EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

Dyl

Dyl

Dyl

Dyl

Dyl

Exhibit 1 RESA Notice of Objection and Dispute Resolution

Tremont City Landfill Barrel Fill Site December 11, 2008

Inconsistencies between the U.S. EPA Approved Remedial Investigation Report and the Modified Feasibility Study Report

1. U.S. EPA Modification 3: Page 9, Section 1.3.3, Groundwater Flow and Advective Contaminant Transport

Everything on page nine above the fifth bullet (as well footnote I) and other parts of the report that discuss results of analyses assuming a vertical hydraulic conductivity less than 10' cm/sec are deleted. There is no justification for these values. Also, any time-of-travel estimates for vertical groundwater migration based on vertical hydraulic conductivities of less than W cm/sec are deleted from the FS. U.S. EPA considers the best estimate for the time-of-travel for vertical contaminant migration between the Barrel Fill waste and the deep sand and gravel aquifer to be between a few hundred and a few thousand years, equating to vertical hydraulic conductivity values for this Site of less than 1 x 10'̂ cm/sec and greater than I x 10 cm/sec, respectively.

This modification is inconsistent with information contained in the U.S. EPA approved RI Report:

The hydrogeology at the Barrel Fill was detailed in the U.S. EPA approved RI Report including vertical hydraulic conductivities and time-of-travel calculations. The statement that there is no justification for vertical hydraulic conductivities of less than 10" cm/sec is inconsistent with the data gathered during the RI and with the conclusions drawn from that data and ignores the U.S. EPA approved RI Report. The RI Report contained detailed testing and analyses of vertical hydraulic conductivity of the till units under the Bairel Fill tlirough aquifer testing and Shelby tube penneability tests. The results of these tests indicate that vertical hydraulic conductivities ranged from approximately 10''* to 10""' cm/sec. The U.S. EPA approved RI Report findings indicate that contamination migration (time-of-travel) would take between 850 and greater than 1 million years to reach the 1050 Intertill and that migration to deeper groundwater units was not even considered as timeframes would be so great. The FS modification is inconsistent with the data from multiple tests conducted during the RI and with the conclusions of the U.S. EPA approved RI Report as shown in the following and referenced passages of the RI Report.

Page 54, Section 3.08 of the U.S. EPA Approved RI Report:

Aquifer Testins

Aquifer testing results (detailed in Appendix P) indicated the following:

• Pumping stresses were observed in monitoring wells located up to 360 feet from the pumped wells and were calculated (distance drawdown plots included in Appendix P) to be present approximately 500 feet from the pumped wells, indicating that the 1050 Intertill is laterally continuous under the BFOU;

• Pumping stresses were created under nearly all of the waste cells at the BFOU, indicating that hydraulic conductivities calculated from aquifer testing activities were representative of hydraulic conditions under the BFOU;

• Horizontal hydraulic conductivity results of the 1050 Intertill ranged from 2.65 x 10^ to 2.59 x 10"̂ cm/sec with an average of 3.05 x 10'" cm/sec (details contained in Appendix P); and

• Vertical hydraulic conductivity results of the till between the 1075 Intertill and 1050 Intertill ranged from 1.3 x 10'̂ to 2.4 x 10''' cm/sec with an average (geometric mean) of 1.3 x 10' cm/sec in observation wells (details contained in Appendix P and Section 3.10 E). The lowermost values obtained from the aquifer testing and reported above represent very low hydraulic conductivities that are generally not represented in prevailing hydrogeologic literature for naturally occurring materials.

Page 75-76, Section 3.10 of the U.S. EPA approved RI Report:

Groundwater Velocity and Flow

Groundwater velocity, underflow and flux were estimated between the Water Table and 1075 Intertill (Appendix O). The groundwater flux from the Water Table to the 1075 Intertill is approximately 90 gal/day over the entire BFOU area with an underflow from the 1075 to the unnamed tributaty of approximately 380 gal/day. This results in a four-fold dilution of constituents that may vertically migrate from the Water Table to the 1075. Based on the estimated vertical groundwater velocity (0.05 ft/year) in the Water Table, it will take approximately 100 years to migrate through 5 feet of till separating the waste cells from the 1075 Intertill. The vertical gradient used in the above velocity calculation is 0.50 feet per foot and was selected because the data was obtained from the HMW-300 series well cluster, which is located immediately adjacent to the BFOU.

The jinx from the 1075 Intertill to the 1050 Intertill is approximately 0.008 gal/day over the entire BFOU area with an underflow in the 1050 Intertill of approximately 158 gal/day. This results in approximately a 4,000-fold dilution of constituents that may vertically migrate from the 1075 Intertill to the 1050 Intertill. However, based on the estimated vertical velocity of groundwater (0.000004 fl/yr based on an estimated hydraulic conductivity of 2.0x10''' cm/sec), the migration through 25 feet of till separating the 1075 Intertill and 1050 Intertill is estimated to take over 1,000,000 years. The vertical hydraulic conductivity calculation described above is based on a hydraulic conductivity value of 2 X 1 0 ' ' cm/sec, which is conservatively estimated as the geometric mean of the hydraulic conductivity of the highest yielding test (Test 2). Due to the extremely long length of time estimated for vertical groundwater transport between the 1075 Intertill and the 1050 Intertill, further vertical groundwater velocity estimates below the 1050 Intertill are not necessaiy.

Page 84, Section 4.02 of the U.S, EPA Approved RI Report:

Horizontal groundwater flow in the 1050 Intertill is eastward and has a calculated flia ofO. 1 gpm beneath the BFOU. The contribution of flow from the downward vertical flux from glacial till between the 1075 and 1050 Intertills into the 1050 Intertill is approximately 0.001% (the remainder of the water in the 1050 Intertill comes from areas upgradient of the BFOU), resulting in a dilution factor of appro.ximately 20,000. Wlien this dilution factor is combined with the dilution factor calculated for the flow from the Water Table unit to the 1075 Intertill, the resultant dilution factor is appro.ximately 80,000. This factor represents the dilution of contaminants transported from the waste cells to the 1050 Intertill. For example, if the concentrations of 7,000 ug/l ofTCA detected in samples from HMW-301 migrated though the Water Table Unit till, through the 1075 Intertill, through the till beneath the 1075 Intertill and into the 1050 Intertill, concentrations detected would be diluted to a level below currently detectable concentrations (0.08 ug/l). Note that, as discussed previously, this scenario assumes a travel time less than the degradation rate of the constituents. Based on this almost immeasurable flux rate, this long travel time, and the .significant DAF, the potential for migration of constituents to the 1050 Intertill, though not impossible, is certainly not reasonably anticipated within any conceivable timeframe. Therefore, migration of constituents to deeper units, which would yield even greater DAFs, longer travel times and smaller flux rates, is not further considered, because the timeframes and concentrations would be immeasurable.

PAGE 2 OF 9

Additional U.S. EPA approved RI Report References:

• Appendix P - Report on Aquifer Test

• Appendix Q - Groundwater Flux and Velocity Calculations

2. U.S. EPA Modifications 4, 5 and 6:

Page 12, footnotes

The footnote is deleted.

Page 14, footnote 4

All but the first sentettce of this footnote is deleted.

Page 16, footnote 5

All but the first sentence of this footnote is deleted.

These modifications delete the text ''Other likely sources oftlie lower-level contamination may include labomtonj artifacts, transport from up gradient sources including tJie adjacent Tremont City Landfill, nnturnl conditions and agricultural sources. For a complete discussion of this issue, please see RESA Technical Memorandum #2 - Response to U.S. EPA Request for additional Information, September 2007."

These modifications are inconsistent with content of the U.S. EPA approved RI Report:

The U.S. EPA approved RI report contained lengthy discussions around other likely sources of the low-level contamination observed at the Barrel Fill. The removal of this text is inconsistent with the RI as shown in the following and referenced passages of the RI Report.

Page 126, Section 7.03 of the U.S. EPA Approved RI Report:

The evaluation of groundwater quality data in this RI required additional consideration and discussion because of the following investigation requirements;

• The waste disposed of at the BFOU may contain constituents tluit need to be distingnislied from naturally occurring concentrations;

• Lower than standard detection limits were used in the analytical testing to achieve reporting limits equal to or less than low groundwater screening criteria; and

• There are other potential sources of contaminants in the area including the Tremont City Landfill and regional and global anthropogenic sources.

Accordingly, the evaluation of groundwater quality data at the BFOU considered the following sources of uncertainty:

• Naturally occurring constituents;

• Sampling induced bias;

• Consistency with hydrogeologic gradients;

• Reproducibility;

PAGE 3 OF 9

• Potential laboratory contaminants;

• Analytical method linntations; and

• Non-BFOU related sources ofcontannnation.

Each of these potential sources bulleted above were discussed in detail in the subsequent sections of the U.S. EPA approved RI Report (pages 126 - 133).

3. U.S. EPA Modification 11: Page 24, Section 2.2, ninth and tenth bullets; page 26, Section 2.3, second and third bullets

Claims of containment alternatives RA-2 and RA-3 being protective in the event of a catastrophic release of contamination from the drums, and claims of RA-2 and RA-3 preventing migration of Site contaminants above risk-based levels to the deep sand and gravel groundwater unit are deleted from these bullets and elsewhere in the FS. Tliere has been no support to date from RESA that either containment alternative will completely prevent vertical contaminant migration to the deep sand and gravel groundwater unit. Claims of achieving related groundwater RAOs are also deleted from the FS.

U.S. EPA characterizes these matters as follows: "There is a reasonable concern that the containment alternatives will not protect the deep sand and gravel aquifer from releases of Barrel Fill hazardous substances above health-based limits over the long term. "

This modification is inconsistent with information contained in the U.S. EPA approved RI Report:

The U.S. EPA approved RI Report Section FV describes contaminant migration of Barrel Fill wastes in detail. The RI states that vertical contaminant migration to the 1050 Intertill is not reasonably anticipated and contaminant migration to deeper hydrogeologic units (Deep Sand & Gravel) is immeasurable. The statement that "there is reasonable concern that containment alternatives will not protect the deep sand and gravel aquifer from releases of Barrel Fill hazardous substances above health-based limits over the long term" is in direct conflict with the RI Report. The following are passages of the approved RI Report demonstrating the inconsistencies with the modification.

Page 81-84, Section 4.02 of the U.S. EPA Approved RI Report:

Migration of Hazardous Substances through Groundwater

Hydrogeologic information collected during this study indicates that, from the BFOU, approximately 87% of the groundwater present within the Water Table Unitfiows laterally to the unnamed tributary, with the remainder flowing vertically downward as discussed later. The velocity of lateral flow within the Water Table unit has been calculated to be appro.ximately 11 feet per year Accordingly, based on the distance from the easternmost waste cell to the unnamed tributary, approximately 115 feet, the groundwater travel time would be approximately 10 years. That is, within 10 years after waste placement, impacted groundwater present in the waste cells could migrate through the Water Table unit and discharge into the unnamed tributaiy. This conclusion is consistent with the detection of VOCs in seep samples collected from the unnamed tributary between 1985 and 1996 (TN&A, 2002) (see Table 17 and Section 5.08). It would be expected that concentrations discharged into the tributary would be about 'A. of those observed in the test pit water, assuming a dilution attenuation factor (DAF) of two and no other attenuation (because '/: of the water in the unnamed tributaiy emanates from the eastern side of the tributary). The RI results indicate a reduction in concentrations greater than that attributable to dilution, alone. It is noted that the above text assumes no retardation (that is, constituents move

PAGE 4 OF 9

at the same rate as groundwater). It is likely that at least some retardation/attenuation would occur due to biologic, geochemical or physical processes. Accordingly, the analysis provided in the te.xt depicts a worst case contaminant tran.sport velocity! with no retardation/attenuation.

Results of groundwater sampling indicated that hazardous substances have migrated beyond the extent of the waste cells into the Water Table unit. For example, constituents detected in waste and in waste-cell water have been detected in samples from a number of Water Table wells, including a well located approximately 19 feet downgradient of the BFOU. Groundwater samples from this well (HMW-301) contained concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (7,000 ug/l), 1,1-dichloroethane (1,900 ug/l), acetone (1,100 ug/lJ), methylene chloride (92 ug/lJ), chloroethane (1,000 ug/l) and a number of other constituents. Maximum concentrations were, in general, significantly lower (an order of magnitude or more in most cases) than maximum concentrations detected in the waste-cell water. For example, the maximum concentration of 1,1,1-TCA in waste-cell water was 26,000 ug/l, in the sample collected from waste cell C-3, compared to 7,000 ug/l detected in samples from HMW-301.

Several constituents detected in waste, waste-cell water and samples from HMW-301 were detected in groundwater samples collected from wells located more than 90 feet downgradient of the waste cells. Samples from these wells, HMW-701 through HMW-704, contained concentrations of acetone, benzene, toluene, trichloroethene and other compounds. Maximum concentrations of these compounds were much lower than those detected in either waste-cell water or HMW-301 and were below risk-based screening levels based on potable use. Generally, these concentrations were in the part-per-billion range, severed orders of magnitude less than concentrations in waste-cell water. For example, acetone was detected in the sample collected from HMW-702 at a concentration of 1.1 ug/lJ. Based upon the groundwater fiow rate (11 feet per year) it is expected that higher VOC concentrations would have been reported in these wells. These lower-than-expected concentrations indicate that the hazardous substances are moving more slowly than the calculated groundwater fiow or degrading naturally and being attenuated within the saturated soils or a combination of these factors.

Furtlier, several of these VOCs were detected in surface water and sediment samples collected from the unnamed tributaiy, downgradient of HMW-701 though HMW-704. Typically, these compounds were present at concentrations of less than one part per billion (four to five orders of magnitude less than the maximum concentrations detected in waste-cell water) and much lower than the estimated concentrations would be when using a DAF of 2. Based on these data (analytical results and groundwater fiow), it appears that the Water Table groundwater with BFOU-related constituents has migrated and is migrating from waste cells to the unnamed tributary (Figure 41).

As obsen'ed above, the concentrations of hazardous substances detected in the tributaty samples are significantly lower than those that would be anticipated of non-attenuated contaminant migration, using only a DAF refiective of seepage from the eastern bank of the unnamed tributary. That is, concentrations of hazardous substances appro.ximately one-half of the concentration (DAF of two) detected in the waste-cell water would be anticipated; however, concentrations detected are several orders of magnitude lower. Therefore, it is noted that constituents in groundwater migrating from the waste cells to the Water Table Unit and ultimately to surface water appear to be reduced by some ongoing attenuation processes, with degradation occurring at a rate more rapid or roughly equivalent to migration. That is, concentrations of constituents in groundwater discharging to the unnamed tributary are attenuated to a nearly "non-detectable " concentration.

PAGE 5 OF 9

The hydraulic gradient between the Water Table unit, including the water within the waste cells, and the 1075 Intertill is downward at approximately 0.5 feet per foot (Appendix Q). The vertical gradient is based on water level measurements obtained from the HMW300-series well cluster because it is most representative of conditions beneath the BFOU. Accordingly, a portion of the Water Table unit groundwater fiow (approximately 13 percent) is downward into the 1075 Intertill (Figure 42). The vertical groundwaterfiux between these units is calculated to be approximately 0.06 gpm over the entire BFOU area (Appendix Q), which is approximately one to two orders of magnitude less than the horizontal fiux calculated for the Water Table unit and the 1075 Intertill. This indicates the preferred pathway for impacted groundwater will be horizontal through the more permeable Water Table unit.

The velocity of this vertical flow from the Water Table unit to the 1075 Intertill has been calculated at 0.05 feet per year (Appendix Q). Given the minimum five feet of separation between the bottom of the waste cells and the 1075 Intertill, the calculated lime for groundwater to fiow from the bottom of the waste cells to the 1075 Intertill is on the order of 100 years (assuming hazardous substances would still be present). The transport of constituents from the waste cells in groundwater is expected to be slower than groundwater due to retardation. The rate that each constituent will be retarded compared to groundwater fiow is dependent on the chemical and physical properties of the constituent. Therefore, because the waste placement occurred roughly 25 to 30 years ago, migration of constituents into the 1075 Intertill would not yet be anticipated. As would be expected and, as discussed in Section 3.10, no constituents directly attributable to the waste cells have been confirmed in groundwater samples collected from wells in the 1075 Intertill.

Groundwater fiow in the 1075 Intertill is laterally eastward (Figure 42) and is controlled in large part by discharge to the unnamed tributaty east of the BFOU. Consequently, hazardous substances that may potentially migrate into the 1075 Intertill would discharge into the unnamed tributaiy. The lateral groundwater jlux in this unit is estimated to be approximately 0.26 gpm. Observational data from the seep at the point where the 1075 Intertill discharges into the unnamed tributaiy indicates this fiow estimate is appropriate. The contribution of fiow in the 1075 Intertill j'rom vertical groundwater fiow from the Water Table unit through the unweathered till is approximately 0.06 gpm. That is, as discussed above, vertical fiow from the Water Table unit to the 1075 Intertill contributes approximately 13% oftlie total flow and results in a DAF of 4.2, meaning that concentrations of constituents migrating from the Water Table Unit to the 1075 Intertill would be diluted by a factor of 4.2. For example, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) detected at a concentration of 7,000 ug/l in a sample from HMW-301 (a Water Table well) would, had the constituents migrated vertically and without attenuation, be obsen'ed as concentrations of 1,667 ug/l in groundwater samples collected from the 1075 Intertill, using the DAF of 4.2. Note that although concentrations as high as 7,000 ug/l TCA were detected in samples collected from HMW-301. no detectable concentrations of this compound were detected in samples from HMW-305, which is a 1075 Intertill well installed in the same cluster as HMW-301, supporting the preceding obsen'ation that directly downward contaminant migration from the Water Table to the 1075 Intertill has not resulted in an exceedance of water quality standards in the 1075 Intertill at this location..

Vertical fiux from the 1075 Intertill to the lower 1050 Intertill is much less than that from the Water Table to the 1075 Intertill (Figures 41 and 42). Based on the aquifer test results, the vertical groundwater fiux from the 1075 Intertill to the 1050 Intertill is approximately 0.000006 gpm and the calculated groundwater velocity through the till is approximately 0.000004 feet per year (feet/yr). Given the thickness of the glacial till (approximately 25 feet), the estimated time for groundwater to travel from the 1075 Intertill to the 1050 Intertill is essentially immeasurable (it was calculated to be between 830years to greater than 4.52 x 10'\ Appendix Q). The

PAGE 6 OF 9

estimated travel time and the fiux through this till are so low that these estimates are better viewed in a qualitative context to indicate the negligible movement of groundwater and any associated potential contamination.

Horizontal groundwater fiow in the 1050 Intertill is eastward and has a calculated fiux ofO. I gpm beneath the BFOU. The contribution of flow from the downward vertical flux from glacial till between the 1075 and 1050 Intertills into the 1050 Intertill is approximately 0.001'% (the remainder of the water in the 1050 Intertill comes from areas upgradient of the BFOU), resulting in a dilution factor of approximately 20,000. Wlxen this dilution factor is combined with the dilution factor calculated for the jlow from the Water Table unit to the 1075 Intertill, the resultant dilution factor is approximately 80,000. This factor represents the dilution of contaminants transported from the waste cells to the 1050 IntertUl. For example, if the concentrations of 7,000 ug/l of TCA detected in samples from HMW-301 migrated though the Water Table Unit till, through the 1075 Intertill, through the till beneath the 1075 Intertill and into the 1050 Intertill, concentrations detected would be diluted to a level below currently detectable concentrations (0.08 ug/l). Note that, as discussed previously, this scenario assumes a travel time less than the degradation rate of the constituents. Based on this almost immeasurable jlux rate, this long travel time, and the significant DAF, the potential for migration of constituents to the 1050 Intertill, though not impossible, is certainly not reasonably anticipated within any conceivable timeframe. Therefore, migration of constituents to deeper units, which would yield even greater DAFs, longer travel times and smaller fiux rates, is not further considered, because the timeframes and concentrations would be immeasurable.

Page 85, Section 4.04 oftlie U.S. EPA Approved RI Report:

Migration Time Scale

The timing of past releases at the BFOU is not currently known: however, RI investigation results and operational records indicate that uncontainerized bulk waste has been present in numerous cells since the BFOU was operational. As such, uncontainerized material capable of migrating from the BFOU has been present since the start of drum disposal at the BFOU. As noted previously in this report, obserx'ations on drum conditions indicated that at least some drums were compromised and it is expected that such conditions have also contributed to past (and ongoing) potential releases from the BFOU. The direct observation ofLNAPL in cells D7 and F7, each of which have no documented placement of uncontainerized waste within the cells, is evidence of such drum deterioration or undocumented uncontainerized waste disposal. Additional obserx'ations on drum conditions indicated that the majority of the drums were in fair condition. It is expected that these drums will deteriorate over time and will result in the potential for future releases in the waste cells. The timing of the drum deterioration and subsequent releases cannot be ascertained with any certainty; however it is possible that these drums will deteriorate at different rates, thereby resulting in periodic and ongoing potential releases. The release pattern resulting from such drum deterioration would be the potential impact of groundwater quality of the Water Table downgradient of the BFOU. Remedial systems and future groundwater monitoring systems will need to be designed to account for such releases.

It is equally possible that over time drums will deteriorate at a relatively constant rate thereby resulting in much of the source material being released within a specified timeframe. Regardless of the timing of release within the cells of the BFOU, the RI findings indicate that migration M'ill be limited to the shallow groundwater (Water Table and potentially the 1075 Intertill over time).

4. U.S. EPA Modification 34: Page 39, Section 4.3.3; page 43, Section 4.4.3

PAGE 7 OF 9

The evaluation states that the containment alternatives are reliable and effective over the long-term. Based on the RI uncertainties, the adequacy and reliability of the containment system has not been demonstrated, and there is no high degree of certainty that a containment remedy will prove successful. The evaluation further states that the containment alternatives provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. Under the containment alternatives, none of the Barrel Fill waste or associated contaminated soils are treated, destroyed, or removed from the Site. Failure of the containment system could result in unacceptable exposures to human health and the environment. Any te.xt in the FS or FS tables that states that containment alternatives are long-term effective and permanent is qualified by stating that contamination from the Barrel Fill will eventually reach the deep sand and gravel aquifer and could result in unacceptable exposures to human health and the environment.

This modification is inconsistent with content of the U.S. EPA approved RI Report:

The U.S. EPA approved RI Report describes the contaminant migration of Barrel Fill wastes will be limited to the shallow groundwater (Water Table and potentially the 1075 Intertill over time). The containment alternatives are designed to collect and treat the Water Table and 1075 Intertill groundwater. In addition, as part of contingency planning extraction wells would be placed in the 1050 Intertill where the RI Report findings indicate that contamination migration would take between 850 and greater than 1 million years. The above modification is in direct conflict with the U.S. EPA approved RI Report.

See #1 and #4 above for supporting RI Report passages.

5. U.S. EPA Modification 34: Page 39, Section 4.3.3, second paragraph, second sentence; and Section 4.4.3

The statement, "Long-term effectiveness and permanence of this alternative has been demonstrated by more than 30 years of uncontainerized liquid wastes present within waste cells without exceedances of potable use standards in the deeper groundwater units beneath the Barrel Fill Site " is deleted from the text.

This modification is inconsistent with content of the U.S. EPA approved RI Report:

The statement is factual and consistent with the U.S. EPA approved RI Report and should not be deleted.

See #1 and #4 above for supporting RI Report passages.

6. U.S. EPA Modification 49 (Select Modifications): Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives

The following text replaces that in the FSfor the sections indicated.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:

- Long-term risks to human health and the environment exist for the containment alternatives. Failure of the containment alternatives could result unacceptable exposures to human and environmental receptors.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment, Containment Alternatives:

- There are reasonable concerns that the remedy is not permanent.

- Failure of the containment system could result in unacceptable exposures to human and environmental receptors.

PAGE 8 OF 9

- The adequacy and reliability of the containment controls has not been demonstrated.

- Long-term protection of human health and the environment cannot be assured.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence, Containment Alternatives:

- There is a reasonable concern that the remedy is not permanent.

- Components of the containment system will require replacement over time.

- Inherent uncertainty exists with respect to the long-term effectiveness of land disposal of untreated waste.

Short-term Effectiveness, General:

- Given the issues associated with the reliability of the containment controls, the ability of the containment alternatives to meet the RAO requiring stabdization or elimination of hazardous substances in drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage containers that may pose a threat of release is questionable over the long term. RAOs for the treatment alternatives are achieved at the completion of construction, or in approximately three years from the start of remedial design.

This modification is inconsistent with content of the U.S. EPA approved RI Report:

See #1, #3, #4 and #5 above for supporting discussion and RI Report passages.

7. U.S. EPA Modification 52: Appendix A

Appendix A is not considered part of the FS. All information in the FS referencing Appendix A is deleted.

This modification is inconsistent with content of the approved RI Report:

Appendix A contains a three-dimensional representation of the geology beneath the Barrel Fill Site and a groundwater fiow model at the Barrel Fill. These models were developed in direct response to requests from the Agency for a graphic demonstration of Site hydrogeology. These models were based on data contained in the U.S. EPA approved RI Report and are consistent with findings of the RI Report and should not be deleted from the FS. In addition, the Agency's modification comment that "inherent uncertainty exists with respect to the long-term effectiveness of land disposal of untreated wastes" while on its face apparently true, would preclude selection of containment at any landfill site where untreated waste remains. This comment is inconsistent with the Agency's selection of containment remedies nationwide, including at many sites in Ohio.

G:\2S703\03I - F.S\Dispute Resolution\FlNAL Exhibit l.doc

CHICAGO\2578280.1 ID\JIM

PAGE 9 OF 9

file://G:/2S703/03I

Exhibit 2 RESA Notice of Objection and Dispute Resolution

Tremont City Landfill Barrel Fill Site December 11,2008

Feasibility Study Modifications which are Inconsistent with Uncontroverted and Approved Data, Not Based Upon Fact or Inconsistent with the Administrative Record

Including the RI Report

1. U.S. EPA Modification 1: Executive Summary, page ii, second paragraph

This paragraph is revised as follows:

"The results of the detailed analysis of alternatives indicate that containment alternatives RA-2 and RA-3 exhibit short-term effectiveness and relative ease of implement ability. Waste treatment alternatives RA-4,114-5, and RA-6 exhibit overall protection of human health and the environment; long-term effectiveness and permanence; and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. However, alternatives RA-4, RA-5, and RA-6 cost substantially more to implement than containment alternatives RA-2 and RA-3. Removal and treatment of the Barrel Fill waste eliminates the possibility of future risk to human health and the environment for all pathways. "

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

This modification deletes the text: "The results of the detailed analysis of alternatives indicated containment alternatives RA-2 and RA-3 exhibit long-term and reliable protection to human health and environment. Waste treatment Alternatives RA-4, RA-5 and RA-6 offer additional long-term protection, but also carry substantial increases in short-term risks to workers, the community and the environment, and significant increases in cost compared to the containment altematives." This text is consistent with the Administrative Record and the modification should not be made. As discussed in greater detail in the following responses to modifications, the containment remedies provide long-term protection to human health and environment and the treatment altematives contain a significant increase in short-term risks and costs. This information is supported by the following Administrative Record entries (referenced by Administrative Record entry):

Various Hydrogeologic investigations contained in Administrative Record 3/1/02 - TN & Associates Site Investigation Summaiy 5/30/03 - U.S EPA Approved Support Sampling Plan 11/4/04 - Data Summaiy Package of RI Field Effort 1 and Work Plan Addendum 6/16/05 - CII2M Hill - Summary Field Oversight Report 11/1/06 - U.S. EPA Approval of Remedial Investigation Report 3/1/07 - Alternative Array Document DRAFT 6/26/07 - RESA 's Response to U.S. EPA comments on DRAFT AAD with attachments

7/19/07 - OEPA memo re: response to RESA response to OEPA comments on DRAFT AAD 8/1/07 ~ Alternative Array Document (August 2007 AAD)

8/6/07 ~ U.S. EPA memo re: review of OEPA 's comments on RI/FS (Bob Kay Memo) 9/1/07 - RESA Tech Memo #2

9/20/07 ~ U.S. EPA letter re: U.S. EPA approval with modifications of Alternative Array Document with attachment

10/9/07 - Dykema Gossett letter re: RESA response to US EPA 's approval with modijications of Alternatives Array Document with attachment. 11/8/07 - CH2M Hill memo re: review of analytical data 2/8/08 - U.S. EPA letter re: response to OEPA 1/4/08 letter to Ronald Murawski fof U.S. EPA] 4/24/08 - U.S. EPA Comments on the Haley & Aldrich, Inc. November 2007 Draft Feasibility Study (FS); Tremont City Barrel Fill Site; Clark County, Ohio (not in AR) 7/00/08 - Haley & Aldrich for RESA - (1) Revised DRAFT Feasibility Study (pdffile of 465 pages); and (2) 3D geology model (mpgfile) 7/3/08 - OEPA - Hydrogeological analysis for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site

2. U.S. EPA Modification 2: Introduction, page 1, paragraph 3

All reference to and use of RESA Technical Memorandum #2 (Haley & Aldrich, September 2007) is deleted from the FS. Technical Memorandum #2 was not critically reviewed by U.S. EPA.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

RESA's Technical Memorandum #2 was produced in response to U.S. EPA's and USGS's (Bob Kay Memo) request for additional analyses on the Remedial Investigation data to refine estimates of vertical hydraulic conductivity and explore additional sources of contaminants detected in groundwater monitoring wells at and adjacent to the Barrel Fill. This memorandum is based on data contained in the U.S. EPA approved RI Report and provides detailed analyses of vertical hydraulic conductivity and discussions on contaminant attribution at the Barrel Fill. As the information was requested by the U.S. EPA in Administrative Record documents and was originally indicated that it was to be an Addendum to the RI Report by the U.S. EPA it is appropriate that this memorandum be referenced in the FS Report.

3. U.S. EPA Modification 3: Page 9, Section 1.3.3, Groundwater Flow and Advective Contaminant Transport

Eveiy thing on page nine above the fifth bullet (as well footnote 1) and other parts of the report that discuss results of analyses assuming a vertical hydraulic conductivity less than 10'̂ cm/sec are deleted. There is no justification for these values. Also, any time-of-travel estimates for vertical groundwater migration based on vertical hydraulic conductivities of less than 10 cm/sec are deleted from the FS. U.S. EPA considers the best estimate for the time-of-travel for vertical contaminant migration between the Barrel Fill waste and the deep sand and gravel aquifer to be between a few hundred and a few thousand years, equating to vertical hydraulic conductivity values for this Site of less than 1x10' cm/sec and greater than 1 x 10"̂ cm/sec, respectively.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The hydrogeology and vertical contaminant migration at the Barrel Fill was detailed in the U.S. EPA approved RI Report. The hydrogeology and vertical contaminant migration has repeatedly been the basis for questions and additional analyses requests by the U.S. EPA. As seen in the Administrative Record, RESA has consistently responded to U.S. EPA's questions and requests for additional analyses. The additional analyses have been exhaustive and primarily include RESA's Technical Memorandum #2 and Appendix A of the Feasibility Study. These documents, in detail, support the U.S, EPA approved RI Report conclusions and descriptions of hydrogeology and vertical contaminant

PAGE 2 OF 12

migration. Technical Memorandum #2 provided details on contaminant attribution of all compounds'" detected in groundwater at the Barrel Fill and provides additional analyses and refinement of vertical hydraulic conductivity calculations. Feasibility Study Appendix A provided additional analyses of contaminant migration through groundwater flow and particle tracking models of current conditions and containment altematives. U.S. EPA's modification that "considers the best estimate for time-of-travel for vertical contaminant migration to the Deep Sand & Gravel to be between a few hundred and a few thousand years, equating to vertical hydraulic conductivity values for this Site of less than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec and greater than 1 x 10-8 cm/sec, respectively" neglects the Administrative Record and is in direct conflict with U.S. EPA's memorandum (Bob Kay Memo) that states "H&A's assumption of a permeability in the 10"''* cm/sec range seems justified by the permeability tests from Shelby tube sampling". The Feasibility Study modification is not based upon fact and is inconsistent with the Administrative Record as shown in the referenced Administrative Record entries.

Various Hydrogeologic investigations contained in Administrative Record

3/1/02 - T N & Associates Site Investigation Summaiy

5/30/03 -U.S EPA Approved Support Sampling Plan 11/4/04 - Data Summary Package ofRI Field Effort 1 and Work Plan Addendum 6/16/05 - CH2M Hill - Summary Field Oversight Report

11/1/06 - U.S. EPA Approval of Remedial Investigation Report

3/1/07 - Alternative Array Document DRAFT

6/26/07 - RESA 's Response to U.S. EPA comments on DRAFT AAD with attachments

7/19/07 - OEPA memo re: response to RESA response to OEPA comments on DRAFT AAD

8/1/07 - Alternative Array Document (August 2007 AAD)

8/6/07 - U.S. EPA memo re: review of OEPA 's comments on RI/FS (Bob Kay Memo) 9/1/07 - RESA Tech Memo #2

9/20/07 - U.S. EPA letter re: U.S. EPA approval with modifications of Alternative Array Document with attachment

10/9/07 - Dykema Gossett letter re: RESA response to US EPA 's approval with modifications of Alternatives Array Document with attachment. 11/8/07 - CH2M Hill memo re: review of analytical data

2/8/08 - U.S. EPA letter re: response to OEPA 1/4/08 letter to Ronald Murawski [of U.S. EPA]

4/24/08 - U.S. EPA Comments on the Haley & Aldrich, Inc. November 2007 Drafi Feasibility Study (FS); Tremont City Barrel Fill Site; Clark County, Ohio (not in AR)

7/00/08 - Haley & Aldrich for RESA - (1) Revised DRAFT Feasibility Study (pdffile of 465 pages); and (2) 3D geology model (mpgfile)

7/3/08 - OEPA - Hydrogeological analysis for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site

4. U.S. EPA Modifications 4, 5 and 6:

Page 12, footnote 3

The footnote is deleted.

Page 14, footnote 4

All but the first sentence of this footnote is deleted.

"" Pesticides, semi-volatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds and select metals detected in groundwater at the Banel Fill.

PAGE 3 OF 12

Page 16, footnote 5

All but the first sentence of this footnote is deleted.

These modifications delete the text "Otlier likely sources oftlie lower-level contamination may include laboratory artifacts, transport from up gradient sources including the adjacent Tremont City Landfill, nnturnl conditions and agricultural sources. For a complete discussion of this issue, please see RESA Technical Memorandum #2 - Response to U.S. EPA Request for additional Information, September 2007."

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The Administrative Record entries contain lengthy discussions around other likely sources of the low-level contamination observed at the Barrel Fill. The removal of this text is inconsistent with the Administrative Record as shown in the referenced Administrative Record entries and should not be made.

Various Hydrogeologic investigations contained in Administrative Record

3/1/02 - TN & Associates Site Investigation Summaiy 5/30/03 - U.S EPA Approved Support Sampling Plan

11/4/04 - Data Summaiy Package of RI Field Effort 1 and Work Plan Addendum

6/16/05 - CH2M Hill - Summaiy Field Oversight Report

11/1/06 - U.S. EPA Approval of Remedial Investigation Report 3/1/07 - Alternative Array Document DRAFT

6/26/07 - RESA 's Response to U.S. EPA comments on DRAFT AAD with attachments 7/19/07 - OEPA memo re: response to RESA response to OEPA comments on DRAFT AAD

8/1/07 - Alternative Array Document (August 2007 AAD)

8/6/07 - U.S. EPA memo re: review of OEPA 's comments on RI/FS (Bob Kay Memo) 9/1/07 - RESA Tech Memo #2

9/20/07 - U.S. EPA letter re: U.S. EPA approval with modifications of Alternative Array Document with attachment

10/9/07 - Dykema Gossett letter re: RESA response to US EPA 's approval with modifications of Alternatives Array Document with attachment. 11/S/07 - CH2M Hill memo re: review of analytical data

2/8/08 - U.S. EPA letter re: response to OEPA 1/4/08 letter to Ronald Murawski [of U.S. EPA]

4/24/08 - U.S. EPA Comments on the Haley & Aldrich, Inc. November 2007 Drafi Feasibility Study (FS): Tremont City Barrel Fill Site; Clark County, Ohio (not in AR)

7/00/08 - Haley & Aldrich for RESA - (1) Revised DRAFT Feasibility Study (pdffile of 465 pages); and (2) 3D geology model (mpgfile)

7/3/08 - OEPA - Hydrogeological analysis for the Tremont City Barrel Fill Site

U.S. EPA Modification 11: Page 24, Section 2.2, ninth and tenth bullets; page 26, Section 2.3, second and third bullets

Claims of containment alternatives RA-2 and RA-3 being protective in the event of a catastrophic release of contamination from the drums, and claims of RA-2 and RA-3 preventing migration of Site contaminants above risk-based levels to the deep sand and gravel groundwater unit are deleted from

PAGE 4 OF 12

these bullets and elsewhere in the FS. Hiere has been no support to date from RESA that either containment alternative will completely prevent vertical contaminant migration to the deep sand and gravel groundwater unit. Claims of achieving related groundwater RAOs are also deleted from the FS.

U.S. EPA characterizes these matters as follows: "There is a reasonable concern that the containment alternatives will not protect the deep sand and gravel aquifer from releases of Barrel Fill hazardous substances above health-based limits over the long term. "

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The U.S. EPA approved RI Report, RESA Technical Memorandum #2 and Feasibility Study Appendix A (three-dimensional model of geology and groundwater flow and particle tracking models) provides details of contaminant migration/attribution of Barrel Fill wastes. These documents demonstrate that vertical contaminant migration of contaminants past the 1075 Intertill to deeper hydrogeologic units in the event of a catastrophic release is not reasonably anticipated and that migration of contaminants to the Deep Sand and Gravel is not measurable. In addition, FS Appendix A provides detailed analyses that containment altematives would be successful in preventing contaminant migration to Deep Sand & Gravel. The U.S. EPA's modification does not consider the U.S. EPA approved RI Report and other information contained in the Administrative Record.

6. U.S. EPA Modification 12: Page 24, Section 2.2, eighth bullet; page 26, Section 2.3, first bullet

The bullets are revised as follows: "This remedial alternative will reduce the rate of future degradation of groundwater. " Footnotes 8 and 9 are deleted.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

This modification deletes any reference to "Restore groundwater to beneficial use within a reasonable time frame" that is a RAO specifically requested by the U.S. EPA in their comments on the November 2007 Draft Feasibility Study. The bullets and footnotes are accurate, requested by the U.S. EPA and consistent with the Administrative Record and should not be modified.

7. U.S. EPA Modification 17: Page 27, Section 2.4, fourth paragraph

The second sentence is revised to read: "Mitigation measures will be employed to minimize exposing the 1075 Intertill to highly contaminated wastes and to remove wastes that may contact the 1075 Intertill, thus preventing migration off-site. "

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The statement is in direct conflict with FS Modification # 9, where the modification states that "institutional controls cannot prevent exposure". Within this modification the U.S. EPA states that mitigation measures will prevent migration off-site. This modification is inconsistent with the U.S EPA's modification of the FS. The original sentence is accurate and should not be modified.

8. U.S. EPA Modification 20: Page 29, Section 2.4, fifth bullet on page

The bullet is revised to read: "Removal of waste and contaminated soil will protect groundwater from future degradation. " Footnote 10 is deleted.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

PAGE 5 OF 12

See response to 6.

9. U.S. EPA Modification 24: Page 32, Section 2.5, second bullet; page 33, Section 2.6, sixth bullet

The bullets are revised to read: "Waste and contaminated sod removal eliminates the possibility of future groundwater degradation. " Footnotes 11 and 12 are deleted.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

See response to 6.

10. U.S. EPA Modification 34: Page 39, Section 4.3.3; page 43, Section 4.4.3

The evaluation states that the containment alternatives are reliable and effective over the long-term. Based on the RI uncertainties, the adequacy and reliability of the containment system has not been demonstrated, and there is no high degree of certainty that a containment remedy will prove successful. The evaluation further states that the containment alternatives provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. Under the containment alternatives, none of the Barrel Fill waste or associated contaminated soils are treated, destroyed, or removed from the Site. Failure of the containment system could result in unacceptable exposures to human health and the environment. Any text in the FS or FS tables that states that containment alternatives are long-term effective and permanent is qualified by stating that contamination from the Barrel Fill will eventually reach the deep sand and gravel aquifer and could result in unacceptable exposures to human health and the environment.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The U.S. EPA approved RI Report describes the contaminant migration of Banel Fill wastes will be limited to the shallow groundwater (Water Table and the 1075 Intertill over time) under cunent conditions. This description of contaminant migration has been supported by additional analyses (e.g. Technical Memorandum #2 and Feasibility Study Appendix A) requested by the U.S. EPA and is contained in the Administrative Record. Further, Appendix A of the Feasibility Study provides detailed analyses of the containment altematives and demonstrates that it would be "reliable and effective over the long-temi". This modification is not consistent with the Administrative Record as shown in the referenced entries below.

See response to 2, 3, 5, 11 and 17 for additional discussion.

• 11/1/06 - U.S. EPA Approval of Remedial Investigation Report

• 8/6/07 - U.S. EPA memo re: review of OEPA 's comments on RI/FS (Bob Kay Memo) • 9/1/07 - RESA Tech Memo #2

• 9/20/07 - U.S. EPA letter re: U.S. EPA approval with modifications of Alternative Array Document with attachment

• 10/9/07 - Dykema Gossett letter re: RESA response to US EPA 's approval with modifications of Alternatives Array Document with attachment.

• 11/8/07 - CH2M Hill memo re: review of analytical data

• 2/8/08 -^4/24/08 - U.S. EPA Comments on the Haley & Aldrich, Inc. November 2007 Drafi Feasibility Study (FS); Tremont City Barrel Fill Site; Clark County, Ohio (not in AR)

• 7/00/08 - Haley & Aldrich for RESA - (1) Revised DRAFT Feasibility Study (pdffile of 465 pages); and (2) 3D geology model (mpgfile)

PAGE 6 OF 12

n . U.S. EPA Modification 35: Page 39, Section 4.3.3, second paragraph, second sentence; and Section 4.4.3

The statement, "Long-term effectiveness and permanence of this alternative has been demonstrated by more than 30 years of uncontainerized liquid wastes present within waste cells without exceedances of potable use standards in the deeper groundwcder units beneath the Barrel Fill Site " is deleted from the text.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The statement is factual and consistent with the U.S. EPA approved RI Report and Administrative Record and should not be deleted.

12. U.S. EPA Modification 37: Page 41, Section 4.3.5, fourth bullet; page 45, Section 4.4.5, fourth bullet; page 48, Section 4.5.5, fourth bullet; page 51, Section 4.6.5, fourth bullet; and page 54, Section 4.7.5, second bullet

These bullets and any related discussion here and elsewhere in the FS related to sustainability considerations and short-term risks to the community due to increased release of greenhouse gases are deleted.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The reinoval of these analyses is not consistent with evaluating short-term effectiveness. We respectively disagree with this modification. Greenhouse gases will affect the local community in the short-temi and should be considered. According to Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Accordingly, greenhouse gases should be considered in selecting the appropriate ARARs. It is further noted that the U.S. EPA has recently published: Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites, April 2008. This document describes that "As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or "the Agency") is dedicated to developing and promoting innovative cleanup strategies that restore contaminated sites to productive use, reduce associated costs, and promote environmental stewardship. EPA strives for cleanup programs that use natural resources and energy efficiently, reduce negative impacts on the environment, minimize or eliminate pollution at its source, and reduce waste to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the Agency's strategic plan for compliance and environmental stewardship (U.S. EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2006). The practice of "green remediation" uses these strategies to consider all environmental effects of remedy implementation for contaminated sites and incorporates options to maximize the net environmental benefit of cleanup actions." This document further defines Green Remediation as: The practice of considering all environinental effects of remedy implementation and incorporating options to maximize net environmental benefit of cleanup actions. We believe this modification is inconsistent with this document.

13. U.S. EPA Modification 44: Page 47-48, Section 4.5,5; pages 50-51, Section 4.6.5; and page 53, Section 4.7.5

The two paragraphs before the bullets in Section 4.5.5 and 2 of the 3 paragraphs before the bullets in Sections 4.6.5 and 4.7.5 are replaced with the following. (The "HTTD" paragraphs of Sections 4.6.5 and 4.7.5 remain, except that the phrase "as described below " is deleted from the last sentence of each paragraph.)

PAGE 7 OF 12

"Worker health and safety measures such as personal protective equipment, monitoring, and health and safety plans will be required to mitigate exposure of Site workers to hazardous substances. Careful control of the removal work will minimize emissions during excavation, sampling, consolidation and transportation. The isolated, rural nature of the Site location should allow the work to be performed without posing risks to the local community; however, air monitoring will be performed for fugitive dust, metals, and volatile emissions during source removal to ensure that Site activities do not present an unacceptable airborne risk to on-site workers or off-site receptors. Mitigative measures such as dust suppression and temporaiy covers for waste piles will be employed to reduce emissions if perimeter monitoring indicates any potential jbr off-site risk due to airborne contamination. "

"Due to the proximity of the top of the 1075 Intertill to the bottom of the excavation, excavation below the cells may expose the 1075 Intertill. Mitigation measures (safeguards) including construction dewatering and vacuum trucks will be employed to reduce the risk of contaminating the 1075 IntertUl during construction. Both the remedial action and the efforts required to control the risks are expected to last at least two construction seasons. "

"Occupational and transportational risks associated with this alternative include: "

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The modification statement "The isolated, mral nature of the Site location should allow the work to be performed without posing risks to the local community; however, air monitoring will be performed for fugitive dust, metals, and volatile emissions during source removal to ensure that Site activities do not present an unacceptable airborne risk to on-site workers or off-site receptors." is inaccurate and not consistent with other Feasibility Study modifications. As demonstrated in the Feasibility Study shoit-tenn risks are posed to the community.

The entire modification is unnecessary as the original text is factual, accurate and consistent with the Administrative Record and should not be made.

14. U.S. EPA Modification 49: Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives

The following text replaces that in the FSfor the sections indicated.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:

- All oftlie alternatives (except no action) present short-term risks to the community and Site workers as they all involve truck transportation, use of heavy equipment at the Site for excavation and materials handling, and potential exposure of Site workers to hazardous substances. Due to increased materials handling and transportation, short-term risks to the community. Site workers, and the environment associated with the treatment alternatives are greater than the short-term risks associated with the containment alternatives; however, short-term risks for all of the alternatives are manageable.

- Long-term risks to human health and the environment exist for the containment alternatives. Failure of the containment alternatives could result unacceptable exposures to human and environmental receptors.

- There are no long-term risks associated with treatment alternatives RA-4 and RA-6. The long-term risk associated with the on-site disposal of treated soils under RA-5 is minimal.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment, Containment Alternatives:

There are reasonable concerns that the remedy is not permanent.

PAGE 8 OF 12

- There is no treatment of principal threat waste; hence, there is no reduction of the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the principal threat waste through treatment.

- The magnitude of the residual risk associated with the waste is not reduced.

- Components of the containment system will require replacement over time.

- Failure of the containment system could result in unacceptable exposures to human and environmental receptors.

- The adequacy and reliability of the containment controls has not been demonstrated.

- Long-term protection of human health and the environment cannot be assured.

- Short-term occupational and community risks can be managed.

- Short-term threats to the environment can be managed.

- Institutional controls and access restrictions are required and relied upon to control land and groundwater use.

- Time between remedial design start and construction completion is approximately two years. Given the issues associated with the reliability of the containment controls, the RAO requiring stabilization or elimination of hazardous substances in drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage containers that may pose a threat of release is questionable to be met over the long term.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment, Treatment Alternatives:

- All oftlie principal threat waste is removed and/or treated.

- Water table groundwater contaminated above acceptable levels is removed and treated/disposed of off-site.

- The treatment processes employed are irreversible.

- The remedial action has a high degree of reliability and permanence; there is no possibility of future exposure to contamination in excess of risk-based criteria.

- The residual risk remaining at the completion of remedial action will be reduced to a level that no longer presents any future risk, allowing reuse of the Site.

- There are no remedial components needed following completion of the remedial action; hence, there is no need to replace remedial components (RA-4 and RA-6).

- Containment of the treated soils in a new solid waste cell (RA-5 only) is reliable and readily monitored.

- The magnitude of residual risk associated with the treated soils is minimal; therefore, failure of the new solid waste cell would result in minimal risk to human health and the environment.

- Short-term occupational risks to Site workers and the community are manageable.

- No access restrictions are needed for RA-4 and RA-6. The only institutional control needed is to limit on-site use of groundwater utitd monitoring has shown that removal of the source has been protective of groundwater.

- Time until all RAOs are achieved for the treatment alternatives is approximately three years.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence, Containment Alternatives:

PAGE 9 OF 12

- None of the principal threat waste is treated under the containment alternatives. The volume, toxicity, or mobility of the untreated waste is not reduced through treatment, and the magnitude of residual risk associated with untreated waste is not reduced through treatment.

- There is a reasonable concern that the remedy is not permanent.

- Components oftlie containment system will require replacement over time.

- Inherent uncertainty exists with respect to the long-term effectiveness of land disposal of untreated waste.

- Institutional controls and access restrictions are needed to control land use and reduce the possibility of exposure to the untreated waste. There is a veiy low likelihood that the Site could be reused.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence, Treatment Alternatives:

- All principal threat waste and contaminated soil are removed and/or treated. The treatment processes employed are irreversible.

Water table groundwater contaminated above acceptable levels is removed and treated/disposed of off-site (RA-4, RA-5. and RA-6).

The remedial action has a high degree of reliability and permanence; the probability of future exposure to contamination in excess of risk-based criteria is very low.

- No access restrictions are required (RA-4 and RA-6).

- Institutional controls will be needed to limit the use of on-site groundwater only until monitoring has demonstrated that removal and treatment of the waste has protected groundwater (RA-4 and RA-6).

- Reuse of the Site is possible (R/i-4, RA-6, and, possibly, RA-5).

No remedial components are needed following completion of the remedial action; hence, tliere is no need to replace remedial components (RA-4 and RA-6).

- Containment of the treated soils in a new solid waste cell (RA-5) is reliable and readily monitored. Maintenance of the solid waste cell will be needed.

- The magnitude of residual risk associated with the treated soils (RA-5) is minimal; therefore, failure of the new solid waste cell would result in minimal risk to human health and the environment.

Short-term Effectiveness, General:

- All of the alternatives (except no action) present short-term risks to the community and Site workers as they all involve truck transportation, use of heavy equipment at the Site for excavation and materials handling, and potential exposure of Site workers to hazardous substances. Due to increased materials handling and transportation, short-term risks to the community, Site workers, and the environment associated with the treatment alternatives are greater than the short-term risks associated with the containment alternatives; however short-term risks for all of the alternatives are manageable.

- Time until design and construction are completed jbr the containment alternatives is approximately two years. It is reasonably uncertain if complete protection of human health and the environment will ever be achieved for the containment alternatives. Time untU protection is

PAGE 10 OF 12

achieved for the treatment alternatives is approximately three years for RA-4 and RA-6, and three and one-half years for RA-5.

- Given the issues associated with the reliability of the containment controls, the ability of the containment alternatives to meet the RAO requiring stabdization or elimination of hazardous substances in drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage containers that may pose a threat of release is questionable over the long term. RAOs jbr the treatment alternatives are achieved at the completion of construction, or in approximately three years from the start of remedial design.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment, General:

The containment alternatives do not reduce the toxicity, mobiUty, or volume of principal threat waste through treatment. U.S. EPA has the discretion during remedy selection to determine, if appropriate, that treatment of groundwater meets CERCLA 's statutoiy preference for treatment. Groundwater collected in the downgradient groundwater interception trench is treated under this alternative. Residuals fiom groundwater treatment would require proper characterization, treatment, and disposal.

The treatment alternatives remove and irreversibly treat the principal threat waste and associated contaminated environmental media, permanently eliminating the inherent hazards posed by the principal threats at the Site. No residual risk will remain at the completion of the remedial action except under RA-5, where the magnitude of residual risk associated with the treated soils placed in the newly constructed solid waste cell is minimal.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The unilateral changes are not consistent with the comments provided in U.S. EPA's comments on the Draft Feasibility Study (4/24/08). The majority of the technical disputes of the above modification are included in other responses to modifications. The modification is inconsistent with the Administrative Record and should not be made.

15. U.S. EPA Modification 50: Page 59, Section 5.9

The final sentence, "All of the remedies evaluated herein would have more risk to human health and the environment, if implemented, than the risk posed by current exposures to hazardous substances from the Barrel Fill Site " ;'.v essentially a statement supporting no action and is deleted.

The following paragraph is added to the Section 5.9 Summaiy: "Containment Alternatives RA-2 and RA3 do not reduce the principal threat waste. Treatment Alternatives RA-4, IL4-5, and RA-6 irreversibly reduce the principal threat waste. "

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The deleted sentence is factual and is supported by the U.S. EPA approved RI report and the Administrative Record. We respectively disagree that the sentence/statement supports a no action alternative.

16. U.S. EPA Modification 51: Table 8: Summary of Potential ARAR and TEC Guidance

Table 8 is replaced by the attached Table 8. The attached table includes a column that shows which ARAR or TBC applies to which alternative. Tlie attached table also includes other changes over the Table 8 in the July 2008 FS

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

PAGE 11 OF 12

The modifications to Table 8 unilaterally adds and subtracts ARARs that were contained in the U.S. EPA approved Alternative Array Document. This is inconsistent with the Administrative Record and should not be made.

17. U.S. EPA Modification 52: Appendix A

Appendix A is not considered part of the FS. All information in the FS referencing Appendix A is deleted.

This modification is inconsistent with uncontroverted and approved data, not based upon fact or inconsistent with the Administrative Record including the RI Report:

The U.S. EPA specifically requested the analyses contained in Appendix A in our 5/20/08 meeting at U.S. EPA's office, in U.S. EPA's comments on the Draft Feasibility Study and in U.S. EPA's approval of the Feasibility Study with modifications letter. Specific comment #7 of the U.S. EPA's comments on the Draft Feasibility Study states "the containment alternatives in the FS must include a description of the hydrogeologic controls relied on to ensure that contaminated groundwater would not migrate below the 1075 Intertill". In fact some details of the methods to be used for the analyses were discussed and believed by RESA to be agreed upon during the 5/20/08 meeting. Other Administrative Record documents request additional analyses of the hydrogeology and contaminant migration at the Barrel Fill. Appendix A provides additional analyses as requested by the U.S. EPA and should remain in the Feasibility Study. It is further noted that many modifications to the Feasibility Study are related to questions/comments regarding the hydrogeology, contaminant migration of Barrel Fill wastes and effectiveness of the containment alternatives. Appendix A provides a comprehensive analysis of these topics. Specifically Appendix A contains a three-dimensional representation of the geology beneath the Barrel Fill Site, a groundwater flow and particle tracking models. The models include analyses of the containment alternatives that demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of the remedies. Appendix A should not be removed from the Feasibility Study.

G:\2X7()3\03I - FS\Dispulc RcsolmioiiM'lNAL i:\liibit2.duc

CHICAGO\2578484.1 ID\J1M

PAGE 12 OF 12

file://i:/liibit2.duc

Exhibi ts RESA Notice of Objection and Dispute Resolution

Tremont City Landfill Barrel Fill Site December 11,2008

Documents that Should be Included in the Administrative Record

1. 1/20/06 - RESA's response to U.S. EPA Comments on the August 26, 2005 Draft RI Report.

2. 6/6/06 - RESA's response to February 14, 2006 Comments Provided by U.S. EPA on the January 20, 2006: 1) Revised Section 111 and New Section IV of the Banel Fill Operable Unit (BFOU) Draft Remedial Investigation (RI) Report, and 2) Responses to the October 13, 2005 U.S. EPA Comments on the August 26, 2005 Draft RI Report.

3. 9/22/06 - RESA's response to June 23, 2006 Comments Provided by U.S. EPA on the May 2006 Remedial Investigation Report.

4. 10/26/06 - RESA's response to 5 October 2006 Cominents Provided by U.S. EPA on the Haley & Aldrich September 2006 Remedial Investigation (RI) Report and on the September 22, 2006 (E-Mailed) Responses to the June 23, 2006 U.S. EPA RI Report Comments.

5. 10/31/06 - Ohio EPA's approval of the RI Report, e-mail from Jyl Lapachin to Ron Murawski approving the October 25, 2006 RI report.

6. 11 /22/06 - RESA response to EPA 10/17/06 comments to draft AAD.

7. 12/21 /06 EPA comments to RES A draft AAD and 11 /22/06 response.

8. 1/18/07 RESA response to U.S EPA 12/21/06 comments.

9. 3/26/07 RESA submittal to U.S. EPA re: 3/25/07 revised response to EPA comments.

10. 6/28/07 - U.S. EPA Comments on the Haley & Aldrich, Inc. March 2007 Draft Altematives Array Document and attachments.

11. 6/29/07 - U.S. EPA e-mail to Dave Hagen from Ron Murawski.

12. 7/18/07 RESA e-mail with response to U.S. EPA 6/28/07 comments.

13. 7/26/07 - Ron Murawski e-mail to OEPA, RESA, and others forwarding "Bob Kay's final memo" with attached 7/20/07 Bob Kay, Geologist, of US EPA memorandum re: review of OEPA's comments on the REFS.

14. 7/27/07 RESA response to 7/19/07 Matt Justice of OEPA memo.

15. 8/1/07 U.S. EPA responses to RESA 7/18/07 responses.

16. 9/6/07 (September, 2007) - Attachments to RESA Technical Memorandum #2.

17. 4/24/08 - U.S. EPA Comments on the Haley & Aldrich, Inc. November 2007 Draft Feasibility Study (FS); and attachments.

18. 6/10/08 - Jerry Maynard letter to Diana Embil of US EPA re: restrictive covenants for Tremont and Clarkco properties and deed transferring Clarkco property to Tremont Landfill Company.

19. July 2, 2008 - redacted e-mail chain (see attached):

June 26, 2008 - Dave Hagen e-mail to Ron Murawski re: Request for FS Extension to resolve hydrogeologic issues as requested by U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA.

June 27, 2008 - Ron Murawski reply denying request for extension.

July 2, 2008 - Ron Murawski e-mail: indicating that Wendy Carney (U.S. EPA) has agreed to a submittal date of COB, July 14 for revised FS. For the appendix related to hydrogeologic characterization, the submittal date is COB July 21.

G:\28703\031 - F.S\Dispulc ResolutioiiTINAL Exhibit3.doc

CHICAGO\2578487.1 1D\JIM

PAGE 2 OF 2

file://G:/28703/031

Salinas, Sharon

From: Sent:

Salinas, Sharon Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:32 AM

Subject: RE: Tremont - FS deadlines

—Original Message— From: Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamall.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:27 PM To: dhagen@haleyaldnch.com Cc: Maynard, Jerome; mark.allen@epa.state.oh.us; kelly.kaletsky@epa.state.oh.us; jkeiserl @ch2m.com; sjohnson@ene.com; Embil.Diana@epamail.epa.gov Subject: EXTENSION TO SUBMIT BF FS

Dave, as you may know, Jerry talked to Wendy shortly after our call. My office has now agreed to a submittal date of COB, July 14 for the revised FS. For the appendix related to hydrogeologic characterization, the submittal date is COB July 21.

—Original Message--From: Salinas, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:13 PM

Subject: Tremont - FS deadlines

Jerry Maynard heard from Wendy Carney. EPA has agreed to July 14, 2008 for submission of the 1

mailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.govmailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamall.epa.govmailto:dhagen@haleyaldnch.commailto:mark.allen@epa.state.oh.usmailto:kelly.kaletsky@epa.state.oh.usmailto:sjohnson@ene.commailto:Embil.Diana@epamail.epa.gov

revised FS Report with a placeholder for the groundwater model which will need to be submitted by July 21, 2008.

Wendy indicated that we need to submit by July 21, 2008, all documents that we want to be part of the FS and the Administrative Record. Ron Murawski will send an e-mail to Dave Hagen confirming this agreement and these dates.

Original Message— From: Salinas, Sharon Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:55 AM

Original Message — From: Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov To: Hagen, David Cc: Maynard, Jerome; Tanaka.Joan@epamail.epa.gov ; Embil.Diana@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Fri Jun 27 09:30:58 2008 Subject: RE: Request for Extension - BF FS Report

Dave, after consulting with my management, I have decided not to grant your request for an extension to August 4. Therefore, the July 7 deadline remains in place for the Barrel Fill FS.

P.S.: Please note that the July 7 deadline represents an approximate four-week extension over the original due date, not a two-week extension as you indicated below.

"Hagen, David"

To 06/26/2008 12:57 RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA PM cc

"Maynard, Jerome" , Joan Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US(a)EPA

Subject RE: Request for Extension - BF FS

mailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.govmailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.govmailto:DHagen@haleyaldrich.commailto:Tanaka.Joan@epamail.epa.govmailto:Tanaka.Joan@epamail.epa.govmailto:Embil.Diana@epamail.epa.govmailto:Embil.Diana@epamail.epa.govmailto:JMaynard@dykema.com

Report

My mistake and thanks for catching it, Ron. We request 4 weeks with the due date being August 4.

Original Message From: Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: 26 June 2008 1:24 PM To: Hagen, David Cc: Maynard, Jerome; Tanaka.Joan@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: Request for Extension - BF FS Report

Dave, please note that your extension request to August 11 equates to a five-week extension, not four. A four-week extension would be August 4. Also, the information toward the end of your message below supports a four-week extension.

Please let Joan and me know if your request for extension is for August 4 or August 11.

Thanks.

"Hagen, David"

To 06/26/2008 11:04 RONALD MURAWSKI/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, AM Joan Tanaka/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

cc "Maynard, Jerome"

Subject Request for Extension - BF FS Report

Ron,

As we discussed earlier today, RESA/Haley & Aldrich is requesting an extension for the submittal of the draft Barrel Fill Feasibility Study. As you are aware, we previously indicated the need for an extension of at least one month at our meeting on 7 May 2007. Subsequent that the meeting, USEPA granted a two week extension (to the original due date of 23 June 2008) resulting in a due date of 7 July 2008 . Duhng the 7 May 2008 meeting, USEPA suggested that we discuss any FS issues that would require resolution prior to submittal of the revised FS. One of the more significant issues associated with the USEPA FS comments and raised by OEPA at that time was interpretations regarding hydrogeologic issues. In order to adequately address the hydrogeologic issues associated with the first draft of the FS, we requested a meeting with USEPA and the meeting was held on 20 May 2008. During that meeting many of the hydrogeologic concepts associated with the project were discussed. These included vertical hydraulic conductivity of the tills and continuity of the Interills underlying the site. Based on the outcome of the meeting, it was clear that additional work was required to modify the FS in order to adequately address comments regarding these important hydrogeologic issues.

mailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.govmailto:Murawski.Ronald@epamail.epa.govmailto:Tanaka.Joan@epamail.epa.govmailto:JMaynard@dykema.com

Based on the outcome of the 20 May 2008 meeting, RESA/Haley & Aldrich has been working diligentiy to address FS comments and incorporate hydrogeologic information, evaluation and analysis into the FS in order to resolve these hydrogeologic issues as requested by US EPA and OEPA. Specifically, we have undertaken additional analysis including boring log by boring log evaluation of site conditions, a re-evaluation of till and Intertill thicknesses with subsequent preparation of figures, additional calculations of groundwater flow velocities using ranges of vertical permeabilities and formation thicknesses and reassessment/modeling of contaminant transport based on these data/interpretations.

It was our intent to submit the draft FS by the 7 July due date and we have been working diligently to meet this due date. It is clear that submittal of a document that is responsive to the US EPA written comments and to the extensive issues raised at our meetings by US EPA and OEPA in that timeframe is not possible given the signiticant additional work required to address the important hydrogeologic issues that became readily apparent at the 20 May 2008 meeting (and subsequent to our original extension request at the 7 May meeting). We estimate that we need an additional 2 week to complete the review and analyses of hydrogeologic data, another 1 week to incorporate the conclusions from that data into the Report and 1 week to modify the draft report to make everything consistent. Accordingly, we request an extension of four weeks, which results in a revised document submittal date of 11 August 2008.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

David J. Hagen Senior Vice President Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 5755 Granger Road Suite 320 Phone: 1.216.706.1313 Fax: 1.216.706.1363 Mobile: 1.216.470.2784 DHagen@HaleyAldrich.com www.HaleyAldrich.com

mailto:DHagen@HaleyAldrich.comhttp://www.HaleyAldrich.com