1 / 46

Gelman Sciences, Inc. Site PLS Proposal to Modify Cleanup May 27, 2009

This proposal presents modifications to the cleanup criteria for the Gelman Sciences site in Michigan. It includes a summary of current requirements, reasons for proposed changes, and criteria for evaluating the proposal. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public and accept their comments.

bruark
Download Presentation

Gelman Sciences, Inc. Site PLS Proposal to Modify Cleanup May 27, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Remediation & Redevelopment Division Gelman Sciences, Inc. SitePLS Proposal to Modify CleanupMay 27, 2009

  2. Sybil Kolon DEQ Project Manager for Gelman Sciences, Inc. Site kolons@michigan.gov 517-780-7937 Mitch Adelman Jackson District RRD Supervisor adelmanm@michigan.gov 517-780-7852

  3. AGENDA1 of 2 • Purpose of Meeting • Information Locations and • Staff Contacts • DEQ Authority and Oversight • Brief Environmental History • Brief Legal History • Summary of Current Requirements • Provisions for Modifications

  4. AGENDA 2 of 2 • Reason for Proposed Changes • Criteria for Evaluating Proposal • Overview of Proposal • DEQ’s Preliminary Review • Review of Next Steps • Public questions and comments

  5. Purpose of Meeting • To summarize PLS’s Proposal to modify cleanup criteria and relevance to existing legal documents • To inform the public about the DEQ’s decision-making process • To accept public comment on the PLS Proposal

  6. Information Available • Web site: www.michigan.gov/deqrrd scroll to “Contaminated Sites List” and click on “Gelman Sciences, Inc. • Information Repositories • E-mail distribution lists

  7. DEQ Authority and Oversight • Part of DNR became DEQ in 1995 • Act 307 became Part 201 of the NREPA, Act 451 of 1995 as amended • The DEQ administers Part 201 • RRD of the DEQ also oversees compliance with the Consent Judgment

  8. Brief Technical History • Gelman used 1,4-dioxane from 1966 - 1986 to make medical filters • Discharges to groundwater • Dioxane soluble in water, leaches from soil • Contaminated water supply wells discovered in fall 1985 • PLS began investigation in 1986 • Groundwater cleanup standard was 3 ppb

  9. Brief Legal History 1 of 2 • DNR filed lawsuit against Gelman in 1988 • Resolved in Oct 1992 by two CJs • RRD oversees cleanup and compliance with CJ • DEQ filed motion in court to enforce CJ in 2000 • Resulted in Five Year Plan • Unit E plume discovered

  10. Brief Legal History 2 of 2 • Public Comment Process • Prohibition Zone established • Subsequent disputes mostly related to the Evergreen system • How current process evolved • Accelerated schedule dictated by court

  11. Summary of Current Requirements1 of 2 Consent Judgment requires cleanup of Groundwater to 85 ppb Extraction, Treatment and Discharge Unit E plume response actions determined in court process Restrictions on use of groundwater & Interim Responses to reduce mass

  12. Summary of Current Requirements2 of 2 • Court-ordered Prohibition Zone • Prevent migration >85 ppb in Unit E plume east of Wagner Road to extent practical • Prevent migration >2,800 ppb in Unit E plume east of Maple Road • Monitoring

  13. Provisions for Modification Existing Consent Judgment §XXIV This Consent Judgment may not be modified unless such modification is in writing, signed by all Parties, and approved and entered by the court. Remedial Plans, work plans, or other submissions made pursuant to this Consent Judgment may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties

  14. Provisions for Modification (§324.20102a) • (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the following actions shall be governed by the provisions of this part that were in effect on May 1, 1995: • (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), upon request of a person implementing response activity, the department shall approve changes in a plan for response activity to be consistent with sections 20118 and 20120a.

  15. Reason for Proposed Changes • Current understanding of hydrogeology is changed from 1992 • 2004 Unit E decision created different cleanup standard than Evergreen • Connection between Evergreen plume and Unit E plume makes it difficult to apply different cleanup criteria

  16. Criteria Relevant to Modifying Cleanup and Selecting a Remedial Alternative • Part 201 of the NREPA • Part 201 Rules

  17. Criteria Relevant to Selecting a Remedial Alternative (Section 20118) • Assure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment (PHSWE) • Except as otherwise provided, attain a degree of cleanup and control of hazardous substances that complies with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, rules, criteria, limitations and standards of state and federal environmental law (ARARs)

  18. What does “...as otherwise provided” mean? • Law allows the following rules to be “waived” under certain conditions • Rule 705 (5): plume can’t expand after start of cleanup • Rule 705(6): active cleanup required unless naturally occurring chemical or biological process is documented to be taking place

  19. Additional Criteria (Section 20118 and Rule 603) • Remedies that permanently and significantly reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume (MTV) of hazardous substances • Effectiveness in protecting PHSWE • Long-term uncertainties • Persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensity to bioaccumulate • Short-term and Long-term potential for adverse health effects from human exposure • Cost (R. 601(3)) – only among alternatives that adequately protect PHSWE

  20. Additional Criteria (Section 20118 and Rule 603) • Reliability • Potential for future remedial costs if alternative fails • Potential threat to HHSWE associated with excavation, transportation and re-disposal or containment • Ability to monitor remedial performance • Public perspective about the extent to which the proposed remedial action effectively addresses the Part 201 requirements (statute and rules)

  21. Overview of ProposalWest of Wagner Road 1 of 2 • Operate selected extraction wells for mass removal (about 600 gallons per minute) • Includes new extraction well near Wagner Road (near MW-94s) • Prevent expansion of 85 ppb except to east into Prohibition Zone • Turn off extraction wells when 500 ppb or less & extent of 85 ppb would not expand

  22. Overview of ProposalWest of Wagner Road 2 of 2 • Place deed restrictions on remaining properties >85 ppb • Monitoring to determine if extent of dioxane >85 ppb is stable • Does not address Western System

  23. Overview of ProposalEast of Wagner Road 1 of 2 • Expansion of the Prohibition Zone into the Evergreen area • Prevent migration >2,800 ppb in Unit E plume east of Maple Road for expanded PZ • Reduce purging from Evergreen purge wells (LB-1 & LB-3) to 150 gpm

  24. Overview of ProposalEast of Wagner Road 2 of 2 • New pipeline from Maple Rd. purge well (50 gpm from TW-19) to Evergreen area to transfer to PLS property for treatment • Potential new purge well near Rose & Valley would be considered • Additional well identification survey • Monitoring to detect any migration of plume outside of expanded PZ

  25. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Assure the protection of the PHSWE? • No, or uncertain as proposed • Extent of 85 ppb concentration is uncertain • How can we be assured of no expansion of 85 if purge wells turned off as currently proposed • Uncertainty about potential for NE flow from Evergreen toward Barton Pond • Inadequate monitoring plan • No contingency plan

  26. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Comply with ARARs? • Does not comply with Part 201 as proposed • No additional ARARs identified

  27. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Waiver of 705 (5) & (6)? • Proposal doesn’t ask for a waiver • Waiver required for Evergreen • West of Wagner Rd., with stated goal of no further expansion, no waiver required

  28. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Permanent/significant reduction of MTV? • Volume: proposal includes additional mass removal • Mobility: when purging stops, hazardous substances will continue to be mobile in the aquifer(s) at concentrations of concern, unless all concentrations are < 85ppb. • Toxicity: relevant in unrestricted area

  29. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Effectiveness in protecting PHSWE and Long-term uncertainty? • High degree of uncertainty as proposed: • Better Evergreen monitoring needed to confirm eastward flow hypothesis • Source control measures may not be adequate • Unclear how one could demonstrate that reduction of purging west of Wagner will result in no expansion if concentrations > 85 ppb remain

  30. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensity to bioaccumulate? • 1,4-D is highly persistent and mobile in groundwater • Toxicity - is suspected carcinogen • Bioaccumulative – has low propensity

  31. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Short-term and Long-term potential for adverse health effects from human exposure? • Prohibition zone, combined with monitoring should reduce the long-term exposure • Monitoring plan is not adequate

  32. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Costs? • Unable to form an opinion, as this factor is only relevant among equally protective alternatives, and the proposal is not protective

  33. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Reliability? • Unsure about migration pathway (both Evergreen and west of Wagner) • Lack of contingency plan impacts our assessment of reliability

  34. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Potential for future remedial action costs if alternative fails? • There is potential for higher remedial action costs than current if Evergreen pumping is curtailed and/or stopped, and the plume flows toward municipal supply and further remedial action becomes warranted • Potential expansion west of Wagner

  35. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Potential threat to HHSWE associated with excavation, transportation, redisposal or containment? • Adequate

  36. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Ability to monitor remedial performance? • Proposed monitoring plan is inadequate • Complex hydrogeology and the nature of the hazardous substance necessitates robust monitoring network • Unclear how one could demonstrate that reduction of purging west of Wagner will result in no expansion if concentrations > 85 remain

  37. Remedy Selection Criteria Applied to PLS Proposal (After preliminary review by JRRD) Public perspective about the extent to which the proposed remedial action effectively addresses the Part 201 requirements (statute and rules)? • This will be assessed during the public comment period, which is part of what tonight’s meeting is for.

  38. JRRD Recommendation Due to a number of deficiencies, including insufficient monitoring plan, lack of contingency plan, uncertainty about migration pathways, and uncertainty about the current location of the 85 ppb iso-concentration, the proposed plan lacks sufficient detail to be either conditionally or unconditionally approved, and should be denied.

  39. Review Next Steps • June 3 - DEQ quality review team meeting • June 8 – end of public comment • June 12 – DEQ response to public comment • June 15 – DEQ response to PLS proposal • July 8 – DEQ & PLS to file motions seeking court approval of proposal or to resolve disputes

  40. Public Comment Written comments must be received by June 8, 2009 kolons@michigan.gov Sybil Kolon MDEQ-RRD 301 E. Louis Glick Highway Jackson, Michigan 49201

More Related