1987*

1.8 Draft Project Plans 15 September 1987

1.9 Montly Reports End of each month

2.1 Draft Community Relations Plan 15 July 1987

*Allows 2 weeks for EPA Review of Draft Work Plan

ATTACHMENT F

PROFESSIONAL PROFILES

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORMREM II Health and Safely Program

This document is tor exclusiveuse of the USE PA, REM IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors

CAMP DRESSER * McKEE MC.

SITE NAME Grand Traverse Overall Supply SITE * 389

PREPARED BY L. WeEe?1""* (GT°S) OATE 6 / 1 / / 8 7

FIRM Rov F. Wes t on

LOCATION Creiiickvllle. Michigan

REM II DOCUMENT t

REVISION f

REGION.

1

NA( ) AMENDMENT TO EXISTING APPROVED HSP ( ) DATE EXISTING APPROVED HSP ' \ V '0

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES:

Preliminary Assessment ( )

Initial Investigation 'Walk Through* (0

Initial Investigation 'Sampling' ()

USEPA Designated Task ()

Remedial Investigation (Rl) ( )

Feasibility Study (FS) ()

SITE TYPE: Chech as many as applicable no1/ F. , ir;c.Clean-Up

Oversight

Other specify

O

O

O

Active

Inactive

Secure

Unsecure

( )

( )

( )

Enclosed space ( )

Landfill

Uncontrolled

Industrial

Recovery

WeN Field

O

0

K)

O

O

Other specify

SITE DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES: Summarize fcetow

Grand Trnverne Over/ill Supply Company (CTOS) nice Is loc/ited In Crn i 1 ickvll le, Michigan, npprox Imntely

1-1/2 miles north of the city limits of Traverse City, Michigan. The site is in the Sfci 1/A of Section 28,T28N, Rl1W, Elmwood Township, Leelanau County, located just west of Highway M-22, on the north side ofCherry Bend Road and south of Cedar Creek.

Topographically, the study area Is relatively flat, but the altitudes start increasing about one mile westof the site. Cedar Lake Outlet (Cedar Creek) is a narrow stream which flows west to east from Cedar Lake,past and Immediate north of CTOS site, over a 12-foot dam, finally into the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay.

ATION (v» R.aidtntlal ( ) Industrial ( ) Rural ( ) Urban OTHER: Page 1 of


This document is lor exclusiveuse of the USE PA HEM IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors

CAMP DRESSER * McKEE INC.

THIS PAGE RESERVED FOR SITE MAP

Page 2 of

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORMREM II Health and Safety Program

This document is for exclusiveuse ol the USE PA RF.M IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors

CAMP DRESSER A McKEE INC

SITE HISTORY: Summanje below

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company performs commercial laundering and dry cleaning for industrialclothing. The laundry facility was constructed in 1953, and the dry cleaning facility was added in1968. In April 197H, traces of perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were detectedin the water supply of Norrls Elementary School, which is located immediately east of the GTOS site.The Michigan Department of Public Health condemned the school well water for consumption andconducted sampling of addltlnal wells In the area. The sampling program confirmed the contaminationof 10 wells (Site Map). The GTOS site was considered the likely source of the contaminants.

KNOWN OR SUSPECTED WASTES DISPOSED: Summante below

Laundry wastes and process wastes from the dry cleaning operations were at one time disposed onsite. These wastes are known to have Included trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE)

HAZARDS OF CONCERN:

( ) Heat Stress anach guidelines

( ) Cold Stress attach guidelines

j ) Explosion/Flammable

( ) Oxygen Deficient

( ) Radiologies)

I I Biologic •<

( ) Noise

() Inorganic Chemicals

(# Organic Chemicals

( ) Other specify

PRINCIPAL DISPOSAL METHODS AND PRACTICES: Summarize below

From 1953 to 1977, the above wastes were discharged toseepage lagoons and a dry w e l l on s i t e . In 1 9 7 7 , thecompany began discharging I ts wastes to the sani tarysewer system.

Page 3 of


This document is tor exclusiveuse of the USE PA. REM nTeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors

CAMP DRESSER ft McKEE INC.

PREVIOUS SAMPLING RESULTS/ANALYSES: Summarise and list those with Health and Safety concerns

Based on sampling conducted by the Michigan DNR and Geraghty & Miller Consultants, Inc., the organiccompounds detected In groundwater in the vicinity of the site included 1,2 Dichloroethene, TCE, andPCE. The maximum concentrations detected in the groundwater were 85.2 ppb 1,2-DCE, 30.8 ppb PCE,and 24.8 ppb TCE. However, the concentrations of these contaminants were below 5 ppb In mostof the samples.

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES: Summarize below

The GTOS facility is bordered by residences, Norrls Elementary School, Cedar Creek, and Cherry Bend Road.The area is not Industria I ized, and therefore, any detected contamination will be assumed to originatefrom the dry cleaning operations. Background HNu readings will be obtained immediately prior to the sitevisit and monitoring will continue during the visit.

OVERALL HAZARD EVALUATION: ( ) High ( ) Medium ft) Low ( ) Unknown

JUSTIFICATION: The contaminant sources (the seepage lagoons)were emptied in 1977 and are now paved over(they are presently parking lots). The only contaminated media known at present is groundwater. Theconcentrations of 1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE detected In the groundwater were usually below 5 ppb. Nosampling w i l l be conducted during the I n i t i a l site visit, and therfore, exposure to the contaminantsis not expec tpd .

Page 4 of


This document is for exclusiveuse of the USE PA. REM HTeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors

CAMP DRESSER A McKEE INC.

CONTAMINANT

HIGHESTOBSERVED

CONCENTRATION(specify units

and media)

PEL/TLV IDLHppm or mg/m3 ppm or mgfm3

(specify) (specify)

WARNINGCONCENTRATION

ppm or mg/m3(specify)

SYMPTOMS/EFFECTSOF ACUTE EXPOSURE

0 o *

1 .3 I 9 I 9 ga. c o a. «• «*• «•o a. u. u.

1 , 2 - D C E gw- 8 5 . 2 p p b 2 0 0 p p m / 1 O O p p m 409()ppm

PCK gw-30.8pph 1 OOppm/5( )ppm 500ppm

TCE gw- 2 A . 2 p p b 100ppm/50ppm 1OOOppn

NA - Not Available NE = None Established U - Unknown

-«->'--«/aio, GW , Groundwaier

Eye and respiratoryirritation, depression

Eye, nose, throat irritation,flushed face 6« neck, vertigo,dizziness, headache

vertigo, headache, visualdisturbance, tremors,somnolence, nausea, vomiting,irritated eyesi de r m i t l t i scardlo arrhythmia

A»r T = Tailings

9.65 NA

9.32 NA

9.45, 8.9

Page S of

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM T£ TinTus^. "REMÎ CAMP DRESSER * MCKEE INCREM II Health and Safely Program Team Ftrms and fn*ir

subcontractors

FIELD INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES COVERED UNDER THIS PLAN

Attach additional sheets as necessary

TASK DESCRIPTION / SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE / SITE LOCATION

A Initial s i t e v i s i t - walk through s i t e f a c i l i t yproperty, and area ad jacen t to Cedar Creek.

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

TYPE

Intrusive

(fan-Intrusive.

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

LEVEL OF PROTECTION

Primary ' Contingency

A B C (iT

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B (C') D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C 0

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

SCHEDULE

ACTIVITIES / TASKS OF GREATEST CONCERN Summarise below

VI, \ 1 k- t hnuigh s i t e v i s i tPage 6 of

This document is lor exclusiveSITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM use oi the USEPA. REM H__M ...... . _ . „ Team Firms. and theirREM II Health and Safety Program subcontractors

PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Specify by

BLOCK A Respiratory: ()) Not needed

( ) SCBA. Airline:

7 1"- 5

1 0u Z

Y YB n

</> -JX. UI

BLOCK C

ZT>

u. -o

iL 11 10 0

1 10 01 1CD a

1 1

in _»

U) >« u.

( > APR:

( ) Cartridge:Escape Mesk:

( ) Other:

Heed and Eye: ft Not needed

( ) Sefely Glaaaes:( ) Face Shield:( ) Gonoles:< ) Hard Hal:( ) Other:

Boots: ( ) Not needed

Boots: S t e e l - toe, s t e e lOver boots, d isposab les (

Reeptratory: ( ) Not needed

( ) SCBA. Airline( ) APR.( ) Cartridge:( ) Eecepe Mesk.( ) Other:

Heed end Eye: ( ) Not needed

( ) Safety Glasses:( ) Face Shield:( ) Goggles:( ) Hard Hal:( ) Other.


Boots.Over boots

task indicate type and/or matenal. as necessary

Pro! Clothing fQ Not needed

) Encapsulating Suit:) Splash Suit:) Apron:» Tyvek Coverall)Saranei CoveraN) CoveraN:) Other:

Gloves: (0 Mot needed

O I lAjA^MMAtfM^** .unoerytovee.

( ) Gloves:1 uvergwves.

Other: Specify below

shankI n t e x )

Prot CtotMng ( ) Not msdsd

( ) Encapsulating SuH:) Splash SuH.) Apron:) Tyvek CoveraN) Serene* CoveraN) CoveraN:) Other:

Gloves: < ) Not needed

( ) Undergkrvea:( ) Gloves:( ) Overgloves.


BLOCK B *««plratory: ( ) Not needed

( ) SCBA. Airline:T 0°) APR: MSA u l t ra tw in

1 « W Cartridge: GMC-HV 2 Escepe Meek:Sk 5 ( ) Other:

| 1 Heed and Eye: ( ) Not needed

1 /^\ < ) Safety Glasses:*f 1 ( ) Face Shield:• 7 OOooolee:^ - 0 Hard Hat:^J ( ) Other:

« gj Boole: ( ) Not needed

< ™ Boola.-st eel- toe, s tee l

*" Overboola: disposables (

BLOCK D Rasplratory: ( ) Not needed

( ) SCBA, AlrNno:OAPR:

1 ( ) CartrMge:a ^ ( ) Escape Mask:T e () Other:I X^ * Head and Eye: ( ) Not heeded

f 9 ) Safely Glasses:U o ) Face Shield:J, J, )Go«Hee:

1 1 ) Hard Hat:* < ) Other:

X Ju«J > Boots:

»- _i Overboots:


Prol. Clothing ( ) Not needed

( ) Encapsulating Se*:

) Spfesh SuN:) Apron:)i Tyvek Covers*) Serenes CeveraN) CoveraN:) Other:

»0 Undergtovee: PVC() Gloves:v3 vV^N/'QMWVSt ncoorcnc


shankla tex )

) Encapsulating SuN:)SplaahSuN:> Apron:) Tyvek CoveraN) Serenes CoveraN

( ) CoveraN:( ) Other:

Gloves: ( ) Not needed

( ) Undergloves:( ) Gloves:( ) Overgloves:


Pege 7 of

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM £ ™ . " CAMP WfLSSEn . 1NC

REM II Health and Safety Program Tea™ Firms antf "»"subcontractors

MONITORING EQUIPMENT: Specify by task Indicate type, as necessary Attach additional sheets, as necessary

INSTRUMENT TASKS

Combustible A B— C— DGes Indicator E F— G— H

Radiation A H c DSurvey Meter *-•-<, "

E-F G-H

Phototontzation A-B— C— DDetector E F-G-H

( ) 11 7 ev'(^10 2 ev( ) Of • evO _av

Type

Flame lonlzallon A B-C-DDetector E-F-G-H

Type

Detector Tubes/ A-B-C-DMonitOB E-F-G H

TypeType

Respirable A B C DDust Monitor E F G HType

ACTION GUIDELINES

0 - 10% LEL No txplotion hazard1* • 2$% LEL Potential exptos/on hazard, notify SHSC> 2S% LCL Exptowon hazard, interrupt task/evacuate

21.0HO* Oirygen normal< 21.0HO* Oxygen deficient, notify SHSC< 19.SHO, Interrupt task/evacuate

3 • Background: Notify SHSC> 2 mR/hr: Interrupt task/evacuate

Specify Act ion level wil l be set atbackground. Level D wi l l be worn atbackground leve l . From backgtiund to5 ppm above background, personnel w i l l -upgrade to level C. At greater than 5ppm above background, personnel willexit ci te to a designated area.

Spec*y

Specify

Specify

0,r~ A B (. 0 ^^^f^-iy * *• <• H

COMMENTS

Note Annual exposurenot to exceed 100 mnmlyr. or 50 urammr average

Page 8 of 1


This document is for exclusiveuse ol the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms, and theirSubcontractors


DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES

ATTACH SITE MAP INDICATING EXCLUSION. DECONTAMINATION, AND SUPPORT ZONES

Personnel Decontamination

Summarize below and/or attach diagramAll work is a n t i c i p a t e d to be Level D

If Level C protection is required,the

procedure to exit the site described

herein will be followed. At the designated site exit, disposable booties

will be removed and discarded in atrash bag. Tyvek coveralls w i l l thenbe removed and discarded In a trash

bag. Outer g.OJ.Ws w i l l then be removr

and discarded in a trash bag. The reHpirator w i l l he removed and set on an

equipment table. Inner gloves w i l l bti

removed and discarded in n trash bag.

Sampling Equipment Decontamination

Summarize below and/or attach diagram

Heavy Equipment DeconfenWrujtlon

Summarize below end/or attach diagram

MNot needed

Containment and Disposal Method

Trash bags d i sposed in t i n - s i t eb i n s .

Containment and Disposal Method Containment and Disposal Method

Page 9 of


This document is tor exclusiveuse of the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors


SITE PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES (include subcontractors)

NAME FIRM / REGIONREMHEALTHCLEARANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

Bakul K h a r a W e s t o n - V yes On-site Manager/Coordinator

Laura Weyer Wes ton-V yesSHSC

Page to of


This document is for exclusiveuse ot the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors


EMERGENCY CONTACTS

USEPA Environmental Response Team 201-321 6660

US Coast Guard Environmental Response Team 800 424-6002

Association of American Railroads Response Team 202-293-4048

CHEMTREC SOO 424 9300

RFW Safely Manager, George M. Crawford 215-524-0638

WCC Safely Manager. Phillip L. Jones 215-825-3000

ICF/Clemenl Safety Manager, Michael J. Ryan 202-862-1100

CCJA Safety Manager, Ulrlc P. Gibson 301-942-5600

CONTINGENCY PLANS Summarize below

If g rea te r t h a n 5ppm i s d e t e c t e d i n a m b i e n t a i rw i t h a n HNu ( l 0 . 2 c V p robe ) personnel w i l l e x i t t oa d e s i g n a t e d b a c k g r o u n d area

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY, PLAN APPROVALS7 —5 /

RHSS Signature """'• " *

HSM Signature D..,

EMERGENCY CONTACTS NAME PHONE

CDM 24-Hour Emergency Line

REM II Health and Safely Manager

Regional Health and Safely Supervisor

Project/Site Manager

On-sile Coordinator/Manager

Regional Site Project Manager (USEPA)

USEPA OSC

Stale Environmental Agency

Stale Spill Contractor MDNR Mobile Response V e h i c l e

Rre Department

Police Department

N/A

M. Malhamel

R . Gna t

B . H . K h a r a

L. Weyer

H . W h i p p o

I? . W h i p p o

M D N R

L t . O r l i n S t r e e t o rSg t . J im Wood -

Emergency ServicesStale Police Coor.

Health Department

Poison Control Center Kathy Wnlenga

202-8964138

703-6420544

312-295-6020

312-295-6020

312-295-6020

312-353-2000

312-353-2000

517-373-8166

517-371-4920

616-946-4646

616-946-4646

616-946-4646

616-922-4831

1-800-632-2727

MEDICAL EMERGENCY

Hospital Name: Munson Medical Center1105 Sixth St.

Hospital Address: Traverse C i t y , MI, 49684-2386

Phone: 616

922-9000

Name of Contact At Hospital: He t t y S t e t l e rEmployee Health Nurse

Name of 24-Hour Ambulance: Traverse C i t yAmbulance Service

Route to Hospital

Phone: 616922-9496

616-941-191 l(emergenc)j)

6l6-922-9818(non-emerênc>

Cherry Bend to M-22, Right on M-22 to Croundview Parkway,

turn left, to Division St., r i g h t ; to S i x t h St., right -

two blocks

< 10 m i nDistance to hospital _

Attach map with route lo hospital Page 11 of

CLIENT/SUBJECT 6T05TASK DESCRIPTION

PREPARED BY

£OOTfL TO

f . ' A T H CHECK BY.

N'ETHQD REV BY

DEPT.

DEPT.

DEPT.

6oo.ci

r°

SHEET. ol

W.O. NO

TASK NO

DATE.

DATE.

DATE.

APPROVED BY

DEPT __ D A T E

M/I

5t

forandi \NCLLL""

O

100 CORPORATE NORTH SUITE 'ROUTE 22 AND LAKESIDE DRIVEBANNOCKBURN ILLINOIS 6001 5(312)295-6020

01

D6SGNER&CONSULTWS

June 17, 1987

Mr. Steve PeckRegional Safety OfficerCamp Dresser and McKee , Inc.200 West Adams StreetSuite 1600Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Steve:

Please find enclosed a copy of the revised Health and Safety Planfor the Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co. initial site visit. Therevisions regarding contingency and action level have been made asrequested. Also enclosed is a copy of the Equipment Request forrr,for the site visit.

Again, if you havecall either mself

any questions or comments, please feel free toor Mr. Bakul Khara at 295-6020. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Laura L. WeyerProject Geologist

cc. R. Whippo, U.S. EPA


This document is for exclusiveuse of the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors

CAMP DftESSER 4 McKEE INC.

SITE NAME Grand Traverse Overa l l S u p p l y

PREPARED BYFIRM Rov F. Weston

, ,, Company (GTOS)L. Weyei

SITE * 389

P / 1 / / 8 7

LOCATION Greilickville. Michigan

REM II DOCUMENT f

REVISION #

REGION

NA( ) AMENDMENT TO EXISTING APPROVED HSP ( ) DATE EXISTING APPROVED HSP

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES.


Initial Investigation 'Walk Through' W

Initial Investigation 'Sampling* ()

USEPA Designated Task ( >

Remedial Investigation (Rl) ( )

Feasibility Study (FS) ( )

SITE TYPE: Chech as many as applicable

Clean-Up

Oversight

Other specify

O

O

O

Active

Inactive

Secure

Unsecure

O

O

O

Enclosed space ()

Landfill

Uncontrolled

Industrial

Recovery

WeN Field

O

O

O

Unknown

Other specify

SITE DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES. Summarize below

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company (GTOS) Rite Is located in Greilickville, Michigan, approximately1-1/2 miles north of the city limits of Traverse City, Michigan. The site is in the SE 1 /'k of Section 28.T28N, R 1 1 W , Elmwood Township, Leelanau County, located just west of Highway M-22, on the north side ofCherry Bend Road and south of Cedar Creek.

Topographically, the study area Is relatively flat, but the altitudes start increasing about one mile westof the site. Cedar Lake Outlet (Cedar Creek) is a narrow stream which flows west to east from Cedar Lake,past and Immediate north of GTOS site, over a 12-foot dam, finally into the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay.

minnoilNDlNG POPULATION: (x) Residential ( ) Industrial ( ) Rural ( ) Urban OTHER: Page f of


This document is lor exclusiveuse ol the USEPA REM IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors



r/r

GRAND

Page 2 of


This document is for exclusiveuse ol the USEPA. REM HTeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors


SITE HISTORY: Summanze below

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company performs commercial laundering and dry cleaning (or industrialclothing. The laundry facility was constructed in 1953, and the dry cleaning facility was added in1968. In April 1978, traces of perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were detectedin the water supply of Norris Elementary School, which is located immediately east of the GTOS site.The Michigan Department of Public Health condemned the school well water for consumption andconducted sampling of additinal wells in the area. The sampling program confirmed the contaminationof 10 wells (Site Map). The GTOS site was considered the likely source of the contaminants.

KNOWN OR SUSPECTED WASTES DISPOSED. Summanze below

Laundry wastes and process wastes from the dry cleaning operations were at one time disposed onsite. These wastes are known to have Included trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE)

HAZARDS OF CONCERN:

( ) Heat Stress attach guidelines


( ) Explosion/Flammable

( ) Oxygen Deficient

( ) Radiological

( ) Biological

( ) Noise

( ) Inorganic Chemicals

(S Organic Chemicals

( ) Other specify

PRINCIPAL DISPOSAL METHODS AND PRACTICES: Summanze below

From 1953 to 1977, the above wastes were discharged toseepage lagoons and a dry well on site. In 1977, thecompany began discharging its wastes to the sanitarysewer system.

Page 3 of


This document is for exclusiveuse of the USEPA, REM HTeam Firms, and theirsubcontractor*


PREVIOUS SAMPLING RESULTS/ANALYSES: Summanze and list those with Health and Safety concerns

Based on sampling conducted by the Michigan DNR and Geraghty k Miller Consultants, Inc., the organiccompounds detected In groundwater in the vicinity of the site included 1,2 Dich1oroethene, TCE, andPCE. The maximum concentrations detected in the groundwater were 85.2 ppb 1,2-DCE, 30.8 ppb PCE,and 24.8 ppb TCE. However, the concentrations of these contaminants were below 5 ppb in most

of the samples.

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES: Summanze below

The GTOS facility Is bordered by residences, Norrls Elementary School, Cedar Creek, and Cherry Bend Road.The area Is not industrialized, and therefore, any detected contamination will be assumed to originatefrom the dry cleaning operations. Background HNu readings will be obtained immediately prior to the sitevisit and monitoring will continue during the visit.

OVERALL HAZARD EVALUATION: ( ) High ( ) Medium f<) Low ( ) Unknown

JUSTIFICATION: The contaminant sources (the seepage lagoons)were emptied in 1977 and are now paved over(they are presently parking lots). The only contaminated media known at present is groundwater. Theconcentrations of 1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE detected in the groundwater were usually below 5 ppb. Nosampling will be conducted during the Initial site visit, and therfore, exposure to the contaminantsis not expected.

Page 4 of


This document is for exclusiveuse of the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors


CONTAMINANT

HIGHESTOBSERVED


and media)

PEL/TLVppm or mg/m3

(specify)

IDLHppm or mg/m3

(specify)




* I I .- X2 5 5 g § o 5a c o o. «• u. •o a. u. i*.

1,2-DCE

PCE

gw- 85.2ppb 20()ppm/l OOppm 4000ppm

gw-3().8pph 100ppm/50ppm 500ppm

KW- 24.2ppb 1OOppm/50ppm lOOOppm

U Eye and respiratory 9.65 NAirritation, depression

U Eye, nose, throat i r r i t a t i o n , 9.32 NAi lushed face 61 neck, vert 1 go,dizziness, headache

U vertigo, headache, visual 9.45, 8.9disturbance, tremors,

somnolence, nausea, vomiting,

irritated eyes, d e r m i t i t i s

cardio arrhythmia

Nul Nf f S '< i r> ' ' s r> f>J (I - Unkoo«*n

GW - Groundwaler A - Air T ~- Tailings Page 5 of

_ urTAi TLJ A kirk OACCTV m AII rmoaa *n>$ £*ocumen' " *" exclusiveSITE HEALTH AND SAPblY PLAN FUHM US0 ot lhe USEPA. REM II CAMP DRESSER ft McKEE INC.

REM II Health and Safety Program Team Firms' and the'rsubcontractors




A Initial s i te v i s i t - walk through s i te f ac i l i t yproperty, and area ad jacen t to Cedar Creek.

B

C

O

E

F

G

H

TYPE

Intrusive

fJQn-lnlruslve^

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

LEVEL OF PROTECTION

Primary Contingency

A B C (6^

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B (C) D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modilied

SCHEDULE

A C T I V I T I F S / TASKS OT (,Mf A T f S T ( ONCI RN ',<>mm,it,;,' fiHo«v

U.i 1 K - Mi T "ii,. h •, i M- v 1 •, 1 l

This document is lor exclusiveSITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM use oi the USEPA. REM n


BLOCK A Respiretory: Of Nol needed

() SCBA, Airline:I ()APR:

,], -o ( ) Cartridge:I ~ Escape Math

"T -0 () Other:ui Z^ ^ Head and Eye: 0» Not needed

o o ( ) Sefety Glaasea:1 [ ( ) Face Shield:

•JL 7 0 Goggles:Ifif) < () Hard Hal:

( ) Other:

v £u Boots: ( ) Nol needed

* j Boots: S t e e l - t o e , s t e e lOverboolS: d isposables (

BLOCK C Raeplratory: < ) Not needed

( ) SCBA. Airline:( ) APR:

* ( ) Cartridge:0 "2 O Eacape Mask:

1 :t ( ) Other:"F *" * Heed end Eye: ( ) Not needed

° ° ( ) Safety Glasses:0 0 ( ) Face Shield:J, fll () Goggles:I | ( ) Hard Hat:* * ( ) Other:

^ j Boots. ( ) Not needed* UICO > BOOH:

H- -i OverboolS:


fas* Indicate type and/or material, as necessary

Prol Clothing (0 Not needed

( ) Encapsulating Suit:( ) Splash Suit:) Apron:i Tyvek CoveraN) Sarane* CoveraN) CovereN:) Other:

Olovee: W Not needed

( > Undergkrves:( ) Gloves:( ) Overgloves:


shank

la tex )

Prot. Clothing ( ) Not needed

( ) Encapsulating SuH:( ) Splash SuH:( ) Apron:< ) Tyvek CoveraN( ) Serene* CoveraN( ) CoveraN:() Other:




TASK

S:

^XB

-C-D

-E-F

-Q-H

j-

LE

VE

L:

A-B

-^g-D

-Modlfle

d

S CD

TA

SK

S:

A-B

-C-0

-E-F

-<3—

H

£ 9LE

VE

L:

A-B

-C-0

-Mttdlfle

d

S O

Respiratory: ( ) Nol needed

( ) SCBA. Alrflne:00 APR: MSA u l t ra twinCO Cert ridge: CMC-H

Escepe Mesk:() Other:

Heed and Eye: ( ) Nol needed

( ) Sefety Glasses:( ) Face Shield:( ) Goggles:( ) Herd Hal:( ) Other:


Boots:st(>e 1-toe , s t e e lOverboolS: d isposab les (

Respiretory: ( ) Not needed

( ) SCBA, Atrtme:()APW:( ) Cartridge:( ) Escape Mask:<) Other:

Heed and Eye: ( ) Not needed

( ) Sefely Glasses:( ) Face Shield:( ) Goggles:( ) Hard Hal:( ) Other:


Boots:Overboots:

Prol Clothing ( ) Not needed

( ) Encapsulating SuN:( ) Splash SuN:( ) Apron:()| Tyvek CoveraN( ) SaraneM Coverall( ) CovereN:() Other:

Gloves: ( > Not needed

M Undergtovee: PVC( ) Gloves:M Overgloves: neoprtjnfi

Other. Specify below

s hank

1 a t e x )

Prot. Clothing ( ) Not needed

( ) Encapeulellng SuH:( > Splash SuH:( ) Apron:

O Tyvek CoveraN( ) Serene* CoveraN( ) Coverall:( ) Other:


( ) Underglovea:( ) Gloves:( ) Overgloves:


Page 7 of

. ... .-^_.. Tnis document is for exclusiveSITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM use ol lhe USEPA. REM n CAMP DRESSER A MCKEE INCREM II Health and Safety Program Te*m Firms and *»"

subcontractors

MONITORING EQUIPMENT: Specify by task Indicate type, as necessary Attach additional sheets, as necessary

INSTRUMENT

CombustibleGas Indicator

RadiationSurvey Meter

PhololonlzallonDetector

< ) 11.7 ev(4^10 2 ev( ) 09.8 evO _av

Type

Flame lonliellonDetector

Type

Detector Tubes/Monllox

TypeType

RespirableDust MonitorTypeType

OtherSpecify

TASKS

A B-C-DE -F-G-H

A-B-C-D

E-F-G-H

A-B-C-DE-F-G H

A-B C-DE-F-G H

A-B-C-DE -F G-H

A B C DE F G H

A B C DE F G H

ACTION GUIDELINES

0 • 10H LEL No explosion hazard10 • 2SH LEL Potential axpfotlon hazard, notify SHSC> 2SH LCL Exptotton hazard, interrupt lash/evacuate

21. OHO* Oxygen normal< 21.0% Ot Oxygen d»*c*nt notify SHSC< tt.SH O, Interrupt task/evacuate

3 • Background: Notify SHSC> 2 mfVhr: Interrupt task/evacuate

Specify Ac t ion level will be set atbackground. Level D will he worn atbackground level. From backgound to5 ppn above background, personnel will-upgrade to Leve l C. At greater than 5ppm above background, personnel willexit ci te to a designated area.

Specify

Specify

Spactly

Specify

COMMENTS

Note Annual exposurenot to exceed 100 mrem/yr. or SO urem/hr average

Page 9 ol


This document is for exclusiveuse ol the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors



ATTACH SITE MAP INDICATING EXCLUSION, DECONTAMINATION, AND SUPPORT ZONES


Summarize below and/or attach diagramA l l work is a n t i c i p a t e d to he Level I)If Level C protection is required, theprocedure to exit the site describedherein will be followed. At the designated site e x i t , disposable bootieswill be removed and discarded in atrash bag. Tyvek coveralls will thenbe removed and discarded In a trashbag. Outer golves w i l l then be removeand discarded in a trash hag. The re;plrator w i l l be removed and set on anequipment table. Inner gloves w i l l btremoved and discarded In a trash bag.



-

Heevy Equipment Decontamination


Not needed 04 Not needed


Trash bags d i s p o s e d i n o n - s i t eb ins .


Page 9 of


This document is for exclusiveuse of the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors



NAMEREMHEALTH

FIRM / REGION CLEARANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

Bakul Khara W e s t o n ~ V yes On-sile Manager/Coordinator A-F-4J—M

Laura Weyer W e s t o n - V yesSHSC

F-O-M

Page 10 of


This document is tor exclusiveuse ol the USEPA, REM HTeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors


EMERGENCY CONTACTS

USEPA Environmental Response Team ?01-321 6660

US Coast Guard Environmental Response Team 600-424-8802


CHEMTREC 800-424 9300

RFW Safety Manager, George M. Crawford 215-524-0638

WCC Safety Manager, Phillip L. Jones 215 825 3000

ICF/Clement Safety Manager, Michael J Ryan 202-862-1100

CCJA Safely Manager, Ulrlc P. Gibson 301-942-5600

CONTINGENCY PLANS Summarize below

I f g r ea t e r than 5ppm i s de t ec t ed In a m b i e n t a i rw i t h an H N u ( 1 0 . 2 e V p r o b e ) p e r s o n n e l , wi 11 e x i t toa d e s i g n a t e d b a c k g r o u n d area

SITE H E A L T H AND S A f t T Y PLAN APPROVALS

HHSS Signalor* ._ Dal*

HSM Signature ._. Oat*.

EMERGENCY CONTACTS NAME PHONE

COM 24-Hour Emergency Line

REM II Health and Safety Manager

Regional Health and Safely Supervisor

Project/Site Manager

On-sile Coordinator/Manager

Regional SH« Project Manager (USEPA)

USEPA OSC

Stale Environmental Agency

Stale Spill Contractor MDNR Mob i l e Response Veh ic le

Fire Department Lt . Orlln S t ree t or

Police Department

N/A

M Malhamel

R . C n a t

B . H . K h a r a

L . W e y e r

K . W h i p p o

B . W h i p p o

M O N K

S g t . J Im Wood -Kmergency S e r v i c e s

Stale Police Coor.

Health Department

Poison Control Center Kathy Walonga 1-

202^96-4138

703642 0544

312-295-6020

312-295-6020

312-295-6020

312-353-2000

312-353-2000

517-373-8166

517-371-4920

616-946-4646

616-946-4646

616-946-4646

616-922-4831

800-632-2727

MEDICAL EMERGENCY

Hospital Name: Munson Medical1105 Sixth St .

Hospital Address: Traverse C i t y

C e n t e r

, Ml , 49^84-2386

Name of Contact At Hospital: Ret ty S e e t i e rKmnloyee Heal th Nurse

Name of 24-Hour Ambulance: T raverse C i t y_ Ambulance S e r v i c eRout* to Hospital:

Phone: 616

922-9000

Phone: 616

616-941-191l(emerKenc))f;l 6-922-9818(non-emergency

C h e r r y Bend t o M - 2 2 , R i g h t o n M - 2 2 t o f . r o u n d v i e w P a r k w a y ,t u r n l e f t , t o D i v i s i o n S t . , r i g h t ; t o S i x t h St. , r ight -t wo b 1 oc ks

10 m [ nDistance to hospital

Attach map with route to hospital Page 11 of

CLIENT/SUBJECT

T A S K DESCRIPTION

P R E P A R E D BY

r . 'ATH CHECK BY

r.' E T H C D R (

6T05SHEET. ol

W 0. NO

T.OM £oUTf_ TO fDFPT

;Y DEPT

5V DFPT

)5P!TA -DATF

DATE

DATE

TASK NO

APPROVED BY

i

DEPT DATF

i3

)M

O

(S

100 CORPORATE NORTH SUITE 101ROUTE 22 AND LAKESDE DRIVEBANNOCKBURN ILLINOIS 6001 5(312)295-6020

June 12, 1987

Mr. Steve PeckRegional Safety OfficerCamp Dresser and McKee, Inc.200 West Adams StreetSuite 1600Chicago, IL 6060-6

Dear Steve:

Please find enclosed a copy of the Site Health and Safety Planfor the Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company initial sitevisit. The site visit is scheduled for the we-k of June 22,1987. Your review and approval of the plan by that time wouldbe greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions or comments,we can do to facilitate plan approval,self or Mr. Bakul H. Khara at 295-6020

or if thereplease callThank you

is anythingeither my-

Very truly yours

Laura LProject

WeyerGeologist

eutAJ

cc/R. Whippo, U.S. EPA


This document is for excluweuse of the USEPA. REM HTeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors

CAMP DAESSCA ft McKEE INC.

SITE NAME Grand Traverse Overa l l S u p p l y

PREPARED BY

FIRM Rov F. Wes ton

,, Company (GTOS)L. We y e j

SITE« 389

OATF 6 / 1 2 / 8 7

LOCATION Greilickville. Michigan

REM M DOCUMENT f

REVISION *

REGION.

NA( ) AMENDMENT TO EXISTING APPROVED HSP ( ) DATE EXISTING APPROVED HSP

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES:


Initial Investigation'We* Through* fc)

Initial Investlgelton 'tempting" ( )

USEPA Designated Teak ( )

Remedial Investigation (Ml) ( )

Feasibility Study (FS) ( )

SITE TYPE: Check as many as applicable

Clean-Up

Oversight

Other specify

O

O

Active

Inactive

Secure

Unsecure

O

O

OEnclosed apace ()

Landfill ()

Uncontrolled ()

Industrial (Q

Recovery ()

Welt Field ()

Unknown ()

Other specify

SITE DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES: Summanze below

Grand Trover** Ovi-rnll Supply Company (GTOS) nite IB located In Greilickville, Michigan, approximately1-1/2 mllen north of the city limits of Traverse City, Michigan. The site is in the SE 1/4 of Section 28,T28N, R11W, Klmwond Township, leelanau County, located just west of Highway M-22, on the north side ofCherry Bend Road and south of Cedar Creek.

Topographically, the study area is relatively flat, but the altitudes start increasing about one mile westof the site. Cedar Lake Outlet (Cedar Creek) is a narrow stream which flows west to east from Cedar Lake,past and immediate north of GTOS site, over a 12-foot dam, finally into the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay.

i«/4...trui i \ Rural t 1 Urban OTHER: Page 1 of


This document is for exclusiveuse ol the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors



"M »--4--f-4-^—f---•-

' I t ' l l

Page 2 of


This document is for exclusiveuse ol the USEPA. REM HTeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors


SITE HISTORY. Summanze below

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company performs commerclclothing. Tho litundry facility was constructed in 19531968. In April l'J/8, traces of perchloroethylene (PCE)in the water supply of Norris Elementary School, whichThe Michigan Department of Public Health condemned theconducted sampling of additlnal wells in the area. Theof 10 wells (Site Map). The GTOS site was considered

al laundering and dry cleaning for Industrial, and the dry cleaning facility was added inand trichloroethylene (TCE) were detectedis located immediately east of the GTOS site.school well water for consumption andsampling program confirmed the contaminationthe likely source of the contaminants.

KNOWN OR SUSPECTED WASTES DISPOSED: Summanze below

Laundry wnnten and process wastes from the dry cleaning operations were at one time disposed onsite. Thefle wanton are known to have included trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE)

HAZARDS OF CONCERN:

( ) Heal Stress attach guidelines


( ) E»plosion/Flemmable

( ) Oiygen Deficient

( ) Radiological

( ) Biological

() Noise

( ) Inorganic Chemicals

(# Organic Chemicals

( ) Other specify

PRINCIPAL DISPOSAL METHODS AND PRACTICES: Summanze below

From 1953 to 1977, the above wastes were discharged toseepage lagoons and a dry well on site. In 1977, thecompany began discharging its wastes to the sanitarysewer system.

Page 3 of




PREVIOUS SAMPLING RESULTS/ANALYSES: Summanze and list those with Health and Safety concerns

Based on sampling conducted by the Michigan DNR and Geraghty & Miller Consultants, Inc., the organiccompounds detected In groundwater in the vicinity of the site included 1,2 Dichloroethene, TCE, andPCE. The maximum concentrations detected in the groundwater were 85.2 ppb 1,2-DCE, 30.8 ppb PCE,and 24.8 pph TCE. However, the concentrations of these contaminants were below 5 ppb In most

of the samples.

ENVIRONMENTAL HWLUf NCES: Summarize below

The GTOS f a c i l i t y In bordered by residences, Norris Elementary School, Cedar Creek, and Cherry Bend Koad.The area Is not fndustrialized, and therefore, any detected contamination will be assumed to originatefrom the dry cleaning operations. Background HNu readings will be obtained Immediately prior to the sitevisit and monitoring will continue during the visit.

OVERALL HAZARD EVALUATION. () High ( ) Medium (*) Low ( ) Unknown

JUSTIFICATION: The contaminant sources (the seepage lagoons)were emptied in 1977 and are now paved over(they are presently parking lots). The only contaminated media known at present is groundwater. Theconcentrations of 1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE detected in the groundwater were usually below 5 ppb. Nosampling w i l l hp conducted during the initial site visit, and therfore, exposure to the contaminantsIs not exported.

Pege 4 of




.ONTAMINANT

HIGHESTOBSERVED


and media)

PEL7TLV IDLHppm or mg/m3 ppm or mg/m3

(specify) (specify)




0 I S1 5 •Q. c o

o a.O. m •»-

u.

1,2-DCE

PCE

TCE

gw- R5.2ppb 200ppm/ 1 OOppm 4090ppm

gw-30.8ppb 100ppm/50ppm 500ppm

- M . ;PPb 100ppm/50ppm l O O O p p m

Eye and respiratory 9.65 NAirritation, depression

Eye, nose, throat irritation, 9.32 NAflushed face & neck, vertigo,dizziness, headache

vertigo, headache, visual 9.45, 8.9di sturb/ince , tremors,somnolence, nausea, vomiting,irritated eyes, dermititiscardio arrhythmia

NA > Nol Available NE - None Fsiabh$f>«d U - Unknown

-•--- »«<-.-. r;w , r,rr«inrtw«ier A - A»r Tailings Pages of

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM ^ TZTu&S. "££"* CAMP DRESSER ft MCKEE me.REM II Health and Safety Program Team Firms- and th9lr

subcontractors




A Initial s i te v i s i t - walk through s i te fac i l i t yproperty, and area adjacent to Cedar Creek.

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

TYPE

Intrusive

WjO^lntruslyC

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

Intrusive

Non-Intrusive

Intrusive

Non-inlruslve

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

Intrusive

Non-intrusive

LEVEL OF PROTECTION

Primary Contingency

A B C (p7

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C O

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C O

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B (fT) D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C O

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C 0

Modified

A B C D

Modified

A B C D

Modified

SCHEDULE

ACTIVITIES 1 TASKS OF GREATEST CONCERN Summanze below

Walk- through s i te visitPage 6 of

This document is tor exclusiveSITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM use oi the USEPA. REM nREM II Health and Safely Program . .


BLOCK A

7 iu.1

IU

Ym

</>

oZ

Ym

UJ

_j

BLOCK C

I i1

To

1o

1<D

1

CO

CO

1

10

1o

1at

1

_iUJ>

Respiratory: 0) Not needed

( ) SCBA. Airline:( ) APR:( ) Certrtdge:( ) Cecepe Mask:( ) Other:

( ) Safety Gleesee:( ) Face Shield:( ) Goggles:( ) Hard Net:() Other:


Boots: S t o r l - t o e , s tee lOverboots: disposables (

Reaptratory: ( ) Not needed

( ) SCBA, AMme:( ) APR:

( ) Cartridge:( ) Cecepa Mesk:() Other:

Head and Eye: ( ) Not needed

( ) Safety Glasses.( ) Face Shield:( ) Goggles:( ) Hard Hat:( ) Other:

Boots: () Not needed

Boots:Overboott:


task Indicate type and/or material as necessary

Prol. Clothing ft) Not needed

( ) Encapsulating SuM:( ) Splash Suit:() Apron:( i Tyvek CoveraN( ) Serene* CoveraN() CoveraN:() Other:

Olovee: ft) Not needed

( ) Gloves:I ) Overgloves:

Other: Specify befow

shanklatex)

Prot. Clothing ( ) Not aieodod

( ) Encapsulating SuM:) Splaah SuM:) Apron:) Tyvek CoveraN) Serene* CoveraN) CoveraN:

() Other:




BLC

X

7

<r>

*

rCK B

*x>o

{J

/1\

-J

—

TA

SK

S:

A-B

-C-D

-E-F

-O—

H

5 5LE

VE

L:

A-B

-C-D

-Kodlfl**

8 O

Respiratory: ( ) Not needed

( ) SCBA. Airline:M APR: MSA ultra twinM Cartridge: GMC-H( ) Eacape Meek:() Other:


( ) Safety Glasaee:( ) Face Shield:OGogglee:( ) Hard Hal:() Other:

BoOta:st eel -t oe , s teel

Overboota: disposables (

Respiratory: ( ) Not needed

( ) SCBA, AlrMne:<)APW:( ) Cartridge:( ) Eacape Mask:O Other:


( ) Safety Glasses:( ) Face Shield:OGogglee:( ) Hard Hat:() Other:

Boole: ( ) Not needed

Boole:OverboolS.

Prol. Clothing ( ) Not needed

( ) Encapsulating StM:( ) Splaah Suit:() Apron:

( ) Serene* CoveraN() CoveraN:() Other:

QtOVfrt! | j PHM flttOVtf

tO Undergtevea: PVC( ) Gloves:


shanklatex)

) Encapsulating SvH:) Splaah SuM:) Apron: _ , _ __

) Serene* CoveraN) CoveraN:

( ) Other:

Gloves. ( ) Not nasdad

( ) Underglovee:( ) Gloves:( ) Overgloves:


Page 7 of

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FORM £ ST"" . "STT cutf mfsxn . Kff REM II Health and Safely Program

MONITORING EQUIPMENT: Specify

INSTRUMENT TASKS

Combustible A -B— C— DGesmdteelor E— F— G— H

NMIlVtlOft » a» /* f\

Survey Meter A-B-C-DE-F-G-H

PhototonUetton A -B C— DDetector E-F-G-H

( ) 11 7 •«

(^102 ev( ) 09. t ev

—Type

Flame lonlzalien A B C DDetector E-F-G-H

Type

Detector Tube*/ * -8— C-DMonito. E F-G H

TypeType

Respirable A B C DDust Monitor E-F G-HTypeType

ream Firms. and theirsubcontractors

by task Indicate type, as necessary Attach additional sheets, as necessary

ACTION GUIDELINES

0 - 10H LEL No axpknton hazardia - 25% LEL Potential evptoaton hazard, notify SHSC> 2SH LEL exptotnn hazard, interrupt task/evacuate

21. OHO, Oxygen normal< 21. OHO, Oxygen ttffk^nt. notffy SHSC< lt.$HO, Interrupt task/evacuate

3 N Background: Notify SHSC> 2 mft/hr: Interrupt task/evacuate

SpecifyAction level will be set at 25ppm

If this level is exceeded, person-nel wil l exit the site to a previousdesignated background area where the)will begin upgrading to level C and rhot zone wi l l be establ ished.

Specify

Specfly

Specify

Other A B - C - DSpecify * F - G - H

Specify

•

COMMENTS

Note Annual exposurenot to exceed 100 mrem/yr. or 50 uremmr average

The action level is based on 1/2 thelowest TLV for the three known *contaminants

y

Pmtto a of


This document is for exclusiveuse ot the USEPA. REM HTeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors



ATTACH SITE MAP INDICATING EXCLUSION. DECONTAMINATION. AND SUPPORT ZONES


Summarize below and/or attach diagramAil work is anticipated to be Level Dif Level C protection is required,theprocedure to exit the site describedherein will be followed. At the designated site exit, disposable bootieswill be removed and discarded in atrash bag. Tyvok rnvoralls will thenbe removed nnd disrnrded in a trashbag. Outer golveci w i l l then be removand discarded In n trash hag. The repirator w i l l he removed ,ir\d set on anequipment table. Inner gloves w i l l bremoved and discarded (n a trash bag.

Not needed


Summarize below anrjfor attach diagram

Heavy Equipment Decontamrnotton

Summanze below and/or attach diagram


Trash bags disposed in on-siteb i n s .


Page 9 of


This document is tor exclusiveuse of the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms. and theirsubcontractors



NAME FIRM / REGIONREMHEALTHCLEARANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

Bakul Khara Weston-V yes On-slle Manager/Coordinator A-«-C-O-tF-O-N

Laura Weyer Weston-V yesSHSC A_a>_c_0-t

F-O-M

Page 10 of


This document is tor exclusiveuse ol the USEPA. REM IITeam Firms, and theirsubcontractors


EMERGENCY CONTACT* EMERGENCY CONTACTS NAME PHONE

USEPA Environmental Response Team 201-321-6660

US Coast Guard Environmental Response Team 800-424-6802


CMEMTREC 800-424-9300

RFW Safety Manager. George M. Crawford 2IS-524-0634

WCC Safely Manager, Phillip L. Jones 215-825-3000

ICF/Clement Safely Manager. Michael J. Ryan 202-862-1100

CCJA Safety Manager, Ulric P. Gibson 301-942-5600

CONTINGENCY PLANS Summan/« below

If g r e a t e r t h n n 2 5 p p m is d e t e c t e d in a m b i e n t a i rw i t h an H N u ( 1 0 . 2 < - V probe) pe r sonne l ,wl 11 ex i t toa des igna ted background area and begin to level C.A ho t zone w i l l t h e n he e s t a b l i s h e d .

SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN APPROVALS

RHSS Signature

H«;M

Dale

Date

CDM 24-Hour Emergency Line

REM II Health and Safely Manager

Regional Health and Safety Supervisor

Protect /Sit* Manager

On-slte Coordinator/Manager

Regional Site Project Manager (USEPA)

USEPA OSC

State Environmental Agency

M Maihamel

R. Gnat

B . H , Khara

L . W e y e r

H. Whippo

B. Whippo

MDNR

Slate Spill Contractor MDNR Mobi le Response V e h i c l e

Fire Department Lt. Orl in Street orSgt . Jim Wood -Police Department

Slate Police

Health Department

Poison Control Center

Emergency ServicesCoor.

Kathy Walenga

202-«9«-4138

703-642-0544

312-295-6020

312-295-6020

312-295-6020

312-353-2000

312-353-2000

517-373-8166

517-371-4920

616-946-4646

616-946-4646

616-946-4646

616-922-4831

1-800-632-2727

Phone: 616922-9000

MEDICAL EMERGENCY

HosprtelNeme: Munson Medical Center1105 Sixth St.

Hospital Address: Traverse C i t y , M I , 49684-2386

Name of Contact At Hospital.Betty S te t l e r Phone: 616Employee Heal th Nurse 922-9496

Name of 24-Hour Ambulence: Traverse Ci ty 616-941-1911 (emergency!_ Ambulance Service / : 1 A Q T 7 O H I O /Route lo Hospital: olb-9/2-9818(non-eBer^cncyCherry Bend to M-22, R igh t on M-22 to Groundview Parkway,turn l e f t , to Divis ion St., r i g h t ; to S ix th St., right -two blocks

..< 10 m i nDistance to hospital _Attach map with route lo hospital Page 11 of

CLIENT/SUBJECT 6T05SHEET. of

W.O. NO

TASK DESCRIPTION

PREPARED BY

MATH CHECK BY

METHOD REV BY

TO

HFPTIY DEPT3Y RFPT

DATF

DATF

DATF

APPROVED BY

ÔFPT DATE

3

O'

TECHNOLOGY

FrcOh:

r A.TE :

rriojECT:

DOC NUMPEI

S U B J E C T :

U r . . j t

lcsh h'hdra, REM II Cite Mari'.^r

Jacqueline Dingfeider, , , -

Juno 13, 13t) 7

REM II - E?A Co-fr^- '-_ . P?-C

3C:)-CR1-EF-ERTA-I

Community Relations C .j e of Wo''.he Grand Traverse O'^ra'l Site

and Budget f

porattr into te iJ ; in i r .a i W O T K

:'hi" :.'ier.)orancium presents th^ oo:r.r"_:riiLy i -_:-.*. I ^.n^ p is / .n i rg •i.î- ' leêut.? : ion ^cope of work to I-..- i ?•• - - . - - , > p.:r^-. • :' into -lie -rand

' >""ork F l a n . of w e r kX i ; , -i £< .=.•;• ' r i * , - :

: _ i ; ^ .î 1 ^ W ( j ) - U ; !.>! fl!~: t ' -^ L"-r ^ ! i ri7! 1 u r . — ' *o E t ' A . A I . ^ O . O _ - -

note that i_kt a toacheu costs pert t- i . : L 'n iy t .c IF o o s * _ s . r t budgo •>v-ar suppor t rôv ided by REM I I t^. k o v r ^ ' f ^ . a r ; : ' f - e d ~ t>? ))e r e f l -in you. '- budget : ' . ^ . £ . . rouuh ly 6 h ' ^ u r ; - t .u aot.-..j jaoi i p u b l i ^ ine-i- t ;ar.d ? - 4 he Mrs " " " ' > =is = l c t ^ i t h <±oc : i f ?iot s h e " " . T?L'? t o t ^ l " > o £ t - -this community relations support i rr 215,55.? i v..' ho1 • t fee'i anpj; '^ * cs iona I ie^r-l of -ffort is 24'> h-'.ir^

It i- exi'eot.ed that REM II technical etaft wi ' } .-upport thi 1r i - - ;rrf.'.:n ? *y relations 2 rnc 1--,. e^ta •;... :>n erf^-rt Vnis technical £uj;mav include ati.<.;ndlng assisting EPA r..'i'ch pub1. •_"• ;r.eitin.T3 v 3 - 10Hours';, a-di.--ui::;: EPA with resooi^-,; t .1 '"oohîral o j:nU:Oiitt ir.cl'.:.:in th-r ro.3pon.5i-.'3ness (10 - 1C ho,;rs:, and rev-e-wing delivcrab •-.-:

1 h.f.uvs per dei. i vernb j.e) , howe*/*---, the 'jest;; for te'_hnio-l stajs'.rport are not reflected ?.n th? attached budôt eot ir.ates .

Floor.e r.ot'fy me i* you hroro ?v:y Que.ntious about the attachedr;cope of TorF or budget

oo : J u t i Yoshitani, REM II Region V ManagerWendy Huiid l.e, REM II Community Reiatioao C-'.'puty Mar.-gt-rMolly Clark. REM II Cormunity Re ] a tons Cpecialin":

Ih'icurr.ent Control

Three Frst National Plaza, Suite 1616, Chcago, IL 6O6O2 [312] 372-2-441

GRAND TRAVERSE OVERALL SUPPLY SITELEELANAU COUNTY, MICHIGAN(Work Assignment #391-5L3G)

Please incorporate the following into the final RI/FS work plan:

2.0 TASK 2 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS

REM II community relations staff expect to assist EPA with communityrelations planning and implementation activities throughout theremedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) for the GrandTraverse Overall Site in Greilickville, MI. This support will beprovided up to the budgeted limit and will be in accordance withapplicable EPA community relations policies and guidance, includingguidance specified in the Community Relations in Superfund: AHandbook (Interim Version, September 1983)

Based on conversations with the EPA Region V Community RelationsCoordinator, REM II community relations staff anticipate thatcommunity relations support for the Grand Traverse site will include,but not be limited to, the tasks listed below.

2.1 Community Relations Plan

The REM II Community Relations Specialist will prepare a draft andfinal community relations plan (CRP) for the Grand Traverse Overallsite, at the specific request of EPA. The CRP will describecommunity concerns regarding the site and outline a program ofcommunity relations activities that will help FPA meet the concernsof the community. It will include sections on site background,community background, history of community involvement, key commun:->concerns, objectives of the community relations program, communityrelations activites, a schedule for community relations activities,mailing list of interested parties, and possible locations for pub I :meetings and information repositories.

All work on the community relations plan will be inflated by EPA'3Region V Superfund Community Relations Coordinator and coordinatedwith the EPA Remedial Project Manager and the FEM II Site Manager.

2.2 Fact Sheets

Under this subtask, REM II community relations staff will prepare afact sheet summarizing the RI/FS work plan for the Oconomowoc siteprior to the public meeting to discuss the RI/FS work plan. Inaddition, REM II community relations staff will prepare fact sheetssummarising the Rl and FS Reports.

2.3 Publio Meeting Support

REM II community relations staff will assist EPA with the publicmeetings held by EPA on the Rl and FS Reports. Support for thepublic meetings will entail:

o Publizing the Rl and FS public meetings through newspaper ads andassisting with other media needs, such as subscribing to thelocal newpapers;

o Providing graphics support such as slides or overheads; and

o Providing a court reporter for the public meeting on thefeasibility study.

2.4 Technical Support for Community Relations

Technical staff support for community relations during the RI/FS isexpected to involve attending public meetings, providing input tofact sheets, reviewing fact sheets, and providing input to theresponsiveness summary.

2.5 Community Relations Implementation

REM II community relations staff will support EPA Region V inimplementing community relations activities outlined in the communityrelations plan to be prepared for this site. This support will beprovided up to the budgeted limit and will include, but not limitedto, activities described in subtasks 2.2, 2.3, and 12.2 of this workplan.

2.6 Task Management and Quality Control

REM II administrative and management tasks necessary for providingcommunity relations support at this site may include attendingmeeting with EPA and REM II project staff and preparing monthlyreports for EPA that summarize ongoing work and expenditures forcommunity relations efforts at the Grand Traverse Overall site. Inaddition, REM II community relations staff will coordinate allcommunity relations tasks with the EPA Region V Community RelationsCoordinator, the Remedial Project Manager, and the REM II SiteManager.

BUDGET ESTIMATES

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANNING

Labor Costs

Hours Rate ($/hr) Cost ($)

Prof Level 3 6 52.14 313Prof Level 2 90 45.32 4079Prof Level i 5 25.92 130Clerical _S 25.48 204

109 $4726

Travel Costs

One trip (3 days), two overnight stays to conduct on-sitediscussions with local officials and residents in Greilickville,Leelanau County, MI as part of developing the CRP.

Airfare $ 200Local Transportation (rental car <?> $50/day) 150Per Diem (3 days @ $90/day) 270

620

Other Direct Costs

Telephone and mail $ 120Computer Support (8 hrs. @ $2.75/hr) 22

$ 142

General and Administrative Costs (11.17%) $ 613

TOTAL COSTS FOR CRP DEVELOPMENT $ 6101

COMMUNITY RELATIONS IMPLEMENTATION

Labor Costs

Prof Level 3Prof Level 2Prof Level iClerical

1011620

Rate ($/hr)

$ 52. 1445. 3225.3225. 48

Cost

$ 521525V518204

$ 6500

Other Direct Costs

Telephone and MailTypesetting & Printing three fact sheetsSubscription to local newspaperNewspaper ads for public meetings (2 ads}Graphics (10 slides/overheads)Court ReporterComputer Support (8 hrs. ® 52.75/hr)

$ 2201000100200250300o o

$ 2iT9

General and Admin j. o trati ve Costs (11.17'\;

TOTAL COSTS FOR CRI DEVELOPMENT

$

$

360

i ' oFAL ' :CCFJ FOF CP.r AND CRI D E V E L O P M E N T

•. Lilt WX ' for ttefi contrvci iin« .cam A iin« .«m CMC BTMI

A (.INC i TIM NO. C. QUANTITY Q. TOTAL **ICt t »M

COMMUNITY RELATIONS FLAMMINGAND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORTFOR THE GRAND TRAVERSEOVERALL SITE

2 4 7P r o f .

Hr s .

$ 1 7 , 2 .

9. »«OVIO€ NAMl AOQACSS.

DCAAL300 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22209 C03) 694-8543

DCAA1300 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22209 (703) 694-

Or T V 11* OOOO »ou •C9ui*C Cove***. 111*. rv»« O» ÎÂMC«e-«T CO»«r««CT r > M A M C I N 4•o •fi»p'o««« --•» ••a*o«co I ,—. tnuAwr* —

' *

v t * o u i * *» * • OC3 *<*«*« •-* SAWC o« VMILA* rt

"=S

'< CCST O A T A <• If J't u •««A. MILL. *HI1 C O N T R A C T ACT'ON •! l w « v l C T TO CA1« »«aUV_»

'

1 J . -.AMf ANO T ' T u C ,T,»

K e i c h L. /fcayi5_ • - ; - 2 C " Sry--^, /^'-/;.: •'-?*•/'.

i t 3 A T £ ;»

L^^^:- 12

S T A N O A H O ec^-*• tw/ Q«« J T C ^ A» A II | • 4 ; ' * | ) j i

CONTRACT PRICING PROPOS

NAME OF OFFERORICF INCORPORATED

HOME OFFICE ADDRESS1850 K STREET NWWASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROPOSAL$17,221

AL „ ! OPTIONAL FORM 60

! SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED! COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANNING AND! IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT FOR THE! GRAND TRAVERSE OVERALL SITEi

! GOVERNMENT SOLICITATION NUMBER! 63-01-6939

DETAIL DESCRIPTION OF COST ELEMENTS

ESTIMATED3. DIRECT LABOR HOURS

Professional Level 4 0Professional Level 3 16Professional Level 2 206Professional Level 1 25Clerical 16

RATE/ EST TOTALHOUR COST ($) EST COST

30.96 0 <««««««23.12 370 >»»»»»»20.10 4,141 <««««««11.49 287 >»»»»»»11.30 181 <««««««

TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 4,979

4. LABOR OVERHEAD O.H.RATEFRINGE 36.98%OVERHEAD 64.63%

! x BASE= EST COST ($) <««««««! 4,979 1,841 »»»»>»»! 6,820 4,408 <««««««

TOTAL LABOR OVERHEAD 6,249

6. SPECIAL EQUIPMENT (COMPUTER)

7. TRAVELa . Transportationb.Per Diem or Subsistence

0

EST COST ($) >»»»>>'»>350 <««««'<«270 »»»»^>»

TOTAL TRAVEL ril!0

8. CONSULTANTS EST COST ($) < « « « - < <0 »»»»><>.•>0 ««««« . • ••<

TOTAL CONSULTANTS 0

9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (See Exhibit A) •? 9^4 > > > > > > > • > • •>tj , £. <J /////'' ' '

TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 2,234

10 . TOTAL

11. GEN & ADMIN 11. 173.87

13.

DIRECT COSTS AND OVERHEAD 14, OH 2

% OF 3+4+6+7+9 1 , ;>7 3% OF 8 0

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 15,'ISS

14. FEE OR PROFIT 10 % I , ST.H

15. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST AND FEE OR PROFIT 17 .::;!!

This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to:

and reflects our best estimates as of this date, in accordance with the Instructions toOfferers and the Footnotes which follow.

Typed Name and TitleKeith L. DavisDirector of Contracts

Signature

Name of FirmICF Incorporated

'.Date of SubmissionUune 15, 1987

EXHIBIT A - SUPPORTING SCHEDULE

ITEM DESCRIPTIONCOST EL NO. EST COST ($)

Travel Costs (One trip, 3 days, to Leelanau County,Michigan)

AirfareLocal transportationPer Diem (3 days 9 $90/day)

Total Travel Costs

Other Direct CostsGraphics, typesetting and printing of fact sheetsTelephone and mailing expensesComputer support (16 hrs. @ $2.75/hr.)Newspaper subscriptions and advertisementsCourt reporter

200150270

i::so34014

.500•00

Total ODCs

I. Has any executive agency of the U.S. Government performed any review of your ao-< . u n t urecords in connection with any other Government prime contract or subcontract w i t h i n :h«past twelve months?

[x] Yes [ ] No (If yes, identify below.)

Name and Address of Reviewing Office: Telephone Numie-rDCAA1300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. 22209 (703) (KM J ' t (

II. Will you require the use of any Government property in the performance of thljproposed contract?

[ ] Yes [x] No (If yes, identify on reverse or seperate page)

III. Do you require Government contract financing to perform this proposed contract '

[x] Yes [ ] No (If yes, identify): [xj PROGRESS PAYMENTS

IV. Do you now hold any contract for the same or similar work called for by this pr•[>.:•>•-•.icontract?

[ ] Yes [x] No (If yes, identify):

V. Does this cost summary conform with the cost principles set forth in agency regu 1 .i

[x] Yes [ ] No (If no, explain on reverse or separate page)

Clement Associates. IncorporatedInternational Square, I85O K Street NWWashington, DC 2OOO6 2O2-828-25OO

Health and Environmental Science September 9, 1987

Mr. Bukulesh KharaRoy F. Weston, Inc.100 Corporate Drive Suite 101Route 22 & Lakeside DriveBannockburn, IL 60015

SEP 1 0 1987

ROY F. WESTON, INC.CHICAGO OFFICE

Document Control Number: 389-PP1-SC-FDED-1

Dear Mr. Khara:

Enclosed are the Work Plan and estimated cost for risk assessment supportto the Grand Traverse RI/FS. We understand that work has been stopped on thisWork Assignment as of September 4, 1987 pending the transfer of this project toanother contractor.

Should you have any questions, please call me at (202) 828-2529.

Sincerely yours,

•Jayne D. ReichardtVice President

WDR/lz

attachments

A Subsidiary of ICF Technology, Inc.

CONTRACT PRICING PROPOSALi KF.SEARCH A \D DEl'ELOP \ I£NT;

Orfice ol Minai emcnt jnj Budget

A p p r o v a l No : '? -ROl84

This form is for ^-.e * hen i / wbmission ot COM or pricing data < s« FPR 1-V80~-M 1 5 required and' t i i s u b s t i t u t i o n for the Optional Form ^9 is authorized bv the contracting officer

NO "F

1

NAME Of OFFEROR

Clement Associates, Inc.HOME 3FHCE ADDRESS

1850 K Street, N.W., Suite 450V.'ashington, D.C. 20006

1 SufLIES »ND OR SERV CES TO IE FURNISHED

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co.'Risk Assessment Support

OtvlSIGNiS AND LOCA' lCNiS .VHE8E WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED

Washington, D.C.

'OTAL AMOUNT OF PROPOSAL

38,4803OV T S O L I C I T A T I O N NO

68-01-6939DETAIL DESCRIPTION OF COST ELEMENTS

I DIREC' M A t E K I A l It, EST C O S T • 5 .T O T A L

E S T C O S T« E F E R -ENCE

PURCHASED P A R T S

h SU8CONT?ACTED ITEMS

S — I ! i SAW MATERIAL

' . ' / TOUR STANDARD COMMERCIAL ITEMS

• ; IN'ERDIVISIONAL 'RANSfERS I < < -ilhl' thj,, .?,!

mr it. nM A T E R I A L OVERHEAD I Rjtl

3 DIRECT LA8OR .'E S T I M A T E D

HOURSSATE/HOUR

ESTCOST ft)

Professional Level 4 120 133.50 4,020Professional Level 3 160 '20.28 3,245Professional Level 2 280 12.50 3,500Professional Level 1 100 7.65 765Support 100 .'10.12 1,012

f IIQI \L O/RfC r L 1BOR 12,5424 LASOR O V E R H E A D , \p|..//v ntpanminl I S A S E = EST COST / t ,

Labor Burden 43.01% 112,542 | 5 ,394Labor Overhead 51.98% ;i7,336 ; 9,323

1.4ROK >H FRHE ID 14.7175 SPECIAL T E S ' I N rk j/ (lOitrnmtttl l i l l EST COST It,

ror IL s f f rc ; IL r fsSPECIAL EQUIPMENT i t / .harqt) ttttfMUt at E.\htbit

T R A V E L ' / / J i r r < I . • (,1,1 J,uilt IK JltîhtJ Sih EST COST ' J I

' R A N S P O R T A T i O N 2,150h »ER DIEM OR SUBSISTENCE 450

101(1. I R 1 1 2,6008 CONSULTANTS . tiJeiltifi -purpon~ raft t EST COST ' ft

ror IL (.'>\<iii.i (^ i s9 OTHER DIRECT COSTS i lltmni -jn F^hibjt \t 1,175

-II I1IKECT CO\I | N D ' < 1 E R H E < 0 • 31,034

I GENERAL AND AOMiNiSTSArive EXPENSE i Katt J_2 72"' ''/ l°" '/'"""' N"' 10 3,948I J ROVALTIES

ro r it />.o < ' 34 ,982

1 4 FEE OR PROFIT 3,498 _i urn t o s r < N / > f-f.'e O R 38.480

)PTtONAI .V :*'h? r i ' " '

PR

Th li proper i i "i > jbmi t tcd lor .1 s«r in \ . u n n f ' f - . » n w i t h ind in 'ci p<jnse to • 'On. r>ht tf f- P t.'. •

Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co. — Risk Assessment Support

jnd rerieccs our best tsnmatci î of rh is Jjie. m jLCurdjnte ^ ith lhe In i t rut t ion* :« ()rfrrori jnd ihc Fautno{ci - *h i^h

TYPED NAME AND T I T L E

Wayne D. ReichardtVice President

SIGNATURE

NAME OF < RM

Clement Associates, Inc.DATE OF SU8MISSION

9-4-87EXHIBIT A-SUPPORTING SCHEDULE f Specify. If more <pace n needed, use reierte)

COST El NO iTEM DESCRIPTION / S e t tnoliwtt EST COST ' S ,

~67I6TT 6.3 6.4 Potal.Labor (hrs)

PT. 4PL 3

12 ?a16 104

2432

120160

PL 2 28 182 56 280PL 1 10 65 20 100Support 10 65 20 100

Other Costs ($)Airfare 500 900 450Ground 150 100 50

1,850*300

trans.Per diem 180 180 90 450**Duplicating 50 200 50 25 325Mail 75 150 75 25 _1Z5_Computer 250 250Phones 50 150 50 25 275

"1 RT Washington, D.C. to site3 RT Washington, D.C. to Chicago, IL

* ,*5 days per diem at $90/day

HAS ANY E K E C U T I V E AGENCY Of THE UNITED S T A T E S GOVE«NMtNT PERFORMED ANY R E V I E W OF rOuR ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION w IGOVEHNMENT P«IME CONT«ACT O« SUiCONTRACT WITHIN TM€ PAST TWELVE MONTHS'

JX] YES .' | NO '// brlou /

NAME AND ADOIESS Of REVIEWING OFFICE AND INDIVIDUAL

DCAA, 1300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209TELEPHONE NUMiER'EXTENSION

!703) 694-8543II WILL rOU REQUIRE THE USE Of ANY GOVEUNMtNT P«O«m IN THE Pe«FO*MANCE OF THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT'

| J YES I ^ NO 'if ift. idtnttfj on rtttrM or \tparatt p*gt)

II DO YOU REQUIRE GOVERNMENT CONT«ACT FINANCING TO PERFOdM THIS PROPOSED CONTRAO'

•X] res \ I NO ' // Hi. uitxtify i ] ADVANCE PAYMENTS [~] PROGRESS PAYMENTS OR | ' GUARANTEED LOANS

IV DO YOU NOW HOLD ANY CONTtACT (Or. da ion hail JKI indtptndtnll* flxannd 'IR&D/PROPOSED CONTRACT?

[]] YES 0 NO (// i«. idtxnfy.)

, FO« THE SAME OR SIMILAR WORK C A L L E D 'C" »•

V DOES THIS COST SUMMARY CONfO«M WITH THE COST PIINCIPUS SET FO«TH IN AGENCY REGULATIONS?

|XJ YES j | SO 'If no. t\f>tuiH IH merit or irparait pagi)

Stt Retrnt for ttttlruittoHi und Footnott>

2

OPTIONAI F O R M

OPTIONAL FORM r,o . l i)- ' l

TAS< 6. ASSESSMENT OF RISKS

The objective of the endangerment assessment (EA) is to assess potentia1

impacts on public health, welfare, or the environment from actual or potent i

releases resulting from past activities at the Grand Traverse Overall S u p p l y

Company (GTOS) site. An endangerment assessment is a site-specific b a s e l i n erisk, assessment for an EPA enforcement action site that evaluates the si fp •<surrounding area in the absence of remediation. In addition, if the

conclusions of the baseline assessment indicate that remediation may benecessary, ICF-Clement w i l l evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial

alternatives considered in reducing impacts on p u b l i c health or theenvi ronment.

SCOPE

This scope of work, includes four tasks. These are

6.1 Site Visit and Review of Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis PlanQuality Assurance Project Plan

6.2 Baseline Endangerment Assessment

6.3 Assessment of Public Health/Environmental Impacts of R e m e d i a lAlternatives

>

6.4 Technical and Financial Management

These tasks are described in detail below.

SUBTASK 6.1. SITE VISIT AND REVIEW OF NORK PLAN. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PI. * NAND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

ICF-Clement w i l l review available reports to obtain background information -

the GTOS site. The Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan, and Quality

Assurance Project Plan w i l l also be reviewed to determine if the proposed •data collection program w i l l provide adequate information for risk assessine'

purposes.

SUBTASK 6.2. BASELINE ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT

The EA w i l l address the potential human health and environmental effectsassociated with the GTOS site under the no-action alternative. The no-actionalternative assumes that no remedial (corrective) actions take place at thesite and that no restrictions are placed on the future use of the site.Evaluation of the no-action alternative is required under Section 300.68(fHv)

of the National Contingency Plan (NCR). By conducting such an assessment. * Âw i l l be able to identify if remedial actions are indicated for any area of thesite. In addition, the EA w i l l also provide a basis for determining the

reduction in risk resulting from remediation. The main steps in such an

assessment, which w i l l be performed in accordance with the latest EPA pob;y

and guidance on risk assessment in general and for Superfund sites inparticular, are outlined below.

This EA w i l l be based on the environmental sampling data and other site

specific information (e.g., hydrogeological characteristics of the site). Toavoid duplication of effort, and to ensure a consistent report, it is assumeothat draft sections of the Rl that precede the EA w i l l be available before the

EA is begun. As is noted below, it is anticipated that at least one meetinq

with Weston may be desirable during the preparation of the report and two

review team meetings may be attended w h i l e the report is being finalized./

SELECT COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN

The first step in the EA w i l l be to review the results of the environmentalsampling and other information developed during the Rl in order to identifychemicals of potential concern for detailed study in the EA. Key elements i n

this screening process are a comparison of site concentrations to background

l e v e l s of chemicals in appropriate media; that is, naturally occurring

chemicals present at background concentrations w i l l not be considered to be

site-related and w i l l not be evaluated in the assessment. In addition,

chemicals present in blanks (i.e., laboratory or field contaminants) w i l l be

evaluated and may not be selected for the detailed analysis.

Previous sampling of groundwater in the v i c i n i t y of the site has shown it tobe contaminated. Contaminants detected frequently in the groundwater aretetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene. Chemicals detected in any samp'edmedia as well as any additional chemicals detected at and in the v i c i n i t y ofthe site above local background l e v e l s w i l l be considered for selection aschemicals of concern. The two most important factors used in selectingindicator chemicals w i l l be concentration and toxicity. If further screeningis needed, frequency, mobility, and persistence of the chemicals detected 'MVbe considered to complete the identification of chemicals of concern,

ASSESS EXPOSURE TO RECEPTORS

The objective of an exposure assessment is to identify actual or potentialroutes of exposure and characterize the likely magnitude of exposure toreceptors. These exposures w i l l be characterized by constructing exposurescenarios.

a. Each exposure scenario w i l l define the source of contamination, theroute of transport, possible receptors, and the likely routes ofexposure (ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact).

b. For each exposure scenario, concentrations in relevant environmenta 1

media (air, groundwater, soil) at the potential receptors locationsw i l l be identified. Where concentrations have not been measured atthe exposure point, estimates of current concentrations may incertain instances be made using models. For example, concentrationsof vapors and particulates in air may be estimated using s i m p l eemission rate and dispersion models.

In addition to the estimation of concentrations for current exposures,modeling may be necessary in order to predict future concentrations,particularly from leaching of contaminants to the groundwater and estimationof future concentrations of chemicals in groundwater intercepted by private

wel1s.

c. Chemical intakes for each exposure scenario w i l l be estimated basedon frequency and duration of exposure and rate of media intake (e.g.,amount of water ingested or air breathed each day). The assumptionsused in these estimates (e.g., activity patterns, consumption ofgroundwater, inhalation rates, absorption factors) w i l l be statedclearly and documented to the extent possible. The exposureassumptions w i l l be selected to represent an "average case" and d" p l a u s i b l e maximum case."

ASSESS TOXICITY

In this step, critical toxicity values w i l l be identified for each chemica' f

potential concern. In the quantitative risk assessment, these toxicity v a l u e sw i l l be combined with the intake values described above.

For humans, toxicity data w i l l be presented in the following forms:

a. For carcinogens, the carcinogenic potency factor, in the units(mg/kg/day)"1 ;

b. For noncarcinogens, the estimated reference dose (RfD) in the unitsmg/kg/day (formerly called acceptable da i l y intake (ADD);

In addition to critical toxicity values, any applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements (ARARs) that have been established for the c h e m i c a l sof potential concern w i l l be identified. Currently, EPA considers maximumcontaminant leve l s (MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs)developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, federal ambient water qualitycriteria (AWQC), national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and stateenvironmental standards to be some of the standards or criteria that arepotential ARARs for use in risk assessment at Superfund sites.

ASSESS RISKS TO HUMAN POPULATIONS

According to the procedures for risk assessments developed by EPA, thepotential adverse effects on human health should be assessed where possible bycomparing concentrations found at or near the site with a p p l i c a b l e or relevant

and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that have been developed. For example,groundwater concentrations of chemicals w i l l be compared to the maximumcontaminant levels (MCLs) developed under the Safe Drinking Hater Act.However, if suitable, ARARs are not a v a i l a b l e for all of the selectedindicator chemicals and for the exposure scenarios considered, a q u a n t i t a t i v erisk assessment must also be performed for all of the chemicals of potentialconcern. It is anticipated that ARARs w i l l not be a v a i l a b l e for all of thechemicals of concern or for all of environmental media that w i l l be considf?-•?<•in this assessment.

Evaluation of the noncarcinogenic health risks associated with contaminants o*concern considered in this report is based primarily on a comparison of theestimated daily intake of the indicator chemicals with appropriate c r i t i c a ltoxicity values for the protection of human health described above. Forpotential carcinogens, the estimated cancer risks associated with exposure a - -calculated using EPA-derived cancer potency factors. Specifically, excesslifetime cancer risks are obtained by multiplying the cancer potency factor ~the daily intake of the contaminant under consideration. This procedure Uconsidered to be appropriate for low doses such as would potentially resu'tfrom this site. In this assessment, the effects of exposure to each of t'-pcontaminants under the scenarios evaluated w i l l i n i t i a l l y be consideredseparately. However, pollutants occur together, and i n d i v i d u a l s may beexposed to a mixture of the contaminants. Consequently, it is important t:recognize the potential adverse effects that these mixtures can have in h---.if suitable data are available. As suggested in EPA guidance for evaluat ;-:mixtures, however, it may be useful to sum the excess cancer risks or tocalculate hazard indices for chemical mixtures.

Risk assessments w i l l be conducted separately for each exposure pathway arjfor each source, when appropriate. Results w i l l be presented separately fzf

the "average case" and the "plausible maximum case" exposure assumptions,risk assessment for each exposure pathway w i l l include a discussion of the

uncertainties in the estimates.

ASSESS RISK TO NON HUMAN POPULATIONS

ICF-Clement w i l l evaluate the potential for impact of the site on non human

populations as appropriate. This evaluation w i l l i n c l u d e endangered s p e c i e s ,c r i t i c a l habitats, and valued natural resources as w e l l as application of

EPA's Amb i e n t Water Quality Criteria Approach to aquatic l i f e in GrandTraverse Bay and associated tributaries.

SUBTASK 6.3. EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

ICF-Clement w i l l assist in identifying appropriate cleanup standards orcriteria, in addition to a chiefly qualitative discussion on the risk

reduction due to selected remedial alternatives. However, it should be no tec

that the effect of these remedial actions may not necessarily be a reductionin risk, particularly during the remedial action period. For example, remcva'

and off-site disposal of contaminated soils may create an additional exposurepathway and resultant risk. Hence, short-term risk resulting from a p p l i c a t i : -

of the remedial action itself w i l l also be considered.

SUBTASK 6.4. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

ICF-Clement w i l l incorporate technical quality assurance and financial

management as appropriate throughout each of the subtasks w i t h i n Task 6.

v

VA.

\ /

\

V

V

\

H.

0:/

svy'v

,y,

•A

DRAFT

SECTION 1

INTFODUCITON

Work PlanGTOSSection: 1

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY

The Grand Traverse Overall Supply Company (GfTOS) is located about onemile north of the western limits of Traverse City, Michigan, in thetown of Greilickville. It is in the southeast 1/4 of Township 28North, Range 11 West in Leelanau County (Figure 1-1) . It is just westof state highway M-22 on Cherry Bend Road, which forms the southernboundary of the site. GTOS is bounded on the north by Cedar Creek, onthe west by private residences, and on the east by the NorrisElementary School. The site comprises approximately 3.9 acres, basedon an aerial survey photo taken in 1982 (Figure 1-2) .

GTOS is a commercial laundering and dry cleaning facility that has beenin operation since 1953 (the dry cleaning service was begun in 1968) . In1955, the laundry waste was discharged to a seepage lagoon, and, from1961 through 1968, three more lagoons were added. From 1968 through1977, the process waste from the dry cleaning operations was alsodischarged to the lagoons. Cooling water from the dry cleaningoperations was discharged to Cedar Creek. In December of 1977, allprocess water was discharged to the sanitary sewer system and in 1978the cooling water was also discharged to the system. (GTOS StatusReport, June 15, 1979)

On April 1978, traces of trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene weredetected in the water supply of the Norris Elementary School.Contamination of 10 residential wells in the area was also confirmedby the end of summer 1978. Trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene weredetected in the discharge water (to the sanitary sewer) at GTOS andin the dry well that was once used as a discharge point for some ofthe GTOS process wastes. Tetrachloroethene was detected in soilsamples near the dry well, in soil from the lagoons, and in barrelscontaining dry cleaning machine waste sludges. (GTOS Status Report,June 15, 1979)

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) performed a bio-logical evaluation of the Cedar Lake Outlet in October-November of 1978to determine if wastewaters from the GTOS site, discharged intostream-side lagoons and to the Cedar Lake Outlet, had damaged the in-digenous aquatic plant and communities in the outlet. The study con-cluded_. thatLjtne aqi tic anMaaljgg Outlet from

Outlet, 1979)(MDNR Biological Evaluation of the Cedar Lake

In 1981, the MDNR released a report which concluded that the waste dis-posal lagoons had resulted in adverse groundwater quality changes in the

G A R F T E^ .L -

x;

7

GRAND TRAVERSE•OVERALLfSUPPLYCOMPANY!

- Grei'.'.ck\illei.Renme* Sta t ion t

-"'*. r

Is

o*f

"11

36-

1

Scale in Miles

FIGURE 1-1 LOCATION MAP

CedarLake

Cedar Cree

Formerons

Norr isE lementary

Grand T r a v eOve ra l l Sup

OWi l le t te

CovenantL_^Church

Harbor W e s t Marina

"7" 0 100 200

scale in feet

FIGURE 1-2 SITE MAP


vicinity of the GTOS site. GTOS had been the source of trichloroetheneand tetrachloroethene contamination of the shallow aquifer in thearea. However, the study also concluded that the deeper useableaquifer appeared to be protected from contamination. In September1983, the GTOS site was placed on the National Priority List by theU.S. EPA for potential remediation under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)guidelines (Geraghty and Miller Report, 1987). It was given a rank of484 with a HRS score of 35.53.

1.2 SITE STATUS AND PROJECT TYPE

The GTOS facility is a privately owned site which continues to operate.All process wastes and cooling water is discharged to the sanitary sewersystem and three of the lagoons have been graveled over and are now aparking lot. The fourth lagoon is a grassy area west of the parkinglot. At present, the site is considered a Fund lead site.

This Work Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements ofthe Work Assignment (No. 391-5L36) and the Work Plan Memorandum (DocumentNo. 389-PP1-WM-EKFE) for the GTOS site in Traverse City, Michigan.

The purpose of this RI/FS is to assess and evaluate the potential extentand magnitude of on-site and off-site contamination, identify andevaluate alternative remedial measures, and, if appropriate, recommenda cost-effective, viable alternative for mitigating the hazard posedby the contamination. The objectives of this RI/FS are:

o Determine the extent and magnitude of contamination on andoff site;

o Determine if pollutants at the GTOS site pose a threat topublic health and the environment;

o Identify the pathways of contaminant migration from the site,and characterize the contaminant flow across the site boun-daries;

o Define site physical features and facilities that could affectcontaminant migration, containment, or cleanup;

o Evaluate the characteristics, extent and magnitude of contamina-tion in the nearby private water supply wells;

o Quantify existing and potential future endangerment for eachcontamination pathway;

o Develop, screen, evaluate potential remedial alternatives;


o Recommend the most cost-effective remedial alternative(s) thatadequately protects human health, welfare, and the environment.

o Support future enforcement action under CERCLA.

The technical approach to the completion of the RI/FS which isdescribed in Sections 4 and 5 of this plan, contain major technicalelements, in the Rl and in the FS.

Remedial Investigation

o Study area surveyso Source characterizationo Site characterizationo Bench and pilot study testing and modelingo Qantaminant pathway and transport evaluationo Endangerment Assessmento Remedial Investigation report

Feasibility Study

o Preliminary remedial alternative developmento Remedial alternative screeningo Remedial alternative analysiso Comparative evaluation of acceptable technologieso Feasibility Study reporto EPA decision document preparation assistance

Other Technical Elements

o Work assignment completion reporto Community relations-supporto Quality assuranceo Technical and financial management

The work plan presents the site background, the technical approach tosite investigation and feasibility study activities, schedule forproject execution, staffing plan, subcontracting plan, and specialequipment needs for conducting an RI/FS at the GTOS site.

DRAFT Work PlanGTOSSection: 2

SECTION 2

INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The GTOS site is located 1200 feet west of the West Arm of Grand TraverseBay and about 600 feet east-southeast of Cedar Lake, one mile north ofthe tip of the bay. The site is part of a large peninsula bordered byGrand Traverse Bay to the east and Lake Michigan to the west. LakeLeelanau, also located on the peninsula, is three miles to the northwestof the site. Cedar Creek, which forms the northern boundary of the site,flows eastward from Cedar lake to Grand Traverse Bay. There is atwelve- foot dam across Cedar Creek 400 feet west of the discharge pointinto Grand Traverse Bay.

Topography at the site is relatively flat and the ground surface eleva-tion is about 600 feet above mean sea level. One mile west of the site,surface elevations begin to rise to a maximum elevation of 1100 feet andthe topography becomes quite hilly.

The geology in the vicinity of the site is characterized by 500 to 600feet of Late Wisconsinan stage glacial deposits overlying the Devo-nian-age Antrim Shale. The glacial deposits at the site are charac-*terized by lacustrine sand and gravel with intercalated lacustrine clay.^

mile to the west of the site are end moraine, coarse-textured tilldeposits of hummocky relief consisting of sandy clay loam, sandy loam,and loamy sand.

Based on water well logs of the southeast 1/4 of Section 28 and thenortheast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 11 West, theglacial hydrogeology at the site consists of two sand or sand andgravel aquifers separated by one or more confining clay units. Welldepths in the upper aquifer range from 35 to 55 feet and the saturatedthickness is 10 to 30 feet. In the lower aquifer, well depths rangefrom 49 to 222 feet. There is no public water supply in the area(Traverse City receives its water supply from the East Arm of GrandTraverse Bay) .

The two sand units are separated in most cases by a clay to gravelly clayunit ranging in thickness from 5 to 87 feet thick. In some instances,two clay layers separated by a clayey sand to sand and gravel unitseparate the upper and lower aquifers. The total clay thicknesses rangefrom 11 to 131 feet and the intervening clayey sand layer from 4 to 33feet. It does not appear that the intervening sand layer is used as anaquifer.


2.2 CONTAMINATION PROBLEM DEFINTTTON

2.2.1 Waste Disposal at the Site

From 1968 to 1977, process waste from the laundry and dry cleaning opera-tions was discharged to four unlined seepage lagoons north and northwestof the GTOS process building. Cooling water from the dry cleaningoperations was discharged to Cprfar Creek via an outfall pipe from adry well on the west side of the building. These waste waterscontained tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE).(Although GTOS never used pure TCE, it was found as an impurity in thePCE and in a fabric softener used in laundry operations.)

At this time, process wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer, thedry well has been removed, and three of the lagoons have been gravelledover and are used as a parking lot. The fourth lagoon is now an unusedgrassy area west of the parking lot.

2.2.2 Degree of Contamination

A total of 20 residential wells were sampled in 1978 and 1979. In addi-tion, the MDNR installed 21 groundwater monitoring wells for the purposeof defining the water table. Groundwater samples were collected from 14of these wells. Fifteen of these wells, including four which were pre-viously used for water level measurements only, were again sampled in1986.

Based on the results of the sampling completed in 1978 and 1979, itwas apparent that PCE and TCE had entered the groundwater system. Oneor both compounds were detected in the shallow wells at the GTOSfacility as well as five other private wells including NorrisElementary School, West Bay Covenant Church, the Willette residence,the Heidbreder residence, and the Lautner residence.

At least one of the compounds was detected in thirteen out of fourteenof the groundwater monitoring wells sampled in 1979. In 1986, six ofthe fourteen wells contained at least one of the compounds and threeof the seven wells previously used for water level measurements onlyalso contained one or both of the contaminants. In addition, samplesfrom five of the 21 monitoring wells contained 1,2-dichloroethene.

The test results for the private and monitoring wells are included inAppendix A. Figure 2-1 includes the MDNR well locations.

Biology of Cedar Creek

A study of the biology of Cedar Creek concluded that very serious contami-nation of the creek between the GTOS outfall pipe and the dam had occur-red. There was less serious contamination below the dam.

Explanation

•Existing MDNR Monitoring WellMonitoring Well Destroye

or Removed

q iqo 290Scale in Feet

FIGURE 2-1 MDNR WELL LOCATIONS


Soil

Soil samples were collected adjacent to the lagoons and in the area ofthe dry well as well as from Cedar Creek. Some samples had trace amountsof both TCE and PCE. The results are included in Appendix A.

2.2.3 Toxicity of Contaminants

Based on water and soil sampling already completed at the GTOS facility,the three contaminants of concern include 1,2-dichloroethene, trichloro-ethene, and tetrachloroethene. The toxicity of each is listed below.

1,2-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethene is used as a solvent and is insoluble in water. It isdecomposed by light, air, and moisture to HC1. Chronic exposure causesirritated eyes, respiratory problems, and can affect the central nervoussystem. No water quality criteria for 1,2-dichloroethene exist.

Trichloroethene

Trichloroethene is a nonflammable, mobile liquid used as a solvent foroils and wax and as a degreaser. It will degrade in light and moistureto HC1. Moderate exposure in humans causes symptoms similar to alcoholinebriation. Higher concentrations have a narcotic effect and can causedeath. Other symptoms of exposure include headache, vertigo, visualdisturbance, tremors, somnolence, nausea, vomiting, irritated eyes,cardiac arrhythmia, and paresthesias. Chronic exposure can cause damageto the respiratory system, heart, liver, kidneys, central nervous system,and skin.

The drinking water criteria for maximum contaminant level of trichloro-ethene is 5 ppb. The ambient water quality criteria for ingesting waterand organisms is 2.7 ppb and 80.7 ppb for organisms only.

Tetrachloroethene

Tetrachloroethene is a nonflammable liquid used as a degreaser and asolvent. At high concentrations, it can have a narcotic effect and causedermatitis. Other effects of exposure include irritated eyes, nose,and throat, vertigo, dizziness, headache, somnolence, and erythomia.The organs affected by tetrachloroethene are the liver, kidneys, eyes,central nervous system and the upper respiratory system. The WorldHealth Organization guideline for tetrachloroethene in drinking wateris 10 ppb. For carcinogenic protection, the ambient water qualitycriteria for ingesting both water and organisms is .8 ppb and fororganisms only is 8.85 ppb.


MIGRATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS

2.3.1 Migration Pathways

It is known that groundwater in the upper aquifer is contaminated bytrichloroethene and tetrachloroethene. At this time, it appears thatthe major migration pathway for contaminants is groundwater. Becauseprocess water is no longer discharged to Cedar Creek and the lagoonsare now covered, surface water or airborne migration of thecontaminants is unlikely. Airborne contaminant migration, however,could be possible during any intrusive activities in the formerlagoons.

2.3.2 Potential Receptors

Users of groundwater in the upper aquifer are the primary receptors ofconcern. Several residential wells that were found to be contaminated in1978 were abandoned and new wells in the lower aquifer were installed.If there are other private wells screened in the upper aquifer anddowngradient of the site, the potential for exposure exists. Also,there is a slight possibility that groundwater discharging to CedarCreek may be causing contamination of the creek. The potential ofexposure to biota using the stream exists.

As part of the remedial investigation, an endangerment assessment will beconducted to more accurately define the potential for environmental andpublic health effects.

2.4 3OTTIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES

Based on review of existing information, initial remedial measures arenot considered warranted at this time.

DRAFTWork PlanGTOSSection: 3

SECTION 3

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

The purpose of this section of the Work Plan is to identify potential

remedial approaches which are consistent with the presently available

site information. This initial identification of potential remedial

technologies was utilized during the formulation of the Project

Sampling and Analysis Plan in order to ensure the data required to

ultimately evaluate candidate remedial strategies. Criteria to screen

and evaluate remedial technologies are also described. It is noted

that these technologies have been identified on a preliminary basis

and as more information becomes available via the remedial

investigation work, additional technologies may be considered during

the feasibility study.

The following topics will be discussed in the preliminary assessment

of remedial technologies:

o Approach to alternative evaluation; identification of data

requirements;

o Identification of remedial technologies, performance

criteria and standards for remedial technologies;


o Remedial investigation/feasibility study objectives and

approach.

3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

The technical information available concerning the GTOS site indicates

that erivironmental media that are or may be contaminated and thus

warrant remedial action are: surface water, groundwater, air/soil

pores, soil/sediment, and the waste material in former lagoons and

gj«y well area. The remedial technologies described in Tables 3-1V

through 3-5 are those that directly or indirectly treat the

contaminated medium or that control the extent of off-site

contamination by controlling the natural migration or transportation

of the medium. It must be noted that because of the lack of

sufficient information concerning the extent and type of buried

materials, additional remedial technologies may be considered during

the FS phase.

DIAL TECHNOLOGIES

Six criteria will be used as the basis for evaluating remedial action

strategies. These criteria provide a consistent basis for comparison,

evaluation, and screening of each alternative, and when used in

conjunction with the objectives of the overall work assignment, prove

to be effective criteria for selecting a feasible and implementable

remedial action alternative. These criteria include:


o Technical criteria, including technical risks, acceptable

and proven technology, technical effectiveness, service

life, commercial availability, etc.;

o Implementation criteria constructability, project schedule

including equipment procurement, field operations, etc.?

o Environmental criteria based on protecting environmental

media including groundwater quality and reducing long-term

hazards. Secondary environmental effects of implementation

will be considered;

o Institutional criteria such as permit requirements,

regulatory agency acceptance, operational and maintenance

rec iirements, and government infrastructure reguirements;

o Environmental and Public Health Standards such as

groundwater quality standards, surface water quality

standards, toxicity data, etc., and,

o Cost criteria based on estimated total cost and cost-benefit

analysis in meeting environmental objectives.

Performance criteria will be based on existing standards where

available, (such as Safe Drinking Water Criteria) or on RCRA

regulations which suggest cleanup to background, or some designated


ACL. Where criteria do not exist, an alternative approach will be to

consider human health risk, such as a cancer frequency of 10~

occurrence.

3.3 APPROACH TO ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

The factors selected for evaluation and screening of the technologies

have been identified on the basis of performance criteria and

available standards. In addition, other factors including technical

feasibility, institutional factors, environmental and public health

factors, and time required for implementation will be considered. The

factors to be used for comparison of the remedial technologies during

the screening and evaluation processes are listed below.

The technical feasibility will be evaluated based on the following

criteria:

o Proven technology - Has the technology been successfully

applied in a similar remedial action project?

o Reliability - Is the technology dependable? Can equipment

be expected to operate with a miniinum of down time?


o Operability - Is the technology simple to operate? Can it

be practically operated under the site field conditions?

o Flexibility - Will the technology operate efficiently under

variable conditions (i.e., safety constraints required by

nature of the contaminated soils or varying hydraulic

loadings for a groundwater treatment system)?

o Equipment availability - Is the equipment commercially and

readily available for field application or can a long

delivery time be expected?

o Susceptibility to toxic contaminants - Is the technology

subject to upset due to the presence of toxic constituents

(i.e., soil and groundwater treatment processes)?

3.3.2 Institutional Factors

The institutional factors that will be considered in the evaluation of

remedial action technologies include:

o Acceptability by federal and state regulatory agencies;

o Safety (i.e., on-site and off-site requirements during

implementation of the technologies);


o Public acceptance;

o Permits and licenses (i.e., air or water discharge permits;

construction or operations permits);

o Long-term land use; and,

o Long-term management agency requirements.

3.3.3 Environmental and Public Health Factors

The purpose of remedial action at the site is to rectify any existing

and potential future environmental effects and mitigate conditions

that could potentially affect public health in the area. Therefore,

the ability of a remedial alternative to mitigate/eliminate these

impacts is important. Remedial technologies will be evaluated

considering their ability to:

o Prevent human access or possible contact with the

contaminated materials after site work is completed;

o Abate/rtiinimize existing and potential future groundwater

migration and contamination;

o Minimize any potential additional impacts during remedial

action operations on air, land, surface water, and

groundwater;


o Minimize any potential adverse ijanpacts on human health,

wildlife and vegetation, neighboring properties, and other

sensitive population; and,

o Abate/minimize existing and potential future migration and

contamination of air, soils, and surface waters.

3.3.4 Time Required for Implementation

The required implementation time for any remedial action alternative

will ultimately effect its costs. The favored technologies will

optimize the implementation schedule and minimize long-term

monitoring/maintenance work.

3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA REOIJTREMENTS

The review of the available information on the GTOS site determined

that a very limited amount of site specific data are available. The

following data limitations were noted during the development of this

Work Plan. These data limitations are areas for which additional

information must be obtained during the Rl investigation.

o The nature and quantity of any hazardous materials in the

former lagoons and dry well areas are unknown at the site.


o Insufficient groundwater samples have been collected and

analyzed to define the nature and extent of groundwater

contamination.

o Available information is inadequate to fully characterize

on-site geology. In order to do so, the following

information is needed:

a. Stratigraphy at the site determined by boreholes

extending to the first confirming layer;

b. Characterization of geotechnical, hydrological, and

geological parameters of the soils and sediments on

site;

c. Better definition of the water table/potentiometric

surface (including seasonal fluctuations), groundwater

gradients, and recharge and discharge zones.

o The depth limits of the lagoons have not been defined.

o Insufficient information is available to confirm if there

has been any degration to the water quality of the private

wells within one mile of the site.


o Insufficient information is available to define the nature

and extent of any soil contamination present.

o No information is available regarding the relative

elevations of the Cedar Creek and groundwater table and

their seasonal fluctuations.

o Insufficient Cedar Creek samples have been collected and

analyzed to define the potential effects of the site.

o Insufficient data is available to determine what impact the

site may be having on aquatic biota.

3.5 REMEDIAL nJvESTIGATTON/FEASIBILTTY STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the RI/FS are:

o Quantify the magnitude and extent of contamination at the

site.

Identify relationship between current contamination and

origin/source;

Evaluate the potential for future off-site contaminant

migration;


Identify/develop standards and criteria for contaminant

cleanup;

Evaluate through quantifying data the magnitude and

probability of actual or potential harm to public

health, welfare, or the environment.

o Remedial Action Assessments

Identify technological options for cleaning up and

preventing migration of contaminants beyond 'M\e $i

installation- boundaries ?

Evaluate remediation technologies consistent with the

National Contingency Plan and other regulatory

requirements and guidelines;

Recommend the remedial action that is technically and

environmentally sound, and the most cost effective;

Assess no action alternative by comparing environmental

etc. , benefits of each action to no action.

o Supply the basis for preparing the Record-of -Decision.

Section 1.3—j.y GUST*!!*- .

in

Work PlanGTOSSection 3

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR SURFACE WATER

Technique.

Surface Sealing/Capping

Regrading and Revegetation

Surface Water Diversion andCollection Structures- dikes and berms- ditches, diversionsand waterways

- trenches and benches- levels

Seepage Basins

Sedimentation Basins/Traps- check dams- sedimentation basins/ponds

Utilities

Isolates waste materials fromcontact with surface runoff and/orinfiltration; stabilizes surface ofsite, controls off-site transportof contaminated sediments anddebris; supports revegetation,prevents leachate seeps.

Shapes topography to provide fornonerosive runoff and minimizeinfiltration; supportsrevegetation. Stabilizes sitesurface; controls erosion by waterand wind; enhances surface sealing;may prepare site for future re-use,controls off-site transport ofcontaminated debris.

Up slope or at perimeter of site,channels runoff around criticalareas, dcwn slope or on site,controls off-site erosive transportof contaminated sediments;collects/channels c»rrtaminatedrunoff to basins/traps.

Collects surface runoff fromdiversion structures and providesrecharge to groundwater.

Collects contaminated sedimentseroded fron disposal site surface;sediment laden surface runoffintercepted and channeled to thesestructures.


TABLE 3-1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR SURFACE WATER

Technique Utilities

Leachate Control Controls off-site migration of- collection surface leachate seeps from former- recirculation lagoons and dry well areas by- treatment collecting and treating or

recirculating leachate.

Treatment of Contaminated Removes contaminants by physicalSurface Water and chemical treatment methods at- air strapping on-site or off-site locations.- activated granular carbon- UV/ozonation

No Action


TABLE 3-2

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER

Technique

^Surface Seling- impermeable soif liner- synthetic liner

Grading

Revegetation

Surface Water Diversion andCollection Structures- dikes and berms- ditches, diversions andwaterways

- trenches and benches- chutes and dcwnpipes

Impermeable Barriers- slurry wall- grout curtain- sheet piling- french drain

Permeable Treatment Beds

Utilities

Indirectly controls groundwatercontamination by control andreducing the surface waterinfiltration (provides iitTpermeablebarrier), therefore minimizingleachate generation.

Indirectly controls groundwatercontamination by promoting surfacerunoff and reducing infiltration,therefore niinimizing leachategeneration.

Indirectly controls groundwatercontamination by drying surfacelayers of soil through rootuptake-evapotranspiration, reducingthe volume of leachate generation.

Up slope of site may indirectlycontrol groundwater contaminationby intercepting and divertingrunoff around site, reducing theopportunity for runoff infiltrationand minimizing leachate generation.

Upgradient from or around the site,diverts uncontaminated groundwaterflow away from wastes; down slopeor around site contains/collectscontaminated groundwater to limitextent of groundwater contaminationand/or protect off-site watersupply wells.

Adsorption, neutralization, orprecipitation of certaingroundwater contaminants dcwngra-dient of contaminant migration.


TABLE 3-2 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER

Technique

Groundwater Pumping andTreatment- air stripping- activated granular charcoal- UV/ozonation

Biodegradation

Leachate Control- collection- recirculation

Utilities

Contains or collects a leachateplume for delivery to treatmentsystem on site or off site; lowerswater table to prevent groundwatercontact with buried wastes.

Bacterial degradation/removal ofcontaminant organic compounds.

Intercepts subsurface leachatebefore it migrates to groundwater;collects and transports leachate toretreatment system or forrecirculation.

No Action


TABLE 3-3

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FORCONTAMINATED AIR/SOIL PORE SPACES

Technique

Surface Sealing and Gas Barriers

Gas Ventilation System- pipe vents- trench vents

Gas Collection and Treatment

Utilities

Horizontal sealing providesimpermeable barriers for upwardmigration/surface escape ofdecomposition gases and volatiles;vertical sealing prevents lateralmovement; layered sealing systemsmay channel gas to vents andtreatment structures.

Prevents lateral subsurfacemigration of gases; vents hazardousgases to atmosphere or to treatmentstructures.

For control of volatile organiccompounds and decomposition gases,removal or destruction ofpollutants by thermal oxidation oradsorption.

No Action


TABLE 3-4

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIESFOR CONTAMINATED SOIL AND SEDIMENT

Technique

Surface Sealing- impermeable soil liner- synthetic liner

Grading and Revegetation

Surface Water Diversion andCollection Structures- dikes and berms- ditches, diversions andwaterways

- trenches and benches- chutes and downpipes

Leachate Control

Disposal of Dredged Sediments

Wet Excavation Techniques- dewatering- hydraulic dredging- mechanical excavation- stream diversion

Utilities

Controls off-sitemigration/transportation ofcontaminated surface soils bycapping waste site and stabilizingcover soil; prevents leachate seepsand thus contamination.

Controls off-site erosion of coversoil.

Up slope of site, diverts erodingrunoff; down slope or on-sitesurface, slows runoff, controlssoil erosion, channels sedimentladen runoff to collectionstructure or stabilization outlets;traps and collects sediments.

Indirectly prevents soilcontamination by collecting andtreating leachate that mightotherwise migrate off site.

Disposal of contaminated sedimentsin secure landfill or on/off-siteincineration.

Removes contaminated sediments fromstreams and ponds that may beecologically fragile or importantas public water sources.

No Action


TABLE 3-5

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTE MATERIALS

Technique

Mechanical Excavation

Hydraulic Dredging

Land Disposal

Incineration

Wet-Air Oxidation

Solidification

Encapsulation

Solution Mining

In-Situ Solidification

In-Situ Neutralization/Detoxification

Microbial Seeding

No Action

Utilities

Removes the waste from the site fortreatment or secured disposal bypower shovel, clam shell, backhoe,etc.

Pumps waste materials to treatmentfacility or for transportation tosecured disposal location.

Disposes of waste material in anapproved and secured landfill.

Thermally oxidizes waste materialin controlled on- or off-siteenvironment.

Oxidizes waste material by lowtemperature thermal air.

Incorporates waste material intoimmobile matrix such as cement orresin.

Surrounds waste material withimpermeable coating.

Treats the waste in place bymobilizing contaminants orflushing them through togroundwater and collecting.

Injection of solidification agentsdirectly into waste site.

Neutralizes or immobilizes wastesby application of neutralizationagent such as time to the wastematerial.

Biodegrades organic wastes.

DRAFTWork PlanGTOSSection: 4

SECTION 4

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SCOPE OF WORK

This section of the Work Plan describes the site investigationactivities that will be conducted during execution of the project.Various project plans that address specific issues of projectexecution, that require more detailed treatment than the scope ofa typical work plan would include, have also been prepared assupporting documents to the Work Plan. The following three plans,having individual scopes as described below, have been or are beingprepared:

o Health and Safety Plan - including a Site Evaluation Form(SEF) which covers personal protective equipment needed,depending on location and activity within the site,contingency plans and emergency procedures, field monitoringequipment, and decontamination procedures. Also included inthe Health and Safety Plan is a section concerning sitemanagement. This section addresses operations at the siteincluding site access and security, site office anddecontamination facilities, equipment and materials needsand storage, communications and support functions, andcoordination of sampling activities.

o Quality Assurance Project Plan - covers QA data measurementobjectives, sampling objectives and procedures, samplecustody, calibration procedures, interval QC checks, QAperformance audits, QA reports, preventive maintenance, dataassessment procedures, corrective action, and fieldprotocols.

o Sampling and Analysis Plan - covers data collectionobjectives, sample locations, sample numbering, samplingequipment and procedures, sample analysis and handling,sample documentation and tracking, sampling teamorganization, and sampling schedule. This is a document tobe used in the field, as well as in project planning.

4.1 TASK 1 - SUBCONTRACTING AND MOBILIZATION

Prior to initiating the detailed site characterization studies, itwill be necessary to establish field support facilities; procuresubcontractor services; and identify, obtain and mobilize equipmentand materials. Specific work items associated with each of theaforementioned categories are listed below:


4.1.1 Subtask 1.1- Procure Subcontractor Services

Subcontractors must be secured for the following field activities:

1. Drilling subcontractor to conduct the installation of soilborings/leachate wells and monitoring wells;

2. Construction subcontractor to construct an equipment (drillrigs, backoe, etc.) washdcwn and decontamination pad andlined contaminated wash water storage tank.

4.1.2 Subtask 1.2 - Field Support Facilities

1. Grade site, as required, to locate field support facilities.

2. Construct an equipment (drill rigs, backhoe, etc.) washdcwnand decontamination pad.

3. Set up sampling equipment decontamination area.

4. Set up personnel decontamination area.

4.1.3 Subtask 1.3 - Mobilize Equipment and Materials

1. Schedule and obtain nonexpendable health and safetyequipment (HNu, OVA, 0 meter, etc.).

4.2 TASK 2 - STUDY AREA SURVEYS

4.2.1 Subtask 2.1 - Groundwater Utilization Survey Follcw-Up

The groundwater utilization survey was conducted during the Work Planphase. During this survey, the following objectives were met:

o Determined the water supply for Traverse City (the East Armof Grand Traverse Bay);

o Determined the number and location of private wells in thevicinity of the study area;

o Determined which aquifer most of these wells are utilizing;

o Determined the area in which wells should be sampled as partof Rl work.

The follow-up to the groundwater utilization survey will be todetermine exactly which private water supply wells will be sampled aspart of the Rl and to present the above information in a TechnicalMemorandum.


4.2.2 Subtask 2.2 - Soil Gas Survey

A soil gas survey will be conducted in the lagoon and former dry wellareas of the site to identify the presence, extent, and concentrationof residual contamination in the soil. The data gathered from thesoil gas survey will also be used to locate soil borings and,possibly, groundwater monitoring wells.

4.2.3 Subtask 2.3 - Technical Memorandum

A technical memorandum will be prepared to document field surveyactivities undertaken in Rl Task 2. The memorandum will providedetailed results of each survey including: 1) results of thegroundwater utilization survey follow-up and 2) results of the soilgas survey.

4.3 TASK 3 - SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

4.3.1 Subtask 3.1 - Soil Boring Samples

Although GTOS claims to have excavated the soils at the bottom of thelagoons, there is no documentation to support this. Also, anindustrial survey conducted by the MDNR indicated no other possiblesources for the TCE and PCE contamination. Therefore, to characterizethe concentration and amount of residual contamination in the buriedlagoons, a maximum of 22 soil borings will be drilled (20 on site and2 off site). It is anticipated, based on the apparent depth of thelagoons and the elevation of the water table surface, the borings willhave a maximum depth of 10 feet. A total of 50 soil samples,including 5 duplicates, will be collected and analyzed for standardHSL parameters. (Volatile organics analysis only will be performed onall but five of the samples.)

The soil boring locations will be determined after completion of thesoil gas survey results have been assessed. Borings will be locatedin areas indicated by the surveys to have the highest degree ofcontamination as well as to define the entire lagoon area.

In addition, if soil gas indicates the presence of residualcontamination in the dry well area, a maximum of two soil borings willbe drilled in that area. A total of four soil samples from the drywell area will be analyzed for standard HSL volatile organiccompounds. Although this area was excavated and contaminated soilremoved, a monitoring well (TW10) in the immediate vicinity of the drywell showed a significant amount of contamination in 1986. Therefore,some contaminated soil may yet remain in the dry well area.

i9 190 290

Scale in Feet

FIGURE 4-1 POSSIBLE SOURCE AREAS



A technical memorandum will be prepared upon completion of the sourcecharacterization to document field activities and present the results.this memorandum will address the following:

o Results of on-site and off-site stratigraphic observationduring borings;

o Documentation of field activities including definition ofany significant findings or problems encountered;

o Tabulation of analytical results of on-site and off-sitesoil boring samples;

o Estimation of the vertical and horizontal extent of thesource area.

4.4 TASK 4 - SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Off-site contamination of groundwater and surface water has beendocumented downgradient of the GTOS site. Therefore, sitecharacterization in this case will include the definition of theextent and degree of groundwater contamination downgradient of thesite as well as the assessment of surface water and sediment of CedarCreek and the background groundwater and surface water conditions. Aphased approach will be used to assess the extent and contamination inthe upper aquifer. Based on past sampling events, groundwater appearsto be the primary environmental pathway of concern. Airbornecontaminant migration does not appear to be a pathway because thelagoons are covered.

The Phase I groundwater monitoring program will include the samplingof existing monitoring wells, sampling of private wells screened inthe upper aquifer, and the installation and sampling of 11 additionalgroundwater monitoring wells. If, based on results of the Phase Igroundwater monitoring program, the extent of contamination has notbeen well defined, a maximum of 10 additional wells will be installedas part of the Phase II investigation.

In addition to the Phase I groundwater monitoring program, samples ofsurface water and sediment will be collected from Cedar Creek. Abiological study conducted in 1978 concluded that the GTOS site wasadversely impacting the water quality of Cedar Creek. Ifcontamination in the stream water or sediment persists, based onresults of surface water and sediment samples, another biologicalstudy of Cedar Creek will be completed in Phase II.


4.4.1 Subtask 4.1 - Monitoring Wells and Groundwater Samples

The general charcteristics of groundwater flow and the configurationof the water table at the GTOS site have been fairly well defined bywater level measurements from the MDNR wells installed in 1978.However, some data gaps remain and several of the 21 wells installedby the MDNR have been destroyed. The groundwater-surface waterinteraction in the vicinity of the dam across Cedar Creek, inparticular, remains questionable.

The wells installed by the MDNR monitor only the upper 20 feet of theupper aquifer and none extend to the base of the aquifer. Because PCEand TCE are both heavier than wate$r\ ie contaminants have thepotential at high enough concentrations to sink. Therefore, wellsscreened at the base of the upper aquifer will be installed to definethe vertical extent of contamination.

No monitoring wells upgradient of the lagoons exist and the watertable in that area remains undefined. Data gaps in the water tableconfiguration also exist in the area between Norris School and CedarCreek and in the vicinity of the intersection of M-22 and Cherry BendRoad.

In order to better define the water table configuration, flow regimesin the upper and lower pc ions of the upper aquifer, the lateral andvertical extent of contamination, and to provide background waterquality information, monitoring wells will be located as follows:

o One well cluster west of the buried lagoons, consisting ofone deep well (to the base of the aquifer) and one shallow(with a 10-foot screen extending three feet above and sevenfeet below the water table). These wells will providebackground water quality samples.

o One deep well immediately adjacent to MDNR well TW6 toassess the vertical distribution of contamination, and, withTW6, to determine the vertical groundwater gradient withinthe upper aquifer.

o One well cluster 50 feet east of the northeast corner ofNorris Elementary School consisting of one deep and oneshallow well. This cluster will provide information toassess the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination,to better define the water table configuration, and toassess vertical groundwater gradient.

o One well cluster, consisting of one deep and one shallowwell, near the northwest corner of the intersection of M-22and Cherry Bend Road to define the extent of contamination,

/•> ;-/,.a

./


the water table configuration, and vertical groundwatergradients.

o One well cluster, consisting of one deep and one shallowwell, in the area of former MDNR wells TW13 and TW16 (thesewells no longer exist) to define groundwater flow and extentof contamination.

o One well cluster, consisting of one deep and one shallowwell east of M-22 from 225 feet north of the dam. Thiscluster will aid in determining whether or not groundwaterflow under Cedar Creek is occurring and will provideadditional information to define the vertical groundwatergradient and the extent of contamination.

In addition to sampling the new monitoring wells, the 15 existing MDNRwells will be sampled and water level measurements obtained as part ofPhase I sampling. If it is anticipated that the MDNR wells will be-oseel-f-er Phase" Ilsampling, locking, protective casings will beinstalled. The locations of the MDNR wells and the proposed locationof the new monitoring wells are included in Figure 4-2.

In order to define hydrogeologic properties of the upper aquifer,hydraulic conductivity tests will be performed on the new wellsinstalled during Phase I of the investigation. Because thegroundwater-surface water interactions in the vicinity of the damacross Cedar Creek are not well defined, a detailed staff gauge surveyof the water levels in the creek will be completed during Phase I. Ifthe staff gauge survey of the creek does not adequately define thegroundwater-surface water interactions at the dam, continuous stagerecording of water levels in the creek will be completed in Phase II.

Several wells, including the GTOS supply well, Norris School, West BayCovenant Church, and two residential wells, are screened in the loweraquifer (sand and gravel until below the clay). Because of the thick,confining clay layer separating the two aquifers, the strong upwardgradients in the area and the lack of contamination detected byperiodic sampling of the deep wells by the County Health Department,it assumed that there is no risk of the lower aquifer becomingcontaminated. Therefore, no monitoring wells will be installed in thelower aquifer. However, to verify the lack of contamination in thelower aquifer, two private wells, screened in that aquifer, will besampled (see Subtask 4.2). By better defining flew directions in theupper aquifer, contaminant transport directions can also be betterdefined.

4.4.2 Subtask 4.2 - Private Water Supply Samples

A maximum of three wells screened in the upper aquifer and downgra-dient to the site are still being used for water supply. These wells

t Explanation

•Existing MDNR WelsDProposed NewMonttoring Wels

0 1pO 2pOScale in Feet

FIGURE 4-2 PROPOSED NEW MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS


will be sampled in addition to two upgradient wells west of thefacility. Samples from wells downgradient of the site will betterdefine extent of contamination and the two upgradient well sampleswill provide additional background water quality information. Tojyerify that the Icwer aquifer is not contaminated. two_wells"Injthe aquifer, will also be sampledT v n C^dC&-ti C~ri u^CC \ "~n'cuTTrrIT y?t? ^ / ^ a_-t ^/ 5 _- ~,, <-p±-< pic L i 'cL? /^,,- / ,-,,-4.4.3 Subtask 4.3 - Surface Water and Sediment Sampling , ^ f . ^ , 7'.'

Biological surveying conducted by the MDNR indicated that biota in /''Cedar Creek had been adversely affected by outfall water from theGTOS. Also, it may be possible that contamination from the lagoons ismigrating via groundwater and is discharging to the stream. To assess ~ ' /'the extent and amount of contamination, if any, present in Cedar l-*-#Creek, a total of six surface water and sediment samples will becollected. One surface water and sediment sample will be collected / /uoupstream of the site and another belcw the dam at the Rennie y /residence. The remaining four will be collected from the approximate ^ • ''•location of the former outfall pipe, at equally spaced intervals tothe dam. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 4-3.

, - ^j..j^4.4.4 Subtask 4.4 - Biological Sampling 5*' ''"'' -^^

To assess any long-term effects frcm the GTOS facility on biota,another biological survey may be completed as part of the Phase IIsampling if sediment and surface water samples from Cedar Creek arecontaminated.

• • • , ' ^^rzar^^>--^£ ai-n.a^-f-^--1 I L /

•f.t} f:a^: rJ L ^ CL > 7<j-' t_t i. U7- <.i/i

<----! 'I tfa;v

LC'atc ,i n

:'-'<- /Jc<

i,n 171 pl

Of iftnfLikt if(OKI«

Sail ftannq --

(Ranilor dellbt

Crtek Hitsr

brourta»iteT ^ '

iftonilQT Hell 'i '7 I

loUl

ilhp ituM( i)i ijlplliii) lor Hi« H mil Jepfiia on I'.e le-^C,-, llvii Hu- I.lUf nuibefi inonn Hf'e rfpreienl trie u.i«u» iiounl ut v.«pi»i llul mil 'attullected durinq Phit>e 11.

Itei Staple f latru held I L *bur it jf i Far itf t er 'j ^. l u t * i Nc. F req . l o t a i

1 Se l l bo r ing Q u a l i t a t i v e ur i jamc k A S ur games pacuge irui CiF i nc(iQm H a z a r d ) vapo r bir eeni og w i t h ]i; t e o t ^ t i e l y i dent i i i ed par 4«et

hNu

* Q I at t le or giiucb orii /

(<AC inorqanic i packd i je irui CL^

2 b roundvater pH, s p e c i f i cf lon i tor inq Nell conducUnif,

ItAS o rq j na^ picUge trot ClP in i luding!lu ( tn t i t i v t i f idendh^d p^rJit ters

SAS G f ^ i n i L S pîU^ (roi C L F ^ v a U t i l û r ^^n .cs c n i y - u » d e t e c t i o n initb

Hel lte tper <Ure

CK

LHL uf^dHK'4 pic k jqe- *bJ ati J eonly

Cfti inonjdnus pa i td t j e

4 C f e e V bednent Uudl i t d t i ve orînn HAb i ^ f y j n i L S p a c i a q e irui ClF' i n c l u t j i n q(Lou H a z a r d ' vapor sc reen ing n i t n ô t e n t a t i t e l / i denu i ied pdraieter^,

HNu

» u ! d t i le ur L jan i i s onl 1^ I b I I u u

F-HASE 1 ( c o n t i n u e d /

Itei Sdiple f latru F i e l d Pa1 dieter1;

Ihfali 4 - 1 ' C u n t i r ,uedt

Gl i iAhKlNG AND H N M L i j r , FnJ

at jr y r j r d i e t e r S

i u v c b t . Cjiil i <t

S j i p leb

Nu. F r e q . I .it f req. T o t a l Nti. F r eq. lui a

C r e e k K d t e r

il UH hdzar d j

pM, s p e c 1 1 u

c o n d u c t d i u e ,

teiper i ture

f-hASE

bruundHdter pH, speciiu

f lonitor inq Hell c o n d u c t a n c e ,

(LQM H a z a r d ) te iperature

fcAS [ i r q a n t c s p a c k a g e t r o t L.U ,. icl . ,T,o t e n t a t i v e l y Uent i t ied p j r j i e t e r

KAS uf games pacuijt i ru» CU'-

iul at i le Qrgariu ^ ant y

ÂS i n o r g a i . i L ^ p a c k a g e Iroi Ci P

KAS orqanus package +roi CLP i tu U

!<•) t en ta f i »ei c i d e n t i f i e d parameter

jAS ur games p a c k a g e r ru i CLF /out

orgamcs o n l > lo* de tec t ion ImU

FiAS inorganic1! package iro* ClP

SAS uhosphi te^ trui LIF

1 1 1

pH, speni ic

todduLUnce,

te f t pe ra tu rp

CNl urqaniL1 ! p a c k a g e i n i l u d i n q

iO t e n t a t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d pjr d ie ters

Chi. o r i janu j p a t k a q e - vul a t i le o rqanus

only

CftL p a c k a g e

o 1 6

1 1 1 I I

L d l none

Saipling

*IIie aiciunt ot

Th is s a m p l i n g

e^. trut mil be c o l l e c t e d during F'tia-ae II n;ll depend on trip reû i t b ot the saaples t ro t f

r j represent! , the laxnui nuiber of saip ies that H i l l be lui ieitu dunnq Fha' je I f .


DRAFTSECTION 5

FEASIBIIJTY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK

5.1 TASK 1.0 - IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

5.1.1 Subtask l.l - Identify General Remedial Response Actions

General response actions that may prove appropriate at this site were

identified in Section 3.0 herein. These general response actions were

identified in order to determine data gaps to be addressed in Rl

activities. As the Rl progresses, the remedial alternatives will be

refined. For each response action, applicable remedial technologies

will be identified and technically screened. Screening will be based

on "best engineering judgment" with respect to the practicality of

implementation. A "no action" alternative will be used as a baseline

to measure other alternatives against. Those technologies screened

out in this manner will be removed from further consideration.

Based on present knowledge of the site, certain generic response

actions can be identified including; no action, complete and partial

removal, collection, containment, regrading, pumping, treatment and

disposal. It should be noted that the development of the alternatives

will be an on-going process. We have herein identified several

possible general response actions. It must be noted that response


actions identified to date are preliminary and, as the Rl proceeds and

additional data are collected, the alternatives will be refined.

5.1.2 Subtask 1.2 - Identify Remedial Technologies for General

Response Actions

Remedial technologies corresponding to each of the identified general

response actions will be developed. Remedial actions will be

classified according to the types of site problems.

Based on current information, a preliminary array of remedial

technologies was developed. It must be emphasized that the list shown

below will be greatly refined as the Rl phase proceeds.

Leachate and Groundwater Controls

o Capping

Synthetic membranes

Clay

Asphalt

Multimedia cap

Concrete

Chemical sealants/stabilizers


o Containment barriers

Function options

Downgradient placement

Upgradient placement

Circumferential placement

Material and construction options (vertical barriers)

Soil-bentonite slurry wall

Cement-bentonite slurry wall

Vibrating beam

Grout curtains

Steel sheet piling

Horizontal barriers (bottom sealing)

Block displacement

Grout injection

o Groundwater pumping (generally used with capping and

treatment)

Function options


Extraction and injection

Extraction alone

Injection alone

Equipment and materials options

Well points

Deep wells

Suction wells

Ejector wells

o Subsurface collection drains

French drains

Tile drains

Pipe drains (dual media drains)

Surface Water Controls

o Capping

o Grading

Scarification

Tracking

Contour furrowing


o Revegetation

Grasses

Legumes

Shrubs

Trees, conifers

Trees, hardwoods

o Diversion and collection systems

Dikes and berms

Ditches and trenches

Terraces and benches

Chutes and downpipes

Seepage and downpipes

Sedimentation basins and ponds

Contaminated Water Supplies

o In-situ treatment

o Removal and replacement

o Alternative drinking water supplies


Cisterns or tanks

Deeper or upgradient wells

Municipal water systems

o Individual treatment units

Excavation and Removal of Waste and Soil

o Excavation and removal

Backhoe

Cranes and attachments

Front-end loaders

Scrapers

Pumps

Industrial vacuums

- Drum grapplers

Forklifts and attachments

o Grading

o Capping

o Revegetation


Removal and Containment of Contaminated Sediments

o Sediment removal

Mechanical dredging

Clamshell

Dragline

Backhoe

Hydraulic dredging

Plain suction

Cutterhead

Dustpan

Pneumatic dredging

Airlift

Pneuma

Oozer

o Sediment turbidity controls and containment

Curtain barriers

Coffer dams


Pneumatic barriers

Capping

Direct Waste Treatment

o Gaseous waste treatment

Activated carbon

Flares

Afterburners

o Biological treatment

Activated sludge

Trickling filters

Chemical treatment

Neutralization

Precipitation

Oxidation

Hydrolysis

Chemical dechlorination

Ultraviolet/ozonation


Physical treatment

Flocculation

Activated carbon

KLeensorb

Ion exchange

Reverse osmosis

Solids handling and treatment

Dewatering

Screens, hydraulic classifiers, scalpers

Centrifuges

Gravity thickening

Flocculation, sedimentation

Belt filter presses

Filter presses

Drying or dewatering beds

Vacuum-assisted drying beds

Treatment

Neutralization

Solvent

Oxidation


Reduction

Composting

o Solidification, stabilization or fixation

Fly ash

Cement-based

Lime

Gas Migration Controls (generally used with treatment) (for volatiles

in soil)

o Capping (gas barriers)

o Gas collection and/or recovery

Passive pipe vents

Passive trench vents

Active gas collection systems

Air Pollution Controls

o Capping

Synthetic membranes

Clay


Asphalt

Multimedia cap

Concrete

Chemical sealants/stabilizers

o Dust Control Measures

Polymers

Water


A technical memorandum will be prepared which represents the results

of the identification of remedial alternatives. This memorandum will

be submitted for Agency review and approval. Approval of the

technical memorandum will be required before proceeding to the next

task, which is screening technologies and develop remedial

alternatives.

5.2 TASK 2.0 - SCREEN IAL TECHNOLOGIES AND DEVELOP REMEDIAL

5.2.1 Subtask 2.1 - Screen Remedial Technologies

The technologies previously identified will be screened based on

technical reliability and implementability. The alternatives will be


screened by identifying site conditions that will limit or promote the

use of the technologies. Site conditions that will be reviewed

include waste characteristics, level of technology development,

performance record and operation and maintenance. Only those

technologies that are not eliminated in this phas® of screening will

be further screened. Case histories and current literature will be

the primary information utilized during this screening phase.

Specific site characteristics, such as waste types and site

contamination, will be identified to evaluate the reliability and

effectiveness of each technology. Examples of site characteristics

which would affect effectiveness of a technology would include site

configuration, soil texture and permeability, degree of contamination,

existing land use, depths of groundwater or plume, etc. Waste

characteristics that may affect remedial technology selection would

include chemical composition, density, volatility, biodegradability,

compatibility with other chemicals and treatability. Those

technologies for which the reliability is suspect will be eliminated

from further consideration.

5.2.2 Subtask 2.2 - Develop Remedial Alternatives

Technologies that pass the preliminary screening will be used to

develop more specific alternatives. The remedial alternatives will be

developed relying on acceptable engineering practices and will

emphasize consideration of recycle, reuse, waste minimization and

complete destruction options.


The alternatives will include, as a ndniraum, at least one for each of

the following categories:

o Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an off-site

facility approved by EPA (including RCRA, TSCA, CWA, CAA,

MPRSA, and SDWA approved facilities), as appropriate;

o Alternatives which attain applicable and relevent federal

public health or environmental standards;

o As appropriate, alternatives which exceed applicable and

relevant public health or environmental standards;

o Alternatives which do not attain applicable or relevant

public health or environmental standards but will reduce the

likelihood of present or future threat from the hazardous

substances. This must include an alternative which closely

approaches the level of protection provided by the

applicable or relevant standards and meets CERCLA's

objective of adequately protecting public health, welfare,

and environment;

o A no action alternative.



A technical memorandum will be prepared which presents the results of

the screening of remedial technologies and development of remedial

alternatives. This memorandum will be submitted for Agency review and

approval. Approval of the technical memorandum will be required

before proceeding to the next task, which is screening remedial

alternatives based on public health, environmental and cost factors.

5.3 TASK 3.0 - SCP FN REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES BASFP ON PUBLIC HEALTH,

ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST FACTORS

Remedial alternatives will be screened for environmental and public

health impact. Technologies that are eliminated during this screening

phase will no longer be considered for further screening. Specific

screening criteria for public health, environmental and cost

consideration are outlined in subsequent sections.

5.3.1 Subtask 3.1 - Public Health and Environmental Screening

The Endangerment Assessment conducted during the Rl phase will

establish source characteristics (toxicity), transport pathways,

receptors and provide an assessment of present or potential public

exposure. The Public Health Evaluation will not only provide a means

of screening the "No Action Alternative," but will also provide the

criteria (e.g., pathways and receptors) that will be used in screening


additional alternatives from a public health standpoint. At this

stage of screening, alternatives will be deemed adequate if they

address all public exposure pathways and receptors.

A focused assessment of the environmental impacts will be performed

for each of the remedial technologies which are evaluated in detail.

The assessment will address the environmental impacts of these

technologies and will identify measures to be taken during the design

and implementation of the technology. This environmental assessment

will also identify any physical or legal constraints that will impair

or affect the ability to implement each of the technologies.

Compliance with NPDES, SARA, RCRA groundwater protection, corrective

action, closure and post-closure requirements, OSHA construction, air

contaminant and toxic substances exposure standards, and in

particular, the National Contingency Plan, will also be evaluated in

this environmental assessment. Other examples of standards and

guidance material, which will be used when applicable, will include

the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water

Act and the site specific ARARs as required by SARA.

5.3.2 Subtask 3.2 - Cost Screening

The remedial action alternatives must not only be technically capable

of addressing the environmental concerns, but must also be implemented

and operated in a cost-effective manner. Capital costs and operating

and maintenance costs will be screened and will reflect site specific

conditions.


Capital costs will include such items as disposal costs, engineering

expenses, construction expenses, state and local legal fees and

start-up and shake-down costs. Some of the costs included in

operation and maintenance will be operating labor costs, service

costs, administrative costs, maintenance reserve and contingency

funds. Once costs have been identified and developed, a present worth

value will be determined for competing alternatives. The present

worth costs will be a screening factor, although high cost will not be

an eliminating factor without first considering environmental

benefits.



the screening of remedial alternatives based on public health,

environmental and cost factors. This memorandum will be submitted for

Agency review and approval. Approval of the technical memorandum will

be required before proceed .Ing to the next task, which is a detailed

technical analysis of remedial alternatives.

5.4 TASK 4.0 — DEiAITFT) TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

5.4.1 Subtask 4.1 - Detailed Technical Feasibility Analyses

One of the first concerns in the detailed analyses of alternatives is

that suggested technologies are appropriate to site conditions. The


evaluation will be conducted using performance, reliability,

implementability and safety criteria applied to site conditions.

Performance will be assessed by considering both effectiveness and

useful life of the chosen alternative. Site specific conditions and

waste characteristics will be important considerations in evaluating

performance.

Two factors which will be key to assessing the reliability of a chosen

alternative are operation and maintenance requirements, and

demonstrated performance. Preference will be given to proven

alternatives, especially those which have been proven effective

considering waste characteristics and site conditions. Another area

of evaluation which will rely heavily on site conditions is

constructibility. Time requirements and scheduling are factors

considered in this aspect of the evaluation.

Safety will be the fourth factor used in evaluation. The alternatives

must address safety of workers, nearby residents and the environment,

as well as following all guidelines established and maintained by OSHA

including construction, general industry, air contaminant and toxic

substances exposure standards.

5.4.2 Subtask 4.2 - Evaluating Alternatives Versus Institutional

Requirements

Institutional factors must be considered in the evaluation and


selection of the remedial action strategy. The range of institutional

requirements are dependent on the site and waste characterization.

The primary requirements will be the hazardous waste regulations (RCRA

Subtitle C, 40 CFR, Part 264) which will outline cap, groundwater, and

closure requirements. The Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking

water sources will be regulated by the Office of Water. EPA

Groundwater Protection Strategy (GWPS) and Alternate Concentration

Limits (ACL) will be used as guidelines in establishing a groundwater

protection program. It should be understood that GWPS is not

considered a document of applicable standards but is being considered

for future regulatory amendments. Other federal requirements;

including OSHA DOT hazardous materials transport rules; state

requirements and U.S. EPA RCRA guidance documents will also be used to

ensure the remedial action strategy considers the appropriate

institutional factors in the evaluation.

5.4.3 Subtask 4.3 - Detailed Public Health Analysis of Alternatives

Protection of health, welfare and environment must be considered in

the screening of Remedial Alternatives. The health analysis will be

conducted by initially preparing a baseline site evaluation of

available relevant data which will include site background data,

disposal history, remedial alternatives and site environmental data.

The data of particular importance is that which is used to define the

type of removal alternatives considered. Due to known contamination

of the groundwater, source control options will be considered as an


alternative. The following criteria must be met to consider the

source control option:

o The known and suspected chemical contamination at the site

is restricted to near its original location.

o The remedial alternatives considered include both on-site

control measures, and removal and off-site disposal or

treatment at a facility approved under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or other environmental

laws including TSCA, CWA, CAA, MPRSA or SDWA, as

appropriate.

o The remedial alternatives will prevent or minimize releases

of contaminants.

An exposure assessment will be developed for the site, meeting a

minimum requirement of evaluation of types, amounts and concentrations

of the chemicals at the site, their toxic effects, and potential for

exposure. When considering the source control options further,

documentation must be established.

This documentation will include:

o Identifying chemicals present at the site and selecting

indicator chemicals (based on toxicity, persistence,

mobility, and quantity present);


o Identifying points of potential human exposure and exposure

pathways for each remedial alternative considered;

o Characterizing populations potentially at risk;

o Estimating at key exposure points the environmental

concentrations of each indicator substance.

Following completion of the exposure assessment, the alternatives will

be compared to relevant environmental standards. The standards have

been developed using a variety of assumptions which do not

consistently match specific site conditions. Before a reliable

assessment can be performed, the underlying assumptions will be

reviewed and compared with actual site conditions.

A summary of the public health evaluation will be completed for each

alternative. Key technical and exposure issues will be addressed and

discussed in the summary.

Key issues include:

A. Technical issues

1. What technologies will minimize or prevent exposures

otherwise expected at the site?


2. What chemical releases will be minimized or prevented by the

remedial action?

3. What chemical releases will not be minimized or prevented?

4. Over what period will chemical concentrations be reduced at

receptor locations, e.g., on site, at drinking water

intakes, in ambient air, etc.?

B. Exposure issues

1. What exposure is expected during the remedial action?

2. What exposure is expected after the remedial action?

3. What relevant and applicable standards will be met/not met?

4. What other criteria, guidance or advisories will be met?

5. What adjustments were made to standards, criteria,

advisories, or guidance?

5.4.4 Subtask 4.4 - Detailed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

A major concern in developing and evaluating response alternatives is

adequate remediation and protection of the environment. An


environmental assessment will be prepared including, at a minimum,

discussion of the "no-action" alternative. This discussion will

identify potential impacts on the environment, determine value of

contaminated areas or potentially contaminated areas, and assess the

general significance of the impacts.

The level of detail used in the environmental assessment for each

remedial alternative will vary. The general factors of the assessment

will consider:

o Floodplain assessment (per U.S. EPA policy) ;

o Effect on errvironmentally sensitive areas;

o Violation of environmental standards;

o Short- and long-term effects on the environment;

o Irreversible commitments of resources.

Beneficial effects of the remedial response alternative to be

considered will include changes in the concentration of contaminants

in the environment for individual contaminants; the ability of the

alternative to improve the biological environment; and improvements in

the commercial, residential, recreational, esthetic and cultural

resources that were damaged or threatened by site conditions. The

alternatives will also be studied to define adverse effects of the

response, or alternatives which may be used to mitigate adverse

effects.


5.4.5 Subtask 4.5 - Detailed Cost Analysis

A cost estimation will be completed for each of the remedial

alternatives in which all capital and operation and maintenance costs

will be identified. In order to determine if the costs are eligible

under Superfund, the activities will be divided into remedial action

and post-closure costs. The remedial action costs, which are eligible

for Superfund funding, will be the costs of the remedial actions

directed at achieving cleanup goals. Any activity which occurs after

completion of the remedial action are considered post-closure costs.

Capital costs will consist of direct and indirect costs.

Direct capital costs may include:

o Construction costs: Costs of materials, labor (including

fringe benefits and worker's compensation), and equipment

required to install a remedial action.

o Equipment costs: Costs of remedial action and service

equipment necessary to enact the remedy; these materials

remain until the site remedy is complete.

o Land and site development costs: Expenses associated with

purchase of land and development of existing property.


o Buildings and service costs: Costs of process and

nonprocess buildings, utility connections, purchased

services, and disposal costs.

o Relocation expenses: Costs of temporary or permanent

aoximmodations for affected nearby residents. (Since cost

estimates for relocations can be complicated, FEMA

authorities and EPA Headquarters will be consulted in

estimating these costs.)

o Disposal costs: Costs of transporting and disposing of

waste materials, such as drums and contaminated soils.

Indirect capital costs may include:

o Engineering expenses: Costs of administration, design,

construction supervision, drafting, and testing of remedial

action alternatives.

o Legal fees and license or permit costs: Administrative and

technical costs necessary to obtain licenses and permits for

installation and operation.

o Start-up and shake-down costs: Costs incurred during

remedial action start-up.


o Contingency allowances: Funds to cover costs resulting from

unforeseen circumstances, such as adverse weather

conditions, strikes, and inadequate site characterization.

Operation and maintenance costs are included in the detailed cost

estimation. The following operation and maintenance costs will be

considered:

o Operating labor costs: Wages, salaries, training, overhead,

and fringe benefits associated with the labor needed for

post-construction operations.

o Maintenance materials and labor costs: Costs for labor,

parts, and other resources required for routine maintenance

of facilities and equipment.

o Auxiliary materials and energy: Cost of items such as

chemicals and electricity for treatment plant operations,

water and sewer service, and fuel.

o Purchased services: Sampling costs, laboratory fees, and

professional fees for which the need can be predicted.

o Administrative costs: Costs associated with administration

of remedial action operation and maintenance not included

under other categories.


o Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs: Costs of such items

as liability and sudden accidental insurance; real estate

taxes on purchased land or rights-of-way; licensing fees for

certain technologies; and permit renewal and reporting

costs.

o Maintenance reserve and contingency funds: Annual payments

into escrow funds to cover (1) costs of anticipated

replacement or rebuilding of equipment, and (2) any large

unanticipated operation and maintenance costs.

o Rehabilitation costs: To maintain equipment or structures

that wear out over time.

o Other costs: Items that do not fit any of the above

categories.

Vendor estimates, cost estimates for similar projects, and standard

costing guides will be used as sources of cost information.

A present worth analysis will be conducted following completion of the

cost analysis for the individual remedial alternatives. To conduct

the analysis a discount rate of 10 percent before taxes and after

inflation will be assumed. The period of performance will not exceed

30 years.


Additionally, a sensitivity analysis will be completed for each

remedial action alternative. The primary factor considered in the

analysis will be effective life of remedial action, operation and

maintenance costs, duration of cleanup, extent of cleanup, design

parameters and discount rate.

A summary of alternative cost analysis composed of data developed in

the cost estimation will be presented in tabular forms. The three

critical cost elements will be total capital cost, present worth cost

and cash flow over the life of the alternative.

5.4.6 Subtask 4.6 - Summarize Alternatives

Once the detailed development of alternatives has been completed, a

summary will be prepared to aid the comparison of information and data

collected. The summary will outline information in order that the

relevant and applicable standard, health and errvironmental concerns,

technological reliability, cost and other appropriate factors can be

considered for each alternative. Primary consideration will be given

to alternatives that attain or exceed applicable or relevant federal

public health and environmental standards. Although it is anticipated

that most remedial alternatives will attain or exceed relevant

standards, it is possible, in some circumstances, that the remedial

alternatives will not meet the standard. The specific circumstances

are as follows:


1. The selected alternative is not the final remedy and will

become part of a more comprehensive remedy;

2. All of the alternatives which meet applicable or relevant

standards fall into one or more of the following categories:

a. Fund balancing - for Fund financed actions only;

exercise the fund balancing provisions of CERCLA

section 104(c)(4);

b. Technical impracticality - it is technically

impractical from an engineering perspective to achieve

the standard at the specific site in question;

c. Unacceptable environmental impacts - all alternatives

that attain or exceed standards would cause

unacceptable damage to the environment; or,

3. Where the remedy is to be carried out pursuant to CERCLA

Section 106; the Hazardous Response Trust Fund is

unavailable; there is a strong public interest in the

expedited cleanup; and the litigation probably would not

result in the desired remedy.

Relevant information on cost, health risks, and reliability will be

presented for each remedial alternative, including the no-action


alternative. It will be important to highlight the differences among

the alternatives.

At nujiimum, the following information will be provided:

o Present worth of total costs: The net present value of

capital and operating and maintenance costs must be

presented.

o Health information: For the no-action alternative, EPA

prefers a quantitative statement including an estimated

range of maximum individual risks. For source control

options, a quantitative risk assessment is not required.

For management of migration measures, a quantitative risk

assessment, including an estimated range of maximum

individual risks, is required.

o Environmental effects: To simplify the evaluation, only the

most important effects should be summarized. Reference can

be made to supplemental information in a separate table, if

necessary.

o Technical aspects of the alternative: This information may

strongly influence the selection of a remedial alternative,

and it is important to describe carefully the technical

advantages and disadvantages of alternatives. Such


information generally is based on the professional opinion

of engineers familiar with the site and with the

technologies comprising the alternatives.

o Information on the extent to which alternatives meet the

technical requirements and environmental standards of

appropriate environmental regulations: This information

will be arranged so that differences between the

alternatives, in terms of how they satisfy such standards,

are readily apparent. The kinds of standards applicable at

the site may include (1) RCRA design and operating

standards, (2) drinking water standards, and (3)

environmental discharge standards.

o Information on community effects. The types of information

that will be provided include: (1) the extent to which

implementing an alternative would disrupt the oommunity

(e.g., traffic, temporary health risks, and relocation) and

(2) the likely public reaction.

o Information on remedies involving removal of materials for

off-site disposal: This information will document

compliance with EPA policy on selecting off-site EPA

approved facilities for disposal of materials from CERCLa

sites.




the detailed technical analysis of remedial alternatives. This

memorandum will be submitted for Agency review and approval. Approval

of the technical memorandum will be required before proceeding to the

next ask, which is preparation of the Feasibility Study Report.

5.5 TASK 5.0 - FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

The FS Report will discuss and present the results of the Feasibility

Study. A proposed Table of Contents is given below:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Background Information1.2 Nature and Extent of Problems1.3 Objectives of Remedial Action

2.0 IDENTTFICATTON AND INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTIONTECHNOLOGIES

2.1 Identification of Affected Media in Each Operable Unit2.2 List Technologies for Each Media2.3 Initial Screening of Technologies2.4 List of Technologies Subject to Detailed Analysis

3.0 DETAILED SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES

3.1 Technical3.2 FJTvironmental/Public Health3.3 Institutional3.4 Other Screening3.5 Cost3.6 List of Remedial Action Technologies to be Assembled

into Remedial Action Alternatives


4.0 ASSEMBLAGE OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES INTO REMEDIALACTION ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Alternative 1

4.X Alternative X

5.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATTVES

5.1 Noncost Analysis

5.1.1 Technical Feasibility5.1.2 Environmental Evaluation5.1.3 Institutional Requirements

5.2 Cost Analysis

6.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATTVES

7.0 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION (OPTIONAL)

5.5.1 Subtask 5.1 - Draft Feasibility Study Report

A proposed outline of the draft report will be submitted to U.S. EPA

prior to preparation to obtain occurrence with the report

organization. The draft report presenting the results of evaluation

conducted in tasks described in Sections 5.1 through 5.4 will be

prepared. On the basis of the entire evaluation process, one

technology or a combination of technologies will be recommended for

consideration is the conceptional design. The draft report will be

submitted to U.S. EPA and the appropriate state agency for review.

Following receipt of review comments, the conceptual design task will

be initiated.


5.5.2 Subtask 5.2 - Revised Report

A revised report will be prepared to include the technology evaluation

process and conceptual design of the selected remedial action plan.

Two copies (each) of the report will be submitted to the state and

U.S. EPA for review. Agency comments will be incorporated into the

document.

5.5.3 Subtask 5.3 - Public Hearing

A minimum three week comment period will be held on the draft

Feasibility Study report. A public meeting will be held during this

period to receive comments and questions on the recommended remedial

technologies. A responsiveness summary will be prepared following

this public comment period (REM II support for these activities is

discussed in detail in Section 5.9).

5.5.4

After the state and the U.S. EPA have reviewed the draft report and

Agency comments are incorporated into the document, final copies will

be submitted.


5.6 TASK 6.0 - DECISION DOCUMENT PREPARATION ASSISTANCE

WESTON will review decision documents prepared by U.S. EPA upon

request. A minimal budget allowance has been made for this

assistance. If requested, assistance goes beyond the budget allowance

and a separate work assignment amendment will be requested at that

time.

5.7 TASK 7.0- WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT

When remedial technologies have been evaluated in detail, a report

will be issued. It will consist of a summary of research completed,

the budget used, and the technical approaches considered. It will, in

effect, summarize all that has been done and comare it to what was

initially proposed.

5.8 TASK 8.0 - COMMUNTTV

During the Feasibility Study, REM II community relations staff will

assit with implementation of the approved Community Relations Plan for

the GTROS site, as requested by EPA. This assistance will include the

following subtasks :


5.8.1 Subtask 8.1 - Communitv Relations Document

Under this subtask, a fact sheet summarizing the completed feasibility

study will be prepared. It is expected that 400 typeset and printed

fact sheets will be provided unless otherwise specified.

5.8.2 Subtask 8.2 - Public Meeting

Support for a public meeting on the draft Feasibility Study report

will entail:

o Publicizing the public meeting through newspaper ads and

assisting with other media needs, such as subscribing to the

local Traverse City newspaper;

o Attending the public meeting during the three week comment

period on the Feasibility Study;

o Providing a court reporter or other method of documentation

for the public meeting on the Feasibility Study;

o Providing graphics support for the meeting.

5.8.3 Subtask 8.3 - Responsiveness Summary

Support for this subtask will be provided by assisting EPA in the


preparation of a responsiveness summary. The summary is prepared

following the completion of the five-week public comment period on the

draft Feasibility Study. The responsiveness summary will summarize

major public comments and describe how EPA responded. The

responsiveness summary will summarize major public comments and

describe hew EPA responded. The responsiveness summary will be

included as part of the Record of Decision prepared by EPA for the

GTOS site.

5.8.4 Subtask 8.4 - Support Activities

Technical staff support for community relations during the development

of the Feasibility Study will be provided as needed and is expected to

include attending public meetings, reviewing fact sheets, and

providing input to the responsiveness summary.

5.8.5 Subtask 8.5 - Schedule of Deliverables

The schedule for community relations activities and associated

deliverables will be based on technical milestones during the

Feasibility Study and will be provided in the Community Relations

Plan.


5.9 TASK 9.0 -

Quality Assurance of the FS will be in accordance with the REM II

Quality Assurance Project Plan and project specifications. Audits

will be performed during the FS to ensure that quality assurance is

being maintained.

5.10 TASK 10.0 - TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Project Administration encompasses the following subtasks:

o Technical review and oversight

o Financial review and oversight

o Meetings

o Technical and financial reporting

Technical review and oversight includes the technical direction and

management provided by the Regional Managers and the Site Manager to

the site team, from project initiation to completion on topics that

are not task-specific.

Financial review and oversight includes the monitoring of budget

status, and internal team rebudgeting, as necessary, depending on the

level of effort provided by the project team. It also includes

monitoring work efforts and forecasting of budget and manpower to

schedule the personnel needed for the project.


5.10.1 Subtask 10.1 - Technical Reports

o Technical Progress Report

o Financial Management Report

Technical Progress Reports will include the following:

o Site identification and activity;

o Status of work tasks and progress to date with percent of

completion defined;

o Difficulties encountered or anticipated during the reporting

period;

o Actions being taken to resolve problem situations;

o Key activities; to be performed in the next month;

o Changes in personnel.

The monthly progress report will list target and actual completion

dates for each activity, including project completion. The report

will also include an explanation of any deviation from the milestones

in the work plan schedule.


5.10.2 Subtask 10.2 - Financial Reports

Financial management reports will include the following:

o Actual costs for direct labor, expenses and subcontracts

expended each month during the reporting period, including

base fee.

o Cumulative costs and direct labor hours from contract

inception to date through the reporting period, including

fee.

o Projection of costs for completing the project, including an

explanation of any significant variations from the planned

cost.

o Projected versus actual expenditures (plus fee) and a

comparison of actual versus planned direct labor hours.

o Project of costs through completion for both.

Four copies each of the Technical Progress and Financial Management

reports will be distributed monthly as follows: -


Contract Office/Project Officer

(EPA Headquarters) - 2 copies

Regional Project Officer - 2 copies

5.10.3 Subtask 10.3 - Document Control

All documents will be filed with proper document numbers according to

the guidelines issued by the U.S. EPA.

5.10.4 Subtask 10.4 - Meetings

Monthly meetings, general and management in nature, will be held to

provide progress updates on work being completed at the site.

5.10.5 Subtask 10.5 - DFTEWT Review

The GTOS site has not been selected for a DELPHI Review.