UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 5

DATE: December 18, 2006

SUBJECT: Briefing on Dow Tittabawassee River Hot Spot Interim Response Activity (IRA)

FROM: Gerald Phillips, Corrective Action Program Manager

TO: Margaret Guerriero, Director

RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL SAMPLING TO DELINEATE THE HOT SPOT

• 16 additional samples failed to identify elevated dioxin levels at the same sampling location, as well as in the step-out samples,
with the exception of a 4,000 ppt TEQ sample 50 feet downstream of the 87,000 ppt location.
• Dow was unable to complete all step-out samples due to weather, and high water prevented collection of the samples on Dec.
th
15 as originally planned.
• Dow will collect additional samples in Dec. or Jan. (may want to use results of geophysical investigation to guide sampling).

DOW’S POSITION
• The hot spot sediments are historic deposits and have not moved for over 75 years.
• Based upon hydrodynamic modeling, the hot spot sediments are unlikely to be eroded by a 3, 7, or 8 year flood.
• Dow will model the hot spot sediments with a 100 year flood as requested by MDEQ, but it will take until the week of Dec. 22.
• The estimated volume of the hot spot is ~2-3,000 cubic yards based on current information. However, if required to address the
hot spot now, a worst case estimate of the hot spot volume could be 30-40,000 cubic yards.
• The nature and extent of the hot spot must be known in detail prior to a removal.
• Removing the hot spot prior to having detailed data could exasperate the contamination.
• Worker safety issues indicate that spring would be a more appropriate time for a response.
• Dow does not believe that the hot spot presents any current unacceptable risks to human health or the environment.
• Dow will provide its proposed course of action for addressing the hot spot and justification to MDEQ by Dec. 18th.

DOW’S PROPOSED RESPONSE

Alternative 1
o Conduct a geophysical investigation of the hot spot deposit to develop details on the extent of the sediments.
o Concurrently install an erosional barrier in the river to protect the hot spot.
o Concurrently develop an IRA plan.
o Concurrently apply for necessary permits.
o Be prepared to perform a removal by mid-February, and wait for a window in the weather to perform the removal.
o Conduct additional IRAs for other contaminated river levee and sediment deposits.

Alternative 2
o Immediately apply for all needed permits.
o As soon as permits are obtained, immediately remove levee material adjacent to the hot spot. This will provide:
• Additional river channel width (reduces river velocity) to decrease the potential for erosion of the hot spot
during flooding and ice/debris scour (moves flow away from hot spot).
• Preparation of the river bank for installation of sheet piling around the hot spot.
• Removal of contaminated levees which may act as a continuing source of contamination.
o Wait for a window in the weather to install sheet piling around hot spot.
o Dry excavate the contaminated sediments from within the sheet piling (minimizes resuspension).
o Simultaneously conduct additional IRAs for 4 other higher-risk contaminated river bank and sediment deposits.
• Removal/armoring of extensive actively eroding contaminated bank deposits (~14,000 linear feet).
• Areas at high risk of acting as continuing sources (10-84,000 ppt TEQ dioxin).

MDEQ POSITION
• It may be possible to expedite the LWMD permit process if the Director declares the hot spot situation an emergency.
• If the hot spot sediments are stable during a 100 year event, it may be acceptable to delay a response.
• The sand overlying the hot spot sediments may not be adequate to provide protection over the entire deposit..
• MDEQ agrees that there are worker safety issues with addressing the hot spot during winter.
• There is a risk of exacerbating the contamination by trying to do a removal with incomplete site characterization data.
• MDEQ will provide EPA with Dow’s proposal and MDEQ’s position and recommendation by 1:00 PM on Dec. 20th.
• MDEQ will issue a letter requiring Dow to begin IRA work (with a schedule) under the License this week.
ACOE POSITION
• A Nation Wide permit is available that would cover IRA work, and would only require a detailed plan of the proposed work.
• For the purposes of a Nation Wide permit, a request to Dow from MDEQ citing permit IRA requirements would be
considered the equivalent of an order (as is required to qualify for the Nation Wide permit).

EPA POSITION/CONCERNS
• EPA maintains that the hot spot must be addressed ASAP.
• State permit requirements could be overridden by issuing a RCRA/CERCLA order requiring Dow to undertake a response.
• A RCRA/CERCLA order would likely not be able to produce a response prior to mid February.
• There is concern that significant flood event, or ice/debris scour could redistribute the hot spot prior to removal.
• Fish spawning may require waiting until June for removal if work is delayed much beyond March-April.
• EPA will have a conference call Tuesday morning to hear MDEQ’s evaluation of Dow’s proposal and MDEQ’s
recommendation. EPA will evaluate if Dow/MDEQ have sufficiently addressed EPA concerns, and if Dow’s proposal is
technically defensible based on this information.