EPA ACTION MEMORANDUM - Records Collections - US ...

’E.z

PRo-rt'^

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 5

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

MAY 81 2D19

us i:pa records crnter reuion s

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Request for Approval of a Time Critical Removal Action and Exemption from the$2 Million Statutory Limit at the South Point Biomass Site, 100 Collins Road, South Point, Lawrence County, Ohio 43062 (Site ID# C5MJ)

FROM: Jason R. Cashmere, On-Scene CoordinatorEmergency Response Section 1

THRU: Jason H. El-Zein, ChiefEmergency Response Branch 1

TO: Douglas Ballotti, DirectorSuperfund & Emergency Management Division

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum requests and documents your approval to expend up to $2,327,272 and grant an exemption from the $2 million statutory limit to conduct a Time-Critical Removal Action at the South Point Biomass Site (the Site) in South Point, Lawrence County, Ohio 43062. The Time-Critical Removal Action is considered nationally-significant or precedent-setting because the primary contaminant is asbestos. The Site is not on the National Priorities List (NPL).

The proposed response actions are necessary to mitigate threats to public health, welfare, and the environment posed by the presence of uncontrolled hazardous substances at the Site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documented the presence of hazardous substances (asbestos containing materials [ACM]) throughout the Site and in the environment surrounding the Site building, as defined by Section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14).

The projrosed Time-Critical Removal Action includes preparation of a site-specific Elealth and Safety Plan, Air Monitoring Plan, and Emergency Contingency Plan; establishment of site security; inventorying and performing hazard charaeterization on substances found in the Site building, debris piles, and in surrounding surficial soils; and transporting and disposing off-site any hazardous substances, pollutants, or eontaminants at a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)-approved disposal facility in accordance with EPA’s Off-Site Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] § 300.440).

The proposed removal actions will be conducted in accordance with Section 104(a)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(a)(1), and 40 C.F.R. § 300.415 of the National Oil and Hazardous

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (100% Post-Consumer)

947698

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), to abate or eliminate the immediate threat posed to public health and the environment hy the presence of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The uncontrolled conditions of the hazardous substances present at the Site, and the potential threats they present require that this action be classified as a Time-Critical Removal Action.

The response actions described in this Action Memorandum will require an estimated 130 on- Site working days to eomplete.

II. SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND

/

A.

SEMS ID; RCRA ID: Category:

Site Description

OHN000508572NATime-Critical Removal Action \ V

The South Point Biomass Site is located at 100 Collins Road in South Point, Lawrence County, Ohio 43062 (see Figure 1 for a Site Location Map). The Site is situated on an 80-acre industrial parcel and contains one vacant building, the former South Point Ethanol powerhouse building. The building is a four-story steel-framed structure with a penthouse area above the fourth floor. Each floor of the building is approximately 33,600 square-feet with the penthouse floor being 15,000 square-feet.

The Site is bounded to the south and west by industrial businesses, with residential homes and the Ohio River 1/2-mile to the west. Vacant land, with sparse trees, is located north of the Site. Vacant land, with Highway 52 beyond is located east of the Site.

1. Site Background , ' ^

The Site produced ammonium nitrate explosives from 1943-1946 and fertilizers and various chemicals from 1946-1978. The Site operated as a coal-water fuel pilot plant and pitch prilling test plant from 1979-1981 and produced ethanol from 1981-1995 (Administrative Record # 3 [AR#3]).

In 1999, South Point Biomass Generation, EEC. (South Point Biomass) acquired the 80-acre parcel where the South Point Ethanol plant previously operated. In 2001, Lawrence Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) acquired 540 acres surrounding the Site (AR #3).

On or about October 18, 2013, and at times on other unknown dates. South Point Biomass demolished or renovated portions of the former powerhouse building that contained suspect and commingled ACM. During these demolition activities. South Point Biomass did not properly wet, seal, store, or dispose of the ACM; also. South Point Biomass did not have the Site thoroughly inspected for asbestos by a certified asbestos hazard evaluation specialist. South Point Biomass also failed to notify the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) of their

intent to demolish or renovate the structure. The demolition activities at the Site caused asbestos to be released into the environment surrounding the existing Site building (AR #3).

On October 22, 2013, the Portsmouth Local Air Agency (PLAA) conducted sampling of suspect ACM from debris piles loeated outside of the former powerhouse. The sampling confirmed the presence of asbestos above the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulatory level of one percent (AR #2).In February 2014, following a Notice of Violation (NOV) for asbestos-related violations, Ohio Division of Air Pollution Control (Ohio DAPC) issued Unilateral Orders to South Point Biomass to abate the regulated ACM and waste by June 2014. South Point Biomass failed to comply with the Orders and on December 2, 2014, OEPA referred the case to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office (Ohio AGO) for resolution (AR #3).

Ohio AGO filed a complaint against South Point Biomass in August 2015 and in February 2017 a Consent Order was filed with the state court. The'Consent Order required South Point Biomass to hire a certified asbestos abatement contractor to develop and submit a cleanup plan, repair the damaged ACM, and secure,the Site to prevent public access. To date, an acceptable plan has not been submitted and the Site remains unsecured (AR #3).

On August 20, 2018, OEPA referred the Site to the U.S. Environmental Proteetion Agency (EPA) to conduct a Removal Assessment based on confirmation of ACM throughout the building and in the environment surrounding the existing Site building (AR #3). '

2. Removal Site Evaluation

On February 11 and 12, 2019, EPA performed a Removal Assessment at the Site that included identification and evaluation of exposed, suspect ACM present on the floors of the building

interior and in debris piles surrounding the exterior of the Site building (Attachment II, Photos 3, 5, 6, and 7); collection of bulk samples from the identified suspect ACMs; and a limited hazardous materials survey and identification of waste containers observed at the-Site building (AR #5). .

During the Removal Assessment, it was estimated that 80 percent of each floor is covered with suspect ACM (Attachment II, Photos 9, 10, 16, and 22). Outside of the building, debris- containing ACM was also found (Attachment II, Photos 3, 5, 6, and 7). In addition,

^approximately 25 5-gallon containers with various labels and contents, five (5) compressed gas cylinders, and ten (10) 35-gallon fiberboard drums containing metallic powders were identified inside the building (Attachment II, Photos 17-21) (AR #5). .

The inspection was limited to visible and exposed ACM present on the floors of the building and in the environment on the exterior ground surface surrounding the building. Suspect ACM was observed on every floor inside the building as well. ACM sampled during the Removal Assessment only included loose, friable, and exposed ACM observed on each individual floor inside the building and in debris piles on the exterior ground surface (i.e., thermal system insulation on structural piping, and utility equipment). The building’s intact wall, insulation, and floor surface coverings were not sampled (AR #5).

The bulk samples were submitted to EMSL Analytical, Inc., located in Cinnaminson, New Jersey. The bulk samples were analyzed by polarized light microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EPA Method 600/R-93/116, Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials. PLM is an analytical method used to identify asbestos, based on an analysis of the unique optical properties of mineral forms in the samples (AR #4). The analytical results from the bulk samples are summarized in the table below:

SAMPLEIDENTIFICATION

SP-4F-01

SP-4F-02

SP-3F-03

SP-lF-04

SP-lF-05

SP-lF-06

SP-OS-07

SP-4F-08

MATERIALDESCRIPTION

Magnesium Boiler Insulation Block

(white)Magnesium Boiler Insulation Block

(blue)Air Cell Insulation

(white)

Transite Pipe

Empire Fire Brick - Northwest Entry

Magnesium Boiler Insulation Wrap

Galbestos Siding (black)

Fire Brick

ASBESTOS TYPE

60% Amosite 3% Chiysotile

None Detected

8% Amosite 40% Chrysotile

15% Chrysotile

None Detected

30% Chrysotile

30 % Chiysotile

None Detected

SAMPLELOCATION

4*’’ floor of Biomass Building

4* floor of Biomass Building

3'^'* floor of Biomass Building

P' floor of Biomass Building

1 floor of Biomass Building

P‘ floor of Biomass ____Building

Outside Biomass Building exterior

piles4* floor of Biomass

Building

During the Removal Assessment, EPA inspected the Site building to identify and evaluate any other potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. As part of the inspection, a mercury vapor survey was conducted using a Lumex 915+ mercury vapor analyzer, and a radiation survey was conducted utilizing a Ludlum 19 radiation detector. The potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that were identified and evaluated are listed below:

• Approximately 25 5-gallon plastic and metal containers were observed throughout thebuilding, with most containers observed in a storage room located on the first floor in thenortheast comer of the building. Some of the containers appeared to contain dark oilyliquids. The contents of the other containers are unknovra. Most of the containers werein poor condition and the markings on the containers were not legible for identificationpurposes (Attachment II, Photos 18 and 19).

• Approximately ten (10) compressed gas cylinders were observed throughout the first andsecond floors of the building. Most of the cylinders were either green or black and somewere labeled as containing oxygen. The cylinders were observed to be lying on theground or standing up and unsecured (Attachment II, Photo 17).

• Approximately ten (10) 35-gallon fiberboard drums were observed on the third floor ofthe building. Some of the drums were labeled as “Purolite” and appeared to contain agold-colored resin. Other drums were noted as containing metallic powders. The drumswere in poor condition and were not properly, covered or secured (Attachment II, Photos20 and 21).A limited mercury vapor survey was conducted using a Lumex 915-1- mercury vaporanalyzer. Due to Site conditions encountered on the day of the Site visit (i.e., severewater intrusion from heavy precipitation and cold temperatures below 30° Fahrenheit),mercury vapor readings were not accurately registering inside the Site building.

• Fluorescent light ballasts and bulbs were observed in some areas of the building. Thelight ballast labels that were visually inspected were damaged and could not provideinformation indicating the presence or absence of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCS) fluids.

• A radiation survey was conducted with the Ludlum 19 radiation meter inside the buildingand around the building exterior. Background readings ranged from five (5) to eight (8)micro-roentgen per hour (pR/hr.). No readings above background were observed duringthe limited radiation survey.

I

3. Physical Location

The Site is located at 100 Collins Road in South Point, Lawrence County, Ohio 43062. The Site and surrounding topographical features are presented on the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The geographical coordinates of the Site are 38.435525° north latitude and 82.588243° west longitude.

The Site is situated on approximately 80 acres and its tax identification parcel number is: 15- 123-0201.001. The Site lies at approximately 565 feet above mean sea level, is relatively flat,and is located on a floodplain of the Ohio River. The prevailing wind direction is out of thewest, the annual average temperature is 54.75°F, the average annual rainfall is 41”, and theaverage annual snowfall is 9” (www.usclimatedata.com for Portsmouth, Ohio).

The Site is in a developed industrial park located north of the city of South Point, Ohio. The Site is bounded to the south and west by industrial businesses, with residential homes and the Ohio River beyond. The nearest daycare facility is located 3/4-mile to the north and the nearest school is located 1/2-mile to the northeast of the Site( The nearest surface water body is the Ohio River located 1/2-mile to the southwest of the Site, and private residences are located 1/3-mile to the west of the Site. The nearest hospital is located approximately 3 1/2 miles to the northwest of the Site and the closest senior living facility is 3 1/2 miles southeast of the Site. A community park is located 1/3-mile northwest of the Site. Vacant land, with sparse trees, is located north of the Site. Vacant land with Highway 52 beyond is located east of the Site.

An Environmental .lustice (EJ) analysis for the Site is contained in Attachment IV. Screening of the surrounding area used Region 5’s EJ Screen Tool. Region 5 has reviewed environmental and demographic data for the area surrounding the Site and determined there is a high potential for EJ concerns at this location.

The high potential for EJ concerns is based on the Site sharing the same physical location as the NPL Site. This Site is not on the NPL and has not received a Hazard Ranking Score and has not been referred to the NPL Site Assessment program. All other EJ indexes are below the high potential threshold. •

4. Site Characteristics

The Site is currently vacant and there are no businesses operating on the property. The Site was fonnerly owned and operated by South Point Ethanol which ceased operations on February 3, 1998. In February 2002, OEPA transferred permits for seven (7) existing South Point Ethanol boilers to South Point Biomass Generation, EEC. (South Point Biomass), who is the current property owner, to authorize the conversion to wood-fired boilers. South Point Biomass, to date, has not completed the conversion. South Point Biomass disturbed and made the ACM friable when it demolished and/or scrapped metal from the facility’s’ pipes and equipment in October 2013 (AR #3).

The Site is not fully or partially owned by any Federal agencies and the State and local government is not an owner or operator. EPA’s proposed Time-Critical Removal Action will be the first removal action at the Site.

5. Release or threatened release into the environment of a hazardous substance, orpollutant or contaminant.

A release or threat of release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants is present at the Site. In October 2013, PLAA conducted sampling of suspect ACM from debris piles located outside of the former powerhouse building and confirmed it contained asbestos ( AR #3). EPA has also confirmed the release or threat of release of asbestos at the Site. Asbestos is defined as a hazardous substance per 40 C.F.R. § 302.4. During the Removal Assessment on February 11-12, 2019, it was estimated based on the building square footage and the density of the type of ACM identified, that the building and debris piles contain approximately 5,500 tons of ACM.

The building is currently in poor condition with most of the interior portions completely open and exposed to weather due to a lack of exterior siding, windows, doors, and poor roof conditions. During the Removal Assessment it was discovered that the roof is leaking, which is further spreading ACM down through floor grates to lower levels of the building.Approximately 50 percent of the exterior walls of the building are missing siding, windows, and doors or have deteriorated significantly (Attachment II, Photos 1-3). During windy conditions, there is no barrier over a significant portion of the building’s exterior to prevent the spread of asbestos fibers from inside the building to the environment outside. The ground level of the building is open to trespassers with no physical barrier to prevent access (Attachment II, Photos 3 and 7) to ACM or the potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the drums and small containers. In addition, there are no “Asbestos” signs on the exterior of the building to warn thcspublic prior to entering the building. There is evidence that trespassing by the public has already occurred in the form of graffiti (Attachment II, Photo 4), scrap metal salvaging, illegal demolition, and open dumping (Attachment II, Photos 3, 5, 6, and 7).

Exposure could occur from: (a) dermal contact with asbestos and hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in drums and small containers; (b) incidental ingestion of asbestos and drum or small container hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants following dermal contact; (c) inhalation of asbestos fibers and hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the drums and small containers following agitation by trespassers; (d) inhalation of asbestos\ fibers via wind disturbance; and (e) inhalation of asbestos fibers released into the air via fire. There is a potential that asbestos fibers could be transported off-Site by windy conditions, on trespasser’s clothing, or in the event of a fire or flooding.

Potential human receptors to both asbestos and potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the drums and small containers include nearby residents and workers, trespassers, emergency responders, and future Site construction workers. There was evidence of trespassing at the Site in the form of graffiti (Attachment II, Photo 4), scrap metal salvaging, illegal demolition, and open dumping (Attachment II, Photo 4).

6. NPL Status

This Site is not on the NPL; however, the Site lies geographically within the South Point Plant soil and groundwater NPL site. This Site has not received a Hazard Ranking Score and has not been referred to the NPL Site Assessment program.

7. Maps, Pictures, and Other Graphic Representations\

Photographs and maps are included as attachments to the Action Memorandum.

B. Other Actions to Date

1. Previous Actions V

This proposed Time-Critical Removal Action will be the first removal action at the Site.

2. Current Actions

There are ongoing plans to extend infrastructure across the industrial business park where the Site is located. This will allow further development of the industrial park property but potentially increase the number of receptors to ACM and hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants present at the Site.

C. State and Local Authorities’ Roles

1. State and Local Actions to Date

This Action Memorandum documents the State and local actions to date in Section II.A.l.

\ -

2. Potential for Continued State and/or Local Response

In correspondence dated August 20, 2018, OEPA formally requested assistance from EPA to determine if the Site meets the criteria for a removal action (AR #3). OEPA has requested EPA assistance due to ongoing inaction by the property owner. OEPA does not have the resources to mitigate the current release or threat of future release of ACM or hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the drums and small containers. '

III. THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT,AND STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

The conditions at the Site present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, and the environment, and meet the criteria for a Time-Critical Removal Action provided for in 40 C.F.R. § 300.415 (b) of the NCP. The factors applicable for this Site include the following:

(i) Actual or potential exposure to nearby human populations, animals, or the food chainfrom hazardous substances or pollutants, or contaminants;

Asbestos has been confirmed at the Site by sampling conducted by PLAA in October 2013 and EPA in February 2019. The samples collected were friable ACM, which is a listed hazardous substance (40 C.F.R § 302.4, Table 302.4). Results from the Removal Assessment indicate that five (5) of the eight (8) samples contained asbestos at concentrations ranging from three (3) to 40 percent chrysotile asbestos, two (2) samples contained 8 to 60 percent amosite asbestos, and three (3) samples were non-detect for asbestos fibers (AR #4). During the Removal Assessment, EPA found ACM throughout the former powerhouse building covering approximately 80 percent of all floors except for the penthouse level (Attachment II, Photos 9, 10, 16, and 22). EPA also noted ACM degradation caused by water intrusion and friable asbestos was strewn throughout the building and in debris piles on the periphery from illegal demolition and scrap metal salvaging activities.

The former powerhouse building and debris piles are unsecured from trespassers and mclement weather. There are many open access points on the ground level of the building and EPA noted graffiti on the side of the building during the Removal Assessment (Attachment II, Photo 4).The exterior of the building is missing approximately half of the siding and it was discovered during the Removal Assessment that the roof is leaking. Additionally, numerous large debris piles containing ACM outside of the building were noted during the Removal Assessment. The ACM in the debris piles has already been released to the environment. Private residences are located within a 1/3-mile from the Site and a neighboring business is located only 400 feet away. There is a potential that asbestos fibers could beTransported off-Site by windy conditions, on trespasser’s clothing, or in the event of a fire or flood.

Possible exposure routes include dermal contact with asbestos and potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in drums and small containers; incidental ingestion of asbestos and drum or small container contents following dermal contact; inhalation of asbestos fibers following agitation by trespassers; inhalation of asbestos fibers via wind disturbance; and

inhalation of asbestos fibers released into the air via fire. Potential human receptors include nearby residents and workers, trespassers, emergency responders, and future Site workers.

Asbestos: Asbestos mainly affects the lungs and the membrane that surrounds the lungs. Breathing high levels of asbestos fibers for a long time may result in scar-like tissue in the lungs and in the pleural membrane (lining) that surrounds the lung. This disease is called asbestosis and is usually found in workers exposed to asbestos, but not in the public. People with asbestosis have difficulty breathing, often a cough, and in severe cases heart enlargement. Asbestosis is a serious disease and can eventually lead to disability and death.

Breathing lower levels of asbestos may result in changes called plaques in the pleural membranes. - Pleural plaques can occur in workers and sometimes in people living in areas with high environmental levels of asbestos. Effects on breathing from pleural plaques alone are not usually serious, but higher exposure can lead to a thickening of the pleural membrane that may restrict breathing.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the EPA have detemiined that asbestos is a human carcinogen. It is known that breathing asbestos can increase the risk of cancer in people. There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos: lung cancer and mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a cancer of the thin lining surrounding the lung (pleural membrane) or abdominal cavity (the peritoneum). Subacute exposures as short as a few days have been shown to cause mesothelioma. Cancer from asbestos does not develop immediately but shows up after several years. Studies of workers also suggest that breathing asbestos can increase chances of getting cancer in other parts of the body (stomach, intestines, esophagus, pancreas, and kidneys), but this is less certain (AR #1).

(iii) Hazardous substances or pollutants, or contaminants in drums, barrels, tanks, or otherbulk storage containers, that may pose a threat of release;

During the Removal Assessment, approximately 25 5-gallon plastic and metal containers, ten (10) compressed gas cylinders, and ten (10) 35-gaIlon fiberboard drums were observed(Attachment II, Photos 17-21). Most of these containers were not labeled and their contents aremostly unknown, although one container (Attachment II, Photo 19) was labelled as containingcorrosives. Most of these containers are in poor condition, rusted, or made from materials thatonce exposed to water, will rapidly degrade and cause their contents to be released both insidethe building and into the enviromnent. Future exposure pathways include dermal direct contact,ingestion, and inhalation of asbestos fibers and hazardous substances.

(iv) High levels of hazardous substances or pollutants, or contaminants in soils largely at ornear the surface, that may migrate;

On the periphery of the building, EPA noted large piles of ACM debris which included thermal system insulation, air-cell, mag block, tar paper, and galbestos siding (Attachment II, Photos 3,5, 6, and 7). It is likely that this ACM has degraded and is now comingled with soils' suiTounding the building. Additionally, with strong winds, friable asbestos can be blown from

the inside of the building to the outside and deposited. Once outside, the materials are free to migrate with changing weather conditions and are completely exposed to trespassers.

(v) Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances or pollutants, orcontaminants to migrate or be released; .

The Site building is continuing to deteriorate due to exposure to the environment and currently approximately 50 percent of the exterior siding is missing (Attachment II, Photos 1-3). There are several open access points on the ground level of the building and the roof is leaking (Attachment II, Photos 3 and 7). Water intrusion at all levels of the building was observed during the Removal Assessment. ACM inside the building and on the ground surrounding the ' building is subject to further deterioration due to wind, rain, and temperature extremes. Given windy conditions, it is possible for asbestos fibers within the building to be transported outside and ACM debris outside to be transported off-Site. Furthermore, under windy conditions, ACM from the debris piles outside of the building could be dispersed to nearby businesses and residences.

In addition, several containers of various sizes are comingled with ACM waste and are exposed to rainwater and snow intrusion. These containers are subject to the freeze/thaw cycle, bursting due to temperature extremes, rusting, or having rainwater overflow their contents. In the case of the fiberboard drums, fiberbdard is readily degraded once exposed to water (Attachment II, iPhotos 20 and 21). These drums and containers could release their contents into the environment and could expose nearby residents and businesses, trespassers, and future site workers. i

(vi) Threat of fire or explosion;I

The presence of trespassers was documented during the Removal Assessment. Should trespassers start a fire in the building, it is likely that asbestos fibers would be transported off-Site in the ash and smoke plume. There is also no active fire suppression system in the building.

Several unsecured compressed gas cylinders were also discovered during the Removal Assessment (Attachment II, Photo 17). Due to the mishandling of these cylinders, there is a threat of explosion and threat of release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the environment. \ -

(vii) The availability of other appropriate federal or State response mechanisms to respondto the release;

In a correspondence dated August 20, 2018, OEPA formally requested assistance from EPA to determine if the Site meets the criteria for a removal action (AR #3). OEPA does not have the resources to mitigate the current release or threat of future release of ACM and the potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the drums and containers.

IV. ENDANGERMENT DETERMINATION

Given the Site conditions and the nature of the contaminants on the Site, as described in Sections II and III above, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this Memorandum, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

V. EXEMPTION FROM STATUTORY LIMITS

Section 104(c)(1) of CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), limits a Federal response action to $2 million unless response actions meet emergency and/or consistency exemptions. The total cost is expected to exceed $2 million. The conditions present at the Site warrant the $2 million exemption based on the emergency exemption:

a1 Section 104(c)(l)(i): Continued response actions are immediately required to prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency.

The continued presence and quantity of asbestos in the abandoned powerhouse building constitute an imminent threat to public health, welfare, and the environment as documented above. Response actions are immediately required to mitigate exposure to nearby residents, business workers, and trespassers to hazardous substances through the air and direct contact pathway. The proposed Time-Critical Removal Action listed below will prevent, limit, and mitigate threats to public health including to any sensitive populations.

B. Section 104(c)(1)(H): There is an immediate risk to public health or welfare or theenvironment.

During the February 2019 Removal Assessment, EPA documented that unrestricted access into the former powerhouse and evidence of trespassing was occurring, resulting in likely exposure to friable ACM based on analytical results from samples collected. In addition, ACM debris is present outside and surrounding the building, presenting an immediate risk to public health, welfare, and the enviromnent. The Site is not adequately secured and is located within 1/3-mile from private residences, 400 feet from a neighboring business, and 3/4-mile from a daycare facility, posing a significant exposure thi'eat to adjacent businesses, nearby residences, and trespassers. Wind and other weather conditions may transport asbestos fibers from both inside and outside of the building potentially exposing adjacent businesses, nearby residences, and trespassers. Exposure to potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in drums and small containers on the Site is also ^ possible.

C. Section 104(c)(l)(iii): Assistance will not otherwise be provided on a timely basis.

In a letter received August 20, 2018, OEPA requested that EPA assist by conducting a Time- Critical Removal Action at the Site.- The OEPA has indicated that it does not have the resources to address the contamination at the Site in a timely manner. Neither OEPA nor any

other local government has adequate resources to conduct a Time-Critical Removal Action on this scale., If the Site is left unmitigated, there will be continued risks to those in and around the Site and a high potential for further migration of ACM and potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the adjacent properties.

VI. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

A. Proposed Actions

1. Proposed Action Description

The response actions described in this memorandum directly address actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances on Site, which may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, or welfare, or the environment. Removal activities will include:

1. Develop and implement a site-specific Health and Safety Plan, Air Monitoring Plan, andan Emergency Contingency Plan;

2. Inventory all degraded and friable ACM throughout the Site building, debris piles, andsurficial soils surrounding the Site building;

3. Wet, encapsulate, and remove all degraded and friable ACM throughout Site building,debris piles, and surficial soils surrounding the Site building; .

4. Assess the Site building and debris piles for the presence of hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants in small containers and drums.

5. Conduct mercury vapor screening and decontaminate any surfaces found to containelemental mercury;

6. Segregate, stage, and secure drums and other containers;

7. Consolidate and package ACM and other hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants for transportation and off-Site disposal in accordance with the EPA Off-SiteRule, 40 C.F.R. § 300.440;

8. Secure the Site from future trespass;

9. Conduct site restoration, including restoration of a vegetative cover to denuded areassurrounding the Site building; and

10. Take any other response actions that the EPA OSC deems necessary to address any releaseor threatened release of a hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants found within

^ the Site building or surrounding grounds. > ^/

The OSC will conduct removal actions in a manner not inconsistent with the NCP. The OSC will initiate planning for provision of post-rernoval site control consistent with the provisions of NCP § 300.415(1). Currently planned post-removal site controls include fencing surrounding the

building, boarding up windows and doors on the ground level, and restoration or a vegetative cover where the ACM debris piles are currently located. The property owner will be responsible for maintaining the post-removal site controls.

The release of or threat of release of hazardous substances meet the criteria listed in NCP § 300.415(b)(2) for a removal action, and the removal actions proposed herein are consistent with any additional response action which may be required. Elimination of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that pose a substantial threat of release is expected to minimize substantial requirements for post-removal Site controls.

2. Contribution to Remedial Performance

The proposed removal action will not impede ongoing or future remedial actions at the surrounding NPL site based on available information. At this time, no remedial actions are planned for the removal Site.

3. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)

This is not applicable to this Site. 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(a)(4) does not require an EE/CA when less than a six (6) month planning period exists before the on-site response must be initiated.

4. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

On April 5, 2019, via electronic mail, EPA requested that James Kavalec of OEPA identify any State of Ohio ARARs which may apply to or are relevant and appropriate at the Site. Mr. Kavalec replied on April 8, 2019, via electronic mail, identifying ARARs as Ohio’s Administrative Code Chapters 3745-20 and 3745-22.(AR #6). EPA will comply with ARARs identified in a timely manner to the extent practicable. However, as set forth at Section 121(e) of CERCLA, actions conducted on-site are exempt from permitting requirements.

The OSC identified the following Federal ARARs:

1. Subtitle D of RCRA, Section 1008 and Section 4001, et seq., 42 USC § 691, et seq.,regulates the management of nonhazardous solid waste.

2. 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. regulates the transportation of hazardous waste and hazardoussubstances by aircraft, railcars, vessels, and motor vehicles to or from a site.

3. NESHAP 40 C.F.R. § 61, Subparts A and M.

4. 49 C.F.R. Parts 171 and 172 address requirements for transportation of asbestos waste,including waste containment and shipping papers.

5. Project Schedule:

The Time-Critical Removal Action will require an estimated 130 on-site working days to complete.

13

B. Estimated Costs

The Detailed Cleanup Contractor Cost Estimate is presented in Attachment VI and the Independent Government Cost Estimate is presented in Attachment VII. Estimated project costs are, summarized below:

Regional Removal A^wance Costs:“N

Total Cleanup Contractor Costs (Includes a 20% contingency)

Other Extramural Costs Not Funded from the Regional Allowance

Total START (Including multiplier costs)

Sub-total, Extramural Costs

/Extramural Costs Contingency (15% of Sub-total, Extramural Costs)

i

TOTAL REMOVAL ACTION PROJECT CEILING

$1,782,115

$241,600

$2,023,715

$303,557

$2,327,272

The response actions described in this' memorandum directly address the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at the Site which may pose an imminent and substantial endangemient to public health or welfare or to the environment. These response actions do not impose a burden on affected property disproportionate to the extent to which that property contributes to the conditions being addressed.

VII. EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ACTION BE DELAYEDOR NOT TAKEN

Given the Site conditions, the nature of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants documented on-Site, and the potential exposure pathways to nearby populations described in Sections II, III, and IV above, the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants from the Site presents an imminent and substantial endangemient to public health, welfare or the environment if this action is not taken. Delay or failure to act will increase the potential that hazardous substances will continue to be released into the environment, thereby threatening the adjacent population and the environment. Delayed action or non-action may result in increased likelihood of exposure via inhalation, ingestion, or direct contact to human populations, including vulnerable and sensitive ones, at or near the Site.

VIII. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES

Using the Framework for Investigating Asbestos-Contaminated Sites, OSWER Directive #9200.0- 68 (September 2008) EPA implemented the following step-by-step approach to investigate and characterize the potential for human exposure from asbestos contamination at the Site:

Step 1 - Review historical and current data - EPA reviewed Site records where ACM was previously identified by the PLAA sampling investigation and later sampled and found ACM in the February 11-12, 2019 Removal Assessment.

Step 2 - Idas there been (or is there a threat of) a release to the environment? - EPA has confirmed the Site conditions as documented by PLAA and OEPA and determined that there has been a release to the environment and that a threat of release of ACM fo the^

environment is present at the Site via multiple pathways.

Step 3 - Is human exposure likely under current or future site conditions? - Due to the unsecured condition of the Site and documented trespassers, as evidenced by graffiti at the Site, human exposure is likely under both current and future Site conditions.

Based on the factors outlined above, the OSC recommends that a removal be perfonned to mitigate asbestos exposure at the Site.

The removal involves a nationally-significant or precedent-setting issue because the primary contaminant is asbestos. In accordance with redelegation R-14-2, a request for concurrence on actions proposed in the memorandum was sought from EPA’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM).

/IX. ENFORCEMENT

For administrative purposes, information concerning confidential enforcement strategy for this Site is contained in the Confidential Enforcement Addendum.

Using the estimated extramural cost calculation ($2,327,272), an estimate of EPA's direct intramural costs ($98,800), and 55.39 percent as the regional indirect cost rate, the total estimated EPA costs for the removal are listed below. The total EPA costs of this removal action based on full-cost accounting practices that will be eligible for cost recovery are estimated to be $3,769,873'.

($2,327,272 + $98,800) + (55.39% x $2,426,072) = $3,769,873 '

15

X. RECOMMENDATION

This decision document represents the selected removal actions for the South Point Biomass Site located in South Point, Lawrence County, Ohio, and was developed in accordance with CERCLA, as amended, and is not inconsistent with the NCP. This decision is supported by the Administrative Record for the Site.

I

Conditions at the Site meet the NCP 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b) criteria for a Time-Critical Removal Action. The total project ceiling, if approved, will be $2,327,272, of which, as much as $2,085,672 may be used from the Regional removal allowance. I recommend your approval of the proposed removal action by signing below.

APPROVE Date: Souglas Ballotti, Directors

Superfund & Emergency Management Division

DISAPPROVE Date:Douglas Ballotti, DirectorSuperfund & Emergency Management Division

' Direct Costs include direct extramural costs and direct intramural costs. Indirect costs are calculated based on an estimated indirect cost rate expressed as a percentage of site-specific direct costs, consistent with the full cost accounting methodology effective October 2, 2000. These estimates do not include pre-judgement interest, do not take into account other enforcement costs, including Department of Justice costs, and may be adjusted during the course of a removal action. The estimates are for illustrative purposes only and their use is not intended to create* any rights for responsible parties. Neither the lack of a total cost estimate nor deviation of actual total costs Ifom this estimate will affect the United States right to cost recovery.

XL ATTACHMENTS

Enforcement Addendum

Figure 1: Site Loeation Map

Attachments:

I: Administrative Record.IndexII: Photographic DocumentationIII: Environmental Justice AnalysisIV: Detailed Cleanup Contractor Cost EstimateV: Independent Govermnent Cost Estimate

cc: S. Ridenour, U.S. EPA, 5ld4A, (Steve Ridenour/DC/USEPA/US)Laurie Stevenson, Director, Ohio EPA w/o Enf. Addendum(Email: [email protected])Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General w/o Enf. Addendum(Email: [email protected]) 'L. Nelson, U.S. DOI, w/o Enf. Addendum (email: [email protected])

bcc:

ENFORCEMENT ADDENDUM

HAS BEEN REDACTED – FOUR PAGES

ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL

NOT SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY

FOIA EXEMPT

NOT RELEVANT TO SELECTION

OF REMOVAL ACTION

FIGURE 1

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REMOVAL ACTION

SITE LOCATION MAP FOR THE

SOUTH POINT BIOMASS SITE SOUTH POINT, LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO

A

iX- sr.feM

u-t- '.'iiiiMsasI

-'•msim

CWCMfl

fv™South Point Biomass Site . ^ \ 100 Collins Avenue

South Point, Ohio 45680 (.435591* N,-82.588343* W

IDcWojin

;OHiorl yrriftl:

KfOtucky

mmmj

S/f

Wsmi'3s-Pi^;|J*v

r;>^

mt.ooo

v\'mi \lro»i3

LegendRoute highway

NM*: Tiw Muret or mu map It esRi. UMS by ent WO) ESRrt pormttwon.

ons»ta: t.'i4.‘xi>

. UMMStalM;< UwmrnnW ProtMtion AgwKy

South Point Biomass Site South Point, Lawrence County, Ohk>

Figure 1Site Location Map

Tfcj It IMA ItCM

PrtMftflPcr. u $ gA^tg<af>v | ^toarto »r Qfc«c»

ATTACHMENT I


ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR THE


NO. SEMS n> DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TTTLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES

1 947626 9/1/01 ATSDR None ATSDR TOXFAQS - Asbestos 2

2 947627 10/22,'IS TriadEnvironmentalConsulting

Ohio EPA Bulk Sample Analysis Report w/Chain of Custodj- and Sampling Location Map

6

3 947630 5/19/18 Kavalec, J. Ohio EPA

U.S. EPA Ohio EPA Time Critical Removal Action Referral Request

10

4 94762S 2,a 1/19 Ellis. B, EMSL Analjiical

Newton, D, Tetra Tech

Test Report; Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials Using Polarized Light Microscopy

1

5 947625 3/20/19 Newton, D. Telra Tech

Cashmere. J, U.S. EPA

Tetra Tech Removal Assessment Report (Rev 1)

/

34

6 947629 4./S/19 Kavalec, J, Ohio EPA

Cashmere. J, U.S. EPA

Ohio EPA Response to US EPA Request for ARARS

1

7' Cashmere. J. US. EPA

Action Memo re: Removal Action (Pending) /'

ATTACHMENT II


PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION FOR THE


Photo: 1

Description:East side of the South Point Biomass site building.

Orientation:West

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 2

Description:North side of site building.

Orientation:South

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

ii, -fili j' l

.f

11 i ^M-! -Mi

I

- ',5/5

Photo: 3

Description:West side of site building. Piles of exposed asbestos- containing Galbestos siding present.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 4

Description:Example of graffiti on the west side of site building, indicating trespasser activity.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:JC

.IhSMIiliai

L:: ■ . mm mmm

Photo: 5

Description:Example of asbestos- containing Galbestos siding scattered outside the site building.

Orientation:South

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 6

Description:Example of Galbestos siding piles on the west side of site building.

Orientation:North

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

f. '

0m

1^ mmmm

Photo: 7

Description:Galbestos siding mixed with debris along the south side of the site building.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

mmmm

Photo: 8

Description:Co-mingled asbestos- containing debris on the third floor of the site building.

Orientation:South

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

- i ».*1,

Photo: 9

Description:Asbestos-containing debris on the second floor of the site building.

Orientation:West

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 10

Description:Asbestos-containing debris on the fourth floor of the site building.

Orientation:West

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

m4E^T>i'

'k\/ V

4 mm1-4'teed

Photo: 11

Description: Asbestos-containing transite pipe in co-mingled waste pile. Location of Sample #SP-lF-04 on the first floor of the site building.

Orientation:North

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 12

Description:Asbestos-containing air cell insulation pile on the second floor of the site building.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

#f—!■ ■ ■■■ '

Photo: 13

Description:Asbestos-containing insulation located on the penthouse floor of the site building.

Orientation:North

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 14

Description:Fire bricks observed on the first floor of the site building. The bricks were sampled and found not to contain asbestos.

Orientation:North

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

■A’rj'vrt,.-. ■ \ •’h

^1

«f

Photo: 15

Description:Exposed wall opening on the north side of site building.

Orientation:West

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 16

Description: Asbestos- containing co-mingled debris on the P* floor of the site building.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:JC

1

Photo: 17

Description:Gas cylinders observed on the P' floor of the site building. Contents unknown.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

;:ir

mm

Photo: 18

Description:Miscellaneous containers observed in the P' floor storage area of the site building. Contents unknown.

Orientation:South

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

m m

£_ ^ .j

Photo: 19

Description:Example of an orphaned chemical container observed in the 1 floor storage area of the site building.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:JC

Photo: 20

Description:“Purolite” resin drums observed on the 3^^ floor of the site building.

Orientation:West

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

’ i

L ,S«S5^

Photo: 21

Description:View inside Purolite resin drum on the 3’^^' floor of the site building.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

Photo: 22

Description:Example of co-mingled asbestos-containing debris observed throughout the site building.

Orientation:East

Date: 02/11/2019

Photographer:DN

■ :

f ' : ■

, W rn

- -

ATTACHMENT III


ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS FOR THE


»EPA^ . EJSCREEN Report (Version 2018)1 mUe Ring Contsred at 38.435S93,-82.588349, OHIO, EPA Region S

Approximate Population: 2,118 Input Area (sq. miles); 3.14

South Point Biomass

Selected Variables 1 State 11 Percentile

1 EPA Region 1 1 Percentile |

1 USA1 Percentile

EJ IndexesEJ Index for PM2.5 67 63 46EJ Index for Ozone 66 63 48EJ Index for NATA' Diesel PM 59 51 37EJ Index for NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk 57 52 41EJ Index for NATA* Respiratory Hazard index 58 51 41EJ Index for Traffic Proximily and Volume 30 36 28EJ Index for Lead Paint Indicator 62 58 35EJ Index for Superfund Proximity 7 g 6EJ Index for RMP Proximity 36 36 24EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity 48 45 33EJ Index for Wastewater Discharge Indicator 18 14 8

E3 iMtex for the Seleoted Area Compared to Ml People^s Hockgroups in die State/RegkxVUS

II ^ ^ IM|II|III1III|II1II|II||||IP

Sstale Percentile Percentile B USA Percentile

This reyiort shcrws the wlues for envirocimerAat and demc^raphic cidkators ai>d EJSCft£C.N mdexes. It shews mvironmental and c aphic raw data theestimated concentration of OKine in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area connparcs to the entire stale, EPA n^ion, or natkMi. For example, if a given location is at the dSth percentile nationwcle, this means that only S percent of the US population has a h^hn block group value than the average person in the location being analyzed. The years for wl^h the data are avaUafale. and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screewi^ level inlbcination, so it Is essential to understand the llmitatiora on apprapnate kilerpretations and appitcations of these indicatafs. Please see EJSCREEW documentatian for discussion of these issues before using reports.

April 11,2019 1/1

«EPA@ «•» EISCREEN Report (Version 2018)t cnito Ring Centarad at 38.435593,-«2.SSa34«, OHO, EPA Region 5

Approximate Population: 2,116 Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14

South Point Blomasa

I . ... t .+^

j*'" ■ 1 ^

P '*- :y ■

13S1U/^11 201»

ElrteiAMS ^ Ogltfid Point 9 9«

s&aei 8« «8« «w 'jeae •«**« • mcv It

Sitei reportins to EPASuperfund NPL I 1Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storaige. and Disposal Facilities (TSOF) | 1

Apfi 11.2019

SEPAl EJSCREEN Report (Verefon 2018)1 mile Ring Centered at 3».43S5»3,-ar5«S349, OHIO, EPA Region S

Approximate Population: 2,116 Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14

South Point Biomass

Selected VariablesValue State

Avg.Kile inState

EPARegion

Ave.

Kile inEPA

RHion

USAAvg.

Kile inUSA

Environmental IndicatorsParticulate Matter (pm 2.S n (ig/m') 10.2 11.4 1 10.8 23 9.53 63

Otone (|ipb) 42.7 44.4 21 42.6 41 42.5 51

NATA' Diesel PM (pg/m’) 0.859 0.997 44 0.932 S0-60th 0.938 SOÔthNATA‘ Cancer Risk (iHeUme risk p« mWian) S3 37 96 34 95-IOOIh 40 B0-80th

NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index 2 1.8 64 1.7 70-80U1 1.8 60-70th

Traffic Proxiniity and Voluine (tbiy ir«fSc count/ciittancE to toad) 110 170 68 370 56 600 52

Lead Paint Indicator (it Ptm960 Hotnimt) 0.18 0.41 28 0.38 32 0.29 48

Superfund Praximitv (ite count/km diitwcs) 0.8 0.09 98 0.12 97 0.12 97

RMP Proximity (faolitv oauntAm distarKe) 0.81 0.69 72 0.81 67 0.72 71

Hazardous Waste Proxfinity (fadltty countAm dotance) 0.73 1.6 53 1.5 S3 4.3 58

Wastewater Discharge Indicator(tOKKrty-weighted concentrahorVm distance)

0.13 17 88 4.2 89 30 91

Oemographlc IndicatorsDemographic Index 26% 27% 62 28% 60 36% 43

Minority Population 7% 20% 41 25% 33 38% 17

Low Income Population 45% 33% 72 32% 75 34% 71

Linguistically Isolated Population 0% 1% 67 2% 58 4% 44

Population With Less Than High School Education 18% 11% 82 10% 82 13% 73

Population Under 5 years of age 7% 6% 66 6% 66 6% 63

Population over 64 years of age 13% 16% 39 15% 43 14% 48

Ihe Notional-Sciile Air Toxics Aucsamcnl ^NATA)islHA'&onîrg, cafnp4etiefisivecMilu«ition of Icuoc&hi the United States. EPA devefo^d the NAfA to prkiritiK air toxics, efnissiwi sources, and tocaticns of interest far further study. It is important to Rsnemhef that NATA provsles broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas of the country, not delwiitive risks to specific Individuals or locations. More informatian on the MATA anafysis can be four^d at: httpsy/www.epaôv/rsatKirul-air'tooiics-assessment

For additional information, see: www.epa.eov/envlronfnentallustice

tlSCft£EN is a screening tool far pre decisional use only. It can help RSenldy areas that may warrarrt addrtsonal consrderation, analysis, or outreach. It does not provide a basis for decision-making but it may help identify potential areas of Li concern. Users should keep in ma>d that screening tools are subject to substantial uncertainty in their demographic and emmnmental data, partKiiarly when looking at small geographic areas, important caveats arsd uncertamties apply to tins aaeenir^ level infonnatiDn, so it is esscntsal to understand the limitationB on appropriate interpretations and applicatitsns of these indicators. Please see CJSCftf EN documentaitian for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not provide data on every environmental impact and demographic Factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EiSrCflEEN outputs should be sqaplemented with addtionji mformation and local knowledge before lala% any action to address potential LI oonnms.

Apri 11,3019 m

ATTACHMENT IV

DETAILED CLEANUP CONTRACTOR ESTIMATE

HAS BEEN REDACTED – ONE PAGE


OF REMOVAL ACTION

ATTACHMENT 5

INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT COST ESTIMATE

HAS BEEN REDACTED – TWO PAGES


OF REMOVAL ACTION

EPA ACTION MEMORANDUM - Records Collections - US ...

Documents

Transcript of EPA ACTION MEMORANDUM - Records Collections - US ...