EPA Region 5 Records Ctr · or an EE/CA consistent with the 2010 AOC. As an outcome of the Task 1.3...

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr

llliliiiililliiililiiiliiillllllllliliil 389030

R E S P O N S I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

Interim Actions for High-Use Floodplain Areas at the Tit tabawassee River/Sagina>v River 8c Bay Site

This Responsiveness Summary provides a simimary of the public comments that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received regarding proposed interim exposure controls at certain high-use floodplain areas and the Task 1.4 Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Early Response Action to Address Potential Acute or Near Term Exposure Risks, dated November 17, 2010, (EE/CA) at the Tittabawassee River/Saginaw River & Bay Site (Site). This Responsiveness Summary also provides EPA's responses to those comments, developed in consultation with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

Outcome of Review of Public Comments

( ^ After carefully reviewing and considering all public comments vs^ch were timely submitted during the public comment period, EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, has signed an Action Memorandiun selecting interim exposure control options, as well as criteria that would make properties eligible for the exposure controls. EPA, after consultation with MDEQ, has also negotiated an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (Task 1 AOC) with The Dow Chemical Company (Dow), requiring Dow to implement the selected exposure control work. A copy of the Task 1 AOC, Action Memorandum, and this Responsiveness Summary can be foimd at http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/dowchemical/index.htm.

Background and Community Involvement

Dioxins (including furans) and other contaminants are foimd in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and their floodplains, and in Saginaw Bay from past waste disposal practices at Dew's plant in Midland, Michigan. Negotiations with Dow began in December 2008, for a

..-^ comprehensive approach to addressing contamination related to Dow in the rivers and Bay. On ( . ^ January 14, 2010, EPA signed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent

(2010 AOC) with MDEQ and Dow, requiring Dow to perform investigations, develop cleanup options, and design cleanup options selected by EPA for the Site using Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority. The 2010 AOC (No. V-W-lO-C-942) became effective on January 21,2010, and work under the 2010 AOC is ongoing.

The 2010 AOC and associated Statement of Work (2010 SOW), Attachment A to the 2010 AOC, set forth requirements for conducting evaluations of current conditions and assessments of response options to protect himian health and the environment at the Site. Task 1 of the 2010 SOW describes the characterization and assessment of potential acute or near-term exposure risks focusing on areas of current residential or other potential high human use. In carrying out

of 23

http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/dowchemical/index.htm

this task, mitigation measures shall be developed, as necessary, to address potential acute or near term exposure risks in advance of the respective Segment-Specific Response Proposal (Task 8 of the 2010 SOW). At a minimum, the Task 1 evaluation includes 18 identified areas known as Exposure Units (EUs).

Under Task 1 of the 2010 SOW, the currently identified EUs are initially sequenced into and addressed imder either sub-task 1.2,1.3, or 1.4. Work conducted under Task 1.2 addresses areas where additional information is needed to determine if there is a potential acute or near-term exposure risk, emphasizing identification and filling of data gaps. Work under Task 1.3 characterizes properties and recommends the need for early response action, emphasizing current use and condition assessments for each specific property parcel within the EU. Work conducted under Task 1.4 develops and evaluates altemative mitigation measures for early response actions to address potential acute or near-term exposiire risks. Similar activities were required by the State as interim response activities (IRAs) in 2005 and 2006, prior to extensive data collection in the rivers and on the fioodplains. The Task 1 work expands on this earlier exposure control work with a better imderstanding of the distribution of contamination and requirements for proactive maintenance of existing and new exposure controls.

There are approximately 260 property parcels distributed among the remaining 18 EUs that will be addressed imder Task 1 of the 2010 SOW, and additional areas may be identified, as needed. The approach taken to implement Task 1 is to conduct the assessments of the currentiy identified EUs in four phases (Groups A through D). The first phase (Group A) mcludes EUs 10 and 11, where Task 1.3 work to assess and characterize use and conditions at property parcels began in early Jime 2010. The second phase (Group B) includes EUs 04,06,07, and 08, where Task 1.3 work to assess and characterize use and conditions began in late July 2010. Assessments at the remaining two phases will be started in 2011.

As discussed in 2010 SOW Task 1.4, if EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, determines that any mitigation measure should be fiirther plaimed and developed to address acute or near-term exposure risks in advance of the respective Segment-Specific Response Proposal required under Task 8, then EPA may direct the use of EPA's removal and/or remedial program autiiorities under CERCLA, as amended, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 C.F.R. Part 300), and Dow shall submit eitiier an Feasibility Stiidy or an EE/CA consistent with the 2010 AOC. As an outcome of the Task 1.3 work, EPA determined that Dow should submit an EE/CA for certain properties along the Tittabawassee River. This was documented in an EE/CA Approval Memorandimi dated November 8, 2010.

The EE/CA included both options for interim exposure controls and criteria that would make properties eligible for the interim exposure controls. EPA released a fact sheet titied "Interim Actions Proposed for High-Use Floodplain Areas" and the EE/CA for public comment, pursuant to the NCP requirements. The public comment period was initially proposed to run from January 12 through February 11,2011. Upon the request of a community member, the comment period

of 23

( . •¥ |

was extended to March 13, 2011. EPA, with the assistance of MDEQ, held a public meeting regarding the proposed interim exposure controls on January 19,2011, at Saginaw Valley State University in Saginaw, Michigan. Approximately 50 - 60 individuals attended the public meeting. EPA, with the assistance of MDEQ and Dow, also held two informal availability sessions on January 18 and 19 in Freeland and Thomas Township, respectively.

EPA received written comments (hand written, via regular and electronic mail, and by facsimile) and verbal comments (at the public meeting) during the public comment period. In total, comments were received from about 22 different people or organizations, including the Saginaw Tittabawassee Rivers Contamination Community Advisory Group (CAG). Copies of all the comments received (including the verbal conunents reflected in the transcript of the public meeting) are included in the Administrative Record for the Site.

Comments and Responses

This Responsiveness Summary does not repeat verbatim each individual comment. Rather, the comments are summarized and grouped by category with respect to the type of issue raised. The comments fell within several different categories: goals and objectives; remedy options (including no action and relocation); eligibility criteria; scope of the work; economic impacts (including property values); comment process; concerns about specific properties; comments on dioxin; comments about the Agencies and Dow; and miscellaneous comments.

The remainder of this Responsiveness Sununary contains a summary of the comments received and EPA's responses to those comments, in consultation with MDEQ. They are grouped by category.

I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1. Some commenters stated that they felt the concerns of home owners -were not being adequately addressed in the process. Some commented that health and well-being of the residents should be a top priority.

EPA and MDEQ have attempted to consider and prioritize the concems of homeowners. The overall approach to the Site is to conduct comprehensive cleanup in an upstream to downstream fashion. However, some tasks are being conducted earlier, and on a Site-wide basis. The interim exposure controls at floodplain properties selected in the Action Memorandimi and required by the Task 1 AOC is Site-wide work that was initiated immediately upon signature of the 2010 AOC. This requires Dow to begin mitigating potential acute or near-term exposure risks at eligible properties.

The overall Site approach, combined with the Site-wide Tasks 1 and 2, allows acute or near-term problems to continue to be addressed immediately, while developing a complete solution and

of23

minimizing recontamination or re-work. Recontamination of downstream properties is a concern if a comprehensive cleanup has not occurred upstream. The measures selected in the Action Memorandum under Task 1 focus on providing interim exposure confrol for potentially contaminated residential properties. Interim exposure control should mitigate potential risks until a comprehensive approach is implemented.

It is also very important to understand that the Interim Response Actions (IRAs) established imder the RCRA License will continue until a legally enforceable fiiture response action is established. This means that Dow is still required to conduct ongoing IRA activities, including flood response, on the Priority 1 (PI) and Priority 2 (P2) properties along the Tittabawassee River. However, additional response actions beyond those required by the IRAs may be developed for the PI and P2 properties xmder Task 1 and/or as part of comprehensive cleanup, based on circumstances at the property.

2. The CAG commented that EPA should explore opportunities to provide landowners a final solution. They stated:

The long-term and uncertain nature of this cleanup are the biggest problems in the community. Many homeowners who contemplate moving, or have young children at risk, simply feel stuck and are uncertain of how to move forward Do not underestimate the fact that this has been an active issue here for almost 30 years and we may be looking at another 20 years before it is resolved That is literally a lifetime. The CAG knows of at least one case where homeowners had contaminated fill in their yard and cannot sell their house. They are at retirement age, out of the floodplain, and cannot afford to wait 10 or more years or longer for some resolution on their property. EPA needs to assess all properties with an eye toward closure and where it is possible to simply complete work and provide homeowners a final release of worry and responsibility, that course should be pursued. As such properties are likely to be rare and the risk of recontamination is not present, all would benefit from this final action.

EPA is aware of the magnitude of these issues to the community. Working in the community to try to address resident's concems is part of the reason why EPA opened a Saginaw Community Information Office. EPA local field offices are highly unusual and EPA is deeply committed to addressing this Site. EPA will work with MDEQ and Dow to see if there are opportunities to provide some homeowners a final solution for properties that may be at low risk of recontamination. However, EPA is obligated to act within CERCLA and the NCP, including the requirement to make a determination that a response action is warranted and the process that must be followed to make such a determination. The presence of contamination on a property is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that a response action is required. We encourage the property owner referred to by the CAG to contact the EPA with details of their specific situation so that it may be looked into more closely. Both EPA and MDEQ have the ability to provide owners who are attempting to sell their homes with letters detailing to prospective purchasers that they will

of23

( »

not be liable for cleanup, if they follow certain steps. The Agencies have, and will continue to offer these letters to homeowners.

3. A few commenters felt that the actions would not be protective for pets or for wildlife in the floodplain. One commenter stated that the actions won't address impacts to the food chain.

The intent of the interim exposure controls is to mitigate potential human health risks from contact with floodplain soils. The 2010 SOW stated:

The Respondent [Dow] shall conduct Work under this task to characterize and assess potential acute or near-term exposure risks focusing on areas of current residential or other high human use. [emphasis added]

EPA and MDEQ recognize that other receptors and pathways, including wildlife and food chain bioaccumulation, will need to be evaluated when the floodplains are evaluated for additional response actions as segment-specific decisions are made. EPA and MDEQ encourage people to follow the consumption advisories foimd at http://wvyw.michigan. gov/deq/0.1607.7-135-3311 4109 9846 9847-43808-.00.html#Advisories. EPA and MDEQ also recommend that people try to prevent pets from tracking contaminated soil into the house and let them out in cleaner areas (e.g., outside of the frequentiy flooded areas).

4. A few commenters felt that the proposed actions were no different than the previous IRAs done by Dow under the License, or that the IRAs had not been done correctly. One commenter felt that EPA's proposed actions are not as good as the prior IRAs. A few commenters felt that these periodic interim responses were difficult for homeowners and wanted this to be the last time an interim response is chosen. A few commenters said that these actions should not be characterized as "early. "

The interim exposure controls proposed and selected by EPA are similar to, but build upon, the previous Phase l/Phase 2 (P1/P2) IRAs. Work conducted under Task 1.4 of die 2010 SOW develops and evaluates altemative mitigation measures for early response actions to address potential acute or near-term exposure risks. Similar activities were required by MDEQ as IRAs in 2005 and 2006, prior to extensive data collection in the river and on the floodplains. Not every eligible P1/P2 property accepted the IRAs, and conditions have changed on some of the properties, making additional work necessary. The Task I work expands on the earlier exposure control work with a better understanding of the distribution of contamination and requirements for pro-active maintenance by Dow of existing and new exposure controls. It is EPA's intent that the floodplain soils are comprehensively addressed in segment-wide decisions that select final response actions. These actions are called "early" in the sense that they are to be conducted ahead of the segment-wide cleanups. They are intended to be the final interim action for these properties. However, the interim exposure control measures to be put in place starting in 2011

of23

http://wvyw.michigan

will need periodic maintenance. Additionally, other areas (e.g., new EUs) may be identified that must be assessed for interim exposure controls.

5. A few commenters stated that they want "real" cleanup and that they have waited too long. A few said that the entire Tittabawassee River should be cleaned up and should be dredged now. They said that cost is immaterial - clean it up now.

EPA and MDEQ share the goal of completing the cleanup at the Site in an effective and expeditious fashion. The 2010 SOW states "[t]he objectives of this SOW are to streamline studies, quickly identify and assess cleanup options, and accelerate RD [Response Design] in order to initiate any needed response actions rzq)idly, and thereby reduce exposures and risks at the Site." However, the Agencies believe that it is important that the conmiunity understand that cleanup of the Site will take time. The Agencies believe that the approach developed in the 2010 AOC - an approach that will provide the basis for any necessary remediation in an upstream to downstream fashion, and that considers each river segment independently and in the context of the entire Site - will ultimately provide the best way to address the problems at the Site. Each segment decision will evaluate river sedhnents, banks and floodplains within that segment to develop a comprehensive cleanup approach. However, because this systematic approach will take time, the 2010 AOC also contains provisions to assess and address acute and near-term exposure and contaminant transport risks throughout the Site early in the process. It is premature at this time to stipulate response options for the Tittabawassee River. Any such response options will be developed in accordance with the NCP requirements and will undergo the required public participation process before EPA's final selection.

6. A few commenters expressed concerns that the areas will be recontaminated

EPA and MDEQ recognize that recontamination is a possibility until more comprehensive cleanup throughout the Site is complete. As discussed above in comments 1 and 4, we are taking a segment-by-segment, upstream to downstream approach. Recontamination of downstream properties is a concern if a comprehensive cleanup has not occurred upstream. There is ongoing monitoring at EUs where previous response actions have been taken (e.g., West Michigan Park, Riverside Boulevard) to assess the rate and levels of recontamination. The properties that receive interim exposure controls will be assessed for additional actions as part of the segment-wide cleanup.

7. One commenter felt that all areas should be posted as a health risk

EPA and MDEQ recognize that dioxins are distributed widely in the Tittabawassee River floodplain, particularly in areas that flood frequentiy. However, potential unacceptable health risks stem fitjm a combination of: 1) levels of contaminants in an environmental media (e.g., soil, sediment, fish tissue); 2) duration and frequency of exposure to the contaminated media; and 3) toxicity of the contaminant. A determination that all floodplain areas pose an unacceptable

of 23

health risk has not been made by EPA at this time. However, in order to help people limit their exposure and potential risks, advisory signage has been placed at many of the public access areas. The signs advise people to avoid contact with soil and river sediment, and to wash with soap and water after contact. Signs also advise people about the fish and wild game consumption advisories. EPA and MDEQ will make sure that the advisory signs remain in place with current information. There is also written information on dioxin, consumption advisories, limiting exposure, etc. available at many libraries and town halls and on the MDEQ's website. MDEQ had previously provided this information to river residents, and the Agencies continue to provide the information to river residents as we assess their properties for interim exposure controls.

8. One commenter felt that the EE/CA does not adequately address acute or short-term risks. They stated that exposure is occurring now and that a more detailed exposure assessment . should be conducted They said that it is impossible to eliminate exposure entirely through early actions like those proposed by EPA.

As discussed in response to other comments here, EPA and MDEQ recognize that a more detailed exposure assessment will be necessary to understand and respond to potential risks within each segment. The Agencies believe that the exposure controls to be placed on floodplain properties will, in the short-term, mitigate human exposures from direct contact with the more highly contaminated floodplain soU until comprehensive cleanup is complete. It should be clarified; EPA does not have a policy or goal to eliminate exposures to environmental contaminants entirely. Rather, EPA's policy is to ensure that actual or potential risks from exposure to site-related environmental contaminants fall within an acceptable risk range, based on protective evaluations.

9. One commenter stated that exposure controls do nothing to address the most important pathway - consumption of Ideal fish and game.

EPA and MDEQ recognize that evaluating potential exposures from consumption of local fish and game is an important pathway to consider. Please see the response to comment 7 regarding advisory signage in the watershed. The objective of these interim exposure controls is to mitigate human exposures from direct contact with contaminated soil. Other exposure pathways will be evaluated when the floodplains, banks, and sediments are evaluated for additional response actions as segment-specific decisions are made. EPA and MDEQ encourage people to follow the consumption advisories found at http://vyvyw.michigan.gOv/deq/0.1607.7-135-3311 4109 9846 9847-43808-.00.html#Advisories.

10. One commenter said that exposure can occur within homes, not just outdoors.

The objective of the interim exposure control measures is to mitigate potential human health risks from contact with floodplain soils. A broader exposure assessment will be conducted in evaluating fmal response actions for floodplain soil.

of 23

http://vyvyw.michigan.gOv/deq/0.1607.7-1353311

http://vyvyw.michigan.gOv/deq/0.1607.7-1353311

IL REMEDY OPTIONS

11. Some commenters, including the CAG, supported the proposed interim exposure control options.

EPA and MDEQ acknowledge these comments.

12. A few commenters expressed that there was no need for the proposed actions because there is no threat, and that the actions might be worse than current conditions.

EPA and MDEQ believe that early exposure controls to mitigate human exposures from direct contact with potentially contaminated floodplain soil are a prudent course of action. As discussed above in comment 7, a detemunation that all floodplain areas pose an unacceptable health risk has not been made by EPA at this time. EPA OSWER Directive 9200.4-26, April 13, 1998, has generally recommended 1 part per billion (ppb) as a cleanup level for dioxin for direct contact threat in residential soils at Superfimd and sites. MDEQ has established a residential soil direct contact criterion for dioxin of 0.09 ppb. The MDEQ dioxin cleanup criterion is established in Part 201, which also allows for a different cleanup number to be developed and used based on site-specific and other information. Dioxins have been found in some of the frequentiy flooded areas at levels that exceed these levels. Therefore, the Agencies believe that interim exposure controls at residential properties that meet the eligibility criteria are appropriate in the short-term, until a determination as to the final response action is made.

13. Relocation

Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed response activities do not include relocation. One commenter suggested that residents should be given the opportunity to leave if they want to. One commenter suggested that Dow buy residences and resell them once the Site has been remediated One commenter asked EPA to give clearly articulated criteria for refusing a request for relocation. One commenter indicated that EPA has the ability through an EE/CA to create criteria for relocation The same commenter indicated that the relocation of residents in the most contaminated areas must be part of early response actions. One commenter indicated that residents should be given a choice of an interim or final remedy of relocation. One commenter felt that relocation was inappropriate.

Many government programs which are designed to benefit the public as a whole result in acquisition of private property, and in the displacement of people from their residences, businesses, nonprofit organizations, or farms. The Superfimd law (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to undertake relocation at Superfimd sites in certain circumstances. However, EPA's preference is to address the risks posed by contamination by using well-designed methods of cleanup which allow people to remain safely in their homes and businesses. Because of CERCLA's preference for cleanup, EPA does not routinely consider relocation as a component of a response.

of 23

(I

i

If EPA does consider relocation as a component of a response, EPA looks to relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance. The most recent EPA guidance documents regarding relocation are:

• "Superfimd Response Actions: Temporary Relocations Implementation Guidance" (April 12,2002)and

• "Interim Policy on the Use of Permanent Relocations as Part of Superfimd Remedial Actions" ("Permanent Relocation Guidance")(June 30, 1999)

These policies explain that EPA is authorized to select two types of relocations in a response decision: temporary and permanent. Temporary relocation involves the relocation of people or businesses temporarily. Temporary relocation does not involve the acquisition of real property. Permanent relocation involves the relocation of people or businesses permanentiy. However, permanent relocation does involve the acquisition of real property.

Temporary relocation. There are three primary reasons why a Region may select temporary relocation as part of a response action:

1. Health threats - The contamination may pose an unacceptable threat to human health (particularly where there is an immediate, not chronic, risk posed by the contamination, and the likelihood of exposure is high) or implementation of the response action may pose an unacceptable health risk to residents (e.g., there could be an increased chance of exposure during sampling, bulking, and excavation);

2. Safety of residents - The response action itself may pose an unacceptable risk to residents (e.g., use of heavy construction equipment too near a house could threaten the integrity of the structure or pose an attractive nuisance to children); and

3. Efficiency of the response action - The response action can be implemented more quickly and at a lower cost if residents are not in the area (e.g., work hours can be extended to include early morning and late evening hours when residents would normally be at home).

EPA does not beUeve that the high-use floodplain areas of the Site meet these criteria, particularly since the potential risk posed by the areas is not immediate but rather chronic in nature. Therefore, at this time, EPA does not contemplate a temporary relocation at the Site.

Permanent relocation. There are there are two primary reasons why a Region may select permanent relocation as part of a response action:

1. To address an immediate risk to human health where an engineering solution is not readily available; and

2. Where the structures are an impediment to implementing a protective cleanup.

of 23

( 1

Again, EPA does not believe that the high-use floodplain areas of the Site meet these criteria, particularly since EPA has successfiilly relied on various engineering solutions to deal with contamination problems that exist at this Site: contaminated sediments (e.g., dredging or capping), contaminated river banks (e.g. removal at Reach J/K, stabilization with clean cover at Reach M, stabilization with native vegetation at Reaches O & M) and contaminated soils (e.g., removal, capping). Therefore, at this time, EPA does not contemplate a permanent relocation at the Site.

EPA also notes the following:

• To date, the overwhelming majority of Superfimd sites located in residential areas are being cleaned up without the need to relocate residents and businesses

• EPA can acquire property when it has the statutory authority to do so. EPA has the authority to acquire property under CERCLA Section 104(j). Section 104(j) allows property acquisition for a remedial action where the state agrees to accept ownership of the property at the completion of the remedial action. A Superfund site does not need to be listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) for a property acquisition to occur.

• When EPA determines that relocation is appropriate for a Superfimd site, EPA will select site-specific criteria. Residents/businesses meeting the criteria are then relocated. Properties are not selected for relocation at the discretion of the owner.

EPA will continue to assess the Site against the criteria discussed above to evaluate whether relocations may be required in the fiiture.

14. One commenter stated that removal of soil is the only proven technology for dioxin and cited an EPA report from 1988.

The interim exposure controls are not intended to be the final solution for floodplain soil. As discussed above, comprehensive response options for floodplain soil will be evaluated for each river segment. At that time, appropriate soil response options will be developed and compared. CM

15. One commenter stated that they had developed a process to remediate Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) that had been demonstrated at lab-scale. They asked to substantiate this work

This comment is not relevant to the selected exposure controls. Dioxins and fiirans are the contaminants driving these response actions in the floodplain, not PCBs. Also, the intent of these response actions is to mitigate exposure in the near term, not to treat the contaminated soil. Additional actions will be considered when comprehensive floodplain remedies are evaluated under Task 8 of die 2010 SOW.

of 23

a

III. ELIGIBILITY CRITERU

16. The CAG commented that EPA should provide a greater understanding on how eligible properties will be selected. They stated that EPA identifies "active use " and "bare soil" as two of the criteria for action, however, neither term is well defined. The CAG recognized that too specific of a definition would be counter-productive, but asked EPA to provide more detail as to how these two criteria will be approached and applied

At this time, EPA, MDEQ and Dow are taking a very broad and conservative approach to the criteria. The "active use" determination is made based on the owner's self-reported activities through an interview, and is generally not limited by frequency or duration of use. The "bare soil" areas have been identified based on a property-by-property inspection. Bare soil areas are not intended to address sparse vegetation in unused portions of the property or very small areas. The identified bare soil areas are often associated with obvious use - for example, bare soil in lawn areas, trails, gardens, fire pits, swings, etc. As the exposure confrols are implemented on the first few properties, EPA will evaluate whether these criteria can be clarified. EPA will discuss this with the CAG as we gain experience in implementing the actions.

17. A few commenters felt that bare soil should not be an eligibility criterion because they felt that vegetated soil is not a barrier to the soil exposure pathway for dioxin They commented that vegetation does not protect people, and that children and pets will go in areas where barrier controls have not been placed One commenter felt that the actions would not be protective because they would be a patchwork cover. This commenter also stated that exposure could come from contact where dust from another property had blown on to a vegetated area.

EPA's risk assessors generally believe that exposure to contaminants in bare soil results in greater potential exposure and risk compared to vegetated soil. Vegetation is expected to result in lower/lesser firequency of contact with contaminated soils simply because of decreased accessibility to such soils and a lower adherence of the soil to skin. Vegetation is also important because it prevents movement of soil and/or erosion of soil (and therefore retards movement of contaminants).

In EPA's "Public Review Draft, Draft Recommended Interim Preliminary Remediation Goals For Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites" issued for public conunent in December 2009, EPA scientists concluded "Inhalation exposure is not included for the draft recommended interim PRGs, because at present, there is no available inhalation unit risk value for dioxin that has been derived in accordance with current guidance for inhalation risk assessment (EPA 2009d). However, inhalation exposure to dioxin (particulates and vapor) is expected to be low (< 2.4%) compared to oral exposure in most cases (see Attachment 1). Therefore, risks due to inhalation of particulates and vapors are expected to be minimal."

of 23

Therefore, EPA believes that the eligibility criterion to address bare soils is appropriate for these early exposure control actions because EPA scientists believe that there is higher potential for direct contact with contaminants in bare soil, and because direct soil contact is expected to be a more dominant exposure pathway than dust inhalation. However, as discussed above, a broader exposure assessment will be conducted in evaluating final response actions for floodplain soil.

18. A few commenters felt that use of the 8-year floodplain was inadequate and that the 100-year floodplain should be used because contamination has been found throughout the 100-year floodplain. One commenter seemed to be uncertain about the criteria because he asked which 8-year period would be picked A few commenters felt that Alternative 3, relocation of features out of the 8-year floodplain may not be protective because it would not provide long-term effectiveness and might not provide short-term effectiveness because of contamination in less frequently flooded areas (the 100-year floodplain)

In the documents developed under Task 1 of the 2010 AOC, the 100-year floodplain has been ,~ depicted based on flood maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) while \% the 8-year floodplain has been depicted based on areas that actually flooded in 2004 based on aerial photographs taken during the March 2004 flood (the 2004 flood was estimated to be an approximate 8-year flood). The flood lines will continue to be represented by these. Flood lines are not adjusted based on different 8-year periods. Rather, the "8-year floodplain" represents the area flooded under a certain magnitude of flow. Samples have been taken at the Site within the 100-year floodplain and dioxin has been detected in areas outside of the 8-year floodplain, generally at levels that are lower, unless floodplain soils have been relocated. At the residential property EUs along the Tittabawassee River where the 100-year floodplain is more extensive, the fiiran/dioxin levels outside of the 8-year boundary average between 10 to 31 parts per trillion, when averaged over the relatively large EU areas. These levels are below the guidelines discussed in comment 11 above. However^ during development of the comprehensive floodplain soil responses, dioxin levels in the 100-year floodplain may be evaluated on a smaller scale, as appropriate. It should be noted that soils relocated from the frequentiy flooded areas will also be assessed, and addressed as needed. Therefore, the Agencies believe that use of the frequently / p flooded areas generally depicted by the 8-year floodplain, coupled with relocated soil areas, is an '^ appropriate criterion for these early actions. Further, the Agencies beheve that relocation of features outside of the 8-year floodplain will be effective at nutigating exposures in the short-term. Long-term effectiveness will be fiirther assessed as comprehensive approaches for floodplain soil are developed as part of the segment-wide actions. Additionally, in the future after evaluations are conducted in these areas, EPA may develop other eligibility criteria or options for properties in the Saginaw River EUs and nonresidential properties,

19. A few commenters expressed concerns with one of the eligibility criteria because they stated that people have changed their use patterns based on concerns with their yards.

of 23

( 1

This concern will be resolved on a case-by-case basis. EPA intends to notify all homeowners that have allowed a property assessment about the determination that has been made about whether their property is eligible for interim exposure controls. If a homeowner states that they would actively use the property if the interim exposure controls are in place, EPA has the authority to determine whether interim exposure controls are appropriate. However, if the property will not be used regardless, the property would not be eligible for interim exposure controls at this time. For properties not eligible for interim exposure controls at this time, periodic re-evaluation of property conditions will be conducted and additional response actions (both interim and final) will be evaluated, as needed.

20. One commenter stated that the proposed actions don't consider contamination at depth, and that weather conditions and human activity can expose deeper soil.

The interim exposure controls are based on the eligibility requirements selected in the Action Memorandum. If weather or human activity has resulted in bare soil and the property otherwise meets the criteria, the areas will be eligible for interim exposure controls, regardless of the depth of contamination in the area of the bare soil. For other areas, and in general, the Agencies recommend that people follow the advice in educational materials that are widely available (including to all of the owners of frequently flooded properties along the Tittabawassee River), especially "Dioxins and Furans, Reducing Exposure at Home" and "Soils Movement Advisory for Private, Public, and Commercial Projects." Deeper soil contamination will be evaluated as part of the assessment of floodplain soils conducted for the segment-wdde response actions.

21. One commenter felt that agricultural areas should be apriority because of dust, erosion and mud on the roads.

Some of the EUs that will be assessed beginning in 2011 include agricultural areas. The eligibility criteria selected by EPA in the Action Memorandum apply to residential-use properties along the Tittabawassee River. In the fiiture, after evaluations are conducted in these areas, EPA may develop other eligibility criteria or options for properties in the Saginaw River EUs and nonresidential properties (such as agricultural properties). See comment 17 above for a discussion about potential inhalation risks from dust that might contain dioxin.

IV. SCOPE OF THE WORK

22. A few commenters seem to have misinterpreted the proposed barrier controls and thought this meant very thick fill (e.g., one commenter stated that 3 -12 feet would be needed everywhere to completely fill his yard; one felt 4 feet of fill would be placed) One commenter thought EPA was proposing to cap floodplain areas and was concerned that an impermeable cap (such as clay) could cause negative effects in the floodplain

of 23

/ A

The proposed banier confrols are not intended to place very thick and/or impermeable materials over large areas in the floodplain. The proposed barrier confrols do not include clay caps. Rather, they are intended to place a relatively thin layer of clean material over bare soil areas that are frequently flooded and actively used, to limit contact with potentially contaminated soil. It is important to note that these are interim actions and that additional response actions for floodplain soils will be evaluated as each Segment within the Site is addressed.

23. One commenter expressed concern that there could be additional cost to homeowners to maintain any vegetative covers.

In most cases, the proposed barrier confrols will address relatively small areas within a larger property. If clean vegetated soil is selected as the barrier control, arrangements to ensure that the vegetation is estabhshed will be made with the property owner. Once established, maintenance of the vegetated barrier confrol areas is likely to entail the same maintenance that the owner would otherwise conduct However, there will be a post-response plan to ensure that the interim exposure confrols remain in place and effective. .̂̂

24. A few commenters expressed concern that the exposure controls would not be maintained They commented that periodic flooding would wash away barrier materials.

There is a requirement for pro-active maintenance of the interim exposure controls. Dow is required to submit and implement a plan that will include periodic monitoring of the conditions at properties, and maintenance of the exposure confrols.

25. A few commenters stated that they did not want their property or other floodplain property stripped of vegetation and denuded of trees. One commenter pointed out the work done by Dow under an EPA order at Riverside Boulevard as an example of how cleanup could be done while retaining or replacing vegetation.

In most cases, the proposed interim exposure confrols will address relatively small areas within a /f larger property. The scope of the actions will not require large-scale vegetation removal, and it is anticipated that no trees will be required to be removed for these actions. Individual property owners will have input on the measures to be used at their property. It is true that the work at Riverside Boulevard was conducted with the intent to retain or replace vegetation. However, the scope of the Riverside Boulevard work was much different due to the extent of flooding at these residences, and included significant soil removal from the properties. The interim exposure control measures do not include soil removal.

of 23

V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

26. Property Values

A few commenters expressed concern that property values will be negatively affected if the actions in the proposed Interim Plan are implemented or that their property values had been lowered because of contamination or potential contamination found on the property and that they are having trouble selling their property.

EPA and MDEQ recognize that environmental contamination problems impact communities in a variety of ways, including potentially impacting property values. There are also a number of other factors that affect property values that are unrelated to environmental contamination, including the current economy and the local housing market. EPA and MDEQ are environmental regulatory agencies that do not have a role in determining impacts to property values. EPA and MDEQ are responsible for making sure that environmental laws and regulations are implemented

( ^ and followed.

However, EPA and MDEQ are aware that economists have been interested in the relationship between housing prices and hazardous waste sites, such as Superfund sites, for quite a while. Researchers typically gather data about single-family, owner-occupied, detached homes located near sites with hazardous substances on them, usually NPL sites. The data they gather includes sales price and date, home location, size, age, and sometimes neighborhood data like typical income levels and racial makeup. Each study typically uses information about thousands of homes near one or a few nearby sites. The economists then apply statistical methods (called regression analysis) to separate the effect of being close to the hazardous waste site from other effects, such as inflation and differences in house size.

I

The results of these studies vary quite a bit, partly because they try to answer different questions, partiy because they use data from different places, and partly because they use slightiy different

/ ^ methods. Nonetheless, some general findings do seem to emerge. ^ ^ • Homes close to NPL sites may have lower prices: they seem to suffer a penalty of about

7.5%. The effect varies with distance; homes right next to sites suffer a larger effect, up to 13%, while the effect seems to disappear at two to three miles away.

• The discovery of the problem is what causes home prices to decline. The reason for this is simple: home buyers and real estate agents leam about the presence of hazardous substances at sites from the media faster than EPA can act.

• Cleaning up the site tends to restore the value of nearby homes. The housing market seems to respond to signs that the site will be cleaned up, such as issuance of an Interim Plan for cleanup, and not to the cleanup itself The reason for this seems to be that home

I buyers take movement toward clean up as a signal that the site eventually will be cleaned up, and not left to pose continued health risks or contribute to ongoing blight.

of 23

*rft»-

Additional information, focusing primarily on the effect that listing a site on the National Priorities List has on property value, can be found on the EPA website at: http://vyww.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle old/propertv.htm

As a result of regulatory actions, EPA and MDEQ believe that the actions taken to date and the actions that may be taken in the future to clean up the Site will reduce the effect environmental contamination has on property values and instead will hopefiilly result in a positive effect overall.

27. A few commenters expressed concerns that Dow not be driven from the community because the company has such influence on the area economy.

EPA and MDEQ recognize that corporations like Dow make business decisions based on a number of reasons related to their fiduciary responsibilities. EPA and MDEQ expect that the Work required under the Task 1 AOC will not significantly affect Dow's business profile.

VI. COMMENT PROCESS ( §

28. One commenter was concerned that emails that were sent before the public comment period began would not be considered He was also concerned that only verbal comments would be accepted

All of this commenter's emdls related to the proposed interim exposure control measures, even those submitted before the public comment period began have been included in the Administrative Record, and considered and summjirized herein. Written comments as well as verbal comments made at the public hearing have been accepted.

VU. CONCERNS ABOUT SPECIFIC PROPERTIES

29. The CAG commented that implementation should include a highly proactive approach to working with landowners. They stated, in part:

It is essential to recognize that one size does not fit all in approaching individual home and property owners.... Almost everyone is weary of decades of relative inaction and anxious for closure on this issue. We recognize that a completed long-term solution is still decades away. This is even more reason to focus considerable time and resources on more effective public communication and homeowner dialogue to find personalized solutions that work for people's circumstances and help them better understand the outcome and be able to move on with their properties.

EPA agrees with this comment. The project will be conducted in a manner that allows considerable input from individual property owners on the implementation of work on their own property.

of 23

(

http://vyww.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle

30. The CAG commented about homeowners who do not wish to allow sampling and/or action on their property. They stated:

In general, the CAG defers to the rights of individual property owners. However, there may be cases where such action endangers others or will result in the recontamination of property that has been cleaned In such cases, it is important to communicate EPA's legal powers and obligations and the likely course of action and this needs to be fully explained to the community so that everyone understands how EPA intends to proceed

EPA generally agrees with this conunent. EPA has the authority to compel access. In evaluating whether to exercise this authority, EPA would evaluate, among other things, considerations such as those outlined by the CAG - endangerment to others or to the Site. For the interim exposure control actions at individual properties, it is likely that a decision not to participate would only affect the individual property owners. However, we will evaluate refiisals on a case-by-case

( ^ basis to see if non-participation could have adverse impacts outside of that property.

31. Some commenters asked specific questions about their property - whether data was available and what specific actions might be taken to address the contamination on their property.

Any property owner who is interested in the data collected on or near their property may contact EPA or MDEQ and the Agencies will summarize data at and near individual parcels and provide this information to local residents. It is important to note that not every property has been sampled.

Regarding the questions about what specific actions might be taken to address the contamination on individual properties, the owner of each eligible property will have input on the type(s) of interim exposure confrol measure that is implemented.

Some specific comments related to individual properties include:

a. One commenter felt that they have high levels of dioxin outside ofthefioodplain in surface soils.

The selected eligibility criteria include soils from the frequently flooded areas that have been relocated outside of the 8-year floodplain. High levels of dioxin in surface soil outside of the floodplain may indicate relocated soil. The Agencies will work with this homeowner to understand the conditions at their property.

b. One commenter asked about ways to minimize exposures to family members and pets.

of 23

EPA, MDEQ and Dow have made information materials on frequent concems about the Site broadly available to the community (e.g., online and at the local information repositories). This information has been provided dfrectly to the commenter, especially "Dioxins and Furans, Reducing Exposure at Home."

c. One commenter raised concerns for eroding banks releasing contaminants into the river and recommended reinforcement of their banks.

EPA and MDEQ agree that eroding banks releasing contaminants into the river is a concern that needs to be evaluated. These evaluations of contaminant fransport risks and possible response actions will be conducted under Tasks 2 and/or 8 of tixe 2010 SOW.

VIIL COMMENTS ON DIOXIN

32. Some commenters stated that the concerns over dioxin have been overblown and that future studies and cleanups should be limited. Other commenters felt that the health impacts of 1;̂ dioxin are well documented scientifically. One commenter felt that the fear stirred up over dioxin causes more problems than the dioxin.

EPA and MDEQ both have cleanup programs that are based on reduction of actual or potential risk. Both Agencies rely on their scientists, including toxicologists, to advise the cleanup programs on the potential risks and toxicity of environmental contaminants. EPA is currently conducting a reassessment of the toxicity of dioxin. However, EPA has concluded that some dioxins may cause cancer or other health effects such as skin problems, liver damage and reproductive issues. EPA and MDEQ will use the most up-to-date information about dioxin toxicity in decision-making. In regard to potential fear among the community, EPA and MDEQ intend to use appropriate risk communication to convey accurate information about dioxin.

33. One commenter stated that dioxins are bioaccumulative, persistent contaminants that remain in the Site environment and people and animals continue to be exposed. , i

EPA considers dioxins and fiirans to be persistent, bioaccumulative compounds. As discussed here, a more complete assessment of exposure will be completed to evaluate Site conditions and to support segment-wide decision-making. The 2010 SOW contains work provisions requiring Dow to appropriately characterize and assess risks. Tasks 10 and 13 of the 2010 SOW requke Dow to assess potential risks (including potential exposures) to both human health and the environment from Site-related contaminants. The requirements for the conduct of the risk assessments are found in Section VIII.D of the 2010 SOW. The risk assessments will be conducted consistent with EPA guidance, and will consider bioaccumulative uptake.

34. One commenter discussed the history of dioxin regulation. They noted that the existing preliminary remediation goal (PRG) was set decades ago, commented that the draft PRGs

of 23

issued by EPA for public comment in early 2010 have not been finalized, but stated that these new PRGs would be the most protective of human health of any of the current dioxin goals.

In May 2009, EPA Adminisfrator Lisa P. Jackson committed to accelerate EPA's scientific work on dioxin. EPA's goal is to issue a final dioxin assessment. Additionally, EPA's Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response reviewed current dioxin cleanup guidance set by EPA and the states and issued proposed draft interim PRGs. The proposed PRGs have not been finalized, so EPA cannot yet use them, (see http://epa.gov/superfimd/health/contaminants/dioxin/dioxinsoil.html').

It is very important to note that PRGs are not cleanup standards. They are chemical-specific concentration goals for specific media (e.g., soil, sediment, water and air) and land use combinations at sites. They serve as a target to use during the initial development, analysis, and selection of cleanup alternatives. Under CERCLA, PRGs may be used as a starting point to establish site-specific goals that may be higher or lower, depending on circumstances at the Site,

( ^ EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, will use the best available scientific information, if the Agencies establish site-specific dioxin goals for the Site, The 2010 AOC anticipates that response actions may be developed using performance measures, and that specific dioxin numbers may not be established for the Site.

35. Some commenters expressed concerns about the health of people who might be exposed to contaminants.

EPA and MDEQ work with health agencies such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) to understand potential health effects to people from environmental contamination. ATSDR and MDCH have completed a number of health consultations for the Site that can be found at the MDCH web link below and MDEQ and EPA offices and the Site repositories, including:

xTt̂ • 8/12/04 Health Consultation, Dioxin Contamination in Soil, The Dow Chemical ^ ^ Company, Michigan Division, Midland Location, Midland, Midland County, Michigan

• 8/12/04 Health Consultation, Tittabawassee River Floodplain Dioxin Contamination, Tittabawassee River, Midland, Midland County, Michigan

• 4/29/05 Petitioned Health Consultation, Dioxins in Wild Game Taken from the Tittabawassee River Floodplain South of Midland, Midland and Saginaw Counties, Michigan

• 11/1/07 Exposure Investigation Report: Dioxin Exposure in Adults Living in the Tittabawassee River Floodplain

of 23

http://epa.gov/superfimd/health/contaminants/dioxin/dioxinsoil.html'

•

•

2/4/08 Health Consultation, Evaluation of Saginaw River Dioxin Exposures and Health Risks, Saginaw River, City of Saginaw, Saginaw County, Michigan

8/19/09 Health Consultation, Dioxin Contamination on Residential Property in the Tittabawassee River Floodplain, Saginaw County, Michigan

All of the health consultations listed above can be found at http://www.michigan.gOv/mdch/0.1607.7-132-2945 5105 51514-113198-.00.html. Exposure to chemicals like dioxin can come from a variety of sources, such as food, as well as from the environment. Cleanup of the Site is expected to reduce unacceptable risks from environmental exposures to Site-related contaminants. Exposure confrols in the floodplain are intended to reduce exposure to Site-related contaminants until the comprehensive cleanup is complete.

IX. COMMENTS ABOUT THE AGENCIES AND DOW

36. A few commenters expressed strong negative opinions about the EPA and/or MDEQ.

The Agencies intend to continue to work with all members of the community as we implement work at the Site. The Agencies are aware that some community members are fiiistrated and angry. The Agencies will focus on meeting the commitments made to the community on or ahead of schedule.

3 7. A few commenters expressed strong negative opinions about Dow, and Dow's involvement in the work A few commenters stated that Dow should pay for the work

Under the Task 1 AOC, Dow is conducting the work, with EPA oversight, in consultation with MDEQ. EPA's policy is "enforcement first" - EPA has a strong comnutment to have potentially responsible parties (PRPs), such as Dow, conduct the work wherever appropriate. The Task 1 AOC is consistent with EPA's "enforcement first" policies in that it requires Dow to conduct the work and to reimburse costs incurred by EPA and MDEQ in overseeing Dow's work. This policy promotes the "polluter pays" principle and helps conserve federal resources for use at sites where no viable responsible parties exist EPA's experience has shown that, with adequate oversight, PRPs can perform acceptable work under Settiement Agreements. Detailed and thorough woric plans, reports, and other documents are required of Dow and are subject to approval by EPA, in consultation with MDEQ. These plans, reports, and documents ensure that Dow will conduct adequate work by setting forth work and deliverable requirements, specifying procedures and relevant guidance documents, and establishing oversight expectations. EPA also has the abihty to seek penalties under the Task 1 AOC, and this provides an incentive for Dow to meet the requirements of the Agreement. Moreover, EPA and MDEQ retain their rights to conduct all or a portion of the work if Dow's work may cause an endangerment to human health or the environment or does not meet the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

of 23

http://www.michigan.gOv/mdch/0.1607.7-132-2945

X. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

38. The CAG requested that EPA support the group in additional dialogue on important topics, including federal purchase of property and the health impacts of dioxin They provided comments about how these issues and concerns will be faced in the final cleanup. They want to understand these topics and want to engage EPA, related experts, and other community members to provide the CAG with the full range of information necessary for meaningful deliberation of these issues as they pertain to choices regarding cleanup of the Site.

EPA will support the CAG in additional dialogue on these topics and any other topics that will help the CAG understand the issues and concems that influence decision-making. EPA is working with the CAG to identify experts on the issues of dioxin exposure and toxicity for discussions at future CAG meetings. At the April 2011 CAG meeting, EPA presented information on the federal government relocation policies and how these policies pertain to relocation at Superfund sites. That presentation can be found at http://www.epagov/regionS/cleanup/dowchemical/pdfs/dowchemical cag 20110418 relocation presentation, pdf.

39. A few commenters raised concerns about the operations at the Dredged Materials Disposal Facility (DMDF), including concerns about windblown dust.

The interim exposure controls developed under Task 1 of the 2010 AOC and operation of the DMDF are unrelated. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) runs the DMDF for purposes of managing navigational dredge materials from the lower Saginaw River. In the past, some members of the community approached EPA with a number of concems about the Corps' Saginaw River dredging project and the DMDF. Many of the issues are outside EPA's jurisdiction, but EPA worked with the Corps to try to respond to community concems. After a series of meetings, the Corps developed a fact sheet that EPA believes is responsive to some of the concems that were raised. The Corps' fact sheet is online at http.V/bitlv/usace dmdf. In regard to concems about windblown dust EPA has not been able identify any federal Clean Air Act authority that would regulate the DMDF.

40. A few commenters expressed concerns with the make-up of the participants on the CAG.

A Superfund CAG is one way for people in the community surrounding a Superfimd site to participate in EPA's decision-making process and to present and discuss their needs and concems. The CAG does not replace other forms of public input, but provides an opportunity for a more in-depth exploration of issues important to the community and will help identify common ground in the community.

EPA and MDEQ did not select the members of the CAG, but EPA did select an independent facilitator to help manage the process. Six local leaders worked together as a Steering

of 23

http://www.epagov/regionS/cleanup/dowchemical/pdfs/dowchemical

http://http.V/bitlv/usace

Committee to select members of the CAG, The committee reviewed 46 applications submitted by local stakeholders. It sought to identify a group of manageable size that could represent the overall community with regard to background, interests, age, gender, affiliations, geography, and viewpoints. The committee identified a 23-member group with people from Bay City, Saginaw, Midland, and several other communities representing a very wide range of backgrounds and interests. CAG members were drawn from sectors that include environmental, education, local government and community groups. Members are residents living near the affected area. CAG members serve as individuals and not as formal representatives of any group. Since its inception, some CAG members have resigned. The CAG leadership has worked, and continues to work, to identify new CAG members that broadly represent the diverse community interests. As a condition of participation, all members were asked to warrant that no conflicts of interest exist.

41. One commenter felt that the Site should be listed on the NPL and was concerned that using the Superfund Alternative approach at the Site may not be sufficient and felt that actions taken would be more robust and/or effective if the Site were on the NPL.

In a letter to the Site community dated May 26,2009, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson addressed the issue of NPL listing of the Site. She stated:

I have carefiilly considered whether this site should be listed on the CERCLA National Priorities List and have decided that this step would cause further delay if pursued now. I am ready, however, to seek NPL listing if Dow at any time does not comply with requirements that EPA deems necessary for protection of public health and the environment. I vyill insist on including as part of our agreement with Dow a commitment that Dow not challenge EPA's right to pursue NPL listing if we decide it is needed in the fiiture.

Although we will not list the site on the NPL at this time, the actions we require of Dow under CERCLA will be based on well-established tools that EPA uses for all CERCLA cleanups. These tools will impose enforceable obligations on Dow - backed up by a range of penalties and sanctions - with minimal opportunities for time-consuming appeals to resolve disputes. While our preference is to use these tools on a negotiated basis, we will not hesitate to use them unilaterally if required. We also will undertake the work ourselves at Dow's expense if there is continued non-compliance with EPA directives. These sfrong enforcement tools will assure progress here after a history of delay in accomplishing significant cleanup.

While NPL listing would have the potential benefit of allowing EPA to spend taxpayer dollars on remedial action, I do not now believe that EPA will need to ftmd the remedy at this site. We fiilly expect Dow to provide that fimding. Remedy selection would proceed in the same way as it would for any NPL cleanup, with EPA issuing a Record of

of 23

(i

Decision, after public input, setting the terms and conditions for cleanup. In addition, a CERCLA Order would not terminate RCRA Corrective Action obligations,

42. One commenter submitted extensive comments about the University of Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study (UMDES) and its revised 2011 findings. Another commenter stated that the UMDES shows that there is not a problem at the Site.

In February 2011, EPA responded to the Lone Tree Council and others about concems the groups had raised about the UMDES. EPA's letter stated in part:

The EPA continues to be concerned about the potential human health and environmental impacts of dioxins in the Tittabawassee River and surrounding floodplain. The UMDES summary report presents no findings that change the EPA's commitment to area residents or the requirements for Dow to continue its work. EPA's actions are based upon an assessment of potential risks whereas the UMDES is an observational exposure study and

^ 1 ^ does not assess or estimate risks to human health. Any communication regarding the results of this study should not be interpreted as affecting the need for cleanup.

43. One commenter asked where materials went that were taken from the river bed during construction of the Tittabawassee Road bridge?

EPA and MDEQ are working to find this information. It will be communicated directly to the commenter.

44. One commenter asked for EPA to contract an independent ombudsman to trouble shoot issues residents may have with EPA, Dow or their contractors in implementing the interim exposure controls.

In 2009 EPA opened its Saginaw Community Information Office. EPA local field offices are highly unusual. This office was opened because of EPA's commitment at the highest levels to an active engagement with the community about Site activities. EPA believes that the staff in our Saginaw office will be able to frouble shoot issues that residents may have Avith implementation of the interim exposure confrols. If a resident is unable or unwilling to work with EPA's Saginaw office staff, they may contact any of the project team in the Chicago office (including EPA's attorneys) to request a resolution of their issue. EPA has independent mediators and other personnel available, as appropriate, to help resolve issues.

of 23

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr · or an EE/CA consistent with the 2010 AOC. As an outcome of the Task 1.3...

Documents

Transcript of EPA Region 5 Records Ctr · or an EE/CA consistent with the 2010 AOC. As an outcome of the Task 1.3...