ACCELERATING THE NATURAL REMEDIATION OF TORCH LAKE
A Report prepared for Senior Design (CE4905) in the Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department, Michigan Technological University, Spring 2005
Submitted by:
Lindsey Anderson
David McCaw
Amanda McKenna
Kathryn Price
Tim Rank
Aimee Rathbun
Kris Scherer
Tiffany Torrance
Advisor:
Noel Urban
April 22, 2005
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
Dr. Noel Urban
Bruce Peterson, District Conservationist
Dick Crane, Construction Inspector NRCS
Brenda Jones, EPA
Joan Schumaker-Chadde
André Marquette of the Chemical Engineering Department at the Louisiana State
University. amarqu1@lsu.edu
Dr. Stan Vitton
Dr. Kris Mattila
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………….………………….5
2.0 Project Guidelines……………………………………………………………………….. 5
3.0 Background………………………………………………………………………….........00
3.1 Mining History of Torch Lake…………………………………………………………..…….….. 00
3.2 Past Investigation and Remediation………………………………………….....................….. 00
3.3 Current Conditions and Restrictions………………………………………………………......... 00
4.0 Evaluation of Remediation Alternatives……………………………………………….. 00
5.0 Proposed Method of Remediation………………………………………………….. …. 00
5.1 Implementation………………………………………………………………………………... ….. 00
5.2 Technical Plans……………………………………………………………………………………. 00
5.2.1 Description of Phase Areas…………………………………………............... ….. 00
5.2.2 Field Investigation……………………………………………………............... ….. 00
5.2.3 Cap Design……………………………………………………………...............….. 00
5.2.4 Work Plan……………………………………………………………………..……… 00
5.2.5 Permits, Legal Issues……………………………………………………………….. 00
5.2.6 Monitoring……………………………………………………………………………. 00
5.3 Economic Analysis……………………………………………………………………………. ….. 00
5.3.1 Projected Costs…………………………………………………………………. ….. 00
5.3.2 Projected Benefits……………………………………………………..................... 00
5.3.3 Funding Sources………………………………………………………………...….. 00
5.4 Public Education…………………………………………………………………................... ….. 00
6.0 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………… 00
7.0 References……………………………………………………………………………. …. 00
8.0 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………….. 00
3
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
Table 1: Comparison of Observed Conditions in Torch Lake with Guidelines and
Regulations…………………………………………………………………………… 00
Table 2: Contaminated Sediment and Capping Material Properties used in the
Capping Model……………………………………………………………………….. 00
Table 3: Porosity and Density Values for Various Capping Materials………………….. 00
Table 4: Diameter and Dispersivity Values for Different Materials……………………… 00
Table 5: Sand Properties Used in Simulation…………………………………………….. 00
Table 6: Concentration over Time with Regulatory Concentrations for Sand at 1
Percent Organic Carbon Content…………………………………………………... 00
Table 7: Cost Estimations for Test Phase and Phase 1…………………………………. 00
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Figures
Figure 1: Torch Lake Area, Houghton County, Michigan………………………………... 00
Figure 2: Torch Lake Mill Sites……………………………………………………………... 00
Figure 3: Torch Lake Superfund Site Operable Units Map……………………………… 00
Figure 4: Test Phase Core Sample………………………………………………………… 00
Figure 5: Red Midge Larvae………………………………………………………………… 00
Figure 6: Pore-water Concentrations at the Cap-Water Interface for a 100-year
Time Period for a Cap at a Height of 40 cm (~16 inches) at One Percent
Organic Carbon Content ……………………………………………………………. 00
Figure 7: Pore-Water Concentrations at the Cap-Water Interface for a 100-year
Time Period for a Sand Cap at a Depth of 40 cm (~16 inches)………………….00
Figure 8: Pore-water Concentrations at the Cap-Water Interface for a 500-year
Period for a Sand Cap at a Depth of 40 cm (~16 inches) at a One Percent
Organic Carbon Content…………………………………………………………….. 00
Figure 9: Copper Concentration over Time with no Cap or Organic Carbon
Verifying Correct and Accurate Results…………………………………………… 00
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
4
1.0 Introduction
Torch Lake is located in Houghton County, Michigan on the Keweenaw Peninsula of
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (Figure 1). Since 1868, Torch Lake and the surrounding
area have been contaminated with high concentrations of copper from mining spoils.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/trchlke.html
Figure 1: Torch Lake Area, Houghton County, Michigan
The area has been declared a Superfund Site by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and has been researched and remediated since 1986. However, the EPA has
chosen not to remediate the lake body itself, but to allow it to restore itself over time.
This design group was assigned the task of developing a plan to accelerate the natural
remediation of Torch Lake. The decision-making process and considerations, as well as
the final decision and work plan, are described in this report. /Somewhere early in the
report (right here would be appropriate), a more specific definition of the project
goals/objectives is desirable. This statement could also come after the statement of the
current conditions of the lake. What constitutes “acceleration”? What is the rate of
“natural remediation”?/
2.0 Project Guidelines
This report details the alternatives evaluated, the approach that was selected, and the
plan that was developed to enhance the rate of natural remediation of Torch Lake in
Houghton County, Michigan. The lake suffers from high copper concentrations in the
water and sediments as described throughout this report.
The conclusions will be based on knowledge and skills acquired in earlier engineering
coursework and will be focused on the process of devising a system, component or
process to meet desired needs. The conclusions will be relevant to professional practice
5
and will incorporate economic, environmental, sustainability, constructability, ethical,
health and safety, social and political considerations. [The requirements are only that
MOST of these considerations be included. I suggest that you list only the ones
included in this report.]
3.0 Background
3.1 Mining History of Torch Lake
For more than a century (~120 years), copper mining was the prevalent industry of
Michigan’s Keweenaw Peninsula. Discovery of two large veins of copper running
through the region led to an outburst of excavating in the late-1850s. The Quincy Mining
Company (Quincy) and the Calumet & Hecla Mining Company (C&H), two of the largest
mining companies, constructed their mills on the shores of Torch Lake in three
locations: Lake Linden, Hubbell, and Mason (Figure 2). C&H opened in 1868 and was
followed soon after by Quincy. For the next century, these operations dumped
approximately 200 million tons of mine spoils (tailings) into Torch Lake and along its
boundaries, covering three miles of shoreline.
Figure 2: Torch Lake Mill Sites
Mine tailings are the residuals of excavation and extraction processes. Copper ore was
crushed (also referred to as stamped) into fine particles and separated by gravitational
sorting. Copper was then smelted, while crushed rock (stamp sands) was discarded into
the lake. Technological advancements around 1916 enhanced extraction capabilities,
6
and previously-deposited tailings were dredged and treated with cupric ammonium
carbonate to remove even more copper. The stamp sands were then returned to Torch
Lake, introducing an additional contaminant. By the 1920’s, further chemical reagents
were implemented to improve reclamation, and tailings were discarded along with
numerous process remnants, such as lime, creosotes, and xanthates. The spoils are
estimated to have had a copper concentration of 1100 µg/g [citation]. /It would be good
to add a sentence about when the mills closed and all dredging activities ceased./
Through erosion and continued deposition, the tailings naturally drifted throughout the
lake and settled, covering the natural sediment on the lake bottom. Benthic organisms
and vegetation were thus smothered and have not yet been able to recover. The current
depth of tailings is thought to be a maximum of 70 feet in some areas, and copper
concentrations in the sediments reach approximately 3600 µg/g [citation].
Two large-scale chemical releases also occurred. In June of 1972 a release of 27,000
gallons of cupric ammonium carbonate leaching liquor into the north end of Torch Lake
from storage vats at the Lake Linden Leaching Plant occurred. The Michigan Water
Resources Commission (MWRC) reported that no detrimental effects were incurred by
the lake. Their investigation actually revealed that several discharges of the compound
had occurred prior to this occasion. The second event transpired during the early 1980’s
when the Peninsula Copper Company dumped process water, containing 2,400 times
the local sewage authority's allowable limits for copper and 100 times the limit for
ammonia, into the Tamarack lagoon system. [2]
3.2 Past Investigation and Remediation
Reconnaissance of the Torch Lake area commenced when several local fishermen
noticed tumors on the walleye and sauger in 1973. Below is a list of events that resulted
from the investigations, and following the list are further descriptions of each point [2].






1983: Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) posts Fish Consumption
Advisory
1983: International Joint Commission (IJC) lists Torch Lake as a Great Lakes
Area of Concern
1986: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists Torch Lake and the
surrounding areas as a Superfund site
1992: EPA completes assessment and formulates remediation plan
1997: Public Action Committee forms
1999-2003: Natural Resources Conservation Service remediates portions of
Superfund Site
Based on their own research, the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) posted
a fish consumption advisory in 1983. No connection between the mine tailings and fish
tumors has been proven, and the consumption advisory has since been removed.
7
Current fish advisories for mercury and PCBs in fish from Torch Lake are unrelated to
the mining activities in the lake.
Also in 1983, the International Joint Commission (IJC) Water Quality Board listed Torch
Lake as a Great Lakes Area of Concern. The IJC is responsible for the health of the
waterways that connect Canada and the United States. Torch Lake was listed as an
area of concern because it connects to Lake Superior through the Portage Canal.
In 1984, the EPA began the process of placing the Torch Lake area on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The EPA declared portions of Houghton County, including Torch
Lake, a Superfund site in 1986 and divided it into three operable units (shown below in
Figure 3). Torch Lake is part of Operable Unit II (OUII) and is the area of focus for this
report. The stampsand deposits on the western shoreline of Torch Lake are included in
Operable Unit I and are not a direct focus of this report. Also in 1986, the Torch Lake
Superfund Site was placed on the EPA National Priorities List for funding under EPA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/trchlke.html
Figure 3: Torch Lake Superfund Site Operable Units Map
In 1988, the EPA began investigating Torch Lake and the surrounding areas. These
studies determined that copper was leaching from the deposited mine tailings, and
documented the following impairments to the lake:
 Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
8





Degradation of benthos (sediment-dwelling organisms)
Restrictions on dredging activities
Restrictions on drinking water consumption
Degradation of aesthetics
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Also found on the shoreline and in the water were old machinery and equipment along
with other discarded metal objects, such as rusting barrels. In 1990, the EPA removed
contaminated drums from the lake, as well as the soil beneath them. At this time, the
remedial field work within the lake was completed.
In 1992, the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for Torch Lake Superfund Site
Operable Unit II [1] was completed. This plan listed several alternatives for remediation
of OUII. In the 1994 Record of Decision (ROD), the EPA decided that the No Action
plan for OUII was the best option [3]. In this report, the “no action plan” is used
synonomously with “natural remediation”.
From 1999-2003, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, on behalf of the EPA,
constructed a soil and vegetation cap on the stamp sands along the western shore of
Torch Lake, as well as several other areas in Operable Units I and III. This capping is
intended, among other things, to reduce the erosion of contaminated soils into the lake
and thus to end the ongoing input of contaminants into the sediments that had caused
the persistent degradation of the benthic community. From 1999-2001, Torch Lake was
monitored by the EPA and the Baseline Study Report with these results was submitted
in 2001. The EPA also completed a Five-Year Review in March 2003. In April 2002,
Torch Lake and the Lake Linden area were partially delisted from the NPL. This
delisting only includes the shoreline areas that were capped by the NRCS from 19992003. The lake body itself continues to be on the NPL.
The EPA is also working on a pilot project on Gull Island, which is located in the center
of Torch Lake. The EPA, NRCS, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) planted fast-growing plants on the island to see if they could survive without
the addition of soil cover. This project began in spring 2003 and is being monitored at
present. [2]
All of the EPA investigation reports, findings, and decisions regarding Torch Lake can
be found at the Portage Lake District Library or the Lake Linden/Hubbel Public Library in
the Torch Lake Superfund Site repositories [4].
3.3 Current Conditions and Restrictions
Two million tons of mine tailings currently exist on the shores and in the body of Torch
Lake. Pore water percolates through these sediments into the lake and causes the
copper concentrations in the water (range found in lake) to be well above the levels
recommended by the EPA and the state of Michigan. The recommended level for
9
copper concentration in the lake water by the EPA is 9-13 μg/L [4a] and by the state of
Michigan is 15-19 μg/L [4b]. Copper concentrations in the pore water reach 1000 μg/L,
and copper concentrations in the surface sediments are in the range of 3600 μg/g /give
range rather than single value/. While the EPA has not yet promulgated a sediment
quality criterion for copper, the Probable Effects Level (PEL) in sediments is reported to
be in the range of [give range and citation].
Approximately six centimeters of naturally formed sediment cover the mine tailings in
the eastern part of the northern basin of Torch Lake. This is not thick enough to
adequately prevent the copper from leaching into the lake. The western part of the
northern basin, the middle basin, and the southern basin do not have any naturallyformed sediment cap over the mine tailings. The absence of a cap in these regions
likely reflects the erosion of material from the above-water stamp sand piles (now
capped and vegetated), the shallow water depths that allow mixing of deeper
contaminated sediments with uncontaminated freshly deposited material, and the slow
rate of sediment formation within this lake.
Beneficial use impairments have resulted in restriction of three activities in and around
the lake. Restrictions currently exist on dredging activities in Torch Lake. The EPA
determined that, due to the toxicity of the sediments, dredging would release more
copper into the lake waters. The restriction is enforced by the United States Army Corps
of Engineers [5]. The Houghton County Health Department has also listed well permit
guidelines for drinking water well depth in order to protect human health [5]. The State
of Michigan continues to issue consumption advisories for pike, small mouth bass, and
walleye from Torch Lake, although it is not clear that the Hg and PCBs found in the fish
are of local origin [cite Michigan 2004 Fish advisory
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FishAdvisory03_67354_7.pdf]
Other than the restrictions listed above, no other normal activities are banned on the
lake at present. However, the EPA has recommended that boats or ships with large
propellers not enter Torch Lake through the passage from Portage Canal. The reasons
for this are much like the reasons for the restriction of dredging: to mitigate the resuspension of toxic particles [6].
/It would not be inappropriate to have here a section on Prognosis for Recovery in which
the rate of “remediation” is discussed. How can you evaluate acceleration unless you
define the existing rate of recovery?
4.0 Evaluation of Remediation Alternatives
Several options are available for contaminated sediment remediation; the most effective
means is, of course, dependent upon the situation. In the case of Torch Lake, the
following key aspects must be considered: the sediment is contaminated with high
levels of copper, large amounts of sediment are present, and access is limited. Cost
and effectiveness of each method governs the action selected /This sentence seems to
10
be hanging here without context enough context. Were these the only 2 criteria used to
select from among the listed alternatives?/
Based on the history of Torch Lake and its contamination, the following methods of
remediation were investigated:
Dredging – Dredging is a process by which all contaminated sediments are dug
out of the lake and removed from the site. Due to the extensive size of Torch
Lake, a barge would be needed for the dredge to reach all portions of the lake.
While dredging completely removes all contamination and restores the lake to its
original shape and size, it also results in a large amount of turbidity in the
process. This causes the copper concentrations in the water to rise dramatically.
In addition, because the volume of contaminated sediment is so massive,
dredging would be an especially costly approach [7]. Furthermore, disposal of the
sediments would require …
Capping – Geosynthetics, sands, clays, gravels, or other similar materials may
be used for a cap. The area and/or amount of material needed are the driving
factors for cost and effectiveness. Capping would seal the contaminated
sediment and keep the copper from dissolving into the lake; however the
contamination in Torch Lake covers over 2400 acres. The cost of capping this
much surface area is generally high. Cap placement can be accomplished using
one of many techniques, each with its own unique challenges [8].
Wetlands and Vegetation – Wetlands and vegetation require creating shallow
ponds with appropriate vegetation to trap and concentrate contaminants from the
sediment. Vegetation for this situation must have an affinity for copper. The
plants in the shallow water absorb the contamination out of the sediment. Once
the copper has bioaccumulated in the plants, harvesting is necessary to prevent
the copper from re-entering the environment. This process can be costly and
time consuming. It can also be difficult to begin the growing process – capping
would most likely /might/ be needed [9]. What portion of the lake could be
treated?
Sulfide Generation – Sulfide generation is a process which uses organic matter
to generate sulfides. The sulfides trap the copper in the water and the sediments,
allowing benthic organisms to survive. Sulfide generation could be a very
inexpensive solution as long as the necessary conditions were met. Sufficient
organic matter and an emplacement method would need to be determined [10].
The alternatives listed above were evaluated in terms of cost, time, and feasibility
constraints. Dredging was not selected because /list specific reasons/. Wetlands were
were thought to be unlikely to have an effect on the lake as a whole because they could
be created only in shallow areas (what percent of lake?); furthermore, the high
maintenance costs associated with vegetation harvesting rendered this option
unattractive. Sulfide generation was ?? /state clear and explicit reasons for not
11
choosing this option/ This left capping as the method of choice despite the potential for
moderately high costs.
/It still might be desirable to create a table listing relative costs (low, medium, high), time
requirements, or other factors that would make more clear why you selected capping./
5.0 Proposed Method of Remediation
To accelerate the remediation of Torch Lake, a modified method of capping was
chosen. The entire contaminated area (approximately 2,400 acres) is too large to be
feasibly capped at once. Thus, it is recommended that the lake bottom be capped in
phases. The Test Phase and Phase One are described below in the Description of
Phase Areas. That section also illustrates how to choose additional phases if the Test
Phase and Phase One prove successful.
Capping was chosen for two reasons: 1) sand – the chosen material – is relatively
inexpensive, and 2) the labor and machinery needed for the job are cost efficient
and readily available. The capping can be completed fairly quickly for each phase,
and monitoring can be done easily to determine success or failure. As shown
below (where? I don’t see that this is shown anywhere), capping has proven to be
the most economical and feasible method of remediation. The chosen method of
In-Situ Capping (ISC) is one that has been implemented in similar scenarios by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has created an outline
for the design sequence. In compliance with the EPA, the design group addressed
every cell within the flow chart shown in Appendix A.
A sediment cap protects a water body from underlying contaminants via several
mechanisms. First, by increasing the distance between the source of contamination
and the lake, the cap retards the diffusion of pollutant into the lake. Because it would
take about a year for the copper to diffuse through a 40-cm cap (as compared to < 1
week for diffusion through the existing sediments), the steady-state flux of copper into
the lake would be reduced 50- to 100-fold even if no mechanism existed for copper
retention in the cap. However, there are several mechanisms for retention of copper
within a sediment cap that further retard its movement through the cap. The copper
may sorb to organic matter within the cap, it may precipitate in various oxide, carbonate,
or silicate mineral phases, or if hydrogen sulfide is generated through decomposition of
organic matter within the cap, the copper may be precipitated as a sulfide mineral. The
cap will utilize the naturally occurring organic matter within the capping material (sand)
along with the organic sediment that has accumulated on the bottom of the lake as a
catalyst for sulfide generation.
5.1 Implementation
Before the proposed construction can begin, several steps need to be followed. First,
the plan needs to be approved by the EPA if the site is still a Superfund site. Once
12
approval has been received, funds need to be arranged. The funding options are
described in a later section of this report. After funding is received, the project will then
proceed to the construction sequence. Before, during and after construction, the project
team will need to communicate frequently with the local population to keep them
informed. A communication plan is outlined in the Public Education section below. The
construction will occur as outlined below in the Technical Plans.
/I recommend that this paragraph and Table 1 be moved to the beginning of section 5.1/
The proposed remediation is to be implemented if and when the EPA’s No Action Plan
is deemed to be ineffectual. Comparison of observed benthos abundance and
measured copper concentrations (in the water column, sediment and pore water) with
regulatory limits and guidelines (Table 1) provides the criterion for evaluating the No
Action Plan as well as our proposed remediation scheme. Even after 35 years of no
action since the last stamp mill closed, the lake water copper concentration has not met
the EPA’s Recommended Water Quality Criterion of 9-13 mg/L. If, by 2008, sampling
indicates that copper concentrations have still not reached this level and the benthos
remain severely impaired, the EPA’s “No Action” Plan will have proven ineffectual, and
the proposed alternative could be implemented.
Table 1: Comparison of Observed Conditions in Torch Lake with Guidelines
and Regulations
Guidelines or
Regulatory
Limits
9-13c (15-19 for
MI)
Undefined due
to sampling
difficulty
Category
1980’s
1990’s
2001
2004
Cu in Lake
Water (μg/L)
30-50a
25-30b
27-44g
not yet
released
Cu in Pore
Water (μg/L)
200-600a
890d
2,500e
Cu in
Sediments
(mg/kg)
1,200a
12,000e
1,000d
4,200e
635-5,850g
1,600-2,000f
PEL:
108-390
Benthos
Severely
impaired
Severely
impaired
Severely
impaired
Severely
impaired
Site-specific;
undefined for
Torch Lake
not yet
released
a) Leddy at al. [10a]
b) Cusack (1995) [10b] and Urban (unpubl.) [?] (Should I reference this to what is currently [13] Dr.
Urban, or is there a report or something I need to reference it to?) Citation should be: Urban, N.R., Dept.
Civil & Environmental Engineering, Mich. Tech. Univ., Houghton, MI, unpubl. data.
c) U.S. EPA recommended surface water quality criteria
d) Cusack (1995) [10b]
e) Jeong et al. (1998) from hot spot off Lake Linden [10c]
f) Surface values in sediment cores from eastern half of main lake basin (Urban unpubl.) [?]
g) Baseline Study Report Torch Lake Superfund Site Houghton County, Michigan (2001) [10d]
5.2 Technical Plans
13
5.2.1 Description of Phase Areas
As noted previously, capping the entire bottom of the lake is not a feasible option due to
Torch Lake’s extensive size. Therefore, capping in phases is recommended as a means
to make construction physically and economically feasible. An initial Test Phase is
proposed followed by capping of larger areas in successive phases.
The chosen Test Phase site is an approximately 13-acre cove immediately west of the
Tamarack City sewage lagoons (seen in figure XXX of appendix B) (The map of the
work site will be within the appendix, I am not sure if we need to reference the locations
within the report of such items or not. /It would not hurt/). This site was chosen for three
primary reasons. First, this cove is somewhat isolated from the rest of the lake; this
makes it an ideal “control area” for testing and monitoring. Second, the size and shape
of this site require relatively simple and inexpensive construction techniques. The
selected construction equipment can access all surfaces of the cove relatively easily.
The final primary reason for selecting this area for the Test Phase is that the land
surrounding it is publicly owned and undeveloped. This simplifies land use issues. In
addition, a stream flowing into the test area will help to “seed” benthic organisms in the
fresh, uncontaminated sediment cap. As the name implies, the Test Phase will be
monitored to ensure that it is indeed accelerating the remediation of the cove. The
procedures for such monitoring are described in the Monitoring section of this report. If
the Test Phase proves successful, the design group recommends similar capping
techniques for Phase One.
The area suggested for Phase One is located between the mainland and Gull Island
and can be seen in figure XXX of appendix B (reference above note). This area is
protected from the full energy of wave action by its orientation and the orientation of Gull
Island. Phase 1 covers approximately 86 acres of the lake’s surface area. The primary
reasons for selecting this area are the same as those laid out for selecting the Test
Phase area. The knowledge gathered from the cap placement and monitoring of the
Test Phase will be used in Phase One. These selected phases allow “value-added”
engineering principles to be used, and help to ensure an economical, efficient, and
functional in-situ capping system.
Delineation of specific areas for Phases Two and beyond is not within the scope of this
remediation plan. It is the conclusion of the design group that the methods for
implementation outlined in this report could be applied to any part of the lake and,
provided enough money was available, to any size area.
A procedure for selecting additional phase sites is as follows. When selecting a site for
Phases Two and beyond, it is most important that the area is large enough to sustain
itself without becoming buried under contaminated sands. Ideally the area should be
located such that natural shoreline erosion will not cover the in-situ cap. Therefore any
area that is chosen should be capped all the way to the nearest adjacent shoreline. It is
recommended that any practical knowledge gained by the placement of the Test Phase
14
and the Phase One caps be applied to the construction technique for any and all
selected future phases. The goal of any additional phases should be to cap as large a
portion of the lake as possible. The design group suggests that, ultimately, the entire
lower and middle basins of the lake and parts of the upper basin be capped using the
aforementioned techniques.
5.2.2 Field Investigation
This section seems out of place. It really interrupts the flow in your description of the
technical plan. Perhaps it could be put much earlier in the report in the description of
current conditions.
The design group sampled the sediment at one location in the Test Phase area to
determine the current conditions there. The sampling site was located near the middle
of the Test Phase cove where the water depth was 3 m. Sampling was performed in
winter by lowering a gravity corer and a ponar dredge through holes drilled in the ice. A
30-cm sediment core was obtained. The core (seen below in Figure 4) had a visible
layer of partially decomposed organic matter and purple-tinted stamp sand mixture
approximately 10 cm thick above another 20 cm of purple-tinted stamp sands. The
organic material is beneficial to the benthic community; however, the continuous natural
mixing with the stamp sands contaminates the new sediments and keeps the bottom
surface toxic to the benthic organisms.
10 cm of
organic matter
and stamp
sand
Stamp sand
Figure 4: Test Phase Core Sample
15
The sediment grab sample (0.046 m2 ponar) was sieved (0.5 mm) for benthic
organisms. Late winter is an ideal time to search for benthic organisms, as there are
generally more insects in the larval stage at the bottom of the lake in winter. The single
organism recovered, see below in Figure 5, was a bright red midge larva; the calculated
density is 22 per m2.
Figure 5: Red Midge Larvae
5.2.3 Cap Design
This section must be reorganized and condensed. I would suggest first writing an
outline for this section to be sure that the sequence of topics is logical. Then, in writing
the section, try to be certain that each paragraph is tightly organized; the first line should
identify the paragraph topic, and the conclusion of the paragraph should be in either the
first or last sentence. The material in this section should be understandable to every
member of the class, even though not every one will understand it at the same level. In
general, it is good to go from simple to greater levels of detail, and it is better to err on
the side of explaining too well.
One issue that is not addressed anywhere in the report is why a protective or armoring
layer is not included in the cap. I think that such a layer probably is not needed, but it
should be mentioned. If a marina (or other area of high boat traffic) were to be capped,
such a layer would be desirable.
Another topic that is not clear in this version is why pore water concentrations are used
as the criterion for evaluating the cap. There are no regulations for porewater
concentrations; the monitoring program will use lake copper concentrations and
sediment copper concentrations as indicators of whether regulatory guidelines have
been met.
I wonder if a simple description of what occurs in a cap is not warranted to help
understand what the model is predicting. What is meant by consolidation of the cap and
underlying sediment? How long does the consolidation take? Why do copper
concentrations go down over time at the top of the cap? Given that the model is
assuming only one mechanism for copper retention in the cap, is the model prediction
conservative or the opposite? What safety factor was incorporated into the design?
To determine the cap thickness and organic carbon content, a computerized model was
implemented. The model used to determine the thickness of the sediment cap was the
Hazardous Substance Research Center (HSRC) Capping Model. The model used is a
web-based model provided by the South and Southwest Region Hazardous Substance
Research Center and was created by André Marquette of the Chemical Engineering
Department at the Louisiana State University. This model is used for the determination
of cap parameters and to analyze the chemical transport of contaminated pore-water
16
through the sediment and cap [11]. It assists in the design of a sediment cap by
evaluating the chemical transport in pore-water. The model is based on the fundamental
equations found in Appendix B of the ‘Guidance for Sub-Aqueous In-Situ Sediment
Capping’ (EPA 905-B96-004) [12].
The model can be viewed online at:
http://capping.hsrc.lsu.edu/
The model simulates the results by way of inputting sediment and contaminates
properties. The input data is used to solve for the coefficient of the standard mass
balance partial differential equation, this coefficient is the retardation factor. This model
considers several different issues including Darcian groundwater flow, effects of benthic
organisms, contaminant adsorption due to organic carbon, and dispersion due to
sediments. An effective capping thickness was determined using the model.
It is assumed that the underlying sediment remains uniformly contaminated at the
concentration levels prior to cap placement [12]. Another assumption is that the
capping material is spatially uniform and that pore-water is not horizontally forced
through the sediment by the cap [12]. Therefore the cap thickness is determined from
the initial thickness, bioturbation thickness, the consolidation thickness of the cap and
the consolidation in the underlying sediment. The equation used for the effective cap
thickness is
Leff=L0-Lbio-ÄLcap-ÄLsed.
where Leff = Effective cap thickness
L0 = Initial cap thickness
Lbio = Thickness of bioturbation
ÄLsed = Thickness affected by short term pore water migration due
to consolidation in the underlying sediment
Ä Lcap = Thickness by consolidation of the cap
The effective cap thickness is subjected to two different components for chemical
transport. The short term consolidation of the sediment underlying the cap is considered
for the advective component. Another component is the diffusive or advective-dispersive
component. This component accounts for the movement of contaminate as pore-water
after the cap has been stabilized. Advection and diffusion are the driving forces when
estimating the effectiveness of the cap during its lifetime. These processes will help
determine the loss or release of the contaminant over time by the estimation of the flux
of the contaminant. The main equation used in this model is:
Retard*(dc/dt) = Diff*(d2c/dt2) – Adv*(dc/dt) + Reaction.
where Retard = Retardation factor
Diff = Diffusion coefficient
A = Advection coefficient
17
Reaction = chemical reaction that occurs
The retardation factor found here is the ratio of the total concentration in the soil to that
in the pore-water. This factor is used in the calculation of the effective thickness of the
cap. Using the model and inserting the sediment, contaminate and capping properties
the effective thickness is determined. [12]
Many properties were used to develop a sediment cap. To completely evaluate the cap
and use the HSRC model copper concentrations, sediment properties and capping
material properties were needed. These properties for the capping model were found
using a variety of different sources. A majority of the values were found from previous
studies [13]. Table 1 shows the description, values, and units for the different properties
used for the capping model.
Table 2: Contaminated Sediment and Capping Material Properties used in the
Capping Model
As the model was run for different capping materials, which included sand, clay and silty
sand the cap material properties changed. The properties that changed were the
density, porosity and dispersivity of the material; these are seen in Table 2 and 3.
Table 3: Porosity and Density Values for Various Capping Materials
Mat De Por
eria nsitosit
l y y
(kg/
m3)
18
http://www.cst.cmich.edu/users/Franc1M/esc334/lectures/physical.htm
Table 4: Diameter and Dispersivity Values for Different Materials
Mat Dia Dis
eria met per
l er sivi
(m ty
m) (m)
Very Coarse Sand
1.5
7.50E-04
Coarse Sand
0.75
3.75E-04
Fine Sandy Loam
0.175
8.75E-05
Very Fine Sand
0.075
3.75E-05
Silt
0.02
1.00E-05
Clay
0.0015
7.50E-07
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env201.htm
To determine the optimum cap height and organic carbon content, various properties of
the capping material were changed as the model ran. Height and organic carbon
content of the cap were chosen on a concentration gradient basis. These values were
adjusted as the concentration over time was evaluated to determine the optimum cap
height and organic carbon content. Cap height is limited to cost as organic carbon
content is limited to the available for organisms at the cap-water interface. The cap
depth was chosen by running the model at zero percent organic carbon content with a
number of different depths. Based on these simulations, 40 cm (approximately 16
inches) was the optimum depth of the cap. On what criterion was this choice of optimum
thickness based? Should a graph be shown with these results? What safety factor was
applied?
The organic carbon content was then varied for the 40 cm (16 in) and three different
types of capping material (sand, clay, and silty sand). The organic carbon values used
to evaluate the cap depth were 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2 percent. For each
material, nine variations of the model were run. Each variation had a different organic
carbon content value input. One percent organic carbon content was found to be the
optimum content. The model showed that one percent produced the fastest decrease in
copper concentration with an organic carbon content that doesn’t overload the oxygen
availability for the organisms. How was it judged what foc would overload the oxygen
resupply capacity of the lake? Given that it states later that the sand likely has only 0.10.5 % OC, it seems as if no margin of safety is being planned.
19
Using the HSRC web-based capping model the optimum capping design was
established. The optimum parameters were chosen by evaluating each of the models
run for each of the materials. Figure 4 shows the concentration over a hundred years for
each of the three capping materials (clay, sand and silty sand) at an organic carbon
content of one percent.
Of the three materials tested, sand showed the best results, the lowest decrease in
concentration. Based on these results, sand is the best capping material option at one
percent organic carbon content. Though sand had the best results, all three materials
show the same trend: they greatly decrease the concentration of the pore-water at the
cap-water interface. The concentration decreases the most rapidly within the first ten
years. For the worst case material – clay – the aqueous concentration decreased from
30 μg/L to 10 μg/L. All three of the materials decrease the concentration below the
recommendation pore-water concentration of 13 μg/L.
Figure 6: Pore-water Concentrations at the Cap-Water Interface for a 100-year
Time Period for a Cap at a Height of 40 cm (~16 inches) at One Percent Organic
Carbon Content
Using sand as the optimum cap material, the other model simulations were assessed
more closely to see the effects of the various fractions of organic carbon in the cap. The
results of these simulations can be seen in Figure 5. The summary of the simulations
for clay, sand and silty sand for the different organic carbon contents can be seen in
Appendix C. These simulations were run to look at the trends and to verify that one
percent was the best fraction of organic carbon.
Similar trends of decreasing concentration were found with the different organic carbon
contents. These trends could also be seen in the clay and silty sand simulations. The
concentration decreases faster as more organic carbon is added to the model. This
decrease of concentration in the pore-water at the cap-water interface is due to the
increasing organic carbon content and its adsorption of the copper.
Figure 7: Pore-Water Concentrations at the Cap-Water Interface for a 100-year
Time Period for a Sand Cap at a Depth of 40 cm (~16 inches)
One percent organic carbon was found to still be the optimum level and is a relativity
low amount, therefore not to affect the dissolved oxygen concentration availability to the
benthic community. This low amount will guarantee the survival of biological life near
the cap-water interface. The natural amount of organic carbon in sand is on the order of
0.1 to 0.5 percent.
The sand properties used for this analysis can be found in Table 4.
20
Table 5: Sand Properties Used in Simulation
Using a sand cap 40 cm thick with one percent organic carbon, the concentration of
copper in the pore-water will decrease over time and result in a reduction below the
regulatory suggestions. The EPA recommended limit is 13 μg/L. The pore-water in the
capped area will decrease to this level in approximately 2 years. In five years monitoring
should show that the concentration has decreased will decrease to 8μg/L Table 5 shows
the decrease in pore-water concentrations beyond five years, as well as a continuous
decrease in concentration.
Table 6: Concentration over Time for Sand at 1 Percent Organic Carbon Content
To examine the chosen cap further, the model was simulated for 500 years (see
summary Table X in Appendix C). According to this simulation, the pore-water
concentration will continue to decrease and will reach a steady state in approximately
300 years. The simulated model can be seen below in Figure 6.
Figure 8: Pore-water Concentrations at the Cap-Water Interface for a 500-year
Period for a Sand Cap at a Depth of 40 cm (~16 inches) at a One Percent Organic
Carbon Content
Based on the above described modeling, the optimum cap for Torch Lake is a sand cap
with thickness of 40 cm (16 inches) and one percent organic carbon content. Using this
cap will significantly decrease the aqueous pore-water concentration, reducing it to 5
μg/L by 14 years after the cap is placed, and reaching steady state in 300 years.
The model produced very compelling results for a cap at 40 cm (16 in). To verify the
produced results the HSRC model was run with virtually no cap containing zero percent
organic carbon. This simulated the concentration over time without the aid of a cap.
With no cap and zero percent organic carbon, the concentration would not decrease
over time. Without a cap and organic carbon, the pore-water is free to transfer out of the
sediment and into the open water. Also, without the cap, adsorption aided by the
organic carbon of the copper can not occur and therefore a decrease in concentration
will not occur. The initial pore-water concentration was assumed to be around 30 μg/L,
the verification model produced these same results. Therefore the model is shown to be
correct as it has verified the original concentration under natural conditions with no
barrier for the contaminate or adsorption process. This verification can be seen in
21
Figure 7, the summary of the verification data can be seen in (Appendix C). This shows
a relatively constant concentration over time, just as it would be if there was no cap.
Figure 9: Copper Concentration over Time with no Cap or Organic Carbon
Verifying Correct and Accurate Results
5.2.4 Work Plan
There are several methods available for capping, each used for different situations. The
placement technique selected for the Test Phase is ice placement using a crane and
clamshell style bucket. Ice placement means that the crane and bucket will spread the
sand onto the ice of the phase area during the winter months. Due to the small scale of
the Test Phase, the entire region can be reached by a crane on shore which minimizes
costs and risk. It is estimated that a reach of approximately 250 feet is sufficient in
length to cover any and all parts of the Test Phase cove. Moderately large cranes can
readily reach out over 300 feet.
The stamp sands are vulnerable to liquefaction and exhibit low shear strength [15].
Because of this, the roads that the equipment will be driving on would need to be
packed down and frozen. To do this, a bulldozer will clear the haul road and stockpile
area of snow. It is estimated that three times a month during the winter the snow would
have to be removed from the “roads” to allow a deep freeze. Once the ground is frozen
the large-scale equipment would be able to drive on the sands, and overlying topsoil,
safely and non-destructively.
The contracted crane operator would choose the material stockpile placement. This
operator would be able to choose the most efficient locations of the material for the
crane being used. The contracted dump truck operators would create the stockpiles as
instructed. Silt fence would be placed around the stockpiles to prevent the capping
material from spreading to the surrounding area.
As described above, the material selected for this operation is sand. Sand has a natural
organic matter content of approximately 0.1 to 0.5 percent. The recommended organic
matter content of the material for this project is 1 percent. However, if the 0.1 to 0.5
percent organic matter plus the organic matter currently on the floor of the lake are
taken into account, the total amount of organic matter will be sufficient for our purposes.
This allows any mixing of additional organic matter (e.g., sludge, leaf refuse) with the
sand to be eliminated from the plan. If during the monitoring of the Test Phase the
organic matter content is found to be inadequate, mixing can be added to the process
for Phase One and beyond.
Once the crane is mobilized and the material has been stock-piled, the crane could
begin placing the material atop the frozen ice. The crane operator would take care to
ensure an even and complete layer no less than sixteen inches in thickness be placed
22
atop the ice. The crane operator would be responsible for keeping track of the
completed placement areas. Once the test phase is completed, demobilization should
occur as soon as possible to reduce the risk of the ice roads becoming weak due to
warmer temperatures.
When the ice melts, the sand will drift to the lake bottom, generating the cap. Table 6
below gives the quantities for the Test Phase and equipment needed in order to
produce the desired cap. /This is not a paragraph/
Once the Test Phase is determined to be successful based on the monitoring
techniques described later in this report, construction on Phase One will begin. Phase
One of the project uses slightly more advanced techniques for placement due to the
larger area. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the selected area for Phase One
will be able to be completed using the same techniques described for the Test Phase.
The rest of the area will be placed using what the design group refers to as “Mechanical
Placement.” This method employs the same equipment as dredging techniques only in
reverse. A clamshell bucket would take material from the barge and place it onto the
bottom. This technique would require an experienced dredging/capping contractor to
ensure even placement and complete coverage on the bottom of the lake. This
placement technique is more costly than the shore-based crane placement, and it is
recommended that as much as possible be capped using the crane technique.
Inspection of such a technique during construction may only be possible using
electronic monitoring of the dredge operations. The contacted dredge operator would
assume such monitoring responsibilities.
Both of the techniques for placement were determined to be feasible /What does this
sentence mean? How was this determined?/. The techniques would ensure that the cap
met all criteria described previously. Because Phase One is larger than the Test Phase,
it will take longer to cap. Once the Test Phase and Phase One are complete and
successful, it is recommended that other phases be planned and implemented until the
lake can successfully heal itself in its entirety.
5.2.5 Permits, Legal Issues
/This section needs to be more specific/
It is EPA policy that permits from federal and state agencies are not required for work
performed at Superfund sites. However, Superfund sites do have to comply with the
intent of all permits that would be required if the site were not on the NPL list [16].
Specific aspects of this project that might involve permits are accessibility to the
construction location, wetland/shoreline guidelines, using a crane during construction,
and erosion control standards for piles of sandy material located on or near the shore.
Below is a list of permits that would need to be followed during construction [17].
Because permit requirements change with time, it will be advisable to research this
issue again when the project is actually implemented.
23
/Rather than this bulleted list, I would like to see additional information included in a
table. Specifically, in addition to these topic areas it would be good to list the relevant
law (and section), the agency involved in issuing permits, and a web page or other
contact information./
 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
 Inland Lakes and Streams (alterations) Permit
 Shorelands Protection and Management Permit
 Wetland Protection Permit
5.2.6 Monitoring
To evaluate the successfulness of the initial capping, Test Phase monitoring and
management of the lake are necessary. The parameters to be monitored include the
diversity and abundance of benthic organisms, copper concentrations in the lake water
above the cap, copper concentrations in the pore water (to be obtained by centrifuging
or pressing sediments) within the surface (0-5 cm below surface) sediments, and
copper concentrations in the solid phase of the surface sediments. There are currently
thirty-eight sampling locations throughout Torch Lake. These were initiated in 1999 and
2000 for the monitoring of the remediation of the shoreline as well as of the lake.
Currently there are no monitoring stations in the Test Phase area, and there is one in
the proposed Phase One area. The EPA samples at these stations every five years
[18].
Three monitoring stations are recommended for evaluating the success of capping of
the Test Phase area. One station would be placed in the northwest section, another in
the center and a third in the southeast section of the Test Phase area. At each of the
sampling stations, copper concentrations in pore-water, lake water and sediments will
be measured as will the abundance and type of benthic organisms. Samples will be
obtained every year for the first five years to closely monitor concentrations and the
benthic community response. After five years, the monitoring will be performed every
five years to ensure that recovery of the lake sediment is continuing and to record the
increase in benthos.
The criteria for evaluating the success of the capping are the same as for evaluating the
current No Action Plan. Lake water Cu concentrations less than 9-13 μg/L, sediment
Cu concentrations below 108-390 μg/g, and porewater Cu concentrations below the
model predicted values would indicate success of the capping. A diversity and
abundance of benthic organisms similar to nearby (e.g., Portage) lakes also would
indicate success. It is unlikely that lake water copper concentrations will be affected by
capping of the small areas in the Test and First Phase of this project; success would be
indicated by the other parameters. After five years the copper concentration of the
pore-water at the cap-water interface should be approximately 8 μg/L, as predicted by
the aforementioned model. If these conditions are achieved, monitoring of the Test
Phase will continue and construction will begin on Phase One.
24
The same monitoring schedule will be used for Phase One. There is currently one
monitoring station in the Phase One area [18]. Seven more monitoring stations in this
area are recommended, including three surrounding Gull Island. The criteria for
evaluating the Phase One cap will be the same as for the Test Phase; if monitoring
results indicate the cap was successful, then planning for additional phases could begin.
As with Phase One, if successful results are shown the next phase could be
implemented until the lake is fully recovered. As more area of the lake is capped there
will be an increase in the benthic community as well as a decrease of copper
concentration in the lake and sediment.
5.3 Economic Analysis
5.3.1 Projected Costs
The projected construction costs were estimated and are displayed below in Table 8.
The numbers below represent the price range for which this project could be bid in
2005. It should be used as an engineers’ estimate only and only as a reference until the
job is let for bidding. Depending on how long project implementation takes, additional
inflation may need to be considered. The following estimate should not be displayed to
any contractor who may be involved on the project.
Table 7: Cost Estimation for Test Phase and Phase One
25
The above costs for construction are reasonable and were deemed acceptable by the
design group. /What does the previous sentence mean? Monitoring of the cap itself will
be part of the monitoring plan discussed previously and is not included in this
construction cost estimate. Presently, the DEQ is obligated to conduct and pay for the
ongoing monitoring of the lake; whether they would conduct the additional monitoring
described in this project is not yet known. Any large-scale maintenance deemed
necessary during the monitoring period should reference the above numbers for cost
estimations. Small-scale maintenance should not be completed due to the complexity
and expense of mobilizing the required equipment. Because the Test Phase will be
closely monitored, maintenance issues will become apparent during that phase and
may play into the feasibility of continuing with Phase One.
5.3.2 Projected Benefits
There are several projected benefits of this proposed project. Capping in phases will
allow the lake to begin to recover from exposure to the mine wastes. As the lake
recovers, better ecological conditions will begin to develop in each phase area,
eventually extending throughout the entire lake. As part of these healthier ecological
conditions, benthic and fish communities will increase and begin to reproduce and
sustain themselves in the lake. Decreased copper concentrations in the lake water may
enhance algal production and thereby promote faster rates of sediment accumulation
and burial of the contaminated sediments. Increased fish populations and clean
sediments will allow for increased recreation on and around Torch Lake. Natural fish
reproduction may lessen the need for stocking of the lake. The fishing and swimming
conditions will improve, boosting the local economy.
5.3.3 Funding Sources
Funding for this remediation project would come in the form of grants from state, federal
and nongovernmental sources. Groups that might manage the project and that could
apply for these grants include local citizens groups such as the Torch Lake Public
Action Committee (TLPAC), civic organizations (e.g., Trout Unlimited), or local
government entities (e.g., Houghton County).
For this type of project numerous grants are available, and some detailed information
for them is given below. From a link on the EPA website many grants can be found in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) [21]. Many of these grants are
allocated on a case by case basis with a limited amount to disperse over a certain
26
geographical region, so obtaining awards for these grants may prove to be challenging
depending on the environmental priority of this project. Not all grants are specifically
intended for the construction process. A few may cover only monitoring costs or
technical advising expenses. Also several of these funding sources require proper
planning and design information to be available to insure that the project plan is in order
and meets grant requirements.
Again, rather than a bulleted list, I would recommend a Table.

MDEQ Michigan Coastal Management Program Grants [22]
o Applications are due by April 1, 2005 to get funding by the following
January (applications found on MDEQ website)
o $50,000 average award matched 1:1 with state and local funds

MDEQ Water Quality Management Grants (monitoring only) [22]
o Proposals due: April 15, 2005
o $100,000 is available for inland lake beach monitoring grants, $200,000
for local water quality monitoring grants, and $200,000 for emerging
issues monitoring grants
o Eligible parties: local governments and nonprofit organizations
o Further detailed information found on MDEQ website

Clean Water Act Section 319 Funds [22]
o Use is for preventing non-point source pollution in watersheds
o Applications due: April 8, 2005
o Application forms on MDEQ website
o $2.9 million available in Michigan for 2005 with 40% matching
o Minimum of 25% matching

Targeted Watershed Grant Program [21]
o Goal is to restore, preserve, & protect the nation’s watersheds
o State governors apply for national assistance for respective state projects
o $600,000 to $900,000 on average per award per project with a minimum
25% non-federal match
o Application forms on EPA website (CFDA 66.439)

Regional Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program [21]
o Applications due: March 14, 2005
o $192,000/award
o additional information on the EPA website (CFDA 66.512)

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grants [23]
o Covered under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, & Restoration
Act
o Information found on the Fish & Wildlife Service’s website
o Eligible only through the state
27
o Applications due: 1st week in June
o Award ranges: $75,000 to $1,000,000 with 50% match

Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund [22]
o Utilized for new research and demonstration projects to preserve,
enhance, and restore the Great Lakes and its component ecosystems
o Average proposal amount is $75,000
o Funding notification varies each year
o Information found on the MDEQ website

Superfund Technical Assistance Grants [21]
o Given to qualified groups to contract with independent technical advisors
to help in interpreting and commenting on Superfund site-related
information and decisions
o $50,000 as an initial award with a 20% match required unless waived due
to financial burden
o further detail can be found on the EPA website (CFDA 66.806)
Another source of funding that could be researched is the remaining money from the
original grant allowance of $15.2 million from the EPA for the Superfund site.
Approximately $12.2 million of the original amount has been allocated to date. The
remaining funds may be required further maintenance of previous work, but with
coordination with the EPA this money could become available for this specific project.
Grants that require some percent of matching contributions from state and local
agencies will need to be anticipated in future budgets in order to acquire such funding.
These actions would require further coordination with respective governmental entities.
5.4 Public Education
In the process of remediating Torch Lake, there must be measures taken to inform the
public about what is happening in their local environment. Therefore, it is necessary to
have a plan of action for educating the public on what is going to happen to Torch Lake
in the design and construction processes. Citizen involvement is needed on Superfund
sites in order to meet community needs and to promote a successful outcome of the
remediation.
The process to educate the public can be quite involved with several methods of
informing the local community about what is going to happen to the remediation site.
/This is not a paragraph/
A first step is to have a public meeting to explain the process for the remediation of
Torch Lake. In order to inform the local community about this meeting, an
advertisement would need to be posted in the local newspapers at least two weeks in
advance. A printed flyer with details of the meeting may also be needed, as some
28
residents do not receive the local newspaper. At the meeting a fact sheet would be
distributed to each attending citizen. Graphics to aid in the explanation of the
remediation process should also be included.
Following the public meeting, a 30-day public comment period would be required to
allow local citizens to respond to the content of the public meeting. If substantial
interest is shown by the community, the amount of time for the public comment period
could be extended to 60 days.
A second method of maintaining contact with the community is through bi-monthly fact
sheets. A fact sheet could include information encouraging citizens to write or call the
Community Relations Coordinator or Remedial Project Manager with any comments or
questions. It also could include a blank mailing label for citizens who are not currently
on the mailing list but would like to be. Knowing the level and type of public interest is
necessary for planning successful community relations activities. Another method for
involving local residents is making monthly telephone calls to key local officials or citizen
leaders and soliciting their input; this demonstrates to the community that their thoughts
are important.
Another useful method is setting up a toll-free number to provide the public with easy
access to the EPA and to allow the public to inform the EPA of any problems in the
community because of the project [24]. These three methods of contact should be
arranged by the EPA or the group to whom they have contracted the project.
Currently there are high school students in four area schools performing long-term
monitoring of soil, plants, and birds on the Torch Lake Superfund Site in site areas that
have already been remediated. This process began in August of 2003 and a
commitment has been made by those schools to continue performing the studies
through 2006 [25]. The students that are performing these monitoring tasks could be
used for monitoring soil samples from the bottom of Torch Lake in our Test Phase and
Phase 1 areas. The most economical method for the testing would be to take soil
samples in the winter when the lake is frozen. The monitoring of the Torch Lake
Superfund site is an educational experience for the students as well as a method for
further educating the public about the capping method.
6.0 Conclusion
This design group believes that the natural remediation of Torch Lake can and should
be assisted by a 40 cm (16 inch) sand cap with an organic carbon content of one
percent. This solution will benefit the benthic community of Torch Lake while remaining
cost and time effective.
Due to the nature of this project, its construction should be implemented as soon as
possible. The EPA’s guidelines were strictly followed and every cell on the flowchart
addressed. The earlier this project is begun, the sooner it will benefit the benthic
29
community. It is the recommendation of this design group that this project be
implemented as soon as possible and according in accordance with this report.
30
7.0 References
[1]
[2] “NPL Factsheets for Michigan: Torch Lake.” Region 5 Superfund Division. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. December 10, 2004.
http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/michigan/MID980901946.htm. Accessed March
2005.
[3] “Record of Decision List: Torch Lake.” Superfund Information Systems. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. January 12, 2004.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/rodslist.cfm?msiteid=0503034#rodlist. Accessed
March 2005.
[4] Portage Lake District Library.
105 Huron
Houghton, Michigan 49931
(906) 482-4570
Lake Linden/Hubbel Public Library
601 Calumet Street
Lake Linden, Michigan 49945
(906) 296-0698
[4a] EPA Source for recommended surface water quality criteria (Dr. Urban)
[4b] State of Michigan Source for recommended surface water quality criteria (Dr.
Urban)
[5] “Torch Lake Area of Concern”. United States Environmental Protection Agency. July
6, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/trchlke.html. Accessed March 2005.
[6] Beaver, Bill and Jim Gondec. Area of Concern (AOC) Torch Lake, MI. Michigan
Technological University Environmental Policy Program. June 1998.
http://www.ss.mtu.edu/EP/TorchLake/AOC.html. Accessed March 2005.
[7] Dredging source (Kris)
[8] Capping source (Kris)
[9] Wetland source (Kris)
[10] sulfide generation source (Kris)
31
[10a] Leddy, D.G., S.T. Bagley, T.J. Bornhorst, S.H. Bowen, W.W. Charland, L.D. Dorie,
F.H. Erbisch, D.S. McDowell, W.I. Rose, and J.A. Spence. Torch Lake Study
(Project Completion Report). Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1986.
[10b] Cusack, Cynthia C. Sediment Toxicity from Copper in the Torch Lake (MI) Great
Lakes Area of Concern: Thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Houghton,
MI: Michigan Technological University, 1995.
[10c] Jeong J. N.R. Urban, and S.A. Green. Release of Copper from Mine Tailings on
the Keweenaw Peninsula. Journal of Great Lakes Research: 25 (4), 721-734.
1999.
[10d] Baseline Study Report Torch Lake Superfund Site Houghton County, Michigan.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. August 2001.
[11] Louisiana State Chemical Engineering Capping Design Model. Louisiana State
University. http://capping.hsrc.lsu.edu/. Accessed March 2005.
[12] Reible, Danny D. “Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated
Sediments: Appendix B: Model for a Chemical Containment by a Cap.” United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/iscmain/appndb.pdf. Accessed March 2005.
[13] Urban, Noel PhD.
[14] Chin, David A. Water Resources Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2000.
[15] Crane, Dick. Construction Inspector. State of Michigan Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Personal Interview February 8, 2005 by the design team.
[16] Jones, Brenda. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Division Office
Chicago, Illinois. Jones.brenda@epa.gov. Personal Interview March 8, 2005 by
Lindsey Anderson.
[17] Environmental Permits, Licenses, and Certifications. Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality. 2005. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-683089034--,00.html. Accessed March 2005.
[18] monitoring source (Tiffany)
[19] Heavy Construction Data – RSMeans. 17th annual edition, 2003. Construction
Publishers and Consultants. Kingston, MA. Copyright 2002.
[20] Crawler Cranes. Liebherr Group. http://www.liebherr.com/cr/en/default_cr.asp.
Accessed March 2005.
32
[21] The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html. Accessed March 2005.
[22] Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. www.michigan.gov/deq. Accessed
March 2005.
[23] United States Fish & Wildlife Service. www.fws.gov. Accessed March 2005.
[24] Community Relations Handbook, Appendix H. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. July 29, 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/involvement.htm. Accessed
March 2005.
[25] Torch Lake: EPA Superfund Site Monitored by Michigan Students. Joan
Schumaker-Chadde, Education Program Coordinator, Michigan Technological
University, 2004.
33
8.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Flow Chart
Appendix B: Maps of Worksite
Appendix C: Simulation Summary for Clay, Sand, and Silty Sand
34
DESIGN SEQUENCE FOR
IN-SITU CAPPING PROJECTS
DEFINE GOALS OF REMEDIATION
EVALUATE CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACTERIZE CAPPING SITE
CAPPING
FEASIBLE?
NO
CONSIDER
ALTERNATIVES
NO
CONSIDER
ALTERNATIVES
NO
CONSIDER
ALTERNATIVES
YES
DESIGN CAP COMPONENTS
SELECT EQUIPMENT AND
PLACEMENT TECHNIQUE
NOTE:
ALL BRANCHES OF
THE FLOWCHART
MUST BE FOLLOWED
CAPPING
DESIGN
ACCEPTABLE?
YES
DEVELOP MONITORING AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
DETERMINE CONSTRUCTION
MONITORING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
COSTS
ACCEPTABLE?
YES
IMPLEMENT
35