Congressional District # 14
BIG D CAMPGROUNDEPA ID# OHD980611735
Last Updated: September, 2014
The Big D Campground (Big D) site is located in Kingsville, Ashtabula County, Ohio, approximately 2.5 miles south of Lake Erie and 50 miles northeast of Cleveland. The site contains a former landfill that is about 1.2 acres in area and approximately 20 feet deep. The landfill contained drummed hazardous wastes attributed to the Olin Corporation (Olin), the site potentially responsible party.
The Big D site is bordered by Conneaut Creek to the south, the former Big D campground to the southeast, open land to the west, and private residences on small acreages to the north and northwest. The southern edge of the landfill slopes sharply towards Conneaut Creek. The nearest residences are located approximately 500 feet north of the site.
EPA proposed to place the Big D site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in December 1982 and finalized it on the NPL in September 1983.
Site ResponsibilityThe Big D site is being addressed through potentially responsible party (PRP) actions under state and federal oversight.
Threats and Contaminants
EPA conducted site investigations at the Big D site between 1982 and 1988 and identified drummed wastes containing halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, caustics, oily wastes, bulk toluene disocyanate (TDI), TDI residue contaminated with monochlorobenzene and carbon tetrachloride, and monoethylamine. Soil was also found to be contaminated with many of these compounds. The initial estimate of volume of hazardous materials was 28,000 cubic yards. Groundwater was found to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds and heavy metals including barium, chromium, and lead.
Direct contact and/or ingestion of these compounds could lead to human health risks. However, Olin acquired the groundwater rights of surrounding property owners and has placed deed restrictions on these off-site properties to prohibit the future use of groundwater.
EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation at the Big D site from late 1986 until in mid-1988. In 1989, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that called for source area materials to be excavated from the landfill and incinerated on-site.
In 1992, Olin initiated the remedial action pursuant to a Unilateral Administrative Order that EPA issued in 1990. All source area materials were excavated from the landfill and incinerated on-site between September 1992 and March 1994. The total volume of wastes exceeded the ROD volume estimate by about 65,000 cubic yards. The incinerator ash was determined to be safe to be placed back on the site and was placed back into the landfill along with all non-combustible materials that had been excavated. Two feet of topsoil was placed over the ash and vegetated, and the incineration project was demobilized in October 1994.
Olin acquired the groundwater rights of surrounding property owners and then placed deed restrictions on these off-site properties to prohibit the future use of groundwater.
A treatment system was constructed to treat contaminated storm water runoff collected from the excavation and from within a bermed area. In 1994, a groundwater extraction system was installed to collect contaminated groundwater that was migrating to the north and to the south. Since February 1995, Olin had been conducting site operation and maintenance for the groundwater remedy.
EPA issued a preliminary close out report documenting completion of major cleanup construction activities on May 9, 1995. EPA found that the pump-and-treat system had successfully reduced the concentrations of heavy metals in the groundwater.
In November 1997, EPA approved changes to the groundwater treatment system to help reduce operation and maintenance costs but to still allow for full site cleanup. Portions of the system that are no longer needed to treat heavy metals were eliminated. In February 1999, Olin submitted a proposal to the EPA to allow for monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of the groundwater contamination and to reduce the number of contaminants monitored. The proposal was approved on March 2000 for a two-year trial period. Olin then asked EPA to review new information that would lead to altering the selected cleanup action. Additional information was submitted in 2004 to support the MNA request.
EPA issued the first five-year review (FYR) report on September 30, 1999 and found the site to be in good condition.
EPA issued a second FYR report on August 27, 2004 in which it determined that the remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the ROD. At that time an additional possible exposure pathway was identified at the site: human exposure to site contaminants volatized into indoor air from contaminated groundwater. EPA reviewed information from the PRP regarding indoor air exposure for residences near the site and concurred with the report's conclusion that there was no significant health risk from indoor air exposure at these residences.
EPA issued the third FYR report on April 23, 2009, finding that the remedy was protective of human health and the environment over the short term. However, long term protectiveness would not be achieved until groundwater cleanup standards are met and effective site-wide institutional controls (ICs) are implemented. EPA later determined that ICs were in place and that they were effective.
Olin submitted an updated MNA Demonstration Report in February 2010 for EPA review and approval. Upon review, EPA requested that the PRP install a new groundwater monitoring well northwest of the site that would have a longer screen length than in the existing monitoring wells. EPA also determined that it would need to evaluate several more rounds of groundwater sampling data to determine whether or not the groundwater plume has expanded to this boundary point. EPA plans to evaluate the new MNA data as it is generated and then make a determination in 2015 as to whether MNA is a viable groundwater remedy for the Big D site.
EPA issued the fourth FYR report on April 16, 2014, finding that the remedy was protective of human health and the environment over the short term. However, in order for the remedy to be protectie in the long term, a decision must be made by EPA as to the most viable remedy for reaching the groundwater cleanup standards within a reasonable time period and the operation of that remedy to achieve the groundwater cleanup goals.
EPA will complete the fifth FYR report by April 2019.
ContactsRemedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA
howard caine (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA