ILCO SITE REMEDIATION GROUP Leed Environmental, Inc. Van

ILCO SITE REMEDIATION GROUP Leed Environmental, Inc.

Van Reed Office Plaza 2209 Quarry Drive, Suite C-35

Reading, PA 19609 Telephone: (610) 670-7310 Facsimile: (610) 670-7311

September 29, 2011

By Electronic Mail and First Class Mail

Ms. Rachel C. McCullough Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Superfund Division, Remedial Branch C 61 Forsyth Street, NW (4-SD-SRB) Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Re: ILCO Superfund Site; Leeds, Alabama Second Five-Year Review Report

Dear Ms. McCullough:

Thank you for providing a copy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Second Five-Year Review Report for the Interstate Lead Company (ILCO) Superfund Site. The ILCO Site Remediation Group (Group) has reviewed the report and is providing comments on the pages which follow. The Group is also in receipt of EPA's August 2011 memorandum related to revised performance standards for OU-2 groundwater and the Alabama Department of Public Health's September 2011 letter to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management regarding OU-3 and will provide comments on those documents at a later date.

Please contact this office if additional information or clarification is required and to discuss the Group's responses at your convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

LEED ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Jeffrey A. Leed Project Coordinator

attachment

cc: Ms. Ashley T. Mastin ~ Alabama Department of Environmental Management (w/attachment, by electronic mail and first class mail)

Robert N. Steinwurtzel, Esq. - Baker & Hosteller LLP (w/attachment, by electronic mail and first class mail)

Technical Committee, ILCO Site Remediation Group (w/attachment, by electronic mail) ILCO Superfiind Site 20110929_Respoiise to Second Five-Year Review_TransmiItal

ILCO SUPERFUND SITE COMMENTS ON EPA'S SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT

The ILCO Site Remediation Group (Group) has reviewed EPA's Second Five-Year Review Report for tine Interstate Lead Company (ILCO) Superfund Site. Tine Group's comments follow:

1. Page 5, Remedv Components, first bullet: EPA indicates that OU-1 addresses soil, sediment, and groundwater at seven satellite sites in the vicinity of the ILCO Main Facility. However, OU-1 addresses soil and sediment contamination at seven satellite sites and groundwater contamination at six satellite sites (e.g., groundwater at the ILCO Parking Lot Is addressed part of OU-2).

2. Page 5, Remedv Components, second paragraph: The second sentence of the second paragraph (which indicates that OU-1 remedial action objectives were not specified in the 1991 OU-1 Record of Decision or amendments) is incorrect.

3. Page 5, Remedy Components, third paragraph: The Group does not agree that OU-2 groundwater is a potential drinking water source. Municipal water is supplied to all properties in the vicinity of the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot, and deed restrictions prohibit the use of groundwater for potable use.

4. Page 6, Technical Assessment, first paragraph: The Group's comments regarding EPA's statements are as follows:

• EPA indicates that (for OU-1) contaminated soil was excavated and disposed off-site, except for the Gulf/BP Station. The Group's soil sampling activities at the Gulf/BP Station indicated that there was no contaminated soil to excavate. The Group's soil sampling activities also indicated that there was no contaminated soil to address at the City of Leeds landfill.

• EPA indicates that institutional controls are in place for Flemmings Patio and the ILCO Parking Lot. Institutional controls are also in place for other properties.

• EPA indicates that exposure assumptions, toxicity data, etc. used at the time of OU-1 remedy selection are still valid. The Group believes this statement is incorrect because the performance standards for soil have been met at all satellite sites, and the performance standards for groundwater have been met at all satellite sites except for several monitoring wells at Flemmings Patio. Thus, current potential exposure, if any, would be significantly less than the potential exposures that may have existed prior to remedial activities.

5. Page 6, Technical Assessment, second paragraph: The Group's comments regarding this paragraph are as follows:

• EPA's statements that the deeds restrict "construction or development" on parcels within OU-2 are incorrect. The deeds prohibit residential development only.

ILCO Superfund Site Five-Year Review Page 1 20110929_Response to Second Five-Year Review

• EPA indicates that the drinking water standard for arsenic is now lower than the performance standard for OU-2 groundwater. It should be noted that EPA has remanded its previous MCL for nickel, and the naturally occurring background level for manganese in OU-2 groundwater is actually higher than the current performance standard.

• In regard to OU-2 groundwater, it should be noted that all OU-2 parcels are zoned 1-2 Industrial and that municipal water is provided to all water users in the vicinity of the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot.

• The Group's comments regarding the status of groundwater monitoring wells are provided below.

6. Pages 6-7, Technical Assessment, third paragraph: The Group's comments regarding OU-3 are provided below.

7. Page 7, Conclusions, first paragraph: There was no contaminated soil detected at the Gulf/BP Station. Therefore, no contaminated soil was removed.

8. Page 7, Conclusion, third paragraph: The Group's comments regarding OU-3 are provided below.

9. Page 8, Date of Site Inspection: The Five-Year Review Summary Form on page 8 indicates that the site inspection as part of the five-year review was performed on January 25, 2011. The site inspection was performed on February 8, 2011.

10. Page 9, Issue 1, CItv of Leeds Landfill: EPA indicates that a determination has been made that it is not necessary to construct a cap on the City of Leeds landfill, but no decision document has been issued to record this decision. It is important to note that in 1999, EPA approved the Group's Final Design Report, which recommended that there was no need based on soil sampling data, etc. to construct the cap. The Final Design Report also recommended that there was no need, based on groundwater monitoring data, to implement a groundwater pump and treat remedy at the City of Leeds landfill (a recommendation that EPA also approved based upon its approval of the 1999 Final Design Report).

11. Page 9, Issue 2, Monitoring Wells: EPA indicates that several monitoring wells are damaged or are not clearly labeled. The Group's comments are as follows:

• For the OU-1 satellite sites, the Group has abandoned and closed all monitoring wells, except for several wells at Flemmings Patio, which are sampled periodically as part of the Group's groundwater monitoring program. As the Group has previously advised EPA, the Group will continue to maintain the monitoring wells at Flemmings Patio for as long as groundwater monitoring is required at that location and it is required to do so.

• For OU-2, there are more than 30 groundwater monitoring wells at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot. As EPA is aware, the Group's recent groundwater monitoring activities at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot have involved the collection of groundwater samples from about 13 wells. Therefore, more than 20 of the OU-2 groundwater monitoring wells at the


ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot have not been sampled as part of the most recent monitoring events. In fact, some of the monitoring wells at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot have not been sampled since the early to mid 1990s. At the present time, and as EPA is aware, the Group is in the process of developing a monitored natural attenuation (MNA) remedy with enhancements for groundwater at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot. The Group has previously advised EPA that the Group will maintain and repair the monitoring wells that are part of the long-term OU-2 groundwater monitoring program. For the monitoring wells that are not needed as part of the long-term OU-2 monitoring program, the Group will seek EPA's approval at a later date (in conjunction with the development of the OU-2 long-term groundwater monitoring program) to abandon and close those monitoring wells.

12. Page 9, Issue 3, Fish Advlsorv: EPA indicates that the fishing advisory addressed in the OU-3 Record of Decision has not been implemented.

It is important to note that the OU-3 Record of Decision requires the Group to recommend to the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) that a fishing advisory be issued for the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek near the ILCO Main Facility. Following the completion of the pre-remedial OU-3 monitoring event performed in January 2000, the Group provided a letter and the pre-remedial OU-3 Monitoring Report to the ADPH in March 2000. In that letter, the Group requested that the ADPH impose a fish consumption advisory for the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek. The Group received a response from the ADPH (see March 30, 2000 letter from Dr. Neil Sass, ADPH, copy attached in Appendix 1) which indicated that it is not the policy of the ADPH to impose fish consumption advisories in the absence of data upon which the advisory can be based. The January 2000 OU-3 monitoring event was performed immediately prior to the start of remedial activities at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot. With concurrence from EPA, no OU-3 monitoring was performed during the period from 2000 to 2005 while remedial activities were being performed adjacent to the unnamed tributary at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot.

The Group resumed OU-3 monitoring activities In 2006 upon completion of soil and sediment remediation at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot. Specifically, the June 2006 monitoring event was performed to evaluate lead concentrations in the surface water, sediment, and fish within the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek following the completion of remedial activities at the site in November 2005. The results from the June 2006 post-remedial monitoring event were compared within the OU-3 Monitoring report to data collected during the Group's January 2000 pre-remedial monitoring event and to data previously collected by EPA during the remedial investigation. The data for the June 2006 post-remedial OU-3 monitoring event indicated the following:

• Lead concentrations in sediment samples were all below the 400 mg/kg performance standard established in EPA's OU-3 Record of Decision and were significantly less than concentrations measured during previous sampling events.


• Lead concentrations in surface water samples were all less than the 15 |ig/l screening criterion referenced in the OU-3 Record of Decision, were comparable to concentrations in surface water samples collected in 2000, and were significantly less than concentrations from the 1993 remedial investigation.

• Lead concentrations in fish fillet samples were all less than the 0.3 mg/kg screening criterion referenced in the OU-3 Record of Decision and were significantly lower than concentrations of lead detected in fish fillet samples collected by EPA in 1994.

• The results definitively support a conclusion that natural attenuation has operated, as predicted by EPA in the OU-3 Record of Decision, and all performance/reference standards specified in the OU-3 Record of Decision have been achieved.

Because the Group had completed OU-2 remedial activities at the site (except for groundwater activities, which are ongoing) and because the Group had collected post-remedial OU-3 monitoring data which did not warrant the imposition of a fishing advisory, the Group sent a letter and the OU-3 Monitoring Report to the ADPH in October 2006 and requested that the ADPH make a formal determination that a fishing advisory for the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek near the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot is not necessary and to make a formal determination that it is not necessary for warning signs to be posted to indicate the presence of the fishing advisory.

The Group also sent a letter to EPA in October 2006 to request a formal determination from EPA that:

• The results of the June 2006 monitoring event confirm that natural attenuation of contaminated sediment has occurred.

• Posting of warning signs along the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek to

indicate the presence of contaminated sediment is not necessary.

• Further monitoring of surface water, sediment, and fish is not necessary.

• The Group has satisfied its obligations with respect to OU-3. To date, EPA has not responded to the Group's October 2006 letter. The need for EPA's response has been noted in every monthly progress report that the Group has submitted to EPA since October 2006. The fishing advisory has not been implemented because the data collected by the Group do not support the need for a fishing advisory. Again, in the absence of data which indicates that a fishing advisory is necessary, the ADPH is not able to impose a fishing advisory.

13. Page 9, Issue 3, OU-3 Warning Signs: EPA indicates that OU-3 warning signs have not been placed along the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek. The Group's comments regarding this matter are provided as part of item 12, above. The data collected by the Group do not support the need for warning signs, and EPA never responded to the Group's October 2006 letter obviating the need for any signs.


14. Page 9, Issue 3, Annual Monitoring for OU-3: EPA indicates that annual monitoring of OU-3 surface water, sediment, and biota has not occurred. As indicated above, the Group sent a letter to EPA in October 2006 to request a formal determination from EPA that:

• The results of the June 2006 monitoring event confirm that natural attenuation of contaminated sediment has occurred.

• Posting of warning signs along the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek to indicate the presence of contaminated sediment is not necessary.

• Further monitoring of surface water, sediment, and fish is not necessary.

• The Group has satisfied its obligations with respect to OU-3.

To date, the Group has not received a response from EPA. However, the post-remedial OU-3 monitoring data do not support the need for additional monitoring. Because land use conditions at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot have not changed since 2006 and because lead is not a concern in OU-2 groundwater, the Group knows of no technical justification that would support the need for additional OU-3 monitoring.

15. Page 9, Issue 4, Flemmings Patio Groundwater Monitoring: EPA indicates that annual groundwater has not been performed at Flemmings Patio. The Group has not performed annual groundwater monitoring at Flemmings Patio because EPA previously approved the Group's plan to perform groundwater monitoring at Flemmings Patio on a biannual basis. Therefore, the Group has most recently performed groundwater monitoring at Flemmings Patio in 2006, 2008, and 2010.

16. Page 9, Issue 5, Purchase of Former Interstate Trucking Property: EPA indicates that a portion of the ILCO Main Facility was purchased in 2006 by an individual, but the intended use of the property is not known and it is not known whether the owner is aware of the restrictive covenant. The Group is aware that Mr. John Saddler acquired the former Interstate Trucking property at the ILCO Main Facility in 2006. Although the Group is not aware of the specifics regarding the property transaction. Group representatives have spoken to Mr. Saddler and understand that he is interested in using the property at a later time for commercial or industrial use. He is aware that the property is zoned industrial. He has also indicated that the deed, when he acquired the property from the State of Alabama, did not have any use restrictions.

17. Page 9, Issue 6, O&M Plan: EPA indicates that the O&M Plan has not been approved and should be finalized.

As EPA knows, the Group completed remedial construction activities at the ILCO Main Facility in November - December 2005 and initiated post-remediation operation and maintenance activities in January 2006. The Group submitted an Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) to EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) in April 2006. Since the time that comments were received from EPA and ADEM on the O&M Plan, the Group has continued in its efforts to implement additional institutional controls to address those comments. The Group has previously committed to submit a revised O&M Plan to EPA and ADEM as soon as the remaining deed restrictions and institutional


controls have been implemented. Although EPA has not yet formally approved the O&M Plan, the Group continues to perform operation and maintenance inspections on a semi-annual basis and to perform operation and maintenance activities, as necessary, in accordance with the April 2006 version of the O&M Plan.

As indicated above, the Group has already committed to submit a revised O&M Plan to EPA and ADEM as soon as the remaining deed restrictions and institutional controls have been implemented. Although the Group is continuing to work on the environmental covenants to meet the requirements of ADEM's new program, the exact scope of the deed restrictions cannot be finalized until EPA defines the revised performance standards for OU-2 groundwater.

18. Page 9, Issue 7, Environmental Covenants: EPA indicates that the property owners should contact ADEM and file appropriate environmental covenants with the State of Alabama for properties requiring institutional controls. The Group is preparing environmental covenants for the remaining properties that require deed restrictions and is coordinating its efforts with the property owners.

19. Page 9, Issue 8, Gulf/BP Station Soil and Sediment: EPA indicates that soil and sediment associated with the Gulf/BP Station satellite site may exceed performance standards and that additional soil and sediment samples should be collected to ensure that the remedy is effective.

The Group disagrees. As part of the remedial design, the Group previously submitted a sampling plan to EPA, received EPA's approval, and performed extensive soil and sediment sampling at the Gulf/BP Station. The results of the soil sampling, which were presented to EPA in the 1999 Final Design Report, indicated that the lead concentrations in 66 soil samples collected as part of the investigation were below the 300 mg/kg performance standard. Further, no materials associated with the ILCO Site, such as slag and battery cases, were encountered in five test trenches, and a representative of the Alabama Gas Company, who was present during the trenching to locate gas lines at the site, indicated that the source of fill encountered in test pits 3, 4, and 5 was likely the Rock Wool Plant located off of Highway 78. Based on the results of the sampling, the Group's consultant, GeoSyntec Consultants, recommended that no further action was needed for soil at the Gulf/BP Station.

The Group also performed sediment sampling within the stream adjacent to the Gulf/BP Station as part of the remedial design to determine the lead concentrations in the sediment. The statistical analysis performed by GeoSyntec Consultants utilizing the data is presented in the 1999 Final Design Report. Of the 42 measurements used in the analysis, 4 samples contained lead concentrations slightly above the 50 mg/kg performance standard.^ Three of the four samples were found downstream of the Gulf/BP Station, and the fourth measurement was found upstream of the Gulf/BP Station. The average lead concentration, as well as

^ The Group notes that EPA's performance standard (50 mg/kg) for lead in the stream sediment adjacent to the Gulf/BP Station (selected by EPA as part of the OU-1 remedy) is approximately equivalent to background lead in sediment concentrations and is considerably lower than the 400 mg/kg performance standard for lead in sediment in Dry Creek adjacent to the ILCO Parking Lot that EPA selected as part of the OU-3 remedy. In the OU-3 Record of Decision, the Group notes that EPA selected the 400 mg/kg performance standard to be protective of human health.


the upper confidence interval, was below the performance standard. GeoSyntec Consultants concluded that the additional data supported an interpretation that the lead measured in the sediment adjacent to the Gulf/BP Station is not related to materials originating from the ILCO facility. Accordingly, GeoSyntec Consultants recommended no further action for sediment.

Excerpts from the 1999 Final Design report related to the Gulf/BP Station are provided in Appendix 2. In its 1999 approval of the Final Design Report, EPA agreed, based on the extensive data collected during the remedial design, that no further action for soil and sediment was necessary at the Gulf/BP Station. Subsequently, the Group also performed additional groundwater monitoring at the Gulf/BP Station and because no lead was detected in the groundwater, the Group abandoned the groundwater monitoring wells at the Gulf/BP Station after approvals from EPA and ADEM were obtained.

For the reasons noted above, the Group believes that EPA's current request for additional sampling at the Gulf/BP Station is not supported by the data and is inconsistent with EPA's previous determination that no further work was required at the Gulf/BP Station.

20. Page 9, Protectlveness Statement, first paragraph: As indicated above, the Group has already performed extensive soil and sediment sampling at the Gulf/BP Station. The results of the sampling indicated that no soil and sediment removal was necessary.

21. Page 9, Protectlveness Statement, second paragraph: As previously indicated, there are no exposure pathways for OU-2 groundwater.

22. Page 9, Other Comments, Institutional Controls: EPA indicates that the site needs to be further evaluated to determine whether additional institutional controls are needed. The Group has already performed this evaluation and is already in the process of implementing additional deed restrictions.

23. Page 9, Other Comments, Site Designated for Anticipated Use: EPA indicates that the site has not been designated as ready for its anticipated use. However, all of the OU-1 satellite sites are being reused for their original, intended purposes. The ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot are ready for reuse for industrial purposes, in accordance with local zoning requirements and deed restrictions.

24. Page 12, Chronology: The Group has not performed a check to confirm that all of the dates in the chronology on page 12 are accurate, but several observations about the dates are as follows:

• EPA indicates that the initial contamination at the site was discovered in 1985. This seems inconsistent with page 5 which indicates that EPA performed sampling investigations in the early 1980s.

• The chronology indicates that the PRP site-wide removal action began in July 1994. The Group's activities were limited to security at the ILCO Main Facility at that time.


• The Group initiated remedial activities at the site in January 2000. The date is blank in the chronology.

• The references to OU-1 removal action beginning in February 2004 and ending in September 2004 are incorrect. EPA removed soil and tires at the Acmar Church of God during the period from February - April 2004.

• The chronology indicates that groundwater sampling was performed on five dates from 2008 to 2010. The list of the Group's groundwater sampling events is incomplete.

25. Page 16, History of Contamination, first paragraph: EPA indicates that the primary materials reclaimed by ILCO were discarded lead acid batteries. However, the batteries were not discarded. Instead, the spent batteries were transported to ILCO for reclamation.

26. Page 16, History of Contamination, second paragraph: EPA indicates that furnace slag, wastewater treatment sludge, and battery casings were disposed at the ILCO Main Facility and the seven satellite sites. The Group has no information to suggest that all of these materials were disposed at all of the sites.

27. Pages 19-23: The Second Five-Year Review Report provides a listing of remedial action components presented in the 1991 Record of Decision, the 1994 Amendment to the Record of Decision for OU-1, the 1996 Amendment to the Record of Decision for OU-1, the 1994 Record of Decision for OU-2, the 1996 Amendment to the Record of Decision for OU-2, and the Record of Decision for OU-3. This discussion will be very difficult for the public to understand. The Group believes that it would be beneficial to significantly shorten this discussion and simply list the final remedial action components for OU-1, OU-2, and OU-3.

28. Page 19, 1991 Record of Decision: EPA indicates that remedial action objectives were not specified in the 1991 Record of Decision. The Group believes that remedial action objectives are specified in the 1991 Record of Decision.

29. Page 21, 1996 Amendment to the Record of Decision for OU-1: EPA indicates that the acid leaching treatability study was only marginally effective. However, the Group believes that acid leaching was ineffective and was prohibitively expensive and would have only exacerbated the acidic condition now known to exist in the former battery breaker area at the ILCO Main Facility.

30. Page 22, 1994 Record of Decision for OU-2, first paragraph: As previously indicated, the Group does not believe that OU-2 groundwater is a potential drinking water source.

31. Page 23, 1996 Amendment to the Record of Decision for OU-2: The Group's comments regarding the effectiveness of the acid leaching remedy are provided above. Also, EPA indicates that the cleanup level for arsenic in soil at the ILCO Main Facility was changed from 13 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg due to the impracticability of cleaning up contaminated soil to background levels. However, EPA changed the performance standard for arsenic after the Group pointed out to EPA that EPA used backfill soil as part of its work at the ILCO Main Facility that exceeded an


arsenic level of 13 mg/kg. Thus, the background level for arsenic in soil is above 13 mg/kg.

32. Page 24, Remedy Implementation, first paragraph: EPA correctly indicates that it approved the Group's Final Design Report in March 1999. It is important to note, in the context of other comments, that EPA's approval of the Final Design Report approved several significant changes to the remedy for the site. Some of those changes included the elimination of the need to excavate soil and sediment at the Gulf/BP Station, the elimination of the need to construct a multi-layer cap at the City of Leeds municipal landfill, and the elimination of the need to implement a groundwater extraction and treatment system at the City of Leeds landfill.

33. Page 24, Remedy Implementation, fifth paragraph: For the reasons previously indicated, the results of the Group's investigation at the Gulf/BP Station indicated that there was no need to excavate soil and sediment.

34. Page 25, first paragraph following Table 5: EPA indicates that the deed restrictions for Flemmings Patio, J&L Fabricators, and the ILCO Parking Lot state that no construction, development, redevelopment, or other action that will in anyway disturb the property will be allowed. It should be noted, however, that the deed restrictions are limited to the areas of impacted soil at the properties.

35. Page 26, OU-3: The Group's comments regarding OU-3 have been provided previously.

36. Page 26, Operation and Maintenance: The Group's comments regarding the draft O&M Plan have been provided previously.

37. Pages 27-28, Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review, fifth paragraph (OU-3): EPA requested during the 2006 five-year review that the Group perform one additional monitoring event so that EPA could make a protectlveness determination regarding OU-3. At EPA's request, the Group performed the additional OU-3 monitoring event and submitted an OU-3 monitoring report to EPA in October 2006, one month after EPA's First Five-Year Review Report was issued. Although EPA had agreed to make a protectlveness determination after the 2006 monitoring event was completed, EPA never responded to the 2006 OU-3 monitoring report, despite the fact that the Group concluded that the OU-3 remedial action objectives had been met. The Group does not believe there is a technical basis to support the need for additional OU-3 monitoring, as EPA is now requesting.

38. Page 29, Section 5.4: EPA indicates that the Group has recently communicated with Mr. Connell and has agreed to improve site drainage. In contrast, the work that the Group recently completed at Mr. Connell's property, which was performed by the Group on a voluntary basis at his request, consisted of placement of soil to cover a wet spot at the discharge end of the pipeline from his septic tank. The Group's recent work did not address drainage at Mr. Connell's property.

39. Page 32, Groundwater ARARs, and Page 33, Table 8: EPA indicates in the second Five-Year Review Report that the MCLs for arsenic and cadmium have changed. It should also be noted that the MCL for nickel has been remanded.


40. Page 33, Section 6.4, Soil: As previously indicated, no soil and sediment excavation was performed at the Gulf/BP Station. The data collected by the Group during the remedial design indicated that the soil and sediment met EPA's performance standards for lead without excavation.

41. Page 35, first paragraph: EPA's statement that groundwater has not been sampled at any OU-1 satellite site within the past five years is incorrect.

42. Page 35, second paragraph: The Group agrees with EPA's conclusion that lead in the shallow groundwater at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot has substantially attenuated. The lead concentrations do not exceed the performance standard in any OU-2 monitoring wells at the present time.

43. Page 36, second paragraph: The Group believes it would also be noteworthy to indicate that the background manganese concentration in OU-2 groundwater exceeds EPA's current performance standard.

44. Page 41, Sediment: The Group agrees, as EPA has indicated in the second Five-Year Review Report, that all lead concentrations in the OU-3 sediment samples collected during the pre-remediation monitoring event in 2000 and the post-remediation monitoring event in 2006 contained lead concentrations below the 400 mg/kg performance standard. No sediment samples have been collected since 2006 because the performance standard has been achieved and because the Group requested EPA's approval to discontinue further monitoring.

45. Page 41, Surface Water and Biota: No OU-3 surface water samples and biota samples have been collected since 2006 because the performance standards had been achieved and because the Group requested EPA's authorization in October 2006 to discontinue further monitoring.

46. Page 42, Site Inspection, second paragraph: The Group's comments regarding the condition of monitoring wells at the ILCO Main Facility have previously been provided. The damage to the fence that was observed during the site inspection at the Gulf/BP Station is insignificant, considering that no further work is required there. The owner of the Gulf/BP Station has previously requested EPA's authorization to remove the fence, but EPA has not responded. Warning signs have not been posted along Dry Creek because OU-3 monitoring data do not support the need to install the warning signs.

47. Page 42, Site Inspection, fifth paragraph: EPA indicates that deed restrictions have been established for the ILCO Main Facility, ILCO Parking Lot, and satellite sites. EPA also states that the deed restrictions indicate that no construction, development, or redevelopment, etc. will be allowed on these properties. These statements are incorrect. Some properties have no deed restrictions. Some environmental covenants restrict residential development. Also, some of the deed restrictions place prohibitions only on parts of the properties where soil contamination remained in place upon completion of remedial activities.

48. Page 43, second full paragraph: The Group does not believe that institutional controls are required for the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek because the OU-3 performance standards have been met.


49. Page 44, Table 12: For reasons previously indicated, the Group does not believe that institutional controls are needed for OU-3.

50. Page 46, Section 6.6, second paragraph: The Second Five-Year Review Report indicates that ADEM believes that groundwater at the Connell property and J&L Fabricators should be sampled to evaluate the effectiveness of the MNA remedy. This work has already been completed and, based upon approvals that the Group previously received from EPA and ADEM, the groundwater monitoring wells at the Connell property and J&L Fabricators have been closed and abandoned. The Group's comments regarding OU-3 monitoring and OU-3 institutional controls have previously been provided.

51. Page 47, Section 7.1, third paragraph: The Group has already implemented institutional controls for the Gene Moore Investment, Inc. property. The Group is also attempting to implement a deed restriction for the portion of Borden Avenue between the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot.

52. Page 47, fourth and fifth paragraphs: The Group's comments regarding OU-3 and the O&M Plan have previously been provided.

53. Page 48, Section 7.2, first paragraph: The Group does not believe that the exposure assumptions used at the time of remedy selection are still valid. Because remedial activities for soil have been completed, potential exposure to lead concentrations in soil is significantly lower than the potential exposure scenario that may have existed prior to remedial activities.

54. Page 48, Section 7.2, second paragraph: The Second Five-Year Review Report indicates that EPA has already selected a revised performance standard for manganese in OU-2 groundwater. In contrast, the Group has been advised that EPA has calculated a draft performance standard for manganese. The Group plans to submit comments to EPA to address the draft performance standard.

55. Page 48, Section 7.4, first paragraph: The Group, as previously indicated, does not believe that soil and sediment remediation is required at the Gulf/BP Station. Also, for reasons previously indicated, the Group does not believe that the exposure assumptions used at the time of OU-1 remedy selection are still valid.

56. Page 49, first and second paragraphs: The Group has previously provided comments on the deed restriction for the former Interstate Trucking property at the ILCO Main Facility, the repair and/or abandonment of groundwater monitoring wells at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot, and the OU-3 remedy.

57. Page 50, Section 8.0: The Group's comments regarding the eight current site issues listed on Table 13 have previously been provided.

58. Page 51, Section 9.0: The Group's comments regarding the eight current site issues listed on Table 14 have previously been provided.

59. Page 53, Section 10.0, first, second, and third paragraphs: The Group has previously provided comments regarding soil at the Gulf/BP Station, OU-2 groundwater exposure pathways, and OU-3.


60. Page C-1, Item 1, first paragraph: The Second Five-Year Review Report indicates that OU-2 soil contamination was remediated to meet the performance standards, except for an area of some residual acidic conditions within the former battery breaker area. It is important to note that EPA did not establish a performance standard for OU-2 soil based solely upon soil pH.

61. Page C-1, Item 1, third paragraph: There is no need for a groundwater remedy at the City of Leeds municipal landfill. Based upon the Group's previous groundwater sampling activities which indicated that no lead was detected in the groundwater, the Group abandoned and closed the groundwater monitoring wells at the City of Leeds landfill after approval was received from EPA and ADEM.

62. Page C-1, Item 1, fourth paragraph: The Second Five-Year Review Report indicates that the Acmar Church of God, the City of Leeds landfill, the Connell property, and the Gulf/BP Station were not addressed as part of the O&M Plan. This is correct. Because the soil and groundwater performance standards at these locations have been achieved, there is no need for operation and maintenance.

63. Page C-2, Item 2, first paragraph: The Group's comments regarding OU-3 monitoring have previously been provided.

64. Page C-2, Item 2, third paragraph: Previous groundwater sampling at the City of Leeds landfill indicated that no lead was detected in the groundwater. As a result, the Group abandoned and closed the groundwater monitoring wells at the City of Leeds landfill after approval was received from EPA and ADEM.

65. Page C-3, Item 5: The Group has already implemented a deed restriction for the Gene Moore Investments, Inc. property.

66. Page C-3, Item 8: No groundwater contamination has been detected at the City of Leeds landfill. With prior approval from EPA and ADEM, the Group has already closed and abandoned the groundwater monitoring wells at the City of Leeds landfill.

67. Page C-4, second paragraph: The Group has previously determined that the groundwater performance standard has been met at the Connell property and J&L Fabricators. With prior approval from EPA and ADEM, the groundwater monitoring wells at the Connell property and J&L Fabricators have previously been closed and abandoned.

68. Page C-5: The Five-Year Review Interview Form completed by the Group's project coordinator is incomplete. A complete copy of the Five-Year Review Interview Form is provided in Appendix 3.

69. Page C-6: The Five-Year Review Interview Form completed by the Group's O&M contractor is incomplete. A complete copy of the Five-Year Review Interview Form is provided in Appendix 4.

70. Page D-4, Fencing: The site inspection checklist indicates that the fence at the Gulf/BP Station is in need of repair. The Group, however, is aware that the property owner has previously requested authorization to remove the fence.


Because the performance standards have already been met for soil, sediment, and groundwater at the Gulf/BP Station, the Group believes that EPA should authorize the property owner to remove the fence.

71. Page G-1, Appendix G: Appendix G does not include all of the environmental covenants that the Group has implemented for the site. The environmental covenants for the J&L Fabricators (John Leonard Love) and Gene Moore Investments, Inc. properties, which are not included in Appendix G, are provided in Appendix 5.

72. Appendix G and Appendix H: The pages numbers in Appendix G and Appendix H seem incorrect. Because the deed restrictions are intended to be provided in Appendix G, it would be appropriate to include all the deed restrictions in Appendix G and begin Appendix H with the first page of the letter to Mr. Connell. Also, pages H-2 through H-5 (which are related to OU-3 and which are page numbers that are duplicative of other page numbers used for copies of deed restrictions) seem out of place in Appendix H (considering that the Table of Contents indicates that Appendix H is related to the Connell property).


APPENDIX 1

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH LETTER MARCH 30, 2000

ILCO Superfund Site Five-Year Review 201109_Response to Second Five-Year Review

S T A T E O F A L A B A M A D E P A R T M E N T O F

P U B L I C H E A L T H Doruia E. Williamson, MD

Sue HulUi 0Hk<r

30 March 2000

ILCO Site Remeaiaiion Group Technical Committee ATTN: Jeffrey A, Leed, Project Coordinator lecd Envrronmental. Inc. 1-24 Deborah Drive Reading, PA 19610

Dear Mr. Leed;,

I have reviewed your lener (15 Mar 00) and accompanying documents. I appreciate your interest in promoUng any necessary follow-up actions at the site. However, it (s not the policy of the Alabama Department of Public Health to impose fish consumption advi:>ofiet» in l iw at>$ence of data upon which the advisory can be tiased. White silt and waters in the unnamed tiibutary and Dry Creek have been shown to nave varyins levels of metals, rt cannot be assumed a priori that fieh which may b§ found in these waters contain uracceplaDle levels of contaminants. Additionally, t did not find in your materials and documents references to specific ^>ecies of fish which could be anticipated to bQ taKen from these waterbodies.

When Alabama Department o* Public Health issues a fish advisory, this recommendation Is based upon a documentation of levels of specific contaminants in specific species of fish. Knowledge of tf>d size, age, and species of fish ts necessary to deu^rmine feeding haPits and tiehaviors, which, in turn, would provide an indication of the likelihood for bloaccumulatlon of any contamir\ants to occur. The product of Uit; evaluation of analytical data could be no advisory, a limited consumption advisory, or a no consumption advisory. Thi4 determination would be pcedicatcd on the type and delected levels of a particular adulterant in a specific species of fish.

If you can provide me this information, I will evaluate the data and develop and issue a consumption advisory, if appropriate.

Thank you for your interesL

Sincerely,

Tbc RSA T M K T • 101 Monmc Sii«ci • MoatcaMrr. AL M IO l P.O. Boa 101017 • MoniEomcrv. AL 16110-1017

APPENDIX 2

EXCERPTS FROM 1999 FINAL DESIGN REPORT GULF/BP STATION


GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS

1100 Lake Beam Drive • Suite 200 Atlanta. Geotgia 30342-1523 • USA

Tel (404) 705-9500 • Fax (404) 705-9400

22Febnaary 1999

Mr. Alan Yarbrough Remedial Project Manager United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 100 Alabama Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303

Subject: Revised Final Remedial Design ILCO Superfund Site; Leeds, Alabama

Dear Mr. Yarbrough:

Please find enclosed three revised copies of the Final Remedial Design for the ILCO Superfimd Site. These copies replace the copies provided to you on 16 February 1999. Several minor editorial errors were noted in the previous version. The drawings contained in Appendix C have not been changed. Please include those drawings in this revised design report. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Please note, two revised copies have been forwarded imder separate cover to Mr. C.H. Cox of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM).

Please contact the undersigned, if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

J.F. Beech, Ph.D., P.E. Principal

Enclosures

Copies to: Mr. C.H. Cox, ADEM (2 copies) Mr. Jeffrey A. Leeds, Leed Environmental, Inc. Mr. Robert Steinwurtzel Technical Committee, ILCO Site Remediation Group

GQ018I-207/il981014.1tr

Corporate OIBce: 621 N.W. 53rd Street • Suite 650 Boca Raton. Rorida 33487 . USA Tel. (561) 995-0900 • Fax (561) 995-0925

Regional OfBces: Atlanta, GA • Boca Raton, FL • Chicago, IL

Columbia, MD • Huntington Beach, CA • San Antonio. TX Walnut Creek. CA • Paris, France

acrwri en aim ocf-vfi ta, c . ^

Laboratories: Atlanta. GA

Boca Raton. FL Huntington Beach, CA

GeoSyntec Consultants

2.6 Temporary Relocation Plan

A temporary relocation plan will be developed for the Acmar Church of God and the Connell property as part of the RAWP to be prepared by the Contractor. The Acmar Church of God is typically occupied only on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The option of performing work on Monday through Thursday will be evaluated to minimize disruption to church activities. The relocation plan will be reviewed with both property owners during development and prior to implementation. The plan will include owner's criteria, proposed schedule and any remediation activities that will impact either property.

2.7 Proposed Action for BP Station

The adjusted XRF lead concentrations measured in 66 samples collected as part of the pre~design field investigation were below the 300 mg/kg performance standard set forth in the ROD. No materials associated with the ILCO site, such as slag or battery casings, were encountered in five test trenches. A representative of the Alabama Gas Company, who was present during trenching to locate gas lines at the site, indicated the source of a fill encountered in Test Pits 3 through 5 is likely the Rock Wool Plant located off of Highway 78.

Based on the data presented in the 1991 OUl RI report, soils with lead concentrations above the performance standard of 300 mg/kg were located predominately in a drainage way along Highway 78. Based on results of the RI and the pre-design investigation, the source of the lead in the drainage ways is not from the fenced in area adjacent to the BP Station. Additional soil sampling was conducted by GeoSyntec in December 1998 along the drainage way along Highway 78 to assess the need for further remedial action in this limited area. The data from this sampling event are presented in Appendix A on Figure A-2. A statistical analysis was performed by GeoSyntec utilizing this data, along with a portion of the pre-design investigation data adjacent to the drainage way and the results are summarized in Appendix A. Of the ten measurements used in the analysis, two were above the performance standard of 300 mg/kg. The only two measurements noted above the performance standard of 300 mg/kg for the BP Station were found in the drainage way. The average concentration as well as the Upper Confidence Interval were below the performance standard. The

GQ0181-201/IL981014 2 - 3 99.02.22

GeoSyntec Consultants

additional data supports the interpretation that the lead measured in the RI is not related

to fill originating from the ILCO facility, No Further Action is recommended for soil at

this site.

Additional sediment sampling was conducted within the portion of Dry Creek adjacent to the BP Station by GeoSyntec in December 1998, to assess the impact, if any, from the BP Station. A statistical analysis was performed by GeoSyntec utilizing this data the results are summarized in Appendix A. Of the 42 measurements used in the analysis, four were above the performance standard of 50 mg/kg. The data from this sampling event are presented in Appendix A on Figure A-3. Three of the four were found downstream of the BP Station. The fourth measurement was found upstream of the BP Station. The average concentration as well as the Upper Confidence Interval were below the performance standard. The additional data supports the interpretation that the lead measured in the sediments adjacent to the BP Station is not related to fill originating from the ILCO facility. No Further Action is recommended for sediment at this site.

2.8 Proposed Action for City of Leeds Landfill

Areas of impacted materials could not be located at the City of Leeds Landfill

during the pre-design investigation. Adjusted XRF lead concentrations measured during

the pre-design investigation are shown on Figure A-1 in Appendix A. As shown on this

Figure, the measured lead concentrations are below 300 mg/kg. A review of the original

USEPA data presented in the OUl RI report showed lead concentrations above 300

mg/kg in only five of 47 measurements. Of these five, the highest measurement was

approximately 710 mg/kg. A statistical analysis of the RI data was performed by

GeoSyntec and the results are summarized in Appendix A. The analysis revealed an

average concentration of less than 300 mg/kg with an upper confidence level of 90

percent. Three of the five sample locations with lead concentration above 300 mg/kg

were within 0.5 feet of the ground surface. These three locations are shown on Figure

A-1 in Appendix A. A comparison of the topographic map presented in the RI reports

(which is reproduced in Appendix A) with the current topographic map shows these

locations to have since been covered with waste by City of Leeds employees,

eliminating any potential for direct contact.

GQ01S1-201/IL981014 2 - 4 99.02.22

N

1998 PB SOIL DATA

745

>.

V-

' Soil Lead Concentrations [ppm]

50 0 50 100 Feet

GEOSYNTEC CbNsuLTANTS ATLANTA, GEORGIA

N:\ILCOtGIS\SEDPBSa APR

FIGURE NO. A-2

PROJECT NO. GQ0181

DOCUMENT NO. IL991004

FILE NO. SEDPB98-APR

Statistical Analysis of Soil Sampling Data

Area iPb Soil 1998

COC i 1 ID Data Value!

168

1 177 3101

! 745 i 144

! 62.4 31.7 158'

55.6 i 80j

1 1 1

1

Total Number of Samples Averaqe Concentration

Standard Variance Standard Deviation Standard Error

1-tailed confidence Upper Confidence Interval Regulatory Level Additional Samples Needed Calculated W Tabulated W Statistically Greater Than RT Normal Distribution?

0.079876593 -95.37114224

-2.922 1.853

-3-302 13.2881282

n [ 10.0000 x-bar s s Si.tw

% Cl RT n"

D Y yval yvall vval2 s

193,1700

44180,1690 2101908

66.46S2

90.0000 285,0955 300.0000

(2.60) 0.1147 0.8690

NO NO

1 tailed

60

70 80 90 95

97.5 99

99.5

2-tailed 20

40 35314.87

80 90 95 98 99

3.9BE+05

GO0181-201/IL981014 A.XLS 2/15/99

1998 PB SEDIMENT DATA

2 « ^ »^& 18>'* ,12.5 /

27.4 X 2 6 . 5 ' >?G.O

12 7 ^ > 1 0 . 6 / - ^ "

12.6 / • i ^

.7 z ' 2 " .<:

32.4

18.5

• 124.0 > ^ \ y • 23.4

11.8

11.5 • 76.6

22.7

15.0

54.0

24.1

23.1 ' 46.6

33.6 ' 32.7

' 22.9

• 23.6

23.1

N

• •> i

Lead Sediment Concentration [ppm]

50 0 50 100 Feet

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS ATLANTA, GEORGIA

FIGURE NO. A-3

PROJECT NO. GQ0181

DOCUMENT NO. IL991004

FILE NO. SEDPB98.APR N'\lLC0\GIS\SEDPQe8 APR

statistical Analysis of Sediment Sampling Data

Area P b S e d i m e m i 9 9 8

COC ID Data Value i

! 51.51

27.7: 18.6

j 23.3 ! 12.5 1 201

18.1 26.5 22.4 27.4

9.9 13.7 12.7 10.61 37.31 12.6| 13.2! 26.81 19.7: 14.3.' 21.3: 11.7

8.5 21.1 32.4, 23.4; 18,5 11.5 76.6 11.8

15 54

22.7 24.1 : 23.1 ; 23.1 46.6 32.7 33.6 22.9

23.61 1 124i 1

Total Number 0I Samples !n Average Concentration i x-bar

Standard Variance Standard Deviation

Standard Error

i1-tailed confidence i Upper Confidence Inlen/al Regulatory Level Additional Samples Needed [Calculated W Tabulated W Statlsiically Greater Than RT Normal Distribution?

0.079876593 -95.37114224

-2.922

S s

î-t>*r

% Cl RT n'

D Y yval

1.853iyval1 -3.302

13.2881282 yval2 s

1

1 1

?

42.0000 26.2143

419.4564 20.4806

3.1602

90.0000 30.3310 50.0000 (40-74) 0.0000 0.9510

NO NO

1

!

i 1

1

1 tailed

1 60 70 80 90 95

97.5 99

99.5

2'tailed

20

40 35314.87

80 90 95 98 99

1.72E+04

i

1

1

I 1

!

;

!

GQ0181-201/IL981014 B.XLS 2/15/99

APPENDIX 3

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM GROUP'S PROJECT COORDINATOR


Inters tate Lead Co. (ILCO) Superfund Site Five-Year Review Interview F o r m Site Name: Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) EPA ID No.: ALD041906173 Interviewer Name: Affiliation: Subject Name: Jeff Leed Affiliation: Leed Environmental, Inc. Subject Contact Information: 2209 Quarry Drive, Suite C-35, Reading, PA 19609 Time: Date: March 8,2011 Interview Location:

Interview Format (circle one): In Person Phone Mail Other: X

Interview Category: Potentially Responsible Parties (completed by the ILCO Site Remediation Group's project coordinator in consultation with Group representatives)

1, What is your overall impression of the remedial activities at the Site?

Remedial activities have been successful. The results of soil sampling performed during the remedial design and follovi'ing remedial activities demonstrate that the performance standards for soil have been achieved. Post-remediation monitoring has shown that the performance standard for OU-1 groundwater has been met at several satellite sites (Acmar Church of God, BP/Gulf Service Station, City of Leeds Landfill, Connell property, and J&L Fabricators) and that natural attenuation is occurring at Flemmings Patio. For OU-2 groundwater (ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot), the monitoring data support the conclusion that natural attenuation is also occurring. The results of OU-3 (Dry Creek and the unnamed tributary) monitoring show that the performance standards have been achieved.

2, What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?

During the period of time that secondary lead smelting and lead-acid battery reclamation operations were conducted at the ILCO Main Facility from 1970 to 1992, the Interstate Lead Company (ILCO) transported, or arranged for transportation of, lead-containing materials for disposal at the ILCO Parking Lot and six other satellite locations in and around the City of Leeds. The lead-containing materials were successfully excavated and removed from these locations in accordance with EPA's approved remedial action for the ILCO Site.

3, What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?

The remedial action at the ILCO Site is performing successfully as designed and implemented. The data from soil and sediment sampling activities have demonstrated that the performance standards for soil have been met at the satellite sites (OU-1) and the ILCO Main Facility (OU-2), and the performance standard for sediment has been met in the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek (OU-3). Natural attenuation has occurred, and the performance standard for OU-1 groundwater has been achieved at the Acmar Church of God, the BP/Gulf Station, the City of Leeds Landfill, the Connell property, and at J&L Fabricators. For OU-2 groundwater at the ILCO Main Facility and the ILCO Parking Lot, and for OU-1 groundwater at Flemmings Patio, the groundwater monitoring data indicate that groundwater quality continues to improve and that natural attenuation is continuing to occur. The results from the most recent OU-3 monitoring event indicate that: (a) the lead concentrations in

ILCO Superfund Site_201102__Five-Year Review PRPs

sediment samples were all below the performance standard established in EPA's OU-3 Record of Decision (ROD), and were significantly less than concentrations measured during previous sampling events; (b) lead concentrations in surface water samples were all less than the screening criterion referenced in the ROD, were comparable to concentrations from 2000, and were significantly less than concentrations from the 1993 remedial investigation; (c) lead concentrations in fish fillet samples were all less than the screening criterion referenced in the ROD and were significantly lower than concentrations of lead detected in fish fillet samples collected by EPA in 1994; and (d) the OU-3 results support the conclusion that natural attenuation has occurred as predicted by EPA in the ROD, all performance/reference standards specified in the ROD have been achieved, and no further action for OU-3, as defined in the sixth bullet of the response to question 6 below, is necessary.

4. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from residents since implementation of the cleanup?

From time to time, the Group has received inquiries from individuals, organizations, or company representatives in regard to the potential reuse of the properties that comprise the ILCO Main Facility. Within the last several months, the Group and EPA received a complaint from an individual who incorrectly alleged that contaminated surface water runoff was continuing to occur from contaminated properties.

5. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how might EPA convey site-related information in the future?

Yes.

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or operation of the Site's remedy?

Yes. The Group's recommendations are as follows:

• For several satellite sites (Acmar Church of God, BP/Gulf Station, City of Leeds Landfill, and the Connell property), the performance standards for soil and groundwater have been achieved. Therefore, the Group believes that EPA should certify, pursuant to the Consent Decree, that remedial activities and all phases of work at those sites have been completed. The sites can then be delisted by EPA.

• For J&L Fabricators, the performance standards for soil and groundwater have been achieved. Therefore, the Group believes that EPA should certify, pursuant to the Consent Decree that remedial activities have been completed. Inspections will continue, pursuant to the Operation and Maintenance Plan, of the deed-restriction area.

• For Flemmings Patio, the performance standard for soil has been achieved. Therefore, the Group believes that EPA should certify, pursuant to the Consent Decree, that remedial activities for soil have been completed. Groundwater monitoring will continue until the performance standard for lead has been achieved. Inspections will continue, pursuant to the Operation and Maintenance Plan, of the deed-restriction area.


For the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot, the performance standards for soil have been achieved. Therefore, the Group believes that EPA should certify, pursuant to the Consent Decree, that remedial activities for soil have been completed. Inspections will continue to be performed pursuant to the Operation and Maintenance Plan.

For OU-2 (ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot) groundwater, the Group believes that data collected from groundwater monitoring activities support the conclusion that natural attenuation is occurring. As addressed in the Group's November 8, 2010 letter to EPA and subsequent communications, the Group has requested that EPA amend the remedy in the Record of Decision for OU-2 groundwater by selecting an enhanced monitored natural attenuation remedy consistent with the Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2010) and the November 2010 Technical Memorandum -Focused Investigation of Former Battery Breaker Area (Technical Memorandum).

For OU-3, the Group submitted a letter and copies of the OU-3 Monitoring Report to EPA and ADEM in October 2006 to present the results of the post-remediation surface water, sediment, and fish sampling performed by ELM within the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek at the ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot in June 2006. At that time, the Group requested that EPA make a formal determination that: (1) the results of the June 2006 monitoring event confirm that natural attenuation of contaminated sediment has occurred; (2) posting of warning signs along the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek to indicate the presence of contaminated sediment is not necessary; (3) further monitoring of surface water, sediment, and fish is not necessary; and (4) the Group has satisfied its obligations with respect to OU-3. Concurrently, the Group submitted a letter and copies of the OU-3 Monitoring Report to the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) in October 2006. At that time, the Group requested written confirmation from ADPH that: (1) a fishing advisory is not necessary for the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek; and (2) it is not necessary for the Group to post warning signs along the unnamed tributary and Dry Creek to indicate the presence of the fishing advisory. The Group believes that EPA should certify, pursuant to the Consent Decree, that OU-3 activities have been completed.


APPENDIX 4

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM GROUP'S O&M CONTRACTOR


Inters tate Lead Co. (ILCO) Superfund Site Five-Year Review Interview F o r m Site Name: Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) EPA ID No.: ALD041906173 Interviewer Name: Affiliation: Subject Name: Bob White Affiliation: Spectrum Environmental Subject Contact Information: 85 Spectrum Cove, Alabaster, AL 35007 Time: Date: 3/9/2011 Interview Location:

Interview Format (circle one): In Person Phone Mail Other: X

Interview Category: O&M Contractor

1. What is your overall impression of the project; including cleanup, maintenance, and reuse activities (as appropriate)?

The ILCO Site Remediation Group (Group) retained Spectrum Environmental, Inc. (Spectrum) in June 2009 to perform semi-annual inspections at the ILCO Main Facility, ILCO Parking Lot, Flemmings Patio, and J&L Fabricators, pursuant to the Operation and Maintenance Plan. The J&L Fabricators site is being used for commercial purposes, and the Flemmings Patio site is being used for residential and commercial purposes. The ILCO Main Facility and ILCO Parking Lot are ready for reuse in accordance with local zoning requirements and deed restrictions.

2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?

The remedy, with minimal maintenance of the type of activities referenced in the response to question 6 below, appears to be functioning as planned.

3. What are the findings from the monitoring data? What are the key trends in contaminant levels that are being documented over time at the Site?

Spectrum is not required to collect any monitoring data as part of its responsibilities for inspecting the ILCO Main Facility, ILCO Parking Lot, Flemmings Patio, and J&L Fabricators.

4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff responsibihties and activities. Alternatively, please describe staff responsibilities and the frequency of site inspections and activities if there is not a continuous on-site O&M presence.

There is no continuous on-site presence for operation and maintenance activities. As indicated above, Spectrum performs semi-annual inspections at the ILCO Main Facility, ILCO Parking Lot, Flemmings Patio, and J&L Fabricators. Spectrum also understands that the Group utilizes a local contractor to inspect and maintain the fences and control the growth of vegetation on and around the fences, at the ILCO Main Facility. Security at the ILCO Main Facility is maintained by perimeter chain-link fencing topped with barbed wire and several locked sates.

5. Have there been any significant changes in site O&M requirements, maintenance schedules or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the protectlveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.

As indicated above. Spectrum has performed semi-annual inspections since June 2009. There have not been any significant changes in operation and maintenance requirements or schedules since that time.

6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the Site since start-up or in the last five years? If so, please provide details.

There have been no unexpected difficulties. The maintenance items have been relatively minimal, such as fence repair at the ILCO Main Facility from fallen trees, replacement of signs on the fence at the ILCO Main Facility due to wind damage or fading from prolonged exposure to sunlight, and replacement of a damaged monitoring well cover at Flemmings Patio.

7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M activities or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and any resulting or desired cost savings or improved efficiencies.

No.

8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M activities and schedules at the Site?

The current schedule (semi-annual) for operation and maintenance inspections seems to be appropriate at the present time.

APPENDIX 5

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

J&L FABRICATORS AND

GENE MOORE INVESTMENTS, INC.


STATE OF ALABAMA )

JEFFERSON COUNTY )

2 0 0 2 0 7 / 7 7 6 8

DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS

/ / TfflS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ("Declaration") is made this r ^ day of ^^«==g5L.< 7 ,2002 by JOHN LEONARD LOVE, his heirs, successors and assigns

("Love").

R E C I T A L S :

A. Love is the owner of property situated in Jefferson County, Alabama, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property").

B. In connection with a remedial investigation of the Property, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") identified contaminated areas on the Property (the "Contaminated Property") in the locations depicted on the drawing attached as Exhibit "B".

C. In addition to other remedial actions required by EPA, EPA has required certain restrictions be placed on the Property and this Declaration be recorded in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Jefferson County, Alabama.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the Recitals, Love hereby declares as follows:

1. Declaration of Restrictions. Love does hereby declare and acknowledge that the following restrictions be placed on the Property:

a. The Property can not be developed or utilized for residential use.

b. No construction, development, re-development or other action that will in any way disturb the Contaminated Property will be allowed. It is the intention of this provision to prohibit any activity that would require excavating, digging, removing or in any other way disturbing the soil contained in, or subsurface under, the Contaminated Property.

pgs\ILCO\Dec Restrict Cov-2 3/26/02

c. No drilling of any kind, including for water, shall be allowed on the Property. The ground water shall not be used for potable water.

2. Covenant Running With the Land. Love acknowledges that the restrictions imposed in this Declaration (a) shall be restrictions running with the land, (b) shall be binding upon the owner of the Property and his heirs, successors and assigns, (c) have been required by EPA due to environmental problems related to the Property, and (d) can not be terminated or amended without the written consent of EPA or its successors.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Love has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the day and year first set forth above.

J (5HN LEONARD LOVE

STATE OF ALABAMA )

COUNTY OF

I, the xmdersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County in said State, do hereby certify that JOHN LEONARD LOVE, an individual whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument and who is known to me, acknowledged before me on this day that, being informed of the contents thereof, he executed the same voluntarily on the day the same bears date.

Given under my hand and official seal this the ' ^ day of '» ) f r j , 2002. ^ ^ day of 1 ^ ± ^

Notary Public My Commission Expires: l/^^fox

pgs\ILCO\Dec Restrict Cov-2 3/26/02

EXHIBIT "A"

DESCRIFnON OF PROPERTY

mHIBTT "A*

A p a r t o f t ^ SW X of t h . BS M of S « : t l a a 22. To-nship 17 South , Baaga. 1 S a a t , « i d b a i n g mora p a r t i c u l a r l y d a a e r i b a d aa f o l l o w s :

Casm>«ica a t tha m Coraar of . a i d >< - X . a c t i o n , t h a n e - South » 1 ° ° ? , ^ ^ ? * ^ * J ^ t j J B*m0 a d i s t a n c a of 120.00 f a a t t o t ha Sou tha r ly r i g h t of w y i i ° « t ' ^ ^ g S ! ! « « S a p o i n t b a l a g tha p o i n t of b a g i a a i a g of t r a c t h a r a i n < » ~ « = f * ^ « ^ : f ' \ ^ * " S f ^ . f i r i n a l a s t n a a a d eoursa a d i s t a n c a of 310.00 f a a t ; thanca Ô'^f ' , ' ° . ^ . ^ f f L j S a S o u t h a a a t a r l y d l r a c t i o n a d i s t a n c a of 256-69 f a a t ; thanca 64 41 t o tna A a « « W o r t h a a s t a r l y d i r a c t i o n a d i s t a n c e of 124.60 f a a t ; thanca 71«15 J o t he l a f t i n ^ a N o r t h v a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a d i s t a n c e of 445.20 f e a t t o t ha S o u t h e r l y r i g i t of vay l ^ a o f s a i d H i g h W ; thanca 5 8 ' 2 8 ' t o t h a l e f t i n a S o u t t o m s t e r l y d i r a c t i o n a l o n g s a i d r i g h t o f way e d i s t a n c a of 158.20 f e a t t o t ha p o i n t of b e g i n n i n g .

S i t u a t e d i n J e f f e r s o n County, Alabaana, B i r a ingba* D i v i s i o n .

pgs\\ILCO\J&L\

EXHIBIT "B"

DRAWING DEPICTING AREA OF CONTAMINATED PROPERTY

The Contaminated Property includes all of the property located under the building.

^ ^ ^

pgs\lLCO\Dec Restrict Cov-2 3/26/02

APR-04-02 THU 03:04 AM FftX MO. P. 02

2 0 0 2 0 7 / 7 7 6 9 SfATR OF ALABAMA )

.JKFFEKSON COUNTY ) FUI,L SATISFACHON OF RECORDED LIEN

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS. THAT, the undersigned COMPASS BANK G'k/'a CENTRAL BANK OF THE SOUTH, acknowledges fiiU payment of the indebtcdrxrss secured by that certain Mortgage and Security Agrccrawt executed on August 7,1989 by JOHN L. LOVE and DONNA LOVE, which said Mortgage and Security Agreement was recorded in the office of the Judge of Probate Court of Jefferson CoiuUy, Alabama on August 28, 1989 in ReaJ 3668, Page 290; ami the undersigned docs further hereby release and satisfy said Mortgage and Sccurit>' AgrocmcnL This Full Satisfaction of Recorded T.icn also releases ihal certain Assigruncnt of RetUs and Leases between tlie parlies, recorded in said oflice in Real 3668, Page 298.

y ^ IN WITNESS WlJbREOF, ihe undersigned has caused these presents to be executed this J J ^ day of April, 2002.

COMPASS BANK l7k/a CENTRAL BANK OF IIIE SOUTH

rPi^-(rse:?jTAriv'^

ST.Ê OF ALABAMA ) " " " ^ t e ^ ^ COUNTY )

l^hc undcrsigjial Notary Public, m and for said County in said State, hereby certify that. \ J O X-OJ^ \H\rcm J ^ . . whose name as f r r r tS tV^D^f COMPASS BANK f/Wa CENTRAL

BANK OF THE SoUTH, is signed to the foregoing instrument, and who is known to mc, acknowledged before me on this day that, being infonned of the contents of the instrument, he, as such officer and with full authority, executed the same voliuitarily for and as the act of said bank,

t ( ^ Given under my hand and Official seal this ' ^ day of Apnl, 2002.

OTSRYPUBTTC MY COMMJSSIONRXPTRES: M^COMMBSiowwiBESStPTtMBERe. a

p|.':':SH.Ct)VJ&L\(\ill.\ntls tec.lisn i l^/Vi

STATE OF ALABAMA )

JEFFERSON COUNTY )

20100420000414070 1/5-..-, Bk: LR201003 Pg:19940 Jefferson Counly.Alabama

TI certify this instrument filed oi 04/20/2010 04:20:19 PM REST Judge of Probate- Plan L. King

DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS

^1^ THISÊCLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ("Declaration") is made this _ day " ^ " '

assigns (" € L day of Q ^ A J - P _ , 2010, by GENE MOORE INVESTMENTS, INC., its successors and

("GMI'O.

RECITALS:

A. GMl is the owner of pioperty situated in Jefferson County, Alabama, as ifioi-:* pariiculajiy deb-';nbc'i in E>d:ibil: "A" atiacVieo liereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property").

B. In coimection with a remedial review and investigation of the Property, the Alabama Department of Envirormiental Management ("ADEM") identified an area on the Property from which soil samples had previously indicated the presence of lead.

C. ADEM has required that a restriction be placed on the Property and this Declaration be recorded in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Jefferson County, Alabama.

D. It is anticipated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency may require, as part of the remediation of groundwater under the ILCO Site, the placement of groundwater deed restrictions on properties that are adjacent to the ILCO Site and the ILCO Parking Lot.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the Recitals, GMI hereby declares as follows:

i. iiJeciaration of Restrictions on the Properr\\ GM! does hereby declare and acknowledge that the following restrictions be placed on the Property:

a. No drilling of water wells shall be allowed on the Property, except for monitoring wells related to any future investigative or remedial activity. No ground water from any wells may be consumed, or otherwise used, except for sampling related to any fuuire investigative or remedial activity.

b. The Property cannot be developed or utilized for residential use.

2. Covenant Running With the Land. GMI acknowledges and declares tliat the restrictions imposed in this Declaration (a) shall be restrictions running with the

land, and (b) shall be binding upon the owner of the Property and its heirs, successors and assigns, and (c) cannot be terminated or amended without the written consent of ADEM, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or its successors as applicable.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GMI has caused this Declaiation to be executed as of the day and year first set forth above.

GENE MOORE INVESTMENTS, INC

By: Its:

STATE OF ALABAMA )

COUNTY OF \ c U & U u i ^ )

I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County in said State, hereby certify that J:!^/^y\^ Ih 6i{XJL. whose name as VAQ^cuLJ^y^ of GENE MOORE INVESTMENTS, INC., is signed to the foregoing instrument and who is known to me, acknowledged before me on this day that, being informed of the contents thereof, he, as such officer and with flill authority, executed the same voluntarily for and as the act of said corporation.

Given un<; f'Ai}( j|j5g& jd official seal this % day o f ( J i t A - ^ , 2010.

I />OTAfl>\ \ UJ - Motary fuDlic ; /

My Commission Expires: ^ I J ^ f I ST^; ^ ; e r 5 My Commission Expires: 7 / > - 7 / / ^

, ^ ^ • •

EXfflBIT *'A"

THE PROPERTY

See Attached.

r«nrf I ( O k r t « M d H ^ < « A ft a ^.1««>

r v i ^ O v K V •> rf a . J T H of ! • trji P . Ti»i iJ ,» IT t ,

A^|9K K ft( Maraon as iM t/aâ) H M a m A ^ OMSK k

l < i . t l . « - 7 M GM.ei tt, o B"<rl nn I K . W D r l . . , o „ ^ ^ right of - o v I n , o i hnfrtr-* k—r.,* f S i c r r . i

• 1 / ' «J l ; ^ o \>.t. , \ ^ - \ f i o ' \ h » M » \ ^ f * & n g ta\a f lyr i l o1 * t )^ t in* U ? 6^/ea( , (^^<:« S2' lî - i'J 1i

1-. 1,, . ,*, .(,1 •»v.> ..-^.-- \^-4> .. w -,;. »M, . i j , . , „ ^ . , . , , , , ^ j ' S - r t U i ! IC tf.c i,;

'J - "i

rlgr-l NLJ. theo.loi-ljT

EXHIBfT 'A" THE PROPCRIY

t ^'

( •Vfe e ft.', KM i-uT«r l y K V K o r a i r r W M r /

v.v- r - foo

• . « T » ^ « , f c , . h H . i . ^ i t y ^ ^ g n ^ , ^ fc^y l»«*w» A w ^ f ^B f f ^ ^ t - . ^ ^ , i f l i t f t :M"»r,r , . n / * )' 'V " n ir.f ri^r-t » . « f h . „ ) , . n ^ 11.-^7 * . j - '

V L>9' ' • ; "^c ' f < •>« •>o<rfc#»1«<^^ *1 ? t t » * t . ' J i o r . i . : r I 7 - 1 q - lo <H« U n V - l h » . W J^ ftlle,t lh*Ate I 5 ' J * ' 15 "•.-. trw

•.>ouV.«-»lr/^,.' 1 . ' J i j l f f t IT r.e fWT'l " I Vie ^tnxn-.c»rer y ; i ^ ; ^ji ^3 , - j t . j ^ ' ft(>-d«*i ArtJ-.oc ('.^tor-a A*fl:nft bouUi i u i a l^'t j - c i " !

€<

^ ^ - ^

6 7 ^ ^ ^ OR

CootlnnatDry SampOno H" 9 f ~ ~ l

Confirmatory Sampling Locations are approximate. They have been scaled from a topographic survey by Robert E, / \^ uoni Darty, PLS # 23001 with David Evans V -coN„n««.y . s ^ n ^ , ^ ? ^ ^ " ^ " ^ ' " " ^ ® ^ >^veooe ~ ' ^ and Associates, dated August 8, 2001. '^'^

'A.- -

• C*Â»HtJ l iurt

c( the SW 1/4 al Sac 2?.

T. 17 3, R. 1 E,

^* . ' y j o fip <^

PAU.1U, L.

AMni i . W B ( no* prtostaly <ka*«t • tiDvn:

|V«» (he KB COTM o» 1 ^ ><W S4 rf rW M irf ««kl SeiJta E , nj« h . ««««rtT Jirt«<«« «loot • "

« « l ! i i « j / » U V . y . . « f c i l t l » « B I « » i r f T O O . T O t » l » , « l « u < t o i J ' M W > « < l ^ ' > ~ " l " ' • » " ' " ' ^ B « » * ~ - r t b IS. • » * d«h-Af-<r^ I t a irf Bonfco A»««<< « ! « » t o n «i »•»• K « • n»l« 1 .f

11 r - W • « * i m l» • • » » * » - * i r t j * « i * w J t ^ «» m * >W« «< • • J * - " ' " M « < » * " * " * " t « • J»imLcirf 71ftiO 4»< k> lh« poJ« of la|taniri», •><<»» M I • • " » i " 1" O* !> •>» " ' ' < ' ' " ^ " " '

rii , \ i •' • • • - - - - • . • > . A . . - . i — . . . — - . - . . • n H . ^ O a f g r a J n M i t o i jij]iiii»i»Mtjiilni*«i i n i i i im r r i i r f T - r t t r n r - j . l i , i- .-«-wj>.Jwr.ni. i«ito»

. ^- . - .«—ri— t i I illîiiii I i ^ V " t i " . ^ • I I I • V " * - ^ - ' " * " * Q " ' w d r m b e b I 4 M » a of a u i «MI, m n Of h ^ to O i (Ofal c< l»«kafa»

Wey(!Cjncl '.ûrvt"/G''>, IMC.

tVir jof , ' 1 ; : . -V)-V:- wUMb ' ' i » . ."J'S '".••!-' O'.:''-'

Ncve-Tihcr ?•» yVjO'-'

http://iniiiimrriirfT-rttrnr-j.li

Documents

ILCO SITE REMEDIATION GROUP Leed Environmental, Inc. Van