1.0introduction - ohio epa home weigand decision... · web view2020/09/29 · one ground water...

AJ Weigand, Inc.Final Decision DocumentSeptember 2020

Decision Document for the Remediation of

AJ Weigand, Inc. Facility

8870 St. Peters Church Rd.Bolivar, Ohio

Tuscarawas County, OhioOHT400013082

Prepared by The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization

September 2020

of 21


Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................51.1 Executive Summary..................................................................................51.2 How the Corrective Action Process Works................................................5

2.0 SITE HISTORY......................................................................................................63.0 SUMMARY OF FACILITY ASSESSMENT............................................................7

3.1 RISR Risk Evaluation by SWMU...............................................................93.2 Human Health Risk Exposure Evaluation................................................113.3 Soil Direct Contact Pathway....................................................................113.4 Sediment and Surface Water Pathway....................................................113.5 Ground Water Ingestion Pathway...........................................................113.6 Soil to Ground Water Leaching Pathway.................................................113.7 Indoor Vapor Intrusion Pathway..............................................................12

4.0 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF REMEDIES..............................................124.1 Description of the Evaluation Criteria......................................................124.2 Evaluation of Corrective Action Remedies..............................................134.3 Environmental Covenant.........................................................................144.4 Abandonment of Ground Water Monitoring Wells...................................164.5 Active Solid Waste Management Units...................................................16

5.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................18

TablesTable 1: Solid Waste Management Units in Operation .......................................................17

FiguresFigure 1: Property Location Map..............................................................................................20Figure 2: Location of SWMUs, Monitoring Well and Soil Borings.......................................21

of 21


Acronyms

AUL Activity Use Limitation

AOCs Areas of Concern

B&N Burgess & Niple

BDL Below Detection Limit

BGS Below Ground Surface

CA Corrective Action

CMS Corrective Measures Study

COCs Contaminant of Concern

DD Decision Document

DCE Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

DFFOs Director’s Final Findings and Orders

DRO Diesel Range Organics

EC Environmental Covenant

GRO Gasoline Range Organics

HQ Hazard Quotient

Ky Vertical Permeability

Ohio EPA Environmental Protection Agency

NOV Notice of Violation

PA/VSI Preliminary Assessment/Visual Site Inspection

PCE Tetrachloroethene

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFI RCRA Facility Investigation

RISR RCRA Investigation Summary Report

RSL Regional Screening Levels

RRO Residual Range Organics

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

of 21


SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit

SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

TCA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethene

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon

TR Target Risk

UST Underground Storage Tank

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VAP Voluntary Action Program

VI Vapor Intrusion

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

of 21


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Executive Summary

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has prepared this Decision Document (DD) for the corrective actions taken at the AJ Weigand (Weigand) facility owned by Bluff Terminal, Co. located at 8870 St. Peters Church Rd., Bolivar, Ohio. This DD identifies Ohio EPA’s selected remedies and explains the reasons for the selection of the remedies.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Corrective Action (CA) program was created to address threats to human health and the environment from historical or past waste management areas at RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The responsibility for CA remediation is retained by the property owner which may not be the entity responsible for the contamination.

Twelve solid waste management units (SWMUs) have historically been identified at the Weigand facility and are discussed in Section 3.1. Eight of the SWMUs (3 (A and B), 4, 7, 8 (A and B), 9, 10, 11, and 12) required further investigation regarding outstanding CA obligations. As result of the investigation, Weigand and Ohio EPA agree to enter a legal and binding Environmental Covenant (EC) restricting the land use to commercial/industrial activities on a 9.22-acre area Carve-Out around the Truck Wash Facility, an Activity Use Limitation (AUL) requirement within a 0.2296-acre area of the Carve-Out area for the installation of a vapor barrier for any future construction over the former Underground Storage Tank (UST) area, and regular inspection and maintenance of the existing building floor and geomembrane barrier. Weigand is an active facility, currently operating two SWMUs (4 and 8B), which are presented in Table 1. Upon termination of use, these SWMUs will be assessed, investigated, and remediated through unit closure and/or additional corrective actions.

A summary of Ohio EPA’s selected remedies is discussed in Section 4.0. Ohio EPA finds that these remedies upon implementation will further protect public health and the environment by permanently reducing risks to acceptable levels.

1.2 How the Corrective Action Process Works

After RCRA was enacted, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Waste Program Enforcement required facilities managing hazardous waste and hazardous constituents to have a preliminary assessment/visual site inspection (PA/VSI) conducted. PA/VSIs were used to prioritize RCRA facilities for immediate, intermediate, and low priority CA remediation activities. The PA/VSI at Weigand was performed on June 20, 1988 and July 28, 1988 to identify and systematically review all solid waste management units (SWMUs) and areas of concern (AOCs) on the facility’s property and make a cursory determination of their condition by visual observation. The PA/VSI identified 12 SWMUs and determined that four of the SWMUs (1, 2,5 and 6) required no

of 21


further action, leaving eight SWMUs (3 (A and B), 4, 7, 8 (A and B), 9, 10, 11, and 12) to be further addressed.

Weigand recognized the need for additional characterization to determine if contaminant releases had occurred since the PA/VSI. Weigand submitted a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to Ohio EPA on July 17, 2019, to characterize subsurface conditions and to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of soil and ground water contamination at the nine remaining SWMUs on the site where further actions may be necessary. Ohio EPA has recognized that the SAP would be part of a RCRA Summary Investigation Report (RSIR) which would achieve the same purposes as an RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) for investigating necessary CA obligations in the identified SWMUs at the Weigand facility. Ohio EPA reviewed and evaluated the investigatory results and Weigand’s proposed remedy in the RISR which was submitted on June 3, 2020. Ohio EPA then developed a preliminary decision on remedy selection for public comments by issuing a Statement of Basis on August 5, 2020. The document was made available to the public for review on Ohio EPA’s website at http://epa.ohio.gov/derr and on Ohio EPA’s eDocument portal at http://edocpub.epa.ohio.gov/publicportal/edochome.aspx. The comment period was from August 12, 2020 through September 28, 2020. Ohio EPA did not receive any comments during the comment period.

In accordance with the CA process, at the end of the Public Comment period a responsiveness summary is prepared if any public comments were received. There were no comments received during the Public Comment period. A DD, which incorporates any public comments and describes the remediation strategy selected for the Weigand facility, is signed by the director. This is the DD for the Weigand Facility in Bolivar, Ohio. The DD will be journalized upon receipt of the director’s signature.

The DD is available electronically via Ohio EPA’s eDocument portal athttp://edocpub.epa.ohio.gov/publicportal/edochome.aspx. To use the search function on the eDocument portal, search under the document type of "Remediation Response" and then refine the search using the Weigand facility's RCRA ID number Secondary ID which is OHT400013082. Then select from the list of documents, the document dated 8/3/2020 AJ WEIGAND INC - Remediation Response - RCRA C - HAZARDOUS WASTE - TUSCARAWAS - OHT400013082 – 1383500.

2.0 SITE HISTORY

The Weigand facility is located at 8870 St. Peters Church Rd., Bolivar, Ohio 44612 (Figure 1). The site consists of a 130-acre lot with a masonry building that has been used for offices, tanker truck maintenance and washing. The facility was constructed on the bedrock ridge of a local unglaciated plateau that drains primarily to the south and west, with a secondary component of drainage to the east. A former strip-mine area lies at a lower elevation to the southwest corner of the site and receives drainage from the area. The portion of the property immediately to the west, east and south of the facility is wooded.

Weigand’s primary business activity since 1973 specialized in liquid chemical transportation of of 21

http://edocpub.epa.ohio.gov/publicportal/edochome.aspx

http://edocpub.epa.ohio.gov/publicportal/edochome.aspx

http://epa.ohio.gov/derr


organic hazardous and non-hazardous chemicals in the United States and Canada. From 1973 to 1983, a tank washing station was used to wash out the interior of the tank trucks. This wastewater included listed and characteristic hazardous wastes consisting of corrosives, anilines and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), which were discharged into the surface impoundment of the previously referenced former strip mine to the southwest of the facility. Prior to 1985, releases of oil product to the truck parking lot occurred before the trailers were washed.

On September 21, 1983, Ohio EPA conducted an inspection of the truck Parking lot (SWMU 5) and issued a notice of violation (NOV). In consultation with Ohio EPA, Weigand voluntarily excavated the contaminated soils of the parking lot and collected confirmation samples in 1984 and 1985 that verified the contaminated spoil was removed. On March 11, 1986, Ohio EPA acknowledged that Weigand had substantially remediated the contaminant sources from the truck parking lot and RCRA violations resolved.

In March 1984, Weigand agreed to close the surface impoundment under an Amended Consent Agreement and Final Order with U.S. EPA. On May 30, 1984, Weigand entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order with the U.S. EPA that required Weigand to submit a closure plan to the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA for the unpermitted (former strip mine) surface impoundment (SWMU 2) that was used to treat hazardous waste from the facility. Ohio EPA assumed oversite for RCRA closure after 1989. A closure plan was submitted on August 29, 1988 and approved after revisions, on October 23, 2000. The unit was verified as closed by Ohio EPA on March 2, 2001 and released from the RCRA closure requirement.

On January 24, 2007, Ohio EPA notified Weigand of outstanding CA site-wide requirements resulting from the establishment of a hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility at the property. Weigand was advised that they had the option of closing under the Ohio Voluntary Action Program (VAP) or through negotiated Director’s Final Findings and Orders (DFFOs) for RCRA closure. On April 10, 2007, U.S. EPA notified Weigand that the facility was added to the RCRA 2020 CA universe. On August 3, 2017, Ohio EPA informed Weigand that the CA requirements were due to the past establishment and operation of the (closed) hazardous waste management unit and requested that Weigand provide information regarding the required milestones and timelines to meet the RCRA 2020 goals. Weigand responded on September 1, 2017 by sending a letter to Ohio EPA acknowledging their CA requirements and requested a meeting with Ohio EPA and identification of the SWMUs to be addressed under CA.

Weigand met with Ohio EPA on November 3, 2017 along with their consultant, Burgess & Niple (B&N), and summarized the meeting in a letter to Ohio EPA dated January 24, 2018. This letter identified 12 SWMUs (Figure 2) at the Weigand facility that were listed in the PA/VSI of the site that was conducted by the U.S. EPA on June 20, 1988 and July 28, 1988.

3.0 SUMMARY OF FACILITY ASSESSMENT

of 21


The CA process is defined in Ohio EPA’s CA Plan. The general steps in the CA process are as follows:

a) FACILITY ASSESSMENT: Updated or conducted by Ohio EPA. It answers the question: Is there a current release and/or imminent threat?

b) INTERIM MEASURE(S): Undertaken by the facility, it addresses in the near term a release or potential release and/or an imminent threat or potential imminent threat.

c) RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI): Undertaken by the facility. It answers the question: How significant is the release or potential release and/or imminent threat or potential imminent threat? Ohio EPA has recognized that the RISR achieved the same purposes as an RFI for investigating necessary CA obligations in the identified SWMUs at the Weigand facility.

d) CORRECTIVE MEASURE(S) STUDY (CMS) AND DECISION: Shared responsibility by both the facility and Ohio EPA. It determines how to best address the release or potential release and/or imminent threat or potential imminent threat. Ohio EPA has determined based on the results of the RISR that a CMS is not required for the SWMUs at the Weigand site.

e) CORRECTIVE MEASURE(S) IMPLEMENTATION: Performed by the facility, it designs the solution and addresses the release or potential release and/or imminent threat or potential imminent threat. Ohio EPA has determined that Corrective Measures are not required to be implemented at the Weigand site.

Weigand met on-site with Ohio EPA on November 7, 2018, to discuss the requirements for conducting the RFI and interim action selection described above. After a series of discussions, Weigand submitted a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to Ohio EPA on July 17, 2019 to characterize subsurface conditions and to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of soil and ground water contamination at the nine areas of the site where further actions may be necessary. B&N conducted field activities on October 3 and 9, 2019, and issued the RISR on December 16, 2019. The sample locations associated with the field activities are shown in Figure 2. Ohio EPA reviewed the RISR and issued comments in February 2020. Weigand responded to the comments and a final RISR, which is analogous to an RFI, was submitted on June 3, 2020.

In typical RCRA CAs, an RFI concludes by identifying the need for corrective measures which leads to a CMS. However, instead of an RFI a RISR was submitted for Weigand on June 3, 2020 that describes the extent of soil and ground water contamination at the site as well as the need for corrective measures. The operational area at Weigand is not large and in several cases SWMUs are in close proximity or may even overlap each other. For example, multiple SWMUs (3A, 3B, 6, 8A, and 11) all fell within the footprint of the Truck Wash Facility (SWMU 4). As a result, soil sample locations were optimized to provide characterization data for multiple SWMUs (Figure 2). After evaluation of the data derived from the RISR, it was determined that a CMS was not necessary.

of 21


Therefore, the remedies already constructed (vapor barrier beneath the current operation building) coupled with additional institutional controls are the selected remedies for Weigand. The institutional controls imposed by this DD will be an EC restricting the land use to commercial/industrial operations on a 9.22-acre Carve-Out around the truck wash facility, an AUL requirement within a 0.2296-acre area of the Carve-Out for the installation of a vapor barrier for any future construction over the former UST area.

3.1 RISR Risk Evaluation by SWMU

Nine soil borings and one ground water monitoring well were installed during the initial field investigation. Soil borings were advanced to depths between two and 11.5 feet below ground surface (BGS). A total of five soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs); 2 samples were submitted for semi-volatile compounds (SVOCs) and for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). The results of the laboratory analyses were compared to U.S. EPA’s Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for risk evaluation as contained in the U.S. EPA’s Regional Screening Levels Summary Table (Target Risk [TR] = 1E-06, Hazard Quotient [HQ] = 0.1), dated November 2019. The sample locations associated with the field activities are shown in Figure 2.

Ohio EPA reviewed the final RISR dated June 3, 2020 and has determined that the investigation was sufficient to characterize the releases from the SWMUs. Furthermore, the voluntary remedial activities taken by Weigand have fulfilled the substantive requirements of closure and corrective actions at the identified SWMUs of the facility. Results of the RISR and the conclusions reached by Ohio EPA are summarized below.

1. SWMU 1: The Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Plant does not have a history of hazardous waste releases and can be eliminated from site-wide CA, and no investigation of the unit was needed in the RISR.

2. SWMU 2: As previously stated, this unit (Surface Impoundment) was certified closed by Ohio EPA on March 2, 2001, and no investigation of the unit was needed in the RISR.

3. SWMUs 3A and 3B: Before 1989, drums were stored in SWMU 3A within the Truck Washing Facility. SWMU 3B became the operational drum storage area within the newly constructed Truck Washing Facility after SWMU 3A was closed. Neither SWMU 3A or SWMU 3B showed evidence of contamination releases to soil or ground water during the RISR investigation.

4. SWMU 4: The Truck Washing Area is a composite SWMU whose footprint also includes the interior drum storage areas of SWMUs 3A and 3B; the Former Hazardous Waste Storage Tank (SWMU 6); pre-1989 internal 5,000 gallon Hazardous Waste Holding Tank (SWMU 8A); and the Former Hose Cleaning Trough (SWMU 11). The Former Recycled Waste Drum Storage Area (SWMU 10) is adjacent to the southwest corner of SWMU 4. Each of the SWMUs contained within SWMU 4 were addressed separately and determined to have been

of 21


investigated and/or remediated fully. The facility continues to operate as a truck washing facility, as such SWMU 4 remains active, but the other SWMUs previously identified within SWMU 4 are inactive. A new floor with membrane underlayer was constructed with floor drains that discharge to a sump in 1989. The floor and membrane are to be maintained under the terms and conditions of an EC.

5. SWMU 5: Truck Parking Lot Release was verified clean closed as agreed per Ohio EPA in a March 11, 1986 letter and no investigation of the unit was needed in the RISR.

6. SWMU 6: The Former Hazardous Waste Storage Tank was located adjacent to SWMU 3A. There is no visible indication of a release occurring and no investigation of the unit was needed in the RISR.

7. SWMU 7: VOCs were removed and scrapped in 1988 from the Industrial Wastewater Holding Tank. Soil sampling was conducted to further investigate SWMU 7 during the RISR and concentrations of VOCs consisting of methanol and n-Hexane were detected but were below the applicable U.S. EPA Commercial/Industrial RSLs (November 2019).

8. SWMU 8A and 8B: There was an approximate 7,000-gallon tanker trailer (SWMU 8A) that temporarily stored wastewater from the wash rack that was subsequently disposed offsite. The tanker trailer was stored within the original pre-1989 Truck Wash Facility. The tank was removed in 1989 when a new wash rack was installed to the west of the Truck Wash Facility and is therefore no longer an active SWMU. A 3,000-gallon sump exists under the current Temporary Hazardous Waste Holding Tank/Trailer that collects wastewater from the drains (SWMU 8B). SWMU 8B is currently active.

9. SWMU 9: Oil/Water Separators had concentrations of VOCs in soil consisting of methanol, methylene chloride and n-hexane reported below the applicable U.S. EPA Commercial/Industrial RSLs.

10.SWMU 10: The External Former Recycled Waste Drum Storage Area had no concentrations of VOCs or petroleum hydrocarbons detected in soil above the U.S. EPA Commercial/Industrial RSLs.

11.SWMU 11: The pre-1989 Hose Cleaning Trough had concentrations of VOCs in soil consisting of benzene, carbon disulfide, chloroform, DCE, ethylbenzene, n-hexane, methylene chloride, PCE, toluene, TCA, TCE, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and xylenes reported below the applicable U.S. EPA Commercial/Industrial RSLs.

12.SWMU 12: Former Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) had concentrations of VOCs in soil consisting of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene,

of 21


fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, TPH (gasoline range organics-GRO), TPH (diesel range organics-DRO), and TPH (residual range organics-RRO) reported below the applicable U.S. EPA Commercial/Industrial RSLs.

3.2 Human Health Risk Exposure Evaluation

Risks associated with exposure to COCs were evaluated for complete exposure pathways by comparing data to existing standards based on U.S. EPA’s Regional Screening Levels, per each pathway noted below.

3.3 Soil Direct Contact Pathway

None of the analytical results of the identified COCs were detected in concentrations that exceeded the November 2019 U.S. EPA RSLs for commercial/industrial land use that would pose an unacceptable exposure risk from direct contact to potential receptors. An EC will be implemented between Ohio EPA and Weigand (owned by Bluff Terminal, Co.) and their successors to restrict land use to commercial/industrial purposes on the 9.22-acre Carve-Out and will mitigate potential exposure to COCs within the surface soils.

3.4 Sediment and Surface Water Pathway

No sediment or surface water is present at the site, therefore, there is no direct contact pathway at the site, and sediment and surface water standards are not applicable.

3.5 Ground Water Ingestion Pathway

No ground water shallower than 250 feet BGS is present at the site, therefore, there is no ground water ingestion pathway at the site. One ground water monitoring well (MW-1) was installed in the former UST cavity of SWMU-12, however, the well failed to produce a sufficient volume of water to be sampled. The remaining boreholes did not encounter ground water to the bedrock surface which was present at depths ranging from 1.3 ft to 4.6 ft BGS.

A potable water supply well was constructed on the site and is completed to a depth of 610 ft BGS. The ground water is produced from sandstone bedrock horizons below the casing depth of 248 ft BGS. The well was sampled on May 15, 2020 for VOCs, and subsequent analyses reported all results were below detection limits (BDL).

3.6 Soil to Ground Water Leaching Pathway

Weigand presented a weight of evidence determination that based on industry standard values of vertical permeability (Kv), the identified COCs of the site could not leach to the ground water of the uppermost aquifer, which was previously identified as being encountered

of 21


at a depth of 250 ft BGS at the site. A note was also made that the shallow depth of the COCs (< 11 ft BGS), and concentrations at or below the U.S. EPA RSLs for direct contact by commercial/industrial land users would also not contribute to the ability to partition and leach into the ground water beneath the site.

3.7 Indoor Vapor Intrusion Pathway

The vapor intrusion (VI) pathway at the site is a potentially complete pathway for some of the identified COCs. This pathway has been addressed by the 1989 installation of a concrete floor and subsurface geomembrane vapor barrier to mitigate the potential risk of organic vapors into the facility from any residual contamination and would also prevent downward vertical migration from releases to the floor. The maintenance of this floor and geomembrane barrier is a provision of the EC. An AUL area has been established in the EC for a 0.2296-acre area adjacent to the southwest of the Truck Washing Facility and over SWMU 12. The AUL has a requirement that if future construction occurs or if expansion of the building is conducted, either the barrier must be extended beneath the new construction or soil gas sampling must be conducted in the subsurface of the proposed expansion and the intrusion potential to interior air must be evaluated.

4.0 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF REMEDIES

As part of the facility remedy solution process, criteria for evaluating potential remedies were developed by U.S. EPA under the RCRA CA program. The criteria are used by Ohio EPA to evaluate the remedies for a facility when it is determined that environmental conditions on the property require some type of action to reduce the potential risk to human health and the environment posed by the presence of environmental contaminants.

4.1 Description of the Evaluation Criteria

The criteria listed below are used to evaluate proposed remedies for CA clean-up. The first four are considered threshold criteria. All four of these criteria, as they are applicable, must be met for the remedy to be acceptable. The last five evaluation criteria are balancing criteria used to help select the best remedy.

Remedy Selection Evaluation Criteria

4.1.1. Protect Human Health and the Environment – Remedies shall be evaluated to determine if they can adequately protect human health and the environment, in both the short and long term, from unacceptable risks posed by environmental contaminants present at the facility.

4.1.2. Attain Media Cleanup Standards Set by the Implementing Agency – Ohio EPA is the implementing agency; however, Ohio’s CA Plan is based on the U.S. EPA’s CA Program.

of 21


Clean standards are based on U.S. EPA’s Region Screening Level Tables. Remedies selected for remediation shall be evaluated to determine if the final numerical standards for the subject environmental media will be achieved.

4.1.3. Control Source of the Releases to Reduce or Eliminate, to the Extent Practicable, Further Releases That May Pose a Threat to Human Health and the Environment – Remedies shall be evaluated to determine if it is practicable to physically remove the source of environmental contamination as part or all of the remedy.

4.1.4. Comply with Applicable Standards for Management of Waste – Remedies shall be evaluated to determine if they meet all the applicable requirements of state, federal, and local environmental laws for waste management.

4.1.5. Long Term Reliability and Effectiveness – Remedies shall be evaluated to determine their ability to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once the measure is fully implemented. This includes assessment of the residual risks remaining from any untreated wastes and the adequacy and reliability of controls such as containment systems and enforceable land use restrictions.

4.1.6. Reduction in the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Wastes – Remedies shall be evaluated to determine the degree to which recycling or treatment is utilized to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes present at the facility.

4.1.7. Short Term Effectiveness – Remedies shall be evaluated to determine the following: a) short term risks that might be posed to the community during implementation of the remedy; b) potential impacts on workers during implementation of the remedy and the effectiveness and reliability of worker protection measures; c) potential environmental impacts of the remedy and the effectiveness and reliability of mitigative measures employed during implementation; and d) time until protection is achieved.

4.1.8. Implementability – Remedies shall be evaluated to determine the ease or difficulty of implementation and shall include, as appropriate, the following: a) technical difficulties and unknowns associated with the construction and operation of a technology, the reliability of a technology, ease of undertaking additional remedies, and the ability to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy; b) administrative feasibility, including activities needed to coordinate with other offices and agencies and the ability and time required to obtain the necessary approvals and permits, as necessary; and c) the availability of any services and materials needed to support and complete the remedy.

4.1.9. Cost – In addition to the cost of the remedy(ies), the facility will have fiscal responsibility to maintain the remedy(ies), if applicable, throughout its active life.

of 21


4.2 Evaluation of Corrective Action Remedies

Ohio EPA evaluated the following three alternative remedies. Two of the alternative remedies (no action and excavation) were eliminated based on the criteria included in Section 4.1. The selected remedy alternative was to implement institutional controls.

4.2.1. No Action – This alternative would be applicable if the facility had no complete exposure pathways between contaminated media (soil) and potential receptors (on-site workers and maintenance/utility workers). This alternative does not meet criteria listed in Section 4.1.

4.2.2. Excavation and Removal to Meet Unrestricted Use Standards – Contamination of soil at the site would pose an unacceptable risk to receptors in an unrestricted use scenario. However, the general dispersed nature of contamination above unrestricted use risk standards would require extensive re-characterization to bound small areas of source removal to meet the human health risk standards for unrestricted use of the property. While this alternative meets the threshold criteria, the difficult implementation and unforeseen high costs make this option unfeasible based upon the balancing criteria and the current and reasonable anticipated future land use.

4.2.3. Institutional Controls – Ohio EPA reviewed Weigand’s RISR which concluded that while contamination was present, the property met acceptable risk if it remained a commercial/industrial enterprise. An EC restricting the property would meet the threshold and balancing criteria.

Therefore, a CMS would not be necessary and no further corrective action measures should be required at the facility besides the EC.

4.3 Environmental Covenant

Weigand (owned by Bluff Terminal, Co.) and Ohio EPA agree to enter a legal and binding EC (institutional control) restricting the use of the Weigand facility to commercial/industrial land use on a 9.22-acre Carve-Out around the truck wash facility, an AUL requirement within a 0.2296-acre area of the Carve-Out for the installation of a vapor barrier for any future construction over the former UST area, and regular inspection and maintenance of the existing building floor and geomembrane barrier.

4.3.1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Weigand shall enter into an EC with Ohio EPA. Once executed and recorded, the EC will remain attached to the land records (deed) and be enforceable. The EC will include a legal description of the facility as well as language to prohibit the facility from being used for residential, incarceration, education, or specific agricultural activities. Weigand will submit a survey plat and legal description with the EC, specifying a 9.22-acre area of the facility will be restricted to commercial/industrial use.

of 21


A 0.2296-acre area will also have an AUL that will assure future occupants are protected against potential vapor intrusion issues. Ohio EPA will monitor the facility owner’s adherence to the EC to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment.

4.3.2. Attain Media Cleanup Standards Set by the Implementing Agency

Detections of VOCs and SVOCs were found across the site below commercial/industrial RSLs and the only COC that appears to exceed residential RSLs is naphthalene at SB-5 (0-2.5 ft BGS). The concentration was 5.1 mg/kg at this location and the residential RSL for direct contact with soil is 2.0 mg/kg. In lieu of removing the soil VOCs that pose an unacceptable risk due to direct contact in an unrestricted use scenario, it was decided to restrict the land use to commercial/industrial through an EC. While the soil removal alternative meets the threshold criteria, the difficult implementability and possible high costs make this option unfeasible based upon current and reasonable anticipated future land use.

Rather than attempt to remediate the soil to meet clean-up standards, the remedy selected, an EC, will provide an institutional control whereby exposure pathways for receptors will be eliminated.

4.3.3. Control Source of the Releases to Reduce or Eliminate, to the Extent Practicable, Further Releases that May Pose a Threat to Human Health and the Environment

Detections of VOCs and SVOCs were identified in soil at SWMUs 7, 8, 9,11 and 12 at depths of 0-9 feet BGS that were below commercial/industrial RSLs for direct contact. A weight of evidence demonstration concluded that the soil to ground water path was incomplete to the uppermost aquifer. Qualitative evidence was provided when no VOCs were reported above laboratory reporting limits in the ground water sample collected from the on-site water supply well. Based on the data collected, it does not appear likely that VOCs are leaching to ground water at this location. Because no further subsurface soil impacts were identified, the leaching pathway is not considered complete and no further evaluation of threat to human health and the environment is necessary. The EC will include an AUL requirement within a 0.2296-acre area of the Carve-Out area for the installation of a vapor barrier for any future construction over the former UST area, and regular inspection and maintenance of the existing building floor and geomembrane barrier.

4.3.4. Comply with Applicable Standards for Management of Waste

The facility is a generator of hazardous waste with regulatory oversight by Ohio EPA, Southeast District Office. The facility is inspected for compliance with the hazardous waste rules and regulations on a regular basis. Copies of the inspection reports and letters of compliance or violation can be found in the Hazardous Waste files at Ohio EPA’s Southeast District Office in Logan.

4.3.5. Long Term Reliability and Effectiveness

The EC is a legal document that will be negotiated between Ohio EPA and Weigand (owned by Bluff of 21


Terminal, Co.). Once executed and recorded in the Tuscarawas County Recorder’s Office, the EC will remain attached to the land records (deed) and be enforceable. Ohio EPA will monitor the facility owner’s adherence to the EC to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment.

4.3.6. Reduction in the Toxicity, Mobility or Volume of Wastes

This criterion does not apply to the environmental situation at Weigand.

4.3.7. Short Term Effectiveness

Based on the COCs detected in soil samples near SWMU 12, the former UST area, there is potential for soil vapors to migrate into occupied structures that may pose an unacceptable exposure risk. As part of remedy the facility has proposed an EC with an AUL requirement within a 0.2296-acre area of the Carve-Out for the installation of a vapor barrier for any future construction over the former UST area.

4.3.8. Implementability

Weigand (owned by Bluff Terminal, Co.) will be charged with drafting the initial EC and providing it to Ohio EPA for review and input. Upon agreement of the EC’s terms and conditions, the document will be signed by the representatives of both Ohio EPA and Weigand (owned by Bluff Terminal, Co.). It will then be recorded at the Tuscarawas County Recorder’s Office and journalized in the Ohio EPA’s official records database.

4.4 Abandonment of Ground Water Monitoring Wells

Monitoring wells and test borings were installed to determine site-specific hydrogeologic conditions. In addition, one ground water monitoring well (MW-1) was installed in the former UST cavity of SWMU-12, however, the well failed to produce a sufficient volume of water to be sampled. The remaining boreholes did not encounter ground water to the bedrock surface which was present at depths ranging from 1.3 ft to 4.6 ft BGS. As a result, long-term ground water monitoring is not necessary at the Weigand facility. To prevent possible contamination of the underlying aquifer via unmaintained wells, Ohio EPA requests that Weigand plug and abandon the monitoring wells at the facility that are damaged beyond repair or have no future use.

The wells will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with the most recent revision of Chapter 9 of Ohio EPA’s Technical Guidance Manual for Ground Water Investigations (TGM). Well plugging and abandonment methods, certification, and justification will be submitted to the director of Ohio EPA within 30 days from the date the well is/was abandoned. A well sealing report will also be submitted to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources within 30 days from the date the well is/was abandoned as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.05.

of 21


4.5 Active Solid Waste Management Units

The Weigand facility remains an active hazardous waste tanker truck washing and maintenance facility. The SWMUs included in this document represent units that are no longer in service (inactive) as well as active units. Table 1 below lists SWMUs (active units) currently in operation at Weigand and inactive units. U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA can defer remedial actions at active units until these units cease waste management operations. These active units may be the source(s) of contamination to soil, air, and/or water sometime in the future and will require future corrective actions and/or unit closure. Future actions to address the corrective action obligations of the active units may take the form of a variety of administrative mechanisms including voluntary corrective actions (including the use of the Ohio Voluntary Action Program), generator closure, and corrective actions and closure through administrative or judicial orders. Regardless of the mechanism to address the active units, ultimately Ohio EPA will issue final DD(s) for the active units once the unit(s) corrective action obligations have been addressed.

Table 1: Solid Waste Management Units in Operation

Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU)

Description of the UnitActive or

inactive Unit(A or IN)

1Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Plant

IN

2 Surface Impoundment IN

3APre-1989 Interior Drum Storage Area

IN

3BPost-1989 Interior Drum Storage Area IN

4 Truck Washing Area A

5Truck Parking Lot Release IN

6Hazardous Waste Storage Tank IN

7Industrial Wastewater Holding Tank IN

8A

Pre-1989 7,000-gallon Temporary Hazardous Waste Holding Tank Trailer

IN

8BPost-1989 3,000-gallon Hazardous Waste Holding Sump

A

of 21


9 Oil/Water Separators IN

10 Former Recycled Water Drum Storage Area IN

11 Hose Cleaning Trough IN12 Former USTs IN

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, Ohio EPA has selected an EC as the remedy as discussed in Section 4.0 because an EC meets the threshold criteria for remedy acceptability. In addition, Weigand will continue to maintain the financial requirements to cover all associated remedial costs of the site, management of operating waste management systems upon termination of operation; and abandonment of ground water monitoring wells. The actions that Weigand is required to take relative to each remedy component are as follows:

EC – negotiate the covenant with Ohio EPA, sign, and file with the county recorder’s office. Assess and mitigate active waste management units as they are taken out of service.

REFERENCES

RCRA Investigation Summary Report, AJ Weigand Inc., Bolivar, Ohio; Burgess & Niple, June 2020; Ingested into e-docs as document 1381897 on July 30, 2020

Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation of A.J. Weigand, Inc., Dover, Ohio OHT400013082 (CME), Ohio EPA, by Burgess & Niple, March 20, 1987; Ingested into e-docs as document 724400 on September 12, 1988

Preliminary Assessment / Visual Site Inspection (PA/VSI), U.S. EPA, June 20, 1988 and July 28, 1988; Ingested into e-docs as document 694416 on February 28, 1989

of 21


FIGURES

of 21


Figure 1: Property Location Map(source: RISR, B&N, June 2020)

of 21


Figure 2: Location of SWMUs, Monitoring Well and Soil Borings(source: RISR, B&N, June 2020)

of 21

1.0introduction - ohio epa home weigand decision... · web view2020/09/29 · one ground water...

Documents