FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR CHEMCENTRAL SUPERFUND … · FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR CHEMCENTRAL...

US EPA RECORDS CENTER REGION 5 ,

11111111111111111111111111111111 llll llll i 481171 '

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR CHEMCENTRAL SUPERFUND SITE

KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

... ' .'' .,.-;f>-;

·_::

Prepared By: US Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5 · Chicago, Illinois

Richard C. Karl, Director Date Superfund Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms .................. : ............... : ....................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................v

Five-Year Review Summary Form ............................................................................................... vi

I. Introduction .................................................................................................... ; ................... 1

II. . Progress Since the Last Review ........................................................................................2 RecoJil1Ilendation .. : .................. :'·............................................................................................2 Remedy Implementation Activities .................................................................................... .3 Soil Vapor Extraction System ..............................................................................................3 Groundwater Extraction/treatment System ..........................................................................3 Institutional Controls ...........................................................................................................4 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance Activities .................................................6

III. Five Year Review Process .................................................................................................8 Administrative Components ................................................................................................8 Community Notification and Involvement ..........................................................................8 Document Review ................................................................................................................8 Data Review .........................................................................................................................8 GSI Monitoring .....................................................................................................................9 Site Inspection ....................................................................................................................10

IV. Technical Assessment ......................................................................................................10

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data; cleanup levels, and remedial

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

Question A: is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ............ 10

action objectives (RAO)s used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? ................ 12

protectiveness of the remedy? ............................................................................................ 12

Technical Assessment Summary .............................................. ~ ....................................... 12

V~ Issues/Recommendations and Follow-up Actions .........................................................13

VI. Protectiveness Statements(s) ...........................................................................................13

VII. Next Review ......................................................................................................................13

11

Tables Table l - Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2009 FYR ......................... 2 Table 2 - Status of Recommendations from the 2009 FYR ................................................ 2 Table 3 - Summary of Planned and/or Implemented I Cs ................................................... 5 Table 4 - Issues and Recommendations/Follow up Actions ~ ............................................ 13

Appendices Appendix A Site Background and History Appendix B Figures

Attachments Attachment 1 Deed Restrictions Attachment 2 UU/UE Map Attachment 3 State Notification Letter Attachment4 Newspaper Ad Attachment 5 . Site Inspection Checklist and Photos Attachment 6 Comparison of current COC with ROD Attachment 7 Documents Reviewed

111

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ARAR CERCLA CIC CVA EC EPA GSI IC MCL MDEQ MDNR MDPH mg/kg NCP NPL O&M OMM PCB PCE POTW ppb ppm PRP QA/QC QAPP RD/RA Rl/FS ROD RPM SVE svoc TCA TCE UAO voe TCE

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act Community Involvement Coordinator· Carbon Vapor Adsorption Envirortmental Covenant Environmental Protection Agency Groundwater/Surface Water Interface Institutional Controls Maximum Contaminant Level Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan Department of Public Health Milligram Per Kilogram National Contingency Plan National Priorities List Operation and Maintenance Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Polychlorinated Biphenyls Perc;hloroethylene· Publicly Owned Treatment Works Parts Per Billion Parts Per Million Potentially Responsible Party Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality Assurance Project Plan Remedial Design/Remedial Action Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Record of Decision Remedial Project Manager Soil Vapor Extraction Semi-Volatile Organic Chemical Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene Unilateral Administrative Order Volatile Organic Chemical Trichloroethylene

IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the fourth Five-Year Review (FYR) for the Chem Central Superfund Site (Site) located in Wyoming; Michigan. The purpose of this FYR is to review information to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The triggering action for this statutory FYR was the signing of the previous FYR on November 12, 2009.

The Site is situated in a mixed residential and commercial section of the City of Wyoming that includes small industrial facilities. The City of Wyoming is a suburb of Grand Rapids which is located in west-central Michigan, approximately 25 miles east of Lake Michigan in Kent County. The Site is bordered by US 131 South, Cole Drain, a Consumer. Powers substation, and several small industries. The Site encompasses a 2-acre parcel of land owned by Uni var USA Inc. (formerly ChemCentral Corporation); a rectangular parcel owned by Consumers Power extending north from the Chem Central (Uni var USA Inc.) property with the approximate dimensions of 1,800 feet in length by 300 feet wide; Cole Drain a small urban creek flowing in a northerly direction and located along the Site's western boundary; and any property beyond the ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) property boundaries where hazardous substances have come to be located. Hazardous substances have been identified in the soil and/or groundwater of nine (9) properties including the ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) property.

The remedy for the Site included the following components: Continue operation of the existing groundwater collection and treatment system; install and operate a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system for soils on-property as well as two off-property locations just north of the Chem Central (Univar USA, Inc.) property; install and operate a purge well at the deep lens of a contaminated groundwater location and hook this well into the current groundwater collection and treatment system; collect oil accumulating in the purge wells and dispose of the oil at an off-site facility in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations; install and operate an expansion of the current off-property groundwater collection system, by either extending the interceptor trench or installing additional purge wells; impose institutional controls (ICs), such as deed restrictions to prohibit the installation ofwater wells in the site area and any future development that might disturb contaminated soils; and implement a groundwater monitoring program capable of demonstrating the effectiveness of the groundwater capture system and that the groundwater treatment technology is achieving the cleanup standards. The Site achieved construction completion with the signing of the Preliminary Closeout Report on September 19, 1995.

The remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment in the short term because it eliminates the principal threat posed by the Site by preventing direct contact with contaminated materials through the groundwater collection and treatment system, the soil vapor extraction system, and groundwater monitoring program. The IC Plan ensures Long-Term Stewardship because it establishes a process to ensure that I Cs are in place, maintained, and effective. I Cs in the form of deed restrictions are in place for three of the nine parcels that comprise the Site. However, long-term prot~ctiveness requires compliance with effective ICs. Therefore environmental covenants should be implemented on the six remaining parcels that

. comprise the Site. In addition, screening and soil gas sampling under the building should be conducted to determine whether there is a risk that requires implementing mitigative measures.

v

Five-Year Review Summary Form

EPA ID: MID980477079

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs? Has the site achieved construction completion?

YesNo

Site Name: ChemCenfral

Lead agency: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Pamela Molitor

Author affiliation: EPA

Review period: 11/12/2013 - 11/12/2014

Date of site inspection: June 25, 2014

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 4

Triggering action date: 11/12/2009

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 11/12/2014

Vl

OU(s): OUJ/Sitewide

Affect Current Protectiveness

No

Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: Effective Institutional Controls are needed on the 6 remaining parcels that comprise the Site.

Recommendation: Complete environmental covenants for the 6 remaining parcels that comprise the Site.

Affect Future Party Oversight Party Milestone Date Protectiveness Responsible

Yes PRP EPA 12/31/2016

OU(s): Issue Category: Remedy Performance OUJ/Sitewide

Issue: Soil vapor intrusion should be evaluated at the Site.

Recommendation: Conduct screening and soil gas sampling under the dock and storage building to determine whether there is a risk that requires implementing mitigative measures for vapor intrusion.

Affect Current Protectiveness

Affect Future Protectiveness

Party Responsible

Oversight Party Milestone Date

No Yes PRP EPA 6/30/2017

ot·1 and Site" ide Protecth eness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment in the short term because it eliminates the principal threat posed by the Site by preventing direct contact with contaminated materials through the groundwater collection and treatment system, the soil vapor extraction system, and groundwater monitoring program. The IC Plan ensures Long-Term Stewardship because it establishes a process to ensure that ICs are in place, maintained, and effective. ICs in the form of deed restrictions are in place for three of the nine parcels that comprise the Site. However, long-term protectiveness requires compliance with effective ICs. Therefore environmental covenants should be implemented on the six remaining parcels that comprise the Site. In addition, screening and soil gas sampling under the dock and storage building should be conducted to determine whether there is a risk that requires implementing mitigative measures for vapor intrusion.

Vll

I. INTRODUCTION-

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

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares FYRs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 121 states:

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

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

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

EPA Region 5 conducted this five-year review of the remedial actions implemented at the ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) Site, located in Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan. EPA is the lead agency for developing and implementing the remedy for the Site. This review was conducted by the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Site. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), as the support agency representing the State ofMichigan, has

. reviewed all supportip.g documentation and provided input to EPA during the FYR process.

This is the fourth five-year review for the ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the completion date for the third Five-Year Review signed on November 12, 2009. This review is required because certain response actions are ongoing and hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants are or will be left on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). ·

II. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

Table 1: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2009 FYR

OU# Protectiveness Determination

Protectiveness Statement

OU I/Site wide Short-term Protective The remedy at the Univar USA Inc. (Univar) (formerly ChemCentral) Site is currently protective of human health and the environment because the groundwater collection and treatment system, the soil vapor extraction system,

and groundwater monitoring program address hazardous substances in the groundwater and soil. However, longterm protectiveness required compliance with effective

ICs. Therefore, the institutional controls need to be evaluated and updated to prevent exposure to

contaminated groundwater and soils; and the ICs must be maintained, monitored and enforced to ensure long-term

protectiveness.

Table 2: Status of Recommendations from the 2009 FYR

OU #

Issue Recommendations

I Follow-up Actions

Party Responsible

Oversight Party

Original Milestone

Date

Current Status

Completion Date (if

applicable)

OU II

Site wide

Effective institutional

controls must be

implemented, monitored, maintained

and enforced on the down-

gradient properties to

prevent exposure to

contaminated groundwater.

EPA will request an IC

Work Plan to be prepared by Univar which will plan for

long-term stewardship and will include steps

necessary to ensure that effective ICs are implemented,

monitored, maintained and

enforced.

PRP EPA 11116/2010

·'

Completed 11130/2011

Recommendation #1

The PRP began work on the draft IC Plan in 2011, following a request by EPA to do so in a letter dated April 28, 2011. The PRP completed a draft IC Plan that was submitted to EPA and MDEQ in October 2011. The final IC Plan was approved on November 30, 2011. As part of the IC Plan, the PRP developed an environmental covenant (EC) for each of the six remaining parcels which was to be submitted to the respective owners. However, after many months of discussion, the legal staff of the PRP and MDEQ were unable to resolve MDEQ concerns regarding the covenant's legal language. Thus no workable restrictive covenant was completed or submitted to the property owners. The PRP hired a new contractor in the fall of 2013, who is now committed to continue to work with MDEQ in order to prepare an EC that can be submitted to the respective

2

property owners for review, signature, and recording. ICs are further discussed in the ICs section below.

The Site area includes nine parcels of property which are not all owned by Chem Central (Uni var USA, Inc.). The parcel boundary map is included in Appendix B. For the parcels that are not owned by ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) an acknowledgement of the deed restrictions has to be signed by the property owner and recorded before the deed restrictions are legally binding. Acknowledgement of the deed restrictions has only been received for three ofthe nine parcels, (See Attachment I). Several attempts were made to obtain deed restrictions on the additional six properties that adjoin the Site. However, the owners of those properties refused to sign or record deed restrictions.

Remedy Implementation Activities

Remedy implementation activities conducted since the 2009 FYR are discussed below.

Soil Vapor Extraction System

A soil gas survey was conducted in 2009 in order to evaluate whether there was residual source material that might not be treated by the existing SVE system such that repairs or improvement to the system were warranted. Based on the results, the SVE system, was upgraded in 2011 to handle increased air flow with a larger regenerative vacuum blower, and three new vertical SVE wells and one horizontal SVE well were installed. All existing and newly installed SVE wells and laterals were connected to a common SVE header located inside the mechanical room (see Attachment 2 photos). The common header is connected to a 110 gfilloii water knock-out tank and a 15 horsepower regenerative blower, capable' of approximately 400 cfm at 50-inches of water column vacuum. This blower is powered by a variable speed drive to optimize performance and minimize energy usage. Effluent soil gas from the blower is passed into the existing carbon vapor adsorption (CV A) system for treatment prior to discharge.

Flow and VOC concentrations of the vapor stream are monitored on a quarterly basis~ Treated effluent from the air stripping system and the discharge from the air/vapor collection system are monitored on a quarterly basis for compliance with applicable regulations.

Vapor Intrusion (VI) has been identified as a pathway of concern that should be assessed. Discussions between the agencies and Univar are underway regarding the conductance of a VI evaluation. Univar will evaluate soil gas samples from under the dock and storage building and groundwater data with screening criteria to evaluate if the VI pathway is a concern. IfVI is a concern, Univar will develop a VI mitigation plan.

Groundwater Extractionffreatment System

Contaminated groundwater is currently pumped from two purge wells (PW-2 and PW-3) to the stripping tower for treatment through underground transmission piping. Purge well PW-1 was shut down during March 2013 to accommodate the enhanced aerobic remediation system operation. These wells are located north of ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) and screened in the

3

shallow aquifer. The purge wells-are capable of producing an approximate combined flow rate of 90 gallorfs per minute (gpm). Currently, the average flow rates for purge wells PW-2 and PW-3 are 20 gpm to 30 gpm.

Site remediation upgrades beginning in 2009 included improvement and simplification to the pump and treat system. Modifications to pretreatment and system components resulted in more consistent operation. A bio-enhancement plan was submitted by ~hemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) to the agencies in 2009. It contained both aerobic and anaerobic components.

Construction of the enhanced aerobic remediation system began in August 2011, in conjunction with facility upgrades (tank farm removal, additional loading dock, trucking area pavement). The system construction continued through the fall of 2011 with the installation and connection of 50 oxygen sparge (OS) wells and installation of SVE laterals within the well connection trench. System mechanical components were installed in the renovated former drum fill area and connected the site remediation well network (OS and SVE). Construction and set-up of the system mechanical components (air dryer, compressor, oxygen generator, SVE blower) was completed in December 2011. The system began operation on December 15, 2011. Initially, the system consisted of 50 OS points, five pumping wells (PW-1 through PW-4, and SCH-2), SVE vertical wells and horizontal laterals. However, in order to accommodate the system function, pumping at PW-1 was first reduced in December 2011 and then shutdown in March 2013. The enhanced aerobic remediation system site plan can be found in Appendix B, Figure 4-1. Current progress reports indicate that the PW- I shutdown has had no detrimental impact on groundwater quality downgradient. Groundwater conditions began to show improvement during 2012 and continued into 2013. Additionally, the PRPs are updating the Conceptual Site Model, the O&M Plan and Contingency Plans.

Institutional Controls

I Cs in the form of deed restrictions are required by the ROD to restrict property use, maintain the integrity of the remedy, and assure the long term protectiveness-for areas which do not allow for UU/UE. A summary of the implemented and planned ICs for the Site is listed in Table 3 and are further discussed below. See also Appendix A for historical information regarding the IC requirements.

4

a t d IC T bl e 3 S ummaryof Planne d andior Imp emen e s Media,

engineered controls, and areas that do not support

UU/UE based

ICs Needed

ICs Called for in the Decision

Documents

Impacted Parcel(s)

IC Objective

Title of IC Instrument Implemented and Date

(or planned)

on current conditions

Soils/ Groundwater

Yes Yes

A) Property owned by UnivarUSA Inc. - Parcel 6

B) Adjacent Properties Property owned by

There shall be no residential use or any further commercial development that would allow continued presence of humans, other than any presence necessary for implementation of remedial action under the Administrative Order. The prohibited uses shall include without limitation, filling, grading, excavating, building, construction, drilling, mining, farming, or other development or placing waste material within the Facility. No tampering

A) Deed Restriction recorded on October 8, 1992 in Liber 3118, page 101 through 109, Kent County, Michigan.

B) Deed Restriction recorded on December 18, 1992 in Liber 3118, page 101 through 109,

Jacob C. Mol - Parcel 2 and 3

C) Parcels 1, 4-5 , 7-9

with or removal of the containment or monitoring systems that remain on the property in any manner that is inconsistent with or may defeat or impair the effectiveness of the remedy. There shall be no consumptive or other use of the groundwater and no use of the real estate in any manner that could cause exposure of humans or animals to contaminated groundwater.

Attachment A, Kent County, Michigan.

C) Institutional Controls (such as deed

restrictions) need to be implemented

A map which depicts the current conditions of the Site and areas which do not allow for UU/UE is included in Attachment 2.

Evaluation of Current Conditions, Existing I Cs and Planning for Long-Term Stewardship

Existing !Cs: Deed Restrictions have been recorded and acknowledged on three of the nine parcels that comprise the Site. Although each of the owners of the parcels has received notice of the need for deed restrictions, Univar USA, Inc. has acquired signed acknowledgements of restrictions on only three of the parcels: parcels 2, 3 and 6. The recorded Deed Restrictions

5

restrict future use ofthe Site including the following: tampering with or removal of the containment or monitoring systems that remain on the property in any manner that is inconsistent with or may defeat or impair the effectiveness of the remedy; no consumptive or other use of the groundwater; and no residential use or further commercial development of the real estate in any manner that could cause exposure of humans or animals to contaminated soil. A copy of the recorded Deed Restrictions is included as Attachment I to this report.

IC Activities Underway: Uni var USA, Inc. began work on the draft IC Plan in 20 I I, following a request by EPA to do so in a letter dated April 28, 20 I I. Uni var USA, Inc. completed a draft IC Plan that was submitted to EPA and MDEQ in October 20 I I. The final IC Plan was approved on November 30, 20 I I. As part of the plan, Uni var USA, Inc. developed an environmental covenant (EC) for each of the six remaining parcels which was to be submitted to the respective owners. However, after many months of discussion, the legal staff of Uni var USA, Inc. and MDEQ were unable to resolve MDEQ concerns regarding the covenant's legal language, thus. no workable restrictive covenant was completed or submitted to the property owners. Univar USA, Inc. hired a new contractor in the fall of2013, who is working with MDEQ and EPA reviewing historical and current data regarding the contaminant plume and all remediation systems in order to prepare an EC that can be submitted to the respective property owners for review and signature.

Current Compliance: There are currently no known IC compliance issues at the Site. No one is currently using the groundwater down-gradient of the Site. One commercial well is located at the C.D. Osborn facility which is side-gradient to the Site. Also based on inspections and interviews, EPA is not aware of site or media uses which are inconsistent with the stated objectives of the ICs. The remedy appears to be functioning as intended.

Long-Term Stewardship: Since compliance with ICs is necessary to assure the protectiveness of the remedy, planning for long-term stewardship is required. Long-term stewardship involves assuring effective procedures are in place to properly maintain and monitor the Site. Long-term stewardship will ensure effective ICs are maintained and monitored and the remedy continues to function as intended with regard to ICs. The final IC Plan was approved on November 30, 20I I. The IC Plan includes procedures to ensure long-term IC stewardship such as regular inspection of I Cs at the Site and annual certification to EPA that I Cs are in place and effective. As part of the IC Plan, a regular review of the O&M Plan will be conducted.

System Operation/Operation and Maintenance Activities

The remedy at the Site consists of a groundwater recovery and treatment system, an aerobic enhancement system and a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system. Bi-weekly (every other week) site visits are conducted to perform operation, maintenance and monitoring (OMM) activities. The OMM activities are summarized in monthly progress reports and typically include the following:

Groundwater Extractionffreatment System The groundwater recovery system consists of four purging wells (PW-I through PW-3 and SCH2), and one underdrain (PW-4). Purge wells PW-I through PW-3 are screened in the shallow

6

aquifer and purge well SCH-2 is screened within the deep aquifer. Groundwater is also recovered from PW-4 which is connected to the underdrain system along the east side of Cole Drain. Groundwater is extracted from each of these locations and is treated via the air stripping tower treatment system located on-site. The effluent from the stripping tower discharges to the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The treated groundwater is sampled semiannually in accordance with Industrial User Permit No. 087. Quarterly reports are prepared for the POTW summarizing the sampling results. Operation of purge well PW-1 was discontinued during March of 2012. Upgrades to the system were completed in 2014 and included replacing the air stripping tower blower and various conveyance piping for PW-3. During each bi-monthly OMM visit field technicians monitor and record various temperature, pressure, extraction rates and totalizer readings from each pumping well and totals for the combined system. Additional information regarding the system can be found in appendix A.

Aerobic Enhancement Remediation System Beginning in 2008, Univar USA, Inc. initiated a review of remediation systems at the Site in order to enhance and optimize site remediation. As part of the optimization, a proposal for aerobic enhancement was submitted and after much discussion and review by EPA and MDEQ, the design was approved in October 2010. The aerobic enhancement remediation (oxygen sparge) system consists of 50 oxygen sparge wells, 40 shallow and 10 deep, an air compressor and an oxygen generator. The deep oxygen sparge wells are currently off. The performance of

· the oxygen sparge system was evaluated based on recent groundwater monitoring results. Based on this evaluation, it was determined that based on the current distribution of dissolved phase contaminants of concern (COCs) certain segments of the aerobic enhancement remediation system no longer required operation. Operation of the oxygen sparge system has been modified as follows: Segments 1, 2 and 3 have been turned off and only segments 4, 5 and 6 remain in operation. The shallow oxygen sparge wells in the operating segments are currently operating. Performance of the oxygen sparge system will continue to be evaluated to look for improvements in system efficiency and optimization. During each bi-monthly OMM visit field technicians monitor and record various temperature, pressure, oxygen flow rates and air flow rates from all operating oxygen sparge wells. ·

SVE Remediation System The SVE system consists of five SVE laterals (laterals A through E), six vertical SVE wells (SVE-1 through SVE-6), a 15 horsepower regenerative blower, and two carbon vapor absorption (CVA) vessels. The treated air steam is sampled quarterly for compliance monitoring, and influent samples are also collected quarterly and used to calculate mass removal rates for the system. Performance of the SVE system is currently monitored based on mass removal calculations via photoionization detector (PID) and carbon dioxide readings within the influent air stream of the system. Based on this assessment, it was determined that very low mass removal via volatilization is occurring and virtually no carbon dioxide was observed in the air stream which suggests very little biological degradation is occurring in the soils. Based on this information, operation of the SVE system has been modified as follows: SVE laterals A, B, D and E are operating to capture vapors from the oxygen sparge wells. SVE lateral C and the SVE wells SVE-1 through SVE-6 have been turned off as they correspond to the oxygen sparge segments that have also been turned off. Performance of the SVE system will continue to be evaluated to look for improvements in system efficiency and optimization. During each bi

7

monthly OMM visit field technicians monitor and record various temperature, vacuum and flow · rates for the system and all operating extraction wells/laterals.

In addition to on-site OMM, monthly progress reports are submitted to EPA and MDEQ. These progress reports include a description of the previous month's activities and any routine sampling that was completed during that reporting period. Quarterly groundwater sampling is completed in accordance with the Plume Dynamics and Groundwater Surface Water Interface Monitoring Program. Quarterly reports are prepared to summarize sampling activities and the analytical data from the quarterly groundwater sampling events.

III. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Administrative Components

The State was notified of the initiation of the five-year review on 11112/2013 (See Attachment 3). The ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) Superfund Site Five-Year Review was led by Pamela Molitor of the EPA, Remedial Project Manager for the Site and Cheryl Allen, the Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC). Mary Schafer of MDEQ assisted in the review as the representative for the support agency.

The review, which began on November 12, 2013, consisted of the following components:

• Community Involvement; • Document Review; • Data Review; • Site Inspection; and • Five-Year Review Report Development and Review.

Community Notification and Involvement

Activities to involve the community in the five-year review process were initiated with a meeting between the RPM and CIC for the Site. A notice was sent to Grand Rapids Press, stating that there was a five-year review and inviting the public to submit any comments to the EPA. (See Attachment 4). The results of the review and the report will be made available at the Wyoming Public Library Superfund Site information repository. No public comments were received during this five-year review ..

Document Review

This five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including O&M records, monitoring data, and progress reports. Applicable soil and groundwater cleanup standards, were also reviewed.

Data Review

Site remediation upgrades beginning in 2009 included improvement and simplification to the

8

pump and treat system. Modifications to pretreatment and system components resulted in more consistent operation. A bio-enhancement plan was submitted by ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) to the agencies in 2009. It contained both aerobic and anaerobic components. The aerobic system was -installed in 2011 and began operating in December of 2011. Groundwater conditions began to show improvement during 2012 and continued into 2013. While there are still exceedances to the cleanup goals set in the ROD, the general trend has been stable or decreasing as noted in Table 1, Attachment 5.

The first quarter 2013 monitoring results for the Plume Dynamics and Groundwater Surface Water Interface Monitoring Program showed continued improvement in the groundwater conditions after 15 months of enhanced treatment. Evalliation of the monitoring data indicated that the well sampling associated with the bio-enhancement has shown a reduction in voes (up to 99%) at a number oflocations, an increase in dissolved oxygen in the aquifer, and oxidizing ORP conditions after 15 months of enhanced aerobic remediation system operation. In addition, groundwater quality conditions downgradient of the ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) source area continued to indicate that the groundwater collection and treatment system and natural attenuation mechanisms are effective in preventing plume expansion.

The evaluation of the 2014 second quarter monitoring data indicated similar conclusions, as noted here. •Groundwater quality conditions downgradient of the Uni var source area continue to indicate that the groundwater collection and treatment system and natural attenuation mechanisms are effective in preventing plume expansion. · •The presence of PCE, TCE, and 1,1,1-TCA degradation products in the plume, and particularly in locations MW-16A, MW-16C, and MW-21A, is evidence that degradation of these compounds is occurring. •The well sampling has shown a reduction in VOCs (up to 99%) at a number oflocations, ongoing increase in dissolved oxygen in the aquifer, and oxidizing ORP conditions after 18 months of enhanced aerobic remediation system operation. Overall, remediation progress has been excellent since installation of the aerobic remediation system. • All chemical concentrations from the GSI sentinel and compliance wells are below generic OSI criteria for the second quarter of 2014.

Based on recent groundwater data and the groundwater treatment systems are operating as designed and the requirements of the ROD are being satisfied. Groundwater concentrations along the perimeter of the plume and at the toe of the plume are well below GSI criteria and have been showing decreasing or stable trends since 2011. Uni var, in collaboration with EPA and MDEQ, continue to evaluate the operation of the remediation systems and recent contaminant distribution data to ensure that the path forward will continue to meet the goals and objectives of the 1984 Court Order, 1991 ROD, and 1992 UAO.

GSI Monitoring Data

Beginning in June 1999 site monitoring has been performed in accordance with the approved "Plume Dynamics and GSI Monitoring Program" which has two parts; The Plume Dynamics groundwater monitoring and OSI groundwater monitoring. The objectives of the Plume Dynamics groundwater monitoring program are to monitor groundwater quality within and

9

lateral to the plume, determine ifthe plume is expanding or contracting and collect additional groundwater data to use in evaluating chemical fate and transport. The objectives of the GSI groundwater monitoring program are to evaluate compliance with the groundwater cleanup criteria at the groundwater/surface water interface and to provide a framework to respond to the data collected, including increased or decreased monitoring frequencies, mixing zone determination and/or implementation ofadditional response activities. The GSI groundwater monitoring program is designed to detect changes in the chemical concentrations within the groundwater plume south and east of Cole Drain. Concentrations of chemicals have not exceeded GSI criteria in GSI sentinel or compliance wells since January 2002 or in PW-4 since April 2004.

Site Inspection

The inspection of the Site was conducted on June 25, 2014. In attendance were Pamela Molitor, EPA Remedial Project Manager; Mary B. Schafer, MDEQ State Project Manager; Barb Vetort and Beth Place, MDEQ Geologists; Mark Metcalf, Site Manager Univar USA, Inc.; and Randy Christiansen, Scott Filipiak, and Joseph Quinan, ARCADIS contractor to Univar USA, Inc. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

A complete visual inspection of the remedy was conducted by the entire party. The group performed a walk around of the property taking note of the physical condition of the treatment plant, SVE system, air stripper, and the aerobic bio-enhancement system. At the time of the inspection, EPA and MDEQ were informed that the treatment system did not operate between May 12, 2014 and June 23, 2014 because the stripping tower's blower unit had broken down. The system was back online beginning on June 24, 2014. An inspection was also made of the general condition of the monitoring wells and pumping wells. In April 2014, the piping, gauges, and valves were replaced on pumping well PW-3. The inspection Checklist and Site photos are in Attachment 6.

In general, all of the treatment plant equipment was in good physical condition and operating. A new blower was r.ecently installed on the SVE system. Monitoring wells and pumping wells were in good condition. The wells had locks and were properly marked showing well numbers.

The Site inspection began with a discussion between the Univar USA, Inc. staff, ARCADIS staff, MDEQ staff and EPA. The purpose of the interviews was to document any perceived problems or successes with the remedy that has been implemented to date. ARCADIS is continuing to assess the bio-enhancement optimization of the plume treatment. The general consensus was that the optimization so far has shown good results. However, in order to b.egin next steps ARCADIS will need to analyze results of sampling events beginning with December 2013 through August 2014. In addition, UnivarUSA, Inc. is evaluating the conceptual site model and has been directed by EPA to update a contingency plan in the event of future system shutdowns.

IV. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

10

Yes. The review of documents, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs ), risk assumptions, and the results of the site inspection indicates that the remedy is functioning as intended. Groundwater quality conditions downgradient of the site source area indicate that the groundwater collection and treatment system is effective in containment of the plume. The implementation of the enhancement to the groundwater system has improved the groundwater conditions.

All treatment systems and groundwater monitoring systems should continue operating until cleanup standards are achieved. The SVE system has been rebuilt and improved as part of the bio-enhancement optimization. Operation and maintenance of the SVE system has been effective. The current maintenance procedures, as implemented, will maintain the effectiveness of the response actions.

Land use remains consistent with that at the time of the original ROD. The cleanup standards in effect at the time that the ROD was written were Michigan Environmental Response Act 307. Michigan Environmental Response Act 307 Type B was noted as an ARAR in the ROD. In 1994 MDEQ replaced Act 307 with Michigan Part 201 cleanup standards. While it should be noted that the cleanup standards established in the ROD remain in effect, for all of the Site contaminants, the cleanup standards as noted in Michigan Part 201 have either remained the same, or have increased. A comparison of the soil and groundwater cleanup standards established in the ROD to the current Michigan Part 201 standards (see Appendix B) shows.that the ROD standards (Michigan Act 307) remain protective. Therefore the standards for this site are considered protective and significant progress has been made toward reaching the remedial action objectives for the site.

The ROD required I Cs, such as deed restrictions, to prohibit the installation of water wells in the site area and any future development that might disturb contaminated soils. In addition to prohibiting groundwater use, and residential or further commercial development, the deed restrictions prohibit activities that would interfere with, damage, or otherwise impair the effectiveness of any response action. While no one is currently using the groundwater in the area, full implementation of I Cs is necessary to meet their intended objectives. EPA is not aware of site or media uses which are inconsistent with the stated objectives of the ICs.

The Site area is comprised of nine (9) parcels of property. Deed restrictions have been verified to have been executed and recorded for three parcels (i.e. 2, 3 and 6). Although each of the owners of the other parcels has received notice of the need for deed restrictions, Univar USA, Inc. has acquired signed acknowledgments ofrestrictions on only three of the parcels; 2, 3 and 6.

An IC Plan was requested by EPA to be prepared by ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) which would plan for long-term stewardship and include steps necessary to ensure that effective ICs are implemented, monitored, maintained and enforced. The final IC Plan was approved on November 30, 2011. Univar USA, Inc. also developed an EC for each of the six remaining parcels without I Cs which was to be submitted to the respective owners. However, after many months of discussion, the legal staff of Univar USA, Inc. and MDEQ were unable to resolve MDEQ concerns regarding the covenant's legal language, thus no workable restrictive covenant was completed or submitted to the property owners. Univar USA, Inc. hired a new contractor in

11

the fall of2013, who is working with MDEQ and EPA reviewing historical and current data regarding the contaminant plume and all remediation systems in order to prepare an EC that can be submitted to the respective property owners for review, signature, and recording.

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

No. No new routes of exposure have been identified since the last FYR, however VI is a pathway of concern that will be assessed. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The cleanup standards in effect at the time that the ROD was written were Michigan Environmental Response Act 307 Type B. In 1994, MDEQ replaced Act 307 with Michigan Part 201 cleanup standards. While it should be noted that the cleanup standards established in the ROD remain in effect, records show that for all of the Site contaminants, the state cleanup standards have either remained the same, or have increased under the Michigan Part 201 standards (See Appendix B, Table 1). Therefore the standards for this site are considered protective. The remedial action objectives used at the time of the ROD are still valid and significant progress has been made toward reaching the remedial action objectives for the site.

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

No. There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

Technical Assessment Summary

There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. No new routes of exposure have been identified since the last FYR, however VI is a pathway of concern that will be assessed. There have been no changes in the toxicity factors for the contaminants of concern that were used in the baseline risk assessment, and there have been no changes to the standardized risk assessment methodology that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy. ICs, in the form of ECs, need to be finalized, signed, and recorded for the 6 remaining parcels that comprise the Site.

12

·V. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

d . IF 11T bl a e 4 I ssues an dRecommen atJons o ow-up A'ct10ns

OU# Issue Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions

Party Responsible

Oversight Agency

Milestone Date

Affects Protectiveness?

(YIN)

Current Future

OU 1/ Sitewide

Effective Institutional Controls are needed on the 6 remaining parcels that comprise the Site.

Complete environmental covenants for the 6 remaining parcels that comprise the Site.

PRP EPA 12/3112016 No Yes

OU II Site wide

Soil vapor intrusion should be evaluated at the Site.

Conduct screening and soil gas sampling under the dock and storage building to determine whether there is a risk that requires implementing mitigative measures.

PRP EPA 06/30/2017 No Yes

VI. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Protectiveness Determination: Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment in the short term because it eliminates the principal threat posed by the Site by preventing direct contact with contaminated materials through the groundwater collection and treatment system, the soil vapor extraction system, and groundwater monitoring program. The IC Plan ensures Long-Term Stewardship because it establishes a process to ensure that ICs are in place, maintained, and effective. ICs in the form of deed restrictions are in place for three of the nine parcels that comprise the Site. However, long-term protectiveness requires compliance with effective ICs. Therefore environmental covenants should be implemented on the six remaining parcels that comprise the Site. In addition, screening and soil gas sampling under the dock and storage building should be conducted to determine whether there is a risk that requires implementing mitigative measures for vapor intrusion.

VII. NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review for the ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) Site is required five years from the date ofthis review.

13

APPENDIX A - EXISTING SITE INFORMATION

A. SITECHRONOLOGY

T bl e 5 s· ono ogy a ite Chr Event D.ate

Leak from construction error 1957 - 1962 Site Discovery 1977 Kent County Court Order to Install Groundwater Collection System and Air Stripper

May 1984

Purge Wells installed Fall 1984 Air Stripper Begins Operation December 1984 Kent County Order to Remediate 28th Street Ditch May 1985 Groundwater Remediation System Operating September 1985 28th Street Ditch Remediation Complete November 1985 Under Drain Installed and Operating 1986 - 1987 Final NPL listing September 8,1987 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study complete ROD signature

August 1988 - January 1989 September 30, 1991

Unilateral Administrative Order (RD/RA) March 31, 1992 Remedial Design Start April 7, 1992 PRP Remedial Action Start August 18, 1994 SVE System Operating 1996 Construction Completion Date September 19, 1995 Plume Dynamics and GSI Monitoring Program Approved

June 1, 1999

First Five-Year Review November 16, 1999 Second Five Year Review November 16, 2004 Third Five Year Review November 12, 2009 Aerobic enhancement remediation system operating December 15, 2011

B. BACKGROUND

Physical Characteristics

Hazardous waste has been identified in the soil and/or groundwater of nine (9) properties including the ChemCentral (Univar USA Inc.) property. The Site encompasses a 2-acre parcel of land owned by ChemCentral (Univar USA Inc.) a rectangular parcel owned by Consumers Power extending north from the ChemCentral (Univar USA Inc.) property with the approximate dimensions of 1,800 feet in length by 300 feet wide; Cole Drain a small urban creek flowing in a northerly direction and located along the Site's western boundary; and any property beyond the ChemCentral (Univar USA Inc.) property boundaries where hazardous substances have come to

be located. Cole-Drain enters Plaster Creek ata confluence approximately 2,500 feet north of the Site.

Hydrology

The subsurface geology of the Site consists of a glacial sand deposit averaging approximately 30 feet in depth. Underlying the sand unit is a low permeability clay layer which possibly acts as an aquiclude to the migration of groundwater from the upper sand unit down to the underlying bedrock. The bedrock is comprised of gypsum and shales. The clay layer does contain small lenses of sand and gravel, but these lenses are not hydraulically connected to the upper sand aquifer. Groundwater flow in the area is south to north. The nearest public well to the Site is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the property. An industrial well is located approximately 500 feet south of the Site.

Land and Resource Use

The Site is situated in a mixed residential and commercial section of the City of Wyoming that includes small industrial facilities. The City of Wyoming is a suburb of Grand Rapids which is located in west-central Michigan, approximately 25 miles east of Lake Michigan in Kent County. The Site is bordered by US 131 South, Cole Drain, a Consumer Powers substation, and several small industries. The nearest residences to the Site are located approximately 500 feet west of the property boundary. The residential areas primarily consist of single family homes. There are two hotels located within approximately 800 feet of the Site.·

No one is currently using the groundwater down-gradient of the Site. One commercial well is located at the C.D. Osborn facility which is side-gradient to the Site.

History of Contamination

Between 1957 and 1962 hazardous substances entered the ground at the Site through a construction error in a T-arm pipe used to transfer liquid products from bulk storage tanks to small delivery trucks. After losses in chemical inventories were noted, the construction flaw was discovered and then repaired. It is also possible that additional hazardous substances entered the ground through accidental spills. ~

Initial Response

In October 1978, MDEQ and EPA sampled six locations at or near the water table immediately north, east and south of the Chem Central facility and found impacts of phthalates, substituted benzenes, naphthalenes, octylketone, and PCBs, with the highest ·concentrations north of the facility. Samples taken in May 1979 found the same results. Two soil samples· taken by the MDEQ in December 1979 south of Chem Central showed impacts from PCBs and traces of carbon tetrachloride and chloroform.

·· In May 1979, the MDEQ installed 9 monitoring wells around the ChemCentral property and subsequently detected organic contaminants north of the property and in Cole Drain. PCBs were also detected north of the property. An August 1979 sampling event discovered oils and VOCs in samples north of the property. PCBs and phenol were detected north of the Consumers Power substation. Phenol was also discovered to the east of the Chem Central property. In 1980 the PRPs analyzed groundwater from 15 new wells which indicated low PCB levels south of 281h Street and phenol to the north of the facility. In August 1982, various organic contaminants were detected immediately north of the ChemCentral property. VOCs were also detected in a well located east of the facility. In addition, traces of phthalates were detected in Cole Drain and chlordane was detected south of the facility.

Sampling of the 28thStreet ditch in August 1982 identified PCBs in the surface water of the ditch. The 1983 hydrogeologic study found various VOCs in the surface water from the 28th Street ditch. The 1988-89 RI found that there were no semi-volatile organic contaminants (SVOCs) and only one VOC detected in Cole Drain surface water indicating no contaminant contributions from the Site.

In 1983, a hydrogeologic study by the PRPs revealed a VOC plume extending south to north from the Chem Central property to 28th Street. Toluene, 1, 1, I-trichloroethane (TCA) and TCE were the most commonly detected voes. The highest concentrations of voes were found in the upper part of the saturated zone. PCBs and pesticides were not detected in the groundwater, however, several metals were detected at low concentrations and total phenols were present in the same area as the VOC plume. In response to an Opinion and Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Kent County, Michigan in May, 1984, ChemCentral conducted remedial activities including: 1) removal of water, soil and sediment from the 28th Street Ditch; 2) installation and operation of a groundwater collection system consisting of a purge well system south of 28th Street; 3) installation and operation of a groundwater treatment system which discharges treated groundwater to the local POTW; 4) investigation of the aquifer immediately below the surficial aquifer; and 5) carry out a groundwater monitoring program. Isolated groundwater below the clay layer in the northwest corner of the ·Site was found to contain various VOCs.

Also, as part of the Circuit Court Order, the PRPs investigated groundwater contamination north of 28th Street in 1984 and 1985. The data indicated that there was a VOC plume moving north under 28th Street, slowly bending to the west and entering Cole Drain between Terminal and Mart Streets. The VOCs detected were primarily chlorinated compounds.

Basis for Taking Action

In July 1977, a routine biological survey of Plaster Creek resulted in the discovery of a contaminated ditch draining into Cole Drain. This ditch was located immediately north of 281h Street and north of the ChemCentral property. The ditch contained oils and concentrations of PCBs and metals in the low parts per million ranges.

In December 1982 the property was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) and finalized on the list in 1983. In June 1987, pursuant to an administrative order by consent (AOC) with EPA (Docket No. V-W-87-C-017), ChemCentral conducted a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS). The RI was conducted by Chem'Central between August 1988 and January 1989, and the FS was conducted from 1989 through 1991.

The RI groundwater investigation found the site groundwater to contain approximately thirtyfive different organic compounds. Low concentrations of chlorinated compounds were detected up-gradient of the property, originating from an unknown source. Groundwater contamination was detected in a plume extending north of the property down-gradient to Cole Drain near Mart Street. Contaminated groundwater is not flowing into Cole Drain based on results of surface water samples collected from Cole Drain. No groundwater contamination was detected west of Cole Drain, down-gradient of the Site.

Direct contact and incidental ingestion of soils was identified as the primary exposure pathways impacting human health. Environmental impacts were determined to be potentially unacceptable through a potential for migration of contamination from soil to groundwater being used as a drinking water source and groundwater discharge to the Cole Drain.

C. REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Remedy Selection

Pre-ROD Actions Taken

In May 1984, the Kent County Circuit Court ordered ChemCentral to install a groundwater collection and air stripping system. On August 7, 1984 ChemCentral hired EDI to install and start up a groundwater collection system and an AquaDetox air stripping system. Three purge wells and connecting piping were installed between Univar and 28th Street in the fall of 1984. Prior to entering the air stripper, the water passed through an oil/water separator to skim off any floating oils. The stripping tower was installed in the fall and began operation late in December 1984. ·The contaminated stripping air was passed through a steam-regenerative activated carbon system having about 90% efficiency in the removal of total contaminants from the air. Waste solvents collected in the steam condensate were drummed and disposed off-site. The air stripping system discharged treated groundwater into the City of Wyoming's wastewater treatment system. Effluent from the stripping system was regularly monitored to assure compliance with limits set by an agreement with the City. Air emissions testing of the air stripping system was also performed on a regular basis.

An underdrain system was installed near, and roughly parallel to, Cole Drain in November and December 1986. The purpose ofthis drain is to collect contaminated groundwater and prevent it from entering Cole Drain. Water collected in the drain is pumped back to the stripping tower. After stripping, the water is discharged to the City of Wyoming's sewer system. The underdrain consists of about 1,000 feet of four-inch perforated pipe placed in gravel filled trenches

extending from 28th· Street northward. Collected water flows north to the pumping station from which it is pumped back to the air stripper. The underdrain has been in operation since April 1987.

The May 1984 Kent County Circuit Court Order also directed ChemCentral to excavate and dispose of water, soil, and sediment from the 28th Street ditch. Installation was completed, and operations began, of a well point system for dewatering the ditch in November 1985. In December 1985 approximately 550 cubic yards of soil with PCB concentrations less than 50 parts per million (ppm) were taken to an off-site disposal facility. One hundred twenty cubic yards of soils (80 cubic yards with PCBs greater than 50 ppm and 40 cubic yards with PCBs less than 50 ppm) were disposed of at a TSCA landfill.

Record of Decision

Based on the findings of the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment, a Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted to identify and evaluate different cleanup options. The FS was completed on June 21, 1991. The EPA then issued a ROD on September 30, 1991. The Remedial Action Objectives listed in the ROD were: prevent ingestion and direct contact with contaminated soils; prevent possible ingestion of contaminated groundwater; prevent movement of contaminants from the soils into the groundwater; and prevent the discharge of contaminated groundwater into Cole Drain. To address these objectives the ROD called for the following actions:

Continue operation of the existing groundwater collection and treatment system until groundwater cleanup standards are achieved and maintained;

Install and operate a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system for soils on-property as well as two off-property locations just north of the property;

Install and operate a purge well at the deep lens of a contaminated groundwater location and hook this well into the current groundwater collection and treatment system~

Collect oil accumulating in the purge wells and dispose of the oil at an off-site facility in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations;

Install and operate an expansion of the current off-property groundwater collection system, by either extending the interceptor trench or installing additional purge wells;

Implement institutional controls, such as deed restrictions to prohibit the installation of water wells in the site area and any future development that might disturb contaminated soils; and

Implement a groundwater monitoring program capable of demonstrating the effectiveness of the groundwater capture system and that the groundwater treatment technology is achieving the cleanup standards.

Unilateral Administrative Order

On March 31, 1992, EPA issued a final Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to the ChemCentral Corporation. The UAO required ChemCentral to perform a remedial design for the remedy described in the ROD; and to. implement the design by performing the remedial action. The effective date of the UAO was April 7, 1992.

Remedy Implementation

Soil Vapor Extraction System

Between 1994 and 1996, an SVE system was designed and constructed at the ChemCentral Site in accordance with the ROD for treatment of the soils. Four extraction wells were installed immediately to the west and north of the ChemCentral property on the Consumers Power property to treat off-property soils. The extraction system is designed to treat approximately 300 cubic feet per minute of air. The extracted soil vapors are sent through a steam-:regenerative activated carbon system used for the air .stripping system and treated air is vented to the atmosphere. A condensate pump transfers water collected in the knock-out vessel to the air stripping tower feed tank to treat the condensate in the air stripping system. To optimize the air flow through the soils on-property and to protect the extraction wells from damage due to truck traffic, the on-property soils were paved over with concrete. The SVE system was first operated intermittently in August 1995 and January 1996. Full time operation began in March 1996.

Flow·and VOC concentrations of the vapor stream are monitored on a quarterly basis. Treated effluent from the air stripping system and the discharge from the air/vapor collection system are monitored on a quarterly basis for compliance with applicable regulations.

Groundwater Extractionffreatment System

An AquaDetox® air stripping system was installed in the fall of 1984 and began operations in December 1984. The stripping tower removes contaminants from the groundwater to air. The contaminated air is passed through a steam-regenerative carbon vapor adsorption (CVA) system having about 90% efficiency in the removal of total contaminants from the air. Waste solvents collected in the CVA system are drummed and disposed of properly. Treated water discharges from the stripping tower to the City of Wyoming's Clean Water Plant.

Contaminated groundwater was initially pumped from three purge wells (PW-1, PW-2 and PW3) from the plume to the north of Chem Central (Univar USA, Inc.) to the stripping tower for treatment through underground transmission piping. The purge wells are capable of producing an approximate combined flow rate of 90 gallons per minute (gpm). The water flows through an oil/water separator (OWS) before entering the stripping tower. The OWS removes floating oil from the groundwater. The small amount of oil is managed as waste.

Flow from another purge well, SCH-2, also discharges to the stripping tower. SCH-2 was modified in order to extract and completely capture impacted groundwater from a water-bearing gravel lens. The flow from SCH-2 is very small compared to the flow from the other wells. The purge well SCH-2 is screened within the deep aquifer. Operation of SCH-2 as a purge well began in April 1996.

An underdrain system, referred to as the North Underdrain or PW-4, was installed next to and roughly parallel to Cole Drain in November and December 1986. The underdrain began operating in April 1987. The underdrain collects groundwater and prevents it from entering Cole Drain. The underdrain consists of about 1,000 feet of four-inch perforated pipe placed in a gravel-filled trench extending from 28th Street northward. Collected water flows north to a pumping station from which it is pumped back to the air stripping tower for treatment and discharge to the City. The average flow rate from PW-4 is approximately 7 to IO gpm.

The groundwater treatment system began operation in September 1985. ChemCentral and now Univar USA, Inc. have continued to operate and monitor the system since then.

Trench Extension/Groundwater Monitoring

The 1991 ROD called for an expansion of the current off-property groundwater collection system (the north underdrain interceptor trench) on the north end to capture the contaminant plume before it enters Cole Drain. The PRPs completed the design of the extension in 1994; however, the extension has not been constructed. The cleanup standards in effect at the time that the ROD was written were Michigan Environmental Response Act 307. Michigan Environmental Response Act 307 Type B was noted as an ARAR in the ROD. In 1994 MDEQ replaced Act 307 with Michigan Part 201cleanup standards. While it should be noted that the cleanup standards established in the ROD remain in effect, for all of the Site contaminants, the cleanup standards as noted in Michigan Part 201 have either remained the same, or have increased. In 1995, the State of Michigan passed several amendments to Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. In June 1996, the PRPs petitioned EPA to change the groundwater cleanup standards established in the ROD to those based on the foreseeable uses and exposure controls. However, a comparison of the soil and groundwater cleanup standards established in the ROD to the current Michigan Part 201 standards determined that the ROD standards (Michigan Act 307) remain protective. Therefore the standards for this site were considered protective.

The PRPs implemented a Plume Dynamics/Groundwater Surface Water Interface (GSI) monitoring program which was approved by EPA and MDEQ in June 1999. The program was developed to provide a comprehensive monitoring of the groundwater plume. Data from the program has been used to establish a baseline of data for the plume. Based on the results of the current groundwater monitoring program an expansion of the collection system is not necessary to ensure complete capture of the plume. Wells to the northwest of the collection trench have shown no bypass of the system. No one is currently using the groundwater north of the ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) property.

Monitoring Program

Groundwater extraction and treatment will be required until it has been demonstrated that groundwater cleanup standards have been attained. Until that time monitoring of the groundwater and the treatment system will also be required. As part of the requirements of the 1984 Kent County Circuit Court Order, ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) has been performing quarterly groundwater monitoring. That monitoring continues today. EPA, in consultation with the MDEQ, will certify completion of the groundwater remediation activities once it has been determined that cleanup levels have been attained and maintained for all chemicals of concern listed in the ROD.

As discussed above, the EPA and MDEQ have worked with ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) to expand the current monitoring network to better monitor the plume dynamics. Site monitoring is now performed in accordance with the June 1, 1999, "Plume Dynamics and GSI Groundwater Monitoring Program".

Each of the components of the treatment system (purge wells, north underdrain, air stripping tower, SVE system, carbon vapor adsorption system) also require periodic monitoring. On a quarterly basis effluent to the City of Wyoming publicly owned treatment works (POTW) is monitored to ensure compliance with the industrial users permit.

In March 2008, the State of Michigan Air Quality Division (AQD) issued a Substantive Requirements Document (SRD) revision for ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.). Primarily as a result of Chem Central (Uni var USA, Inc.) having successfully demonstrated that the amount of uncontrolled air emissions is negligible, the AQD recommended that ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) be allowed to disconnect the air pollution control device. The related control equipment includes four groundwater purge wells which feed into an air stripping column; and the soil vapor extraction system. However, the CVA system is required by the ROD and therefore will continue to operate. The tower discharge to the City of Wyoming's Clean Water Plant is sampled quarterly in accordance with the Industrial User Permit and the SRD for air emissions. The effluent sampled collected on July 30, 2008 did not contain any chemicals that exceeded the Industrial User's Permit limit. In addition, daily system checks are performed by ChemCentral (Uni var USA, Inc.) personnel and meter readings from the equipment are taken on alternate days.

Institutional Controls

Institutional Controls (ICs) are required to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. I Cs are those non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and/or legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use. Although it is EP A's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be the primary mechanism in addressing most of the threat posed by release of hazardous substances at a given site, I Cs can play an important role in the function of a given remedy. ICs may be used when contamination is first discovered, and when remedies are ongoing and residual contamination remains at levels that do not allow for unrestricted land use and unlimited exposure, even though other cleanup measures may be operating. The National

Contingency Plan (NCP) emphasizes that I Cs are meant to supplement engineering controls,. and that ICs will-rarely be the sole remedy at a site.

The 1991 ROD required ICs, such as deed restrictions, to be implemented to prohibit the installation of water wells in the area, and any future development that might disturb contaminated soils. No one is currently using groundwater down-gradient of the Site. One commercial well is located at the C.D. Osborn facility which is side-gradient to the Site.

The Site area is comprised of nine (9) parcels of property. Each of the parcel"s is subj~ct to "Deed Restrictions" that were recorded with the Kent County Recorder of Deeds. The Deed Restrictions prohibit use of contaminated groundwater, residential use or any further commercial development that would disturb contaminated soil, or interference with the containment or monitoring systems required by the Unilateral Administrative Order or Consent Decree with U:S. EPA pursuant to Sections 104 and 106 of CERCLA, except with the written approval of U.S. EPA. In addition, for the parcels that are not owned by Univar (formerly ChemCentral) an acknowledgment was recorded on the properties notifying the public that the property is part of the Chem Central Superfund Site that is subject to an order under Section 106(a) of CERCLA, and is subject to the Deed Restrictions imposed and recorded by ChemCentral on the property. The parcel owners have also all been notified that to ensure the remedy is protective use restrictions must be recorded for each parcel. To date, however, acknowledgements that use restrictions have been recorded have only been received for parcels 2, 3 (owned by Jacob C. Mol) and 6 (owned by Univar (formerly ChemCentral)). The remaining six parcels must therefore be subject to further negotiation between their owners and Univar so that each parcel is subject to a legally enforceable use restriction and acknowledgement of the recording can then be obtained.

System Operation/Operation and Maintenance

RD/RA construction activities at the Site were conducted by ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.) and its contractors. The components of the remedial action were constructed by contractors and sub-contractors to ChemCentral (Univar USA, Inc.). All design plans, and field activities were reviewed and approved by EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, to ensure consistency with the ROD, the RD, and RA work plans, and federal and state requirements.

The design and construction quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program utilized throughout the RD/RA was in accordance with EPA protocols. Details of the analytical procedures used to ensure the quality of work are contained in the approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) sections of the RD/RA Work Plan. The QA/QC program utilized has been sufficient to allow EPA to make the determination that all reported materials specifications are adequate and construction methods used allowed remedy construction to be satisfactorily performed in accordance with the ROD. The groundwater/surface water monitoring activities have been conducted in accordance with the approved QAPP.

APPENDIXB

us 131

Penn Central RR

MW 48.. . Stafford Aye

UNIVAR (Jays Foods)

D t ~ MW· 1C rn A MW 56"

MW 568 RSI.

Consumers Power

MW 11 .. Substation

.~~3~ . ~ JOC

... MW J\A•MW J\8

MW J\C ·

D ,J

/t:MW

rta 2C 6~ ~~~

. MW 27C

.. MW J6A · MW J68R

<IJ <IJ._

VJ 0

HOiiday ·'= E

OD Inn ._

<IJ f

0 D

0 DD Buchanan Ave.

LEGEND ©. ,.. ELECTRICAL TOWER

0 200---SCALE IN rEET

400

•.. ®•0

- PIEZOMETER LOCATION - MONITORING WELL LOCATION ' PURGE WELLS . . . . . · · · · ·

- .SURFACE WATER RE.FERENCE LOCATION - SOil .BORING .LOCATION . ·

:::::::::::. ,

--- -

COLE D~IN NORTH UNDERDRAIN SITE PLAN

F1GURE

.~ARCADIS 1

Conceptual Site Model Univar (former ChemCentral) Grand Rapids site

2940 Stafford Street Wyoming, Michigan

--

c.::c»M'1tCHT,..... ~. 11Rr1M: CM.1( .U.T 1, 20\1)

~::=-~=-·1~~ASCCllAIDICM810Fl:rfNCllOHnDlffsamtr.AS'l'CDMJIOFH.:sl'HM.TOF1MEso.m«AST WUTtOU.X fU'1' PJlllWJ..n. lf1tt M 90IJ'M lKOFS...O 'llCSTKIU OF 11< !CIU1ICAST ~ lO'K PViCCCF~ OF 1Mll

290 l'ttT PMtM.1.11. M1tt 'IMt (AST l.N: OF SAm ICST Hlrll.f' OF 1H[ ICIUa<A.ST OW«IOt 1'CNaE: 1lClf1t4 • llUllUS 10 WMl1CS XI SUDIDS WSf »7.ll UC Cl' SM> 'CSTMAL' OF 1HI: IClU1MlAST ~ 1"DCC SCll1H :U DDIMD 20....,~ XI SlalG5 u.sT 32.24 Fm lOA "°"'1~ IS \.UO

~.:;_:_:"~ar~~cru~~~'ffir~~~':'~~~~J..:~~~~CI' ~~~FLN:~~~~~~~~.,..~cw-":e~HMl-;-:c~ai:"1~~;cna· ~Dl:IP'TlMATPMTOF-.C~ )OJU:TOUIUI lOCCINSlMDtlll'OIUI COtl"l«flllllttDIDQ) .. L.at IQll,.Ollll PJt«.Q. -..:cT 10 #I (J.90l[NT RA-- MD £Ol£SS C1'IOI K MOll1H JOl'IETlHIJl[Qf".

OfSC:R!PDON gr pARqt $ 2 ANQ ,); z:~nMW~bf~=:. ~· ancmc Do\'IE .U..T21. 2011) 'H CST.,_.,. PUT ar1M1: usr H>U.71 ntTar K NClt1M 21110 nn or M SCI.mt 1140nrr ar M SllUMllOT 1/4 ar 1HC !DS1H['AS'l 1/4 ar KcnaN ta. 10111 I IQl1M. IUNCI'. 12'IDT.-..:cT 10MC10C['1HEll ... A ..n~-lllMT rOI: HIGIMWATl'\llPOSD AS SHDllN 91 lall nl7 (Ill l"AOC UllO NCI 111 L.-:irt 2.J'll ON l"MllE 10D&.

Pf':SQllPDQN Of PARCfl +·l:~"""~~em~a::"~aum~ORC'IM: °"11 ...._, s. 2011> l"Ml OFlH[ SCU1M 1/2 ar SEC1D112. ~I NOlt1'K, ltNIQE 12 lllDT ~ 110 fUT~ t DEwt ti WIW1ES SO !l(c:oHO$ 'llEST M.ONC ff [A.ST 1/1 I.JN( NC> .._O l'IETM!lt'ltt • OOIUS 5' ...u1CS50 SUXINDS -.::sTl"ARMULW'IH 1HE IQITH SECllON LK f1llClil lHt SCU1Mlo\ST CC.0 ar lH[ tDT 1/2OFlH£90UlMEAS1'1/4:1MCNCC MOll1W • ~ ,. l9CJ10 so 9ECDIDS IDT CZ7.I .. na 10 1MI: CASTDLT IJN( or OONSUWJtS fQEJt COlll'IMr llDn OF •T: ~ NClrTM ,. DCClllll3 » ll9«l1D so ![t:QCIS

CST ALaC 1M1l:ASTIJl.TUIC .... PUTtoA1'mlf211.M l'UT CASlDl..TALCNO 1"C fllOll1H UIC 01 M IO.ntt llOFIO rJl lHE SOl11HCAS11/4 ltlDlll 1ME £.ASlOLTlH: OF ~~llKHTOF 1MT: '9fJCl IOU1M • DDIUS 119....riD 50IEIXICl5EA.STIO'l'.'7'Rn"101HC 'CST!..M: fJI' lHC EAS1'4Jefl:rT (IF 1t£ .-st 1/2 OF K al.IKAS'ft/~ 'IHDfC£SIU9CJl..TM.OCS..0 'CSfl.M: -.Ol'UY 10 KllEDM9C.

[)FSCJftPDQH CC PABCfl !j:

e:,:,,..w~~a::"=-'ccum~D'FEC'N:Do\lC.M.T6,Dt> lMAT l"Mt at H CST 1/2 OF K SCIU'MAST 1/4 OF £'DON 11. la.I I lm'9l ltANOC t2 'CST DDCmKD AS:CCMC)ICINO (Ill lH[ sa.tlM lH: OF SAii ~ AT A l'OllM'I' 1MCH IS !ll&.44 n:CT~ • DOIWED611..nts IO~ 'IES'1' ....ct1$ H mnM UIC OF SMlsrC'11DM PllDI 'H toUKAS'T CCIMJtOF1HC -=sT 1/2Cl'"HKlll1tCUT1/4 or MDac.. 1HDQ:-.i •DDllllEl3611~ 509E.CDCIS'Cn 47'Ul!il!ETMDtCK_,...UCorMDm:a.tlt)A~1MCH IS~ RlTJOLllH •DDND5'=:: ~~::.=:~ 20 ·WlDIDS IDT SD.II Rn 10 A f'aljT Cll H: SCIU1tl UC or~ nut. 1HCH II 1'7.17 l'ttT SCU1M • CGllllD 5e .-nD$D lt:CCICISUS1' Al.CIC H D11M UIC OT SMtSim;TFIQI 1HC CASlDLT~f/T MTUICOT Nl'Oell'l'L~ conR#lll.tllALllClilO: 1HDQ:. '°'1tl M oe:MES '9 --.nu .., IEtom UST M7.S- l'!!.T ollLOC 1M[ ~ lM or SM) S1'JllEO 10 • "*1 ..,. • ~ .... fUl ........ DlllMl:s • Mlll1D SD ECDCl5 'CIT ,.. N usr IJN( OT H'CIT 1/2 er 1H[ SDU1tCAST1/41: 1ICMIX IOll1H 1 r:&lllll: 411...anD '° !EIXIMDS UST-.OOfml"Ahllll. ... HtAST u«ar M IDTt/lOF H ~ 1/• 1'011< l'VIC( rF....,.;,. lOCIOla 9'* NI l'.AEMOfT fat - NG llllDI OllD 1H[ NOl:1H -.01"111OT1H[ tlCIAot lffUIRJ:T or H 'CST 1/2ar1H[ ICllMA5t ~M [AST 1/2or..:9lll1tftCST1/-' ti SMI £10f 11, LllNC u.sT Of' lHC COJIAI& ltM.IDIG ~Tl'OIJC'ILV-~ llKHftTW.T. ~ 'ftlQ£1HDt W1M NI

nlll INOllDS NC>DllDSAS CWIDCID rr~111£D'.lf1Dfl) 91laJI1"7 ow 1""'11[ UOMC .... ,..,. (Ill HDE. ...... aa.m:r 'IOA MlHT or IMT n:a l«HW4T~ ....'911111£CT.

p£SC8IP"DON w PABOO 6 IBACIS 1 ANQ J;

e:, ~1UAW,:: ~aW1,,a::".::--IXlMTY~D"FtC'IN: Do\1t .&1..T t. 1011> l'l«T OF 11C SCIL11H 1/2 Oli ~ 11. TCMf I l«:.tlH, ltMGC 12 'CST DDClllC) AS RU0WS: CIDl600tO AT ff NlDtSIECWM r;F 1tE OST Ufllt r;F CXINfW.. ~ ...,...._.T NC 1H[ KIU1M .... OF ......,..,_ STllU'I (90 nn ..:) CCWENDm ~ 1HOKZ ~T AUllQ 1tC lAST .... or SAID IUiUCWI JIOHl--0---..T ""° rm W>A • :S03ECOJCISEASTM..CIC l..:nDll1"CICU'IHl/4CCIMEt'tCMCl:IOll1H•DCc.:ND=iililM11D$D XCD1DS lHC 234.11'1 nctfflKX MOll''llt tt WNnES 20 SODa lllCST MS.II ml: ~ NCa"IH 11 OE01a$ 24 .ams !10 XCON:JS 'CST 1 A 118 DC8'lfD 49MMl1CS $D l'AIUU.D.. •1H 'H mnK IE.C'ftCllt Ullt:: #lfr>1.._., raT NClf1H 7 DGMD D llMl/10 32 :510U1H7Df:QlllEES D-.nts 1UT1...-iRITlOMKIU1MLKtT1EMMAL.Sllllla't'ICNCl:NClf1H•OCOllED" ...no SICU1MLM: 121.n rm 10 tsll'..CllCMIC.

'llESTlM:. £AST "31 FUT, 'ICST1/2..SllJffAS11/ 4.

"""""" . ........... _......_. ·~..·--·

5 N

SUBYfYORS' NOJES· 1.) BEARINGS AS SHOYIN HEREc»i AR£. BASED c»i 'THE NAO 8J PRo.ECTION SYSTEM (~STATE PLANE, SOUlH ZONE. ..TERNAllONAL FEET). 2.) MEASURED DlSTAHCES SHo.i t£REON ARE GftOUHO °'5TAHCES CON\efm> FROM GRID. (GRID OtST~CE/COMllHED SCALE FACTOR • GROIJHD DISTANCE) COMBINED SCALE FACTOR AT 1HE SOU1H 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 12 • 0.99988146 3.) NO SLINE"l'ING OF IMPRO\€ME)l1S WAS P£JU"ORMED Wl}Wr4 RES1RtCTm AREA OF CONSlAERS ENERGY SUBSTATION BCJUN:>ED BY PERlilETDt FENCE. 4.) SEr SHEET 2 OF 5 ~ MAF'PWG liHJ l£GAL OE'SaaPTic»i OF GROIJHOWATER RtslRtcTED PARCEL 5.) SE£ SHEET 3 CF 5 FOR MAPPWC AHO L£GAL OESCRFTICJrrl CF SOL RESTRICTED PARCEL 6.) PARCEL 7 NOlE: 3 DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIOHS PRO'tltDE 3 OffERENT PARal. UN( SOl.UllOHS. ll£ ~ OESCRFTION IS AS PREWlUSl Y SUR\£'1'ED. 7.) PARCEi.. 7 LIES wm., PORllOHS OF TliE RU.OWING PARCELS: PARCEl.. 8 TRACT 3, PARCEL. 8 TRACT 6 ANO PARal. SI.

_., "'"'""""

--

e..w::a..± .Qlllf, GIJil(lll[ a:M'Nff, L.LI:.

PPM: 4'-17-12-4$1 ~11

"""''"°""'........ ,,,.

--OHU-- O\IOt£AD UTlJT\ES

0 -·--·---<>-<>---

------GUNIDRAIL

LEGEND

gOiAIHlJNK ~

CU<8 S£CTIOI< ca.HER~ ROW ·-

l.Ol10rl

·')C.lt. .IDM[:S'"L.-.1

LICHT POI.£ UTIUTY POI.£ POST

MEASURfl>

Pf5'8'PJQI Cf" PARm z. (JllOI coe. DIGMIJmflC INC. ..-CV (.IOI ...at tm$&)) AS... flUlllCt '° f'l:rr ti~ LWllC $OUtH ti NC~ 10 ... c:onDUCOF lltM:S MMO AS*""~ OIClll NC>~ K ..-.-st 1/4 r;r~ 1/4 OF MalfMAST 1/4 tlU:1QI U. lo-I I .ot1K. 1tMGC 12 WST. ......c ~. ICOfT OCUITT. ~

Df'SCR!PDQNS Qf PABOO ft;Vle.crDDllf DmlaMC INC. -....cT (.1!11lflMO11221~))

AU. 'IMATl"Nn' Ol!H 90.nH t/l Oil llC'IOt 11. ~ • NQll1H, ltANGC 12 'IDT. crTT Cll'_..,..... llCMTCQUlllTT, ~ oc.-n AS~ AT Al'OMT Qt lHE EAST llCI0-4'-W.Yl..MOF K l'l*S"l\.VAllA ltMIKW:l ldl'JM ltO F"aT ~ M..OllG lHI: ICIR1H NIO 90ltlH QLWnDt lM OF SC> ac1ICiN I~ NC "°"1H W411'SJ"W 152.7• n'.ETrflCXil 11HC 90tJ'1H o..wnot a..Jt OF 5o\ID SD:1DI (MS aoc A l"ONT (Ill K IClit'91 l,M Oil SIO-CAl.J.8I ~~ 1HDtCI: IOJIH W411"35"1: 200..IS rm Al.llMC K 1C1it1H IJN( OF Sl)-CMUI) .,..,...._~ llCNIX NClf1H 1r24°SCl"'W~f'l:rr10 A l'OMT ON A l.M; 9ICff IS llOFUT"IOlM OT 1IH£ Drnt UICOF $H0 SCCllCJlt ~ NOltlH W41'16"W tlLM nm 1HOIC:t 5CllJ1tl 2T41'20'l: 2:12.13 rm~ M SAO u.sw:N.T llQn-Gr-WAT IJIC Oli 1IC ~YMCA JtM,JIOoliO 1tl nc l'C9IT or-lRACT 2 A l"MIXLOFUlllCt .. lHI: 'CSI' 1/1Of'llHt 9Wtt<AST 1/4 NC 1"E Eo\51'1/l Oli K SOJTHWEST 1/4 Oli SD:lloH 12. '1"91. NQlt'Dl, ilt*'IE 12 en, OTT ts~ IC!HT c::caMTY, llOIGNI~ At KGllNMQ ATA l'mn"X11111i _..SO' EAST, ADtSTANCE2~1 ftrT AICI IDlH tl"24"20" l£S1, ADIS'TMIXOF&&.MFEEtRlCM 1"ESQU1H

~c:-=~:o~lHDQ~~~~mr.AHCC~~~~==~~~==c:=-:ocrr;;~lHC~~WAT er51'MrtAST.AmT....:f:Olf',.U7fUT10Hf"OHTorllUIMNMI.

'TRACT 2 IS ALSO DESCRIBED AS:

~~~~~~~~~-::-~1:~2~~~~~~~,~~'t.REJ 1K l"DelS'l\.WMA ........,,.., AICI IUCJWtM •'IJU7. s.... H crn ar ~ w:NllMt.

EXCUllWC FRClil TRACTS t AND 2 1HE Fa.L~G: Al"AllC&. arl.MIO • x ~ t/' rs..: s:iuKAST 1/4 tTstt'llON tt.1IOil9f1*"""'llN«aE12 .:sr. arrar Wl'Clli9IC.11Df1' a:iutin"I', ~~~ ~AT 1H[ 1D11M 1/4 Clll9llJt fl SMD !ICWDlf 11. llEtt SCIJ1N ~UST Ul.61l'l:n.trUINC1H[ S(IU1N lM OT SMC! IEl:llC9l 1l. TMENCCNClll'IM 1"4"20" 'CST -.... l'UJ 1'0 1H[ ....... .off-CF-'MT UM[ OF 1EJlliaiW. S1ND ~)Pm K l'\ACl: OF llJaiWC" OF 1* ~--~ .._ ..W .aT 7UO PU:1' AU1C SAID D11K MHF-<F-T 1..M: OT ........._ S'lllEET. lHBCC W,ll1H ~ tut ,..... l1ET 11!1 1HC llf'IOt5(aot OF 4 UM[ lfAMIO ManH 1r2'4Y 1IOT AKIM lHE .....a- OT K....o CIF1"S ~ 1tCJa: 10111H 1r24"20" l.UT1'5.U nr;T 1'01HC l"ONT fl ll""'9C.

I I

r' l_l 4

I.... (.J

tl"![CflDNl:I. """'"" ,.,... I I l~ i I """' I ' ~ r- I ~

=·· "'"'""" 81

~ _JV5 z <I-Cl < wZe,,Q Cl::> z I l.J.._ -()

a:::~- >a:::WO~ <§; ~ Cl

(/) ~ z ::>_J l.J.._Z 0<0::> CD~>-0I-() _J

z-1 wwOz ()(.) w a:::

<2j ::.:: a... I (.)

I ~ ~

=- GWV .,.,,.,, GWV

PROPERTY UNE 0- DES""8ED-- - -- tallERUHE

111111111111111111 RAlROAD GRAPHIC SCALE BSH.....100 so too S1R\JC1\JR£///,//?/~ 11-0465 ASPIW.T

1 inch - 100 fl. ~>:;1$4<".Bl

CONCRETEfy .<·::- ,·.:...:··!::! io12s12011 """"

1· = 100' ........ 1 OF 5

; ~ ~

I g

p D ~ IB ~ ' ' I ! Ii

• I i a

! - "

m"s'DQNS Of PMCD o <CONT>;

ALL ...,,.T Hill'T Cl' ICOf1' CDMTT, .:HCNt ~AS:: 1tC Ofllll(f'U WU "1'0l£ST., NCI lOA !'MOEL OF I.NCI N 1H[ aTTOF..,.,...., ~~A l1fllll' O'"l.NCI 'IOOflr;T .. Clltl. 9EINC K MIOKT OI W.TOl 1H[ PTIMClt ~IUllJIDiliOOfll!M'Nl'rASLOCAlm IM:aMD ACMm 1Htf'O.Ull9IO~!b:IDI tll w'ltlilNI ~.IQlft~ IOJ1H'llaT1/40I~ I~ IOJlH 1/1 :S":D~".:m~~MJ..~~~ • ....._ 1Ui1G: 1210T. corr..-c""',.... «" 4..2 .fOll£S. MOM: a11 ~ D1Cur1WO llOaltOM M.J. ca.. OICl7T K LNC>..::L.LaUI 91 MD SOJ'lol NCI [AST CT1Hl l'tU.OIMC llOCJlm:D LNCk A f'MICO. OI I.Ne 11 K MMatCST 1/4 OF 1H[ -~ 1/4 Cl' l£C1ICJI U. to.. • ..-.C. ltNt« 12 1tOT, OTT Cl' WWMIC, llDfl COUNTT, llQCllimED "5 RlJ.OG: CDiMMDIC AT lHC ICllf1HICSTCDMlt OF I.Of 100'" CJt ~f'\,,t,T, ~'IO 1Hl" ~ f'Uo11'El(ar': ._..., 'IHOG:..,.,t'DO"C Ill.CM: K 1llCSl 1.M: OF S1i1D LOT'°" a1PCIOI ----..v .. ~10 K IUt'lM l.M Ol CD..JIMf SWIU1'; ~ ............ ~ 1M£ 'CSIDll.T~ OF5...m CQ.ltMil $1'llaT 121:l.11"l:tWI1HI'. .st LllCGf"*LDIOfT AWMUC F!XIDCIUI ....ul.T; '!MDU I00"1no"WMDC 1H[ 'CS'°'-.YLllC AS D'1DClrD Cl' S1C1 ~ A't!OU'. tl.Z..>4 Rn:; llGG S30"2ll"OO"E, n1.-NJ:T 10 -~TLllCGf"SolCI ~A~ 1HOG: ~ #IUlllC ... ~YIXIOeoN Cl' Mii IEASIDllL.TLllC CF SMl -.cllOF'1 A'CM.C ma l'tET 1011C "*"I OF lAMGOffOF A QMlilC lO K ~ MWC A IWIUSOF• PUt; 1HOG: #&JIC 'K .W: OF SlilD O..WOC: 10 K fViCl OF 9ECllll9C.

TRACT 0 1IC Of1lllt JU Tll.L WJrEST Ill NflJ 10 • l"MCD. • MOlm4, ll#C t2 C51. ~ 4S rou.oe 911Dtl[Cfl,, 1'GCI: [JIS1' MOC 1IC fCllf9t l..eE ts W.T, lHDICIC :lrll1H l"MUrt..l.n. W1H SNO L\51Dl..T lllAl.MlAO-.TOTWAT.lHO«l:~T 0-lNCIJ..711Mmu.sTNC11DT9TUMDS

I IJ -<:' ...·

I /WI I b

of Drain

-~ ~ -;s:;.~ ... {O co 645.33 WW 228 • I

@':; R)

MW 2 .... + 044.35

~ 1~·~~J ~ l~a~l~

--z----Site-Characteristics: Hydrogeology - Approximate Location

_ ~ek ~ ~ Underground Cole

~---,=~ff~" ~ - ~ \ ~

Transmissive sand/gravel aquifer ~ Hydraulic ronductivity: 3 to 6 x lOE-2 cm/sec

~: ..., H-ydraulic gradient: flat, 0.007 ft/ft1n-fuoundWater flow velocity: 700 to 1,400 ft/year, NNE

~t ' ~s d LEGEND

.. MONITORING WELL 647 69 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FT)

:1 • MW- 298R. 280, NC> 420 SCREEHED BENEATH a.AY 0 100 200' 400' MW-26A. MW-57, MW-58 RfP\ACEO BY MW-62, 63, 64 !!~~-~-~-liiiiZ~~~~I

SCALE IN FEET PURGE WELL~- ...... SOURCE: AECOM~1 e SURFACE WATER REFERENCE LOCATION ~ GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

UNIVAR USA INC. 2040 STAFFORD STREET, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN LCC

GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP FOR AUGUST 22, 2013

~Jiilll ARCADIS 2-1 6 aL-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'--~~~~~~~----'

L.,

-

+---MW ~..~ A.:;_._

-t

.. MW 45 64978

--"' C.11o

/

/ Joo IJf .... ......_ _ col __li::!T\ ,....: 648.24

Mf.a3~-3'ft ,._. 8 ~,a ....... -.."1:8'!',....1.. ~ 1~~rn

64lf"69 ~ ~ t~:I ~•mg.!17 - --·a 16 e:n. ..~~ It: ~/~t ~01

A -s48 . f6 A 646,1i MW 21~

t\'.:8.~ '(It ll4 6 7'.ia \

- MW 1A . 847.69 MW 7A.. ..

~ I~ ~rn 64662

.. MW +4 649.32

.. MW m 847.49a MW 647.56 MW r7.47

SPARGE WEUS (056-10)

SPARGE WELL LOCATIONS (OS11-15)

OS7

OS8

OS9

QS1Q

OS11

I OS12

OS13

OS14

\ OS15

I

SEGMENT #4 OXYGEN SPARGE WELLS (OS16-20)

SEGMENT #5 OXYGEN SPARGF WELL LOCATIONS (OS21-25)

SVE LATERAL "D" INSTALLED _____

IN TRENCH ABOVE OXYGEN SPARGE LINES

1 IN TRENCH ABOVE JXYGEN SPARGE LINES

i~SVE LATERAL ·c· ll~STALLED /(s, : , ~ T I OS28

/ I

SEGMENT #6 OXYGEN SPANG£< ' y,(LL LOCATIONS (0526-JO) ~

--z-SEGMENT #1 +-

>ARGEox=r ~=~WELLS .. - -t ..+- t t

+ - + +t t t t-t=t-r I t /

(OSl-5)

OS1

OS2

r'If.

-1'

.> r. w

OS3

OS6 OS4

SEGl.IEH 12 OXYGEN

NEW +80/277V, 3f4W,\ _ECTRICAL SERVICE FROM

CONSUMERS ELECTRIC, ER TO FlGURES 8 AND 9

FOR ELECTRICAL SINGLE-LINE AND PLAN

[ INSTALL ELECTRICAL)

SCONNECT SWITCH, DS-1 . ROUTE ELECTRICAL FEED

TO PNL #1 OVERHEAD SEGMENT #3 OXYGEN:sEE NOTE ON SHEET #9)

,.* A

/SVE LATERAL "E"

----=-,.-----$-O:S2~

SVE LA"r_ - r'IPE TRENCH

- - ~ ---- -'-·

.LS ---- ·

SEGMENT IS OXYGEN SPARGE WELL LOCATIONS (0536-40)

LEGEND:

OS11 EB OXYGEN SPARGE WELL

OSD41 EB DEEP OXYGEN SPARGE WELL

j Innovative Engineering Solutions, Inc. ' SVE LATERAL, SOLIO, EXISTING 3"f 25 SPRING STREET •iesHOPE, OR NEW 2"f OR 3"11 PVC WALPOLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02081

FORMER TANK (508) 668-0033 SVE LATERAL, 3"f, SLOTTED, WITHFARM AREA FlLTER FABRIC SOCK

Enhanced Aerobic Remediation OXYGEN SPARGE LINE BUNDLE, System Site Plan ONE OR MORE ~·- HOPE TUBE

GROUNDWAWR HOPE PIPE, SIZE AS NOTED

---- CONDUIT, SIZE AS NOTED CHEMCENTRAL CORPORATION WYOMING, t.flCHIGAN0 25'WJ> SOURCE: FIGURE PREPARED BY EARTH iECH, H ~

JANUARY 1997, CMJ FILE: 19417SVS.DWG SCALE IN F'EET Df¥Mf a£QCFJ) fl.EJWE ~rc: FK1Jll£

f/GM S>f GR AS- BUILTS 2012 MAR 2012 4-1

.,,,...

Comparison of Site's Ground201 Residential Drinking Water Criteria water Target Concentration Limits (TCLs) to Current Michigan Part

Chemical RODTCLs

(ppb)

MI Part 201 Residential

Drinking Water Criteria (ppb)

Federal MCL(ppb)

MI Part 201 GSI Criteria·

(ppb)

Max Concentration

Detected in 2014 (ppb)

Benzene 1 5 5 200 <50

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2 6 - 25 <5.0

Chloroethane 9 430 - 1,100 10,000

1,1-Dichloroethane 700 880 - 740 7,100

1,2-Dichloroethane 0 5 5 360 <500

1,2-Dichloroethene 70 70 70 620 1,300

1, 1-Dichloroethylene 7 7 7 130 7.6

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 100 100 100 1,500 130

Ethylebenzene ' 30 74 700 18 4,600

Methylene Chloride 5 5 - 1,500 25

2-Methylnaphthalene 10 260 - 19 -

2-Methylphenol 40 370 - 25 <5.0

Naphthalene 29 520 - 11 420

Pentachlorophenol 0 1 1 - . <1.0

Tetrachloroethylene 1 5 5 60 14

Toluene 100 790 790 270 38,000

I, 1, I-Trichloroethane 117 200 200 89 350

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0 9 5 78 <50

Trichloroethylene 3 5 5 200 13

Vinyl Chloride 0 2 2 13 7,200

Xylenes 59 280 2,400 41 16,000

Comparison of Site Soil Cleanup Standards to Michigan Part 201 Standards

ROD Soil Cleanup Standards MI Part 201 Soil Standards (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (dated September 28, 2013)

Residential Groundwater

Chemical 20x

Direct Contact Drinking Water Nonresidential Surface Water

Groundwater Direct Contact InterfaceProtection

Protection

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 40 90,000 - 10,000,000 -Butyl benzyl phthalate 20,000 50,000,000 310,000 3IO,OOO 120,000

Chlordane 0 1,000 - 150,000 --Chrysene IO IOO - 8,000,000 -Di-n-octyl phthalate 2,000 5,000,000 100,000,000 20,000,000 -

1,2-Dichloroethene 1,000 800,000 1,400 640,000 12,000

Ethyl benzene 600 8,000,000 1,500 140,000 360

Isophorone 200 90,000 15,000 2,40.0,000 26,000

2-Methylnaphthalene 200 400,000 57,000 26,000,000 4,200

Naphthalene 600 1,000,000 35,000 52,000,000 730

Tetrachloroethylene IO 8,000 100 88,000 1,200

Toluene 2,000 16,000,000 16,000 250,000 5,400

1, 1, I-Trichloroethane 2,000 400,000 4,000 460,000 1,800

Trichloroethylene 60 40,000 100 500,000 440,000

Xylenes 1,200 160,000,000 5,600 150,000 820

., "

ATTACHMENT 1

MCSHANE & BOWIE

ATTORNEYS

540 Old Kent Building P.O. BOX360

Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0360

JACK M. BOWIE T~HONE(616)774-0641 T. GERAlD MCSHANE TIIOMAS C. SHEARER • (1901-1982) DAYID L SMITll Will.IAM H. BOWIE TEUCOPIER (616) 774-2366 KEITH P. WALICER TERRY J. MROZ CARYG. LOVE JOHN R GRANT OAN M. CHAllA JOHN F. SH.APE WAYNE P. BRYAN October 20, 199:2 MICHAa W. DONOVAN ETHAN M. POWSNER DENISE D. TWINNEY

Mr. Michael McAteer Remedial Project Manager 77 West Jackson Blvd_ Chicago, IL 60604-3590

Ms. Sherry L. Estes Assistant Regional Counsel 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3 590

Re: Chemcentral Superfund Site

Dear Mr. McAteer and Ms. Estes:

Please find enclosed for your records a copy of the original recorded Deed Restrictions for the Chemcentral Superfund Site, recorded on October 8, 1992 in Liber 3118, Page 101 through 109, Kent County, Michigan records.

Very truly yours,

P.7~./h-~Paula M. Lewison · Legal Assistant

PML!kmg

cc: Robert Garner (w/encl) William Mulliken, ·Esq. (w/encl) Louis M. Rundio (w/encl) Keith P. Walker, Esq. Dan M. Challa, Esq.

(922940035 - 2 - KMG )

L15ER3118 n 1LJ.- ...- l 'j) r -. ~· - .~() ~ °7 '·..:;. l -' : ~Jo • . i

' .·.• ' '

#~/;:~.Lt--::.:..._: .'

DEED RESTRICTIONS

Chemcentral Cotporation, an Illinois corporation, (hereinafter "Owner") of 7050 West 7lst Street, P. 0. Box 730, Bedford Park, Illinois 60400-0730, hereby imposes restrictions on the Owner's Parcel, as more fully described on attached Exhibit A, which is part of the Chemcentral Superfund Site (hereinafter "Site") in the City of Wyoming, Kent County, in the State of Michigan.

GROUNDWATER PARCEL:

That part of the S 1/2, Section 12, and part of the N 1/2, Section 13, T6N, Rl2W, City of Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan, described as: BEGINNlNG at a point on the West line of said NE 1/4, Section 13, and the centerline of Railroad R.O.W. which is 1118.75 feet South of the N 1/4 corner qf Section 13; thence· Easterly perpendicular to said West line along the South property line of Chem Central property to the Westerly line of Hillcroft Street; thence Northerly along said Westerly line to its intersection with the North line of Colrain Street; thence Easterly· along the North line of Colrain Street to its intersection with the Northeasterly· line of the former Michigan Railroad R.O. W. · (100 feet wide); thence Northwesterly along said Northeasterly line to the South line of the North 660 feet of said NE 1/4, Section 13; thence Easterly along said Southerly line to the Westerly line of Hillcroft Street extended; thence North along said Westerly line to the centerline of Mart. Street; thence West along the centerline of Mart Street .to the Westerly bank of Cole Drain; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly bank of Cole Drain to its intersection· with the Easterly line of Conrail Railroad R.O.W.;·thence Westerly parallel with the South line of Section 12 to the centerline of Conrail Railroad R.O.W; thence Southerly along said centerline to the place of beginning.

SOIL PARCEL:

That part of the N 1/2, Section 13, and that part of the S 1/2, Section 12, T6N, Rl2W, City of Wyoming, Kent County, ·Michigan, described as:

·BEGINNING at a point on the West line of said NE 1/4, and the centerline of the Railroad R.O.W. which is 1118.75 feet South from the N 1/4 corner of Section 13; thence Easter I y 328. 7 feet perpendicular to said West line along the

' ' \ - :.:- J

LIBER3118 PG 102

,,

·southern property line of the Chem Central Corporation property located at 2940 Stafford Avenue; thence Northerly parallel with the West line of said NE 1/4 to a point which is approximately 200 feet North of the Northerly R.O.W. line of 28th Street (to include the entire area encompassed by the "28th Street ditch"); thence Westerly parallel with the North line of said NE 1/4, Section 13 to the Easterly bank of Cole Drain; thence Southerly along the Easterly bank of Cole Drain to its intersection with the Easterly line of Conrail Railroad R.O.W.; thence Westerly parallel with the South line of Section 12 to the centerline of Conrail Railroad R.O.W.; thence Southerly along said centerline to the place of beginning. ·

The following restrictions are imposed upon the Soil and Groundwater parcels, its present and any further owners, their authorized agents, assigns, employees or persons acting under their direction or control, for the purposes of protecting public health or welfare and the environment, preventing interference with the performance, and the maintenance, of any response actions selected and/or undertaken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("US. EPA"), or any.party acting as agent for US. EPA, or any party acting pursuant to a Unilateral Administrative Order, an Administrative Order on Consent or Consent Decree with US. EPA pursuant to Sections 104, and 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental ·Respcmse, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA "). Specifically, the following deed restrictions shall apply to the Site as provi.ded for in paragraph thirty-six (36) of the Unilateral Administrative Order dated March 31 , 1992, recorded April 30, 1992 in Liber 3027, Pages 954-1059, inclusive, Kent County, Michigan records.

As to the Groundwater Parcel:

1.. There shall be no consumptive or other use of the groundwater underlying the GROU~WATER PARCEL and there shall be no use of the Real Estate described in the GROUNDWATER PARCEL in any manner that could cause exposure of h\}mans or animals to contaminated groundwater in concentrations that present or may present a threat to health (i.e., concentrations above the Cleanup Standards set forth in paragraph 17 of the Unilateral Administrative Order).

2

Ll8tt3118 p~ 10:3

(,

As to the Soil Parcel:

1. There shall be no residential use or any further commercial development of the Real Estate described in th.e SOIL PARCEL that would allow continued presence of humans, other than any presence necessary for implementation of remedial( action under the Administrative Order. The prohibited uses shall, include, but not be. limited to, any filling, grading, excavating, building, construction, drilling, mining, farming, or other development, or. placing waste material within the Facility, except with the "approval of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("US. EPA") as consistent with the Administrative Order and the Statement of Work which is Appendix II to the Unilateial Administrative Order.

As to Both Parcels:

1. There shall be no. tampering with, or removal of, the containment or monitoring systems that remain on the property_ affected by these deed restrict.ions as a result of implementation of any response act.ion by US. EPA, or any party acting as agent for ·us. EPA, or any party acting pursuant to a Unilateral Administrative Order, Administrative Order on Consent or· Consent Decree with US. EPA; provided that the response ar.t;on is selected and/or undertaken or ordered by US. EPA pursuant to Section 104 and/or Section 106 or CERCLA; and

2. There shall be no use of, or activity at, the property affected by these deed restrict.ions that may interfere with, damage, or otherwise impair the effectiveness of any response action (or any component thereof) selected and/or undertaken by US. EPA, or any party acting as agent for US. EPA or any party acting pursuant to a Unilateral Administrative Order, Administrative Order on Consent or Consent Decree with US. EPA, pursuant to section 104 and/or Section 106 of CERCLA, except with the written approval of US. EPA, in consultation with the State of Michigan, and consistent with all statutory and regulatory requirements .

.3. Pursuant to the Rule 200.5719 of the Michigan Act 307 implementing Rules, the Owner shall install permanent marker on each side of the property restricted under either the soil and/or groundwater restrictions,

3

LIBER3118 PG 104

which describes the restricted area and the nature of the prohibitions specified in the applicable deed restrictions.

All the above restri~tions for the Groundwater Parcel, the Soil Parcel and Both Parcels shall run with the land .and be binding upon the owners and their respective successors, assigns and transferees. The restrictions set forth "As To Both Parcels" shall continue in perpetuity. The remaining restrictionsshall remain in full_ force and effect unless and until US. EPA issues a· determination in writing or a court of competent jurisdiction rules to either modify or terminate the restrictions in response to a petition from an owner of affected property, as provided below. A copy of these restrictions shall be provided to all respective successors, assigns and transferees.

After all , the Soil Vapor Extraction, as defined in the Unilateral Administrative Order, has been completed and upon achievement of Cleanup and Performance Standards, consistent with the Unilateral Administrative Order and the ROD, the affected property owner may petition the Regional Administrator of the US. EPA, Region V, or his delegate, to modify or terminate the deed restrictions set forth "As "to the Soil Parcel." Any petition for modification or termination shall state the specific provision sought to be modified or terminated and the proposed additional uses of the property, and shall include a demonstration that the remaining soil contamination does not constitute an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, as defined

_by the NCP. Any proposed modifications or terminations must not be inconsistent with the requirements set forth in the ROD, the RD/RA Work Plan, or the UAO.

After all the Work, as defined in the Unilateral Administrative Order, has been completed and upon achievement of Cleanup and Performance Standards, consistent with the Unilateral Administrative Order and the ROD, the affected property owner may petition the Regional Administrator of the US. EPA, Region V, or his delegate, to modify or terminate the deed restrictions set forth II As to the Groundwater Parceln. Any petition for modification or termination shall state the specific provision sought to be modified or terminated and the proposed additional uses of the property. Any proposed modifications or terminations must not be inconsistent with .the requirements set forth in the ROD, the RD/RA Work Plan, or th~ UAO.

4

Ll~ER3118 PC 105

. The petitioning property owners shall provide ChemCentral Corporation with a copy of any petiti~n for modification or termination of deed restrictions submitted to US. EPA. ChemCentral may object to the proposed use of the property on the grounds that such use may expose humans, animals or plants to soil contaminants remaining at the Site, cause wind dispersal or surface run-off to carry soil contaminants off the Site, or cause migration of contaminants beyond the Site boundaries, or into the groundwater, in excess of the Cleanup Standards as set forth in the SOW .and the RD/RA Work plan. Any party so objecting shall notify the owners, the US. EPA, and the State of Michigan in writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proposed modification or termination. The Regional Administrator may allow or deny the owner's petition in whole or in part. Any dispute as to the Regional Administrator's determination is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. However, US. EPA reserves its right to argue before t~e Court for record review and the appropriate standard· of review of the Administrator's determination.

If any provision of these Deed Restrictions is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of any other provisions hereof. All such other provisions shall continue unimpaired in full force and effect.

If any provision of this Deed Restriction is also the subject of any law or regulations established by any federal, state or local government, the stricter of the two standards shill prevail. ·

No provision . of these Deed Restrictions shall be construed so as to violate any applicable zoning laws, regulations or ordinances. If any such conflict does arise, the applicable zoning laws, regulations or ordinances shall prevail, unless they are inconsistent with CERCLA. ·

The undersigned persons executing these Deed Restrictions on behalf of the Owner represent and certify that they are duly authorized and have been fully empowered to execute and deliver these Deed Restrictions.

5

Extension of Deed Restrictions.

These Deed Restrictions may from time to time be extended to incorporate additional real property by the owners of the Soil Parcel and/or Groundwater Parcel at any time by recording an addendum to these Deed Restrictions executed by the owner. With the same formality as these Deed Restrictions adding specifically described portions of the Soil Parcel and/or Groundwater Parcel to· the lands burdended by these Deed Restrictions. The· appropriate owners, may so extend these Deed Restrictions by referencing the

. liber and page of these Deed Restrictions and including the legal description of the property within the Soil Parcel and/or Ground Restrictions to be added.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Owner of the above described property have caused these Deed Restrictions to be executed on this l 7!:! day of 0D£:J~ , 1992.

WITNESSES: CHEMCENTRAL CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation

~r£~~~-~--·-- By: lDdL· 0. ~t/L(_ w; / I,''""" D- /VI,_,.., I I, l'-11:1\.1l<ob~rt- ;'J. 6a.r1uer ·

Its: U1 U Oz.15 r~-· 'T {~_,.._,_,_,... L fov-.;5.-f..

6

US£R3118 PC 107. .

STl\.TE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS.

COUNTY OF Co.:.k )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'l ti_;: day of /;.cfa-J..,..,_,,..,;., , 1992, by· t..,·o-t-1,-11<\h. f'7t..•cukA.- the

V . P. + l:..C, c1 . Le ~- :J ~ c.. of Chem Central Corporation, an Illinois corporation, on behalf of the corporation.

~(l~ Notary Public, fLc. C' <.. County, IL My Commission Expires: /o/rf /7V

"OFFICIAL si=:.LIL" Drafted by: GRACE C. CRUZ United States Environmental Protection Agency NOTARY PUBLIC. S'1 ATE OF 1~1 ·~1~15

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 10/18/92Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590

with portions drafted by: Keith P. Walker, Esq.

· Mcshane & Bowie 111 Lyon, N. W., Suite 540 P. 0. Box 360 Grand Rapids, Ml 49501-0360

Return to Keith P.Walker after recording

(921530048 - 11 - DAJ )

7

~ ,_·h: b.·+ A

Tract 1

Parcel 6 CHEM CENTRAL LIBER3118 PC 108

~52-007

Part of Groundwater & Soil Parcel

A parcel of land in the Southwest 1/4 and in the Southeast 114 of Section 12, Town 6 North, Range 12 West, City of Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan described as beginning at a point on the South line of Section 12, South 88°58'50" East a distance of 8 feet from the South 1/4 comer of said Section 12; running thence South 88°58'50" E.ast along the South line of said section a distance of 234.61 feet; thence North 19°24'20" West a distance of 585.96 feet to the South line of Terminal Street (so called); thence North 88°58'50" West along the South line of Terminal Street, said South line being 550 feet North of the South line of said section a distance·of 197.97 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of the Pennsylvania R_ailroad; thence Southerly along said Easterly right-of-way line of the Pennsylvania Railroad 575 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning containing (not including existing highway) 2.06 acres of land, more or less, and subject to a right-of-way heretofore conveyed to the State of Michigan across the Southerly 80 feet th.ereof.

Tract 2 · PART 201-025 Part of Groundwater & Soil Parcel

A strip of land 14 feet wide in the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Town 6 North, Range 12 West, City of Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan, being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a point 904. 75 feet South and 50 feet East of the North 114 corner of said section; running thence East parallel with the North line of said Section 278.7 feet; thence South parallel with the North/South 1/4 line of said Section 14 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said Section 278. 7 feet; thence North parallel with the North/South 114 line of said Section 14 feet to the piace of beginning.

Tract 3 PART 451-010 and 452-007 Part of Groundwater & Soil Parcel

A parcel of land in the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 of Section 12, Town 6 North, Range 12 West, City of Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan, described as: Commencing at the South 114 comer of said Section 12, thence South 88°58'50" East 242.61 feet along the South line of said Section 12, thence North 19°24'20" West 585.96 feet to the South right-of-way line of Terminal Street (so-called) for the place of beginning of this description; thence North 88°58'50" West 71.20 feet along said South right-of-way line of Terminal Street, thence North 7°37'32" East 146.81 feet to the intersection of a line bearing North 19°24'20" West

'from the place of beginning of this description, thence South 19°24'20" East 155.62 feet to the point of beginning.

Tract 4 LIBcR3118 re 109 Part 201-025 Part of Groundwater & Soil Parcel

The South 358. 75 feet of the following description: AH that part of West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section.13, Town 6 North, Range 12 West, City of Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan

· described as: commencing 660 feet South and 50 feet East of the North one-quarter corner of. said section; thel)ce South parallel with the North and South 1/4 line 458. 75 feet to a point 1533 feet North of the East and West one-quarter line of said section; thence East at right angles 485 feet; thence North parallel with said North and South 1/4 line 68.2 feet; thence Northwesterly 440.55 feet to a point 258.45 feet East of the place of beginning; thence West parallel with the North line of said section 258.45 feet to the place of beginning, together with the right of egress and ingress over a strip llf land 60 feet in width East and West and lying East of the above described premises, and running thence South to 32nd Street, this being known as Hillcroft Avenue, and also over a strip of land 60 feet in width East and West, and lying East of and adjacent to the Pennsylvania Railroad right-of-way, and running from the South border of said above described premises South to 32nd Street, which right of way, . hereby granted, shall be a perpetual easement, binding upon the grantors herein and their heirs, and shall run with the land, subject to encumbrances, easements of record and to be used for highway purposes only, in conjunction with owners of adjacent properties, with permission to maintain, repair, or improve the same at their own expense.

Excepting therefrom the following described property: The South 358. 75 feet of the following description: All that part of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Town 6 North, Range 12 West, City of Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan described as: Commencing 660 feet South and 50 feet East of the North one-quarter corner of said section; thence South parallel with the North and South one-quarter line 458. 75 feet to a point 1533 feet North of the East and West 1/4 line of said Section; thence East at right angles 485 feet; thence North Parallel with said North and South 1/4 line 68.2 feet; thence Northwesterly 440.55 feet to a point 258.45 feet East of the place of beginning; thence West parallel with the North line of said Section 258.45 feet to the place of beginning, except the SoUth 200 feet of the West 278. 7 feet thereof.

(91530041-131- KAS)

.,

Lfotr.3163 f'C 290

Parcel 2

Part of Groundwater Parcel

The West 167. 76 feet of the E.ast 1042. 76 feet of the North 280 feet of the South 1140 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Town 6 North, Range 12 West, City of . ' Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan. Subject to and together with a right-of-way for highway purposes over and across a 60 foot wide strip, between the West line of Buchanan Avenue and the E.ast line of th1.; US-131 Expressway right-of-way, the centerline of said 60 foot wide strip being 1140 feet North of and parallel with the South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section.

EDC of Wyoming 41-17-12-451-002

(921530041-13K - KAS)

llilERJ16J 289·./ PC

.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Jacob C. Mol, a married man, and Lois B. ~fol, his. wife who joins in this acknowledgement for dower purposes, of 3075 Baldwin, Hudsonville, Michigan 49426, as the owner of thee Property described in the attached Exhibit "A 11 which is contained, in whole or in part, within

(":

the ChemCentral Superfund Site as ordered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 106(a) · of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), in Liber 3027, Pages 954 through 1059, and defined in the Deed Restrictions imposed by ChemCentral on the Owner's Site and recorded in Liber 3118, Pages 101 through 109, Kent County, Michigan records ("Deed Restrictions"),

11 A11hereby acknowledges the Property described in the attached Exhibit is subject to said Deed Restrictions. This Acknowledgement will be attached to the Deed Restrictions and rerecorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds. ·

Dated this _._/_I__ day of /)t'Cf'1'11Jr-'1, 1992.

STATE OF MJCHIGAN ) ) SS.

COUNTY OF /fr"'-r )

foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I In ctay of~ The ·~e~ , 1992, by Jacob C. Mo! and Lois :l':7d4J

* Notary PubJ.ir:, /tf,vT County, MI My Commission Expires: ____

This Instrument Drafted By: KEITH P. WALKER, ESQ. riv ~~·~f.~~:~]-~~;~;·~~ ~-~;;.····~·~~!:~ ~?~ MCSHANE & BOWIE Return to Draftsman After ReGC)(.ding

::;~ - I'°' • .... ..J_I540 Old Kent Building, P.O. Box 360 ,.. • i'-)

Grand Rapids, MI 4950 f-0360 s CJ ":·~ . t...: . 171 -. ,.... n-- . - .. ,-, ~

*Print or type names underneath signature -- - ..-·.~:~.

(923140018 - 3 - PDSl E

llbER3163 Pc; 288 Parcel 3

Part of Groundwater Parcel

The West 100 feet of the E.ast 875 feet of the North 280 feet of the South 1140 feet of the West 1/2, of the Southeast l/4 of Section 12, Town 6 North, Range 12 West, City of Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan subject to and together with· an easement for highway purposes over and across the North 60 feet of the South 1170 feet of said West 112 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Town 6 North, Range 12 West

JACOB MOL 41-17-12451-003

(92153004 l-13F-KAS)

---

...

I I L13E~3163 Pi: 287

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Jacob C. Mol, ·and Lois B. Mol, his' wife who joins in this acknowledgement for dower purposes, of 3075 Baldwin, Hudsonville, Michigan 49426, as the owner of the Property described in the attached Exhibit "A" which is contained, in whole or in part, within the ChemCentral Superfund Site as ordered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 106(a) of the· Comprehensive Environmental Response~ Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), in Liber 3027, Pages 954 through 1059, and defined in the Deed Restrictions imposed by ChemCentral on· the Owner's Site and recorded in Liber 3118, Pages 101 through 109, Kent County, Michigan records ("Deed Restrictions"), hereby acknowledges the Property described in the attached Exhibit "A" is subject to said Deed Restrictions. This Acknowledgement will be attached to the Deed Restrictions and re-recorded with the Kent County .Register of De.eds.

Dated this //p,dayof OeL'.P,...,/Se/f , 1992.

WITNESSES:

STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) SS.

COUNTY OF f<C?JT )

-(/, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of

!Ji,.._,.,_.,~ , 1992, by Jacob C. Mo! and Lois B. zan;d~

This Instrument Drafted By: KEITH P. WALKER, ESQ. MCSHANE & BOWIE 540 Old Kent Building, P.O. Box 360 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0360

*Print or type names underneath signature

(923140018 - 4 - POS) F

* ' Notary Public, /)tnJI County, MI

My Commission mif~:.;. :.:-... :_, :i N=~c:.r)' F:..:::,i1c, r:-:..:-:t C.:·~~:.7y, i"~1

My Ccrnmb~i:..n Ex;:iir~:; !Ji::y 26, 1!J9G

Return to Draftsman After Record~

w -

:::1.-, ~·· :,·:.

~=~·· ~-;:·::.! ~~:~.~-.: --.----;:._·

.. - ._.

.-.·

CHEMCENTRAL SUPER.FUND SITE PROGRESS REPORT

March 23, 2004

PARCELl H & H MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPME.NT, CO, OWNER

November 12, 1992

December 1, 1992

May 3, 1993

May 5, 1993

May 12, 1993

. August 5, 1993

October 4, 1993

October 13, 1993

Letter from McShane & BoWie to Parcel Owner with acknowledgment form

· Letter from McShane & Bowie to Henry Pestka with copy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency CHEMCENTRAL Corpor(!.tion Unilateral Administrative Order.

Dan M. Challa and Paula M. Lewison met with David E. Preston, Attorney at Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett, counsel to Henry Pestka and Henry Pestka's son regarding parcel l.

Correspondence to David E. Preston enclosing a survey of the CHEMCENTRAL Superfund site, providing the name of the engineers for the remediation plan and contact person for the remediation plan who was on vacation until May 11, 1993. David Preston was authorized to receive information from WW Engineering & Science and invited to obtain any further information he felt necessary.

Provided Craig Vandenberg at WW Engineering & Science a copy of the survey for Parcel 1 so that he could discuss the remediation plans with David Preston.

Received a telephone call from David Preston re: questions regarding description of contaminated property and· appraisal of property.

Received a letter from David Preston, Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett requesting a legal description of the Parcel 1 property located within the Superfund site and requested and appraisal of the value of the property. Mr. Preston also requested that CHEMCENTRAL pay the reasonable cost of an appraisal and that the procedure to obtain an appraisal of the value of the property be discussed between himself and Dan Challa ofour office.

Dan Challa talked with appraiser Tom Blandford re: appraisal of the property.

PARCEL4 JOHN F. GILMORE, L.L.C., OWNER

November 12; 1992 Letter from McShane Acknowledgment form.

& Bowie to Parcel Owner with .

December 31, 1992 Letter from McShane & Bowie to Baker, Knapp & Tubbs, Inc. requesting they review our November 12, 1992 correspondence requesting that they sign the Acknowledgment.

January 4, 1993 \.

Letter returned - no forwardmg address.

February 26, 1993 Letter from Paul H. TenPas, attorney stating that Baker, Knapp & Tubbs would sell the property to CHEMCENTRAL for $1 million dollars.

March 20, 1993 Requested title search from Transamerica Title Insurance Company to verify title is in Mastercraft Furniture Company of Grand

· Rapids, a Michigan corporation and checked with the Michigan Corporation & Securities Bureau to find that Mastercraft Furniture Company of Grand Rapids has been dissolved.

March 17, 1993 Letter from CHEMCENTRAL to Paul H. TenPas requesting the appraisal of the property prepared by MAI and requesting environmental assessment re: groundwater analysis

March 26, 1993 Letter from Paul TenPas to CHEMCENTRAL enclosing a copy of the appraisal showing that the property had a fair market value of $850,000.00. Letter stated that he did not understand why an environmental assessment was needed since CHEMCENTRAL had the results of tests performed. in conjunction with the remedial investigation and further stated that if CHEMCENTRAL felt it needed additional information, Baker would make arrangements for CHEMCENTRAL to conduct further on-site testing.

April 13, 1993

_

Letter from McShane & Bowie to client with title search. The letter further reports that there is no recorded documentation showing how Baker, Knapp & Tubbs and/or Kohler obtained any interest in the property report that City of Wyoming shows the owner as Baker, Knapp & Tubbs and the current taxpayer as Kohler. Although we have no pro.of that either company recorded documents showing a real property interest.

3

October 13, 1993

October 22, 1993

November 24, 1993

December 10, 1993

April 14, 1994

October 19, 1.994

April 5, 1995

June 24, 1999

June 30, 1999

November 21, 2003

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Colleen Hart requesting modification of legal description for deed restrictions.

A letter to Mr. David E. Preston from McShane & Bowie providing him with a survey and legal descriptiov. of the portion of Parcel 1 within the Superfund site.

Da:n Challa met with the appraiser, Tom Blandford.

Letter to Colleen Hart with legal description of Parcel 1. We are waiting for the EPA to approve legal description and David Preston

. to approve Tom Blandford's recommendation.

Meeting occurred in the office of the Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago. It was agreed at that meeting that CHEMCENTRAL would proceed fo obtain a written appraisal with respect to the triangular parcel of property which is the portion of Parcel 1 within the boundaries of the Superfund Site.

Appraisals for Parcels 1 and 4 were sent to Sherry Estes ofEPA for review

A written offer was made to Mr. Pestka, the owner of Parcel 1, for the purchase of the triangular parcel of property for the sum of $7,600.

Letter from Daniel H. Brennan of CHEMCENTRAL to Tom Pohlman II of H & H Management & Development Co., submitting revised offer to purchase triangular parcel for $10,395.

Letter from Dan Brennan at CHEMCENTRAL to McShane & Bowie indicating that CHEM CENTRAL was waiting to· receive a signed sales contract from Mr. Pestka with respect to the triangular parcel and that the purchase agreement would be forwarded to our office when it was received.

Parcel 1 conveyed to H & H Management & Development Co.

PARCEL2ANDPARCEL3 JACOB C. MOL, OWNER

Acknowledgment signed and recorded

2

April 22, 1993

March 3, 1994

March 10, 1994

April 14, 1994

October 19, 1994

April 5, 1995

December 21, 1995

November 12, 1992

Letter from CHEMCENTRAL to Paul H. TenPas thanking Mr. TenPas for forwarding the appraisal and explaining that the need for the environmental assessment because CHEMCENTRAL's investigation was comprehensive, but did not focus on specific down gradient properties nor did it attempt to locate other contributing sources of contamination and as a· result, CHEMCENTRAL .· had no direct information regarding groundwater or soil conditions on the property. CHEMCENTRAL offered to share the cost of a groundwater assessment on a 50-50 basis.

No word from TenPas. No change in title from Mastercraft to show interest of Baker, Knapp or Tubbs or Kohler.

·'

Letter to TenPas asking for reply. Copy attached.

At the meeting in the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago, it was agreed that CHEMCENTRAL would make a monetary offer to Kohler, the supposed owner of Parcel 4, within 6 weeks after the date of the meeting. The offer would be based upon the appraised value of an underground utility easement across Parcel 4. The offer was to be made after the EPA agreed · that the amount of the offer based upon the appraised value of a underground utility easement would constitute CHEMCENTRAL's best efforts at obtaining acknowledgement of the restrictive covenants, in the e·;·::"t that the owner of Parcel 4 rejected the offer.

Appraisals for Parcels 1 and 4 were sent to Sherry Estes of EPA for review.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Elizabeth Murphy of EPA asking for confirmation that offer to be made on the basis of the appraisal would constitute ''best efforts." No further action was taken because the EPA never provided a. written confirmation that the making of such offer would constitute best efforts on behalf of CHEM CENTRAL.

Parcel 4 was conveyed to Jolin F. Gilmore, L.L.C.

PARCEL 5 CIAPARA LAND COMPANY, L.L.C., OWNER

Letter to owner requesting Acknowledgment.

4

November 25, 1992

March 11, 1993

November 10, 1993 ·

December 8, 1993'

April 14, 1994

March 10, 1995

April 5, 1995

Letter· from McShane & Bowie to Michael B. Ortega, attorney Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone sending him a copy of the Unilateral Administrative Order.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Mr. Michael Ortega requesting the Acknowledgment to be returned and stating that CHEMCENTRAL is· prepared to pay reasonable legal and administrative costs which Ciapara has incurred in connection with the review of our request for the Acknowledgment and restrictions and asking to let us know what those expenses are so that our client could reimburse them.

Letter from Richard A. Gaffen,. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone ·requesting that CHEMCENTRAL compensate RSI Wholesale (who appears to be the tenant and presumed to be Mr. Ciapara's Company) of Grand Rapids for the monitoring wells previously placed on the property and payment of a reasonable amount of money in consideration of the deed restrictions . placed on the property.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Mr. Richard Gaffen proposing settlement. No response from Mr. Gaffen

At a meeting with the EPA . in Chicago, it was agreed that the monetary offer would be made to the owner of Parcel 5 within 6 weeks after the date of the meeting. The offer was to be made on the same basis. as the offer to Kohler with respect to Parcel 4. At the meeting the EPA agreed that it would consider CHEM CENTRAL to have used its best efforts if such ·an offer was made and the owner ofParcel 5 rejected or ignored the offer.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Bob Garner of CHE~CENTRAL indicating that Elizabeth Murphy of the ·Environmental Protection Agency asked us to wait on obtaining the appraisal for the value of an underground utility easement over

· Parcel 5 until we had submitted the offers on Parcels 1 and 4.

Letter· from McShane & Bowie to Elizabeth Murphy of EPA asking for confirmation that offer to be made on the basis of the appraisal Would constitute "best efforts." No such confirmation was received.

5

PARCEL6 CHEMCENTRAL, OWNER

Consent and Acknowledgment recorded.

November 12, 1992

December 3 1, 1992

January 3, 1993

January 13, 1993

January 22, 1993

February 4, 1993

March 11, 1993

PARCEL7 STATE OF MICIDGAN, OWNER

Request made for Acknowledgment to the Deed ofRestrictions.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Michigan Department of Transportation re: second request to respond to our request for the Acknowledgment.

Faxed to Eric Eggari at Attorney General Frank Kelly's office providing him the name of. the U.S. EPA contact, Mr. Michael McAteer.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Eric Eggan with a copy of the Unilateral Administrative Order.

Letter from Eric Eggan, Assistant Attorney General to Dan Challa requesting fair compensation to the State of Michigan for the deed restrictions and stating that the deed restrictions are too limiting.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Mr. Michael McAteer asking if the deed restrictions can be modified to allow the State of Michigan · to provide reasonably safe transportation for · all Michigan citizens for maintenance of the road.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Eric Eggan providing Mr. Eggan the name of the EPA contact, Mr. Michael McAteer and advising them that the concerns regarding maintenance of the road were raised with Mr. McAteer who, in concept, has agreed that we could put a qualification on the soils to be disturbed, such that only those soils beneath the specified level below the surface would need prior approval of the EPA. To do this would require amending the EPA order. Mr. McAteer was making various inquiries as to the acceptability of making this change and the process necessary to accomplish it.

6

March 11, 1993

· September 30, 1993

October 13, 1993

November 23, 1993

March 3, 1994

April 14, 1994

Spring 1994 through early 1997

Late February, 1997

May 21, 1997

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Mr. Michael McAteer re: concerns raised by the Michigan Departinent of Transportation and Consumers Power regarding disturbances to the soil.

Letter from Eric Eggan asking for Mr. McAteer's response to the Department ofTransportation request.

Letter to Colleen Hart from McShane & Bowie requestmg modification of restrictions to allow for excavation to 4 feet below the surface.

Approval from the EPA for excavation to 3 feet below the surface.

Letter to State of Michigan notifying them of approval for excavation to 3 feet and asking them for the expenses and costs regarding their review of this matter.

At the meeting held in the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago, it was agreed that the Environmental Protection Agency would revise the Unilateral Order in order to allow excavation to 3 feet below grade level.

Discussion and correspondence between McShane & Bowie and the Michigan .Attorney General's office regarding the need for a permit to conduct remediation activities Within the street right-ofway.

Raymond 0. Howd of the Michigan's Attorney General's office indicated in a telephone conversation with Dan Challa with McShane & Bowie that the State or Michigan may not be legally permitted to impose restrictions upon its property.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Raymond 0. Howd of Michigan's Attorney General's office indicating that a permit to do work within the 28th Street road right of way would not be required. That letter also indicated that the Environmental Protection Agency would agree to modify the Unilateral Order to allow excavation work no more than 3 feet below grade. In that same letter, the Attorney General's office was asked to reconsider consenting to the restrictions imposed upon Parcel 7. No response to that letter has been received.

7

PARCELS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, OWNER

There have been numerous contacts with Consumers Power Company regarding its property as monitoring wells are located on the property. Consumers Power Company's problems with signing the Acknowledgment are now down to two issues: 1) the need to maintain the electric lines and transfonning equipment located on the property which involves access to and excavation of the surface soils which the EPA has approved to the depth of3 feet above points B and B on attacher. map; and, 2) CPC needs to see a copy of the 95% clean-up plan as approved which needs to incorporate EPA revisions.

January 3, 1994 Letter from CHEMCENTRAL to CPC (copy attached)

February 24, 1994 Letter from CPC to CHEM CENTRAL confirn'ling March 10, 1994 meeting between parties.

March 10, 1994 Meeting with CPC. CPC said they are still willing to sign Acknowledgment but need more . than three foot excavation to maintain its equipment. A technical report will be prepared to give . to EPA to show why they need more than three feet. CPC has agreed to allow further clean-up and monitoring on its property.

April 14, 1994 At the meeting held in the office of the Environmental Pr~tection Agency in Chicago, it was agreed that a meeting would be scheduled between Consumer's Power Company, Environmental Protection Agency, CHEMCENTRAL and WWW Engineering and Science to discuss how the Unilateral Order would have to be modified to allow Consumer's Power Company to service its facilities without interfering with the soil or groundwater contamination or the remediation systems. To date, no such meeting has been scheduled.

PARCEL9 CONSOLIDATED RAIL COMPANY, OWNER

November 12, 1992 Letter from McShane & Bowie to Consolidated Rail Corporation requesting the signed Acknowledgment.

December 31, 1992 . Letter to Consolidated Rail Corporation requesting . a signed Acknowledgment.

March 11, 1993 Letter to Consolidated Rail Corporation requesting the signed Acknowledgment with offer to pay expenses.

8

April 4, 1993

December 10, 1993

March 3, 1994

April 14, 1994

. March 10, 1995 ·

April5, 1995

#102720 v2

Received a phone call from Mr. Ron Yadrick at Conrail and he asked if Conrail was oblig2.ted to respond and said that Conrail is reviewing and will get back with us. ·

Letter to Mr. Ron Y adrick at Consolidated Rail Corporation regarding the results of their review.

Letter to Mr. Ron Yadrick at Consolidated Rail Corporation regarding the resul.t of their review.

At the meeting held in the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago, Illinois, it was agreed that CHEMCENTRAL would make a monetary offer to Conrail, the owner of Parcel 9 on the same basis that offers were to be made to the owners ofParcels 4 and 5. This offer was to be made within 6 weeks of the date of the meeting.

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Bob Garner of CHEMCENTRAL indicates that Elizabeth Murphy of EPA requested us to wait on obtaining the appraisal for Parcel 9 until we had submitted offers on Parcels 1 and 4. No offer was submitted on Parcel 4 (see above).

Letter from McShane & Bowie to Elizabeth Murphy of EPA asking for confirmation that offer to be made on the basis of the appraisal would constitute ''best eZ"..::is." No such confirmation was received.

9

ATTACHMENT 2

Superfund Institutional Controls U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Univar USA (formerly Chem Central) EPA ID# MID980477079 Kent County, Ml

Restrictions

c:J Groundwater

1222) Soil

Produced by Angela Rozinski Legend N

+ U.S. EPA Region 5 on October 22 . 2009 Image Date: 2008I Figure 2 I

EPA Disclaimer: Please be advised that areas depicted in the map have been estimated. The map does not create any rights enforceable by any party . EPA may refine or change this data and map at any time.

ATTACHMENT 3

. ..

···.•tJNit~6·.:s+A+Es ~l:NYl~p~~cii~~tL··>PROTECf10N ·./,;.GENcv·

•Tl WEST JACKSON soULEVARb: · · cfi1b.A.Go: 1L:oo~3s9.o · · · · ·

November 07, 2013 Reply to: SR 61

Mary B. Schafer MDEQ Superfund Section Remediation and Redevelopment Division Constitution Hall 525 W. Allegan St P.O. Box 30473 Lansing, MI 48909-7973

Re: Notification of Five Year Review Start for the ChemCentral (Univar USA) Superfund Site, Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan

Dear Ms. Schafer:

This letter is to notify you that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin the Five Year Review for the ChemCentral (Univar USA) Superfund Site (Site) located in Wyoming, Michigan on November 12, 2013.

EPA is conducting a statutory Five Year Review for the Site as required by Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The purpose of the review is to evaluate the remedy implemented at the Site and determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.

The Five Year Review for the Site is due on November 12, 2014. EPA is providing the Michigan Department ofEnvironillental Quality (MDEQ) with notification so EPA and MDEQ can begin the necessary coordination activities. EPA will be contacting you to schedule a Site Inspection and is working with the Community Involvement Coordinator to notify the public of the review.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the Five Year Review for the Site further, please feel free to contact me at 312-886-3543.

Sincerely, ..

f~.1J./J,,:k7 Pamela Molitor Remedial Project Manager

cc: Craig Melodia, EPA Mark W. Metcalf, Univar USA Sarni A. Fam, iesi

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 12, 2013

TO: File

FROM: Pame;~~ RE: Five Year Review for Chem Central Superfund Site, Wyoming, Kent County, Michigan

The fourth Five Year Review for the Chem Central Superfund site began on November 12, 2013. The statutory date is November 12, 2014. The triggering date for this review is the third Five Year Review dated November 12, 2009.

ATTACHMENT 4

THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS I FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 2014 I A3

EPA Begins Review of ChemCentral Superfund Site

Wyoming, Michigan

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a five-year review of the ChemCentral Superfund site at the intersection of U.S. 131 and 28th Street in Wyoming. The Superfund law requires regular checkups of sites that have been cleaned up - with waste managed con-site - to make sure the cleanup continues to protect people and the environment. This is the fourth five-year review of this site.

EPA's cleanup of this site included a groundwater collection and treatment system, an on- and offproperty (to the north) soil vapor extraction system, installation and operation of purge wells, and institutional controls intending to limit potential for future exposure to contaminants.

More information is available at the Wyoming Public Library, 3350 Michael St. S.W., and at www.epa.gov/ region5/sites/chemcentral. The review should be completed this November.

The five-year review is an opportunity for you to tell EPA about site conditions and any concerns you have. Contact:

Pamela Molitor Remedial Project Manager 312-886-3543 I [email protected]

Cheryl Allen Community Involvement Coordinator 312-353-6196 I [email protected]

You may also call EPA toll-free at 800-621-8431, 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,-weekdays. - -

4882661·02

ATTACHMENT 5

,

Table 1 (anpaisai of Omllt COC will ROO

ROD Cean-Up Levels {ug/l) Location MP-2 MP-2 MP-3R "!P-6 "'"' ~ ll1'4l IW-1'8 Jll.16C MW-21A

Date 12/11/2013 12/4/2013 12/4/20l3 12111/2013 1213/2113 12nD13 l1l4llH3 WcnD13 12/t/2013 1214/2013 Cas Chemical Units

71-55-6 :1 _f _f-Trichloroethane 117 un/l 9.D <5.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <11 <lJ <lJ <LO <50 79-34-5 lt.112-Tetrachloroelhane .2 ug/L HA HA NA HA M • • M II\ <50 175-34-3 U-Diddoroethane 700 un/L <5.0 <5.0 <1.0 <1.0 <111 <ll JI lJ JS <50 75-35-4 ~1-Dic:hloroelhene 7 ua/L <5.0 <5.0· <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 dJ <ll <lJ 14 <50 107-<16-2 11..2-Didlloroethane 0.4 un/l <5.0 <5.0 <10 <1.0 <10 <ll <II <1J <1.0 <50 540-59-0 ll.2-Dichloroelhene fTotall 70 uq/L NA NA NA NA JI,\ • • • M "'.".!:. 1240 ~. 95-48-7 2 . . . 40 1111/L NA NA NA NA I\ • 61 M • <5.0 71-43-2 ..__ 1 un/L NA !IA NA NA llo\ • • • 1' <50 117-81-7 ~-elh~\ Phthalate 2 ua/L NA HA HA HA M • <ii • II\ <5.0 75-00-3 9 un/L <5.0 <5.0 <10 <1.0 dO <11 <11 <lJ u .• ~ 160

100-41-4 Ellllllbenzene 30 1111/L JO ·C 40 ' •VC• ·-c <10 <LO d-0 <1J <IJ <1J 20 :..: - 3900_

75·09-2 Chloride s un/L «5.0 <5.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1D <11 <11 <lJ '1.0 <50 91-20-3 ~- 29 uq/L <25 «15 <5.0 <5.0 <ii <SI <SI <5.1 6.0 ~ ~250 . 87-86-5

,_ ronJ.....ol 0.3 unll NA NA NA HA llA • <11 II IA <LO

U7-18-4 Tebadiloroelhene OJ ua/L <5.0 <5.0 <1.0 -,, .. SA~; -· 1 -·~··~ <11 l':m!ft_ ;l <LO <50 108-88-3 Tolllme 100 un/L 18D as <1.0 <1.11 <LB dJ <11 <lJ 11 ; _!6lll0 156-60-5 bans-1,2-Dichloroetbene 100 ua/L <5.0 <5.0 <10 <1.0 <1.IJ <1.i di <1J <LO <50 79-01·6 Trid!Jaroelhene 3 un/L <5.0 <S.O <1.0 <1.11 <1.0 <11 <IJ <1J 11 <50 75-01-4 ~Qloride O.D2 uo/l 'ill> 2'7 •..,~'"' - i_.., <10 <10 dO <ti <11 <lJ "!;,'!!:I ll ~ c•. 160 ·~ ., 1330-20-7 hlene ITotal\ 59 un/L '•J!j· 120ll ~ .: . ·:L:t 5'0 · ·_::1.. <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <111 <31 <ll <10 i~ -17000

rraavoc Tot!IVOC DelmsilJKE lilli!i~ ~ li:Cal'l\'.t Jdal'YOC

General Tread Comments cax:mlr.ful sitelD !Bl!diiD ~ !mdrml an:entration

Oeaeilsing JJe:mmj ~ imsilj im.asilJ j)eJ-&1silg

l..T> -' ..:Gt fxcels limas set i1 ROD

Tablel ~ofa.mtax: will ROO

ROD Cean-Up Levels (ug/l) loutiQn

Date Cas Chemical IJaits

71-55-6 11.1.1-Tridiloroethane 117 uafl 79-34-5 IL1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane .2 ...rL 75-34-3 iL1-Dichloroethane 700 1111/L 75-35-4 11.1-Dichloroelhene 7 unll

107-06-2 It .1-Dichloroethane 0.4 ,../L 540-59-0 i1.2-Dichloroethene CTotaO 70 uafL 95-48-7 2-Methvtnhenol 40 11<1/l 71-43-2 Benzene 1 ua/l 117-81-7 1Rict2-ethvlhexvll Phthalate 2 -IL 75-00-3 Chloroethane 9 1.111/L 1D0-41-4 ene 30 -rt 75-09-2 Meth"'- Chloride 5 m/L 91-20-3 29 lllJ/L 87-86-5 Pentachloroohenol 0.3 HnfL 127-18-4 Tetradlloroethene 0.7 un/L 108-88-3 Tofuene 100 -...11

156-60-5 bans-1 2-Dichloroethene 100 11n/L

79-01-6 Tridlloroelhene 3 .,,,L 75-01-4 Y...,..Chloride 0.02 1111/L

1330-20-7 Xwlene (Total) 59 •IL

Gemlnll Trend Col8Ments:

- _...,, ' 1 &<:Eeds finits set il ROD

MW-23

12/4/2013

<1.0 <1.0 <LO <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 NA

<1.0 NA

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 NA

<1.0 <10 <LO <1.0 <1.0 <3.0

MW-24

12/4/2013

<5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0

~=--. 450 .l:ti~-t '., ·fn. ~!.:di~J

<5.0

MW·ZSA MW-258

1'14/2013 12/4/2013

<LO <1.0 !IA NA

<LO <1.0 <LO <1.0 <LO <1.0

"" NA llA NA M NA M HA

<10 <1.0 <LO <LO <t.0 <1.0

~, .•G ' 1' •iii." <5.0 <5.0 <1.0 IA JiA <5.0 .. 10 ~' f.2..;,Z,;

29 <10 <LO <5.0 <tO <Ul <5.0 <LO L8 <5.0 <1.0 <1.0 38 <10 <3.0

· - PCE KE since2~ silce 2Clll

MW-25C --278 MW-1' •M(R) MW-32A MW-328

121412013 1114/2013 12/2/1111 annan 12/4/2013 12/4/2013

<1.0 <LO <1.D <Le <1.0 <10 HA llA M M NA NA

<1.0 <LO <LI <LR <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <LO <1.D <1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <LO <U <U <1.0 <1.0 NA M • • NA - "'JIA IA Iii\ • NA "' NA M M • NA llA MA IA IA • NA llA <LO <1.0 d..11 d.D <1.0 <LO <1.0 <1.0 <1.1) <1.1 <HI <1.0 <l.O <LO <1.11 <LI <1.0 <1.0 <S.O <S.O <S.I <5.il <5.0 <5.0 NA IA • • t~ M

<1.0 : r.:ft'. U - <Lt <l.D <1.0 :..>x~. f4(,,r-· <1.0 <10 <1.0 <lll <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <ti! <1.-0 <1.0

;f1~h16:_~-1. v·,;1111.15.t. "~ .~ <Ul 11 <1.0 !~·;tU~'.~o!f .~

<1.0 <10 <lJ ·d.0 <1.0 <1.0 <3.0 <3.0 <ll dll <3.0 <3.0

Oerre.asD,j PCE sil:e 200! .,

Table 1 Comparison of CWTent COC with ROD

ROD Clean-Up Levels (ug/L) Location

Date

MW-37

12/2/2013

MW-40R

12/11/2013

MW-40R

12/3/2013

MW-44

12/4/2013

MW-S4A

12/2/2013

MW-548

12/2/2013

MW-SSA MW-558

12/2/2013 12/2/2013

MW-56JI

12/4/20l Cas Chemical Units

71-55-6 111-Trichloroethane 117 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 .0 <1.0 <1.0 79-34-5 11.2 2-Tetrachloroethane .2 uq/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75-34-3 11-Dichloroethane 700 ua/L <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 .0 <1.0 <1.0 75-35-4 11-Dichloroethene 7 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 107-D6-2 1 2-Dichloroethane 0.4 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 540-59-0 1 2-Dichloroethene CTotall 70 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 95-48-7 2-MethYIPhenol 40 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 71-43-2 Benzene 1 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 117-81-7 Bisl2-ethYlhexvll Phthalate 2 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75-00-3 Chloroethane 9 ua/L <1 .0 . 3.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 34 I 100-41-4 75-09-2

EthYlbenzene Methvlene Chloride

30 s

ua/L ua/L

<1.0 <1.0

<1.0 <1.0

<1.0 <1.0

<1.0 <1.0

<1.0 <1.0

<1.0 <1.0

<1 .0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

<1.0 <1.0

91-20-3 Naphthalene 29 ua/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5 .0 <5.0 <5.0 87-86-5 Pentachloroohenol 0.3 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.7 ua/L "' - 11 <1.0 <1.0 13 " 12- 3.9-"" ,_ ~.1.1 ~ 12 · ~

, <1.0 108-88-3 Toluene 100 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1 .0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 156-60-5 trans-1 2-Dichloroethene 100 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 79-01-6 Trichloroethene 3 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13 -

.. <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 75-01-4 1330-20-7

-

Vinyl Chloride XYiene CTotall

0.02 ua/L 59 ua/L

General Trend Comments:

<1.0 <3.0

Stable PCE since 2011

<1.0 <3.0

<1.0 <3.0

<1.0 <3.0

Stable PCE since 2011

<1.0 <3.0

<1.0 <3.0 .

<1.0 <1.0 <3.0 <3.0

Stable PCE since Stable PCE since 2011 2011

<1.0 <3.0

.....__ l Exceeds limits set i1 ROD

Table 1 Comparison of Current COC with ROD

ROD Clean-Up Levels (ug/L} Location MW-60 MW-61 MW-62 MW-64 MW-71 MW-72 MW-73 MW-74 PW-1

Date 12/3/2013 12/3/2013 12/3/2013 12/3/2013 12/4/2013 12/4/2013 12/4/2013 12/4/2013 12/4/2013 Cas Chemical Units

71-55-6 111-Trichloroethane 117 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 76 79-34-5 11,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .2 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1.0 75-34-3 11-Dichloroethane 700 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 1.7 2.1 <1.0 <1.0 <LO <1.0 15 75-35-4 11-Dichloroethene 7 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 107--06-2 1 2-Dichloroethane 0.4 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 540-59-0 11.2-Dichloroethene (Total) 70 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ~ 140·· I 95-48-7 2-Methvlnhenol 40 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 71-43-2 Benzene 1 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1.0 117-81-7 Bisl2-ethvlh..vvl\ Phthalate 2 ua/L NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75-00-3 Chloroethane 9 ua/L - 1.8 <1.0 . <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.4 100-41-4 Ethvlbenzene 30 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.2 75-09-2 Methvlene Chloride 5 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.3 <1.0 <LO . <1.0 <1.0 91-20-3 Naohthalene 29 ua/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <S.O <5.0 <5.0 87-86-5 Pentachloroohenol 0.3 ua/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.7 ua/L <1.0

. 3.9 .· <1.0 <1.0 1.7 ~-- 7.6 11. - 7.8 '" - 5.4~ 1,, .. -108-88-3 Toluene 100 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 57 <1.0 <LO <1.0 18 156-60-5 trans-1 2-Dichloroethene 100 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3.0 79-01-6 Trichloroethene 3 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 .~ .. 3.9 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 ~ -~ - 4_11 .:J 75-01-4 V'mvl Chloride 0.02 ua/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 _ ~u ~l

1330-20-7 Xylene (Total) 59 ua/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 17 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 27 TotalVOC Decreasing PCE Decreasing PCE Decreasing PCE TotalVOC

General Trend Comments: concenbation since 2008 since 2008 since 2008 concentration decreasing decreasing

. i Exceeds limits set in ROD

(

Table 1 Comparison of Current COC with ROD

ROD Oean-Up Levels (ug/L) Location PW-2 PW-3R PW-4 SCH-2

Date 12/4/2013 12/4/2013 12/2/2013 12/3/2013 Cas Chemical Units

71-55-6 l.11-Trichloroethane 117 ua/L 40 <2.5 <1.0 9.2 79-34-5 1.1 2 2-Tetrachloroethane .2 ug/L <10 <2.5 <1.0 <5.0 75~34-3 11-Dichloroethane 700 ua/L 66 5.7 <1.0 11 75-35-4 1.1-Dichloroethene 7 ua/L <10 <2.5 <1.0 .. ~ 12 107-06-2 1.2-Dichloroethane 0.4 ua/L <10 <2.5 <1.0 <5.0 540-59-0 1.2-Dichloroethene {Total} 70 ua/L -~ 780 .• <5.0 <2.0 _ ·:s 3SO :

.,... - 1 -~-

95-48-7 2-MethvlDhenol 40 un/L NA NA NA NA 71-43-2 Benzene" 1 ua/L <10 <2.5 <1.0 <5.0 117-81-7 Bisl2-ethvlh<>YVI\ Phthalate 2 ua/L NA NA NA NA 75-00-3 Chloroethane 9 ua/L ' ',,>-- - 530 -· . 25 • .. <1.0 - '~ 83 . 100-41-4 Ethvlbenzene 30 ua/L ,_ ~. 200 ~ 160 ""· <1.0 6.2 75-09-2 Methvlene Chloride 5 ua/L <10 <2.5 <1.0 <5.0 91-20-3 NaDhthalene 29 ua/L <50 35 h

<5.0 <25. 87-86-5 PentachloroDhenol 0.3 ua/L NA NA NA NA 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.7 ua/L <10 <2.5 <1.0 <5.0 108-88-3 Toluene 100 ua/L 1000 92 <1.0 46 156-6D-5 trans-1 2-Dichloroethene 100 ua/L <10 <2.5 <1.0 <5.0 79-01-6 Trichloroethene 3 ua/L 38 <2.5 <1.0 · 5.0 -~

,. .."' 75-01-4 Vinvl Chloride 0.02 ua/L 58 _. - <2.5 <1.0 - 43 ~-1330-20-7 Xylene {Total} 59 ua/L 800

._. 440 '" <3.0 • 200 .••. ~~ . -

TotalVOC TotalVOC LRA indicates statistically

General Trend Comments: concentration concentration significant decreasing voe Decreasing Decreasing concentrations

I ..

1 Exceeds limits set i1 ROD

\

ATTACHMENT 6

_____ _

------------

' OSWER No. 9355.7-038-P

Please note that "O&M" is referred to throughout this checklist~ At sites where Long-Term Response Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as "system operations" since these sites are not considered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the Superfund program.

Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist {Template)

(Working document for site inspection. Information may be completed by hand and attached to the Five-Year Review report as supporting documentation ofsite status. "NIA" refers to "not applicable.")

Site name:

-MI Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: Ll.:5EAARemedy Includes: (Check all that apply)

Landfill cover/containment Access controls

~ Institiitional controls - Groundwater pump and treatment

Surface water collection and treatment

Date of inspection:

EPA ID:

Weather/temperature: 'S~ ~....~-,;--J

Monitored natural attenuation Groundwater containment Vertical barrier walls

Other_____________________________

I. SITE INFORMATION

Attachments: Inspection team roster attached Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M site manager ('¥<M..i-< M.J~ • Llil\hlUL Name ~ Title Date

Interviewed ~ at office by phone Phone no. Problems, sug~ Report attached ____·________________

2. O&M staff Name Title Date

Interviewed at site at office by phone Phone no. ______ Problems, suggestions; Report attached ______________~_·_____

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices,.emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency /V\~&Q Contact fV\.~~ ~~ ~~\:e~

Name. Title Date . Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached

''

Agency Contact

/(

.,

Name Problems; suggestions; Report attached

Title Date .. Phone no.

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached

4. Other interviews (optional) Report attached.

I

r

D-8

! .... ~ .. - •.; ,, .- - - ··-" ·.•.i:;_

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS.& RECORDS .VERIFIED. (Check all that apply) \

l. O&M Documents v·o&M manual .~~i;- NIA

As-built drawings ,. ~Readilv ay_ailable -Up to ate NIA

l) Maintenance logs (Readily available Up to date ~ NIA .. Remarks

Sd -- -- ·

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan -=.o Readily-availabl~ llptll d~ NIA Contingency plan/emergency response plan Readily ava1fiiole Up to dat NIA

Remarks

'-,.

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records ~y__available Uptod~ NIA Rerilarks.

4. Permits and Service Agreements ~Air discharge permit

Effluent discharge Waste disposal, POTW Other permits

Remarks

NIA~labI~ Readily ava1lab1e p to date NIA Readily available Up to date NIA Readily available Up to date NIA

. 5. Gas Generation Records Readily available Up to date , _(NIA J

Remarks ---. 6. Settlement Monument Records Readily available Up to date "' ~\IC<_;,)Remarks

.7. Groundwater Monitoring Records ~-~ Up to date NIA

Remarks

8. Leachate Extraction Records Readily available Up to date Remarks ~

9. Discharge Compliance Records ~Air ·-~available Up to~ NIA

Water (effluent) -.Readdy availao1e Up to date NIA Remarks

'

10. Daily Access/Security Logs -~available Uptod~ NIA Remarks

'

·- -~

D-9

·.

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

IV. O&M COSTS

I. O&M Organization State in-house Contractor for State PRP in-house Contractor for PRP Federal Facility in-house Contractor for Federal Facility Other

2. O&M Cost Records Readily available Up to date Funding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available ,J

From To Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost ·,




~

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe coots and reasons:

..

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable NIA

A. Fencing '

I. Fencing damage~ ~cat~n sh 1

0)! on s;~e map ~,~ssecu~ NIA Remarks ( ~ ,~ 1 -...c..1 "'~

/) -

B. Other Access Restrictions '

I. Signs and other security measurA {Location shown on site map NIA Remarks Uh._ (iJ) . 9-:

D-10

;~~· · ~ • ,. !.,,.. r· .,. ~r · .• ,.,.

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

'

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

I.

2.

Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced

Yes Yes

- NIA , NIA

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, driv

Frequency~~~~~~_;_2'l_L;.~~~.:...-~___,~...,....,.--=....,.....~-,,-~~~~~~~~~~~ Responsible Ra Contac ~·~·~r'-=-'u<=C---'~=1.:.,_.__.__«=~""'--'1--

Name Title Date Phone no.

Yes No NIA QE) No NIA

Reporting is up-to-date Repprts are verified by the lead agency

r ~ -~;,

Yes ..sNd NIA Yes @) NIA

SpeCific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Violations have been reported

o~tr pr~bl~~suggestions:

D. General

I. Vandalism/trespassing Location shown on site map Remarks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

' 2. Land use changes oil site Remarks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. Land use changes off sit Remarks~~~~~~---"'""""~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads·. Applicable NIA

I. Location shown on site map Roads damaged Remarks'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--=~~====:;;:::::::_~~~~~~

NIA

D-11

OSWER No. 9355.7-038-P

B. Other Site Conditions

Remark~

A. Landfill Surface

(.

VII. LANDFILL COVERS Appli~able ~A_,/ __

l. Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth

Remarks :

2. Cracks Location shown on site map Cracking not evident _Lengths Widths Dept~s

Remarks

3. '. Erosion Location.shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal" extent Depth Remarks

4. Holes Location shown on site map Holes not evident Areal extent . ·Depth Remarks

5. Vegetative Cover Grass Cover properly established No signs of stressI

Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) NIA Remarks

7. Bulges Location shown on site map Bulges not evident · IAreal extent Height

Remarks

D-12

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

.. Benches. Applicable NIA

·:, ... (Hqrizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in <irder to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined .,

·,. channel.)

8.

'

9.

B.

I.

2.

3.

c.

I.

2.

3.

Wet Areas/Water Damage' •'.• Wet areas/water damage.not evident Wet areas Location shown on site map Areal extent Ponding Location shown on site map Areal extent Seeps Location shown on site map Areal extent Soft subgrade ,. Location shown on ~ite map Areal extent

Remarks

Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map No evidence of slope instability Areal extent Remarks

' Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map NIA or okay Remarks

Bench Breached Location shown on site map N/Aorokay Remarks

Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map NIA or okay Remarks

Letdown Channels Applicable NIA (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)

Settlement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement Areal extent Depth Remarks

Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation Material type Areal extent Remarks

Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion '

Areal extent Depth Remarks

0-13

I , ~..

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

4. Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence ofundercutting Areal extent Depth Remarks

5. Obstructions Type No obstructions Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size ' Remarks

;

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type No evidence of excessive growth Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks

D. Cover Penetrations · Applicable ~ .-· I. Gas Vents Active Passive

Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance NIA

Remarks )

2. Gas Monitoring Probes Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence ofleakage at penetration I Needs Maintenance NIA

Remarks

3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area oflandfill) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance NIA

Remarks \

4. Leachate Extraction Wells Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence ofleakage at penetration Needs Maintenance NIA

Remarks

5. Settlement Monuments I Located Routinely surveyed NIA Remarks

D-14

'¥ ,· ,- •••_,, ~~•.•., ~ ·~-.::- :,. {t • ..:1,, ·..- ~

.·· I~

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

E. Gas Collection and Treatment . :..::;~·-<·<:. Applicable /NIyr-, ;·: ..... -

I. Gas Treatment Facilities Flaring Thermal destruction Collection for reuse Good condition Needs :fyiaintenance ·,

Remarks '.

\

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping Good condition · Needs Maintenance

I

Remarks

3. Gas'M~nitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monjtoring of adjacent homes or buildings) Good condition Needs Maintenance NIA

Remarks -~'":. ·,

'· .,-.

-F. Cover Drainage Layer Applicable /NIA )

..... '

I. Outlet Pipes Inspected . Functioning ~IA Remarks

2. Outlet Rock Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable ( NIA - -~/

I. Siltation Areal extent Depth NIA Siltation not evident ·

Remarks ~

2. Erosion Areal extent Depth Erosion not evident

Remarks

3. Outlet Works Functioning '. NIA Remarks

4. Dam Functioning NIA "Remarks

D-15

--OSWER No. 9355. 7-031i-P

H. Retaining Walls Applicable ftUA) '-.

l. Deformations Location shown onsite map Deformation not evident -Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement Rotational displacement Remarks

2. Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evident Remarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable ... ~A J l. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not ~t I


2. Vegetative Growth Location shown on site map ·NIA Vegetation does not impede flow

Areal extent Type Remarks

3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks

4. Discharge Structure Functioning NIA Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable tWA ) I. Settlement Location shown on site map Settlement not evident


2. Performance MonitoringType of monitoring Performance not monitored

Frequency Evidence of breaching Head differential

-Remarks

D-16

fi- • . .,- ...- I',' ,..-. ·. ~..- ·-·.

. ' ~·

OSWER No. 9355.7-038-P

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES'. NIA

A. Groundwater' Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines NIA

I. NIA

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Good condition Needs Maintenance

Rei:parks~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. Spaire P~quipment ~yavaila~ Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided Re~arks .

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable NIA

l. ures, Pumps, and Electrical Needs Maintenance

2. a ollection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Good condition Needs Maintenance

Remar s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. SJ> uipment ~ Readily ~~ajl~J:>le.:_) Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided

emar s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/

.1

D-17

. .,.,

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

c. Treatment System Applicable NIA

I. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) Metals removal Oil/water separation · Bioremediation Air stripping Carbon adsorbers Filters Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) Others ',

Good condition Needs Maintenance Sampling ports properly marked and functional Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Equipment properly identified Quantity of groundwater treated annually Quantity of surface water treated annually

Remarks

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) NIA Good condition Needs Maintenance

Remarks .

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels NIA Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs Maintenance

Remarks -

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances NIA' .. Good condition Needs Maintenance

Remarks

5. Treatment Building(s) NIA Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

-6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition All required wells located Needs Maintenance NIA

Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

I. Monitoring Data ls routinely submitted on time Is of acceptable quality

2. Monitoring data suggests: Groundwater plume is effectively contained Contaminant concentrations are declining

D-18

OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P

" ... r •• -

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation ... . ~·. f•' f

I. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) · Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely· sampled Good condition All required wells located . · Needs Maintenance~ NIA

Remarks

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction .

.i\, XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS .._..

A. ID!P,~ementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

\

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

D-19

)

c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

OSWER No. 9355. 7-03B-P

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

I

D-20

•

\ I

ST~J PP1 G -r-owcR. (rAR..G£D~b) M. vJ l lo 6 ( 'F"c~f. G~ouN"~J

\

P0 3

•

ATTACHMENT 7

Documents Reviewed

Plume Dynamics and GS! Monitoring Report, First Quarter 2014, ARCADIS, April 2014.

Plume Dynamics and GS! Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2013, ARCADIS, March 2014.

Plume Dynamics and GS! Monitoring Report, Third Quarter 20 I 3, IESI, October 2013.

Institutional Control Work Plan, IESI November 30, 2011.

Chem Central Superfund Site, Wyoming, Michigan, Five Year Review; November 12, 2009 .

. Unilateral Administrative Order, March 31, 1992.

Record ofDecision, EPA, September 30, 1991.

Date post:	28-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyendieu
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times