United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R01 -85/015
November 1985
SEPA
Superfund
Enforcement
Document:
-------
I TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(PfHU rHd Inllfflctions on tht "vt'" "'Ion co,""lttin'J
'.'OfilT NO. 12. 3. RECI"IENT'S ACCESSION NO.
A/ROD/ROl-85/015 !
.. TITLE AND SU8TITLE 5. IIIIE"OfilT DATE
SUPERFUND ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT November 22, 1985
winthrop Landfill, ME (EDD) 8. "ERFORMINCO OfilCOANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOfllCS) 8. "EfIIFOfllMINCO ORCOANIZATION REPORT NO.
t. "EfilFORMINO OfilOANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. "fIIOORAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONT...ACT/GFIANT No.
12. S"ONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE DF RE"ORT AND PERIOO COVEREO
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUl'l'LEMENTAfIIV NOTES
1.. A8STfilACT
The Winthrop Landfill consists of two contiguous parcels of 11 acres, with
approximately 9.5 acres located along the western shore of Annabessacook Lake in the
~wn of Winthrop, Maine. The site was initially used in the 1920s as a sand and gravel
. . In the 1930s, parts of the site became the Winthrop TOwn Dump, accepting mixed
..nicipal, commercial, and industrial wastes. The site received hazardous substances
between the early 1950s and mid 1970s. It is estimated that more than 3 million gallons
of chemical wastes, mostly complex organic compounds including resins, plasticizers,
solvents, and other process chemicals were disposed at the site. Wastes were openly
burned until 1972, and landfilling occurred from 1972 until 1982.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: the extension of an alternate
water supply to residences in close proximity to the landfill1 construction of a chain
link fence around the landfill, and imposition of deed restrictions prohibiting use of
the landfill for activities other than the remedial action1 prohibition of ground water
withdrawls for purposes other than remedial action1 prohibition of excavation in the
landfill, except for residential construction or remedial action1 quarterly sampling of
monitoring points in sensitive areaS1 grading and placement of a RCRA cap over the
entire land fi 111 completion of engineering design work (geologic, hydrogeologic, and
treatability pilot studies) 1 and establishment of an Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL)
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WOfilDS AND DOCUMENT ANALVSIS
I. DESCfII'I'TO f115 b.IDENTIFIERS/DPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSA TI Field/Group
Record of Decision
winthrop Landfill, ME (EDD)
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: organics, solvents,
toluene
,ISTRI8UTIDN STATEMENT 11. SECUfIIlTV CLASS ITI.;s RtpO"J 21. NO. OF PACOES
None 49
20. SECUfIIlTV CLASS ITllis paltl 22. PRICE
None
e'A ,- 2220-1 (It... '-77)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
,.
REPORT NUMBER
Insert the lPA report number u ia appnn on Use cover of tM publkation.
LEAVE ILANK
Z.
3.
RECI"ENTS ACCEDION NUMI'R
R.Mrved for use by e:u:h ~port rel:ipient.
4.
TITLE AND SUITITLE
Title should Indicate de:arly Ind briefly the subje\:t ~'0Y&......p: u.. .Ik: r~'poIl. ;and b.: ~isl'laYL'~ I'rl.llllln~'ntly, ~,t ",hllll~', If 11""'1. III '''';lII,'r
type or otherwtse subordInate it to mlln title, When I re:port i" rrc:p:a~d In mo~ ttun unl: mlulIl\:. "'p'OIt Ih~' rrunOiry till~', OI,hl ~,.I:lln~'
number and include subtitle for th. specifIC title.
REPORT DATE
Each report shaH c:arry a dale i,dic:atinl at least month and year, Indi.:ah: th~' hOiSIS 1.111 IIIllIdlll ";1' ,...c:~.tc:~ rQl.. .HII,' o} iu",', "tll,' 01
tlPf1'ON/.." ofpnfMffitiolr. "c.).
5.
..
"R'ORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
lealie blank.
7.
AUTH OR '"
Gille namel,,1 in ~'I)nvcnllonal order (John R. Doc, J, Robt." /Jot', ,'1('.), List ;luthur\ OInilioillulI if it ,lit'f~'rs "'"'" II". I"rfur",i~ ..'pm.
unon.
..
"R'ORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
In8I1 if performinl orpmzalion WIShes to auiJllthl~ number.
"RPORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORED
Gift name, .ueet, c:ity. sllte. and ZIP code, List no more than two levels 0" OIn Urpnll.OIliunOiI hireardlY.
t.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NU_ER
Use Ihe propam element number under whil:h Ihe report was prc:pared. Subor~inOlh: num~'r' 11101)' be illdu"~'LIIII l'OI"'lIlh,'""",
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMaER
In.a c:onuacl or IfInt number under which report was prc:puc:d.
,2. SPONIORINO AGENCV NAME AND AODRED
Indude ZIP code.
11 TYPE 0' REPORT ANO ,.RIOO COVERED
I.ndic:ate interim final. "c,. and if applicable, dates cOllered.
1.. SPONSORING AOkNCY COOE
Insert appropriate code.
,5. SUPPLEMENTARV NOTEI
Enaer information not induded elsewhere but useful. such a~:
To be published in. Supersedes. Supplemenu. etc:.
Prepared ill .:uoperation with, I rOln"OIII.." ..I, l'rl:""'III,'" ;II """ I L''''III " III.
,.. A88TRACT
Inc:lude a brief (200 WOI'ds or I,ss) faClual summary or the most sil.lnilkantlnfurmOiliun ~'unIOllnl:" III Ih,' ,.....,,1. ""11' "'1"'" '11111;1111'"
siptifiCint bibliolfaphy or literature survey. mention it hert:,
17. KIY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YIII
(a) DESCRIPTORS. Seleci rrom the Theyurus or i::nlinecrir., ilnd SIo:iC:llllfi~' Terms Ihe prup.:r ;lulh..rll,'tll~'rms IhOlII~I:nllfy Ihe nlOlillr
c:oncept of the research and are suffic:iently ~pel:ltic: and prel:ii4: 10 be Ui4:~ OIS Intll:" enUlC~ fur L;"I;Jlu~In~.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPf.N.ENDED TERMS. U. idencifaen for proJcct n;anM. cude namC~,1:4U1pml:ntIlI:SIt:nilto',. 1:11:. U...: "'1\:11'
ended terms written 1ft descriptor form for tho. subjects for which no dt:~rlplur t:~iSlS.
(c:) COSA TI I. U:LD GROUP. l'ield and IfOUP awpunents ue to be: taken from the I Y6S (,051\'11 Suhlnl ('OII~'~ury Ust. Slnc~' Ihe nl;J.
jority or documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Held/Group ;a~'iJnml:nthl will bt: sl)l.'ull~' tll~ 'I'hnc. all.'a nl hUIII;ln
endeavor. or rype or physiul objeca. The applic:ationCs) will be c:ro»...t:8'l:rl:n~"Cd with sc\'unuOIr)' Ild\I/( .WIII' ""It:"mclIl\ Ih;ll 10'1111..111110
the primary postanll'..
,.. OISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote relrasabilil)' to the public or IimJt:ltlon ror rel~n~ uther than seCUrlt)' fur t:JlOImrlc "Relc;I'c !.1I1""lIet!." ( Ilc ;lIIV ..~.III.dllhl)' III
the public. with address OInd pme.
,t..2O. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit c1a:iSified reports 10 the: Na.ional Tc:chnlc::aJ Inrortnatiun 'I:rvicc.
Z" NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number or pages. includinlthis one and unnumbered plJC'. bUI exdudl.: dlsillbullun 11'1. I' ;Jny.
zz. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National rec:hnicallnrormation Sl.:rvu:c ur 1111.: GOllcrnment Pflnling OfficI.:, II knuwn.
-------
EPA/ROD/ROl-85/015
Winthrop Landfill, ME (EDD)
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
for each contaminant in the ground water based on RCRA Section 264.94(b)
criteria. If the ACL is exceeded, installation and operation of an
interceptor system and construction and operation of a water treatment
facility northeast of the landfill will be implemented. Total capital cost
for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $6,000,000.
Operation and maintenance for the recommended alternative is estimated at
$42,000 per year if the ACL is not exceeded. Should the ACL be exceeded, .
operation and maintenance of the ground water extraction and treatment
system, along with monitoring and cap maintenance, will cost between
$360,000 and $1,480,000 per year, depending upon the method used to treat
the contaminants. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, Inmont Corporation
and the Town of Winthrop will provide funding for operation and maintenance
-------
ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site:
winthrop Landfill, Winthrop, Maine
Documents Reviewed
I am basing ~y ~ecision, principally on the following documents
describing the analysis of the cost and effectiveness of the
remedial alternatives for the winthrop site:
- Final Draft Remedial Investigation, Winthrop Landfill,
Winthrop, ME, (Volumes 1 and 2) CH2M-Hill, June 1983.
- Addendum Remedial Investigation, Winthrop Landfill,
Winthrop, ME, (Volume 3) CH2M-Hill, January 1984.
- Draft Feasibility Study Report, Winthrop Landfill,
Winthrop, ME, CH2M-Hill, January 1985.
- Final Draft Endangerment Assessment, Winthrop Landfill,
GCA, January 1985.
.,
- CERCLA 5106 Administrative Order on Consent, between
Inmont Corporation, Town of Winthrop, Maine Department
of Environmental Protection, and u.s. EPA, Docket .84-1041,
dated June 1984.
- Responsiveness Summary (attached).
- Summary of Alternative Selection (attached).
- Settlement Documents including a Consent Decree and Remedial
Action Work Plan (attached).
Description of Proposed Remedy
Note:
Areas referred to below are shown on the attached
figure.
1.
Completion of an alternate water supply to residences
in close proximity to the landfill (Areas 1 and 2 as
shown on Figure 1, attached).
2.
construction of a chain link fence around the landfill,
and imposition of deed restrictions prohibiting use of
the landfill for activities other than the remedial action.
3.
Prohibition of groundwater withdrawals for purposes
other than remedial action in Areas 1, 2 and 3, and in
-------
B.
C.
4.
Prohibition of excavation in Areas 1, 2 and 3 and
in the landfill. except for residential construction
or remedial action.
5.
Ouarterly sampling of monitoring points in sensitive
areas (including the cattail marsh, the brook, the lake,
and eisewhere) consistent with provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) S264 Subpart F.
6.
Grading and placement of a cap over entire landfill,
having an in place permeability of not less than
1 x 10-6 CM/Sec and consistent with RCRA, 40 C.F.R.
5264.310. Grading and placement of a cap over Area H
having an in place permeability of not less than
1 x 10-7 CM/Sec and consistent with RCRA, 40 C.F.R.
5264.310.
7.
Completion of engineering design work to. include the
following:
Study
A.
Geologic and hydrogeologic
invest ig ations includ ing
additional seismic work,
full scale pump tests, and
groundwater flow models
calibrated to the results of
the pump tests.
A treatability pilot study
and an evaluation of treated
contaminated groundwater
di~scharge options.
A mitigation plan for
floodplains and wetlands.
-2-
Purpose
°To determine the full
northern ex tent of the; .
bedrock trough underlying
the landfill and exten~
of contamination within
the troug h .
°To determine the need
for, design and location
of additional monitoring
points.
°To determine the design
parameters and placement
of the interceptor system
called for in item 8 below.
°To determine the des ig n
parameters for the treat-
ment facility called for
in item 9 below.
°To determine the most
environmentally sound
discharge option that
will meet applicable
water quality standards.
°To assure compliance with
floodplain and wetland
-------
10.
8.
°To mitigate and minimize
potential harm to
floodplains and wetlands.
Establishment of an Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL)
for each contaminant in the groundwater based on RCRA
Section 264.94(b) criteria. If the ACL, once established,
is exceeded, elements 9 and 10 below must be implemented.
If the ACL is not established, then the groundwater protec-
tion standard above which elements 9 and 10 must be imple-
mented will be the background level of each contaminant
in groundwater.
C. (Continued)
As an interim measure, if a discharge of contaminants from
the landfill is detected in Annabessacock Lake at levels
that exceed an interim standard based on relative risk,
items 9 and 10 below must be implemented.-
9.
Installation and operation of an interceptor system in
or near the landfill as necessary to extract contaminated
groundwater.
Construction and operation of a water treatment facility
northeast of the landfill to lower the concentration of
contaminants in the extracted groundwater to levels below
the ACt or background levels as appropriate.
Jperation and maintenance will be required for this remedial
alternative and will include the following:
.- - 1 .
2.
3.
4.
s.
Costs for sampling and analysis during the continued
monitoring.
Maintenance of the monitoring wells.
Maintenance of the cap.
Operation of the interceptor well system as necessary.
Operation of the water treatment facility as necessary.
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan
40 C.F.R. Part 300, (NCP), I have determined that providing an alter-
nate water supply, capping the landfill, extracting and treating
groundwater and other measures as described above at the Winthrop
site is a cost-effective remedy that provides adequate protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment.
-------
The State of Maine has been consulted and concurrs with the settle-
ment agreement which reflects the approved remedy described in this
EDD. In addition, the action will require future operation and
maintenance activities to ensure the continued effectiveness of the
remedy. These activities will be Considered part of the approved
action. Agreement has been reached between EPA and the responsible
parties based On the selected remedy under which the responsible
parties will undertake all activities described in this EDD,
including operation and maintenance.
NN"q~, t9tr
DATE
J:~ R:~;f, ~J .
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, EPA-REGION I
-
-------
.'
. "
, ,
SUMMARY OF R~~~DIAL ALTE~~ATIVE SELECTION
FOR
WI NTHROP I.~~DFI LL, ~';I !'\THROP, M.h.I NE
October 24, 1985
u.s. Enviro~~ental Protection Agency
-------
Site
r:escri;>tion
Currer.t
Site
Status
Enfo~cernent
Analysis
Alterr.atives
Evaluation
;'.1 terna t i ve
J..lternative
;'.1 t ern a t i v e
t
#3
.~
Alternative
;'.lternative
hlternative #6
;'.lternative #7
Alternative #8
;'.1 ternati ve #9
.:'.1 terna t i ve #10
;'.lternative #11
.:'.1 ternat i ve #12
;'.lternative #13
Alternative #14
.;lternative -#15
Alternative #16
;'.1 terna t i ve #17
.;1ternative #18
nlternative #19
Alternative
#20
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
and
History
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .".
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
. .... ... ........ ... .... .........
.15
#1
. .... .... .... ... .... ... .... ... .....
. . . . .17
#2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
#4
. ........ ........... ....... ...
. . . . . . . . . .19
#5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...........20
. .... .... ....... .... ... .... ... .... .....
.20
..... .... ....... .... ... .... ... ......... .21
..... .................. .................21-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
.... .... ....... .... ... .............. ...23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
.... .... ....... ... . ... .... ... ... . ... ...25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
... . .... ....... .... ... ........ .. . ..... .26
-------
Table of
(continued)
Contents
atailed
Evaluation of
Remain ing
-2-
Alternatives
Consistency with Other Environ~ental
Comm~nity Relations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laws
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reco~ended Alternative
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operation and Maintenance
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..~
.27
.38
.40
.41
-------
SUMMARY OF REMED!AL ALTERKATI~E SELECTION
Winth~op Landfill, Winthro~, Maine
Site Description and History
The Winthrop Landfill consists of two contiguous parcels having
surface areas of 11 acres and approximately 9.5 acres respectively
located along the western shore of Annabessa900k Lake in the Town
of r;i~throp, Maine. The 11 acre parcel is currently owned by the
Tpwn of \t\in throp, and was oW:1ed and o;;:>e!:' ated b:z' the To",,'n d'J ring
the period in which the landfill received municipal and industrial
wastes, including hazardous su~stances. Although -some boundary
lines are indispute, a large portion of the 5.5 acre parcel
was o-ned and operated, and is currently owned by Eve!:'ett and
Glo~ia Sava~e.
The site was initially used in the 1920's as a sand and gravel
pit. In the 1930's parts of the site became the Winthrop Tow~
Dum~, accepting mixed rnunici?al, commercial, and industrial
wastes. Wastes were openly burned until 1972, when landfilling
was begun. Landfilling ceased in 1982.
Tte~e are approximately 21 ho~es in close proximity to the land-
fil: ~ost of which obtair.ej their drinking wat~r from individual
res~dential wells prior to 1984. Concern over the landfill
was a~oused when volatile organic chemicals we!:'e detected in one
res~dential well south of the landfill in 1980. In addition to
its i~pact on groundwater, concern exists over the potential
ir.,pacts of the landfill up:m a 11.5 acre sphagnum bog to the
eas~ of the site, a 6 acre cattail marsh to the north of the
site, and upon 1,420 acre Annabessacook Lake. In addition,
Annabessacook Lake is in the upper reaches of the Cobbossee
Watershed; the lower reaches of the watershed ?rovide backup
mun:cipal water supplies f~r the City of Augusta, Maine.
The site reGeived hazardous substances between the early 1950's
and mid 1970's. - It is estimated that more than 3 million gallons
of chemical wastes, mostly co~plex organic com?ounds including
resins, plasticizers, solvents, and other process chemicals were
dis?osed at the site. Free liquid wastes were dumped and burned
pri~arily in Area B, and wastes in drums were dumped primarily
in ~reas A and G (see Figu~e 3-2). -An additional unknown
vol~~e of chemical waste ~as buried or dumped in Areas Band H.
Und:r a CERCLA Sl06 Administrative Order by Consent, in the
SWi'..=1er and autumn of 1984, the .Town of ,'linthrc? and Inmont
Cor?cration installed a perLar.ent alternate wa:er su~ply to
-------
~>
- , \
.......- .
.
(:)
o
CJ
~~
~
~
~~
~
~
(Qt B'.
\~: Ia'and
\' l
\1
4-
6UIfA'fJON ,,,
Ai
t
"
!
G-I2M
C: HIll
Figure 3 - ,
Location of the Winthrop Landfill
SCALE: 1". 2000'
-------
..'
><
Figure 3 - 2
Important Features of the
Winthrop L8~dfi"
(J;2M
::HIU
-------
Cur~ent Site Status
~he ground surface at the crest of the landfill is generally
bet~een elevations 190 and 210 feet above mean sea level (msl),
abo~t 20 to 40 feet higher than Annabessacook Lake. Elevations
along the low ridge parallelin~ Annabessacook Road range from
about 200 to 220 feet (msl).
Surface draina] e from the si te is ul timately to Annabessacook
Lake, which lies south a~d east of the landfill. The lake, a
controlled reservoir usee primarily for recreation, is located
in the Cobbossee Watershed; lower reaches of this watershed
provide backup municipal water supplies for Augusta, Maine.
Most of the surface draina~e from the landfill is to a large
spha;jnum bo~ lyirq east of the landfill: the bog drains
through a small ditch and culvert to the lake. Surface
drainage from a small area at the northeastern tip- of the
landfill is to a cattail and reed marsh, which also drains
to Annabessacook Lake.
Annabessacook Road is situated on a l~~ ridge northwest of the
landfill. Areas southeast of this ridge drain directly to the
lake and b~.
Much of the northeastern part of the site is underlain by a
;eep bedrock trough containing as much as 150 feet of sediments:
he deeper parts of the trough contain up to 100 feet of coarse,
per~eable sands and gravels. The tro~gh extends northeast of the
landfill, but its full extent is not known. A bedrock ridge
divides the northeastern and southwestern parts of the site.
The bedrock surface drops steeply to the south of the ridge,
where thick, coa~se, perneable sediments again overlie bedrock.
Bedrock highs and relatively thin sediments occur alorq
Annabessacook Lake and Annabessacook Road. East of tKe axis of
the bedrock tr:::>ugh, shallo.t sediments are primarily clay-silts;
shallow sediments grade to fine sands west of the axis.
The general direction of groundwater flow on the site is toward
Annabessacook Lake. However, the flow patterns on the site are
extremely complex in detail and are subject to seasonal and other
temporal variations; these variations are caused by, among other
factor~, seasonal fluctuations in the rainfall and lake levels.
Figure 3-7, a schematic east-west cross section of groundwater
flow systems on the site, indicates some of this complexity.
Specific flow systems of particular interest (i.e., flow systems
which are contaminated or potentially cont~inated) are discussed
below.
Contaminants attributable to the \'linthrop Landfill are found
in groundwaters northeast, east, and south of the landfill.
'~i~ary contaminants are volatile o~anic compounds, found in
Ital concentrations up to more than 400 ppm. Organic contami-
..ants present in highest concentration (between 1 and 300 ppm)
-------
Upland
Regional
& loc;'ll
Recharge
ZUllI!
'.
. ,
I
I
')1
I
8ogorManh
Local Recharge &
Discharge Zone
, Local
Recharge
Zone
LEGEND
7~r"'~ Dedrock Surface
--- Groundwater Divide
~ . Ground Water F low line
NOTE: Flow lines and groundwatp.r divides,
particularly those associated with local flow systems,
may change direction or shift in postion dr.pending
upon precipitation patterns and time 0' year.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3 - 7
Schematic Cross-Section of
Groundwater Flow Systems
~,I
...
-------
i'ncL..Ice dimethyl formar.,ice (::>~1F), rnetJ-.y1 ethyl ketone (MEK),
methyl isobutyl ketone (~I3K), acetone, toluene, and tetrahydrofuran.
11 of these are solvents ~nown to ~a':e been used by industries
.isposing of wastes at the site, and all but DMF are RCRA-listed
hazardous wastes [40 C.F.R., 261.31, 26l.33(f)].
Low concentrations of or~anic cont~inants are found sporadically
in surface waters and see ir:ents adjacent to the landf ill.
Some of this contamination is attributable to the landfill,
but some is of uncertain orig in.
The ~rimary mec~anisms of contaminant migration in groundwater
are dia;;rammed'in'Figure 3-8, a sche.-natic east-west cross
section of the site. Three contaminated areas of particular
concern are desc ribed belo«.
Bed roc k Troug h
Important saYT\p1ing points in the bedrock trough are five
monitoring wells at locations 9, 10, 11, and 15.
As shown schematically in Figure 3-9, a deep, regional flow
system in the bedrock trough is conta~inated with organic
compounds from the landfill. The source of the contaminants
may be liquid chemical waste dumped along the western margin
of the landfill (Area B). Cont~inants are migrati~ north-
easterly at least as far as a deep well at location 15, but
"Ie full northeasterly extent of contcrnination is not known.
_ont~inants in this flow system do not currently discharge
to Hoyt Brook. The discr.a:ge zone for the flow system lies
northeast of location 15, ~robably in Annabessacook Lake.
Although most of the conta:ination in the deep, r~ional flow
system appears to be confined to the bedrock trough, the hydrol-
ogy ,:>f this system is such t~at some flow lines may a~ times
turn fully eastward and pass beneath the strip of residential
land east of the spha]nur: ~o;. Chan;;jes in the flow direction
could be affected for example, by seasonal or other temporal
cha~es in the local flo...' systems alorq the shore of the lake.
Accordingly, there is a potential for contamination of ground-
water beneath this strip of residential land.
Northeastern Tip of Landfill, Cattail Marsh, and Hoyt BrOOK
Important sampling points are wells at locations 10, 11, 14
and 15: two surface water/sediment stations in the cattail marsh:
and three surface water/sediI:\ent stations in Hoyt Brook.
As shown schematically in Figure 3-10, organic contaminants
are entrained in shallo~, lo=al flow syst~YT\S at the northeastern
tip of the landfill. The so~rce of the contaminants appears to be
~aste deposited in a steep-sided mound at the northeastern end of
-------
, ,
.,
I
....J
,
Cn"'.,,,I"I"" Sour.:"
in Re!lional Recharge
Zone
Conlamlnant
Sourcr. ill loc.,1
Recharge Zone
. .
,I"
.,
NOTE: These flow lines
Continue, bending
inlo the plane of
thu flquru.
LEGEND
7'/"~ Oerlrock Surfaco
- - - Groundwater Divide
. Ground Wlter Flow line
NOTE: Flow lines and groundwater dividos,
Ili'Irticularly those associated with locol flow systems,
may change direction or shift in postlon depending
upon precipitation patterns and time of year.
NO
';CA l E
Figure 3 - 8
Schematic Cross-Section of
Contaminant Transpnrf in
Groundwater FloV\. !ms
CHl
-------
.
i.
i
.
..
. R '3..35
---
..
1
c:
~
o
,0
. .::
c
<
.
/15
I .',
y~
~J .p .
) ~ .)... 14
(1 .. v:::>
.~...,
t' .'
\
\,
\
(
1
~~
':1-
.~
~C'!
00
~
<-
~5I
82
;
7 !
o '
Possible J
Contzminant Sources: 1
D~um Wastes, Liquid t .
Ch.m;..?;.poo~"
) :'
C \/1
''-~:'' I ,,..)
tn.. . \
,-_J (-J86
,"
\)
'--.. /
......~, \
" I
.'-..",.~
13 5
.9
03
84
.
12
.
1
\
+
SCALE: '''-30:\.
88
..
LEGEND
Monitoring Well LOCItion
Conamineud Privltl Well
8ovl\d8ry of Llndfill
~rolli""t. G.n"ll DirlC1ion of
ContAlTlinent Migr.tfon
~rOIlI""t. Arll' Dinribvtlon of
Conteminenu (Boundarl.. Shown .re
~I.ttw only. Boundaries In Soml
"ieee- M.v Ext.nd Brtond TtlOtI Shownl
.
I~!
Figure'3 - 9
Deep Groundwater Contamination
in the Bedrock Trough Beneath the
Winthrop Landfill Site
.-.
-------
1
It
~
g
"
s
i
'i
c:
c:
<
. .
. R13-3S
---
~
.
11
.~
P~';'" cont.m;",~~~)
SC.Jr~: MO:Jnd Wastes ..'.'" \' ". (,,-~
',ii;,'L.;J) . ,.
) (
I \
,J \
(-' )
( f
r) \
\., - /1 \.
,-" I ""....)
I \
--_J {-J.
,""'" 6
\ )
'-......... /
-"', (
\ I
13~'----~
7
.
.
9
.
1
.
8
UGEN::I
"'~n:~:-:ng Well Locatioll
Con:.r.n:.,,:~ PrM"e Well
E:Iu~.:Sa"y 0' I..Indfili
"';>C)~=xr.a:.e G~el"ll Direction of
Con~"'...r:t Migration
"'~'=I.~..:.e A.rllt Dinribution of
Co~~.'T'.',....:.a (Boundaries Shown are
~..!,~:v. only. Boul'ldaries In Soma
F .:.e-s ,.'~, Extend B.yond ThOll Sh~1
-9-
-;r~
'?.,4,
~~
00+
<~+.
t!'
°2
83
o
4
.
12
\
.
SCALE, "~30:\.
Figure 3 - 10
Shallow Groundwater Contamination
at the Northeastern End of the
Winthrop Landfill Site
OilM
-------
of the landfill adjacent to the cattail marsh and other low-lying
1reas; some contamination attributable to the landfill has been
Jetscted in the marsh, a~c there are alle~ ations of occasional
surface seeps of leachate along the margins of the mound.
Southeastern End of Landfill
Important sampling points at the sout~eastern end of the landfill
are monitoring well locations 5, 8, and 13; residential well
R 13-35; and three surfa=e water/sedi~e~t stations in
Annabessacook Lake.
. ~ ,
As shown sche'matically in Figure 3-11, organic contaminants
are entrained by groundwater passing out of the southwestern end
of the landfill and flowirg southward i:1to the d~ep sediments
beneath the residential area adjacent to Annabessacook Lake.
A possible souce of the contaminants is the drummed wastes
reported to be buried near the southwes":ern end of- the landf ill
(Areas A and G). The hydrology of this end of the landfill is
such that contaminants may leave the landfill in intermittent
pulses dependi~ on seasonal variations in the lake. One
deep residential well is contaminated, and the potential for
contamination of other wells is high. The discharge zone for
the cont~~inants is Anna~essacook Lake; low concentrations of.-
conta~inants have been found in lake sediments at one location
south of the landfill.
\Sk Assessment
The major threat to h~an health from t~e release of hazardous
substances present at the site is the ingestion of contaminated
groundwater. Continued off-site migration of contaminants
through movement of ground«ater known to be highly contaminated
at the landfill boundary, presents a potential health and
environmental risk to Anna~essacook Lake, Hoyt Brook,.and the
wetlands. Other routes of exposure to the contaminants
(air, soil, surface water) may also present risks to human
health and the enviroment accordi~ to the Enda~erment Assess-
ment performed in the Feasibility Study. This Endangerment
Assessment is summarized below.
People who dTink. fran contaninated resicential wells over their
lifetime (70 years) will increase their lifetime risk of develop-
ing cancer by greater than 1 in 100,000 based on levels of
carcinogens present in residential well R 13-35. The levels
of contaminants other than carcinogens in the residential
well are individually and additively belo« health advisory
levels that will protect against toxic effects of individual
compounds. No human data are available on combined effects
of organics. However, their effects arc assumed to be at
least additive in the absence of other cata.
-------
~
.
°
a:
..rc
8
.
.!
e
c
C
<
. .
. "''-:!S
---
*",~' .... "'.
L..
"""'- . '... .
.~ 011
t:a
".-v~
ft.'" 10 r->
i'=J J
I (,;.-~
r .', )
\ r
I ,,"'"
) (
I \
,-j \
(-J I
( (
) I
r r) \
\ / \
"......... I .............)
I \
--- -.I r-' 0 6
,----
\ /
" Possible CO~~~in;nt
-....~ Source: Drl,;~ "','astes
'\.:1('[\" ,,'
O~. tfs.
LEGEND 13 \,. "
Moni~ri~ W.II Location \.,',..'.",-.,:.,.,
Con'..,..irolttod Privat. W.II -
SOUI'l~ry M LAndfill
ApprC:J(i~.t. G.I'I'I'8' Direction of
Contl~jl'lAnt Miiration
A:>PrCJ(i~..~ "rul Dinrlbutlon of
CcnU"lj,.~"u ISoundarie. Shown .r.
~lil"j'", or:ly. SOul'lderltlS 11'1 S~
P,-, M,; hle":::1 B.yond ThOM Sh~.
o
14
()
7
°9
10
\:/"
-11-
~
':>..,
~'\-
°0
'1'-
<"...
'1'-~
°2
°3
04
o
12
\
SCALE, , "-300\
Fi;ure 3 - l'
GrOl,;~d....ater Contamination
at ~h; S:>utheas~ern End of the
\'\'i~:.1. rOt) lar.dfill Site
0i2M
-------
Ingestion of groundwater C.ler a 70 year lifetine with the
levels of carcinogens fo~r.j in monitori~g well SA will increase
lifetime carcinogenic ri.s!-:s !Jy greater ':han 1 in 10,000.
Monitoring well SA is hy=r~lo~ically up;radient from the
lrinki~ water wells. I~creased carcin:>genic risks would be
lnc~rred if groundwater ~esc~r=es in the area of well SA were
developed and used for h°..I7:an conslIT\ptio~. Future use of
gro~ndwater for human CO~5~~?tion in the northern area of the
site would also increase carcinogenic risks as well as risk of
toxic effects from tolue~e, !-lIBK and DM?
Risks from direct contact wi th uncoverej 'wastes especially by
young children who ingest soils as a result of putting their
hancs in their mouths is a p::>ssible rou te of exposure to
con t a.."'!\i nan t s.
Ac;uatic organisms, espec:.c.1ly in the ca':tail marsh, are exposed
tp organics from the site. These organisms include micro-organisms
(algae and protozoans), ir.sects, a.Tt1phibiails, reptfles, and small
fish. Birds and mam~als, such as raccoons and other animals that
feed on small fish, nay also be exposed to much lo.wer levels
of chemicals because of cilution and volatilization. Aquatic
micro-organisms and fish can suffer toxic effects to their
reproductive systems and reduced survival if some of the contami~
nants found in the monitori~ wells at levels known to be toxic
to these organisms dischar;e to the wetland areas or the lake.
Levels of phthalate anj a::iJ;ate esters in the cattail marsh are
higher than levels known t~ !Je toxic to a~uatic micro-organisms.
evels of other chemicals ?resent in the marsh, bog, and lake
ere lower than levels toxic to fish and micro-organisms.
Phthalates are highly toxi= to aquatic organi~s, with acute
toxic effects to reprodu~tive functions at levels as low as
3ppb (EPA, 1980). Based en the levels of phthalates present,
it is possible that so~e injury to aquatic organisms in the
marsh may have occurrej anj raay conti:''lUe to occur.
In summary, there may be a:1 imminent and substantial endangerment
to the pu!Jlic health or ~elfare or the enviro~ent because of the
actual release and/or th~eatened continued release"of hazardous
substances from the ~vinthrop Landfill, including the following:
1)
Encfangeonnent to the public health through irgestion of
contaminated ~rou:1dwater.
2 )
Enda~ennent to the public health through physical
contact with wastes.
3)
Enda~ennent to t:te aquatic on;anisms in the wetlands
through the discharge of conta~inants to these surface
waters.
-------
4 )
Encangerrnent to ::>:.rcs and 11=.::-.::-..=.2s a:iC to the public
health throu;~ ~x;os~~~ (~e~~~: co~tact and ingestion)
to conta~ina~ts in t~e ~etla~~s, lake, or brook.
5)
Encangerment to ~~e er.viron~:~t, i.e. the wetlands,
lake, and bro~~, =~= ~round~=te~ t~rc~;h the continued
contamination c: ;~c~~d~ater a~: t~e ~igration of
conta.~inatej ;~::::;::d,....=ter off-site.
Enforce~ent Analyses
Pot e r: t i a 11 y res po n sib 2 e ;; = r tie s (? R P , s ) i n c 1 u,~ e I n;n 0 n t corp 0 rat ion
as a ;enerator, the To',.'~ ::: i'~:.nthrop, ::';-=r-=tt Savage, as o',,':!ers
and c,?erators of the 2a~~:i11, ana possi~ly Ja.~es Sir~usa as
an o~ner. Dr. Siragusa cia not reply to a notice letter issued
by E?; inforT:1in~ him cf ~:.s ;.:)tential li=.:,ility.l Everett Savage
replied to a notice lett-=r expressin; a~ interest in cooperating
v.'it~ ::?_~ in the cleanL:,? ~~e Tc',;n 0:: :'~:....t:.ro? and,In.'71ont Corporation
each re;>lied to their ~es;e=tive notice ':etters by expressing a strong
inter-=st in participati:S; i~ :,oth the cesi:; n a;'1j imple;nentation of
the re~edial action.
The i';inthrop Landfill is also a municipal facility and Sl04(e)(3); .
of CE~CL;'. requires a r..i~i::-...;::\ 50% cost s:-:a~e by the State for --. .
a fund financed re:11edial a:tion. The State of ?'~aine has indicated:
that it is unable or u~~i:lin; to contri=~te its required 50% or
more if E?!.. '..'ere to ur.=er,::..'.:.e t~e clea;:'..!? The EPA and the
State of :.jaine formally ~~;an ~e~otia:i~; '...'ith the PRP's on
Hay 23, 1935. As of S-=;;~-:.-,~e~ 30,1935, ::?;.. 2;jj r'1E DEP had
reach:c an a;reement ~it~ t~e P?~'S o~ t~ei~:~?lementation
of the selected re.-nedial ~=tion.
~ont Corporation, duri~; t~e public cc~~~nt period, submitted
a prc?osal to do as a fi~.st p~ase the :ollo...d!)~:
1.
?rovice institutior.:~ co~trols.
:nd use restrictions).
(?~lic water supply and limited
2.
~e~ ra::e and cover t~e la~df ill,
2andfill by erectin; a fence.
a~j restrict access to the
3.
Cap Area-H.
1 Dr. James Sircgus was .:ss~ec a notice letter because a possible
inter?retation of a deee ~.:>~ld r.\ake hin a past mIner of part of
the lar.dfill. However, .=.c::orcing to ::';-=r~tt Sa...age, Dr. Siragusa
no lo~;er asserts owne~s~:? of the pa~cel in,~uestion.
-------
,
." .
:=:-.::',;ct L:rther stud ies
~;.:c=l:es the site.
t~ define t~e te==c=k trc~;h which
5.
::1::tit'Jte
a monitorin; :p.r~rc:n.
6 .
:~;.c~ct p~eliminary des:~:1 investi~atior.s f~r a cutoff
~~ ce i~stalled at the sc~thern er.j of the lancfill.
wall
7.
C~;.d~ct preliminary desi~:1 investi;atior;s
:;t.:...'"':".;:n; a:-.d treatment s:.'ste:-n.
for a ground~ater
I f ... ~ - - - .... ;.. .... ; ~ ..: ~ ,.. - t t ~ -.. .... .-=.:>....:> . '.... d " .. . ,..
-..; ...-.._...c__ng progran _n~..._c es dC,- a p_e__.-_r:1L.e ...rlC;'.:jer
le';el. cf c::-:-.ta.":\inant concer;tration is ex~eece':, the I :-_-:1ont proposal
cal:e: :0= a sEcond phase, i~s~allation 0: a c~t~ff wall along
tr.e s-: u ':her:1 e:;d of the s i ":e. F i nall:,', b asec c; a i n on some
"tr~i;;e= :e';el" of contaui:-:c:1ts, Inno:-:t ...':>\.;1d i;:-?le:-:-:e:1t a third
pr.ase, :.r:5ta~1:tion and operation 0: a ,;ro~nb;=ter ;)\'-""pi~ and
treat~e;.t slstE:1'\.
I~":\c~-:'s ?ro;osal differed fr~ the selected
res;~:ts:
re::-.edy
in the following
l.
:nstit'Jticnal Controls. 'SPA's re-necy calls for ::lore stringen:t.
::;st:t~~icna1 controls ir;:lucing fencing the entire landfill,
;=:r.:.t.i~icn of ground'..'ate: '..,it:dra-...'als an::: ;>rohibition of
ex~a~a"::~:; in Areas 1,2,3, a:;d t~e 1an6:ill. Inwcnt p~oposed
=e::t=i:!:.ec ground\..'ate= use i:1 .~.rea 1, ~o large grc'Jnc'....ater
~i:r-:ra~a:s in Areas l,2, and ~, restrictic~s on land use at
-: :-. ~ :: =-:= : :'11, a :1d fer.: i :1; 0 f .~ = e a E.
2.
:~;r:ce a:-:d Cover Landfill. In!':"lo:1t proposed to co,--er .the landfill
:';'1 a:c:>~.jance wi th Ha:.ne's closu:-e r-e~uir.::7,ents fer m;Jnicipal
:a~c:ills. The selecte= remedy re;uires that the cover ~esign
:1so r..;et the requir€!:.e~ts of ~c~.~ ~264 S~b;>art:~ and G. Specifi-
ca:ly, E?~'s selected re~;cy calls for a ca;> that includes a
'.-e:;e':at:';e layer, a f:-cst ;:-ot-ectior. laye:-, a craina;;e layer,
~ ty~raulic barrier, and provisions for appropriate gas control.
:~~c~t :~rther propos;d tQ pla~e a less pe~eable cap over
~r;a E. ~rea H, unde:- tte selectej :-e:1'\edy, would have to meet
-:.hs ?c:t.:.- ~264 require::-.ents and have a mer: impet::1.eable hydraulic
::a:-r:e:- t.r.aI). the rest 0: the landfill.
~
- .
"'::::;i':c:-::I; Program. :r.:7:C:1t prcp:>sej to !r:or.ito~ ~'..:arterly for
:0 yea:-s for volatile organics. The selected rewedy requires
=:>:1i~oring in accordance with ~264 Subpart F of RCR.r.., Le.
~~arte:-ly monitoring for ccnta:1iants foun= to be present at the
:;.."" ,:,,-;~., the RI/FS -r:j ar.n"a' :-.""'nl'"or'n''' Z:or ""''''';orl''''v po1lu-
---- '-____I::J Ic:.... -..- ...'wI1 '- - ~ L. :-- '-..
~a;.ts :cr a period of 30 years.
.
.. .
:::-.; i:-.e;:-i;".~ Design ~':o=k. Each 0: the des:;:1 stu:: ies in the
=e:e:t;c re~edy were :ncl~ced i:1 In~:>nt's ~roposal proposal
~:.':~ t~; exception of t~e ~at1a~:s ~iti;a'::.:>n st~jy. In
=::i':l::;., Inmont prop~sec to co scci~;:1t s~~p1ing in
~~~~~~E::~:~ok Lake.
. .
-------
5 I
~c~trol of the Scut~~~~ :1~~e. I~s~allation of a cutoff
~all along the ~edr~~< l:? SQuth c: t~e site ~as proposed
=y !~~Qnt to contrcl ~~e ~cv~~~~: 0: co~t~linants alon; the
sOJthern groundwate= ~~;:~e. 7~e s~l~cted rem~dy includes
ex te ns ion of the i r. t:~c.:; to r '..'e 11 5::'5 :e.~ to the sou thern
~n: Qf the landfill :: ~~;ced to stC? southern ~igration.
6.
GrQ~~c'....ater Extra::::tic:1, -:rea':J-:-ent a:-.j Discharge. Except as
!'loted in par2'.Jraph 5, a:Jove, the prcvisions for ground"..ater
~x:raction, treabe:1-:, =~:j dis=har~e are essentially the sa.'l1e
:n I:1DQnt's proposal a~= in the selec~ej remedy.
" \
P.: T:: ~::.='.:-: ",'E S E"J ALVA TI c:~
The F~asi~ility Study has a:~~essed both s~urce control ra~edial
act:o~s a~d off-site re~:~i!: actic:1s, SQ~rce ~ontrol actions
are" a?p~c;>riate. since sostan.:..ial conce.ntrations of. haza:d?us
subst=n~e3 re~aln at cr ~~a~ ~~a area ~~=~~ they were orlglnally
located a~d inadequate ba=rie~s exist to retard the migration of
haz=r~ous substances into ~~e environ~ent (40 C.F.R. ~300.68(e)
(2) 0: tt.e NCP). Off-si-:e ~e:-:-eci=l a:tic~s ""ere also evaluated,
sin::::e cQr.ta:ninants have z:-:i;~a:.e= :;eyond t;;e area where they were
orig i:1ally located. ;',s ice:1tified in the !~ational Conti~ency Plan.,
the c~jective of the eva:~a~:=~ 0: alter~atives is to select the"
"lo'..;e3t cost alternath'e t;,at is techr101o;ically feasible and" -"
reliajle 2:-.d vlhich effect:';el:::' r.-.itiga:es a::d ninimizes damage
to an: ?rQ~ides adequate ~~c~e:ticn 0: ~~j~ic health, welfare or
t:-,e e:wirQnment" (40 C.F.?. ~:;:)O.68(j)). i';ith certain exceptions
t:-,a:. 'are consistent '....it~ ::?~, ~~licy, t::e a:equacy of protection
0: ~~=lic health, welfa~e, !~: t~e e:1vi=:::::1~e~t posed by each
a!.t:r~ati'Je will be cete:::-:-.:.::e= based on t;,e alternative's attain-
ment of the substa~tive ?=o~isions of other Federal pu~lic health
a~d e~vir~n~ental standa=cs.
Accor::in;ly, the specific c:,jectives for :':e re;7ledial..response
at th~ ~inthrop Landfill site, in order of priority, are as
follo'...'s:
1 .
70 p~otect public healt~!Jy :>rovidi02 unconta-ninated \o;ater
s~?~lies for reside~~s 0: nrea 1, in ~hich ground~ater supplies
.=.re currently contcr.'.i~at.;-j, a!"ld of .;rea 2, in which there is
;;o:e:1tial for conta::'.:;-.a':i~n of grou~=',.,ater supplies.
2 .
-:0 ~~otect public h::a.:.t:'1 :,y r..ini..-:iizij); the potential for
hu~an contact (i.e. in~alation, ingestion, or dermal contact)
~ith contaminants. L~cations ~here direct contact with
contaninants is of particular concern are the northeastern tip
of the landfill and ";~~a 3. Contact ',,'ith groundwater in Areas 1
~nd 2 may pose a dire=t t~reat if not controlled. Minin~ of
sa:'1d a~d gravel re~~'..:~:es or ::::c:;strt.::tion involvirg deep
:ou~~ations in any c: t~ese areas w~~~j ?lso pose a threat
if direct human conta:t .ith cont~i~atej soil or groundwater
cccu~ed.
-------
3~
-:~ ;:-ctE-ct the envi:-~:-::-.e;-:t ~~. !7,i:::...~.izi:-,:; t:-.e ~ot-=:-.tiel :cr
=iEc~a:-;e to Annabes5~ccc~ Lake, Eoyt 3rc=~, the s~ha;n~~
=:.;, a:-::::: the cattail ==.::-s:, 0: cc:-:t.:!7.:':ia:it5 alrec-:~' ::; t:-;e
c; !' ':)t::-:c '...'a te r and con t a...-:-.i ;;.a:1 t s 'tlh i ch CO:i tin'.: e'to be re 1 e c sed
::-~~ t~e la~dfill. .
4.
-:~ ;::.r:i:.'.ize further :::,:;,;:-a:atio~ of ~:-o:.Jnc',,"at:er res:n.::-ces.
=he Se:1C end gravel a~uifer in t~e tecroc~ trou~h is of
;r:.r..=.rJ concern; the sa:11 an':5 gra-Jel aqui:er south of
~~-= :a:ic:ill is also cf concern.
An a:=i~i~r:=l o:>jective, ~~i=h is an :~te;:-al ;art of ~ll s~~e:1 of
these o:'~.;c'::"Jes, is to r..i"i::.ize any th:-e=.t to t~e en'::.:-on::-.ent
O r -, . ~ , : C '" Q - 1 .. h t h a t m 1, C .... .. ~ e ,","" - S e '" .. .,. .; ...y : rn ...., -...... e ,..., L - ... : '" n 0-= t h e
:---- .._C \. I _.~'- -' ::r~'W ,,'-....-..J" -!l.~_'t:.H ..i-=.'_':"...... .:..
re~~~~. ?c:- exa~ple, so~e k:n~s of u~cor.trolled con5tr~=tion
act.:".r~t:.e5 cC"Jld conceiva:,:y C3\;Se ;:'lore c:.."':".a;e to the e::'..:.::.'or_~:ent .
tha~ ,:h-=y ~~~ld reme1y. !~ ~::::jition, s=~e re~ecial ac~ivities
ccu:j t-=~?crarily increase t~e pote:1tic: :cr r.~..an ex;csure
to c~::t=...r..:.r.ar:ts.
Alter::=.':i~e5 Considered
The fcl:!.c'.;i~; re;uedial tec:-.n:>lo;ies ....'::i=1: r:-.ay be appt:>!:"c~riate for
the K~:i~t=C? Site were cc~si~erej in the ?S:
1 .
:r-:5t:. t"..!t i()nal
and Ir:r=ast:-uctural ':'e::hnolo;ies
o r:~ action
02::-.: '-!2e restricti:::.'s, i!icl:.:d:'iI; :-;ncin;, g!'c'...:~.:...'a':;::- use
r~strictions, ane/cr excavation restrictions
o a:t~rnate water s:.J;ply,
e:-.:/cr mU!iicipal s';P?ly
i nc 1 uc: i ,.;
treat;:-.ent cf
local supplies
o c ::r. t:. :1t;ed mo n i tor i:-g
i:iC 11.: j :. n;
~\;a:-terly
DO n i ':::: r i j);
2.
:~~r:e Cor:trol Techn:>lo;ies
o S'J r f a = e
c:;?:~;;;
barriers, in=l'Jces re;rajirg
~i th an t",y.:r~ \;1 ic barr ie r
and vegetati;1; a:i:5/or
o s;~s~rface barriers, i~cl~jes
c: a slurry trenc~ wall
va:-ic'.Js
c C :1 f ig \.! r :: tic:; s
o e~ca;sulation, ir.=lu.:es a co~~i~atio~ of surfa=e
s;=s\;rface barrie:-s
- "'~
c:,.-
3.
;:.::-:'.c'::l a;-.1 TreatT.1er.t C!:" :>is;osa1 ':e=hnolo;ies
o s~l:.c ~aste exca~=.~icn anc
c: '.;astes and cO:-.t=::-.:':-.=.te.:
trea~~=r.t, i~clu=es
exc c';::tion
c: "" : ~
-~ --
=~: c~-site i~:i~e~a~:cn
, ,.
-------
o solid waste ex=a~at~o~
~astes and cont~~~~~~~d
a secure lanjfil:
an:: iE-:7.c...a!., ::.::ludes excavation of
soil a~j t~a~s~ortation off-site to
o ~roundwater extractio~ and trea=-.e~t includes installation of
a~ interceptor s~.=:~::1. and tre::.:-.e:-.t of the groundwater by
air strippirg an=/~:: carbon c:s:>::?tio!1.
Fro~ the various remedia: technologies a total of twenty remedial
actio~ alternatives 'n'e!"e aS5e:-:-.bl~d a;-:j a~e c~5cribed belo~.
Several cf the alternati~es ~~ich in~o!.~e extraction of conta~inated
gro~n=~ater also entail o;t~o~s for eit~er air strippin~ (Option A)
or ca~c:>r. adsorption (~~~i~~ 3), 50 t~a~ t~e total n~~ber of alter-
natives ',..-ith options is ~.,.;ei:t::'-six. 7r:e alternatives are lo;ical.
asse~j1a;es of one or ~o~e si~e-speci::c tec~nologies, and constitute
several frcoosed remedia: act~cns t~at ~eet Oi:e or more of the
re~edial re~?onse obje:t~ves.
Figure 6-2 presents a sC7.~a~y matrix 0: all t~enty alternatives
and t~e technologies ~~i=r. c0~pose the a:ternatives. Each alternative
is nu~berec at the top 0: t~e figure a~j t~e technologies are listed
along t~e left margin of t~e figure. 7he te:hnology components
of a ?articular alternat~~~ a::e indicatec by the dots in the column
beneath t~e number of the alternative. ; .
Fig~re 6-2 also summarizes ca?ital a:-:.: a;~~ (O;eration and !.~aintenance)
cos ts for e ach technolo;~' ai".j each a 1 :er:-:a t h'e. The presen t "'..orth of
each .:1 tern a t ive is a150 est 1..-. a tea. 7:-.e es t ir.; a tes are CQi1p a rat i ve
est:~=tes that reflect c=st c:fferences =et~ee~ alternative ~easures,
but t~at do not necessar::j represent t~e actual costs of the
alter:1atives.
- .
--
ALT~R:~P..TIVE 1.
NO ACTIO~~
No re~edial actions are ~~~e~, an= tr.e site r~ains in its present
concition. The alternative is a basel:ne alternative required by
USE?A guidance, against ~~ic~ all othe!" alternatives are to be
com~a~ed. The objectives fer site re~ediation, described earlier,
are based on the conclusicn t~at the current and future potential
risks to p~blic health, ~:l:a=e, and t~e e~v:ronrnent are unacceptable.
These risks \olere identifie-j i:'l the Enda:');e~,ent Assessment and in the
Curre~t Site ~tatus sect:c~ of this cccu~?-~t. The No Action alter-
nativ~ provides no sourc~ control meas~es and no measures to
minimize and mitigate th~ o:f-site ~i;ra~ion ef contaninants. As
~uch, it will not reduce lea~~ate generation and subsequent migration
of contawinants into gro~nd.ater and local surface water. Therefore,
this alternative will not r~juce the p~lic health threat from .
ingestion and dermal con~a=t. In cdciticn, the no action alternative.
will not protect the env~~:>ment ~y r.,ii1~"'7.izin; contcrninant discharges
to th~ groundwater, wetla~js, lake, a~: =rook.
In su::tr.:ary, the no actio=: a!.t-ernative ',;0:;1d ~ot achieve adequate
control cf source mate!"ial a~~ would r.:t ~ir.i~ize nor mitigate
-------
COSTS -
1$ in 11I""III",hl ALTEnNATIVE
-
C:"I,iI.1 011.,., 61 '
'1 LCIINUlOUV C""I C"I'I 1 2 J 4 to. 1 n \I 10 11 12 13 IliA 141 Hi/\ Ilill iliA 1Iill 11/\ 1711 lOA 11111 I ItA '"11 :111
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_I
, '1 NU AC IltlN fII/\ N/A 0
II ..
, - . --.... ....---. --"-- -. ..- .. .. . -
II CtlN IINULI) MUNllUllINli tUA 21./. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C!) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:' r~ I: .. "". "" .
h'. ) I.ANU lI:;I. IIl:;IIIiCTIONS 1!J f/I/\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ('I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
., ., 1-
II "..,;. " -.-. .. -.
II. 1- AlnllNAH WArE II SUPPLY I. 322 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VI
.
- ..
REGRADE lANDFILL 532 HI 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0
..- t--.- n. .--- . .- -- - -
CAP AREA H 133 2 0 C' 0 0 0 0 0
J _. -- ._- ... .--. -- - .. - - - -- -- -- -- -
0 CAP lANDFill 2,041 19 0
n: -- '- - -.- .- ... -. .- ..-- --- -- .--. - _. - -_. -'- -- - - - ---
1- CUTOFF WAll, SOUTH 570 N/A 0 0 0 0 0
7. 0
\) I Nn OF LANnI'lU.
u -_. -- --. ..-- .-- .. -. . .0- ..- . _. '0' .... --. -.. .. ..... -. _. _.. --- - - --
I:II rOIT WAt.L, I: XCI:IIT N( 2,4UU N/A 0 0 Co) 0
.-NO OF tANOFltL
--.--.---- '--'-' - - - - - --- ._- - --- -00 . _. ... -- - '- -. -- - .... -
[NCA":;tJl.A Tf; LANOf III 0,229 10 0 0
,- 0 0 0 0 0
. . I:XCAVAT[ Anf;A II,/NCINl:nATC 7,112 II/f, 0
'"
. -.-----. - - - -- - 'n- - .- . ._- _. _.- .. - --- --... - - .-... - - -- - - - - - -.
- [XCAVAH All (1\5 A AND G,
I- 1,412 filA 0 0 0 0
.r .J ItH":INrnAH
,,' .r ' .. ....... ._... - - - --. ..-. - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - - -
u: . tIt r XCAVA rr: Allf A II, 13,~/2 N/A 0 0 0 0
I"n UI:;I'O~iL: OH511 a:
..,un..
III -'. .----- ._-- .--- --- ... .. - -. .- " '- --- - ._- - - - - -
. I: XCAVAH AIII'A5 A AND G,
'l a 1,612 NIl\, " 0 0 0
. IH~;I'U~( OH~II I;
n ---.--.- - "__0_. .---. - --.- ..--..- .- -- --- _. . - _ . - --. .-- - -
- - IN I'./ICI "T G/lOUNDWAnn, Clift J1~
-
"' 111[A T ()N~IH (GAC/Air :;" jJlJljnul - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II. G4!. JO~
~- - - --
HHAl CAPITAL C05T 1m ill ions $1 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.!i 3.9 1.8 2.0 8.3 15.!i '.0 2,4 9.6 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.2 4.1 4.1 9.5 9.6 IG.7 16.8 1.1 1.1 10.2
- - _. - t-
TOT AL ANNUAL O&M COSTS /millions $) 0 ° .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .04 .04 .04 .3~ .37 .35 .37 .35 .37 .3J .35 .JJ .35 .35 .31 .37
~ ----.-- -- - --- - -- - -'. --- ...-- -- -- .-- - -.- - .-- -- -.- ._- - --- ~4.4 --- --
rllr:irNT WOnTlllmilli"ns $1 00 0 0.3 0.5 0.6 7.1 14.1 1.0 2.2 0.5 15.7 1.4 2.0 10.0 4.9 5.1 5.5 U 1.3 1.~ ~2.G 12.8 '!I.o ~O.O 14.6 13.7
0"11' tot...1 caplt3' costs for incinr.rlltion 0' Arus I~, A, ,lnd G il 'ass Ih8n Iho lum 0' Iho eI/Jilll cOlli 'or inclnerltion 0'
1\,0.1" ...01.1 Area A Illd G le,Je1rltoly ltuC8ule 01 oconomici o'lulo,
0°/1.111111011 a JO yrar Invostmohl II an Illnuol Intorost "'0 0' 10 porconl.
All eOI" IIro ordor o' mognllud. ...Imilio. (.60 10 +100 porcini'; 100 10111.
Figure G - 2
Summary of Cost Estimatos for
Remedial Alternativos
CH:!M
-------
the t~reat of harm to h~a~ ~=a:t~, ~~lfa~;, C~ the enviro~~e~t
as '~e~uired \,;ncer 40 C.F.?,. ~:;)J.6a(1",~ (2; c: ~:-le NCP. Therefore,
this alternative .....as eli.-:-.i:1=.t;-j fro::; :'..:~~~;~r ::~tailej e'Jaluation.
ALT::~~~ATIVE 2.
ALTERNATE ~~T::~ SUPPLY
A m~:1:cipal ~ater'supply is CC~5truct~= ::~~ r~sidents of Areas land
No ct~er actions are take,-. ~~e pur;~se c: t~is alternative is to
pro\'ice a:1 u~conta:TIinate-.:: '..'ater suppl~' fer residents of Areas land
2. 3ecause the installati~n of w~nicipal ~at~r supply is co~plete to
res:-:~nces in Area 1 a:1c ;:-::s~ 0: .;rea 2, :~.:: :~cause provision of
unccntaninated water is = ?ri~:~y res~~s~ o~~;ctive, an alternative
vlater sup;>ly is included as a cc-:'9':>ne:-.t C: t::e re~ainirq 18 alter-
natives. An alternati~e ~=.ter supply alc:1~, ~o~ever~ does not
protect' public health by ~ir.~.izin~ direct co~tact with cont~~i-
nanats. It also will not ::e~~ately ?rctect the environment,
sin~ce off-site migration c: ccn:~-:-.i:1a:-;ats i:-.t'J ~rounc'''''ater and
surface water will contin~e to cccur. ~s ~it~ the no action
al te r:"la t i v e, the re fore, t:-.:' s =.1 tern a t :.':e '..': s ~ rc?ped fran fur the r
consi~eration because it ~'Jes not satisfy ~he re~uirements of
the :KP (40 C.F.R. ~300.6e:!-;) (2».
2 .
ALTE:;:(!~ATIVE 3.
ALTERNATIV:: K~T::R SUP?LY, CO~TIKUED MONITORING
Mun:.cipal water is supplie~ to residents of Areas 1 and 2, and
qu art~rly s a..T.?l i ng is un.:e::-t a~'.e;'} at c ~~:::. =.1 ;:-,:::1 i tor i ng po i nt s
on an~ around the site, es;ec~a1ly in t~e ~e~~ock trough, alon~
the lake, a:1d in the lake :.:self. This a::er~ative does not
pro\-:.ce t:ie S.;.ile le'Jel c: ;:-~":.e:tio:1 ~: ;'~li: health, ....'elfare
or t~e en~irc~went as al~e:-~a":.i~e 4 =~l~~, ~~:.=~ is equal in
cost. Furthermore, this ~ternative cces not constitute
ade~'.Jate control of source r..aterial t::e~e::~' a1lo",'ing further
degre~ation of the gro'Jnc...-:te:: anj di~ha!"";e c: contc:rninants to
the s~rface ~aters. It also ello~s t~e ~~~e:1:ial for direct human
contact with contaninants. T~is alte=~ati~e tas been'~ropped
fro~ further consideratio:1 s:r.ce it fails to cjcress certain
critical objectives.
1-1oni toring is essent i al to .;a 1J~ i!')~ the e:::e c t i'J e ness of any
of t~e remaining remedial alternatives. ~j:)nitoring may
indi~ate the need for a:3ci:.ior:al r~e:ial act~on, or s~gest
that the selected action has teen effecti~~. Therefore,
contir-,ued monitoring is ir::l'..:::ec as a ~3:-,:ato~! cexnponent of
all subsequent alternatives.
. .
ALTE:;:(:,.~TIVE 4.
ALTER!'\.~.T!V:: K=-.!::R SV??LY,
~ .. ....~
_.-....\ :.,
GSE RESTRICTIO~~S
CONTIKUED ~:S!TORISG
Municipal .w3ter is supplie~ to residents c: A~eas 1 anj 2,
Area E is restricted, an~ ~=c~~~~ater ~it~~~a~3:s anc excavation
-------
. a~e ==:::-:ibi':.;j or restrict~j in and a:::jacent to the sit-=. 11onitor-
i~~ Is ;~~f~~~ed to detect any deterioration 0: conditions Nhich
r:t:';~.: -::.c:;:e t~.e need for e::citional ~-:."7.~:ia: a:tions, or an
'------=--_.. C~ conditions "~;ch r.\ir-h" -,. ,..., "'-':"-";on :n the le 1
1'_"-__'-"0::"'-. .L.. " "'.._; . ;:I' '- c--:-~... -~,:"--'-- " ~. . ve
'::"a.=t=l:t:Cl1. The prl.J'7.a~j :;:.:!";>ose cf -:.-,-: C-.":a.r::atJ.:;; lS to
~:.~~ ~~c~~tar:tinated water to reside~ts a~d to 'li~it the Potential
.. ,
fc!" :':-.=:'.'ar':e~t human in;estiC:1 of c!" cc:-:ta::t '..':'':~ cont~ina::ts.
Whil-: t~is alter~ative does net fulfill all c~ t~e re~~dial
re5;~:-":a ':)=~e::tives of protecti~ the gr:::.::-,c...::te!" a:!d the environ-
r:te:1t, it ~a5 ~etained for further mo~e cetaile= evaluation
~e::a~5~ it :'5 protective 0: ~~b!ic healt~. '
r: 0 :i e c: t :: e r ~;., a i n i ng a 1 t e ~ :1 a t i \' e s i s i :-: t e :-. C e ::: t 0 iT.: :7. e ~ i ate 1 y
re:7.c".'; =1: :c:1ta:-::inants frx: t:1e site ai'..:: SL:~!"::',;:-,.:in; a!"eas.
Th~re::>=e, all re:-i1aining a2.terZ1atives :7IUSt i::c::r~rate restriction
of ~=C"..l:-:j'~'a':er '....ithdravlals a::j of exca','ation in creer to r1eet the
ob~e:ti,e 0: ~inimizing fu=t~er direct c::~ta::t ~:.th co~taminated
~r;~~c~;ter and soi1~.
~.L: E ?~:_=-:: r,- E 5.
EXCAVATE/T?,::.=-,T
~..~E.; H, ..~:::::?~:_~..:=: t.~..;T::~
SUPPLY, LAND
(j SE RESTRI CT:O~~ S, CO~~7It,;"::::D 1':O~~ I TORI NG
;.n est:'~.3~e: 50,000 cubic y::-cs of '...-a5~es a::c ::::::::tcr!inated soil"-
ar5 5x:a~ated f!"o~ Area H a~c incinera':e~ c~-site over the
co'.;r.:E c: a;p:-oxi:TIately O!ie ~'ear. r.~ig:-a:icn c: c;::ntc::iinants
f.. ~ c:.t-,~= a~::as of the sit-= c:::~tinu;s '.;~::-:-?e:,=:::, so an
=~~t~ ~at5r supply, ~or.i:0rin~, a~j ::~: use restrictions
a.L..; ;:-..:.::::~: ;s i~ Altern=.ti':e~. T:-.e ;"';:";~Ee := this alternative
is t: -=::.~i:-,a:e C:1e major SJ:..:rce of cC:it~.i::a:;:.5 a:1d ~;:uce the
:po:e:-:t:al fer human ingestion ef, or conta:::t .:.th, conta~inants.
J.. cisa:\':.i.te:;e of this alte~native is tr.at it '..'i::'l take nearly
two ~e~r5 tc :m~lernent. Because of eccn:::~ies c: scale, the
est i =- a -: e :: c c 5 t for i n c i n era t i :1; ..... a s t e s f = O::i 1: 'J t:"1 .;::- e a H and
hrea3.~ ar.j G is only abo~t t~n percent ~recter than the cost
of i:-.c:.r.-:rati:-!~ \oJastes fro."i1 ;.rea H alo~e. Cc:-.se~uently, the
ajce~ ~55~~ance of protection cerived fro~ ~u~r.ing wastes from
both 1~c3ticns was judged to make Alternative 9 =ore cost-effective
than A:ter~at:ve 5. Howev~~, conta~inants ::ii;r3ti~~ cff-site,
frc:u a=e3S c:Jtside Area H throL:;h the grcL;n~'...ater Nill continue
to e~ca~;e~ t~e wetlands, lake, and ~r~o~. Si~::e this alternative
lea'.res t...-c r..a~Or objectives l.:.."'l;;.et, it :,as ~ee~ '::ro?ped fran
furt~5r =e::siceration.
AL7E:~\.:'_'i:V=: 6.
EXCAVATE/RE~~OVE 1-.REA H, ;'.L:::R:~.;::E K;TER SUPPLY,
L~ND USE RSST~ICTIONS, CCX::I~CE~ ~O~!TORING
The ._':=t-:s c.:-.': cO:ita1\inatej s~il are
Alte=~at:~e 5), but are the:i !"e~oved
d j ;:l . '::-.e c.:\'cnta] e cf c: f-s i te
ex c a'; ate': : !"::..~ ;.. rea H (a s for
to a sec~~e !ancfill for
~~s;~5al ~5 t~at t~e wastes
-------
may::~ re:':1o','ed from the s:.:~ :::-;lati';~::!:;:'::'c:':ly. T~e disajva:1tages
. are t~a~ the costs are h:.;~~:::- ~han i~ci~~r=tiO:1, the wastes
are r.~t destroyed, and t~ere :.s a:1 :.~:r~=se:: risk of enviro~~e:1tal
CO:1ta...-.ination and public eX;:::1s:.Jre cU: to s;:illat;;e during transport.
Secticn lOl(24} of CERCL~ s~a~:s that t~e re~edy or remedial
actio~ "does not incluce c~~-site tra~s~=rt of hazardo:.Js substances
or the stora;e, treatmen-= :c;s:.ructioI1, or se:::~re disposition off-
sit~...unless such actio~s (a) are ~~:::-e cost-effective than other
re;.:-:d:.al actions, (b) ...i:'l c:::-~ate ne'...' c:.;:a:::i:y to rnana;e.. .hazard-
ous s'..:bstances..., or (c) :r: ;"Iecessa:""i t.:) protect pt:~lic health
or we:fare or the enviro~,er.:. fro~ a ;:rese~t or p~tential risk
which ~ay be created by =t:rt~~r expcs~re ~O the continued presence
of such substances or Da~erials." Ttis alternative is nearly
twice as expe:1sive as the :.r.ci~eratio:1 a:'~ernative 5 above, will
creat~ ;"10 new stor~e ca::a::.ty, and is :10 Z':":cre protective of
public health or welfare or tte envi:::-on~:~t than other remedial
alter~atives considere:: :.r. t:,e FS. 2=.se:: en this r'eason, as
well as those outlined in :l~ernative 5 a~ove, this alternative
was d:::-o;:ped from further c~r.s:.deratio:1.
ALTER~:ATIVE 7.
EXCAVATE/T?L;T ;'.REAS .; ;'.!'::> G, ~.LTER!~ATE ~'J.z..TER SUPP;LX,
LAND USE F,::S:'?ICTIO~S, CC~:7I~:l1::D !.mNITORING
- ,
An es':i:-:-.a~ej 2000 barrels =~.j ass:::-ciate:: contc:;"\inated soil are
excavated with backhoes :r~~ ~rea A a~c G :or incineration on-site.
Other. c-:nta.."'71inant sources r~ai:;, so :n a::er~.=.~e \,'ater supply
is co~s':ructed. The pur;:c:e c: t~e alt:r:1=.tive is to elininate
one major source area an':: re::t.:ce the p::>te:1tial for hU!i\an irgestion
of or contact with conta~i~a~ts.
".
Excavation and incinerat:.o~ 0: ~astes frca Areas A and G only was
jud~ec to be a ~elatively costly and inef:ective option. Although
the ~:stes at this locat:c~ ~ay contrib~te to the contamination
of toth the area south 0: t~e landfill and the regional flow
syste~, other waste sources a:::-e certainly involved in the regional
conta~ination and may be i~volved in tDe ccnta8ination south of
the landfill. Consequen:.:ly, t'NO r:1ajor objectives, rninirnizin~ damage
to the grou~dwater and prc:e=tion of the environMent will not be
addressed. Alternative 7 ~as elininate: fr~ further consideration.
ALTERt:ATIVE 8.
EXCAVATE/R::l-~:>\~ ARE.~S A ;._~m G, ALTERNATVE HATER
SUPPLY, :~:D rSE ~EST~ICT:C~5, CO~TINUED MONITORING
The barrels and conta-ninatee soil are exca':atej as for Alternative 7,
buL are removed to a sec~re :a:1cfill for d:s~osal. The advantage
of short irn~1ementation ti-::e r..:.Jst be ""'e:.;;;'ed.cgainst higher cost
and r:s~ of environmenta: :c~ta~inati~n a~= ?~~lic exposure due to
s pi 11 :::~ e d u ring t ran s p:> r :.. .; f ~ r the r C:. 5 =:: van t 03;/ e i s t hat the
-------
"'as':.-:= ==--: :'1':t destroyed. T:-,t.:s the ";ec...:::-.~sst:s := .:"'!ternatives 6
a~j 7 =-;~=i~, ~hile the re~ecy also dces ~ot a:;~~ately protect
!"' ' . :,: i -: :-. e =: -::-. "s i n c e r i s k 0 f h 1--:1 a n con t a:: ':. C i..i r i :-1; t r c :-. 5 ?:::> r tat ion
al~S. T~is alternative ~as therefore ~ro;;e~ "frcm further
.1': :.~ e:- a':. i:) r..
ALT~~~.:'.:ri:: 9.
EXCAVATE/TF,E,:"'T };.REAS A, G, A~i) ::; .;LTER~,.;;TE ~';';TER
SUPPLY; };_~,D C S 2 RESTRI C~: :)~, S; C':'~;: I ~,;-' ED' ~'10!\ I TORI NG
Tr.e '...':s':es =,"".j conta:nined soil in Area E a:-.d t~.e crt.::':",s and
cc,,~==i::a-:e::j sai"l' i1n Areas A a:1c G are e>::a'.la~e.:: a:1C incinerated.
Ccn':~~i~a~ts currently in the ;rouncwater ane fr~~ other sources
cc~ti~ue ~c ~igrate, so an alternative ~ater st.:?;ly is provided.
Th~ ?~r;ose cf the alternative is to el~~inate t~o ~ajor sources
of c~~t=~:~=tion and red~~e the potential for t~~=n contact with
or :':J;estic~ of conta:7\inants. Eeca~se ~:-.is al~e:-na-~ive satisfied
to a ce;ree a ~ajority of the =-e~edial c=je~ti~e.:, it ~as retained
fer f~r-:her evaluation.
ALTE~=.;;:r"E 1 O.
EXCAVATE/P.E~':C'lE 1-.RE,~S -~., G, ,:..~;!) ~; P.LTERN.;TE ~'lATE:R'
. ."
SUPPLY; L.:'.~D 'j~S RES7RIC7!O~~; CO~~T!:\UT2D ~m~ITORING
Tr.-: '...':'5':6: ::-.:1 conta11ir.ec soil in Area:: ar:::i c=-~~.s a~j conta:-:1inated
.: :" ~:-e:s ~ and G are ex:a~ated as =c:- ~lt~r~at:ve 9, but are
~-;-=: t~ = sc~~re la..jfi:l :~r cis;x:sa:'. ::-_-= ::';.:r:ta;es of
rela~~~sll st~~t imple~~ntatic~ ti~e ~U5t ~e ~-::.;hee a~ainst higher
ccst :~: the risk of envirorwe~tal conta:'7".inaticn and p~lic exposure
-- dt.:e t~ sp:lla;e during tra;-:s?~~t. ;.. furt::er ci.sadvanta~e is that
the ~=s~es a:-e not destroyed. This alt~rnat:.~e ~oes not minimize
pcte~':.i=l }:''':::-.an c::>ntact, p:-o:.e:t the en..':.:-onr..::.t, or :iinimize ground-
wate:- c-=;:-e:atioT1 (see .~lter~ative 6). =:::>r these reasons, this
a:te:-~a':.i~e ~as cropped frem f~rther co~sicerati~n.
ALT~~:~.~,:'r.'E 11.
REGRADE L~K~FILL, CA? ~?~A E,
.':.. : T E ?,~ ..=-. T ::
~'U'.TER SUPPLY,
LAND USE ~EST~ICTIC~S, CJXT:X~~J MCSITORING
A c:=~ ~a?, a?;roximately 1.3 acres in ::-e2, is :~nst~ucted over
Area:. =he ?rimary purpose of the alter~ative is to limit potential
h~uan c:)nta-:t with contarnina~ts and to re=uce cigration of contami-
nants f:-c~ Area H to the gro~njwater anc cattail ~arsh. In recogni-
tio~ ::: t:-.e :act that Area H .r.:=y re~u.ire a d:.::e:-ent surface barrier
tt:a~ ::::e :-e~ainder of the la~cfill, this alter..a:ive ~as retained for
f'..:r~:-::;r e':alt:ation.
ALT~?~~.~.:r:E 12.
CAP EKTIR2 L.z..~:DFILL, .a.:'7~R~,.:'.T~ ~':,:'.TER SUPPLY, LAND
USE REST~IC7!0~S,
CO:,T: ~:'-' ED ~::~:::: :-O~I ~G
.~ =::~-
- =.- ,
:?;~cxirnatclj 21 a:r:s
:n a::-::,
: s :: ~.3 -::-'''':C t~j
o\'er
-------
tne e~ti~e landfill, ~~ic~ is then r~'~;etatej to protect the
cap. Diversion ditches a=:~~~ a~~ a:=05S t~9 site direct
runoff to the cattail t:";a~.s:-: a~j s~!1a;::''::1 bo;. The primary
purpose of this alternat~v9 is to re~~:e i~=iltration to the
entir-: site, thus reduci:1; ::ii,,;raticn 0: :;cntaT:inants off-site.
A secondary purpose is to ~9Gu:e tr.e ;0tential for huwan der~al
conta:t ~it~ contaminants. ~=cause GrO~:1~~ater could still flow
laterally into and out of t~e landfill, this alternative
wou ld no t protec t the e;;'",':, r~men t cr the £; rou nc~"a ter and thus
fails to r.;eet two major C::~9Ct ives.
ALTE~::.;:-I'.rE 13.. . COMPLETE :'~:\D:I LL 2~:;.?St.1L.~-TIO:~, ALTER~\ATE t';ATER
.~
SUPPLY, ~~;D [5E R~S7~!CT!O~S, CONTIKUED ~~ONITORING
A -4,2CO-foot slurry wall, r=~ i:1'; in .:e;:t::s fro~ 20- to 130 feet,
is cor.structed around the ~~tire 1anc=ill. The enclosed area is
Covered ..lith a surface sea.!, as descri=~= in Alternative 12. The
primary p~rposes of this a:teri:ative are to significantly reduce
infiltration to the enti~e lan=fill a:1j t~ re=uce groundwater
moveuent into or out of th~ landfill, nini~izing migration of
cont~~inants from the site.
Alternate Nater supplies a~: l:i:o use restrictions are continued
until suoh ti~e, if ever, ~:-::t the ~~~ito=ing progr~ indicates
that all significant conta-.:.nation bey~n= t~e bo~ndaries of
the la~dfill has been re~~~9: or dis~erse= by natural ~rocesses.
i'~hi1e this alternative \,,,0:'::= !71i:1irnize f~ture off-site migration
_of cont~~inants, it would r.ot ajdress tr.e discharge into surface
-water of contai1inants that :'c...'e alrea::y I:1i;rated off-site. This
alternative coes meet most c: the obje:tives specified, since
conta:ninationn will not s~r~cd. It is far less cost effective than
Alternative 20, however, si~ce 20 presei:ts su~stantially greater
enviro~~ental protection =cr ~all a:ditic~al costs. Because
Alternative 20 does provide for treatm~nt of the already cont~~i-
nated grcundNater off-site, it has Substantially greater health
and environ~ental benefits. The addit~o~al cost of imple~enting
Alternative 20 over this al~ernative is ~all Co.~Dared to the
envir~n~ental effectiveness. This alternative wa; therefore
eliminated in favor of the ~ore CQ~pre~e~sive alternative 20..
ALTER.~ATIVE 14.
GROUNm'~AT=:~ EXTRACTIO~, R=:GRADE LANDFILL, CAP AREA H,
ALTERNATE ~~TER SUPPL:, L;ND USE RESTRICTIO~S,
CONTINUED ~J~ITORIKG
A grot.:nc",,'ater extraction \.;-:2.1 (or ;"'el!s). is installed in the axis
of the bedrocK trough, with a screene~ i~terval t~rough the zone
of coarse sediwents, fr~ a;:;roxi~ately EO to 120 feet in depth.
The well is capable of Pu~?:~~ an est:~=t~= ces:;~ re~uire~ent of
-------
5,.. f'\ - - , - - - - - ... ' nu t e (c - - ) '"'.. 0 7 2 r:;, 1 ' ,.... - -, ~ ... - -... " ( d )
..oJ :: =---..::: :_r m1 -::"... , -'-. .-- --:1 ':: =--o..s =-=- ca~ mg .
. Tt~ ~xt=a:~e~ ~roundwater ~s t=eated eithe~ ~y a~ a~r st=i~pin~
!,='.'S~~:: :C-:~ic:) A) with ca::-:'C:1 =:sor?t~o:1 t=e=t:':".~:1t of ':.:-.e co:")tc.."T1in::':....::..:.
0/ '::l-::'",',;~ ty direct carb::il .adsorption (O;>tio:1 3). Tr-eatea effluent
C ~=::-.a:-;e= directly to ::c~.t Srco~~ or .;!'1:-:a~essa::o=~ :'a;':e. The
er.t:.r~ :'a...-;~::i1l is regrace~ a~j Area Zi is ca;-;>e.:: an:: re':egetated
as c e E = :- i:. -::-: for A 1 t ern a t i',' e 11.
This a1:.e=:-:ative is a more c~~?lex version of ~lter:1ati~~ 11, with
t~e a~j~t~:::1 of an extract~o:1 ~ell. 7he ~~r;cse of t~~~ell is to
. ir.te:-::e:;:t ~~e ceep conta7.i::ati0n r:.igratin; o...:t cf t:-,e ::'a~dfill.
A S...--....:-....,. -"r""ose of "~e ".::.1' l'S ..0 l'....t-'.c~_'" C""n"--:"'I-"e~ crou d
--'-~.'-=-.; t-" ::" \." ~- - '- :a ':- -=;:,'- _.. ...c...~-;.=\- '...J - n-
wat-c-= r::'",' c:)..;~gradient of ':.r.e landfill a:;j ;-:-'~;=::.tin; t::'.;a:-c ;'.nnabessacook
Land south 0& ..\..... , "'''''''fl'll 'ec:c::-n:-'~ t\..Q """""..c ..l'al
- "- - - - - "- - .L. _.a. - ... ~ 1 J- , - - - c . - . ':5 .."-::"..; '- - Ii. l..
fc:- ~~;:-a~i:)~ of contamina~ts ~ff-site to t~e east a:-:d south.
Tte est:~;~ec cost of A1te:-r;ative 16 ~as a=~~t 53 percent
gre~~~:- t~~:1 the estimated c~s~ Alter~a~ive !~, ~~ich is
wit~l~ ~~a :-~nge of accura:y (-50 to + 100 ~ercent) of the estimates.
Tt~ a~=:t~c~~l cost is for a~ extenced slur~j ~a11 ~~ic~ ~ould
pr~\-e:-.t :7::;:-ation of contcT.i~a~ts to ':.r.e s~'..lth a:-.,: eas~.
Be:a~~~ c:: :.~~ hydrogeolcg:c c~~plexity of the site, the
acje: ass~~~~::e of control c:-c~ided b~ the exte~~ed cutoff
,.,-,~ :~-, .,:~c' i""\ Alte.1na"l'''~ 1~ "'-5 ~~\'~"'e'" ""0 \..~ a Si!""!"~':l'ca!1t
wC_- _.'---'-- ..'1 r '- -- _J we J-"":: U '- ~- -:..-- .,
r -t-~:::e:ti'.'e benefit. ;'.:t-=::-~atb-9 14 -";=5 the=-=:o::-e elL-ninated
:a~~= :: ~lternative 16.
- At TE: ~~- .~-~ r.-:: 13 -
Cl1TOFF K~.:L .1:..-:: SOUTE:::J..ST E~D C? L;~~!)=I!.L, G?Ol1ND-
HATER EXT?}~CT=O~, ~:::GR..~.D:: L.~-~C:ILL, C.=-.? AREA H,
ALTER!\.;T::
;':.~.T:::R SU?PLY,
L:'.~,D L"~:::
R:::ST~ICTIO~S,
CONTINUED ~~~ITORING
A 3C)-::co~ slurry wall, ra:-gin; fro::l 30 to 50 =eet in depth, is
ir.st=:l~= a:r~ss the so~theast end of t~e landfill. ~s in the case
of ;'_l-=~:-i1:tive'-l~,. a grounc',,'ater extraction "'ell is installed,
t~~ :=~~f:l: is regraded, an~ ~rea H is ca;>~ej =~= re~e;etat~d.
This c.l~e:-r;ative is a more c()'11:;>lex version of .:'.lternative 14,
witt ~~~ ~~jition of a cutoff ~all at the so~tteaste::-n e~d of the
la~:::l:. 7t~ purpose of t~e cutoff ~all is to ~~ovice a fixed
10:a: ;:-o~~:~=ter divide, assu:-ing that conta...~i~ants a~e unable to
ml''''''-'''''' c::-..-1-."-rd from the 1-"""'fl'11 ~'ter:"\-"- ..-ter S""""ll'es and
:J- =-- --- -j.IIIIC: . :1.- . ..- _J.C\o..1: -"C .-- ....:,,~
la~c ~s: =;st:-ictions are c~:-.t:.r.~ed L:~til t:-:e ~,::~itc~i;;: procra.rn
ir.~::=':.~s t~a~ contarninaticn 0:: areas east a~: s:)~th of-the ia~dfill
is ~~ _:~::= = ~roblem.
. .
-------
The estiiT.ated cost of .;l:'-::-:1=:.i-;e 16 .',..as ~~ut 25% greater than the
est:~ated cost of Alterna:.:~-= 15, Ahic~ is within the range of
,... ._.,..-, O~ the st~...,_.._- ---... _":":::...:-.--' ...' ~ 't-"
a,-c,-- :cy . ~ e ......c...t:=:. .:.,,- c:--~ _':'."C- cos.... 1S ..or ex o::n01ng
the s!u~ry wall to furth-:r ~r-:~ant ~igrat:on of conta~inants to the
eas~. 3ecause of the hy=r~;e~1o;ic ccr.?lexity of the site, the
a~ce~ assurance ot co~t=~: ;r~vice= ~! t~e extended cutoff wall was
judge.: to be a significa~~ cC.=t ef:ecti',-e benefit. Alternative 15
was t~erefore eliminated i~ fa~or of Alternative 16.
ALT:::R~:.~TIVE 16 - EXTE!~DE::J ?.=..:r:I.~,L Cl.!:-O:: ~'~.~LL, C.a.P A?EA H, G?OUND-
WATER EX~~~C~!CX, AS7~~:~~TE ~ATER
SUPPLY, LAKD USE
REST~ICT!O:;S, CO:,TI~~t:::D :'~O:~ITORING
A- 4.,7CJO-foot slurry wall, ra:i;i:1g in ce~t;' from 10 to 90 feet, is
cOr).strL:ct.;d completely ar~...::-..j t:-:e 1a::::::11 and s~ha:;nu;'i\ bo;;, but
is not constructed ac~oss t~e ~edroc~ trough at the northeast tip
of the la:1cfill. A groL:nc',..:ter extraction ',...ell is installed as
described for Alternative 14, ~ith si~ilar treatnent o~tions. Area
H is ::a?~ec a:1d revegetate:. T~is alt-:r:1ative fully satisfied
remedial response objectives 1, 2 and ~ on pa;es 16 and 17. -
It only r:;artially satisfi,::,j c::jective 3, to minir.1ize the potent.ia~ .
for c:.s:::har;e of conta::li;;a:1:s to surface ....aters, however, because~;
dischar;e of conta."T1ina:1ts to ':;;e bo; frc.::l shallo.w dispersed sources
in ths la~dfill is only ~i:1:~ally prevented. Because this alternative
satis:iec a I71ajority of t:-.e r:-;edial o:,:;ectives, ho\.:ever, it ",,'as
retai~ed for further eval~=:i~~.
ALTER~~.~.TIVE 17 - EXCA V.~.TE:/7?:::.='.T ARE.~S P., G, and H: CUTOFF ";.r..LL AT
SOUTH2AST E!~D OF SITE: G~OUNm':ATER EXTRACTION:
ALTER:,.a.TE K;T=:~ SU?PL~': Lr..~D USE RESTRICTIONS:
CONTIKUED ~O~ITORING
The ""'as~es and conta:7li:1atej soil in .;rea H and the drums a:1d con-
taminated soil in Area A a~c G are excavated and incinerated onsite,
as fo= .;lternative 9. A 9JC-:oot slurri -.;a11 is constructed across
the southeast end of the site, anc a grou:1dwater extraction well is
insta:'led as described for .;l::ernative 15.
This alternative combines tte attributes of Alternative 9 with an
extraction well and cutoff ~a~l. The ~ajor source of cont~inants
at the site are excavatec fcr treat~ent. The cutoff wall across
the southeast end of the si~e constitues a local groundwater divide,
furthsr protecting areas t~ the sc~th 0= t~e la:1dfi11, as i:1 Alter-
native 15. Alternate water s~??ly is contin~~d until monitori~
indicates that areas aro~~: the landfill are free of significant
""
-------
con~~i~itio~. Alternativ~s 17 a~d 19 involve excavation a~j incin-
e:-.a~:.-:;: C: '..astes frC>.i\ t~.e s:.':~: ~ath inc1:..J::e <;:-our..:",,'a':~r ~:.::.raction/
- I "'.:"'='::1t '::1::: a cutoff wal:. ::-.e ci:ferences in the alter:"lati\'e
~~~': (:) Alternative l~ :.~:lu~e a cutoff ~a21 o~:y alc~; t~e
sou~~~a5t :=~e of the lar.c:ill, ~~ereas Alter~ative 19 i:1clu:::es
a:1 -::x~:ii:::e= ~'all that acts as a "ba;;;,11 (2) Alte:-native 17 i:-:\'olves
e>:ca...:'::,c:1 a:-.d "incineratic:: '== ..astes frc:7I .~.rea n a:;d .=',,~eas .; and
G, ~~=reas alternative 19 :r:~:.~erates the waste fr07. A=ea ~ only,
ar.d (;) t~e estimated cost 0: ~lter~ative 19 is a~c~t 11 ;ercent
great:r t~an the estimated cost of Alternative 17.
As ~i~t Alte~native 15, ho~e~e:-, AI:.ernative 17 does nc~ fully
min:....-:::.ze tr.e potential fer c:.s:ha:-;e of conta":'\i:;a:;ts .f:-o::1 s:-:allow
d:".s::e=s-=c s:)"..:rces within t:-.e la..c:i!.l to. the s:::-.~a.::-"L.~; ::>c. ':"here
are- p:ter.tial a:jverse em'i:-c:-r::ental and pu::>lic- !'-,ealth i:;>~cts
asscc:.a~ej N:.th this alterr.ative, including the possi~ility of
ur.a==:~~a::>~e air emissior.s a~= the possibility of direct hu~a:1
c~nta:t c~ri~~ excavation ;ricr to incineration.
Tr.e a-::::ec ass ur ance of g ro"..:n.::"..':: te r control prov id ed 0:1 t!1e ex tend ed
cuter: ~all ~as judged to =e a si<;nificant, ccst-ef:ective benefit
of ;'.l~e=r.::th'e 19 when cO:7I;a=e: to this alternative. ~xca\'ation
ar.:j i~c:.r.~ration of waste :rc~ ~reas A ar.d G ~as ju::gec to be ~
unnec-::ssa=y if the extende~ cutoff wall and gro~ndwater extraction
sys~e= ~e=e in place. Alter~a~ive 17 ~as therefo~e s=reene~ fr9m
f~rt~~r c~~s:jeration snc ~1~e:nsti~e 19 ~as re~aine: :c: :etsi1ed
e""'::"~=t:'C:1.
"T 'i~':I\- ~ -1-1;-
.~_..-_\o. ....-- 8-
:8 - EXCAVATE/?::~~C.1E ;'":<.::.!l,,S .r..,G, .~.!\D :;; C[:-C:: ~':.~.:'L .h.CROSS
SOUTHEAST
:::~=D CF SITE; G~OLJ:=D~';.:'.:'=:~ =:XT~.:'.C:IO:~i
ALTER~.a.TE
';'i.=-.T2R S U?PL Y;
L~~~ CSS R2ST~ICTIC~S;
CONTIKUED ~C~:TORI~G
This =.2-:e=r.ative is identical ':0 ;'.I~ernati'Je 17, '..."i':h t::e exception
that t~e :x=avated material is not incinerated b~t is trans~orted
offsi':e t? a secure landfill f:)r dis?=,sal. The a-:5vanta:;e of re-
lat.:,'::2~- :r.:>rt implementat.:.:)=-:, ,:-i~e ::".ust ~e '~:ei~h~d a;ai~st hi;;her
cost ~:1: ':he increased ris~ cf e:1vi=o~ental contamination and
pu::>li= ex;c3ure due to pcssi=le spills durin~ transp:)rt. ~n ad-
dit:.':):-_a: .:isajvantage is t~.a~ the "..'astes are only re:7\oved, n.':)t
dest=cy-=:. T~is remedy the=ef~re ~ces r.ot winiw:ze t~e p~':e:1tial
dire=t :-.u.:::a:1 contact and dces ;".ot ::linimize the potential for dis-
char;: cf c~nt~i\inants fro~ shalleN dispersed so~rces ~ithin the
la:1c::.ll ':0 t~e spha:jnu:n bO:J. FQr these reas:)~s, this alter;"\ative
was e- :.;:!.;-.a-:ed.
13 - EXTEND~D ~.~?T:.~L C[TO:: K!o.LLi :::\:C";':.~:E/T~2,,:'"T
!
.. ?~~ ..:.:: I.:::
AREA H;
G? :/_. ~~: :.:..=-. T ~ ~ EX T R..~.C"T I O~:; .:'.L::-::;; ~': .::r:: ~.: .~- T E ~
SUPPL~' :
:.:.::: -_-5:: ?::3:;:::::-:-:~:~:
:.: :=:: ~=._- ~: ~..:~:: :C1~! !':G
-------
This =lte~native is icen~:~a~ to ~lte~~at~ve 16, except that Area H
is ex:ava~ed and treatec r:~=:~eratec) =~s:te ~ather than capped.
This alternative fully sa~:s:ied re~ecial response objectives 1,
2 a~j 4 c~ pa~es 16 and :7. :t o~ly ;art~~lly satisfied objective
3, to ~ini~ize toe poten~:~l :or cisc~crGe of contaminants to
surfa=e waters, however, =eca~se cis=~crGe of contaminants to the
bog fro~ shallow dispersec so~rces in tte landfill is only minimally
preve~ted. Because this a:ternative satisfies the remedial response
objec~ives to protect p~~!:c tealth, ~e~=~re, and the enviro~rnent,
however, it was retained =)~ f~~ther cc~s:ce~ations.
. r !
ALT::~~~.r..TIVE 20 - Cm;PLET=: :.._~.~~=:! LL S:\C;.?SUL.~.TIO~: GROUNDNATER
.'
EXTR.~CT:C::: _:'.L'Z'E~:\.:"T=: 'i'~_:'.T::rt SUPPLY: LAND USE
.'
RESTR!C7:0:~S :
Co:\'!'r::r::D :':O::ITORING
This alternative is a co~=:r.a~ion of ~l~e~r.ative 13 (encap-
sulat:c~), with a grounc~a:er extractic~ a~d treatment system.
The pri~ary purposes of tr.:s alternative was (1) to significantly
reduce the infiltration to the entire landfill and groundwater
rnove~ent into or out 0: ~te la~dfill, a~c (2) to intercept and-.
treat conta.."7\inated grounc....-~ter !:>eycZic t~e !)oundaries of the site
in the bedrock trough. ~i; t~:s way, all objectives would be met.
By cc~trast with the other al~ernatives ~~ich e~ploy extraction and
tre~~~e~t, Alternative 2: ~~es ex:ra::io~ ;ri~arily to capt~re
con~a..~.i~a~ts already of-fs::e ':.0 t:-.e r,=r':~east. The extraction
syste~ also provides additicZial assurance that any leaks from
the contain~ent to the trc~;h will =e cor.trolled. Because this
alter~ative satisfies the ~e~edial respo~se objectives, it was
retai~~d for further consi~eration.
Detai:ed ~valuation of Re~=in:n~ ~lte~natives
The s~x remaining remedia! al~ernatives are No.4, 9, 11, 16,
19 and 20. Note that all the components of Alternative 4 are
inclu~ed in the other 5 a:~er~atives. T~e~e six remedial alter-
natives ~hich~survived t~e screening ?rocess are described and
eva~u=t~d in detail in t~e FS. The Katicnal Contingency Plan
[40 C.F.R. 300.68(1)] rect.:ires that the e'''aluation include the
fo'llo'.dng features: -
a) re=ine~ent and specif:caticn 0: al~er~atives in detail, with
emphasis on use of est~lished tec~nology;
b) ce~ailed cost estimatic~, ~ncludi0; cistribution of costs over
t i::-,e;
c) evaluation in terms c:
ab:.lity:
e :"':; :. nee ~ in;;
i~;le~entation, or construct-
-------
d)' :~ a::s::ss:-:-.e~t of each a.:t.,:::-native i:-: ':e:::7'.5 of the extent to
-.-:-.:'c~ it. :.s expected to e::-ect:vely ::-.:tigate a:-.d r..:~ir.\ize carnage
~, ::-.: ~::-o..'ide crlec;uate ;::-otectie:1 0:, ~'~l:c hea2.':h, '.;elfare,
~~~ ~te e~vironment, rela~ive to the ct~er alternatives analyzed;
---
':::1.-
e)
a!"l a:1a:~-sis of any ad','e::-se env~rorT'ental i::'.?acts, ;.ethccs for
=i~i;ati:1; these im~acts, a:1o cests of ~iti;ation.
Ta:>:'-e 2-2 sU:-:-_i\arizes the t::c:"1:-,ical ccr-.pa:-i.=on 0: the s:x. alter-
nat:'~~5, i.e. engineerin; :~?ler.~;.tatio!"l, c;,:ration a~d ~aintenance.
Tab:'e 2-; s'.l.-:-~arizes the c:r.?aris~n of t:-.e ef::::cts of the six
a:'t-=r:-.a~:':€:s i.e. effects '.;;.~r: ~cl:c hea1~h, ',..-elfare a:lc the
erN:' r='r::".e:1t, and any a-:: ve rse e:lv i rc~e r. t.::l i"7,p ac ts. T~e cos ts
fer t~e six alternatives a:-e s~~~ariz::o in Table 8-13.
I
p
.-
.~
Tr.e s:..x
a:' ~e:-natives ',.;2nt
th::-c'Jg h t~e ce tail -2-:: a:laly 5 is as fo 110\0.'5:
At T~::<'::.!._:'ro~E ~.
P.L TERNhTE
~.: ~::'E?. S CPP L': ,
L.:'.~:D US E REST?.::: CTIO~ S ,
CONTINGED ~O~ITORING
M~n:.c:.;~l ~a~er is supplie~ tc resi~e~ts of ~reas 1 and 2, Are~ H
is :::-e.=t:-i:te::, and groune....-ater ",,'i t:-r.: r~,,'-a!.s ane excavation are pro-
hi:>:.t-=~ c:- ::-~stricted in a~.d adjacer.t to the site. ~~~~itoring is
r -~:7."-=::: '::> cetect any ce-:e:-:.oration cf ccn:i':ions w:;ich rlight
t a-:e t~e ~eed for addit:o~al re~e~:al a~tie~s, or an ir.\~rove-
:7\en-: .:f c,):'".::tions v,°!lich ~:.,;:-.t c.l:'c',; :-e::L::~i':r. ::1 the ~e.Jel cf
res~:-:c-::::-.. :he ~rimary ;\;:-;::>se c: :.h-: alt,:r:-:.::ti\'e is to
- - pro'.- i.::e L::1Co:-.ta.i\inated wa t-:r to resid ents and to lirni t the
pot;:1~i=l fo~ inadvertent hu~a!"l i~~estion of o~ contact with
cen'::ci~a:1ts.
Alt~r;;a~i~e ~, at a presen:. ~~rth 0: S60C,00J, is relcLively
i~ex;':n5:~e ~~en comparee :'0 t!le ether re~aini~; alternatives.
It :'5 a ;:-c';;n technolo;;ly :.r.at is eas:ly i,:-.ple.-:-.e:ltej in ap~roximately
fou:- ::.~:-;t::~. Implementation 0: this alternative wodd not have
aeve::-.=e e:-;..i:-o!"'.:7Ienta1 im;;:>acts.
Al t sr:-. a': i-: e .; coes pr otec t p~ lie he a2. th '::>y ~rov id i ~ an un contero i-
natej ~ate~ su~p~y to resice~ces w~ose gro~nc~ater residential
wel:5 a::-e cor.ta:1\inated or :-:-a:;' ;ctsntia.l1y ::e ccr.tcninated. It
dces ~~~, to~ever, rninimiz-: the potential for hUwan contact with
wastes .in the landfill, rnini:-:-,ize the p:>tential for discharge of
eonta=ina:-:ts to surface wate:-, or Dini~ize the further degredation
of th,: ~r~L:~c~ater.
This =.l-:.e:-r.ati':e was therefore e1i.-:\inatee !::-eca'..;se it dces not
pro~:~-: ;:-c:.e:tion of pu~lic health or the e;;~ironDent relative to
o~'-~r :::~r.si::ered alternatives.
. .
-------
T"h'.. II-I
Tf'IRllrAI. rnll'NH:~.' IIr '"JlI1I1AI. AI.Tr.m.ATIVr..o;
AII......I.....
rro...n
T..<1..... ...~ I..'
!loull III! I r
Un.11
Cnn~ln.r.t Inn 01""."'" 1"" And ",,1..1 PI1lUIClt
mTTIMIllJJJ;,,~II.. n11Trriiltr --.!.'o...':.-- ~rr.I,,1 1,,""n"'"1 r,MI....
A""lllm.1
!:II.II", n"'I."Ir.."
1I01le.
Il1frll,IIIoctuul and
In.lllullnn.1 141
,..
,.,
I,'
1.0"
I..."
I..nv
Ilnllll.
Incln..ratlon 191 'u No \11th 8 Illth Sho,t rott'nllal for C'Onlinuous a",ust- Non...
.....1 of opt'r.tln9 rr'cll~s to
8t'..t pprlo,.anc.. Ob'..ctlv....
~"r'a.... C""trol 1111 ha ,... 1.0. 4 Ln. 1.11119 Non~. None.
r, I..."
R..II..nnr.p
lIJJ"rl"'"S
""I
I, 2.
1, " 5.
I, ~.
'-,,,,'.ul Ant' '..a 'AI ,.,."".. ~ "".11". 1,,,,,"..11,.1 I, T,""I.hllll, nf ""', "Ir. :a"II, II. II '-'-I'all- I, 2, I,
,.. .,...'111'1 11"'11 y"., 1.""1 1',1,,"11111 1'.nl""'J".II1I,.....tll1l1 hl1lt,. 1".1'111" ., fi, 1.
. n' 1m...'"." A'M' II ..,., ...nl ,...t 1111' A"" .,.ltltnr
, ' ,.,~t,... ..,,110 In ''''fOr "'11111..r.
... T...ol.lolllt, 1"'11119
I nl 9,no..,,"'01....
tV
\0
I
"..-111"'.' Inn, rnllirnl, ,,,. r.CI.. ""tal". n 111,10 1'111""11..11, rnn'it"nl "'II".I-nl n' 1"..ln- fohll" "..II .......,..11- 1,), ',
...., .,.." ...., 11""1 v,.., I"'II~ .. "tll' ......""lll"J ,'. ,,,:11.-... In ""1111,,. 1\.." ., 6, 1.
-". ,.n.h....."..... ..IIJ..., I.... 1,.,,1 In., ..It.' ......llnr
TI"",..hllll, ,,' 1"'1', T11/'. "..II" II. ''''1'1' 1111" II..,.
1,,1,.',11..' 1,,"ln,,',"" "1,...U"n T..... ..101111, 1 ,..IIIIV
o. I-,...,'In., ....1 l'I!At.fml 01 V'.1"''''.''''''.
",:.1,...
""'''I.,."I"III;n /JII' 'n '8& 111'110 , '.11" ',111.., ':'''''1 ,1"1"10 ,,' ",,'ulIlll1l1. :allra, ""II (".,'"11- I, 2, J,
"",I 1\....ln9 IIn"'.nlll"18 .011 1"nr..,tI.... 101111,. 1\'.1' 1...lIn, .,~, 6,
1t..,ln., of .",..p ,.."...,,1' Inlo ""oJ ..'" It 0. ..d h In 7.
1"..11 oc.. r'lK:lu...,1 ~".oc.. ,I""r IWJUII..,. T'fOOt-
Tr"olabl1ll, 01 DHT, T1IF. ablltt, t,.stln9 of
9,,,,,"oJ"aI.. r .
I~I.. th"t all altemalt..., Incorpo,,,t.. all co8pon..nt, of th.. 1'1 Alt..,natl.. 'lIuIob..r .,.
h1,1f(;~/51
/
I:rr"rl I,.."".. n'
N"!I'I'UII'" In ...-... I nv
~I...!!~J~'!-
111.,101, "",,~'h..,
d"l",n.lIn'l nn clll...n
C(oOlw-rat Inn Alld fl' 'f'C-
II.......,. ,,' '''9'111110''
...I"n.llI....
111'1101, ."rct ...,
..11.ln81.., ~olh .a,or
."" 11011 C'O/'Ja.lnanl
8ource8.
111'1"1" .."..('II...,
.,.ull..I.. lilt.. ."In'
""nlin" '11111".IIIAII'
..."..-.
111,,101, .",.,'.10.. '1
. ,,,."'101111, ""., I...
...1.,-.1, ItllI'.ul. h..,1c
8ft Inr ~I", 11o"
l".hla.lllft'lt ~ourc~.
'''tI' c."I,'ur.... a...'
l, "'I'. ..Jnr ,1."".
.11"1..'...",,, ".
V.." ""1101, """,'1".
If 1,.",,,"1111, 111"-
....... .,,1....1, -1'-1-
Itft'..a III'. ." I'" "h"l-
I,." ....,..1""1..,,...
'.''''''''''. .'UtI',,,,,,
"""'''''', "'hl '''1'1'''.:1
''11,1 I r..,,' ~I ""Jnr .1..1'\'
'""ltt".h."It'...
y"., "1'1"1,
... ,...', I..., I~n' ..."
.11 ."jo. ."",I..lnlllll
:toltrc...~, ("A('ftur..,
IIn.' ""lit. .11''''
-------
1\ 11 "rllnl 1 V"
---_._----~
-111[1 n::lnlclurol 1\1111
11I:;llIlIl.Iollnl (4)
Incineration (9)
I
l-J
c.)
I
(I)
I
'"
(II
~;lIrfnc" Control (1 ~)
,°,,"1 rol nnd J'lImplllfJ (1Gn)
rlolmnry
1/I'::I'0Il:;(!
lKIJ...:1.1 v..!)
tll.1
1,2
1,2,5
1,2
1,2,3,
4,6,7
SUtlNl\ltV COtll'l\R I f,ON m' 1:1
n-J
, 01" Rf:MmII\J. I\I.TF:IINI\TIVF:5 "
tl/\ ,,,r 1':HC'cl:: "PHil
1'111111,: Ih!ollh 011.1 .,... I.,..'
f'I'II" iI-;-;} " 1 I\~ hi j;-, 'II'
tl"Jul' .:r fl'd:; 111'1/11 lho ':11 V Irnlln"'lIl
-n.:t;;;T\"Tiil 1I,1.;'i;,~;~;-
lin'nlly n'(]uce:;
l'I/II'lIllnl Cur hllmnll
coot.,et wI lh
COlll1\mln.-wl:; ,
e:;pecinlly in
potable water In
Arcas 1 amI 2.
F.llmlnntr.s
polt'nUal for h\lmitn
COllt.,et willi
cOlllnmll1nnl:, III nnd
.,roIlOl' I\n~n II.
1)('cren:;r:1 110trllLJ n 1
"11' h\lmoll ,;olllllCl
!:ollth oC 10nllfl11.
nrlll1cr.~ Ilott'nll n I
Cor hum,.,n contnr.l
wIlh eonlnmlnnllls
III n\l(t nro\lllll
I\rl'!n II. follqht1y
1.,.lucc:I I'olellli n 1
1'01' conI ncl 111
rrm,,1011rr of
111\1(1£ 111 .
Cirrnlly n'11I1CI'!1
potrnl1nl for hllm.,"
conlacl with
cllnl.nmlnnllls
lhrolJ!}ho\lt. lhr. .!II tr.
nllll ocr!> HC'. Hny
nl10w rcloxnllon oC
) 0011 \1:;1'
rr:;trlcl1ons
(I\ltcrnntlvc 4).
!;ev('rl'ly rc::ldcls
10...1 wa'::, 1':;1'.
I1rOlIO,h",Irr lI!Or,
mlull1lJ, oUIer
excnv., lIon::.
Prohlhlts continued
occupatIon or use
of Area II.
Tl'!mporary Inere,.,:;e
or r.xpo:Ollrr. rI:;k
durIng excnvnllon
nllll 11I1.."11I1'rnlloll.
Tr. hiP"" ;1I'Y
nlllllll'"lIlIIl'lIl 0 f
lrnll:.I,'r :olnlloll.
f,",I:;::lon~; from
Inclm'r.,lor.
Tr.mporllry c1u::l IIlIcl
no l!Or. Tr""ornry
ol>Ollllullmt'nL 0 C
lrnll:;'I'r :;lnlloll.
t\:\Jur, I.c'lnl'ol'nl'y
Incrrl'l:;t. In <1I1St
nnel no151'.
Suh:;lnllllal
t c:lllpor II"Y
11I1.C'n 111111011 or
nornml residentiol
lrnft !C.
'I'"nlpornry, !:11 ghtly
IncrC'n~l'd rI~k oC
eXIIO:;lIrl'! lo
COlltl'lmlnnnl!:.
l\eslhr.l1c cf feets
of trentment
focJ 11ly.
None.
r.llmlnote!O source
of cllr.ch.,rgc Lo
cnllnll mitr:;h.
1:11nllllnl (':1 :al\nr.
SOllrer:: fOI" 1101',
::Ollth now r.y:;\rnl,
.Iec!p llow :;y:;ll'ln,
I\nnnlw:;::ncook I.nkl'.
nrc)lIce!; 110lr.nl1 n1
for II I ::(;h.,..qr lo
cnt la 11 rn.u:th.
Itl'!ctucC':: pot,clIlI n 1
for ('Jlpor,urr nn,t
lr/\nr.pllrl of
1:01I1.1\m11101ll:; by
rro:; Ion.
C:rc:\ll y 1t!lhIC(!~1
potenllnl for
dlschnrqe of '0
conlnminAnls lo
mo:!l of I.III'!
rnVlr()lIm~nl of !.hl!
:;1 te. I'erm.,nr.nlly
r('move~ t.OI1K~ c1crp
contnmlnnnts from
br.nenlh lnndElll
nnl' 111 LrouIJh.
"
None.
Temporary risk of
Incr!'n:;l'd mlqrntion
lo m.ur.h, hoq dllring
C'JlcnvolIoll.
loI'n<:l,lnq from
r.lockl11 II".
rot~nllnlly nl11'r9
wnlcr hnlnncl' of
I>og.
Volcnllnlly olll'rs
wnlt'r 1>.-,1once 0 r
:ourfncr. wnlerr.
ne~I-l>y, 'C'xeepl
Anllnhl'!~:;ncook I,nkr..
Oc:;tnlcl.lnn of :;omc
forestl'cl oren:;.
II'W
ro'I
----.
III." \(:1111.,.: 1.':1
"" 1\ 11.'llInll VI'
1>01':1 (Jot rC'lnOVI! nr
CI.nl.l..1 clIIILo'UlIlI..I..L
!:ollrrl':: or "C'r.lt.C'
c:o'nlillr.l n1\Uon.
Do(,:1 nolrclllOvc or
conlrol clel'p n0l1/0r
II I:;pr r:a.cJ
COlllnllllnnlll:: or
nCf:;\ln '
cOlllnmllinllclll.
1'oC':: IItll rrmoy,' nr
cont..... 1 I\I'I'n:: 1\ "
(;, 111'1'1' .,nll/or
III ::pr 1':;1'11
cI1111 I'IlIlllIlIlIt!;,
ofl::11 t'
C:OlIl.,UII n., lion.
\Jill::: lIot ,CI'lIl..n I {II'
rC'mov., ('olcnllnl
un Idcnt H Irll,
shallow, IIl:;l'cr:;I'd
:;ourcl':; c)l:a:h,Intllllj
-------
1
l.J
I-I
1
J\ 1t.rrnnti VI'
-.----
Incin~ration, Control,
and Pumping (198)
'.:"rnpmllntJ nn ""11
!'lIm" IlIq (2())
en
I
N
'LI
"rimnry
11r.::polI:;C
Oh jr.r.t I y..!1
Hr.l
1,2,'3',
4,6,7
1,2,3,4,
5,6,1
T"hlr n-J
SUHMJ\RY COKPARISON Of Ern;CTS Of REMIDIAL ALTEHNATIVE~
( ClIlIlllIlll'ltI
.'I'IJur !:rrC'cl:; 111'1111
('1111 )Ie Ifrn It h 1'1111) III') fn 1"1'
11r.II e-rIclill ----'"liirr-!:r.
Same a~ 168, bul
evrn mCire
beneficial because
dr~lroys 0 major
shallow wasle
source (Arc~a 11).
Grrn t I Y rrc1I1C:"'!I
pot!'lI\. In 1 for humnn
cUlIlnc.:l wllh
rnlllnmlnlllll!l
lhrouc,houl lhr.
:;lle nlill ocr::llc.
Mny ft llow
relftxatlon of Inml
U!JC re:.lrlcl1on:;
,(J\llernllt.1vr 41.
Same as 168, bul
qrri1lrr Increase
ri~k of ~xp05ure
cont.amlnants
becill1!:r of
excavation of Area
II.
MII'lnt., Ir,nporllry
IIIITI'M:" 111 clu~ l
ftl,,1 lIul~.....
Jill "IIIII"lnll ur
normill '1'!lllh'lIlInl
la'nllll:. "..mJlo,'nry
Jnr:"".,!:rl) rl!'k o(
expo';11 rr to
cOllI !IInlllnlll::.
1'rn,,,,r.,ry
nh.1II.lolIlII('1I1. fI[
li"""II'" ::lnl.llIl1.
1\,'::11,1'/ Ir: I'HI'ct:1
0" Ill'nlllll'lIl.
Im'lllly.
H,'Jnr I~ffrrt:: IIpon t.hp F:llvl rnnml"nt,
-"f'iirrrd~ll 'A,lvI~i::;~-
Sallie os 1611, but
of addr.d bene f 1l In
to cattili1 marsh and
boq from
dr.slrucl1on of
wast.e In Area II.
Grrnl ) y rrc1uc:r:1
I'oll'ul.lnl for
111:,d,,,...,.. n(
cOlli /Ion IlInlll!! 1.0
rnllll' rllv 1 rOllmr.nl
of ::llr.
rrrm,lIIrnll y
rl'movrr, !OORII!
c11~CP coni nmll1ftlll:J
In I.rmlqh.
Samc a~ 1GB, but
al~o temporary risk
of mlqral.1on to
marsh and boq durlnq
exc"votlon.
Lc"chlnq (rom
stockpile.
I>r::lroy:; III. Jr.,::t
") nr.rc':; 0 r hlll/.
1'111."111 ,,, I I y "II "":1
Wn 1"1" hili 11111:1' or
hOl/, l'ol.rnlll111y
nllr.r~: wnl.'~r
hnll1l1CI! of ::1I1'r"Ce
vn I r.r~ nr"rby,
cKcI'pl
Alln.'''r~~o1(:oolt
I.akl'. IJt':;I'lIdlon
n r 1/(IP1I' fell I':: t I'll
nr"n:;.
"EHect:; of the ax A1t.C!rnolive (Number 41 npp1y to 011 other nllernal1ve~ ns well, l'XC(!pt where "ot~d.
~;oI!GS/GO
r II nll"fl""r. ",~
of 1\1 t'~Tn.,llvl'
Same as 1(,0.
-------
.:'.: ":-: :::-:-:a t i ve
:~:=~=~~;=~~ral &
~~=,,:~,,:~,,:i=~~l (4)
~~c~::-:=;~:'O:: (9)
~';=:a=~ :::-;"::::-01
(11)
C:::,,:=:l a:.= ?~~?ing
C?-:.:.c:: :
(16::) ,
,~
C~::,,:==l a=.= ?~~?ing (16::),
,C?-:~c:-. 2
~~=~::;=;~~o::, Contrel,
~,~ :-~,:i::; (19B),
C,?~ic~ :
=~=~r.~=;~io::, Control,
~,::: :::-~"7.:i::g (19B) I
- . -
,--:;-::c:-" .:.
~::=;;=~:a,,:i=~ a~d
.~-_..--
. -':-_0-:
(:0: ,
'::"~:''=:"'. :
~:-.=:.;!';:a,,:i ::1
:::-'-.?:.-~g (20),
C::,,:ic::'l 2
a:'1d
'I"a::le 8-13
C"",r::. ': -:- -,,-
-..-.- -- -..
s-::.~.:..:..:=::" ccs':'
C;:;:~tal Cos":=-
S::~7,G~:J
;':.:"".".:: :
',' . :,
.. ----
.>o.tI- -~..
: ;~.~ c: E -: ~
?=:5~:;~
--- ---
.:~.., ~ --
$557,OCO
se,330,oao 522,2::) 58,540,000
Sl,OlO,OCO c: ,.. ,.. - - $:',~:o,ooa
--=-,-.1-
5';,070,ODO c:-~- --- S7,510,000
-.;c:,'---'
55,230,000 S:,~9::,CJ2 519,200,000
$11,100,OO~
512,300,000
nc,2~O,C~0
$:':,::'95,0::
-... =CE~ e~t~~ates a~e C=~~=-o~-~ag~it~~~
c:s": ~5~i=ates have an a=c~=acy of -50 to
--
-:=:=;::~ ~:=t~ based on a
;.:-=:4~/;2
3:-::.~ar
pe =ic= a':
S-~E
-.. .-
$::6:,'::<:
$:';,6CO,000
S:,49~,C::
$20,300,OCO
t -: ~: ,.. --,...,
"'!"-I:-,--,.,
$13,680,0'.:'0
.... ,... - ... - -
~-,;~-,---
S~:,399,oao
-c.""-~
--.'t:-
i . e., t~ e
~S"::...::;':es ,
-::0 ~~~=~~~: see .text.
: j :e:=:~.:'
in-:e=est.
r
-------
ALTER~\ATIV:: 9.
EXCAV~:E/=~EAT AREAS A, G, A~D H: ALTERNATE WATER
SUPPLY: :'_='~:J :.:S£
~E S :-?I C:-!C~': S ;
CONTIKUED MONITORING
The \,astes aDd conta:1i:1a':-:-::: s:)il in _='_:-~a H a;:a the drums and
cont~~inated soil in h:-e:s A a:1d G a~~ exca,ated and incinerated.
Conta.'"1i!1a:1ts currently ::-: ~:-;e grc'.;r.c.ft.=~-=:- a;-,j f:-o:n other sources
continue to ~igrate, s~ a~ alternat~ve ~=~er supply is provided.
The p~rpose of the alt~r~a~ive is to el~~i:1a~e two ~ajor sources
of cO!1ta~ination and r~c~=e the poteDtial for human contact
v.'it~ or in;estion of c:>r.-:cninants.
Excavation of buried h=za~jous materails (solid ~aste, drums,
ccnta.~i:1atej soil) is a ~:l:a::le, es~a::l:s:-iej technology
in ro~tine use through~c~t the Unite~ States. Excavation of
wastes ( frc.~ Area H an: -='-~~as A aild G) at tr.e i'Hnthrop site
is not expected to pose :~! special tech~ical difficulties.
S"afety ar.j drainage cc:-:t:::-cl p:-otoco:s :o~ this type of
operation are also esteb::5~ec and in ~icesp:-ead us~.
Problems exist with in:i!1e:-ation, h~~~ve~, as co:npared with
other tec~ni~ues. The i:;.c:~;rator a~j associated facilities
requi:-e a highly train:-e, ::::cate.5 s~af: ar.j a high degree of
mechanical attention t~ro~;ho~t the p~ric~ of operation. More-
over, because knowledge 0: the characte~:stics of the p3tentia~
waste strea~ from the :a~c::ll can o:-:ly te derived from m:)nitor~
ing i:1for.7la~ion periph~r:l ~o the l=~:fi:l, fro~ documentary
evidence, a!1d from eye~itr.;ss reports, t~e exact nature of
the ~aste strea.~ is un~n~~:1 a~d unp:-e:ictajle incineration
difficulties may occur. 7~e a.~our.t cf '::~e, €x~ense, and
difficu:ty associated ~i~~ :h~s a:t~r~a'::~e in ~ncertain.
-
- Poten~ial adverse enviro~~r.tal i~pacts cf this alternative are
the p:;ssi:,ility of una:cef:':~le air e:7.issicns duri~ incineration
and the need to transp~r~ a~d dispose 0: ~he ash remaining after
incineration.
Other a=verse e:fects ass==iated ~it~ t~e alternative include the
possibility of human conta:t curin~ excavation and stockpiling
prior to incineration, a!1= the possibility of release of conta~i-
nants to the environne~t c~rir.~ excav=t:c~ a~d stockpiling.
This alternative will ::0 r.-:>thin; to r~7.o''-e 0:- control conta.'nination
which is dispersed thr~u;h~~t the landfill or Hhich has migrated
off-site. Consequentl~', c:>r.tc3":1inat:o:1 c: the deep sediments in
the bedrock trough will ;e:-sist, allo~in~ continued endangerment
to the environment throu;h ~tential ccnt~ination of Annabessacook
Lake, and degradation of gro~ndwater :-esc~rces. In addition,
any shallo~ dispersed so~r:es of cor.t~,:r.ation in the landfill
will contin~e to pose a ~=':e!1tial threat to the spha~num bog.
This alternative was e:i~i~at~j on the ~asis ~hat it does not
adequately ;-.eet the resp-:::-:se cbject:ve :c:- protection of
public heal~h, welfare a~: t~e envi:-:>~~-=~t relative to the
other alternatives (~O C.:.? S300.E3~i~ (2}(c), and may have
ac ve r see~. ': : :-:) n::-I en t ,~1. :... - :: = : : 3 (~J C.? =-. ': ; J: . oS : ( i ) ( 2) (e) ) .
-------
ALT=:~~:.:'..T!\72 11.
REGRADE L;~:!)FILL, C.z..? .!..?E.?. :i, ,:'.!..'!'E?S.;7E t-:.;'!'ER SUPPLY,
LAND USE ?~S7RICTIO~S, CO~T:~C~D ~O~I70RIKG
~:a.::' :: ap, :~proximately 1..3 acres i:1 a:-ea, i s ~or:s~~l.,)c te-j over
:;~. T~e p:-imary purpcse~cf the alter~ati~e is to liuit
~~t~~~::l ~~.a~ contact wi~t cO:1t~ir.a~ts a;-:j ~~ re-:~ce leaching
0: ==~t~~i~a~t~: from Area 3 ir.to the gro~~d~=te= an~ cattail marsh.
Re;=a=i~, cappirg, and re-:e-;etation are prc':en technologies
in =c;t:i.e use throughout ~te ~rld, and will p=ese~t r.q
s;;e::i.=l ci:r:,c:llties at tr.e :':inthrop S1':-:. :be S~r:ace COiitrol
JI.:t~r:-.a':i...e :.s not physica2.ly or r.echanically cC:7\plex, can
b~ ::-a::i::'; L-plernented wi t:i s':a~jard cCi:strt::t:cn e:~i:r.:ent,
- oJ , I - -
a,-d '..-:'12.. pese :-:1inirnal danger to v,>:>rkers a~d residents curing
cOl1strt::ticn. Reliabililty is very hi!;hwit~ ?:-o:;:>er :7laintenance.
i~v~rse e~~i:-o;-:mental effects of re;ra~in; a~d ca:;:>pin~ are likely
to =e ::-.:.r.ir..a: and llmitec ':0 the short te!77':.. ':':-.:se. ef:ects are
gen:r.=l:y associated with the traffic of hea;y e-~~i~r~nt and
const::-u:ticn materials: n:dse and dust, i!'1ter~~ption of the
ncr=a: =l~w cf residential traffic. 7he res?C~se will also
r:q~i=e the ~andoITnent of t~e transfer staticn at tr.e south end
of ':h~ :ancfill. Another ;o~e~tial adverse effect of this
al t~!::-.a':i'Je :.s to al ter the '.;a ter bal ar:ce cf t:-,e sphC; ;-:'.,;:'!\ t>O;1 '.
by :.;-::r~asi:1; the runoff 0: st:rface ~ater from the lancfill to
. 1- ....'" t 1" . .. . "'... ., '..
t:-.e ...:t;. _:1:S lmpac cou c ;)e 17\1...1; al..~= o.Ij :"'T:?-~:entlrg c!:a1nc3;1e
ccn~:-:ls tc cirect excess =~~c:f to r.oyt 3=ock c= ~~na:essacook
Lake.
- _:.: ; - - .. .., - 'a nd f 1, 11 a r: ~ C - - ..., ; - ',.. '" :.:.. . 1 1 :... '" .:: .:: - ..... ; .
~_:.-..,~ ....,-:: ~ , .... =-:-:,-11; .-.__c.. ..1_- -. e..L-::"'I.._ve 1:1
m::1~~:z:r.; ~~e potential fer h~~an CO:1tac~ w:t~ the cor.taIT.inants.
- It -...i:l !:eta:-d discharge 0: contir.!ina:1ts freT.'. .:'.rea E to the cattail
mars~. ::;::ic;:-.U"7! bog and deep~r aquifer.
A:t~r~c~i~e 11 Nill do not~i~ to control co~ta7.ina~t sources
oth:r t~a:1 Area H or to co~trol conta~ina~ts ~~i:h ta~e already
m .; .., - - - - ~ ~.::.:: S;... e C 0 n S e C . '''' ... t' Y C 0 n .. - ; ... - t ; "" ... ; n .. h.::> \., ",.4 r C ...:"
-:J - c: -':'- .-,~.....- - ~ . - -_.. -, ,-c., - ~IC ~",",.1 -, '- - 6.J_~ ,-"
ar.d tc the sc~th of the lar.d:ill ~ill persist, allo~ing'continued
pctc:1~i:.l cO!".tc:nination of .;~nabessacoo~ Lc~e ar.j de;;!:ajaticn
0: t;:-:'~~c'''''a:er resources. I~ addition, a:1Y shal:'cN dispersed
seu==~s 0: cc~tamination i,- the lan=fill ~ill cCiiti~ue to pose
a ?c':::1~ial threft~ to the s~~c;nurn bog.
Tr.is .=l-::rr.ative was elimi,-a~e.j on the basis t~at it cees not
ace~~ate11 ~eet the responsi~le objectives fer ~=otection of
pt;!:>lic ~ealth, ,,,elfare and the enviroment relative to the other
alte:-=-.:':i'.'es (~O C.F.R. S3CO.63( i) (2) (d», ar.d :7=.j' ha';e adverse
er.'/:':-:::::-.e::tal L"pacts (40 C.=.~. ~300'.68( i) (2) (3».
AL T~?~~.:..:r:E 15.
EXTENDED FA~TIAL C~TOF:
~.; :-.:S L, C .:.,p
.:'.R::'; H,
GROUNm'iATE~ EXT~}..CTIC~~,
.:'.LT::~~:.:'. :E
\.:.; 7E~ S [??L Y
Li\!-JD US::
~::=::'=~C7~C:~= ,
c : ~: :- : ~: 8_" ::: ~ :: :: : :- : :.! ~: G
- .
-------
A ~ ,700-foot slurry ,,:all, r::1;irq in c-:;:~h fra:t 10 to 90 feet, is
c::..-..-t-d - 1 t 1. -_......_~..' 1--~=:" - d c:-h -- - ~ b. .
ccn- \,.-........ c co,,,p e e :r c.- '--..- .:1e _C..'-- --- c:i -:!' C:;j :1\.:.. ....og, Jt 1 S
not cc;""structed across t:-.: ::-=-::r:::>c~ trc''::;~ at th-e northeast tip of
the landfill. A gro~~~~a:.-== extract~:~ ~~11 is installed as
described for Alternative :.;, '..;ith s:.-:-.ilar treatr.lent options.
Area ~ is capped and re~E;-=:at:d.
This alternative will be r,::::::' effecth': in r::eetirg J:1ost of
the re~edial response obje:ti~es. The alternative does not fully
minL-:1ize the discharge of co:;tcninar.ts to the sph~nurn bO'J as the
alte~':-.ative includes cn1y :-.::;:':-:-.:1 ::-.:.=:":S (:-e;racing) to liiTIit
potential r.,igration of cO:-.:'::-.:.nants ir.to the bo;; fran sha1lo'",
sourc-:s in tr.e bulk of t:-,e :.=:-:::::i11. Tr.:'s alternative may also
have a-:::'.'e:-se enviromenta..l :..-:-;:asts f=~. ,.:estruction of s:::>:!:e portion
of the ',,'etlands: 'd'ut"ing ccr:str'.l:ticn cf t:.e slurry wall.
Th~re is also sc~e uncerta:~ty in the cC:istructability of a slurry
wall at the depths rec;uire: =::' this alternative. The alternative
allc',,;s the discharge of cc:-::a:-inants to the spha;;ntim bog fran any
unice~tified shallow dispersed sources o~tside Area H in the landfill.
Thus ;'.lternative 16 was el:"-:-.inate-j c;.:e to the cCverse enviror.:-nental
i~p.=~~s and uncertainty as::~iated ~ith its implementation 40 C.F.R.
S300.68 (i)(2)(C and E) a~: d~e to its failure to protect the environ-
ment by minimizing the disc~a=;e of cO:ita~inants to the bog.
Because this alternative :'5 -effecti\.'e in weetirg the renedial res~'
pense objectives for prote:tic:i 0: p~lic health, welfare, and the
env:.r:r_-:-ie:1t '.dth the exce;::c:-. of ::.i~:.~,:.zi:1; cO:1tcrninant migration
to the !::>o~, and because it :::e::' :,e easily ~f:>dified to lir.lit the
a:: ve .:::: e E :w i r 0 r~":"I e n t al :.-;: a : :. .3 : :":= :: r ~.: :.::.; e..' e i1 :; rea t e r pr 0 t e c t ion,
a rev:.sed version of Alter:-.::.:.':e 16 '...':.S c~:1si~ered and is ciscussed
on pa;es 36 and 37.
ALTER~;ATIVE 19.
EXTE!,DED ?~,~':'I.~.L CliTC:: i':,~.LL, 2XCAVl\TE/TRE.~T
ARE.~ H G?::::~:~i':.;TER ::>:T?_:'.CTION, ALTERNATE i':.?,TER
SUPPLY, L~.~:!) US E RES'!'~!CTIO!\S, CONTINUED "~ON ITORING
This alternative is identical to Alternative 16, except that Area H
is exea','ated .and treate-j (i::~ir.erate=) c::site rather than capped.
Pio=le~s associated with e::ec~s to cor.s~ruction on the wetlands
remain. In addition the ci~harge to contcrninants to the sph~num
bog from any identified shalloN dispersed sources in landfill is
only z:inimally prevented. The destruction of the major shallo'w
waste source (Area H) pe~r.~~:~tly eli~:~ates this waste, rather
than controlli~ it. The ?ro~le-:is associated with incineration
of ~ixed municipal wastes, as cescribe~ under Alternative 9 above,
remai:i. At a present '..or~:i c: S14.6 :-:"i:lion, this alternative is
twice as expensive as A1teri.ative 16, a~d provides no greater
protection a;ainst the c::s:te =:;i~ra~i~:-: cf contcninants fra'1
area.s other than Area H. :c= t~is reas~;1, as ....-:11 as those reasons
dessr:bec in .~lternat:::es ? ::-.: 16 a::::':e, t~is alteri1ati'Je '...'2S
eli1:".i:-.a:ed.
-------
..:r::?.::;'.T!\':: 20.
C01>1PLETE :-;.~,!):IL!. :S~C.;?SUL;..TIC~:, G~OC~:Di';~:!'2R
EXTRACT!C~;, ;'.!..'I'E?S;'.TE i'i.!..TE~ S::??L':,
L:'~:D USE
.'~. ,-' -= ,. - .. :. - ~ ,..;. 1. .J e 1, S a C 0- ""',: - ";' ~ ~ r n 0.:: .,.. ~ r -. ,. .. : .. =- 1") r <::. - ... ,. - :: . " -,. 1, 0 n )
----.....-- ...~_..---- - .~-_c: ,,---'- -'" .-.._-:---_C:-
.:.t:-~ a .;ro'.:n::',,'a.ter extractiC:1 a;"l1 t=eat:":'\ent s:;'S-:'6':1. T:-.e £::-L-:\ary
,'..:r::::;es 0: ~his alternati';e a:-e (1) to si,;;~:ic::1tl:t re~'J::e in-
::..l~r:ticn to the entire lar:=fill c;'"!d ground...lC:.ter r,~ve::ent into or
)~t c: tt~ landfill and (21 ~o interce?t a~d t=eat ccnta~inated
;rc~~o..t~r oeyond the bouccsries cO the site :~ the ~===c:< trough.
RE5TRICTI::~:S, CO~;T=~,L]t:j) ~~O~;I::)?,I~-:G
':t=r~.oi,e 20 was elimir.a~'o oce to the qce.t:C"2~:e cc"strcctability
J: ~te cutcf~ wall at the ~e?th re~ui:-ej in th~s alte=~atbe and
a:,'",'erze en';i=O:imental effe::ts associated ,,,'ith ir;stalla':.ion in the
wet_a:-.::S. T:-.e cutoff ".'all '..::,,-:ld :ieed to be ke::-ed i::to be-erock in
p':O-::o, st ce;;;ths greater t:-.2" 100 fee to Furthar coc.s t ruct ion
d:.f.::i::t.::ties .....~uld J..,e. pres~r.':. in 50::.e areas ct.:e to .e:r:t=€:.'e coarse-
nesS ::f s~r:e of the native r.;t~rials and their tender.c::. t.o enter
t:-.e s:t.:=rj t=ench. The fr:.ct\.::'ed bee rock su=f=.::e ber.eat.h the
sit~ .i:l li~it the effect:~e~e5s of the enca~s~laticn in control-
L.!"k; =ee; r..i~ration of con:.a-:.i:1ants. The ccns,:=ucticn of the cut-
o:f ~:ll Hill result in the cestruct.ion of at least t~c acres of
tr.e b:1;. :~ere is also a ;.o':ential for alternat.ion c: t:-.e ,....at.~r
bsh,,:e io t;.e remaining p::~icn cf the b::>g cue tc :ccreasec runo£;,
...
51..=:"'- =:-\. c: :)~tailed Evalua:icj;
Ir. _:. 'Jr t;;e alternatives i:-:.-~lvin;; c;rounc'",'ate= trea-;:-e:-.t t.here is
t:-.-: :=s~e 0: t.:-.e treata=>il:t~. :: t'.,r: d t:-.<: cc:-,,:;~i~.a:;':S, "J:-:F and
"1';0'. :oc.oico;; the rescl ts cf be treot",il it,' so..:y, a conse:"ative
a:~=::>sc~ .25 ~resented in the ,5 to evaluate t~e treat~~nt strategy.
p. ::c;1:l'.:si\'~ treatabil ity 5t'L~' to ~e cone cur:..:-G cesi:;; n ",,'as con-
s:je=~: a:1 essential additi~~ to any re~ecial action i~volving
9 r :,...: :1 :: ''''- ::.. t ~ :- t rea Ut'l e n t .
Be:: a';,; :: ~ r::> r. e 0 f the ab ov e ::.l ': e :- r; at i',j e 5 f cll Y s? t. is fie s a!. 1 c. f the
re::l.1:a:' res;;;.,,"se objectives defir.ad on pa;es 15 and 16 to adequatelY
~r ::>te c t F"",Hc he alth, ...1 f .=e and the en" i rorr. e"t, 5 ever 01
~c~:..::::.t:'C:1S of Alternati~: 15 ~~re ;rcposed a:ter t~e co~;letion
of t;,e :5. T;,ese modificaticns were j7.ace to a::cress t:-:e follo;.1irg
re 5 ;."c... ct je c~ Lve.s and ot r.s r c r i ted a for e\'a1" st ice." c. of r emed i a 1
alte==-.a':i--'es ',,'hith were ina:e~'..:ately ajdressed =1 .=..lter;'\ative 16.
1) T~ ~:n:~iz~ the potential for future dischar;~ of ccnta~inants
to:> .;"nebessccook Lake, the spha;;n\p b~, the cattail 1.\arsh, and
E~;t 3:-oak (response ob~:ctive).
2) ':~ ::,:n:::-,iz~
further de;:; ra: a,:ion 0: 9 r01Jnd'...-ct.e:- res~t::-ces (res?~nse
c.=.~-==t:..\'~) .
- ~
-------
3) To attain the public !":~alt:'1 and e:-:':i!:"'~:-nental standarcs contained
. i:-: ot!':e!:" :-elevant ane :;;.l:cable =::e:-a2 s~atutes (EPA P'='licy).
..;) Tc li"it the adverse e:-:::.!:";:):r:e:1ta2. :"-:-;a=~s e: Alternative 16,
a:-:j assure its enginee:-i~; i~ple~~~~ation and constructability
( c :- i t e ria in the !~ CP, .:; J c. F . R. ~:: J:; . ~ 2 ( i )( 2) ) .
The ;:-cpcsed rnodificatic:1s c: ~lterr.a~ive 16 are cescribed below:
1) =:!.i~i!"!a':ion of the sl-..::-::-.:. -..'all. :-:':e sl~!:"r/ ',':all was eli...'i1inated
bec =L.:se of its poten t i a1 a: '.-e :-se i,?,: :':s on th e .....a tla n cs and its
questienable constructa=i:i~y at t~e re~~i!:"ej depths (criteria in
the K:?). The purpose c: t:-.e slur::-,.:' '.;a1:', to limit offsite r.dgration,
could be acco:1'1pl ished by exte:1sion 0: the ~rot.:ndwater ex traction
syst.e::t witho'Jt adverse e:1..-i:-~:-:;:-en~al ir.;>acts.
2)'"'Up;radirg of the lane.:ill ccve!:". ,; clay cap is proposed for the
entire lancfill inclucir.; a vegetati~~ layer, a fiist protection and
drair.a;e layer, a hydradic ::arrier, a:-::5 p!:"o\"isions for gas control.
This =ap will minimize t~e ~i;ratiOi1 0: co~tar.Jnants to the surface
waters and \,li11 mini'7\ize :-=t::er c€:;:-e:a:ion of the ground'.:ater
(resp~nse objectives). A, ajeitional less per;:-eable layer is to be
installed ever Area H to :u:-t~er ninbize the I:'Iigration of leacha-te
into -:be cattail marsh. ~-j:s cap s~a~l =e consistent ",'ith RCR'A 4G .
C.F.R. S26~.310(a) (EPA pcli~i). -"
3) ~l':err.a~e Concentrati~:-:s L:~it (~C:) c€~nstration. A ce~-
ons':ration fer each ccns'::t'..:e~t fC~i:c :n the ~round'....ater will be
~ade ,~o ce~e!:"~ine the ef:e:': :f eac:: :::-:':;~i~a:1t en the lar.e, brook,
a:1d '..;etlanes, and on t~e :-..r.a:1 re:ep~~:-s '...710 1,;se these surface waters
for fishing and swimming. T~e ACL de::1Onstration will not include
- dri:;kin~ water effects si:-::e ~t:e c;ro~:1c-,.'ater use restrictions will
be in place. This de~~r.st~a'::o~ ~i1l i~cicate the neec for, type
and extent of groundwater €>:t:-acticn a:-:j treabent. It \\Till ~inimize
the f>:>tential for fL:tu:-e cis::::arge 0: cor.ta;:-inants to' 'surface waters
by es~a:'lishirg definite li.-:-.its to tr.e le'Jels 0: centc3':\inants above
which further remedial act:cn, grounc~a~er extraction and treatment,
will :,e taken (response o=jective).
4) Ot~er acditional studies. Additio:\al studies will be added to
A1ter:1ative 16 to enhance its cesi;n a:-.: ~~c~er e~ineeril"Q m-
pleZ':'le:.tation. -" These stu::ies incluee se:,s!T'Jc ~rk to define the
full extent of the bedrc:;: ':r~u;h, la~:e se::i.-,ent sa:1pli~ end
analysis, groundwater trea~a:>ili ty st ucie 5, end development of
'a 'pl a:1 to mi tig ate the e:fects of const~l.:c tion of the renedy
upon the wetlands.
For p'.lrposes of further cisc:.Jssio:1, t:-:s r.o::ifications of Alter-
nativ~ 16 as described a=c~e s~all =e refe:-red to as Alternative
l6(IIj. Alternative 16(::) satisfies all of the l"E!7Iedial resfX)nse
objectives, all of the c!:"i~e=-ia in the ~~C?, and EPA policy.
-' -
-------
'... i.:l:H OTHER E~:V::=,')~:~.~ES:;'.!" 1.;':,':S
= ~=~,
~~~~ o?~ ~olioy is that ,~asib:litY Stu~ias soou~a co~siaer
e.~~~ a~j a~plicable en.ircn~e~tal la.s a~a ana re;"latiOn as
, :c.e a,,:~e toat used to a~t~r.:>ine th~ aae<;uac,' o~ ~e:o~d i al ac-
,r.S. ~~e Kinthrop Feasi~ility Stuey did not consist of full
,~lia~c~ ~lternative that also satisfied the criteria in the
?', 40 C. F. ?. 5300.68 ( i1 (2) . In cor.oe?~ .'.1 ':e~r.ati "e :<~., total
oa?~u:a~iOr. with grOUnewat~r trea,:~~r.t wcu:d co~p:y .ith ~CRA.
t .ou:e also have adve~s~ ~r.~irc~,ent.l im::>aots u?c~ the environ-
nt .~) :.,3. S300.68(i)(2)(e) ane acutt=ul ~elia':>ility (40 C.F.R.
QC .~B: i) (2) (c).
r-
ce A:~.r~ative l(II), w~ioh corbir..s .ortio~s cf scraaned alter-
,tiv,s, is o~ing proposed as the imple:oenta~ion alter~ative con-
is~e~t .it~ ~CRA. This a:t~rnativ~ irclueeS ~ull ?-c~. site closure
rd 9ro~r.o..t~r extraction a~e trea~ment. This alternative also
iti,~~~s in a cost effectiv~ :oanrer tt~ ~rese~t and potential
e.ers~ i=..cts to the sur~cur.~in; .etl.r.1s. ~~~ la.s and re-
ulatio~s t~at are applioa~le to proposee al~ernative are as
:0110'.'s:
. ~cS:"=c~ :cnservation an= ?-eoovery ~ct (~C~~). part 26~.
C) E
:~i~e Cr~er 11990
( \': -= t 1 a:'lc s )
. "0<=3 (-. .4 1. ) d
a~: ll~C :_OC~? a:~S an
G~i::~C~ ~~~lined
unce~ ~O C.F.? p~r~ ~,
,::..~;:e:'l~ ix ,~..
o Cle:n r;ater Act
o Cle:;:,\ J..:.r ;',ct
o S a f "= :, r :. r, :.<1 DC;
\'.~ater Act
Tr.e f.: 1: C'.: i:1;
ap;,li:::a::1e to
Federal anc state laws, local
the proposed alternative:
1 a'.,' S
and ct.:icances are
-. .
o Sta~e K:ter Quality stan~arcs
o ?~e~r~at~~r.~-s~andards for Discharge into ?u~licly a.ned Treatment
;~c rr.
I
o Fe1;ra1 ;.~bient Water Quality criteria
o Hea:t~ ~c7isories
o EF~ ~~c~~~~ater protecticn strategy
......
-------
.The A~ternative 16(11), ~~:c~ cc~~i~es pc~~icns of screened alter
natives, is being proposed ~s ~~e i~p:e~~~:~~ion alter~ative that
is co~siste~t with RC~;. :~is al:ernati\e i"cludes full RC~; site
closure and groundwater ex~r:ction anc trea~we~t. This alternative
also ~itigates in a cost e::~c:ive ~a~ner :~e ~rese~t a~d potential
adverse iwpacts to the s~r=c~~jing ~e~la~=s.
The proposed alternative ~:ll incluce site closure, capping and post
closure care accordance ~i~h ~O, C.F.R. ?a=t 264 Subpart G, F, and N.
Specifically the ~ap will =e cesi~~ed i~ :cccrcance with Section
264.310 ( a) to: . . . I
1. Provide long term rni~i~ization of infiltration of liquids through
~ .- t~e closed landfill;
2.
F~nction with minimu~ =a:~tenance;
3.
Promote drainage and ~ini~ize erosion cr a~rasion of the cover;
4.
Accomodate settling an= s~~sicence sc
is r.,aintanined;
that
the cover's integrity
5.
Have a permeability
a~y botto~ liner or
less t~an or e~ual
su=s~rface soils.
to the
permeability of
The cap i~stallation will =e ;e~for~ec as specified in ~264.303.
The la~cfill will be sur~e~e~ !~d a ~~:ice p:aced in the deed a~d
to the local land authority as specified ~~ ~26'.l19 and ~264.120.
: The a~plica~le closure re~~ire~ents in ~25~ Subpart G will be
addressed. Decontaminatic~/disposal of e~~i~~er.t, certification by
a professional engineer, a~c site sec~rity will be provided as
specified in ~26~.:l4 - ~25~.ll7. ?ost-clcsure care a~d groundwater
monitoring in accordance ~:t~ 40 C.F.~. S~=parts F and G and Subpart
N, S264.3l0(b) will be pro~icej RC~; regulations, S264 Subpart F
grouncwater protection re~~ire the establishment of a groundwater
protection standard. The star-dard is est!blished according to
S264.94(a) at: backgrou~c, ~aximum conta~inant levels (MCLs) or
ACL. ~CLs are site specific li~its that are protective of public
health and th~environment. The require~ents for an ACt are in
S264.94(b). If an ACL is exceeced at t~e site, corrective action
must te expeditiously im~l~~e~ted. D~e to the lack of information
regarding the extent of co~tar-inant migration within the bedrock
trough, further hydrogeoli;ic infornation needs to be generated
concurrent with the grour.d~ater interceptor and treatment system
design. The time to perfc~, t~e treata~ility study, and further
hydro~eologic analysis will allow concurr~nt ACt establishment.
Quarterly ground~ater mor.i~~=i~g ~ust ~= ;e~£or~ed specified in
S 264 Subpart F. . .
-------
.-...............,.....
~~ef~a~=s/:l~~j?lalnS Impacts
o An'assess~~~t of wetland a~d floo~plain i~?a=~s ~as perfor~ed and
is a~;e~c~c to the EDD.. T~is ass~ssh.e:-t r~c~~~ended t~at ~p~cific
~it::~t:c~ ~~asures be l~?_e~e~tec. 7~~ :S3ess~ent c~~cluGec that
0/ 0-;-e=a11 ef"fects of this .::-e::-Iedial action on th.e y,'etlands y,'ould
te~~fi:ial, and that the"a~~erse eff;c:s associated with the cap
cc~:~ ~e ~i~i~ized throu~h careful plar.~:~~ ar.j construction. As
par~ =f t~e recommended al~e::-r.ative, an en;ineering study will be
perf~~.e~ c~::-ing remedial cesi;n to dete~:ne ~c~ the ffiiti;ation
. will ~e u~certaken.
Ot:,e::-
L:y,'s
Annejes3a=c~k Lake is classified as a "Gr~at Pond" and is therefore
not a~le ~o receive the discha::-;e of trea~ed wat~r un~er Maine's
wa:e::- q~a:i~y standards. ~~e ::-eco~~enced alternative ~ill therefore
consice::- ~a::-io~s additional cischar;e c?ticns including discharge
to E~~t B=C~K, and di~char;e t~ the Kin~t::-o? se~er $ystem. The
fi~al j:s=harge point of treated ;rounc~aterwill be selected
du::-in= ::-e=e:ial design. The follo~in; standards will be used to
eval~~~e ~h~ ~ischarge optior.s:
a) ~n=~::-g=o~n1 Injection Contr~l (UIC) Regulations
b) S-:a':e ~:a~er Quality St.ar.dar~s
c) ~:~icnal ??llutant Disctarge Eli~ination System
r"
~ =--=:.::-e: t:-:e:-. t
;:::::-~:s)
Standards (fo::- discha::-ge ~o a pujlicly owned treatment
CO~'~~-;~:-: ,:y
R~L~TIONS
On ~a::-:t :3, 1985, the EPA held a public hearing in Winthrop, ~aine
to rece:.: =c::-~ents on the re~edial inves~igation and feasibility
st~c::' ::cr t::e i':inthrop Si t.e. CO»'Ui.ents ""e::-e rece ived from Inmont
Corp?r=~icn, ~he Hinthrop L:r.jfill co~cer~ed Cit:zens Action Group,
Re;res~i.t.=t:v~s of u.s. Senat~::-s Mitchell and Cohen a~d u.s. Congres-
sma.n ;':=:~:=na.n,. the Maine DE?, the ~laine Departnent of Human Services,
th~ ~i.~aj=ssa=ook Lake Im?r?\e=e~t Association, ~he Co~~ossee i~ater-
shed C:strict, the-Winthrop Co..servation Co::-~ission, t~e National
Reso~r=es Ccu~cil of Main:, an~ five in~i~iduals.
Rega=c~n~ t.he selection of
spea~e=s cesi::-e fencing of
want t~e !a..=fill covered,
type c= ca?
a re~edial alternative for the site, the
the site and excavation of drums. They
~ut differ .as to the exact place~e~t and
They ::-~~~=3~e= that prior t~ tte selectior. of a contain~ent ~all,
furt::e= :ata =e provided on t~e extent anc characteristics of
bec'~--~ =~ ~~: Couth end O~ ~~: '-~c'~;', --c' C~ ~he cc- a~'~l'll.t
~-_. -- -..- - .L 1....- -c.. ----, c.. ...... ...p ...1..; y
-------
of co~ta~inants found at ~~~~~~cp ~i~~ ;~:~ese~ walls. Befo~e they
evaluate the extraction a~~ ~reat~e~~ ~:~~r~~~i~e, s~eakers ~esire
more information on grou~~ ~:=~, leve:s o~ ~~ou~d~ater conta~inants,
and the specific locatio~ c~ ~reate~ ~=c~~~~a~er discharge. Major
conce:ns raised regardin; ;~=;ose~ ~a:;r !~3 ~astes treat~ent
alternatives are that inci~er=~ion a~c ai~ st~i~?ing may acversely
effect h~~an health (air ;~::~tion), a~c ~~at incineration is largely
an untested technology w~:c~ ~ould be ~se: at this site on an
uncharacterized waste st:ea=.
Six s~eakers (including c~e ?~?) pro~c:ej t~eir o~n alternatives for
cleanup of the landfill. :~e =ajority e~~~rsed a phased a~~roach to
site cleanup, in which res~:~5 of an ini~ial sa~pling o~ remedial
measure that located sig~~iciant ccn~a~i~!tion and/or deter~ined a
risk to human health or t~e e~vironffie~t ~ould trigger a subsequent.
ph~se of remediation. Mest e~ these a:te~~=tives incorporated so~e
combination of technologies =eseribed i~ the FS report.
Most participants stated t~a~ the ~nca~~e==ent Assessment is in-
ade~uate and unacceptable. ~~ey state~ t~at the Assessment lacked
data on t~e impacts of cc~:a=inants ~;or. ~i=ta and human health,
that it did not define the ex~ent of cor.t!~ination that poses a
--isk to health or the enviro~=ent, anc that it did not cite specific
ata regarding risks fro~ cc~t~act ~ith v!~ious media at the si~e: .
Several speakers would like ~?A to allo~ ~ore state and local age~
supervision of the clean~~ ~:ocess. 7~ey e~phasized that they.
strongly support a clean~; a~= not a ~ere cor.tainment of waste at the
landfill.
~tCO~MtNb~D.ALTERNATIVE
Section 300.68(j) of the !\!t:onal Conti~~ency Plan (NCP) states that
the appro;>riate extent - o~ re::1edy shall be determined by the lead
Agency's selection of the al~ernative tta: is technolo~ically feasibile
and reliable and which e=fec~ively ffiitiga:es and minimizes da~age to
and provides adequate protec~ion of ~u=lic health, welfare and the
environment. Based on t~e e,aluation of the RI/FS, the comments from
Inmont Corporation, EPA policy and guidance, and comments from the
public, local officials a~d tte state of ~aine, EPA has determined
and the M~ DEP has agreed that the follo~i~g remedy meets the NCP
criteria for evaluation of a:~ernatives, satisfies all of the remedial
objectives, and is consist~r:~ ~ith ot~er releva~t and applicable
environmental laws:
. .
1.
Extension of alternate ~ater SUP~lYi
2.
Fence and landfill use
CC:1troli
3.
Groundwater use contre: i~ Areas 1,2, a~d 3;
4.
Excavation control i~ tte landfill anc A~eas 1,2, and 3;
. .
-------
Q
. 5.
o (
";-:--"':!"",....
---..- --- _..~
Program;
6
_~~t~~ll :a~ and site
clQsure;
7.
~~;:~=e~i~g studies;
8.
~s~~~:is~~ent of ACL,
anc if the ~:~ ~s exceeded;
9.
";!:" ~~.: :1-=~': at -= r
Interceptor System; and
t
10.
~~~~~~~atsr Treatment System.
. ( I
OP:::R..:'.'!IC~ _~_~~D l'~AINTENANCE
r
Oper=~ic~ a~c ~aintenance for the reco~~e~Ged al~ernative is es-
ti::-,a:'E::: a~ $42,000 p~r. year if the l>.CL is r!ot exceecec. Costs in-
cluce s~~;lin~, analysis, a~c cap Nai~tenance. In~ont and the Town
ha~e a~reed to do long term c~eratic~ and ~ai~tenance, and their
res~~c:.:v= ~esponsibilities are outli~ed in A??endix A of the Consent
Decree.
Shou:c ~he ~C: be exceeded, c~eratio~ and ~ainte~ance of the grou~d~
~a~e~ ~x~~a:t:cn and treat~e~t syste~, alcng ~ith the monitoring apd
ca? =~i~ten~~:e, will cost ~et~een $360,000 and $1,480,000 per year,
ce~e~c:~g u~o~ the method used to treat t~e conta~inants. In any
( ':', ~n=e~ ~he terms of t~e Consent ~ec~ee In~ont and the town
. t~ ?~o~i:ing the operation and ~aintenance.
..
------- |