United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROEROS-W/OS*
September 1986>
A EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
-------
~ . . ~ ......
. ... . ..'. '. .r.. ~oo '~""~" ""'" "". '--'. ... 0.'" h.'~, o~,~....., ,""'......._'~ "nq" -~".'. ",.'''- ..".~ ..~. ",- . ... 0.-._.. h'. ...... ._. ..-"- .... ~". '"0"'''. - ..~...'........ .""-
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pltall 'tad 1"llfUCIIO"1 0" lilt ,tvtnt btfort co,""ltll",)
1. R.'ORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-86/044
.. TITL.E AND SU.TITL.E 5. RE'ORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION ~~n~ember 30 1986
Arrowhead Refinery, MN e. PERFORMINCi ORCiANIZATION CODE
7. AuTHOReSI 8. PERFORMINCi ORCiANIZATION REPORT 1'110
8. PERFORMING OFIGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PFlOCiRAM EI..EMENT NO.
11.I;ONTI~AI;T/CiRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF RI'ORT AND PERIOD COVEREO
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency I:'~...", ~nn
401 M Street, s.w. I.. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SU"LEMINTARY NOTES
HI. ABSTRACT
-
The Arrowhead Refinery site is located in Hermantown, St. Louis County, Minnesota.
The site consists of 10 acres of relatively flat land with peaty wetlands scattered
across the area, and it is zoned for commercial use. Land use in the vicinity is a
combination of residential, commercial, and public. Between 1945 and 1977, the sHe wa
used as a waste oil reclaiming facility. The operation generated waste by-products
which were discharged into an uncontained 2-acre lagoon and a waste water ditch in a
wetland area. Arrowhead Refinery Company, incorporated in 1961, continued refining and
recycling operations until 1977, when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ordered
work to be stopped. Investigations conducted by EPA in 1979 revealed that onsite
surface water was transporting contaminants to nearby wetlands areas and navigable
waters. In response, a surface water diversion ditch was constructed to prevent furthe
contaminant migration. The primary contaminants of concern are VOCs, PAHs and lead, an
they are found in onsite soils, sediments, surface waters and ground water.
The selected remedial action for the Arrowhead Refinery site includes: excavation
and onsite incineration of 4,600 cy of sludge and 20,500 cy of contaminated soils and
sediments: ground water pumping and treating designed to restore the aquifer and contra
contaminant migration over a 25-50 year period: extension of a nearby municipal water
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL.YSIS
a. DESCR.'TORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOED TERMS C. COSA TI Field. Group
~ecoro or on
Arrowhead Refinery, MN
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, sediments,
soil
Key contaminants: VOCs, PAHs, lead
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 18. SECURITY CN&./TllIsR,pon) 21. NO. OF PACiEiO
20. SECURITY ~~M!iTlIIS POI') 22. PRICE
"
e,. ,..'" 2220-1 (R.... 4-77)
-------
. ,,,"~"'"'''' .'... ""_.''''~ ..".... -.. """,-"~..._u-......-.........._..~.-............._--_..-.. '-'.-.'."-'-~"".'--' '.
- - ...-. ... ... -_...... .-."'. ~ -.,...
EPA/ROD/ROS-86/044
Arrowhead Refinery, MN
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
supply system to replace those private water supplies most likely to be
affected by qround water contamination; and proper abandonment of individual
wells formerly used as drinkinq water supplies in accordance with State well
codes. Estimated capital cost of the remedy is $22,000,000 with annual O&M
-------
- ,:'..,."
., . ,". ~,....., ,',n::". :.:,,- -,"-" ~".:.,"";'";,:::",,::": .;:...!/':!.t.'.:)-~'- ':".i"':.:'~-",d::".."'''::'':'{'-;.~~,~'....I~:';'.;..~..;:. ',\.o"',~.I;'"l:,'''.. :.t,y<";','R~!I','."..''';\.'' ,. .t;..._i, . r- d.),:', -';":.:L~' '''...' 1:"-.""'..- '-'; : ',"''':,;", .t..""'.." ....., ....;. }
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site:
Arrowhead Refinery, Duluth, Minnesota
Documents Reviewed
I have reviewed the following documents describing the analysis of cost-
effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Arrowhead Refinery site:
- Arrowhead Remedial Investigation;
- Arrowhead Feasibility Study;
- Responsiveness Summary; and
- Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
- Excavation and onsite incineration of 4,600 cubic yards of sludge and
20,500 cubic yards of contaminated soils and sediments.
- A groundwater pump and treat system to be designed to restore the aquifer
and control contaminant migration over a 25-50 year period.
- Extension of nearby municipal water system to replace those private water
supplies most likely to be affected by groundwater contamination from the
Arrowhead site.
- Proper abandonment in accordance with state well codes of individual wells
formerly used as drinking water supplies.
- The selected alternative has total capital cost of $22 million and annual
operation and maintenance cost ranging from $130,000 to $180,000. The
30 year present worth is $23-24 million.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 99601 (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan,
40 CFR Part 300 (NCP), I have determined that the selected remedy is cost-
effective and effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the environment. The
state of Minnesota has been consulted and may withhold their conCJrrence
with the approved remedy indefinitely. In accordance with 104(c)(3) of
-------
2
the remedy and the continued operation and maintainence of the selected
remedy after the first year. Consequently, the design and construction
phases, and future actions provisions of predesign investigations for
the selected remedy may not be initiated until the State of Minnesota
satisfies the provisions 104(c)(3).
- \)
t
J~~~gu ~,JqgC
v
, '::-";-."- -""'-,',,',' '?'," f.;~':"-~ "'...~":~'''-~'.'--
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Arrowhead Refinery site is in Hermantown, St. Louis County, Minnesota,
approximately eight miles northwest of the City of Duluth.
(See Figure
1). The ten acre site is bounded on the north by a surface water diversion
ditch, on the south by Miller Trunk Highway (U.S. 53), on the east by
Ugstad Road, and the western boundary extends to a culvert under U.S.
53.
(See Fi.gure 2).
The site is zoned for commercial use and is situated in a generally flat
area with a topographic relief of less than fifteen feet.
The surface of
the site has relatively poor drainage with peaty wetlands onsite. Current
development in the vicinity of the site is a combination of residential,
commercial, and public use (Figure 3).
Potential receptors that use
. shallow drinking water wells within 0.3 miles south of the site include
23 residences and 3 commercial establishments. Further south of this
area is a wetland which separates it from a partially developed area
zoned for public and residential use. A municipal water supply which
uses Lake Superior water terminates at the corner of U.S. 53 and Ugstad
Road.
SITE HISTORY
Waste oil was reclaimed at the site from 1945 to 1977. The operation
-------
. ,'o't '... ..~. 01''''. .,.. -'.... .'~ ...'.'. 'j...,-."
-.""- ,,;. ..,' .
, - ."'" ". .~",.1.'.....,'\...J...:.~ :;,':,~","-~'-""_:' '!.,:.. .''\.~'.:.:...,.. ...'~' ,".L...-';";"~.,:'~.";-':..J..":'.;~~ '...::,':,:"-~. 1:~''':. '\._._~., .; .-.'.-' -,' h .
.. ,- '.'-.."" ." -
P,':!
~;..'! ...~",,~
I
I
i
\
!
\
I
S:.J?ER!OR :
____n---- -,,-----_J
. \ (?
\. '-/
\
-
z'
;0:'
-1-
:::,3:
I
I
'.
.
\
\
"
\
(v-
0' .
L",A:';::;""~-o
oJ' ;:--.: R
:~:.~;'" (?
. S"'?E~:-('" ~ .,/"1--/'\"- .~
) .......- o' - 0 '---'
I '" ...."'--'
'\ ---''-
! ; '..: . . ~;.= .;. ~:- :..: £ (
: .' --~'- C>~
\
..,~.
~
'-2/
..
"
I
-
I .
,
SCALE ". .." -s .
1'1." ~=
F~G~RE .:
\ ,& - -
." :~...!T"1~7Y ~.8!~O
. . . .
-------
.:>
-;
" ,
-..~~... ~~.I
-~.-.-.. ..~
~-;;;--~....;..;.::.::=........:--- .... ..~
-----;--...:.,~... .
---.::=..- ;=::::;,-;;-;;;;,-,:-'-.-~... . "",
.X:;; :'=:h..
'~ '
, ~:.. I.
.."~~. V.
",. .".',: ,,', .~.:~,~...: I-~&... ' ,." D<'~~: /.:"
' "'< '. '" " ,: ., ". Gorll"R~/;< :'::";~""" ~~ /~, ,. ....':' , "',.,.,. ""'!.
. ."X""" '~', /. L ' ._~..., .. , ',,. .,."
' , ." , '01 'If "",.' '. '(.. ,...,
I.. ." '. ' "',,', ,.', "",: ":",.:.:r......:...... '. I ..~~' , i"', P"""'., '" "
"', ". " I '..., " . \,., . '/.., , ,.., '". ....
'I ~',....., '."'",,~'.' :~.I>.': ,. .J" Au'ro~oov' ,. ';0" . , ,'n" . /..
' , "" . "" "":. "'" "".. ... I
a , ' " C'~'" -.. 5110"/,,,. .. I I "'. tI'
'.. . '. . '. "'''''' ... ':.. . ( ". , " .~
I 'I"''''".." "''>..'-'', "."',' '. "'''.
<":'k:~~~):~~~ -'. ',' '~'~~<.i~':.~~,""~'~1;~':;' "'.,,,
".... , -
, ,
o ,
,
;
: ...
I
". Ell
WASTEWA T .
oncli
'0'- .
. ~ '
"
...', ',""
'. ~.
ll:(iUIU
"..-- "'J\I,nCIl
~.III 11.11/111 'AII '(
.';" .
'.,', .
", I
'. ..- . ~'" .
, i
. I
" ,
I"
"
.0' .
"
." .
..,;
"
",
"
..,
. .
, ,
, "
" .
..'
.. ..
." ~. .
.
.
, '.
" J
' ",' ""
," :D
" ,"
.
.
. .
~ ,"', "..:.:.~
.0
. "'~' .. .
, ,
I." '..
"... .
. J::..,
,.
"
.
I
~', .
"
I
"
1"'0
r
'1
-------
,
'. ",. .' :"'_'-':'~~"';:'J':'\";"'-"""""'.._' ,". ~:'. " ,".. I {<..J;':'1~~-:-: .~~
. - .:' .",,- ./. ~. \J . / ., ,., ._,". ~\. '001......,
..J . ,I. .,. r. '" '\ ( ..... - . ,'''. c:.. ." ,'.'" fl 1 ~ .....-
~\ ~ ((..:¥~. 1)\ u: 1: h"-'..c-'( . .,.1 ~\) ,or:),.' )1 r:-': ~.- ,:-' ) I -
. D 'I . I ~ ~ ..0 ,. ., . ./"... . , , I ~ '-' / , r
? ..I. :1 \;~ '.",. 'i:~'~,. t) ---'.' a:"" -:1 ,,:"., ~ '.. I'~,,- ~;'7":.. . ~
.4=", (... r:... ;'''~\e,....'' .j fa.. II '" \\. " ('.!\.~.,,~.,. ,...r.:.\, 0 ..--: ~e
. ......, '- ... ,\: C")\ I :--r ~ '-\ .. '. ,I.' /' /-- I '. .
~ ,..::::.:~ . . \: .~". .: ~ t'/ /-"" ~'" ! '.,~ . I" / ~/ I" ,--- ,
"f'!,,: ,"~,.r.--'331 'M~ ';,':" .1'./ , '.34L 8_, \1' ~~.. ',) j.' . C3s..-'
-/ 'V('-; ~,;J7,,_. ..~,.. . 1~3""!J : ;,/ ({II".3' 00(1 :WI. ,.""2~_~G,s:..tl P~k~ . ~'~~;' - '" ;'.' Q
-....,' '. " . '.....8 ..j. ..~.-.,~. <..... "..." ~~. '\ /, .11... ~l- -e\-(
-eo ~'I'. ~ \~,-; ,: " :::::-""':"'0 ' l~ '.;-C,..-J "'~i:' ' \ .
:::> .0- ': '...~ ,I . L .: '-, -........:. ' ~ '-,,;- ~ ./.' \ . ~ . \: , '-
~ I. - -' ........ -,: r~ ".;- (~: "~ J I'. . ~£,
""j ~.,,:::.(. - -........r 01,;, ":~" t I \. \-1t'S,.;- OQ~(;~/ I I. '" --- Q ~
I)~ "', ,~,. / ~-, '-"-..!-' . I ,pI:,.... C(-.t,-/ ~~\ - ..
.. - -I, - 0 ~.. I -..... ( p,.. /I 0
~ --. ~'Z - - -:.:' . - ~ - .., II .....-:: ......;-' ,. .. .~. '
"'\ ,.....1,- I -. , -.'" - - .;-{ '-J
.J('J~.:I . -. ..-' .:-..::- . ", ,-. :" , -. 1..~,;-)';-o:J c ~ ./9~~ ~. :. ........---. 9
- ,.. .. -. .. -. - . - --- . --- - cv-... r~..... )11' 0 1) ',~
. J -- .1. -- .. t. '-. 0""": ., . I . ~
'-". . - - . - . . , [t:' I -'
- . .1" -, -...' ~ '."'" .." -:~'/"/L..:=0'0 y<>.\- t I,' :J ,. ~ .-
. -c- '." - - - ......' . r. L~> ' . '" , .I ......
~..,..:.,J~ -:"-:-'-~-I --:::-~~L-::1j-"'~2S1--:-(I J" " (... 1\,.'4'5. /~. \.' /1
-.../. ~ - .. . - . ;,r \ - J ". ( " (I
..:. ~.-n I. ~. . - - ..;;.. '. - .-. -=- /' -. - , n .- . ~ j' Q \. (. . ; . ,', - ~".
'?/?)r~~'\:- ' - I' ,...... /'~. . ,'..' '. .~.!",~ ...-.- :\,
~n \...:;~..- '. '.,: - -- . / - .,,;;;/.... - .1'- . . ~"J ,11:\,1'. '-. (''::'. "\
....,,:L-"'/'I..,! .:: - \ .', - ~ // . :.. ~.i'~ ~~ ~~ O..'..!, \ ,J \ . \.
<-',';' '." ...'-" -, . / - :.' ~". '. ~', r'.' -"'f' ,,-. . -.:. ,
Q ." - - - ),... -., I~.... ...... (J '" .I.I~ ' ..
. , :. ... . --- / : . ~ -,.," , . . ..
'., /'.c~; 'I~- ~. -:- " -. :/-. ;....-~ 'I \'~ .0 ....;. /; ..........., -"", :- I ',-"~: - .;.
-" - 'I .. - ,.. . ''''::> '\... I ( --- ~..J" .
.. I, ...... '~~" .-1 " ." ; j~' . CI r ?..." .' ,.20 _.~. .; .
-" - . -.. -- I ,,---' ..... ... . .
- - ,.,. ,I ( . .:' ...--- "-',- . I , ,~ l. "'.."'" .
"",' . .~. -~r..., ~Y.': 2 I';j ."il.'~'i~ ~ 0 .,(: "..,~_I .c- --,
. \ ",' . --, +'.,. -- \" ~ ',,, \~II( r') ) \ \ ,~ .;. - , - . -'
- '. "'. 4/ ,; '" ./ . J' -- ,', -I C - l--1 . I ., I " 5""'" I'::------.,.......:.~;""'"-.
'.' . -.. "'~"" ,/ .: ~4 . 0 ,--;--- "...-,,)'. J It ..5~g...-, _.~ ' .Oc::.---
I CII \'. ,~ '.. J. I \ -=:......... ,'" - "
f ~it.l ,i""'-~'. ,(i';l)/ ., .'-, ( / : Q~ /. ~... ' ~~u j..t.A';" , ,--.
''''- I r"'''''' , ----;'1.7'?:', "\ '--: ~, . ~ (, ;:.)\.... ~ --. --.... - '-r ~_. -, .
. "1' . . .1 I . . 11:.. /'" .. ' I 1"""-':> ~ " . .....
.' '- '''-, -.J . C r; a Q I", .. ~ ." '''')'' ~"-.
-. ~ 1\ ~;;~,-'" .5J j' CJ G"!~' p,;~"';,:j ,../ ~ V>.0 )0 \);J).( . - - - - -tl ~=:~../~ \~> :. "';:-.- .
/ \" . -l~,. I . \ 3 .~'\;.......... I{'/ '("""\...':\\ \..AJ,"i,' ~. -no, '\
/ ,...~.. ,. : .", ,.. "--,-" ~ \..) (-n"'-> ,....-.J!I'i) - - - I '-'. -
,. t --- , . "c, ~. . ...- -~ I I '" i.-' I - ~ ._'" .
.~ . -.:...:=:::,.\::..:I ';.':-- '- ;~'" ARROWHEAD!' < . -;;'1, :""".:~"., '..-',-
.,/ :';"" . ~ . r - '- ,\', .\.~:, ";: . ;, ) It - Ii . . .' -.. ...0 e,'
'. 'i;' '// - ' '.""'~, ,:,' '~':O;J (..~".... I'~;'~.. .REFINERY'-,;:'\, . ....---,.::--:' r, rr;;.~ "\..--. j: .....:: I
-. ~;- 7/-',-'''-' -- '( , . ,.1;:2"/, .'.. I\.\.,;r \~ (II \fr:.'i """
; -/ -- \,. / ;'-...;..J.' \..,..SITEl.\. ~ -'.'-' I. 0"'-' '..1.29'-"-" ~-~ '.~ ~
. =-.~ \: r ~ - ' ':- . . > ,:,.. ,',~, '~=.' '; .' . ~ .' '~".,.' ~ 1: . ..: -." ~{T;
,. .,....0" . .,.:..'2' -,' ,.-' :.r,' :, 1'(-" .:;"-.)' \\~ _Sf . {,'. \ ' :.' ~..; .,i.2< '
'., --- - CI . . I'. I . I - ./. (' ~ "'-'. . ...
.., II - iJ' - - . -- . ~ .~." /Get!':~emiili Ch'l.' 'J\r I 'I) '\ (/ 'I: .. '~ I '.. './
1 . '1'1 . ~ -=- . ""'. - . " /Y. r- - '.' ~ -, '.':), ,,~o ..'/ . '. . " "~
. /,. /~ 1 .: . ,.: - - '. . -,.' /, ~ : - 0,'1':", - I ('/ - -. 'r-- \ i..;.. / ' t.. .
or' ./'.1" :::. ',' (' . ?;t~"~""~'l'~ . liP ,- - ~'~~' ,/1 I
.:J ' .... - - ... \" -' -,i' ~-~ ~" '. ...' ..... \ I ~"
Ir /~. . ~ -- -:. ' " .- ..-"~:.,,'':' . ~ "'..--, . ,- ."'" .. ' '. I .:~
....., . , ~" { ,.... ".~ . -.-.. - -...... , . - - - , - , "".
, i04 'C"'" ... , ... "-~'.-"":~'" ~ ..-' '. (.. ~ :'~'__'Jra"~ "", ~
,/ ~1i -: ~ ~ ~ -'~i -..- -,?:,'.','-.r+"i' .-: w,-. - ,'. ".:"...',~'- \ ~'.. ~L--,,~.'k. "-, ,~. J :>:
.. I ..." ~ - -..: t ~~.. ".: -- .-. '~18 - ,. -.. -' - ,-=- ~:: ..., -..; "
, tl. - "~":-. '~J" .',' ~.""T -' ...... ... -, _.:... ..\ - ...'.. -- ---' ...-.
I' ,.~-.-.'" ., . """",.' -.. - .."."..,- -- .
. .r'i' -"', ',- ,:-,..' - ~'\' c'. \. . '. ". .., ~.. ~~, / - ' v..',!;:-.
r./' . '" . 0 ~_..-.. '\... ... ... ~" r - .. ",' . .
-," ...~t -:-J/,' "9' I&,,;,~ -:'/;'O-~'~' ,,:,'~:.a) -- +-';'.. .."...-... ,-",'~ #. . ,'" .11'
, ':., ,.;;.:: ...,1 ,. . , ..::--,.' "".-" '.. -" , . J ~ , , L
1- '.' I "7-~'i:: "~~:C5';;'"..~~a;'~"c".,;''''~..'. ",:.r.;\'~J-"'of'. - ~ _'10. - - . ,r. \~)\ ... f'
-:C~~~~~~--";'''' ,", ~""~,&=",. ./ 'f"~':'1 ....).'.:o;.'.~ ... .. -- ,-.. -" ( I \ ~'--"".,I ,~ ;.
"~'-"o;" -":--.-,--;~-,9..:;::-,~~~t,I.Y"~\.""~:~"';IJ' ""..t., ... .... "-- ~ ..', "' ,''""
...... "'.,1. '., - ;.' ",-. ,.~:"."",\ [."',,) ~~ ". ......... ......',. . / ,. .
.--('~)~~' ~'-:""/ r~ '\ \\ (~;.~. iJ:~[,......,L .~~..' ',:-""'; r;,',/~, \ '~~t',. .-l.~ U j .
'- II ,: / ~ ( ,.....". :"; VI. .\ ,. ". '\v v ~-.: ~ r '
~-.- - I ~ . I I ,- '~'I -/ ,<:,' . .. - ~. - \" '.. - . \ '--
\ II \.... ,: ;. '..-= . \ .--' s. ~.' r; ) \?i: ~. c. /"C.....' -Ii- . ~"'O ,( f;--~ . \J ..... - \ -:..'''; ~ "'.'.
, ,; -- .~J (\ (' ""..,) : ;.J \ . I'" "- .... " ", I.. i, . -\ .. \ '"
......... r (/" " . ...'~ L ! \. .1-.' ",. ~ \', I \ ' ., :... i"';; -;::::=. , .
~-,) :1. ~', ,- :./ "_1' ""~ \~ -''''-r-....--rbr ) L...... (" ~ )" \ ) \ / \;'. \, . ...: .. - 1.: . ....
- Po .~,/. .\. ---.-} ,'. ..' _.---: \ J \ t. C'J 'r-' ' .. . . , ,-",
','. 'r . ' ,J' \.r;:" ,: \. .....,.., I'. .". ..- ,--,
i .--J' ./ . "";.:1..A--- I ,,-,......., '~'./ \ : I ........... ,to / I \ .... . /". - .
. " ,'~\ '-', ..,-.,"?,.- -..!! ,""':-""1'.' \ . e.. ---\ ,', -1" '. -:-'" .'.
r~. ---..' '-..I> ..:.: "~-,,,,,,,'..H,-"'" -: '.......~ .. ... .'''. '... ,!~~. . .. ROAO. .:,' . - .......
:>AO JJ::~.:-:. . .....,~-=---: --~::,~- ~,=-=,....~. ~':-=7"t;.-'W'"1~~ ~r- -... ' ' ",.. ..
.,
"
.,
""
,
:1.
"
:;.,
-.
. ,
!'
f
.,
,
~I
:~
,.
LEGEND
,~
(~)
~
C., COMMERCIAL & L.IGHT INDUSTRY
C COMMERCIAL
R,~ RESiDENTIAL. 2}, AC. 200' FRO!l:T
R,:J RESIDENTIAL' AC. 100' FRONT
o OPEN SPACE
r. ~., LlG~:T INDUSTRIAL
p P:.J~ LI C
FIGURE 3
ZONING
ARROWHEAD REFI~.~=
-------
-2-
2 acre lagoon and a wastewater ditch in a wetland area (Figure 2).
Arrowhead Refinery Company,incorporated in 1961, continued the re-
refining activities, and also sold recycled name brand oils as well as
operating a gas station at one time.
The site was reportedly used for
retinrring milk cans and a trash dump prior to development of the refinery
operation.
In 1976, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
ordered Arrowhead to discontinue recycling operations.
All Arrowhead
activities ceased in 1977.
In 1979, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), at the request of the MPCA, investigated
the environmental effects resulting from past disposal activities.
1980, U.S. EPA determined that the site was in violation of Section
In
9311 of the Clean Water Act because surface water flowed through the
site, transporting contaminants to a nearby wetland area and eventually
into navigable waters.
In response, a ditch was constructed north and
east of the site to help divert surface water around the sludge lagoon.
Five monitoring wells were also installed and limited onsite sludge and
soil sampling was conducted. This data and subsequent sampling of
monitoring wells by the MPCA since 1980 supported the Hazard Ranking
Score (HRS) of 43.75. The site was placed on the National Priorities
list (NPl) in August, 1983, making it eligible for federal funding
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and lia-
-------
-3-
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Remedial Investigation (RI) activities were initiated at Arrowhead in
May 1984 and ended in August 1985.
Buildings from the Arrowhead Refinery
operation were removed. The only buildings presently onsite are a
warehouse used by Gopher Oil Company and an auto body shop. Through
three phases of field work, 23 additional monitoring wells were installed
at various depths at 15 locations (Figure 4), 18 sludge samples were
taken.at various depths at 8 locations (Figure 5), several subsurface
soil samples were taken at various depths at 14 locations (Figure 6),
and sediment and surface water samples were taken at 7 locations (Figure
5). Monitoring well samples and water level measurements were taken in
December 1984 and June 1985. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) also split several of U.S. EPA groundwater samples, measured
groundwater levels and sampled a limited number of monitoring wells in
June 1986. The following briefly describes the RI results.
Hydrogeology
The surface of the site has relatively poor drainage with peaty wetlands
existing onsite. The geology can be generally divided into four unconsol-
-------
120
~
; ,
I .
S' '..
.I
t : .
.. ". ~ ... '.
i '..
. . ~ .. .
I (- '.~~,
~,,:::" \\"
, . \ i:
: ,,::,,) . '''n } I ,",
(~' '\':'yt , .'1:
. ; al; ...... -. ,,,..,
."': ,.:," ilc: .,"" , " ,.
" . ': c:i../. ',' \ " " , .
:',~' ,..,' :,' \:, .'\, ! ' ,:"
, : ""'" I. :' ,,:"" \ ", " . ", 1_"" ,,'
, ...:; .' \'4"', I'",:: ,'~:,'i~.:~<..:' \
"'"'''''''' J:a '. ", , ..,.', '. ,j'" "81D4~ "
, , : '" Ib' . ~, " . \ f'" ,
\;..~'i'i ", """,:"~"",~",..,,.,i. "," . ,.,: 0:' ,'\ " .,.." .,... '.:'~: I
,'" "<"~:.,,,~,";: r~ '!' ~. -...
. '.~' ,. ...'.) /.- '" ,.',,,'" , . /' I',i.,',':.". ('.
, '" ' 1.,r'!J ~,,:" ..' : '<' ..,' 1i~~'
-., -"- .. .:.' "':~.i " J;b:;,:;;:';>. . . ::.'\(; ii;.; :;.')
','., '..'" '".,"', ,. "','... ,', "" . I "," C5 .,./') ,'~. ~ '
,:' ":~' ""':" ,: j,':'<"",<:,:,~~,,""~;' . ' ',5 \"05".' J V',. '. .'., '..' . . .
'" ,. ",', ' ". '.:, ,,' ... "\:), c ." ..... "
. '.::':, .,,;:"","': ""j, " '''''':'':~'::''::.':',::, '0'\"" ,,:' . " ',,' ,':' ,', ,.....
". ':'.., ,', ,','. '" ,', ':,,':\ .' ': I .' , ,/? ' ' ,'~' I '.... "'..
"" :"', , "",;:, '~~'.:" .":::"">:'.J~., . ,", '",...' . (/ ~;4 '.' ' i, .,,' " ...-.
I~J"',\"" :". ;', ::. "'."" c.' ""C..,,:~h! "" D- ',", .41t :: ,';'..:"
,L.: :::'.," "':.'''':.:':;" "',"',: ,~,.,ti'I.', '. ' .:' ",.: ,','
l' . . ',' N/"" "'. """,\" 1n lit; , .. ," ' "".\
~..J .~~.... """'.;'0. :-.., '. '.0,. . 0" '.'. te...' .--.
", ': ,."...I\~~:,' "" ""',1" -:\ .... ,: , ,.. ',", ,
.:. "~';~D'!c~:~::f"'"'~'~"": :._~-'~. ) 1-: '. ".::~ '::
"." '...: . l~~~~' . ".~" ;" .,'" ,".:
..,' . ) -.. ;".'
" ".~:.: 1:;.;1 ", ,', -, "'" "". , , ,.,' '/ I
; I' """ i' ':::.. -, " ,
'",' I "..
11~O
"
'I. II
"".
",
,~
".,-,
..
"
.,..'
"."1
.18\'
'0'.. .
,
"
...."
. .o!..
UII.
, ."
'.
"':."
'.
/",.
. of ~ .
..t',
""',
"
, "
,
,'t.
",' i
. ,0'
...
'.
. ...'"
.. ,,'.1
. ,~. .......
: ''t.: '....: ":"'"
I,",.: ," ',) '.-
~..._..:-.." '",
,'.
".,e
,
""
... I
',. ...:..:
rf' .
.;
.....~ :
,
-I'
'1 ...
....0""0
",.,
"'...'
-,.
\~
WElLS FROM PREVIOUS
INVE:',IGA TIONS
~.~ . .: { "
10 ,"\ iC~' '<-
, !,"" I" .'1:~' .\
,,' : "'"
I
, I
,
" ..~.
.~. ......::1-...: : ". .
, "', / ~"."
" ...:.".
;,...-~':.:.,. "r: ',."
-' "," ;1.
" ,
. . '.~. .~
o
A
I'
PIIASE I WELLS
PHASI: II WELLS
.' . ~.:"4 -
. ,". .~~. . -: ,,~. . . : ):;.. .
. ':' ~! ~ .-
0' . . ','!, ;- ~.;.:t \ I . ': t''''' .:~ .:.. ''';~;.;\.'\.~.,,~;.';''; ~'.~..: :-:';',;- '"' J \-
': - ~ f.'~ '.'l'.,.,~.,. ;~:''' :~."'.'-
, .
"""
.. ',.,"
"'"
",
\ . .'
, I,'
';.,'j' i:
~, ,/ I ' '
. I ."".
, I
I
, I'
I ' i .
"
;. '
i' :
i' ,
,I :
"
"
"
: ,
. "-t.
"
: \. . ~'
I' , r ,.. 'j"
I . ~. ! t 'j,~ : " I' ,
! II'~ '
,
.+t
013:1
I:
""'I r.
I
. '
'~t
J ,
, '
j,
.".,'
I .... I
t I
,t', .
. ,'.'."
~-I
~. :.;~ ~.""
'''..
't,
'..'. I
" - .. I ~~(J' ,..: ,
~'. .:";. i~.: -,"~::..._' .,"~'
. i
!!,. - ,I
" .
..'.t
"
"
a,...,
)
~7.."'':":..;' '.;1'.i'tf".f'~:.:
,
,
. ~~ . . .,.' "
',:~ 1;. ! i
: i1 ,; !
'\\ ~,
. :
" "
. I.
,., I I
,,' ". ....~.:.. !.... f
, , ,. .. "
: ~.. ; !
" I I'
, !,1 10
'. '-t
t-
n
,()
,:J I
. \ '.
',...:'
..." ' i,
Ib'"
! t..~)
'C;' ~
, . \ j:
I
':
,
\
, ,
. .
"I
,
>
, ,
, "
.'.. ."
'," .
~,..' :
'.~
. I.
". .. , ~
'~I '
"
"
"I
.'..
I
I' :
. oj
.". .
,
It,'
, ,
, .
\0
C7
o
... :
,.
, ,
.,. ..
I
fIGUf\E ' &1-
WEll LOC.,\'fCG=.'S
ARRQ;;mEAO II: I n::-.nv IU
. ' ;..,. . " ,
j
,.' ~..'::.'~':
" .
;1', :
~
i
,!' ,-
ii ,:
I":'
"
I
I'
I
, ,>
,I I! i,',', ..
'0,
i:
, tJ
, I l~..,. ,:'"
,
.
!, '
,:
, !('
" "
..1.,..,
~ !
, .
"
!.;':
"
, '
..,,"..,'
1,1
, I
\' '
I
~ .~'
,; ,
,
I'
j , .
; :~) "..-..'\..
"
..-
" 1 '."
''9-. t
.. . . .
1ft ..' - ~
-------
"I
, ,
,1
-,.,-,..~".
-'..---'.' --
... _I'.
-?
.....--...
-.'.
..., _-_I.'
.-> ..,
.'-- ,. , : "-; "U
"
, , 'r,
;1'
i~
"
,...,
.-.. .
....,
',-:..
. ..,
",I
,...,
fl',',
,
-,
, ,
'"',..
: .
.
I ,
,... '
I
~
; ..:,. Sf)8
""/: A~W8
, 4-~"i '
,I ,~~. ' ',I'
'\
! )
~
",
,
. .1° .
..'
,,,.,
, :
.:"
..' ,}
:i01tr
~\'11
\
:..1
.
.,..
'.",{
.. . "0 ~
I'."
'"
\t,... ..-----,--, : ':'
, " I ,. '. 1- --- ,...... i I
., '..'.. I ( , ," (.I
"", \. i "" '.. ' , : 'fJs, '\' ,..' (~ C\
"'" ' , , ,', " , , , . ,) 1 " -, " ,', 0 ' , " ' ,,' f ' ..
"'" '.." , "',,', I [J , ,40 ? 0 \ :, 1,j" - '
, "'" <',.,'.,,'\ ""', :,':.',",\, ': ',' \ ~\,2, '"'~~"..f~~.,,,. " I ;, i'~,' ','
'b' I ":,-: i ," ~ ,,:' ;' '-: ',. \ .. I ,p !)()' / 't.r;. ~I ]."':\\,', ;; " ~ I
'..,' '. I " \ ,." \' '\: "'----:' ' ",."",
DS .... ,", " ..' :.. ' .6 ,f \ . ,e ,
:,5\'"6 ..,<:..~., \., ""I.,' "-, ' .. ,~ :~. :.,', 1 . " ,:." . 0,.0 ~:. "', ,. _~;.I ',' , : ...
I ~"A' ':'", """,' '," "', I ", ,'~ ':1:.,'" I, / " ' ,
yo1 "" '.', """" '"...J" ..:,. \""~"':LA": " ' ' ,""ir-" "
, ;, ,""..',~»',\, I ' 'A" i,:', """ : 5\.'U1'" ", :,', ". "..,,: .1 ,"" " ,
cu::'-';:i ' ..,,~' ,', .:,:," ',i '", ':, ,':'; '"
, '... ,',,', ", ":'1"" "" '''.,'" , I ", V.:, " ,.. , " '/'J"'!)? '
S05 :, ':>,v;;';':'::~":~:~:~':'::~:~~~:,:",,':;,:,:~.~,~:;~h::,~::.:,;:', ":"",:',, ,;'iA~b :' ", ' /..~ J ..': '.., " ': ,-:.: .,,:,~:,-:..~L.;-.~....'
S\il6A """,>.:..:"...,~,:,:~""'i,::,, """::'~.~',;">~" "'j I".' {/ ~...,-, ,': /.",..., ..; :" ' 'J" "
~ , "',<,,:'~;:",::,:, "'...;':- '~~'"'''' .. "'::::i-::,""";" : "':':'1' '.." W ':'" i ',',:' '," " '. , ' :.
. . to..,' ~""" It,=,. "., ::" ";,': L..i'.~1"'''. ',.. . ....,. . ...,;-1. '.."01 ...' ",.- . . a ,
, " "'. ", I ',' ',':', Sino'" ,.~. , ' , ' , " ,
""" ..".", '~." .'... . ...... "'. ~. . o. ". ... ~
'-", :,<>.~-:-,:",,'~':'<~iQ':::~~V4"::.':""''','I'''''':'':'' ". .. ~'I"":' '~;" ,'. :,' ,"" ''', r;!
" ' . " ," ". "'-""'~t." ',,", "".,.-. '" "',,, ',.,.. I '/ u \"
',' "",", ',,',,:.a,,'~..' '," """'.--'" ~,... j" ,', . '
.., : . .:'.",", -..". 41':'" ""..:..". !"I'" --....." "" :: t I I l! to ::>1 I
" '" ".,,' ,'i ; ""'?:"";"~:~::",:;~',:~~~. ,>:,:':~,<~ :,r;::,: ,::.-:,' """:::':, ' ~~',:~-~'.~ ~" i: <.:,~~:\ ,~~;;,:,.. :.:: ""';: ~~'~(:, ,'f','"
6 sunFACEWATfRISEOIMENT'" , '~::-~",;':':""';.,..,~>::::,,;.' ' , , , , " , ~: .'}--j.. " ':~li,i.1~'" ' ,', , "
C SLUOGE SAMPLES :"", ~w':.,<,,"~' : ~~~.~( ,~,:,:'::'}'~,;'\;~;:~:::i:~: ~I':::;'~~'~::':,;.::::.:.~', ~,~"'..:- "',,, , ",' :-- ,~:",', :-<~--:~! ....' -~..." , , , : ,
_...cf- EPA OITCII ' ~ (r', ,', :{,,:;./;.':,<:~;,::~;:,> ," "",::;;;,,::, :::;" ,"'" , .'~~'''''';-'' " ..: "i:' , -: " , : FIGURE 5
~.' ; /j ." 1 ","'~'. :..~. :.~..:." ..,".. .~:.~:...: '~:.."'''' ~.~"AA':" .' '.: .....":' ". ....; t '''If ;' .... '
.... -..... SLUOGE LAGOON ' .~' ',-< ..,:,\ ~.: :;,f~;:'q':'.::. :,>~':;'~",..;,:-~'M,"' ..-' :..: \' ;..--:"'>.:.. -:- .. ~:;: ,:PHASE II SAMPLING lOCATIONS
.-.. ---t--' ,,''''''1''..--., \ '\'1:,.."", ''':'''':'''':'.''':'-''\'':' ' --'"AnnOWIiEAonEfIIU"VII.
-'(,HE; Arrows indica.. direclion L..:--:' ~, ..,', :,:'~, ~'~I : ..i',hi , '.,
(\"1,..... I -_t',;;":' ~~,~:.'.'.;'_H. " ..,~..
. . .. \
. '
\
"
'. .....~
',-":
:"'.~
;:.~
~:.~
:....\
'..
..,
'..
~ -~
"
,,:;
,J
- ~1
'.;
~
;:..
~:j
-I,
',:-..
~':
.: .~
':~~
.J ~
, ,
-'
"
.- " .- '-.-\01.. "t-
",,',-:..
-------
501 A'
Y------, 'AS02
,-- '"" ,
( "
\ '
0$02":' ", / \
\~, .-,...;~,
, \, /"'r:" I'~ , " ~503
'''''''" - , ,
C'n\~ ~ -~Sc:i " " I
6~' c' ,~' I.
1 ' , '.., d" . /
. ' I", , , "', " ....~
, " : S014'~', ,:r"''''""",''' .,,', ,'''' ;' \'l-to" , ,,'
,':"."' . ":u'. """"" .~~. ':z... . '-)~t.::;:;: ../) ".. r..o
""" ": "; ,"'.,".", "'" ,..., 'J' .:" 0 ' Aso' 5 ' ,
" -".,'.., '~""I'" "','..,\ ",:-..... r. t,," 'I:" .." '"
. .: '1..... ". ',:- '0., . '-. \'" ~."': ;, bSO:u:: . 0" . . . .'.
, ".. ~"'" "j" "'~->" "",'.)' ' "i"',,., (/ ::'0"", ,...' ,,', """".. "
"', ",' "",.....,.: '~:-:"" "<:C.:, ,.:- ':""":'1 "" r----~, .1, A'" ':"".;..,
, ;.. ' '"'' "~'''' "'" " " <, ,;";, I '... l- -~aJ ..;.," ":', .,,~ '
, ';"':'~"~'~' "",'''i,i;'':',''''~',:-,:,:':'\' ~O?,,:J ,..:--...J "'I',:, ,~"
-------
., ,'" ~': .:,-. . .;:', .' ,
.; ','.~,
..'.:. ."'1., . ", ''':''' .. ~."".., .':, ~,':.' _...:' .,".- :.:~ ......"~ '\-.:~ .:;~~:::''"';.~: ..;, ~il"J". 'l-i-..;. '- .'.;Ir"";:'.:'~....,::-"-~::.!o{,,:,,,~, ;.....-:,1\,;.....:"'" .,:"'.')..,:., ..:~ ..:. j, ~...: '. ,",._.a.. a! ....,\.'...,. '.... '. ..:n..' ..... .-. r:. ..,,,,.....--'"'.j,o..:' ~ '~.. ,,,,,,"". ~.. ..
-4-
i dated 1 ayers:
4 feet of fill, 3 feet of peat, 25 feet of outwash, and
12 feet of morainal t~ll. Below the till is fractured gabbroic bedrock.
(See Figure 7).
The water table underlying the site is shallow, generally 0 to 4 feet
below the ground surface within the peat deposit or overlying fill.
Groundwater flow is generally southwest (Figure 8).
Average ground-
water flow velocities range from 7 feet/year (ft/yr) in the peat layer,
13 ft/yr in an underlying silty clay zone within the outwash layer
immediately below the peat, and 27 ft/yr in a sand and gravel zone
within the outwash layer below the silty clay zone.
The groundwater elevations also indicate upward vertical gradients
in well nests at most locations for a least part of the year. The
water level contour map, in conjunction with upward vertical gradients,
also indicates that the diversion ditch collects some groundwater for at
least part of the year.
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Results from the analysis of several samples collected during the
RI document the presence of a variety of priority pollutant compounds.
The following briefly describes the RI observations and conclusions regard-
-------
" ."
I..',". ,'.
.'
1
.,
I
II
1.1,11 - . '.. ~III fA !.:I .1
"" . :::-..'....--.-- ~~
~~'o 0'_0""',...._.1'111 '\. /e: 511" 'I' ',"11 11,111 I AC,I)I)N
. I - - --.. '/ -'- ." .' . .. - .
" ..'.'. '~:~:-:"-14.._:-...!.~,., !.c~--"'-""'---'_:::_-"-'-'--:'~ ,., "'. .
,- -.' - - - --' -ill' i" ...---.-.---._:-Al' " -~ ,...-
<\:~~~~~,::tl~~\ j~ .-.,~ ~-~.-. r
\ /,1 AI;I.~. II UU MilIII\INI: """1)"11
,. /1""'.111. Wi IN (il.I\CII\I. 'IIU.
...
,..." - .. .
~
"
.j
(';
'i
I.;
1\.
1,'
.:;
'.j
"
~
;1
;.~
'i
'"
~
:)
~
-,
~
~
:;;
;f
~
~
l
~
~
'ft
..,
"
..--..-'- .
..""'" ,........-
--"""---T------'--------
lOOl
-------
r :...
....: ",.. 'I
I '
t" ,. .
I I- .~., ~ r....'., "'t.
: .:~~ \i /"
, ..~
(?~,:'}::'.:.: / / I.
, ' ;", ' .. OiJ2C " I, ,/," ~:'" i
; ,.., :,' ':: ,',', ": "/ ,I', ' ,':."h' " ~/"\"') I
.' " ." ,,' ,'," I', I, ,', ~ ,~'c
, "', ':"',. 3 I" ',', ,." ", ,. "\~'(" , ' ,,' , ',; " ~'OJJ'b, \ \,
. "'.."...: i) ..', . ",\ , . !. ",.'" \,. \" . ~
':,."~":,,,,,:,~~.~:~:..,:;" "', "'J4i1['.'::-"" :,...'. .. P" . '.;~:. '. \/ \ ':>, .
, "~;" ::,),:<>:..:,:::~. : ,'/ 1IJbJj /. :"':> ...: "::," " ;'. ~~ "/" " \
',~"~<:C;'::~.'[:::!'~(,-\'~' ><' i}!'c\' .;. D5.~~::3" ".'," l~is, .' ." . J ',.' .
"J;..,,:"":':"'",,~,'I',''.''::';':'~'«'''''''\''' .!J'7',.',5B6sc ' ,,/.., ....', , .', "
: ,,' ':':-L,~:,:,:""'''"",''~::,~;,;','''~::::~~;'.::::::''}.'~~~I:~~l:' i ' ,.,~.,\-~, ..)j~ ' ..,,"'" " .. ,
" " 1~l;I\",:~L<,';'r,":',~\:: ;:"';r;':':':"'/'<":'~"""I' ""- "~''''l,/~''' ':~,' ," ~ " :'" ' ',' ':': . " ",',
1:lt~lJr'E 8 ': ''-''~'''' '~:~"~I~"'" "',,:,:~;~~~~ ',,', il;~ 1" ~ ',;'/' , ':','/ , " i
,1 , 'W.)/:" !': .........-~~~.~., ,,', " ~,: ()t;. .". ...~. ", " {\
Ci:WUNUWI\TEn ELEVATIONS ~r.'\~,.! <,/ '>,,'" ,:~':','~~~i-~ ,: ,':;,: ~,' ~i~' :'~'" '!S' 'of: .:' ,':"', (,:.. ..,' ',' ' ;~
H-J THE OUTWA:;II LI\VEn ,'(~~i . ::".:'---'.---!.' ' , "', " ",,'. ' '
, ''\: I ;';' . , ' " " ,-...... ' '" " ,'.' . '
JllfJI' 111"" "...~ ,"" ", ' '. ' "----, ' ' "" ,,', ~ '
, \ ,: . .1,1 r,r. .!"" 6''''',:"",''- ' ':~,: ", "--. ' , ,"<',," ',',',,'" CaQ," ~.
..\IOII"I'/lII,\(lIIIIIIIIIIYIII """"'", ,1,...\ ",""'--'"'i-o..", "~-"_.-! ," ',"',' "", ,"'" ':) .
, I{"IJ' ,,' ",' "~ -.... ~ ' ,...': ",',
,.:' "::,-,,,. "~"" '::::,-L" "....~"~ ''::.. 1/' 1 ..a'"
f .. .. .' t. ...', ~ "" . : C.J -.' -.. ; £..
. . .1,., ' .. .. '0' ',.. ... .. . ..- . .>
" '. . '::';. " i.. 'I....'", ,,', .~ " ",: "'I,.., :" I ~~ '
'.".. _. \ fl -":'"".. '.. . .:.t. . . ,W- ~~ . .:~. "'.'.
:.. ,., . . , . I', . .,. . t . ~~
. II,,~=--'~" ."', .::.. ,'),J,...:.I ;~ "", I
OJ! I 1..',1
~. ~" :..::.t"'.:.. 0:r,' ,','"' I,
"" ,.
LEGEI
,-c
WO,l:; 1:'.0'" ..IIEVIOUS
It'V" :il'liA nONS
o
6
PI lASE I WELLS.
,,"ASE II WELLS
- ~
.... I.
1';2,--..- GROUNDWATEn ELEVATlor4 CO'HOUR
-<:- -- otn[CTION Of POTErtTIAl
WIOUNIJIf/AT[n fLOW
I
"
t"
~
1201
Q
.,/
"
~...
~\
11aO
/
,I
"
. "
I .
;".'
I
-."..,
;
,
"
. . "
;
..... .
"
\.
-- i
I
.'1.
I .
I
, ,
~
L'
,.31
,,)
1;\ .
o
,
, .. i;.
, ,
"v
.~').
~ "
~
d)
"It""
~
~
()13a
. . ;
(,I
t,;
i'
,;,
" ""
-------
. ~'.. ".1 ".'. ,....., ..~.I~~.\,'. '. ..-::'..:{.,.'.....'
'. """.'
.:. .:~. .~ .,.,.."" '.. - .:'".i oI~';'."-"';' .:...... ..;~...".t". -,.....~'..,~ .'--.~ - ..- ',.'." ""'.' r'........ 1 ..~ ._T...~ .'..r -'.,..- -~. ~ ...- -.....-.-..... ~ - ." ,~- .. -- - .-.,.. -... ...
-5-
Contamination by media is not defined in this Record of Decision
as contaminant concentration above background, but is defined as the
concentration of at least one contaminant at a level known to cause
cumulative excess lifetime cancer risks exceeding 10-6 in a commercia1/
industrial setting and/or exceeding the adult chronic acceptable intake
(AIC) for noncarcinogens. The major compounds and concentrations that
correlate to the contamination criteria are presented as part of Tables
1 and 2. The major chemicals of concern at the site with regard to
public health impacts are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead. The VOCs of greatest concern in
all media are benzene, carbon tetrachloride, ch10rofonm, trans-1,2-di-
chloroethene, trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride.
All of these chemicals
except trans-l,2 dich1oroethene are potential human carcinogens by both
the ingestion and inhalation routes.
Trans-l,2-dich10roethene is the
most common organic chemical in the groundwater.
While it is not
carcinogenic or thought to be highly toxic, it can degrade in water
under these site conditions to vinyl chloride, which is a carcinogen
and highly toxic.
PAHs are a group of chemicals found in the soil and sediment of
the site. They are persistent and relatively immobile.
PAHs were not
found in groundwater at detection limits of 10 parts per billion (ppb).
While only one PAH, benzo (a) pyrene, is included in the quantitative
-------
Clw_lcal HilDIe
AUienlc
Har It..
Benu:ne
8..ylll\lll
II\I( ~-., hy Iheay I U',.halate
Cadmlu.
OlloaaluDa
CUlllfcr
CY.III~.
DIL..ly Il'h.I.. h. e
),2.01 cldor.-CI hallc
I, J -1JIc.hloructhcne.
1r.II\:;.I,2-UIChloroethcne
2 ...-n"~IIIY Illhenol
'.IIIIC lhy 11'11' I... I al e
OI.,,-(,u,.,1 l'lllhol..,.:
t:lhrl lI"nl~ne
Ir"'1
l.ea~
Hilng.nelOr.
Hcu.:u1'I
Hc'hyl,~n~ Ullf.rlde
"-He' h'lll,llcuu'
Rhkel
'"11&"1101
",Icue
:tll\',"
Tulu~oc
Ir h:hluroctht'ne
VInyl UoI... I~e
lylrm:5
Zln,
ttD-I--
11c:'lul.lt~d
Concenl r..t lun
u.'1
),~OO
100
18
10
S7
),800,000
122
R~,OOO
0.21
~2
400
1,2110
.~o
120
210
29~ ,000
817
660
82
))
,
r
~
if
j'
~
r
~
r
1'.101" ~ "
I:UtII'AMI:;UII ut' GMIIIINIIIIAlf.1I UI/IC:UHUAl'IIIIIS 'II SURIIAP..:;, I:MlUIIIA, Alill LUIDtI.lRt::; ~
AIIII.JIIIILAD IIHIHt,1IV SIn:
Clt~.n Wotor Act
:;al" P,llIklll' :;..10 Ur""lnl sar c Orl "'" III Sal. DrllI"'"1 lIater Quality
lIa. e' Act W.ler At.:t Vater At. t Woler Ato:t C,Ueria (1.\I1j1:) Sale Orll"'"1 W.te,
Intcr'. Pruroac:d :;C......da" 1t'~I."o.lIItt"n1k:d fur Uumau IIc.llh A't llealLla
1Ia" I... H..I.... Hu I... "Gal""11 AdJu.. e~ I u' D. I"k Inl Advho,lu - (liE/I)
Cunl..lnant Cont..lnant (unto.tn.nt Cuntd.lnGot \I.ler .hlIE (111'1) .--, ,I"Y----'O-a.-- iiOiirc--Ur;:,'jDc
LI.1t U.le LI.U I.IlIle "T..'&Ii:lty ancer!fii 11F1Lg' is-k. 10:.8 1£-11 11F!,--'lIFfii -'0:"1
(Hel.) u.'1 (Hel.) ul\'l (Hel,) ugla (RtW:I.) UB'I P,otectlon '" 10 ~!! ~;Iill 9!ill ~ ~ ~!! ~
SO SOP o.oon sO SO ~o 50 SO
1,000 l,~oop 1,000
5 Ot. 0.61 1)) U)
0,00)9
11 ,000
10 SP 10 ',) 8 5 18 18
~O 1201' 1,~O 1,"00 21,0 &v.G DO
1,000 1,)001' 1,000
~oo 110 120 220 150 )~O
. "",000
~ Of 0.91, '1,0 140 140 2,~00
1 )t' 0.00)) 1,000 1,000 1,000 ),~OO HO
101' 2,110 1,000 1,000 ),500 no
..00
)~O,OOO
"",000
6801' 2,"00 21,000 2,100 ),"00
)00
50 201' 50 10 10 III
50
2 )1' 10 ~.~
0.19 13,100 1,500 l.l~O
0,10
I)." 1,000 )~O
),~OO .
~O So
2,ooUP IS,OOO 18,000 6,000 IU,UOO
5 Of 2.8
1 Of 2 2,1.00 2,600 I} ~6
""01' 12,OOD 1,000 10,000 21,)00 1,200
5,000 5,Doo
&6
212
290
~2)
41
10
1
n
..00
10
166
)00
"'1,. ""'hlell. 1I.lcr ./U.llly C,lIerh .tau 0.00)1 ulll .. Ihe crlterlun fo, .11 pol Y"UClear .'","8tl' hydrucurbonu (rAIl'.).
.. . t'rOI\05cd
.. . ."11'111
-------
Chemicals
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroetllene
Barium
2-Butanone
Cadmium
Carbon Disulfide
Ch1orobenzene
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
1,1-Dichloroethane
Ethy) benzene
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Toluene
Xylene
Zinc
'i'uh1e c1
SOli, (SI-:rmU:N'r) CONCI-:N1'UATION:.> 11'1' WIIICII ClIlTElHA
OJ{ lU5KS COUlD UE Ht:'f AT 'I'm: AIWOWIlt:AU :;11'1::
Concentralions in mg/kg Based
-VII Potency Dertvc!!6Cancer IUsks as -7
10 10 10 -
Hi5k levels based on a (A~ of
0.013 0.00029 0.013 0.00029 0.013 0.00029
- -
Conccnt.ration!> ill mtJ/k'J
Which t~cecd the
AIC for 70-ktJ
Adult. at 5011 II1'Jc~l1on
nates of 0.1 giddY
Concelltral1olls in IUCJ/I,'J tlhlc;h
t:xcced the AlC fur lO-ky
Ch11d at So11 In~~ IliItl!:. of
0.1 g/day 1.0 gIddY -ro:O~g/day
170
0.6
57
116
150
130
680
7,700 1.7 77 0.17 7. '/
30 0.006 0.3 0.0006 0.03
2,700 0.57 27 0.057 2.7
8,000 1.1 50 0.11 5.0
6,800 1.5 68 0.15 6.8
6,100 1.3 61 0.13 6.1
32,000 6.0 320 0.68 32
5,100 510 51 35,700
4,600 460 46 32,200
29 2.9 0.29 200
11 ,000 1,100 110 77,000
2,700 270 27 18,900
500 50 5 3,500
3,700 370 H 25,900
2,000 200 20 14,000
12,000 1,200 120 84,000
9,700 970 9'/ 61,900
140 14 1.4 9UO
22,000 2,200 220 154,000
28 2.8 n.28 200
10 , 000 1,000 100 70,000
29,000 2,900 ;!90 200,000
1,000 100 10 7,000
21,000 2,100 210 147,000
a
Based on lifetime average soil ingestion (LASI) of 0.013 and 0.00029 g/kg body weight/day for a 70-year
lifetime. Includes a correction to account. for climat.ic limits on exposure.
AIC = Acceptahle intake chronic. 'i'he 10 CJ soU/day represents the intake of a "pica cbUd,1I the ext rem:!
intake situation. The 0.1 and 1.0 9 soU/lIay int.akes ilrc lll'obably 1D0re reprc:;cnli.lUvc of young children.
GLT566/17
'. ,'.. ..1 .....!~ ! .
~
0"
.' '.'.' - "
',".., ..
-T
,- - --I ." ."--
. '~~.~ . ..:.~'::~::.':- I.;"
"'.. . '
- '"j' ._-:--
":(=-:":";1";-""';.:;" .,"
-------
-6-
are also considered to be carcinogenic.
Lead can be found throughout
the site:
in sludge, in the soils, and in the groundwater.
It is
present in levels which exceed acceptable human daily intakes.
Lead
affects both the nervous system and the hematopoietic (blood forming)
system.
Children are especially susceptible to lead exposure.
Sludge Lagoon
The RI estimates that there are 4,600 cubic yards of petroleum-based
oily sludge which contain various organic compounds in the low part per
million (ppm) range and high concentrations of heavy metals.
The sludge
also has a high energy value, low ash content, and is a very corrosive
(pH = 1).
Average lead concentrations are at least 4,700 ppm and range
as high as 14,000 ppm.
Average Polychlorinated Bi-Phenyl (PCB) concen-
trations are 2.4 ppm and range as high as 45 ppm. The entire sludge la-
goon is considered contaminated.
Soil and Sediments
The RI estimates there are 14,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil
that exceed the 10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk and the adult AIC.
The areal extent of contamination, shown on Figures 9 and 10, is thought
I ..
I
I
I
I
!
I .,
(
to be limited to the process area.
The maximum depth of contamination is
approximately 12 feet and is limited to the fill, peat, and upper five
-------
i.
1
U';EUO
0$$9
S5100
~01~c
r'l.
H
f)
I'III\!;;: I !;OIl nOnlll1.i
,:.01111011 II IG VIE II "':;1 ALl.E 0
.....)
1'111\:;': 1 SU:1F ICIAl :;011. :;,.,MrI.E
1\
I'III.:;E 'J ~,I)II. 110m,,!;
.
, .
I'II'\~;I' ') :;011. 110I1I"r..
1.1l lUll III III If, \'11.1.1. illS r r. I. LI. II
I \ I"'.
1..'.1
I'
:,f .'\
'\ S011\--
\"11(;11,' J.-T "- ---
,-- - '- /::}S02
\ '," " ( . '- ~
~ ) SLUDGE LAGOON" . . \
. SO\2C' J
, \ " \
. \ \. " \ , / -:- -' , .
\\ \I'J', -//'. II', , ASOJ ,
'\ ,\ ~SO':O' - £\505 \' J
'" . :,\." ,(j ,.,
J "". " " . .
/.. I """~" . ,,"\ 1-"1 S01!h
,:.' '-.,;
. ,.! . '.
"'-'" ", . '...!
i
. '. i
SS120
"
. 1\ S05
.." '0" 05S1~
" SS11' . t\ .
504 . '
i . A
J -" ..L\
'- 500
"""" .J
. .
. '0'"'
,
80101
,.. ,\'l
. .
.' 0'
, .
.. ".
.i
, ,
.'
.. ,
" .
4'1 .
. ,0 ,..-........
.\" \
; )
I . ,
, . \
I
..' V
"
i,
,
j
, .! ,.
. ,
,
. I
.,. .
I'''' ; ",." .
tI"
~ !
, ,:
:0
\
. '
'. '
I"
,;
"
"'. FIGURE '?
., EXTENT Or- SOil CONT AMINI\ 1'1I)N
....', USING J\l>lJl.T "IG
-------
. .
OSS9
S01 ,
lI\5"OOIJ
~ [Uf)' « .
, J ' " .', ,
. 'S5120 " AS010 Il ~{JI,. . '.
. .
. . . . ...
S014 " ", ' . " ' r ," I
c .' ~" w, ,I ,-,.
ft, "" ' i., 1,\, ",'
" f ,,' ,.;,:, , O'4\tJ~', A
'.. ' \ , . L:I SOl':
". . ", "SOO \'....,'. :J
". :".t""'"i ,>'" :JC" I' OS513
, . ' " ' "'''';,, 'I '0 '
, ' '." . . r -'" -..~~~!), S~l1 ~
~01a ""'. i" ~O.,
.{./ '
6S02
llGlIW
o
PIIA:;E , 50llIJOflUU,
MOUITOnINe; WElllU5T r.Ll.EO
S5100
Q S02e
.
. .
. ,
rlll\SE 2 r.Oll nOAme;.
MOl-/lrOfllNG WElllUSTAllED
} ~ SOJ
o 'r'i"SE I sunFICIAl50lL SAMPLE
f\
I'III\:;E 2 SOil DonlNG
[J Fill
[J ,.[" T
rn] OlJIWASIl
..... II\~I O,0002!1
: ..'.
. ,"f
nmmr',lO
EXTI:NT or ~()II. CON I'I\MINI\ litH I
lJ~"N
-------
-7-
feet of outwash.
The presence of the peat layer appears to be limiting
downward contaminant migration because contaminants are much more
concentrated in the peat when compared to the outwash layer.
The extent of sediment contamination is shown on Figure 11.
Cont ami -
nation appears to be limited to the wastewater ditch and the western portion
of the diversion ditch. The volume for sediments is estimated to be 350
cubic yards. based on excavation to a depth of 1 foot.
The sediments
found in the diversion ditch south of to U.S.
53 are contaminated
above background levels. but the concentrations are below the 10_6
lifet ime cancer risk criteria for contami nation.
Surface Water
Five volatile organic and several inorganic compounds were identified
in surface water samples within the wastewater ditch that exceed 10-6
cancer risk levels and AIC for noncarcinogens.
No contaminants were
found in the surface water within the diversion ditch.
Surface water
run-on to the site has been controlled by the construction of the
diversion ditch.
The unusual occurrance of volatiles in the wastewater
ditch may indicate significant contaminant runoff from onsite soils and
sludge.
The low levels of contaminants found in monitoring wells west
of the wastewater ditch may indicate contaminant discharge through
groundwater into the wastewater ditch.
Thus. the wastewater ditch may
-------
, . ,SDn . "
"": ~ SV'JO
,i :t:~" WASTEWATER
, \ DnCIi ' ' ~
, \ ,'," ' ~------- "
: \ 'fl /---, """", 'I"
'\ :... I SLUDGElAGDON 'I. ..I'" ","',
, ... \ \ ' {" "'," \ " I':
SG5 A'" " "~~' .. \..J \. ~:">'r.7J:\:' ~, n,,!
<"..- ;-," \~ --, ! ,
.....a/\,.. .. ::-, " '," " ,~ , \ '
'-"-".'....~. ,"', ,. ' '",', ' I "
..~.. . . '~" ',. !'~;;n ' . i,...., ',j .'
"..' "'~~~<~,,,Z "';J"J~~( ...f).' ..."" ! "'.';'~):'"
".. .~.. ". .' . .'.:". '."'" " ' ""'1' ...' , ,.., "', '. L "," ii, ' I '
"'. "'Co ,', " "":1, .-' /' ...' ' ": :'\j"J!\°r
, ';"" '" ..: :~..., ~$)': ",>"'1, .' I ./> " ..,,,~./, ,'" ".., ,: /" ,', 't:; ,t..02'
, ' ',", " ".,',,'0 ~~ 1:1l", I''': //" 't;., ,,,-, ""'" I is\''J2
" ,", ''',,'!' "'::; "':' ,,"....;;,~~p,," '"",' . ,.."'"'' ," Jl' ",' ..~,"'" ',~ I,." '
','..,:., ":"",",'~ "',: ", ..~1"--:::~1""';-::"L!!..t)ll'C~"" t---1 '~',:." ' "', :,:y:' ':, " ' ,,',,:, "', "" '..' i '}" ", : ",'
"""'. ':," ,. '" ~""'.... ,07 1......... ';' ,,,,,,,', ,"''', '
~ " ~t:'J4 '" '" ro,--, ',." " :",~ '" ", ' I :, ~
,""-- -'~ " ,,:,'" '" ' .." ,,,,
-------
-8-
be a partial barrier for groundwater contamination west of the site.
Groundwater
Contaminated groundwater that exceeds the 10-6 excess lifetime cancer
risk and AlC for adults is presented by soil layers in Figure 12 using
Contract Lab Program (CLP) data. Throughout the project the MPCA split
a selected number of monitoring wells samples.
Because MPCA labs
analytical methods have lower detection limits than standard CLP analysis,
MPCA's results indicate benzene above 10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk
in offsite wells 9 and 10. Although this MPCA data has not been quality
assured by the U.S. EPA, it may indicate a greater area of off-site
contamination.
The discrepenc;es between MPCA and CLP data were taken
into consideration during the evaluation of alternatives in the Feas-
ibility Study (FS).
Most of the contaminant mass appears to be concen-
trated near the sludge lagoon, within the process area and where an
underground tank was recently excavated, approximately 20 feet north of
monitoring well 7.
The peat layer appears to be attenuating most
contaminants, and thus has limited downward contaminant migration into
the outwash.
However, some contaminants mainly VOCs, have broken
through the peat layer or have entered the outwash layer where the peat
layer is not present.
A limited number of nearby residential wells within 1/2 mile of
the site that may use groundwater from the same outwash and bedrock
-------
()
PIIASE ,
'r I ED OUniNG
WELtS III,. r AL ,
NSrALI EO DUlliNG PUASE 2
WELLS' .
o
C.=J PEAT
F,?2] OIlTWA511
[:.':7 FILL
I::,:~j MOnAlNAL TILL
. --. INCLUDES AIC
113
'0
3"
('0~b
10h ", '\ '
10,.
,,:', WASTEWATER
, ; P DITCH
: ,. \ .. . LAGOON
'\' , ,..--....,,-- ~, ~
' ...-' ,.. ' ,;',
' ""'-'" ,,',' ' 'C';,,' ,'"
\ 0~1' r", ,', ,'...f '\
,/,' 1'/' "" '" "'"
.. ,r.)' /'..1 Ii' .',~" " ~.
""'~~~03~~ "'" :: , '" " "
' '/:'" '/'/'''0'' /'" ," " ",:",
@',..\" , "
r ~, I:.'. \ I I, ", .... '. ' "
.I'".' (/ I ~//., '." ", "','., ''''''~::'',:, , \
% . "'/' . ~1" , ' 'f"'"-,,
/~ II:" /,~(,;~ '/~'/ 1.~ ' \.:,\,.,:, '" <"", ,I,~,1'~"~'\'" ," ;, '
// , , /J. / 1',.. /" , (''''''''
./ /"" "/; "/" ~ ,~ ~"/.. ',"..",' r:.),," 'I" '
" /;~/.I /' //' //' //),1,' '/~~I' ~~i\ O~:. ;)" """"~:"'!':-"", '" I~" I
" , ',I '~//, "/', /\~'/0 ,'/,.,., , '
" " "" /./, / q,;. /,.1 ,(.,:,\ ' , \,
. ~" I' ~/.;////;/-/'/i/>':/'~/' // :/ ~, /;;'0'" '. : , '.. , '~"".J
. // , /// , ,. /,,,.//////, ,. . .. I
'/,,/////;> ////;""-')""/~" ( / / //1'. '%/ \, , ! 11':'(.", ~
" ~" .I / ,I / .. ,.' " ,.- / "....~...,. ,i) /. / / / 0'%?0' h:" ..,.1(..1, )1
;' /, , /!": ,..' , /, //~(/2r.(.1'/":' /~'",
//.- ',':.., "////' t' '/,., /"/.;' /., I"'/~ ,'"..,
I~, ,.,,/../ /./~ ' " , ./ .., " / I ,I , " .
. '/~;;;j//~~%~'/"'«Y/';"N)(/;;i '. :. V
. V1Y/.,~',. ///h /'//:-%" /~.t.0'/I' ~~!.5-'/ . ... .."
. . ~~m?%;~:%'V'I%;gi;xY~j. ..' .. '.' 'I
..,.~~'~~~~/.:',,::
. .. W~}%C" '.. .:'
", :: i .' , 1'I\M''''AIION
flGUnE :1,1 'HOllNDWJ\T(n COrle:- <
. E)
-------
. .""w ,..~ . ,.",
. .. .'.. ..1, d..w ;....-'.. .:"- .' ...' "'" t.,:... t.:.~ ,..'.~.;..J- '.."''::'"\'-'''':'...~ "~.;>"JI' 'Jo; - ..,- ..., .:.'..-'.,:..',,--''''' ,....':...,-:'_~A.' .,::,"1'" ............". ,.. ..',." . ,',,:,"""-'-"'" ..:._".. . .--""""'.", --. .!' .",J",,- . -......"' ...
-9-
periodically by U.S. EPA and MPCA since 1980. All residential well
results to date indicate. no site related contamination.
RISK TO RECEPTORS VIA PATHWAYS
Sludge Lagoon
The sludge lagoon is a major contaminant source for continued future
releases into groundwater, and also constitutes a public health threat
by direct contact through touch or ingestion.
Lateral movement of
groundwater through the sludge lagoon and subsequent leaching of contam-
inants into the outwash layer makes the sludge lagoon a major source.
Thus, either remedial action that contains and hydraulically isolates
the lagoon or a removal action is necessary.
Soil And Sediments
The soil in the fill and peat layers poses a threat to public health
and welfare by onsite exposures (ingestion resulting from outdoor
activities, inhalation of particulates or volatiles, and dermal absorption)
or contaminant migration (intermediate transfer by dissolution into
groundwater) .
Potential soil ingestion under a commercia1/indus-
trial setting may result in an excess lifetime cancer risk as great as
4 x 10-5.
Should the site ever be developed for residential purposes,
the excess cancer risk from soil ingestion could be as great as 3X10_3.
-------
-10-
a number of compounds such as lead, cadmium, xylene and barium in a
residential setting.
Lateral movement of groundwater through the
contaminated fill and peat could be leaching contaminants into the
outwash layer.
Exposures to surficial soils via air borne particles are unknown
but appears to be limited because an oil coating hinders migration.
Surficial soil runoff to the diversion and wastewater ditches adds to
sediment contamination.
Sediment contamination may also be due to
Remedial action is necessary on the soil and
groundwater discharge.
sediments in order to remove existing and future endangerment to public
health and the environment.
Alternatives that either contain, remove,
and/or hydraulically isolate soil and sediments have been evaluated for
this site (see Alternatives Evaluation).
Sediments will be consolidated
into the same remedy as soils.
Surface Water
As described earlier, the wastewater ditch is contaminated with unaccep-
table levels of VOCs and inorganic compounds.
The surface water remedy
will be addressed as part of the groundwater remedy.
Groundwater
No onsite or offsite exposures to contaminated groundwater are known to
exist to date.
Nearby Gopher Oil and the auto body shop are reportedly
serviced by the City of Duluth's water supply.
-------
-11-
Onsite groundwater is considered unuseable.
Potential ingestion of
onsite groundwater has excess lifetime cancer risks as high as 10-2
regardless of whether onsite groundwater is used for residential
or commercial/industrial purposes.
The 1 day and 10 day Suggested No
Ad~erse Response Level (SNARL) are also exceeded for various compounds.
A groundwater flow and contaminant transport model was used to help
predict future contaminant migrations and possible future contaminant
concentrations in offsite receptor wells.
Under assumptions made in
this model, the results indicate that contaminants could reach the
nearest offsite receptor within 15-40 years and at concentrations which
could exceed the 10-2 excess lifetime cancer risk.
This model is con-
sidered a worst case scenerio and may tend to underestimate contaminant
travel times to a receptor. This model also does not account for any
potential natural discharge barriers such as the diversion ditch or
wetlands which may tend to hinder offsite contaminant migration.
Offsite contaminant migrations may already be occurring that pose a
future threat to the environment and public health.
Groundwater remedies
that could possibly mitigate these threats have been evaluated for this
site (see Alternatives Evaluation).
ENFORCEMENT
-------
-12-
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
In response to the health threats identified by the RI. a Feasibility
Study (FS) was prepared to evaluate remedial alternatives at the Arrow-
head site.
The FS evaluates. assembles. and screens out alternatives
consistent with the requirements of the National Contingency Plan
( NCP ) .
Technology Screening
General response actions were identified for each contaminated medium:
the soil. groundwater and sludge lagoon.
Within each general response
action. specific technologies were screened. Technologies use is
clearly precluded or limited by site conditions and waste characteristics
were eliminated from further evaluation.
Similarly. the state of
development is assessed for each technology.
Included in these consid-
erations were limitations such as implementation difficulties. inability
to achieve the remedial objectives at this particular site. and undemon-
strated performance of the technology.
Those technologies considered applicable were then evaluated using the
guidelines set forth by the NCP (40 CFR 300.68(g)).
Each technology
was screened using three broad criteria:
o Acceptable Engineering Practices:
Alternatives must present a
technically applicable and reliable means of addressing the
".-:"'" ."
-------
'.,..'. ,,'.., :....
't' ';',1: ,.:.
. .~ ~. 1,..., -' ,',:\- ','. ~ :.:l, ....-'" ,;.': \ r~ .':;"'~."".:'" ~'... ';~/~'J:'-. '=:.1'.. '- ':'!::;i:..",:-.::'~.d':':'..-:' ~:J<~ ,"".:".;,.i\.,:,;:..;;;.::;,.o:.').:" ~ .~', ";.-i..'.b',,:, .. '~";¥t.:i, 'z.! . .,',\-:., ..~'., ~ ;~ ~ti...-'-. " l' .4\~"'~,' .~:"'l:.~ ,'- '.,. ',,: ',~.. A,.'. ~..:~... '.: ;:'::..'r......', '..~...... -. . .
-13-
project goals. The alternative technologies should have a
demonstrated performance record for the specific application,
and be easily, safely, and readily implementable.
o Effectiveness:
Alternatives that do not effectively contribute
to the protection of public health and welfare and the environ-
ment are not considered further.
If an alternative has signif-
icant adverse effects, very limited environmental benefits,
limited useful life, or requires an excessive period of time to
achieve beneficial results, it is excluded from further consid-
eration.
o Cost:
For each alternative, the cost of implementin9 the
remedial action, including operation and maintenance costs, is
considered.
Alternatives whose- costs far exceed the costs of
other alternatives evaluated, and which do not provide substan-
tially greater public health or environmental protection, or
technical reliability are excluded from further consideration.
Those technologies that survived this screening were then asssembled
into comprehensive remedial action alternatives that address each
contaminated medium at the site. The FS documents the screening of
technologies.
Some common technologies carried forward for other sites
but not the Arrowhead site include:
Offsite incineration - Eliminated on basis of preliminary cost
-------
-14-
that a facility will be readily available to accept Arrowhead waste.
Fluidized Bed Reactor - Not demonstrated for heterogeneous soils
and full scale incineration of hazardous waste.
Mu)ti-Layer Cap - Eliminated due to site conditions (marshy area). Can
only be effective if water table is hydraulically controlled. Would
require maintenance over infinity.
Onsite landfill - Same as above.
Chemical Fixation - Although treatability studies were not performed,
the long term effectiveness for this technology is not demonstrated for
the array of organic compounds found in Arrowhead waste.
Cementation - Same as above.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following briefly describes the remedial alternatives.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Under this alternative, no additional work of any kind would be
done at this site.
Groundwater monitoring and maintenance of the
existing fence, drainage ditch, and monitoring wells would continue on
a regul ar basi s.
Since remedial actions would not be taken at the
site, the public health and environmental risks would be identical to
those described in the public health assessment of the RI report.
In
-------
, .., "
. "', , "... ;,.' .",. '" -:~.', ",.. ,J,..:.:,; ~',:'<:-:"::.f":t...i.'~~~'~ ..:.:::\,~.i~'.;;.:,,'~;:r..7;:;"~':.~i),;.~:....~!:.,~~:,;!:...t.I~'):~:.::~,:;~'r.:.:'~.~,:l,,;~'"'~~~i'£....:.-~~"~ _:~:". :.;~'. M": ,. ", ..J-', :,::'~_.:,::-. :~-.;..~.'; : ",
":..',~._,_:;.' ".' '-.- :;.,:;-" .,,"~--'. .:"
-15-
in negative health effects on people using the site as measured by
comparison with standards, cancer risk estimation, and comparison to
acceptable intakes.
Development could result in exposure to contaminants
(VOCs, PAHs and lead) in the groundwater and soil primarily through
exposure by ingestion and inhalation.
Currently, offsite exposures are
not occuring, but a potential exists for contaminant migration to
offsite receptors.
Alternatives 2a and 2b
Alternative 2 includes the disposal of sludge, containment of soil, and
the removal and onsite treatment of groundwater (Alternative 2a) or the
removal and disposal of groundwater (Alternative 2b).
An estimated
4,600 yd3 of oily sludge, oi1saturated peat, and filter cake would be
neutralized and solidified prior to transport to a RCRA-permitted
landfill for disposal.
The soil with contaminant concentrations exceeding
the 10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk and the adult AIC would be covered
with a 2-foot layer of topsoil.
Contaminated sediment would be removed
and consolidated with the contaminated soil prior to covering.
The
groundwater would be collected by a combination French drain and extraction
well system. The total estimated flow of 72 gpm from the groundwater
extraction system would be treated onsite (2a) or discharged untreated
to the sewer (2b).
Residential wells would be sealed and the existing water main would be
-------
-16-
Alternatives 3a and 3b
Alternative 3 includes the offsite disposal of both sludge and soil,
and either onsite treatment of groundwater (3a) or offsite disposal
groundwater (3b).
The basic remedial response for the sludge is the
same as in Alternative 2.
In addition, the soil with contaminant
concentrations exceeding the 10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk and adult
AIC would be excavated and transported to a RCRA-permitted landfill for
disposal. An estimated 14,300 yd3 (in-place) of soil would be excavated
from an area of 45,000 ft2. In addition, about 6,100 yd3 of peat underlying
the sludge lagoon will be removed.
The groundwater remedial response
actions for Alternatives 3a and 3b would be similar to those of A1tern-
atives 2a and 2b except that the extent of the French drain system
would be revised based upon the amount of soil removed, and the extraction
flow would only be 45 gpm.
Residential wells would be sealed and the
existing water main would be extended to provide an alternative water
supp ly.
Alternatives 4a and 4b
Alternative 4 includes the thermal treatment of sludge, containment
of soil, and either the removal and onsite treatmet of groundwater
(4a), or the removal and disposal of groundwater (4b). Approximately
4,600 yd3 of oily sludge, oil-saturated. peat, and filter cake would be
incinerated onsite over a period of less than 9 months of continuous
operation.
The containment of soil would be achieved in the manner
described for Alternative 2.
The remedial actions for groundwater in
-------
-17-
2a and 2b. Residential wells would be sealed and the existing water
main would be extended to provide an alternative water supply.
Alternatives Sa and 5b
Alternative 5 includes the thermal treatment of sludge, disposal of
soil and treatment of groundwater.
The treatment of sludge would be
achieved by incineration in the manner described for Alternative 4.
Contaminated soil would be excavated and disposed of offsite as described
in Alternative 3.
The groundwater response actions would be similar to
that of Alternatives 2a and 2b except that the extent of French drains
would be revised based on the extent of soil removal.
The extracted
groundwater would be either be treated onsite to remove contaminants
(Sa), or discharged untreated to the sewer (5b).
Residential wells
would be sealed and the existing water .main would be extended to provide
an alternative water supply.
Alternatives 6a and 6b
Alternative 6 includes the onsite thermal treatment of sludge and soil
and either the onsite treatment of groundwater (6a), or the offsite
disposal of groundwater (6b).
Under this alternative, both the soil
and sludge would be excavated and incinerated on-site.
Incineration of
an estimated 4,600 yd3 of sludge and 20,500 yd3 of soil and sediment
would be achieved over a period of less than 2 years.
The remedial
actions for the contaminated groundwater would be the same as described
in Alternatives 2a and 2b except that the extent of the French drain
system would be revised based upon the extent of soil removal.
-------
-18-
The total extraction flow (45 gpm) would either be treated onsite
for the removal of contaminants or discharged to the sewer untreated.
Residential wells would be sealed and the existing water main would be
extended to provide an alternative water supply.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
In determining appropriate actions at CERCLA sites, consideration
must be given to the requirements of other federal environmental laws
in addition to CERCLA. The NCP, except as provided in 300.68(i),
requires selection of a remedy that attains or exceeds applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal public health and environmental require-
ments identified at the Arrowhead site. The impact of applicable or
relevant environmental and public health requirements are summarized in
Table 3.
Other environmental requirements considered in the Arrowhead Refinery
selection and evaluation of alternatives include the closure and ground-
water protection standards, and incinerator operation requirements
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Other consid-
erations include the wastewater discharge requirements under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, U.S. EPA's .Procedures for Planning
and Implementing Off-site Response Actions, May 6, 1986, and the pro-
visions of the Clean Air Act relating to operation of an air stripper
and incinerator.
.. . - ..., -... ..,'" ~...~- ."'.'. ...... ,-,., -. . - '. .
-------
1."\1, U'!'J" lot ion,
.."1.' 1.~ ~~ Y ~ ,!~ ~.. ;~~~~,diJ !!-._...
rEIiEtt'''.
1:1.~:,o"r cc:
l:r.l:',.J'~ a "I
I:f)"~;el vat inn ;:sntl
I\e l IIICI'I\ J
IICIIA StulltliH,t!) foc OwnCCG and
(11'1!ralon> (If IIiJ7.iJrdouo
"1,,:; l c 1'1 I!" t.mcn t, :; t ,u'iJ9C ,
OIn.1 ni!;l'n:;ilJ FacilitloR '
Tilhlc 3 (riltjc 1 of 0'
CI'tWI.Il\tICE UITIt "I'rr.H~""I,E on IU:LEV"NT I\NO I\rrnOrlIlI\TI,
LM15, REGIJI.I\TION5, rOl.1CIES, I\tm STl\tlOl\nnfi
t'OR TilE I\nnOWIIEl\n REFINERY "1.TEIINI\TIVf.5
~~!r_c:~~~!Ju I at .I.~~
I\ppllcnhility or Relevance
----~~~~~pe!~£!!~~~~~----
ncnl\ Suht.ltle C,
40 ct'n 260
ncnA rr.C)ulaten the generation,
trnnopoct, Dtoragc, trentment.,
nnl' dlol'onal of hDznrclou,;
",aoto. CF.ItCI.I\ specifically
requireD tin section I04(c'
()J (n)) that hnzardoun Dub-
DtanceD C)eneratcd from
ccmedinl Dctlone be dlnponed '
of at fncllltlcD In .
compl1nnc:e w~th Suhtlt.l,~ C of
nCRA.
nCRI\ Section )OO~,
~~ crn 264 nnd 265
ne9uJntea the conotructlon,
deDl9n. monitoring, operation,
Dnd cloDuro of hazordouD waste
facilities. Subparts" and 0
npcclfi technical requlrcmentD
for lnndfilis and Inelnera-
toro, renpectlvcly~
."-.
Alternative Affectcd
-.----------.- -- - ._-
AI tcrnatlvcu 2 throll'Jh I).
U.S. F.I'1\ l,olJcy IndicatcG
that the cKcavntlun and
removal of contaminated
sludqe or Goil from a
CEnCI~ nlte In conGider~d
an oction that qeneralr.o
hn~nrdouo wnnte. Ex-
cavatcd sJ"dqc nnd Goil lo
~c ohipped offnl~c,
therefore, munt. he m""""Jed
AD hnzardous waGt.e.
If the Incinerator resl-
duco genernted under
Alternatlvcs 4, 5, and
6 arc detcrmined to he
nonhnzardous wnst~s, they
would be landflJJed
onslte, Otherwinc lhe
rCGlduCD would be Ghipped
to a RCRA-npproved
lund(llI (or dinp0!;iJl.
The npeclfled denltjll of
the nol I cnp for lhe
contaln,ncnt of CfJn-
tn~inntcd Goil under Aller-
natlveo 2 and 4 \lIIlIld not
fully ntlain ll,c n~"A
cloutlee rl:II\l1 reml:nlli for
manatjcment. of di!;l'u!;iJl (If
ha7.ardoull wanle, lJut lht!
nc l Ion wou I ,I 1"'oV i dl! ,; 1'1-
nlflcant protcct.ion to
public hcallh nn.1 \Jclf.,rc
nn.1 lhe t!nvlt'OlUncIIl ,'II.
c;l'ct: if 1,:,1 "IHlc r II t;..I"',1I1 Y
IV nilernillive
-------
1.;1\-1, Ih!'JIII"liun,
.-... !,~.I!!:YL ~~_~!!!!"In[d_-
I nler if" IICIII\/Ct:IICI,1\ Guidance
0" tlon-CollliIJUOU!1 Sites nnd
o.w it.: H;II"ulemcnl 01 .',ulle
a IIlI 'r r c it ll~11 Ih~,d duo
~ai\,..Ii\rcb "I'I'11I:ohlo to
,. r a" :.'IUH.l\: '":; 0 f lIi\zn [,Inull
1I,,:;t(~
1.\'1\ I\.Imi"i:;Ic'l~cll't:n"il
l'ff)!I,..m:;: 'I'hn lI.n:h[dotHI
\1;1:; l.: I',: nil i l 1'1 "'Jr ;""
U'I\ IlIl.:, i,n I'ul i"y fnr
l'I,'nn;"'1 /1",1 Iml'll:rnl!nl In...
"1:111"1.1, 1111:: i' I: II..::I''''':'!!!
I\l: Ii",,:.
Tohln .3 'crn')e :I of OJ
;;~~, r!:~ nCl)tll n t I ~I!
". S. EPA roUcy
St.atemont
March 27, 1986
pcnA Section J003,
40 CFn 262 nnd 26],
49 CYR 170 to 119
ncnn 9r.ctlon J005,
40 erR 210, 124
50 f'n 4S9JJ
rlovcrnber ~, 1'05
I\ppllcnhility or Relev"nce
~nd I\~£.~rlntencoo
If n treatment or Dtoroge unit
10 to be conotrllcted for on-
oltn remedial nctton, there
ohould be clear Intent to
diomillitle, remove, or clooe
tho unit after the CEnCI.1\
nction 10 compJeted.
tnt.nhllnheD the reDponnlbll-
It.y of offnlto tranoportcro
of hazardouo waote In the
hondlln9, trnnnportatlon, and
rnannycmcnt of' tho waote. Re-
qulreo n manlfeRt, record-
I:ceplntJ, anel I_edlate octlon
In the event of a dlnc~nrge
of hazar.clouD wOllte.
Covero the bnnlc permitting,
npplicntion, monltorln1, ond
rcportlntJ rcqulrementll (Or
offoite hnzardou~ waGte
m~nnqement.fncilltieo.
Ulocunor.1I tI,e nce.1 to I:on-
oider tre~tmcnt, rccycJin~,
~nd [r.llile beforc offllile land
tllnl'0Ili11 10 uoetl. rr"hlhl to
U!!c of a nCIII\ hcll1ty for
oltolto mannIJcmcnt of :;ul'er-
Imul hnznrc10lin nuhllt.nlll:I!" If
11: hoo' olynlfSt;ollt nl:lIl\
v 1o J n t Inn n. ,
~~;
.:..
Alternative Affectrd
------.-----------
,.
"
.,
"
~ '
~<
~'"
Alternntlveo'4 throuqh 6.
The anolte Incinerator
will be dismantled, and
Incineration faclJltles
wllJ be removed for
Clt1SUre followillg
procer.olntJ of ArrowheiHI
Refinery ~note. This FS
oooumeo that the techni~al
rellulrcmento of ncnA will
be met.
..
H
:....
"
;~,
~:
~~
~
F
"
0.;:..
L'7
V
Alternntlveo 2, J. and 5.
TheDe altern~tlve9rni\Y
Involve lran0l'0rl of
contaminated oll,d'Je, Goil
and oedlment to nCRA/T5CA
diopoool focllltlc5.
,
_.
"!'
E
Alternatives 2, J, and 5.
cr.nc:t,1\ rcqn I Ire 9 l h;, l
contom Inn ted Dull!! t iU..:C!l
ColucltJc and contDminitl~d
110111 to bc t1 ilq'()!lcd 0 f
o((slte, be tokcn tu
perml ttcd Dnd In:lp.:ct.c.1
hozardouD W~!ltr. mana'll:rnrnl
facllHleG In campi i."..:c
with RenA.
S'
"
~.
}~
,.
:::
b
t~
~
f.
(
~"<
;-'.
~~
i'.
j\Jternatlvcn 2 ''''''''''1'' (,.
n.!qulrementn (or 1;.:lt:".ln'J
utfnlte sloraqe, treal-
ment, or Iliol'Ofoitl
foelllticD Dl'ply III
Alternatives 2, J. and 5.
Alturnnllve!l t, 5, it"d ~
c: IIn ,: 1.1.. I' CIII!; I ll: I I.." "'" I
lrcilt.m.:nt. (i,u:I"t~liJtinnl
flf 1:lIn';,ndn;ll.:.1 1;1111 .1n,1
,: lu.I',I:, Il1ll "' I "II': ,I i~.
,UHlt'. ut rIH:I.I"'.!i ..t ..
IIelll\ r ".: I'll Y' m.,y I..:
1 ':'1,,1,.""
,.
:',
.'
-------
1,.1\/. Itcqu I i'I t ion. .
__!:~'}l.~:.Y l~r :a~_1-
II.Hi1tdo":i and :;01 id \footc
1\,:wlI.lml!I\tn of 1904
(I'"~ amcndmcnto to nenA)
To:c ic :;uh:Jt iJlu:"n Control I\Gt
('I'!;r. j\ I
:...,., .'tn"", ", l'rn';I!\'un~!J nn
t" "".1 I' ".. II fti"''''If!ln.!nt. "'",
",,' 1,..,,1 l'If" 1'1" 11111
Table ~
,
~ce of neg~latio!'..
PL 90-616. Federal Low
1113101. 40 CnF 264
, '
40 CFn ,rart 161
1\I'I14:n.l I IC 1\ to 4 n c.... ("
t:Jlf!f;II"ly~ OrllC!r 11900.
;",,1 11990
Cl'atjc ) of 0).
I\pplicahility or Rclevance
_~d l\~pdnteneGo
Tho currently applied form of
the ...nnll Plnpoonl nan"
Coffectlve May 0, 1905)
prohlhlto tho direct
placement of any bulk or
noncontnlnerhed Uqulll
hnzardoue waoto In landfills.
ThcDC r"lco will 0100
rcotrlct tho landfll1in9 of
moot nCnl\-llDtcd waotco by
1991 unlC'!oD tho U.S. Erl\
premul9ntoo appllcablr. ,
treatmqnt etandards for theoe
"aotfle '.0 erR 264.314).
. I\ppUea to tho dlopooal"of
liquid waoto contsinlnq rcn
concentrations at or 9rcater
thnn 50 I'pla amI pcn' 0 that
havo mi9rated froM tho or191-
nol nn"r~c of contamlnntlon.
ren concentratlono 9rcater
than 500 I'pm ,,\Uot be Incln-
orated In an Incinerator
that comlJlleo with 40 ct'n
161.10. rco's leoo than
500 ppm and 9roatr.r th~n
50 pr- may he disposed of In
n landfill that com,.lien with
40 Ct'" 161 .1S.
nC'11I1 rno federa 1 DCJone len to
avoid whorevor pooolhl0 ad-
versc! 1 y ft r (net "'9 f Il1ml
I.lnlno or wctlnlUlp ",,,I '0
,~vnl"fttn 1".tc'lItlal cfh,,:t,1I of
,,1"'JI"~11 nl:llnnn In tI\I~.;n
11'~III',ln.I"(!I' 'U'I!nll.
~lternative I\frect~~
nlternatlves 2 through 6.
If treatment ntandard~ are
not promulqated, land-
flll1n9 of .~anned" wa~te
would not be acceptahle
without Q ouccenoflll
demonntratlon that land
dlopooal 10 protective of
public hea Ith and we I fare
and the environment.
IncinerAtion of 0011 or
oludtje Caooumlnq It In to
bo manAged an thoug" It 10
a RCnA wAotet lI'Iay be the
only applicable treatment
method. The on90lnq
status of le910latlon and
technical requirements
related to the I,and
Dlopouol Dan mllot he con-
nldered du~'ln'J develoPlllcnt
Rnd Implementation of ull
remedial actlono.
...
i
"
~.
;,
"
~
"
'.
~
oaoed on available data.
pcn leyelo in tho 8111'''10
a nil 0011 arc conululcntly
le08 than I I'l'm. "here-
fore, It 10 unlikely theH
any of the allernntlveo
would be affected by TSC~
In Its prcocnt Corlll,
"
,.
,
:j
t
I
~
i
[,
!'
I\lternallvl::' "1 'hrn"'Jh 6,
rrecllutlont: wi" III! I .,kcn
lo II'IInlllll1.l: 'I..: 1"'1';11" II .."
thl! wel 111,,,111. :; 1,,1"1: ill I
DU'ernalive!l Incl,,,'e ..c-
llm'" thlll wi I I fll:.-"I' I" ,.
,,,,llll'"'' I mi""""'''' ,.1 I.."
t' ( '''' "Il "I "i' \ I V" \I i II
I ".; I II.I.! II '''~, 1.....1 ,.'", ",'" .
-------
, '.
"'''', IIc10110 "ould Dl'l'ly lo an
on::altc thcrmal tre;ltm~nt
hc111 tV.
1\1 tel"nntlvcII I thnnl'Jh 6"
Pcolelcntlal wcllu ,"'...,' tht!
Arrowhead nefillery ullc
"ou I cJ be t e:; tcd I'c I" 1 ucJ I -
cDlly to CIIGII,'e lhill tl\t!se
ell.lnklng ,,;,tel" SU\I"CCI.i
contlnuc to rnr.r.l ;)l'l'li-
cahle otancJarcJu.
1\1ternutlvcII 2 thrallqh 6
nre dell Itjllt'c) to 1'1 t/lcc:t
olll"t 1 nCJ drt IIld "'J \/,1' (! r
oOllrcco fro,n c;uIIlilndll"lloll"
Al lcrnllllv(!!1 I thro,",h 6.
The functlcmal Ctl"jvalcnt
of n "Erl\ review Is
cat"rled nut III II,~;. t:I'I\'!J
rCCjlllatot y nr.U v it II!!; (or
-------
"..II. nl!9ul.\t Ion.
-- _."~!I--i'~Y,,_!.J~dard
IIIt."J'Jovernmr.ntal Rnvlew of
f'I!(-"'J,,1 :'rolJJill8
1I;lt il)n,ll ."(Jlllllant UluchDrl'o
U illlilli)th'n syntcm IIII'ot:S)'
"('I mil
I'.. e l ((1;1 t 1II.llIl .'I'!'Ju I nt. i on:1
, nJ t:n till ""J IInd lIew
:;UUJ';C'; of l'ulJutJ"n
To~ic pollutant Efflucnt
f, uutlla J II!J
tI:i t:"1\ c;rullnllwat(lr rrotcet,lon
:;l....ll:'JY
Tnble 3
. I
~~ of RC911\a~ion
Executive Order 12J12
And 40 erR 29. (Re-
placeD ntnte and nrea-
wido coordination pro-
CCGG required by 01-.'0
eirculor "-95.)
Ctf~ Section 402,
CO erR 122, 12),
125 Subchnpter "
CO CFR 40] ~ubchap-
tcr tI, FlfPe~
40 eFn ,129
".5. t:rI\ rolley
5t.ntelflent
(rage 5 of 0)
Applicability or Relevance
and A~proprlatenenn
Requiren ntate'and local coor-
dination and roview of pro-
pODed EPA-asnloted projccto.
The EPA Administrator 10 re-
quired to communicate with
otato and local offlclal6 to
explain the project, consult
with other affocted federal
aqcnclr.o, and provide a com-
ment period for otnto review.
Re9ulateD the dl8charqc of
water into public surface
wa ters .
Requlateo tho quality of water
diDchnrged Into publicly,
ownoll treatment works (roTWt.
ne9uloteo tho dl8chargc'of
tho fo 110,,1I1IJ pollutants:
aldrin/dieldrin, DOT,
endrln, toxapheno, benzidine,
and rco'o.
Ident I fleD groundwatcr qual-
Ity to be achloved durln9
fC!l'IICdlal actionll basel' on t.he
aquifer characterlotlcs and
use.
~ tr.r~t iv~..!'l!~£!!--..,
I\)ternatlves I throuqh 6.
AI) -0- olternatlveo.
These alternatlvco Include
dl8charge from the onslte
water treatment facility
to the U.S. Erl\ ditch and
the Rocky Run.
1\11 -b- ollernatlve~.
Theile alternatlveD Include
tho diDchar9c of waler
fro.. the 0 Ito to t.hc
"'eGtern I.ake Sup«lrier
Sanitary Olotrlct ro'~.
I\lternatlvcs 2 through 6.
TheDe pollutantD arc not
c~pecled to be pfCGcnl In
tho dlacharlJe frum lilt!
ondlte wntcr trca',mcnt
r]ant.
I\lternatlveD 2 throll~h ,.
The rrcDcnt ex'~"t 0'
offslte 9roundwalcr
contamination rcluted to
thc I\rrowhcad nefincl'V
rIJll11Uon In "..llc!l!. 1\.'1
action altcrnntlvcG arc
clc"IIJIII:d to 1I...ll "If!
In I "I' n t I.." () f IJ HIIII"'''''' c: 1
1:lInllllflillal III". ',','"
IJl'CIIIIIClwalCI' lrt'" , II"~II\
"Vlltl',n!! ,....: Ih::: 11'""1' ,..
l.v"n'lIn'IY.1U:hlc:v" ,I ,...1
IIhle cJI'uunl'"a\c!r UIIlIf",I: ..,
'he "I, c. T'm ~:If,,,'"II'''
'In..: IC:I,,,I "I!.I ,..I ,,,','c'l'l
..10.'0 ""111111"....1'" 1:"'.'"11".
hU"'JV".. VIII'II'" ,. ."" ;,
In I n 11""'" .., J.', V" ,II Ii I..
-------
""", IIcI,lIlallon,
J',,! ! ~:Y,I -~!.._~,~~!I,I.!~~~-
(kn,I'" I j una I !in fel y a/HI
II<',11th ,'et (OS"",
:;1'11.,..:
11111.::; J~"'JiI nl i '''J the lIanln 1n'1
of lI;,z..nlllll!1 \ia!;l(~ ill
II ill"" :a,UI
5t,lt.~ Jla1:arduU!; Ua5te
~;ilc I'rnnit
:;1,.1., I','..mit 01' ',il:c:n!;,'
101 T',II':'I'''I'I, 01 11;11,;11,1"",:
II.. 1.1 .'
"1I.~..,I..
1.1'111-::. I'" nil i I
Ta',le
:;'~~I,!:~:!!_~ ~-~'::~" I ~I t ~~!~
29 erR 1910
"Inn~Dota rollu!:ion
Cnnt 1'01 1\'.Jr.ney (lWCI\)
:;01 id am) lIazar<1C1I1D
~~RtC Rulcol Hinne-
nut a nlllen, Chapter
7045, Parto .0010
I:hrou'jh .0430
Iwe" :iol id nnd lIazard.-
0\10 Haste nulcn:
Uinncl;ota nulen.
Chapter 7045. Partn
.0650 lhrou'Jh .0700
tII'C/\ :inll.1 1111,1 11:17.;'1("
,IOII~ tlill;t.~ lIu),',,:
rH IIn.:rmt.;, Rlliell.
C'h"I'I III' '/1145, ~",,:t I mill
. 05110 t hn11l~,h . Ct5 'III
n,,,1 1',,1'1.1; . 01150
lh"'l/IIlh . 09)11
ttI'('1\ W.,I,'r Oualil.y
IIlvl:dClIl "1111,,11,"
1'..1111111111 ul",'h,...,..
I '..t...r I .. ':"':""111'
3 (I'a11 ,:111''' I UI"1I'
'I'" tl.., '."".111" 111..1 In.. I..,
I\ltern.Hivc "'I,:,:t.:,1
h. . -- - ".- - . ."-
. -. -.- .. . .
1\1 tcnH1tlvcG I lhro...," Ii.
Thin appllcs to all w"lkcr~
on the o1te properly durlllg
..~cnvatlon!;, con!Jt:lut.:tinn,
nnd or~ratloll of racilitle~
Alternatlvcs I lhl'oU'lh 6.
rrov Idco ,:u 1 cn r 01' the
opcl'at Ion of a h..uardouD
~aotc facilily. Uould
apply to a)) alternntivc!;
Includllllj '.he nu act.lon
alternative.
Alternatlveo I l"[u,"}h 6.
Pertaino to the applica-
tion procedure. I'cvlcw.
~.~"cral an.' nl',:,:I.ll ':0,"11..
t 10119. and 1)f~lml '- el:c'~I'-
tion:! rc,.,onlll"} h..I7..1nJoll!i
~.,,,tc I n II i "n"!lIIl it. 1':'IjI I c-
m..:n La t 1011 () r ."11 1 c,' n,l t i V"!;
J:!"Y n~qu i 1 C 1)(' Iln i ." i "'1
IlIclmlin':l th.! no ill:tlnn
oltcrnatlve bccallr.c tll(~
Idle \/ould h."1vC to lIe
m,llntalncd ,I:; :J h,l1:.1U...tI!>
"aole oitc. Th(! tI\'('/\ h.15
II1dlcnte.1 lhat il wo".d
.lctt!l'mi nc till! ,1i'PII':l1hll-
II: V 0 f '-'If:':': I"! (1111 t!; t II
thc v,.,rlfJtlo ..It.cl'lhlt ivc!:.
J\ltcrnntiveli 2 thnllllJh fl.
"ltcl'I1ativ(.'(; '.'1011 (".11 r".
(' r f" 1 te d ":1',,::,11 tI (
h;u:llrdllllo ,: I'""J'!' !III i , ,
11!:h. III' In(:III.'[';IIIII
l'c~"IIiC mll!;t I,,' \"'1''''-
mt:III..:.1 III ..celll",..I1'" wi' h
l hc!:It! 1'f~'Jtll 0 t i 1111:: ,
1\.1 ",," ;,'I""I1",lv.,!;,
"'''I,,).,I'!II t'", ,11:1,'1,,11
fillm t!'IJ. .111111 I" .".1..,
'1","111"'" ..II~II"", ,."r.il.'
-------
'..1\/, JI'~"1I1 ill i 011 ,
!'''' i ,. Y I or..- :!,~~I,'~!~.ClI.,_-
lIilln..~;"t,. "'ilt.cr OUi11ity
!; l ilUI) i' I ,1 ~;
11 j "h'~Hf)'.' Ut'!;' ,~".\t-~('
"I""I,,~,"I'"'''' t',,,:\ 1 ity
\I':'JIII ill ifl''''
"inn,,~;f)til I\ir Ollalit:y
:it.ilhd..r .I!;
:;';0'." "<:..nll ror lIi'l(:harlr.
:.;n~I£C:':_(l.f. ,~,:']!'1.i1t ion,
?H'CI\ I';.tcr OIlI1I1ty
!ll.v in Ion ClnrH;i f I ci1tion
' nl1 :a.illldilrcln for
IntrnGtntc "at.~r:
~1t nncnotn nil I co,
C:h"I,lcr '/O~i()
"ulcn of the Watcr nnd
Uontr.wi1tcr Trcatment
()1>eri1tol' Ccrtiflcation
Council: Hlnucnoti1
"ulcn, Chnptcr 9400
"PCA Air ouality
fll'/iBlon 1\11' pollution
rontrol nlllen:
IHnne!loto "UICD,
Chapter 1005, portn
.0010 through. 0100
IWCI\ I\ir Ollnl1ty
Dlvlnlon 1\11' po)ltltion
(;ont'rol fltllen:
Hinnc!lot.., flulc:I,
Ch,'ptcr '/005, p
1:
..
.'
'.,
"
~.;
I\ll.cn..,tlv,:n 4, 5. ,1,"1 f..
JIll: Illc r a linn ...111' [I"'\: i V(':;
!I hl111111 r:omp I y wi 110 :; Ii>' "
pcr lorrna'H:e f:li>II.li)J.I:; for
ol"~r..,lion ancJ rn.,i..I:"...lOI:C
01 ....: IlIc" alln' 5 ,
..'
"
i',
1>
I\lterll..llver. 4, 5, ""'" (,.
:; 1..1:.: I,he rill: i Ii' Y ,,",,1.1
IIOt. ('Inl l rnort: lI..,.. 250 lllll::
1":" y.,..". of 1'01 I", .11,1:: ,,""
I" IInl 111,...1..., I.. .. I"'"''
..,....11'111("'" "rt.~.I, 1.~;"
n:vl,," I!; ",.llk..ly,
(~
~
f~'
r.
~>;
-------
...,,, , 1Il"J"II,llon,
I'll) icy, II!. :;t~~!.~1..1(~~_.-
:.1.,1" 1"'IIIIi l ""'1111 ...'n..,nl"
'1" .',,,1,"01..,,,, In ,,,",,.lllllll'
1111'11' "~I ,-,.
..,11:111.
\1",:lcI'n I,..ke ~;III'''rlor
SM.i lMY 'Hr.trll:l (HI.!inO)
111,1"""'1.,1 !'rctn,;,t,""nt
11«"1'1 i r «:1I1I~nt!1
1.1,..;0' 0l",[.'l j II'J !''!Imi l
Ilf I. i "ell5e hI[ Itcln'!lly
1.""..1 "1'1'["'1011 01 U:.:C
I'." Illi l
',...:.11 lI..i "Ii'''J 1";r",ll5
I jll,:I,,,I,,,, ,,1t!ctl'Ir;..I,
101 ",,,!d "'J, ...,,1 IIVAC)
(;1:..', /(,/11
(.1 :,.., " 1./ ] ,. II
Tall It! ~3 iB'Lar.!', ij (IV riD
~;"UI".:~ ~~ I, ,~I'.:~I" I ".~l'.'n
t:I'~iln AI" Ao:I:, I'AI.'I. II:
lit n I.. 11'11.1 ".n..,,1 nll..11
1'1 "un
Ind"ntrlnl rrntr~ntmcnt
Ordlnnnce, June 1'05,
\-IOGtel'n I.nko ::ul'0r i"r
~nnltary plotrlct
Zo"ln~, huil~inq or
fl~c co~e, ~r locnl
I j cenuln'} I.awn
i.o~:nl I1l1i Irlin') Code
!.')cal null,linlJ Code!:
Al'l'UeilhlJ Ity br 11t~levnl\(:"
, - _!II1I~_"l'L'~'!'I'!-'ilt~I'!:!'!~ .' ....
If It mnjur nnU,T" In In /I
nnllAI.tnlllml'IIt nn'.. r..t' th",..,
I",tlutnnt" rur "hl,:h It I" It
mnjor &OU[(:", It mUllt, COInl'Iy
\lltll rcqulrementn O!'l'lle,.I.le
In nonnt t."\1 mnrnt nu:nn.
Thl! Ont1nunec rrl'hlhJto till'
dlnehilr9" of cff'u~"t cont~ln-
In'1 toxic I'0llutnnt" In ouffl.-
elent (11I1II,tlty to Injure or
int~rferc "Ith any waotcwatcr
tre~t~e"t !,rocnon, conotltuto
II hil~nrd to hU~ilnn or anlmnln,
errata a toxic effect In the
recelvlnq watero of the oYG-
tern, or exceed tho Ilmltationn
~ct forth In applicable cate-
gorlcnl pretreatment
r.tnntlordo.
Obt.al n 100:0 I perml t or
11.:enoe I'Ipproving conntructlon
of nite fneilitlen.
J)t'monGtratlon throuqh 1'r.t!IO£'n-
tat ion of evlarnco or onnltt!
I n';l'cct inn tlJili: u!ml.,lIn I lIe-
t Inn t:n~1'1 Iml wi th the 1"<'-
(1IIIrcmcnt!J of local helllth
~nd oafety lown IInd
orrl1n~nce& .
ohta i n rmrmi tn for eon5tr1ll:-
tlon.
1\ " '!I'nat I vo Af (,,1:' 1'.1
.--. --- '. .. .' n. - --..
Altcln.lllvcn 4,5, nn.I G,
'I'h.. 1I11'ololh.,;,,1 'It,' I I"" \'
Illte, 10 1"(IO"n\ly III '"'
n'.taim.."nt on'iI. ,'h.!
itnl'a.;'" 011 t hc nit e . r. ;11 r
IIIInl1l,y nltnlnmcnt :;,..lulO
.ihuul.1 I", r.lln,;ic!nre,1 a:;
I,,'at of lhr Itnl'lcPII'nlnlinn
of 01) 0ltrrn~tlve5
illvnl v I n') I",: inl~riJ t ion.
1111 ~I..~ ol..."rnatlvc!>,
p"tn 011 contaminant
eonl:entl:Ul.ion!l In lhc
9ruunrh,atcr Inllielltc I hilt.
effluent tn the ~cw..~e
UYGtem IInder. thin itl tc:['
nallve "nllid l'OI"l'ly wi ,I.
10.;01 pn,t1:clIlmcl\l It,-
qu!.t'cm"nlG. rOT"
olflclnl" have not
III,Hcltle" ilny [,,JU(:t,,,,':r:
to IIcec«t lhe \I;t!:tt:u..lcI'
'Jiven t;ul1tllmlnnnt
eonccntrilllun!l and
dluchnl:
-------
-19-
In general, alternatives 3a, 3b, Sa, Sb, 6a, and 6b are considered
to attain applicable or relevant and appropriate federal public health
and environmental requirements.
Alternatives 2a, 2b, 4a, and 4b meet
the requirements of CERCLA in that they reduce the likelihood of present
and future health threats but they do not fully meet the requirements
of other environmental laws.
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Each alternative was evaluated using technical and environmental criteria,
and a cost estimate was prepared.
For the technical analysis, each
alternative was evaluated on performance, reliability, and implement-
ability.
For the environmental analysis, each alternative was evaluated
for compliance with applicable, or relevant and appropriate federal and
state environmental laws and regulations, protection of public health
and welfare, and effects on institutional concerns.
The detailed cost
analysis for each alternative includes estimates of operation and
maintenance (0 & M) costs, capital costs, replacement costs, and devel-
opment of present worth includes the initial construction costs and the
present worth of O&M costs and replacement costs.
A summary of the
results of the detailed analysis is presented in Table 4.
SELECTION OF REMEDY
The U.S. EPA selected a recommended alternative upon comparison of
the alternatives and consideration of site-specific remedial action
goals.
-------
" , ~, (;::' ."
. .1 ':I;':~' ':-' ~"'.- ~'!~t'~
I" t..-....t. IL"'""""", ....1
:;
:'j
.'
..
.t,
,
,i
':~
...~~
lrlo\;;;:~l l," ILie;A
:,
!
. ~
i
"", .u.u""'.
,,.'. :...,1/
, ,~
.,":
..'t'e: ,,,,,I..: :0..,
.'
~" ;
~
~
~
~1
;::~lIllI,::-,:J"',t
C,:I1,.:.IA
-
~~
'-0
t;"
..
'1-
"t:
: : ~.....: ;:.:~
P. ...:.
. " u'.:.' ~ ~ '.,
{~
;~
"l:
,.:
;,:
.'1
;~
.~
;?
~',\: ;,~':' iii:.L
loo. 'L..~i';'
.' ....1
f : ,l:: ~
~:
j. - . ..;;".1(; I':: '.L i;'j -.u. -.
(,~-. i':".~,,\
"
'.'
"
.~ 1
~~
:',
.~.
I;'
'~
. ..
:1""""
l:,',:-t. .,1
I.
,
~~i
""" t... 1.1.\~~:;i\'~:
.,:;1 I ~',:: !:,1,::; (I.)
" .'C ,:.:. .:',' [,.'.:...,....
"
'.' ':" :.:. I"
.. ...' I: L'.
.'." ...;.,'.: I,,)
:' - _II":.. - ~ . l.. ;,~, .1
: . r...': ;:.)
.' II":' II
,. . .1 '....1:., (,I
"I .. f'" " I' ..\ ..,
. ',.: ':~,'I\',;~i' .i'(,~~'.~I';r';~':':" "f. ,'c".; :.oJ::,,; \
:'" ,. >~'~::~':I\ t~,.:-::"'.~.I::~r'il! I~l~" ~.:.~tt,..:;":\.
I'I~' 'I ; . 'L J,:.',. . Ii. ~~ :'}' ';., I :' i :;'i.: 'J'(; ~'\;~ ,,~~
'&iLA'~ L~r~~Ll iw&..e~r ::r:":I:'. '~ "". ''''
.. '."
..':": ",.'"
.: .a...;:...;...
II It. '14.""
I
"0.',111"(1
::~'~~"'.II:':.:~ ~i:.~~t.':~":.Ic
IIA
IIA
IIA
.....-..-, .......-.- _.-
h.. A.,... .,1' ,: .u, ..' .,.
""",,.., ... "" ~. . ..., .C"',,
",.,'~'" <01..1, ,':.. ,...",
. ..., ". fl' . )1".:.11 ,.... ...~...
I...""", .,.1 ,':. t...."",,"'...1
(',."'., ":'1. f..,' ,.""") h.."
~'f \I :~.;;',':;.'. :,"' ;':, .!.::~ .:1 ',':~
...:.. .,...:,'~, .. \111. .. lot' ,.
t .,... ",.......,.,,;"
.,,' ':1 ",... ,.,:. .l., 1,;..
t.: .1 J'I' 'h' .....1
.,.' '." t'.-:.I I.........
,I ..11 .- ,~- I. ,.. r,~ ,.:.
t....c ..(11;:. .i,. .,..:, ..-..11.....
'1~;'~:.:iI.;';- ~::'" ~.,~t;.,~ -~:"~ -
C'. c'." .1:1 .. t. .. '.~...I, ~..I
,., ".1' .., 10 I.: .',;. .1
,..'~ .,':. ,.:. .:. u' :. "-"J .hl,.
~:~.. '.;':~:~ ,:.: 1~\ ~~..:':~~:, ".'.
,:. .:, It II' .:.1.' u"':II'!.
L...~ t. ,'''',.u:1 flr.!.J ,~'
I',J: .IJ ~ - .,.,.. "..",''''',,
. ,_.._.~_.,.. .. ...' ...- ..,..
, "'.f,":)
~~ .::U t
I::..,C"J
", It,.,'''' t. L. ...: .,
I I.. .. 1 .., '.' Ii.. ,rr~..I':. 1:.'. ..:', u.l::..: ,
,I' I I . ," . " ., . I ..' I' ~. "1 .. '. . II. . H' I.."
... ...,. .It. ;:. 1.1 ",'1.1"'1,.10.:'" I"
I.. . ~.- .:.:.. I,., I.... : :.: !..I': ,.1'. n .., , I
... . ,:: I J ... "="" ..I,'... ,. d' 1..11 "u'~,,'..Iw:
".:,(.. ,.
..
.'
", II ~tl;da':;
~A/a
_~~dl.~ t~:..')..,. !~ :i~~ ~~:~'!C.IIII~. --
~""J' "'.,...,, .. , .-,...114"
..., ..,...'. ,I fll.... "':",1 ...,.1
.".1....1 . It. .....,....,!....,.. ....
f"""""" 1-" ...",..01..... ".-..
..t" ..' ,..I." ..... ......'.. If.'"
., "..I, ..I "",,,,,1.,,," "......., ..
,. ...", "...,. '... .....
..."....., .....e ". ..".1,
...1,..11... ... .........,..,.. ""'''''.4'
...,.. I. .."...:. u-... . . ........",
..'".... . .... '..,. . .
I' .....,:" ,... .. I ,,"1','" .~ .......
'.1. I'.. .. 11,0....".., .." 'e....
,,' ',r.. "".'" ..110..', ..,. ..
'0;.....:""...1......, II L.,II'"',,,,
:',:'~: '.:. :~~::-:'":~~"~';.t.~:'.~~-
t'... t., .,~b'", '.1". ....."..~.
I."" .., ..,',1", ... ... ... '. II.....
I. ,. ,.. ." .."..u"" ..., ..
.,,,,,4.........
, ...'
l'Io...II,,'.,t... oJ.,....,1 1.1,
I:II.~ I:. 0:' "':0"""'" .., "', ..
.. .. t.~I" '.... . .'" t, '..."....' '.'.1
..', 1..11"":."".llt....,,,,
_,I U.. ..r'..J 'rl .,:.f I';"'"
0'1.14. U' .", ",.,..;.". I:'.
,"" 't to. ....' "".1 t.",,'..-...
:.~:~",.~':~ I';'''':~ ..:;:~:' ,.,". ~.:~ -
I"" .1, .'. '. .", " .,... .1 .., '......
"II . .. ~.' t.... . .. ...' " ..,...,
I., . ',......1 .1 . II ".A C"; .'" "
"'U'''!..., ...d. ... : I, '10.. ..,
t.:.,; ,..a..,,,,..'.:""",....,,
...'''''. .,. to.. ,..... . ..
~~:'~'~": " :'i .'" .:,::~' .'~:.:. ,t; u.".,' "a
I: . ~..~',. '.!..::.'I: .:';.:: ::.."":: :'.1'
",'1." ,,'.10 ,...,:,1 ..1
.;"',...' ..!'I' .<:.~. .i.'I'~""~'
n,' 1,......,\.:.. .1.. Ic.r.,'" .11:.
",""""":;",.' ':..,t I.....
., ..... t.. I..... .... "oI'.
t..1 ,; ;:.~': :~; .' .':' ,'i':.:'" h
0" I.. ,.'.. It.. "..., ....:...:...
,.!..Io.J .<& I"'''''' ..... ..'. ..I
"1. "'. ... .'..1, , .1 ...-.......:....1"
".".".,:""
---- .n,. ...-.._~- - ...... -...,--
~,"..I-";;t, I"~"': Ir 'i:' I:'!"
::~:~:'~: ::. ~~,,:':~.:,~;1~'1.1t.'" ;J-I',u:t
.....1 ~, . :, ,.... ',' ," . ,..'.' '.'
1,..1.;., :.....h. ... .:.:.~';, .1
...'.I.r.. \.,)..'. ,.;.",t.:." t.
.,! ~. ..... " ,,~.'.' ..'t,...' C".J
,"4 ..., '.\1. ," th .'1' &.1
:. ~ :f,:;:I~..~ '~~~.~'.':r ~:~. ::1 .~:.
",,,:.". ..:..'.1 ...:.1.1 I'~"". ~.
...., f":".'"
..- .--..-,
. ,--"" _n' ,---
;1.7(.1,1.; I
~::.!II; .)
$"'&::'.I.(I&}.)
':.~ I ':1. I r:...
$1Ll' ,:.;..
!. ":,,,.f,lt!.a
.. . ... - -. -...,.
II VI" 11111. '.'.."" '. 1".'1,:,.. .~ ,,,', .t:~.. .111'. '.
I...t "..h, ".HI l..1 ,.,. "'.1.1,," rll' f'''''. '1,,..1..
11'1',... " Uti 1111 IIJ. ...11 r..~ll1' "" ".. 1121
. It.' :Hh.. " "....!.:,..I,I;, I"".:t:..., .,..:'.'.
. I ,., c,b..: .,,111' -':U'l... ,:. .ct,'
II:. ...., I I",Ii. .,~.~...
o
.0.111"'''''';
.\A,O
!oao.~~. '~sl."':. b .::h~ !II,~I~~~._..,
:,a......, ......._1. .... ..,1 ..
..... ..., I, . ,....11""
,n.'._..,... (111..111 .... .l.Ir). ...
::::~~-:~~'le:.J,.';~;,~';~- t.
1/1.,.' ../..1 "....... I c... ..,~......t..
:: ~'.::.. . .~~.. ~~.: ,~th:.~,~;'.f....
....:1', ..,.,..1"," ., ,,,,,,,,:,'''''.II.J
"r. .... ... b 1.:....'.1 ... .
...., '''' .. .,., h""...".'''''''. ..
......" I.." I,,,..,,I._~
,,"..' .", ",.... ..1. h
II ,.....1 '" "iI.~.:. ....J .:,
"",&,,,,,, I... ..I. ,~.:."'I'. ..,
,U ",'1 t.... .,....,:..... .''''
,..,...,....',,2 ''','.n....I..:1..A
.....,. I'..' "v'" ..,.).: ..1, ..
"".....a" .11.. .... '~"':.' .,.. .....
..
.. . .
,..',,:', ,"':,., .11.".. ..1".
:~ ;~:.; "::':~..'i:..~~.~~
~ ...' '.# LI, ......11 I' """-,''''.
..I .'. ,.~: ... .. "'" to..." .....
~~ '::,.: ~: .~. '::~':::.:A.'1~';:::. ~'.
'':1' .t.. ..... ,',1,....
I: .:',':: :~\":.:"';: :.~.,::..I'"
t., I' ....., .' .:. .....: .~
w. .',"" .,.. ,......... ',':"" .......
"...". I. ~S'.:'II ,.11'
I'. ..... :: ..t ',.1 ,. ", .' ..: ~ I:' :.
,~., "'1""'''. .' j I.~ '.' I' '.' ...
"'c ,.,f,' ,I. ..1. ,'.... .,:-..
" ..I'"."I";,I.I!.,,,'I.".....r
..IC' ..'1.. It. ~.... ..;...
....,~ I. .... ,.. ,. '. . I', .8
J:.~ ~.: . L " r'~~~:;' :. ':..,... too
u.. .\1...",..
+
, .- ..U -. .-. ,_. - ..- -- ~ -.--.. - - -
~ ", ,I ' I', :"" I":': ~ t. ':\'1 .:.',.
:'f..-,:.~~ :~;:~I':t;~'i'.I;,~'~)~:J"
t.. ",.:;. ",',1 I,' ...:,;."
t:. .n"" I~I ,.1':::11" '1:11... ...&J
",~,I. "1 , I,.." .'.' -. .. .'.
~'u ..':., :., ,r.'" -;,..h ~ i ('J
:.;;:; ',,~'~;~.',~;' ~:::':.::.L:;~' ,'oJ
+
'.'...r:. . G..:)
.a,.I.U :\
~,~.t.(:i:l.n. "
,! '.1 ,"I.r.iU
fl.\II.1 .:'
1:' '..1 :.0.1...'
I
I 4A/U
~"III,I..C' hcn",""" " :.,., ":..nlll'",fll'lil
--. ~~1:,~.:.::~.:~~:~:~::f;:":~--
,,".......1... ';""..' .... ..,... ..,
~~':~r :;:..:';'';:~' o.'.~:i:;..;':.::~:
.', ''''''',11'', ..... .,..1. ",..1."
~::.~~:~~~ If?;:'~;~:~, ~:,~::~..
~'~'i::I::'~.:. :::"I~':":':~." ,::: ;~~
.111.....11." I. "IO" . ...1....111-
..... .u I''''.'''' .. .,.. .. .....
".,~,_.I...I.. """","" .."..1_'
...:.0'" ,.,.,... h ,.......,...
.. ;1."'. ,...., ,,,''' .,. ,I '"
""". ..,.11..1, I . ., ..~.I~..,-...'
.' ..,... I, .. .......:.. " ... ~, .' "" ..
".,' I.':. ",,,',01''''&' 1"'111..._.
.... .,,,...t,.'" "'''''. ,.,',.., I.". ..
... hi..,. ...... .... ....:.,'11,....
~".'~:..~;,~.I,; :;::",:l:'~I:~: :t~
I....., .'. .....'.'" ,." to..
-..-.,.. ,--".'-"
"'. ,... .,11.... ...., .... '.'1,
,,~I..~I I :.." "'........ ... . ".. ,I. 1.#
;:.''',~r''I''~: ~:~.' ,,':i'-:' ;'"':.' ,r.:"
','.1 ChI ("""'" .,,,..',,, I;~.. .'
I'll .... It.:.....,~.. U, ,.. It ",,,"-
1'",oJ..., -"" '., .f.'.
1,1 to., '.",..,:.... . '" '.c:.'~ I..
e;' .... ,.".,,,,. ~'. .1... . '".) .,;...,
='~:~,7;:=1.~~',~~~ .~~~:',~:::':..~~';:."
'c....'.,. to." -:; I""'.' ". ,. ,,,...
~ ;:'~~ I~~:"::~ .~.... ~:;1. ",~....
C" ..... . 'I ..:1 II ,"" "",9 I.....
...~... ,....,..1 f,.... I...:.. ..,.......J
..'1... .,,,'. ....,...1" ,. .oJ- u- ,..a
r"" I.... .,.1.' I: '" .... '.
II'''''''' '.1.......1 .'a. "'. ...... ......
...'.pl ..,.~. 0.,..1....., ..It.. '.1.
----' . ... . .. - ._- -. . . - --- ..
a!,........ ., .' ..'10'" ',.'. ;'" .1 "I,
0.:.., ",.....01. h' "...., J .. .:'1..'
".'''''''' .. :"..:a~I. : .-.1 Ic.... ,...
. ~... ..,. ...,. .::., .... :...11.1 IQI'
~'I,I,~..,' "C";..~'-",t:':..'iL; ~~ ~.::~~
c"J. ..... . ...'t., le.I" .",.".~,'.~. .'
.,..... I..." u:. '" c""" ,I I:;';..
~:l:,~,,~~:r;.~~~~ \~,:£::::::!,Ii;~~-
I.. '" ,,'.. ""':';' cr, ":":'0);""-
'i~...i-,i~:';'j::.::;-t:;::i.;;I~~ -
C'..'~,,' I. to. ..',b..'. lo't-'"''
. ,.' ." ,'. .'.::",>. c:~. ""..1
c.11...:1 ..,'" .,.11; .. .,1b:..~',.
~,:~~;;~'~,~.'\ -:.;' ~~'i: ;'~: :~
"''''~''';....., ,....~;. ..-...." ,e;'..
~: '..,~.::;: ..,~ "~:a'.~.:; "'~:i''''''
".;.r,- ',. If"" ,,,,,,;', \. ...~I.
II. '1II.,u" ,...,,1., ,. ...1
C ..1, ,'1....r. l.a.. '1",,;,,:1,
~r;';: ~::~',~~~'.::~~::'c:;(': :,'~'~.
... , "-'-'~_." .- 4'_"_'-
'11I.(!:I:',':::O
1.'):1.11'-'0
, ~..it:,:I.C-,J
11/.,':110. n
'1I1I.C:'.:1
'~"l..II.I;.'U
-- -.' . . --.
.--...- _. -. -p
.- I ~: 1',.' . ;\' .
'.JAr"
~.lu.I,;p I,~..hu....' " !,:.,I l,h..n"J
-. -- ~,,'.,... '......;....~.4 ,..;. '...',::':,,: --..
I. C....'....I. ... ..""".,
.'" ..,'" (..1.,. ... .' ,.. ...
".:;~.':.I:::I:'.';"t:.::':t .';:"h
". ".- ...... "II". , .1 ',1 ';'"
,.,.,., ".1... "'. ,...'. II' ,~..I..
......,.:... ",1 ",..
",.,.. ..'.. ."....., I.. '.. a...',,,
r~';:"i"'~ i:J ~'~:;''''''~';':'I~''' ..
.' ,1."",.. ."'~ I ...... Ie
"......, .., . .....,..1, ,. ...
,",'.1' ~,..... .,. ,"h' .... I." '.
t::~.::':I"::". .;'~. ,:~'..~I i :.:;'
'" .. ,:.'.11..:., .'.' ..., I' '1
.t :'~: . ~:::01~:'( :.'~::;~",I.
1.';""1 a.' '''I''''~ .. ..t. "
u:.~.' .. t, ..I'..., '''''''''j,oU' ~,
,r~ '~,,"..I." .~I
. .-- ',:...".,.: '.111... .""';1.,,';;...:,..--'-' -- '.
....,...",..... ,";..""'.""
::: ;'::: ;:: ::-:"~~: i.'.'~,:'::.:: .~~--
..:1 I. ,..,'" ,'" '<'1"
... :.",..../;: :..... '"
....,1' Lt'I",C'" ., ..:. ...1 "'..
~ r5:-":';II'."~':~'~;"'~"" ~..r..:
dl".._I.... . "."'." \' ".1.
II, .......~. '" .....' C"" ..
.11:'<1':' U .11':'. &"'11 .'~I. 5"....11
.-, ~, ." .." .. .:', .~. .:..'.1, ~)
I. .'" ..... . ...'I'~. . . ""'.'"
... .: I.' ,...., <'I . '.'111'
I'.', ,\., I.. .:,- ..", :.1' ,....'.
..", .,1.."..." ,.",,,,,,,,',''
11., ," ..'., ........., .1 "..,,"'... I;.
.,1 I"" ..:. I.' .......... ';"''''
.,,,11 '."." -;,:, t.. :3 r-".
-:':':':;.:~..~;::;~.'.':: ,~: ~~~: ..--.
I-""",,,,,''''t-;'' ._.1.....-
I~ .\.._..'t "''01.' .'1 ",.' 'I~"-
1-;1..' ".......:.".. ",1,. t.1
~. ,t ..'". ",; ...:. .... ..~......I
tt..." I...: ~. ,; r, I' ~".i".'
...",.... I.,.."..I.J t.# ....: "..I 1.:-
,....r.. ~,., ~...oI-' ...t C:'~''''';.'
.C ...',. .. ft" .:.."... '10...-'...
t. V,. """.. .... C..:,.,....
-- t..;.';.?';;;;-;;'~.i'Z;-~-;;;,,~ ;~.;;.
~~~~~:'.Ir,~~.,':.~'':' '. ;:,~~' :: ~~'tl.
,,,,'1..,.,,,...18 h .: ~;. u.
C'; .~. '..' ".,I"~, '; ~ ~ , ,.- h'
,n,.- ,.. &, a....'. I.. ~...:...
~:::~..:~~:...~:.~..: ::;:Or:.'.',a..
.._.~- .- ..---.- -''''-' .._,-
, 1'.1::..1,.':)
'Ir:- 'X:t
'J,~."::,:,, C::j
'\.'.'1,:..1' :)
,: . ',' ~;,
,,..1.'. .,. a
--'..-.. ---
',:,.'.
,.,1 I:.. "".1 '. ",:,,'~':, , ..1 I. . I ; ... . .'.f .. . . ('\I",' .1 "'.' I,,'. .,' .1...1..." .'. ..1. ..', :....' . .: , I
,:.\..,1.': .."'~" I: I~." ... '., "..'", ,.t.,,~. .'1'.',1. . It,.. '. ,I', ... I \,. -' "j, '., ..
., .". '.1 . ' ,.,.- '. . . . . II'., '.., .'." '. '. ., \ " I. .,.1 It.. . . ." .1 II ..,. ", , ,I .. . .,' I', u, .'.
: ,', .~ .. 1... -..1 f; :. L ,I '.. .. ... .,,,. ',' .. ,II. I.. I,...: . I ,t... '. ... .. . ....;. ,,' '. u.
('.1 III,' ('. .: . ... .~. ... ..'",... . . ....: '-, ".......' 'II ....';,.. .-: I "". ..;.,., '. .1 .. . ,', . ',. , ...
,. ~tI ". -.1.-. r:.'.. I. I.. ',. (. , I .,,', \off .. ~ r., . I., ,.,., I ., ". ,"II . _t' I ,'. I- ~ .',. . ",~,..~ ::..,
f,11.'0I f'.. ... ',,"" I .11.1....... .-. . :J ..., r'" .. .',. I)... ....1 ','u.,' ..t--
'.1,-....,..'.-1.. .., .1....,.. .....,. ...', ,., '. t.. II.. II.. ".1 .' &I''''''!:''
" ,
"
'"''''''
" ~, ' ',,,, ~ " ..
(.'.:..
"....1,,,,,,,11, '., I...
. . I
.....
..
, -. -.
~;""';' - .. . . ~... . ..,..
...."...... "'''''.
..,.1-'" ,I, .'. 0:..... ,.'
'....1...". I.. .,...,' ..'.', ..
"."""" I,h' ..'... ,.'
:~. \~~,";,7 :'.':. '.'.' :.: .'
-.......,., ' '..1".
.' 10""" .'. .. ''','.'
..,...'.a..t., ......... ,
- ,..:. " ,'..1' .
~:.:'.~".': ,': II: f.',' .::'.:
~;'~:,:.:;.:~...t~~~~: .~,..I:..; '~,'
... .', .....'1 ~ . ... .... 'r..,.
",1.""",,,,.;'11."11.. ...
..
I" ..,..f.':' .", ','
, .-, . ~h. .. ... " ;:. ~. .
:,-'".; :
t ::,~ ,",:. ...: ;::.'~:.
t, '.'''::'';. .'. J ~ '.;' . '. t . .
"" t;" .. ,''''..' .
"'. ,'. I,' .',11.'"
II'" .... " .' ,It..,"
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
.. 'I
--\
1
I
I
I
,
".. - ,.., ,. .'. .!" .
,.. ," ,-,,,1..' ,.,......'; .
.'. .1'. . '."'" 1""".:"
..' .1 ., ",'.' .","1 ,...
.~I .. , , ; ;1'" .' :,:':~. !.'. .
" '." ',,,,' ..
" " .,.' .. "'1' :., . . I
""t" ',,:, "'." '..
......:., '. .'" ,.'''' . I
t.... f -. " ... -' . ~ . I' . : .' .
~,. '::";":::.. ,~ I,'":~~'" I.,
~' . . . ~, "...., .-'
,'., "".
1.,.,..1.1,
... I,: .,
'1.1... .. ...~ ',' ,'. ~. :,
..
I ~. .
I
.,
.--..,. -- . ..
~ .I'!. "., : ; I.." . - .
"..' I" ., t. '~, - . . ..
". ... ".'1 h:'.'.
t I I ~;. I,;,. ,-.' .
,. .. .'. .. ~
. I C" ': .' J : ~:
'''01,.., ,I. ,,':.'
..,. ,', '11. , ...': ..
I..:. I ; II ... . ,',
I.. .. .'.Ii ::.. f.' ".'; .
..: I" ':,.. II
.:. ,..,.... p. ;';" . .'
,,' I
I
1
. I
,
..J
,.,
.
\ I. '::
,.
"
I:'
I. .
.If-
t': t. .f:"
1\' ,: 1'.',11
. ..
-------
-20-
"cost effective remedial alternative that effectively mitigates and
minimizes threats to and provides adequate protection of public health
and welfare and the environment."
The selected remedial action should
attain or exceed applicable or relevant and appropriate federal public
health and environmental requirements.
In selecting the appropriate
remedy from among the alternatives that will achieve adequate protection
of public health, welfare and the environment, the Agency must consider
cost, technology, reliability, administrative concerns, and their
relevant effects on public health, welfare, and the environment.
It is the U.S. EPA's policy to pursue onsite response actions that use
treatment, reuse, or recycling rather than land disposal to the greatest
extent practical but consistent with CERCLA requirements for a cost-.
effective remedial action.
This policy and the NCP require the U.S.
EPA to consider the long term effectiveness of treatment, reuse, and
recycling in comparing their frequently higher short-term costs to
other alternatives with long-term costs and/or continuing liabilities
such as land disposal.
Both the existing CERCLA statute and the selection framework in the
current NCP provide for the consideration of technologies which can
destroy or detoxify hazardous substances for maximum risk reduction.
The NCP defines remedial actions as "those responses to releases that
are consistent with permanent remedy" (40 CFR 3QO.68(a)), and the NCP
-------
-21-
most cost-effective response and should be encouraged" (50 FR 47929).
The use of alternative technologies that treat or destroy hazardous
wastes is further encouraged by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA), the CERCLA Policy on "Procedures for Planning and
Implementing Off-Site Response Actions" (issued May 6, 1985), and
proposals for CERCLA reauthorization currently before Congress that
give a strong preference to treatment/destruction options to provide
permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable.
Overall this
results in concern against disposal without treatment, either onsite or
offsite.
The long-term effectiveness of alternatives was evaluated in NCP terms,
that is, in assessing whether the technolgy "effectively mitigates and
minimizes threats to and provides adequate protection of public health
and welfare and the environment" (40 CFR 300.68(j)(l)).
Long-term
reliability of the remedy was analyzed in terms of the effectiveness of
each technology over time.
A desirable objective was to minimize the
long-term management or maintenance requirement at the site (i.e., to
attain a "clean closure" or "walkaway" status at deletion).
The reli-
ability/effectiveness assessment focused on a series of key factors
including the following:
u
- Long-term uncertainties of land disposal
- Persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity
of waste to bioaccumulate
- Short-term risks of treatment/waste handling
-------
-22-
- Uncertainties associated with long-term O&M
- Reduction of mobility. toxicity. and volume of
waste attainable via treatment
Land disposal or insitu containment of untreated highly mobile and
toxic waste was analyzed critically given the possibility of 10ng-
term migration and the attendant potential for long-term operation
and maintenance.
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
Alternative 1
The no action alternative is ineffective in preventing further contam-
ination and does not mitigate or minimize the existing threats to
public health and welfare and the environment.
Chapter 6. Public
Health Assessment of the RI. concludes that there is a potential for
exposure of the public to contaminants from the site at levels that may
adversely affect the public health and welfare.
Therefore. remedial
action is required to mitigate or minimize this exposure.
Thus. the no
action alternative is not appropriate and is not recommended by the
U.S. EPA.
Alternatives 2. 3. 4. 5. and 6
Sludge Response.
Alternative 2 and 3 include disposal of sludge
in an offsite RCRA landfill. whereas the sludge response action in
Alternatives 4. 5. and 6 is thermal treatment.
Disposal of sludge in a
-------
'.' '. ~ . .. ../ ".. ~;"':...:..:.
_:~'~'.:':i:'.. :'-~.. . .....,', '."';:',.,,":. ':~k:'''':'''''';:' ~". :-,,:,::,.!."~:"'~"L.'...'. - ""'=""";"~".:~"~~'';'~':-':'~:'::: .t.';"::'~::,._.".".::.. \' '..'~-...'...... ..
..'. ...'.. ...'.':., . . .. -' '-." '. .... ,
-23-
RCRA landfill is considered a technically effective means of controlling
contaminants in the sludge.
This disposal response action meets RCRA
standards and achieves CERCLA goals, and significantly improves the
potential future land use on the site.
Although the long term reliability
of this removal and disposal action as it pertains to the site is
considered good, land disposal is not considered as reliable as incin-
eration in the long-term because it does not permanently destroy contam-
inants.
Because RCRA land disposal only transfers the waste to a more controlled
environment, the U.S. EPA policy has become more restrictive on 1and-
fill ing.
As regulations become more stringent, the availability of
RCRA-approved disposal sites is expected to decrease.
Cost estimates
for the land disposal action are also sensitive to RCRA landfill avai1-
ability.
Currently, a very limited number of RCRA facilities comply
with U.S. EPA's lIoffsite policy" requirements.
Therefore few are eligible
to receive CERCLA wastes.
Incineration of the sludge has clear advantages over disposal.
The
action will destroy (not simply transfer) organic contaminants, thus
reducing the overall waste volume by 60% and mobility and toxicity
of organics to zero.
There are, however, disadvantages to incineration.
Thermal treatment is effective for destruction of organics but not of
metals.
-------
-24-
likely to be destroyed by incineration, particulate emissions (in violation
of our quality standards) as well as high metal concentrations in the ash
are possible problems that will have to be addressed.
Preliminary testing
(preburns) and compliance with technical requirements of permits (e.g., air
quality) will be required.
If the metal content results in the ash being
hazardous, additional treatment or disposal in an offsite RCRA landfill
may be necessary.
Finally, in view of these concerns, implementation time
for incineration is expected to be greater than for removal and disposal.
The U.S. EPA believes that long-term environmental reliability and cost
effectiveness are the most important factors to consider in selecting an
alternative.
Incineration is clearly more reliable than landfilling as a
permanent remedy at this site, by virtue of the permanent destruction of
organic contaminants that is achieved.
In addition, cost estimates
for disposal at a landfill are not appreciably less than incineration.
Therefore, thermal treatment is selected over land disposal as the pre-
ferred response action for sludge, eliminating Alternatives 2 and 3.
Soil Response.
In Alternative 4, contaminated soil and sediment
are contained onsite, whereas in Alternatives 5 and 6, they are disposed
of offsite and treated onsite, respectively.
Containment of soil and
sediment via capping serves only to minimize direct exposure and does
not meet RCRA closure requirements.
Leaching of contaminants from soil
will continue, and an effective groundwater collection or alternative
water supply system would be required to limit exposure via the
groundwater pathway.
Because contaminant movement is slow, the long-term reliability of
-------
... ~ . . '... .' .
.' . ~,.. . - ,":1 .. 0 . ..:i. ..0_'" -~:\~'~"O':;.':::'.:":' ~'...::' ~r.'.:!"_'~I~ '_":~;i..~';' ..:....:~~.,.".:~':'\.~o,......:...;:,",,::,,;,::,~"'). o~. ':'.~';.I;"l:.I';o ~~'..~......~ ~. .~:.:..!......"o -~, .~ ~'{I....~ . f' .,.\..';..,..:. .;--,':1 ~ '-- ':".:.. -:r'':~._'.~..... '-":' :r:E..~ ...~-... ......'
-25-
the groundwater collection system is of major concern.
Without any
soil removal, the collection system would have to operate for a period
estimated to be greater than 100 years to restore the aquifer to acceptable
concentration levels posing less than a 10-6 lifetime cancer risk.
The long-term reliability of this action is considered poor.
If soil
is removed, however, the long-term reliability of the groundwater
extraction and treatment system may be significantly improved.
With the soil removed, it will be possible to place four additional
extraction wells in the process area without dewatering layers of
contaminated soil.
This would decrease the amount of time needed to
achieve a 10-6 lifetime cancer risk groundwater cleanup goal to 25-50
years of groundwater extraction and treatment.
In view of increased
long-term reliability, the soil removal action is retained over the
soil containment action, eliminating Alternatives 2 and 4.
Because of the combination of offsite soil disposal and onsite sludge
incineration, Alternative 5 is the most costly of all alternatives.
The cost per cubic yard for thermal treatment decreases in Alternative
6 because the incinerator is already in place and has gone through
preliminary testing and startup phases.
A key assumption regarding
Alternative 6, however, is that residues from incineration could be
"
managed as nonhazardous substances.
If these residues must be landfilled
at a RCRA permitted landfill, the present worth of Alternative 6 could
increase by as much as $6 million,
-------
-26-
within 800 miles).
In that case the difference in present worth between
Alternatives 5 and 6 would be reduced.
Because an onsite action having
superior long-term reliability might be achieved at a lower cost (regard-
less of residue disposal), thermal treatment of soil is retained as the
soil response action action, eliminating Alternative 5.
Alternative 6 (combined incineration of sludge and soil) is therefore
retained as the selected sludge and soil response.
Groundwater Response.
The U.S. EPA has determined that removal of
contaminated groundwater until the aquifer is restored to 10-6 lifetime
cancer risk levels is the preferred groundwater response.
However, a
decision on the exact method for treating the contaminated groundwater
will be deferred pending further investigation of the two possible
responses.
The possible response for the extracted groundwater have been
referred to in this FS under the alternative subheadings "a" and "b" as
follows:
o
"a" - Onsite treatment and discharge
to diversion ditch.
o
"b" - Discharge to a municipal sewer for treatment
at the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
(WLSSD) sewage treatment facility.
Disposal of groundwater to a publicly owned treatment facility (POTW)
such as WLSSD is considered more reliable in the long term than onsite
treatment.
Although a POTW is typically not specifically designed
":","..".""""'" ".'
. .-.:~,:.,: ." -":: ~- . "",~'-'.: -,'. .-...." .,-'
-------
-27-
to treat a wide range of contaminants and concentrations, EPA has
recently established that activated sludge plants such as the WLSSD
POTW are capable of treating a variety of contaminants at low concen-
trations.
The high dilution factor, the established maintenance,
monitoring, and operating procedures, the potential for monitoring for
VOCs emissions at the POTW, and the practice of sludge burning all
contribute to the high reliability of POTWs as a groundwater response
action.
Environmental benefits of a discharge to WLSSD are considered to be
superior at this site because, should the onsite treatment system fail,
wetlands and receiving waters may be affected by the discharge of
untreated water.
Since both the environmental benefits and long-term
reliability of POTW disposal are considered superior, discharge of
contaminated groundwater to WLSSD is retained as the preferred response
action for groundwater at this site.
The POTW option is estimated to
cost less than onsite treatment, and is considered much less cost-
sensitive than onsite treatment.
While disposal of the contaminated groundwater to WLSSD is the preferred
action, it cannot be implemented unless a number of institutional and
technical requirements are satisfied.
The main requirement is that
WLSSD must formally accept the wastewater and meet state and federal
"
guidelines.
To date, the WLSSD officials have not indicated any reluc-
tance to accept the wastewater given the anticipated contaminant concen-
-------
o 0.. ---.-... - .-. .-. -. .-- ."~'" .., -_"_"'0'''''' '''....,--'' ---..._, '.". -" ".","..,. - ...-..' ~-".'_. '--'.0-.', "-"~".'----'..~-'---~- --'-'.'---.--- _n___,~ - ----~ ., ~ ..
-28-
Alternatives 6a and 6b will be considered during the preliminary
design of the remedial action.
Additional data and pilot testing
will be required to determine the level of water treatment needed.
The U.S. EPA will then determine which of the two water treatment
methods can or should be used.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS (See Attachment B)
U.S. EPAIS RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The conceptual configuration of U.S. EPAls recommended alternative.
Alternative 6a/6b is shown on Figure 13 and described in detail in
Chapter 5 of the FS.
The alternative consists of these elements:
Sludge/Soil/Sediment Response
o Design and construction of an incinerator proven usable for thermal
treatment of hazardous wastes.
Design. permitting. installation.
pilot testing. and startup are expected to take 3.0 to 4.5 years
(Appendix E of the FS).
o Design and construction of an interim storage structure for
incinerator feed.
The structure will be used to stockpile
incinerator feed (i.e.. sludge. soil. sediment) for incineration
during periods of inclement weather (cold weather may inhibit
(/
excavation activities).
-------
~1--.........
o
//
/>;~'
/
."..,".",".'.'."
"""'"
?':L:'~'~~~J
\ , '# ,,~.r.1:7~:~~. ,!"(:~~ft}:-r::~, I
-t. "k J'Y:t~J.;r7::7:lllf:ll~!~!: UlI/(:l}.
,10 '-...........'" "--""""""""""""""'-f'l:/?tli!fVl:ll::i:t/::A~:t?i~¥:::tl:i'-
noclt'l ',,-- .:........., >- ~tl://~:?::~l-dnMlj~W:\Y,At1f:ll:l::;~~~l?\ ' ,:
--......... ...... .~ '''''I '('l":(':I..I~J' 1" ',':J'r." .( :r,'i' ,:t:t:t,/:/.,A
nUIJ' - -'-....... -"-- ...........{{l~j(i'i'I:::?::?I?:h~~;;U://:/::i?;;;:t?fl;:rj~
"""""" -- ~ ,~!/' :'~~" :Alt{/:t::':it:;::i:;l~b'::I:/:i!:t:'t:;?l" ,
~\'.,-.......~~ ~~~~ \{;jrv:t~;~IJ; ~[QW~r~~\tj~11~~jj~ljfjij1j11mm~\~~~j~\)
~,. . ~ I',f."" 0 ---, """""'''''''''''''''''''''''''''t;.!'"''''A''
I11I .............. .;.., ,,';/:";:"""":':' ',) ,,,:::::::::::::::::::::'::::::I::a:::t::,,;t:',:
I I!I::, --....... ,"to ,,-, --......... -';.~/\. -~. -)~~~111;;!;j;1~;;mjHH~~~~;jj1ii11j;l:jm:?;/
,.lsll' '- \~"-- ~- I"l/ ....... ---. """"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~:,,,I,
"~I!I;' . -"'~", --~~~;1::~,"'" ':_jdjHnHHHmnHj2HHH~:'::'}!' .
" 'Jll1'I' \\"",.. 'ili':'\. ::ll:::::::;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;~
" ! Hillll" {~ '.'('0""[1'1 ,,)'::~~~::!i{;g.jg~m;1g;;~;~;~~~;~FSJ:g~mHiV"
~ HI ' ;I e. . ._~...:::;::::::::~, ~~:::i::::::::::::::::;';;"'---'" . "-
.....,.Jilll! .' :' OIL .' t-:=t:::::;::;;:;!:\i:j::;::::::::)~
. '<'~i!HHI~1 \.' ll, t';', -(J~~HHHED:~~~~HHHj~~~ ~ .
, J:lt{ ',:.~! :jlIHII')'~~O;'" """k...J.U\H!EHHmH~:',:' -', 0
, lot;,. hi '~>.::o! .. ,,' ~),::,.:::::::::::;::' ", .
,I..... ' fl j.t. """"'...,~-,. . /-..,.. '\.:p::::::' -- ............... . ,-J"""--
" "" " "1,1'11 ". 'II .~,..~-I.:::. ~"'\- '-J'''' At" i;;:~:. ..........'
"".'''''",..,,' . " lrlil(,'N~~~~\~\.\\\\\;~1;:~~~;lA.=$ ¥ ~'}.." --,~--, "j:;"-:
"",,,' , "1~J.-' "''''''\';\'i~;i'\'.\~....,...:n'.r-:'-'::>''_'_--'' .....dJ11 /l'iiOI'O:'::l1,~'
''''''.,..' . '-'''''':~~ '\\"\\W~:'~:~;,~n-:-11)--~- ( ';;:'l'Ir::
''»...,.~ '-" .I~\\\\\\\\.:'\\W'._..... "', I r;:n:;! :I(HI
"""'" -"""':~~,-'\\\\\', -'''''''-...:.. . I
.~." t "--".... ""'''..,.'. . """- l'
"""'......" -. ' ----'~-Jf-- '.' "---"""'-', .''''''''-'''' ..... ....-,. ,--..- ..-.--..'
'" ~. ~~,.....:::,....
" ""',:->,...: '
"..
/'.' '.~'-'~~:~1~:""',n._~~-"" ...r~_'~.''''''-':'' -_.-,-~_.._<:~..~~~....,
1\ ' "
\.,", '
I,Hi[UIl
I
. ,.. " '
I, ;
rll'lNG
r'
I
I
1
~ -- -,1
SOIL I
I Sf nG I
I I\IIEI\ ,I
L -- _:.J L
-~ --
I I
I "
II
1
- J!
, . .
fnENCti ORA INS
INCIN[n"lon
IJIIOCf;S5
1\1\1: 1\
GnOUNDWATER EXTRACTION
WELL:>
-. '0
A/IEA 0,. 5lunGE
I\Ct.\OVAL
I,/IEA 01' SOIL IIEMOVAI.
, " --- -- - ---,
rSOIL/5UJlJ(iE .
. I CDrolUlTlmmJG I
l 1\\11:1\ ' ~
-.. -..- ....~... - _4 -..
, , ,
.. ,
AlIl:A OF SEDIMEN'r
I:O,HJVAL
I" ,"
rUalltE I~'J
I\l.lUU'IIl\llVr \;;1
AIIIICI,'/III .'\1' 111.1 1111 ",' I:.
\ \
I I
i
~'~u.U'o:;~:11 0" r.' l\lfJ
i
... ,
/
I I'
~ I I :
, ,
"
"0. '.
\'
Ii,
,', I ;
, '
"
,
I .
" '
,
,
o
4
o
rc
n
. (
1-
(.)
CJ
:>
j'
VJ!\ Tu,ln!:i','j!.:;F\ J'i
rr.clI.ny".r:1:I
I\In ~nll:';'U:
4"' I' . .-' ~
... ~.- ,
I
.j
-------
-29-
ricated stell framework and walls, and a concrete floor sloped
to channel leachate to a sump.
Leachate would be pumped to the
groundwater treatment facility, or discharged into the sewer for
treatment at the POTW.
Fugitive emissions of dust and VOC's
v
would be collected and used as combustion air during incinerator
operation and would be vented to the atmosphere during incinerator
downtime.
o Removal and thermal treatment of the contaminated sludge in the
lagoon, consisting of the oily sludge, oil saturated peat, and
filter cake (4,600 yd3).
Trees in the lagoon area would be removed
and chipped.
The exact method used for handling the sludge must
be determined through pilot testing.
For cost estimating purposes,
this remedy assumes that the sludge could be excavated via mechanical
means such as a backhoe, mixed with conditioning materials such
as wood chips as necessary to produce a more easily handled material
then conveyed to the thermal treatment facility or stored for
future treatment.
o Removal and thermal treatment of soil and sediment containing
contaminant concentrations exceeding the 10-6 excess lifetime cancer
risk level and adult AlC levels (14,300 yd3 of soil and 350
yd3 of sediment). An additional layer of peat underlying
the sludge would also be removed (6,100 yd3). The 20,700 yd3
of excavated soil and sediment would be trucked to soil
conditioning equipment which would remove and/or reduce any
-------
-30-
oversized materials.
The soils or sediment would then be
conveyed directly to the thermal treatment facility or stored
for future thermal treatment.
o The resulting ash from the incineration of the contaminated
sludge, soil and sediment would be placed onsite, provided it
can be managed as non-hazardous material.
Groundwater Response
o Construction of a groundwater extraction system.
A system of
2,600 feet of French drains and 16 extraction wells would be
constructed.
The extraction well system would consist of 12
wells situated downgradient of the excavated area, and 4 wells
situated within the area from which the contaminated soil was
excavated.
The French drains would extract a total of 20 gpm,
the 4 centralized wells would pump a total of 7 gpm, and the 12
downgradient wells would pump a total of 18 gpm.
o Groundwater treatment.
The extracted groundwater would be treated
in one of two ways under Alternative 6:
a.
An onsite water treatment facility would be constructed.
The total extraction flow (45 gpm) would be treated.
An
air stripping tower would be used to remove 98 percent of
the VOC's.
Granular activated carbon filtration would
remove base/neutral compounds, and lime precipitation
would be used to reduce heavy metal concentrations.
The
treated groundwater would be discharged to the diversion
-------
-31-
ditch, and the water treatment residue (sludge) would be
disposed of at an offsite municipal landfill, assuming it
can be managed as a non-hazardous waste.
b.
The total extraction flow (45 gpm) would be discharged
directly to the municipal sewer system.
This would require
the connection of a lateral from the groundwater collection
pumphouse to the 8-inch-diameter sewer main bordering the
highway.
Based upon the estimated extracted groundwater
concentrations of vac's, PAH's and heavy metals, pretreatment
would not be required to meet standards for discharge to WLSSD.
o Construction of groundwater monitoring wells.
The cost estimate
for Alternative 6 assumes construction and quarterly sampling of
four new groundwater monitoring wells.
The location of these wells
will be determined during design.
o Extension of the existing water main westward to provide 10
residential service connections.
Private wells would no longer
be used by these residents.
DESIGN INVESTIGATIONS
According to the February, 1985 Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial
Action Guidance, "remedial action involving the onsite treatment or
disposal of contaminated wastes (i.e., groundwater, sludge lagoon and
contaminated soils) may require additional studies to supplement the
technical data available from the RIfFS activities so that the optimum
treatment or disposal methods may be determined.
Additional studies
-------
-32-
could include field work and/or bench and pilot scale studies.
The
fact that such studies will be performed should be explicitly addressed
in the Record of Decision (ROD), and if necessary, the ROD should
authorize the Region to make any necessary choice among treatment or
disposal options".
In view of this guidance, the following predesign activities are recom-
mended prior to implementation of the design and construction phases
of the remedial action responses described above:
o
Preburn on sludge and soil.
Samples of sludge and soil should
be thermally treated in a pilot-scale or full-scale unit.
of this testing would indicate the likelihood of achieving
Results
applicable standards and criteria in a full-scale system operating
onsite.
Analysis of residues would indicate the need for further
treatment necessary to manage them as nonhazardous materials.
The
major tasks anticipated in performing the preburn are listed in
Appendix I of the FS.
o Aquifer testing.
Pump tests should be conducted to better define
parameters influencing design of the extraction system, e.g.,
permeability.
The existing water table should be investigated
further by piezometric measurements.
o Water treatment bench-scale/pilot study.
Extracted groundwater
will require testing to determine its compatibility with the
onsite water treatment faci1itiy or the WLSSD pretreatment
standards.
-------
-33-
with WLSSD if the disposal option is used.
o
In response to concerns raised by the State of Minnesota,
technologies eliminated early in the FS will be evaluated in
more detail.
They include vitrification, chemical fixation,
and cementation.
Bench-scale studies will also be considered
'~
on these remedial technologies.
The U.S.
EPA agrees with the
States concerns and believes that such evaluations will result
in selection of the optimum treatment process.
o
Sludge handling bench-scale/pilot study.
The feasibility of
mechanical excavation and alternative methods of removing
sludge should be evaluated.
The need for preconditioning of
sludge ,prior to thermal treatment should also be assessed.
o Additional site investigations.
Groundwater and soil sampling
should be performed to better define the extent of contam-
ination.
If the onsite water treatment option is used,
analysis of receiving streamflow should be done to determine
the possible effects of the discharge.
o An incinerator siting investigation should be conducted to
determine whether or not special foundations will be required
to construct the incinerator onsite, and to identify any other
access impediments.
-------
~'..... 'h . -;.' ."!.. > ..', .. . ~
. "~.'.. ~ ~~ . ~'h ~:'-:...*,_.I~;;'":~ ':;' ,'. :"""... ~ "';'", I~ ',--,,',.-<:1., :"'-1.. '...'. ~~ ::_~ '. -, ~'.:,' ---.':..' ~!~, . ..:',; :', .',,:'::'~--;-:"'1, ',.,~~,.:. ;.:\.",~.. .'4.':"':' '. .,. "';:":'>';:"i',.~O;: ,":/ ,.}-"._:.-J ...4-t...i"_''-.''''''''-........;....;-;.~. :r.: ~~,"-'~''::-''''~''-'".'''''...','..~ ",-,~".';--: '..:" .....' '..,,: ....-- ',.,... .." n'... '
-34-
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance (O&M) will be required for the groundwater
extraction and treatment system for a period of 25-50 years if restoration
of the aquifer to 10-6 lifetime cancer risk levels is to be achieved.
A schedule and type of O&M activities will be specified as part of the
design phase.
Future Actions
The State of Minnesota may withhold concurrence with this remedy until
the results of the predesign investigations are known.
At this time,
u.S. EPA feels there is enough information available to determine that
removal and incineration of soil and sludge at the Arrowhead site is
necessary.
However, predesign investigations are necessary for the
purpose of assuring that incineration is the optimum treatment process,
and selecting the proper incinerator and refining the groundwater remedy
(for example, the number, location, size, and pumping frequency of the
groundwater extraction wells).
The Feasibility Study documents that
construction of a new onsite incinerator is more cost effective than
shipping to an offsite hazardous waste incinerator or using a mobile
incinerator.
However, the use of incineration or other treatment
technology is an application of a sophisticated process and will require
special engineering considerations and studies.
1he use of offsite and
mobile incineration and other treatment options will continue to be
evaluated along with on-site incineration.
-------
-35-
the option which will most efficiently treats Arrowhead waste at the
1 east cost.
In the event that information obtained during pre-design
or design activities demonstrates that the costs of the selected remedy
will exceed the estimates contained herein by more than 50%, the selected
remedy will be reviewed, and if necessary, revised.
In addition, if
C>
such activities show that a more cost-effective remedy is available
which meets the objectives contained herein, this Record of Decision
will be reviewed and revised as appropriate.
u.s. EPA will begin design and construction of the remedy upon assurance by
the State of Minnesota of its commitment of the funds necessary to meet
the statutory 10% state share of capital costs and O&M requirements.
The State of Minnesota may concur that predesign investigations should
be implemented, and based on the results of predesign activities, may
eventually concur with our recommended alternative.
Assuming that CERCLA is reauthorized and design and construction funds
are readily available, the duration for performance of the remedy at
this site could be as follows:
SCHEDULE
State Concurrence
5 quarters
Ongoing
Predesign Investigation
Construction
4 quarters
4 quarters
Remedial Design
Incinerator Demobilization
8 quarters
1 quarter
Operation
Groundwater (pumping & treating)
25-50 years
. ~. " ".' . ,. ",. . ~ "." " , .
, ~":.. ")r" . 'j', '-. .
-------
'." , -
. -,....'-... ~. "..'
-~..'.~':."~ ~"'I.;.;(...o.",....:... '.-"'~-I.")o".'..' '"L.:::'..~.~ :.~-,....t......_'':: '-'~""";.':~,'~"~;;:,,,,'.."_--,,;."r...~.L;:'-~'_....,.-~~-,-~ ..'...' .. '.....',-""'--_.'''~''
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ARROWHEAD REFINERY SITE, HERMANTOWN, MINNESOTA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gathered
information on the types and extent of contamination, evalu-
ated remedial measures, and recommended remedial actions at
the Arrowhead Refinery site. As part of this process, sev-
eral public meetings were held to explain the intent of the
project, to describe the results, and to receive comments
from the public. Public participation in Superfund projects
is required in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP). Comments received from the public
are considered in the selection of the remedial action for
the site. This document summarizes the comments received
and describes how they were incorporated into the decision-
making process.
The community relations responsiveness summary has three
sections:
o
Section 1. Overview. This section discusses the
EPA's recommended alternative to remedy potential
exposure to contaminated sludge, soil, and sedi-
ment at the Arrowhead Refinery site.
o
Section 2. Background on Community Involvement
and Concerns. This section provides a brief his-
tory of community interest and concerns raised
during remedial planning activities at the site.
,-
Section 3. Summary of Public Comments Received.
During Public Comment Period and EPA Responses.
Both oral and written comments are grouped by top-
ics. EPA responses to these comments are also
provided.
The detailed transcript of the Feasibility Study public meet-
ing and the written comments are not included in the report.
They are available for public inspection from EPA Region V
in Chicago, Illinois.
o
1.
OVERVIEW
During the public comment period; the EPA presented five
alternatives as possible remedial actions at the site and
the no action alternative. The EPA recommended a specific
alternative, consisting of excavating contaminated sludge,
soil, and sediment, and incinerating these materials onsite.
In addition, the EPA recommended extraction of contaminated
groundwater to be followed by either onsite treatment or
discharge to the sanitary sewer. This recommendation reflects
EPA's goal of selecting a cost-effective solution that effec-
tively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
-------
adequate permanent protection of public health and welfare
and the environment.
The public comments received were varied in their judgment
of the EPA's recommendation, and there was not a general
agreement regarding the extent of remediation required or
how expeditiously remedial measures should be undertaken.
Most commenters, however, supported the idea of extending
the municipal water supplies to nearby residents. Several
commenters believed the recommended alternative was exces-
sive in terms of cost, and that less expensive measures would
be adequate. Many of the residents living close to the site
expressed concern that remedial actions would not be under-
taken in the near future, because of lack of Superfund reau-
thorization and nonconcurrence by the state agency. At a
minimum, support was expressed for monitoring conditions at
the site and relaying this information to the community.
2.
BACRGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Residents and locally elected officials were notified of the
start of the Remedial Investigation (RI) by newspaper notice
and public meeting in May 1984. In October 1984, a press
conference was held onsite as drilling commenced and was
accompanied by a fact sheet distributed to the mailing list.
Media interest was very high during this early stage of the
project.
-,
Community relations during the RIfFS was a cooperative effort
with EPA funding the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
to conduct the majority of the community relations work.
OWners of private and commercial wells that were sampled
received phone calls and letters from the EPA informing them
that no site-related contamination of their wells had been
detectedo Community and media interest was at a minimum
during the RIfFS.
Announcements of a 2l-day public comment period on a recom-
mended remedy for the site went to the entire mailing list
as well as the media. Fact sheets on the RI and FS were
mailed a week later. The public meeting, scheduled for the
convenience of the state, was held toward the end of the
public comment period. Comments at the meeting by Congress-
man Oberstar's staff and the Izaak Walton League requesting
additional time were responded to by extending the comment
period to a full month. Notice of this action was by phone
calls and a memo mailed to the media and residents.
The main concerns expressed by the commenters are: health,
high cost of the remedy, timing, and lack of MPCA concur-
rence. Choice of technology and use of the site were of
2
-------
~~:,~.:'::.:~~,\,.p :.!..---';.,.:'r','~'I:;:,.. ;"', (' ,;. --,~,:.... .;";:":'.;J....:" ,'-", ,,:..;- :.j:; =... . .,.~, ; .'. .;'.' ;." '.,..,;: ,-.\ ',_i'V~ 1.'';'0;',',',.':''".' '\.:.~.' -ii ..:, .....'..':' . . --" ~~',' ..~ ..:~ .'l. --.~ '-.". ....: ,..;-..-'; ,'.-.--;'.;'. .-......,,- -..... .":''''''. -'''''''''''" ,--""'."',...... _..........'....-.- .h~,"'-- _.~..-
less importance. Nonconcurrence by the state has created
the impression that this project was not a cooperative effort.
3.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND U.S. EPA'S RESPONSES
Comments raised during the Arrowhead Refinery RIfFS public
comment period are summarized briefly below. The comments
have been divided into two categories: General Comments and
MPCA Comments.
GENERAL COMMENTS
One commenter (Mr. Zentner of the Izaak Walton League)
wanted the site capped, with a reexamination of site
conditions every 2 or 3 years. .
EPA's Response. This alternative was ruled out early in the
study because it did not effectively address the conditions
at the site or the potential for the spread of contaminants
from the site.
1.
2.
Several commenters (Representative J.L. Oberstar, Mr.
Zentner) felt that the comment period was too short to
allow a complete response to the FS by the community.
EPA's Response. The EPA follows a procedure for community
relations and public involvement that is set forth in federal
Superfund guidance. This guidance is based upon the National
Environmental Policy Act Community Relations procedures.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan
(NCP), which contains the regulations for implementing the
Superfund legislation, says n. . . response personnel should
to the extent practicable, . . . be sensitive to local commu-
nity concerns (in accordance with applicable guidance)."
(Subpart F 300.61) The guidance is contained in "Community
Relations in Superfund: A Handbook."
According to the guidance, a minimum 3-week public comment
period on the FS must precede the selection of an alterna-
tive. At the request of the citizens at the public meeting,
this period was extended to a full month to allow the public
to more effectively comment on the study.
3.
Three residents of the area (Mr. Carlson, Mr. Benson,
Mr. Hartley) expressed concerns about access at the
site. Mr. Carlson commented that there was no fence
around the diversion ditch at the north of the site,
and Mr. Benson and Mr. Hartley commented that the
entire site should be fenced.
L.;
EPA's Response. Prior to RI activities at the site, a fence
was constructed around areas of the site believed to pose a
-------
risk to human health from direct exposure. This area does
not include the diversion ditch constructed in 1980. This
ditch was intended to restrict the overland flow of surface
water from uncontaminated areas onto the site. Samples of
sediment taken from the ditch along Ugstad Road have not
indicated the presence of a risk to humans from exposure to
water or sediment in the ditch. At this time, it does not
appear necessary to construct additional access restrictions
around the ditch. EPA prefers a remedy that removes and
reduces the contamination rather than just fencing off the
site, a temporary measure.
4.
Mr. Carlson also was concerned that the incinerator
could produce emissions that would aggravate his respi-
ratory illness.
EPA's Response. Emissions from the incinerator would have
to comply with the limitations established by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as emission
standards set by the state. The incinerator would also have
to comply with the technical requirements of a state air
quality permit, which specifies the types of air monitoring
required. Wind direction and location of nearby residents
would be taken into account in selecting an appropriate loca-
tion for the incinerator on the site.
5.
One resident (Mr. Black) inquired how much of the exist-
ing sewer capacity would be used by the recommended
alternative (6b), and what adverse effects this might
have on economic and residential development in the
area.
EPA's Response. It is estimated that the discharge of
45 gallons per minute (gpm) would utilize less than 20 per-
cent of the flowing-full capacity of the 8-inch- diameter
line running east along Highway 53 from Ugstad Road. There-
fore, future development might be adversely affected, albeit
minimally.
The additional flow at the wastewater treatment facility is
less than 0.2 percent of the current flow, thus the facility
could easily accommodate the additional flow. The facility
is currently operating at less than design capacity of
43 mgd.
6.
Two commenters (Mr. Carlson, Mr. Stresow) were con-
cerned that local property values could be adversely
affected if remedial actions are not conducted at the
site. One commenter (Mr. Benson) felt that the site
had little residential or commercial-value, and believed
that more suitable land is available in the area for
any future development.
4
-------
EPA's Response. While devaluation of property values is a
concern, EPA has not been granted the authority under Super-
fund to evaluate this issue.
7.
One commenter (Mr. Black) inquired as to the reus-
ability of the pollution control equipment.
EPA's Response. The design of the pollution control equip-
ment will specifically address concerns at the site, thus
cost estimates presented in the FS assume no salvage value
for the process equipment used. The actual salvage value
will depend upon the contract procurement, the useful life
of the equipment, and the compatibility of the reused equip-
ment with the existing systems at its new location. As one
example, the cleanup contractor might utilize a portable
incinerator that may have been used at other sites and/or
could be used on subsequent projects.
8.
Four commenters (Mr. and Mrs. Stresow, Mr. Zentner,
and Mr. Benson) requested that the site have some type
of continuous monitoring to track the conditions of the
site.
EPA's Response. Monitoring alone is an ineffective and time-
consuming activity and would be needed at the site forever.
Monitoring does not meet EPA's goals under Superfund, which
call for treating, reducing, and stabilizing contamination.
, Several commenters (Mr. Black, Mr. Zentner, Mr. R.
Nelson) felt that the additional study recommended by
the MPCA, if conducted over a relatively short period,
was acceptable. .
EPA's Res~onse. EPA has agreed to undertake studies that
would ref1ne the data base during the predesign/design phase
of the project. The details of some of the issues to be
addressed are found in the responses to the MPCA comments.
9.
Almost all of the commenters support an extension of
city water to the potentially affected residences.
EPA's Response. EPA acknowledges their support for part of
the recommendation for this site.
10.
11.
One commenter (Mr. B. Nelson) expressed concerns about
the odor that would accompany disturbing the sludge if
it were removed.
EPA's Response. The possibility does exist that odors may
be caused by excavation of sludge materials. Mitigating
measures will be used during excavation to minimize odors.
EPA will inform the nearby residents of the work schedule
and when the potential for odors would most likely occur.
5
-------
During all work at the site, air will be monitored to pro-
tect workers and nearby residences.
12.
Four commenters (Mrs. Rodda, Mr. and Mrs. Stresow,
Mr. Black) were in favor of EPA proceeding with the
recommended remedy to control the source of contamina-
tion.
EPA's Response. The EPA acknowledges the support for its
recommended remedy.
13.
Many commenters expressed concern over what appeared
to be a lack of communication and cooperation between
EPA and the state agency.
EPA'S Response. 'On a yearly basis, EPA requests the states
to establish priorities for their sites for allocation of
funds that will be used for planning and subsequent inves-
tigation and study activities. Work at the Arrowhead Refin-
ery site was begun in 1984, after the MPCA chose the Arrow-
head Refinery site for investigation. At many points during
the 2-year investigation, the state was consulted and
sampling data were shared between the two agencies. The
state's concerns about EPA's recommended remedy is not based
upon the lack of coordination or involvement in the project.
MPCA COMMENTS
The comments made by the MPCA, submitted September 17, 1986,
regarding the Arrowhead Refinery FS are summarized in this
section. The basic concerns conveyed by the MPCA are that
possible remedial actions less expensive than the recom-
mended alternative were not fully explored, and that immedi-
ate action is unnecessary since current human receptors of
contamination have not been identified. Although the
absence of current human receptors. is not disputed, release
of contaminants from the site with subsequent degradation of
the environment is occurring. Moreover, uncontrolled devel-
opment at or around the site could create significant expo-
sures to persons living or working at or near the site. EPA
believes that the alternative that best mitigates and mini-
mizes threats to and provides adequate protection of public
health and welfare and the environment in a cost-effective
manner has been recommended.
The following responses are made in regard to numbered com-
ments issued by the MPCA on September 17, 1986.
1.
The MPCA states that "While the incineration option was
carried forward for sludge disposal, additional
technologies such as cementation, vitrification and
chemical fixation, were quickly dismissed due either to
.'"
6
-------
~ .i 'n'
'R"" '..1.-. . -., . ,-'-
-.. '.-. .,.'" """ .....
.~. - - ...-... . ..;: ...-:.:
".. , .' - ;.Jt. ~., .'~".. ;... -. '/. ., "~.-.., .;. ..:~... 'j ~. .-,"...,' ."'... ....:..~ I .
~,~ ...,",'",,, ..'\.~"'-:." ~ \. ...;" :....:.- ~ h.": .. .',~' ". ,. ,
.: " "'. .. '... ';". ."'~..: ~" ,.....",~"
the wide range of contaminants present in the sludge or
to site conditions."
EPA's Response. Technologies considered to have a low like-
lihood of successful application were screened out in the
early sections of the FS. This successive elimination of
potential response actions is an intrinsic part of the selec-
tion process. The screening level analysis is not intended
to be in-depth. An in-depth analysis will inordinately
increase the cost and time to complete the FS without a cor-
responding increase in information to enable EPA to further
evaluate alternatives.
Cementation of soils and addition of sorbents to sludge were
carried forward beyond initial screening for further analy-
sis. Vitrification and chemical fixation were screened out
early due to limited development/demonstration in sludges
and organic soils. A recent publication on hazardous waste
treatment technologies lists no users or availability of
this technology (EPA/600/8 - 86/017, p. 33).
Aside from the difficult task of blending cementing mater-
ials into 4,600 cubic yards of sludge from the lagoon area,
and assuming sufficient cementing materials can be added to
create a hardened cement block, the integrity of the solid-
ified mass remains suspect. Eventual decomposition of
organic materials that compose the majority of the sludge
mass will result in a less stable matrix that could crack or
more readily leach the contaminants that had been either
fixed, sorbed, or encapsulated. Thus, these technologies
were eliminated not only because of uncertainties regarding
implementation, but also because of their suspect long-term
reliability to mitigate releases of contaminants.
1.
(continued): The MPCA states that ". . . no pre-burn
has been conducted to determine if the same range of
contaminants would pose a problem to the environment,
public health, or to the incinerator itself."
4
~:f~Sh=:sb~~s~imi~;~h~~~~i~~~f~~r~~i~~R~~h:~~~:O~~ ~:~:~-it
has been applied successfully at a number of hazardous waste
sites and licensed hazardous waste management facilities. -
The success experienced to date with materials similar in
terms of chemical and. physical composition to those at the
Arrowhead Refinery site indicates that the likelihood of
successful treatment of hazardous substances from the Arrow-
head Refinery site is good.
Organic contaminants treated by the incinerator are expected
to be destroyed by the process (destruction and removal effi-
ciency> 99.99 percent). Intermediate products of combustion
that could be hazardous to the environment or public health
-------
are expected to either be destroyed in the incineration pro-
cess or controlled (by the gas and ash treatment systems) to
within limits established by state and federal regulations.
In addition, the volume of material will be significantly
reduced.
1.
(continued): The MPCA states that "In addition, know-
ing full well that heavy metals would be concentrated
in the ash rendering the ash hazardous, the recommended
alternative does not include the cost of disposal."
>
EPA's Response. The EPA does not disagree, nor did in any
way avoid the issue of possible concentration of inorganic
contaminants in incinerator residues (ash). This possibil-
ity, however, does not prescribe that they must be disposed
of offsite in a RCRA-approved landfill. It was stated in
the FS that the residues must be managed as hazardous mater-
ials until proven otherwise. Should it be determined by the
EPA that the residues must be managed as hazardous waste, it
may still be possible to treat the residues to create a non
hazardous substance. The residues generated from treating
the sludge and peat will be much smaller in volume as com-
pared to the initial volume, and should be more amenable to
any subsequent treatment and/or disposal action required.
The volume of residue from sludge (that pose the greatest
concern regarding inorganic contaminants) is estimated to be
less than 10 percent of the total residue generated (i.e.,
the total includes ash from the incineration of soil and
sludge) .
The cost of offsite disposal was addressed as a potential
cost and was considered in weighing the alternatives. Com-
pared to Alternative 5 (excavation and incineration of
sludge, and excavation and complete offsite disposal of con-
taminated soil), the cost of the recommended remedy includ-
ing the cost of offsite disposal of residues in a RCRA land-
fill would be less, and would also achieve the benefits of
destruction of organic contaminants.
2.
The MPCA states that "The option of a containment vault
for either sludqe or soil was quickly eliminated due to
the presence of both organic soil (peat) and a high
water table. .. If this could be done, a more
cost-effective alternative may exist."
EPA's Response. The option of a containment vault was
screened out early for several reasons. It was assumed that
vault construction would have to meet standards for a RCRA-
type landfill. Since below-the-water-table landfills are
not acceptable for the disposal of hazardous wastes, either
the site would have to be filled in and the vault constructed
on top of the fill, or the groundwater table would have to
be lowered. In the above groundwater table landfill option,
-------
the resulting landfill could be a mound rising 20 to 30 feet
above the surrounding ground surface to comply with RCRA
distance-to-groundwater requirements. If the groundwater
table is lowered, pumping would be required to maintain the
lowered levels indefinitely.
In either situation, the effects on the local wetlands were
believed to be adverse. The construction of the vault would
eliminate the future development of the area (i.e., a loss
of natural resources). Construction of a vault, whether
clay-lined or concrete-lined, on top of peat soils may be
unstable and subject to excessive settlement. This may
require the complete removal of the peat soil before land-
fill construction can begin.
Finally, site investigations indicate that due largely to
the presence of the humic soils (peat), the movement of con-
taminants has been, and is expected to be, relatively slow.
The peat layer has probably served as a containment layer to
a significant extent. Still, the potential for offsite
migration, over the long-term, exists. Hence, the long-term
benefits are a key consideration, and the long-term benefits
of the containment option are considered to be small, since
permitted hazardous waste landfills have been known to leak.
3.
The MPCA states that ft. . . a grout curtain was quickly
eliminated because of alleged difficulties in determin-
~ing the integrity of the barrier. . . this is an option
that may work. . .n
EPA's Response. Determining ~he integrity of any grout cur-
tain is difficult. In general, physical barriers are used
in conjunction with pumping (e.g., to reduce the pumping
required), not alone. Thus, if a grout curtain or slurry
wall were technically feasible because of site conditions,
pumping (and therefore treatment) of groundwater would be
required anyway.
Slurry walls were eliminated because of the technical diffi-
culties anticipated in trying to connect them to an imper-
meable layer of rock or clay. The surface of bedrock at the
site is suspected to be fractured and highly irregular.
4.
The MPCA states that n... the RI/FS does not show the
gradient control wells will be able to control the off-
site spread of contamination in or at the bedrock. In
addition, the recharge rates of most of the monitoring
wells onsite indicate that gradient control wells may
not be able to pump groundwater at the recommended dis-
charge rate. This suggests that aqui£er characteris-
tics...were not representative of real conditions...n
<.;
9
-------
EPA's Response. The necessity for controlling the spread of
contaminants in or at the bedrock was not suggested by the
RI data. These data indicated the likelihood of upward,
rather than downward, groundwater gradients in the area.
Contamination with unacceptable risk was not observed in the
deeper monitoring wells. Slug tests taken during the RI
produced the information used to estimate pumping rates.
Low recharge rates in some monitoring wells located in the
fill or peat initiated the consideration of French drains in
these soils. Recharge rates in monitoring wells screened in
the fill or peat are dependent upon the soil type, the screen
area, and drawdown in the well, all of which are different
for extraction ,wells screened in the outwash.
During the course of this RIfFS, it was determined that suf-
ficient information was available to determine the need for
groundwater extraction and that methods of extracting the
contaminated groundwater are available. The extraction
scheme presented is conceptual. If pump tests indicate that
extraction via pumping is not feasible, then alternative
extraction techniques, such as French drains, could be util-
ized to an extent greater than described in the FS to achieve
this goal.
5.
The MPCA s~ates that "According to the FS, removal of
fill, peat, and the upper outwash would eliminate the
need for construction of a French drain. However, the
French drain is included in the recommended alternative
"at a present worth close to $500,000."
EPA's Response. The removal of contanainated soil would elimi-
nate the need for a French drain in the excavated areas.
The French drain would still be placed in peat soil areas
having contaminated groundwater, but not contaminated soil.
This is stated in the alternative descriptions in Chapter 5.
Costs listed in Appendix G for Alternatives 3, 5, and 6
include $350,000 for construction of this drain.
6.
The MPCA states that: "...there is no logic to selec-
tively connecting only those residences along Rose Road
and along the south side of U.S. Highway 53...the RIfFS
has not shown the need to connect any residences to
city water." .
EPA's Response. The RIfFS notes that groundwater movement
appears to be in a southwesterly direction. Based upon that
indication, the residents living directly south along Ugstad
Road should not be reached by the groundwater plume. If the
residents recommended in the FS for city water service are
not connected and periodic monitoring of well water quality
is conducted (e.g., quarterly) instead, the estimated pre-
sent worth of monitoring would exceed the estimated present
worth of connections to city water.
10
-------
7.
The MPCA states that "the environmental assessment is
incomplete..." and "...it should be completed during
the RIfFS...n
EPA's Response. Although sampling of aquatic or terrestrial
life was not conducted during the RIfFS, the characteristics
of the site, concentrations of contaminants, and the poten-
tial pathways for contaminant migration have been identified
as well as the presence of dead vegetation. Environmental
assessments were considered inconsequential since endanger-
ment to humans was already identified. .
8.
The MPCA states that n...the impact of discharging to
surface water (in terms of flow and load) has not been
addressed in the draft FS.n
EPA's Response. Although impact was not assessed in terms
of flow and load, it was stated that the extracted ground-
water would be treated to an extent necessary to meet the
technical requirements of a discharge permit, which would
take flow, load, and environmental impact into account.
9.
The MPCA states that nA final...Ouality Assurance Proj-
ect Plan (OAPP) has never been approved...The entire
project should not proceed until the OAPP is finalized,
the site resampled, and the RI finalized with a thor-
ough, complete and valid data base."
EPA "8' Response. The OAPP does not approve or disapprove the
quality assurance (OA) program for routine analytical ser-
vices provided by the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP).
The CLP OA program is monitored under a separate contract
between the EPA and the CLP. Upon the review of RI data by
the EPA, recommendations are made as to how qualitative data
may be used. These qualifiers have been taken into account
in the RIfFS. Any data that were indicated unusable were
not used.
The EPA feels that while there are some inconsistencies in
the data base, the data are adequate to make a valid assess-
ment of risk and subsequent remedy selection. The FS does
recommend additional sampling to verify certain assumptions
made in the FS.
10.
The MPCA states that n...a cursory glance at the maps
clearly shows that a groundwater low exists along the
southern boundary of the site which...ts a barrier to
migration of contaminants from the site to receptors to
the south."
'-
EPA's Response. Information reported in the RI could sug-
gest the possibility that contamination of the residential
wells will not occur and that groundwater moving
-------
southwesterly will discharge into the diversion ditch run-
ning along Highway 53 rather than proceed southward under
the highway. Considerable spatial (horizontal and vertical)
and temporal (spring, summer, winter, and fall) sampling and
testing would be required to support this implication with
the degree of confidence necessary to effectively protect
public health and the environment. Even if some near sur-
face groundwater were discharging to the diversion ditch,
deeper groundwater flow paths could be conveying contami-
nants southward under the highway.
Connection of nearby residents to municipal water supplies
is considered a low-cost safeguard. The proximity of the
nearby residences to the plume (although estimated to be
more than 20 years in travel time) provides only a marginal
buffer zone (less than 500 feet') for an aquifer system that
cannot be completely understood.
'"
The MPCA states that "...Water treatment sludge has to
be treated as hazardous waste...which will raise the
cost of the recommended alternative even higher."
EPA's Response. If the sludge is determined to be too haz-
ardous to be managed onsite or disposed of in a municipal
waste landfill, the incremental costs of managing this mate-
rial as hazardous waste are expected to be less than $25,000
annually (i.e., present worth less than $240,000); insuffi-
cient to influence the basic decision to treat the ground-
water. Any increase in water treatment sludge disposal
costs would be reflected in all the alternatives.
11.
12.
The MPCA states that "...The recommended alternative
has not been shown to be cost effective. Part of the
determination of the cost effectiveness of an alterna-
tive includes addressing the impact on the state; that
is, can the state afford the required match..."
EPA's Response. Under Section 300.68 of the NCP, no mention
is made regarding assessing the availability of funds in the
state Superfund for cost sharing.
GLT576/30
------- |