United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-90/145
September 1990
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
o
~
REPORT DOCUMENTATION \" REPORT NO. I ~ 3. RecJpien1'1 Acc..lion No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-90/145
4. n.. ond !k8d" 5. Repon DII.
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/29/90
Algoma Municipal Landfill, WI
First Remedial Action - Final 6.
7. """or(l. 8. Pwfonnlng Orglnizedon Rept. No.
t. Pwfonnlng OrgllnlDdon Nome Ind Add,... 10. Projec1lTiokIWork Unil No.
II. ContrICt(C) or Grlnl(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. --orIng Orgonlu1lon Nome Ind Addr... 13. Type of Report' P.riod Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. SupplementeJy No""
I II. AblIr8C1 (Umll: 200 WOrdl)
The 13-acre Algoma Municipal Landfill site is an inactive municipal landfill in Algoma,
Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. Surrounding land use is primarily agricultural/rural
residential ~ith wetlands adjacent to the site. The site overlies an aquifer that
currently supplies water to private wells. From 1969 to 1983, the site was operated as
a municipal landfill comprised of 3 distinct landfill areas. Solvents, thinners,
lacquers, as well as municipal wastes were reportedly disposed of in the main landfill
area known as the Landfill Disposal Area (LDA). Two smaller areas, the North Disposal
Area (NDA) and the South Disposal Area (SDA) were reportedly used for the disposal of
construction debris and aSbestos-contaminated sludge. Approximately 400,000 cubic yards
of municipal wastes were disposed of at the site. In 1983, the landfill was closed and
the wastes were covered. However, over time, the cap has deteriorated due to weather
and lack of protection from freezing and thawing. Therefore, the current cover has not
been impermeable and landfill contaminants have been released into the ground water.
EPA site investigations conducted in 1984 and 1989 revealed onsite ground water
contamination caused by sources leaching from the LDA. This Record of Decision (ROD)
addresses the remediation of contaminated source and ground water. The primary
(See Attached Page)
17. Documenl Anelye18 ... De8atpIDr8
Record of Decision - Algoma Municipal Landfill, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: debris, gw, soil
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other organics, and metals (arsenic, cadmium)
b. IdInlfl8nlOpln-Endod T-
c. COSA T1 FI8IdIGroup
III. Avlilabilly SI8I8m8f1t 1 g. s.curfty CIa.. (Thla Repor1) 21. No. of pagea
None 66
20. Securlly CIa.. (!hla Page) 22. PrIce
Nnn<=>
(Sle ANSl-Z38.18)
S8e/Mltuclion. on ~..-
(FOI'IIIIIty HTlS-35)
~tofCo_ce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-90/145
Algoma Municipal Landfill, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water, soil, and debris are VOCs including
benzene; other organics; and metals including arsenic and cadmium.
The selected remedial action for this site includes capping the LDA with a soil/clay
cover and installing a gas venting system to remove off-gases; covering the SDA and NDA
with a soil cover, if further waste characterization determines these areas to be sources
of asbestos contamination; monitoring ground water onsite, offsite, and in nearby private
wells to determine the effectiveness of the landfill cap in controlling the migration of
contaminants into ground water; monitoring landfill gases; and implementing institutional
controls including deed restrictions, and site access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $1,298,000, which includes a
total O&M cost of $11,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The State has determined that contaminant migration from
the landfill to ground water must not exceed State Prevention Action Limits (PALs),
including benzene 0.067 ug/l (PAL).
-------
-.-- - . -".. - ..- ._---_.._-~
- --.. -.- - - - .. . - -
m::1ARATICIf
~ OF 1B:1s'~
sv.r~~~
site Name an:! I.Dcat.i.m:
Algara Jotmicipal IardfUl (»tIE)
Algc::.lM, Wiscx:,n;in
Statement of Basis an! ~~:
'!his decisia'\ cSooJment presents the selected I'E,,_H A 1 actia'\ for the
Algana Jotmicipal Iardfill located in Algaaa, Wiscx:nSin. '!he decisia'\ haS
been developed in acxmQan:e with the o:mprehef'Bive ~ Ib.¥.se,
a:mpensatia'\, an:! Liability Act (cm::IA), as ame.rded by the SUperf'UrI1
Amen:ments an:! ~uthorizatia\ Act (SARA), an:! in aoc.ordarOe with the
Natic:nal oil an:! Ha.zardcut $Ubs'tarO! ~ Plan (NCP). '!his decisia\
is based a'\ the Jdmini,strative Record for this site. '!he attached irdex
identifies the it.errs that cx:mprise the Jdminist,rative Record, upa1 wch the
&electia\ of the renedial actia\ is based.
'!he State of Wi.soc:nSin CXI'D1rS with the selected ready. '!he letter of
~ is attached to the Rscord of Decisia\ (HX» pac}t;age.
Ass:
.-at of the site:
Act1Jal or threatened releases of ~ subst,an:::es fraD this site,
if net ~ by ~lenent:.irg the 1:~se actia\ selected in this Je:xlrd
of Decisia'\ (R)O), may ~~ a potential threat to pJblic health, ~f~
or the erwh'-ll uent.
I)esC:r'ipt.i.a of the Selected ~:
'!he final ..-=»I!DJ 8dd,resseS protectia\ of ~ter an1 ~ to
soU cc.nta1Iinatia'\ by reducing the risks posed by the site, t:hrcU;Ih
en;ineerin) ard institutiCNl c:xntrols. '!he ra:aedy is desCribed as follows:
.
A soil/clay o;Ner in CXIIPliarre with the WisconSin ~tive Cede
NR 504.07 perfo~ standards for the Iardfill D~' Area (xu.).
Erter6ia\ of a eoil a;:Ner OIer the North Disp'-A] Area (ND') an:! Scuth
Dispo'='" Area (SIl'.) if wamsnted by further cnaracterizatia\ of the
wastes there during the ~ Design.
.
.
Installatim of aMi tic:nal grcA.11'd water B2'\i taring \Ie1ls adjacent to
an:! dc1wrgradient of the site.
Fencing the site, c:btainin:J access rights to the areas adjacent to the
-------
site, and placin:3 deed restrictia'& a'\ all fill areas.
State Q::n::urrenC8:
']he State of Wiso:nsin cxn::un; with the selected l.ewedy. '%he tetter of
~ is attacned to this ~ of Decisia'\ in Attachment. 2.
Dec1.arsti.cm:
'!he selected remedy is protective of human health and the envh.....~tt,
attains Federal and State requirements that are legally awlicable or
relevant and awrcpriate to the remedial actia'\, and is oost1ffective.
'!his remedy utilizes permanent soluticns and alternative treatJDent
technology to the JDa>l;nnft extent practicable for this site. ~,
because treatment of the principal threats of the site was not fozd to be
practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the statutoIy preference for
treatment as a principal element. Because this remedy will result in
ha.zazdcus substances rema~ CI1-Si te a1x:we heal th-based levels, a review
will be cx:n:lucted within 5 years after c:x:mneooement of remedial actia'\, to
ensure that the remedy cx:nt.irues to provide adequate protectia'\ of !umIan.
health and the emlh.....GIel1t.
~
jjr ~ ~ ,qqO.
~
Valdas V.
Regiooal
-------
I.
II.
m.
'N.
v.
VI.
VII.
VIU.
'tABlE OF cnmms
SITE ~CN AND DESCRIPTiON ...................................
SITE HISIt1RY AND ~ ACTIVITIES
... ..... ... ..............
HIGiLIGfIS OF' CIJMJNIT'i PARl'1CIPATI~
................. ...... ....
sa:>PE AND R:>!E OF '!HE ~FQ5E ACI'I~
......... ..... ... ..... .....
~ OF SITE carorrICIS
AND RI.SJ(S.............................
~ OF SrrE RI.SICS ...........................................
A. ~ OF ~ ..................................
B. ~ ASS~ ......................................
c. 'IOx:Icm ~ ......................................
D. ~ OF R.ISK Oi1\RA~ZATI~ .........................
E. ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FFASIBILIT'i SIUD'i: DESCRIPTi~ OF ~
..................
~ OF ~IS OF ~ .............................
A. ~1D ~ .......................................
B. ~ ~ ~ ...................... .........
C.
K>D~ ~
....... .......... ......................
'DiE, ~ ~ ..........................................
IX.
21
22
22
23
23
.......... 23
~ ~ONS ........................................
t'K.11fX:rICN OF HlJM1\N HrAlmi AND 'DiE, ~ ...........
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
~~ wrni ~ ....................................
cx:s'I'-'~ .......................................
UI'ILIZATIOO OF ~ SOUJI'ICIS .......................
~ R::R ~ AS A ~AL EID!Em
x.
[X)C1JMENrATIOO OF SIQaFICANl' 0iANGES
.. ... ... ......... ...........
XI.
~
.. ... ............ .... ....... ..... ........................
~aiMENIS:
1.
2.
R&SPCNSIVEmSS ~
I.EITER m:Jo1 'DiE, WI:NR TO '!HE U.S. EPA Da\1'ED SepteItber 25,
Page
1
2
4
4
5
8
8
8
9
9
.10
11
17
18
19
21
21
23
23
-------
&JoK\R'i OF ~IAL ~ ~CIf
AUD4A KmCIPAL L\N!FIIL
I.CX:AnD IN AI.CXJ9L, WISaHSIH
-------
~ OF ~IAL ~ SEI»::rIaf
AI.CDP. MmCIFAL IANrF1IL
I.
S~ r.cx:::ATIaf AND IESCUPI'Iaf
'!he Algana M..1nicipal Landfill (AMIF) is located in the center of Sectia1 32,
T25N, R25E in Kewaunee Chmty, 8l=Proximately three miles west-sc:uthwest of
the City of AlCJCl1li!, wisconsin (Figure 1). ']be site is sc:uth of wisconsin
State ~ 54 and west of Birch Drive in a predaninantly rural area. ']be
surram::lin; terrain exnsists of rollin; hills an:l is primarily used for
agricultural p.u.-pcses. Directly west and adjacent to the site is a quar:ry
that currently is c:.peratia1al. Wetlams are situated sc:uth-southeast of the
main portia1 of the site. 'Ihere is no inticatia1 that the wetlams receive
ground water fran the site.
AMU' is situated bebleen Silver creek, 3,500 feet northwest of the site, ani
'Ihreemile creek, 3,000 feet east-southeast of the site. Silver creek drains
east ani north lNaY fran the site into the Ahnapee River. 'lhreeJniJ.e creek
flaws a1ly a few mnths of the year earth ani west to Krci1ns lake, 4,500
feet south of the AMIF. '!he site sits atcp saturated and unsaturated,
unxI1SOlidated deposits of silt, san:i and gravel, and silty clay averaqin;
135 feet in depth. 'Ihis aquifer is ussi for private water SUWly ~ls in
this area to the east of the site or dcwn;ndient. 'Ihere is no designated
wisconsin Significant Habitat, agricultural lan:l, nor historic or laOOrrark
sites directly or potentially affected.
'!he p:p1latim within a three mile radius of the site is estimated at five
~ pE!q)le. '!he p:p1lation within a ae-mile radius of the site is
estimated at ooe hun3rEd and eighty peqlle, all utilizing private water
supplies. '!he distance fraD the site to the nearest residelre (private
water SlJR)ly) is 8R>rcodJnately eleven hun:1red feet. Other nearl::rj residents
are located ~tely 1/2 mile east and sc:uth of the site alm:J Birch
Drive.
'!he N'fU' cxx:upies a total of awraxiInatelY 13 acres of di~ area, seven
of ~c:h were licensed, and was c:.perated by the City of Algana as a
JDJnicipal landfill. Seven acres of this land, referenced as the Landfill
D~l Area (UY\), were lease::! by the City fran D.mman Realty, Inc., of
AlqaDa, Wiscx:nsin. AwrtWmately 400,000 cubic yards of mmicipal waste is
cx:nt:a.ined within the waste bamjaty. '1he landfill exparded CHar an
acHitia1al three acres of land durin; its period of c:.peratia'\ Wic:h is
in::lujed in the total estimated volune. Fill areas we.re identified o.rt:side
the licensed tract. '1hese fill areas are also exnsidered part of the N'fU'
-------
"' .....
MAP SOURCE FROM USGS 1-1/2 MIN
QUADRANGLES OF ALCOYA . CASCO WISCONSIN
ItEWAUNU COUNTY
, /
.
.~
I-
~
SCALE: ,. . 1000'
WIICONIIII
Iffill"
0.." D, GD8
00"
1110
"13,10
Pro, .
MAQ? A ,qqo
-------
.... ---.-
ard are desCri):ed as follows:
*
A a-e acre depreSSiCl\ ~ of the haul road an:! to the
north of the lardfUl called the North D~' ArM (ND7\).
A pit west of the lardfill called the ~ Disp-:'" ArM (ADA).
A a-e ard a half acre vallej sc;ut.1'1weSt of the landfill called the
So..Jth D~' ArM (~.
A depressiCl\ CI\ the eastem ed3e of the lardfill 1rcl\ded in the
~ill D~' Area (IDA). Figure 2 sOOws site area in detail.
.
*
.
II. ~rI!!: MT~ Nm ~ ...~
A.
site BistarY
'1be WJJ was qerated b'i the city of Algaua as a mmicipallanifill fraD
1969 until its closure in 1983. D.1r~ c:pratiCl\, the WJJ accepted wasteS
fran residential, oarmerciAl, an:! iJ'dustrial ~ which incl\ded paints
an:! solvents. Upa'\ closure, a final CDler ccnsist~ of two feet of clay-
like material was installed, an:! the wj,sccnsin ~ of Natunl
~ ~) ~ the c:)cO.Jmel1tatia\ ~. In May 1986, the WJ.E
was p~ for the inc1usiCl\ CI\ the Natia\al Priorities List baSEd a\ a
~ nn)drg systIID (!IRS) ecme of 39.99. - to the ~en of
orqanic ard ~c O'"'V'nIs in sevenl CJI""'d water IIdIitaril"q wellS.
'!he site was placed en the final NPL in July 1987. '!he »lIE ......iTs closed
an:! haS net received 81fi wastes sin:2 1981. '1be North an:! So..Jth D~'
AreaS were ~rtedlY USEd for the djV--' of cxn;truetiCl\ debris. Upa'1
di~1, theSe itars wre allegedlY CDlered with sl\d;Je c:x;.nt.ainirg
asDeStOS.
. D.1r~ the qeratiCl\ of the H'U, solvents, thiJ'1nerS an:! laoque.rs were
depOSited a\ the site ~ to historical informatia\. '1here is no
lead1ateCOllectiCl\ system at the H'IU an:! the oxrrent CDler was closed
accord.in:;J to specificatic:ns of the WisocnSin ~ of Natural ~
(WINt) in 1983. '!he CDJrd water in a
f... areas. eased en the very potQJ& envirc:x'Jne11t. ccn1;am1nonts can readily
05C"P" off-site unless a """" 1Dpo:moable CDJrd water.
'D)el"e haW net been 81fi federal or State remedial or rsaval ectia\S taken
at this .ite to date.
-------
Algoma Landfill Superfund Site
Ahnapee, Wisconsin
I'
STATE.~_~ - - -.J l
~ II
. -( \1/:
--- -- RADIO I
'\ W .--- ;;,.. OIsd, TOWER -
AREA (..oA,
I
fi
~ankit
/ I i
. '
ST. JOHNS II
CEME TARY OJ
, i
I,
, ,
,
o'
! !
ALGOMA
LANDFILL
SITE LOCATION
(LOA)
! I
Ii
, '
""'1 '
> :
, ,
-'
~I !
~I :
-
/'~, ~
\
cl:i
dl
a::
U
1% I i
-' I
CZI! :
>
0-1 ,
zi;
::I'I
o i .
u: '
If
NOT TO SCALE
1
~ WISCONSIN
~ (.WII"M~'
t
I
.- ~ C 0 U N T 'f
R 0 A 0
K
The Algoma Landfill Superfund site is a former municipalland(ill
located about three n~iles west of Algoma, Wisconsin, in unincorporated
Ahnapee Township. The site includes three (ornler disposal areas: the
Landfill Disposal Area (LDA); the J,Torth Disposal Area (i'lDA). and the
South Disposal Area (SDA).
FIGURE"
-------
B.
EnfUL,--at
'!he PreliJnina%y Asses-~J"1t, site ~ia1 reports, am the Hazard Rankirq
SyStem (HR!) scorirg package, all o:rducted in 1984, for the N'iU irxticate
that there exists actual or potential release of hazardaJs subE;taooes into
the envira'ment which may pa;e a risk to h\.uranS ard/or the envi.rcnnent.
'!he HRS soore at 39.99 was high enr:u:#1 (above the 28.5 U. S. EPA 0Jt off) 80
that the site, was incltded a1 the NFL in July 1987.
SpeCial Notice letters informin; 10 potentially respollsible parties (~)
(i.rc1u::tirq the site's ownerfq:erator, waste generators ard transporters) of
their potential cmcIA liability for the N'iU site ard offerirg them the
q:portunity to perform the ~ Investigatia1 ard Feasibility StJ,xiy
(RIfFS), were sent via certified mail a1 Sept.eIt'Cer 24,1987. 'Ihe U.S. EPA,
wmR ard 8 ~ signed a O:nsent Order, with an effective date of JaJ"I1Ja%Y
28, 1988.
'!he o:nsent order sets forth the agreement that the ~ will oorrluct an
RI~ at the N'iU urder the direct guidance of the U.S. EPA ard the wmR.
'Ihe ~ hired mr, rn=orporated to ccrduct the RI~.
Negotiatims for the Remedial Design,tRemedial Actia1 (RDjRA) with the ~
will proceed aexx>rciin3' to U. S. EPA ~ guidance ard policies. '!be
participants in the negotiatims will likely include the PRPs, am wmR.
c.
site InYestigatiat
'!be ~ InvestigatiCl'\ (RI) field wrk began in Septsti:m' 1988 an:! was
carp1eted in April 1989. '!he RI at the N'iU cxnsisted of the installatia1
of groun1 water JrCnitorirg wells at am arcund the »fU, soil/sediJnent
~lin;, surface water ~lirg, geq:nysical JrCnitoring, am a larrlfill
c:DIer evaluatia1. '!he RI Report, with an Ernargennent A,sse.sSment (FA)
inclu:ied, was catpleted CI'\ June 29, 1990. '!he RI Report, as well as the RI
W'Ork plan ard ~ity Assu,ranOe Project Plan (QM'P), are part of the
Admi.nistrative Record. '!he Ranedial Investigaticn o:rducted during 1988 an1
1989 in:lu3ed the foll~ major wrJt v 1I{JQI1Sl1ts:
"
A lard survey to verify the existing a1-Site vertical OCI1trOl,
establish a oorizatt:al Ca1trOl grid, ard set elevatioos ard locatims
for the new and exi.stin3 marl.t.orin; wells and the new surface water
staff 9898.
A ~ical survey of the lardfill to delineate the areal extent ani
to help estimate the volune of d;~ areas, provide infonnation for
locating the new marl.torin; wells, atterlpt to ideritify the location of
ocn:entrated areas of bn"ied ferrcus materials that my represent drums,
ani identify if the aooe'"'"" road is en::roac:hin:3 a1to the lardfill.
CollectiCl'\ of 15 soU am sediment sanples near the lardfUl for
memical analysis an1 Ji1YSical analYSis.
Collecticnof surface water santJles at three locatims and water staff
-------
qtIq8S at two locatioos adjacent to the site, with laboratory analysis
of the sanples.
Installatia1 of six new cbservatia1 wells ~ the lardfill.
:rn-si tu permeability tests at the new wells.
'1W rcurds of grc::um water sanplin; frcm the six new wells, and fcur of
the ~ ~ls, with ,laboratory analysis of the sanples.
'1W rcurds of sanplin3' frcm existin; potable water wells at five
private residera!s up;radient aId dcwrJ;radient of the lardfill.
Measure!reJ1t of gro.md water elevatioos at the six new wells and all of
the existin3' wells, am the surface water elevatia1.
Q)llectia1 of 11 sanples of CCNer materials a1 the lardfill and at 2
ac:Xlitia1al suspected disp::sal areas adjacent to the lardfill, and
physical tests of the sa:nples to determine the CCNer material
prc:parties .
3.
Foo~ Feasibility Study (FFS) Report
'!be FFS ~rt was sutmitted in draft form by the ~ dents to the u. s.
EPA a1 March 29, 1990. O::mtents were made by the u. S. EPA and the WtNR, and
the report was released for p.1blic ocmnent frcm July 23, 1990 1:hrc:u#1 August
22, 1990.
III. a:IMJN1'1Y RElM'ICIIS
'!be draft FFS and the PL. p:JSed Plan were available for p.1blic ocmnent fran
July 23, 1:hrc:u#1 August 22, 1990. A public meetin; was held durin; this
p.1blic ocmnent periOO, a1 August 13, 1990 to inform the local residents of
the SUperfurd process aId abo.1t the work cxnmcted urder the RI. Many of
the is-9I)E'$ raised by the oamunity involved the general health-relatEd
topics, cx:st,' and cx.noem CNer past lardfill activities. '!be u.s. EPA has
~ded to all significant oc:mnents received durin3' the p.1blic ocmnent
periOO pursuant to Secticns 113 (k) (2) (B) (i - v) and 117 of cmcIA. u. S.
EPA's re:SpaI:S'3S to said oaments are incl\.XSed in the ~lSiveness SUnmary
Widl is at:tached to this KID.
'lW informatim repositories have been established: at the Algata FUblic
Library, 406 fJ.~ Street, Algana, wisccnsin and at the Algana City Hall,
416 fJ.eea...tt Street, Algana, Wisccnsin.' Acoordin)' to Section 113 (k) (1) of
cmcIA, Widl requires that the 1dnini.strative Record be available to the
PJblic at or near the facility at issue, the 1dnini.strative Record file has
been made available to the p.1blic at the Algana Public Library.
XV. sa>PE AND K>IE OF '1HE J
-------
the c:xrrt:aminatiat and PJtential cart:aminatiat caused by the waste disposed
at the »fII. Pericxtic m:nitor~ will need to te ma.intained, as well as a
~ieM of ocndi tiers after five years.
Based at the fin::li.n;Js of the RI am m the basis of risKs identified in the
FA, am the 1tdminist.rative Fecx>rd, it was ccn::lu:ied that the NtfU' is
cx:ntri}:ut:.irg to the cart:aminatim of groom water near the site. 'therefore,
the u.s. EPA has develcpad an awroadl to renediatiat that reduces the
leac::hirg of <:a1tamiJ:wrt:s into the ~ water by the In.\ am addresSeS
possible cart:aminatiat associated with asbestos in the tm\ and 5Il'.
v.
~ OF aJmFm' srm cnmrrICH) HID srm ~
'lbe RI/FFS ~rts have adequately described the wrrent cxrditions of the
NtfU' site. Contaminants fc::urd associated with grcurd water are listed in
Table 1.
A sunmary of the ccn::lusia1S of the RI Report am the FA is as follc:ws:
Soi1l$ed;~
*
Based at the results of the soil/sediment analyses, there is no
evidence of the transport of hazartlc;AJs substanceS fran the
lan:1fill into the wetlands, swales, and valleys in the vicinity.
Pesticides were fQ.1J'rl in law oc:noentratia1S in soil/sediJtents at
the site, t:JUt based at past uses they are believed to be residuals
fran agrio.1ltural awlicatia1.
*
*
several ~c c:x:r1taminants were detected in soil/sediments at
the site. Hawever, due to limited bacKgroun1 data, it was
difficult to deteI'mine if these naturally cxx:urrirg metals are
site-related. After an eva1uatiat process by data review,
arsenic, beryllium, chranium, ~, magnesium, selenium,
silver, an1 zinc remained as cxnstituents of potential oonoem.
~ irorganic c:x:r1taminants were evaluated within the FA.
' SaDple MaxUrum Farge of
O1emit'OJlll' OJanti tatiat Limits Q)noentnticns Backaro.m:i ecn:::.
Semivo1at.ila
- Di-n-tutyl 460-9,200 8,90081 20OJ-2,600B
Ii1thalate
- Benzoic Acid 2,600-12,000 1,7001 2SOJ
Jnat9anic8
- Arsenic 3,200-3,800 52,300NS 1, 400-1, 900SttM
- Be1yllium 260-1,900 350 Not Detected
- O1raDium 3,300-19,000 30,900 5,200
-~r 1,600 31,500 5,SOOB
- MagneSium Not reported 168,000,000 84,000-1,790,000
- Selenium 260-1,000 7,400 440B
- silver 1,600-9,500 10,600 Not detected
5
-------
- Zinc
Not 1~-1;ad
339,000
20,600-37,100
All ocn:Jentratioos are in ug/1cg.
B .. Analyte was founi in associated blank as well as semple.
J - Fstimated value.
N - Spike ret::a.Jery not within exmrol limit.
w - Pcst-digestioo spike cut of exmrol limits.
S - Value tep:)rted was determined by methc:d df acHiticns.
SUrface Water
01emi.~ ,
SEmivo1at.iles
- Bis(2~ylhe.xyl)
Ptthalate
ImIganics
- OXalt
- Nickel
-5eleni~
Grc:unJwa+--
*
surface water sanplirq results inticate that there has nat been
any ~ release of haza.rdcus ~ fran the AMI.P to any
surface water body. Al thcu3h surface water sarrples had measurable
~traticns of cxn;tituents such as calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium, they are naturally cxxurrirq and are nat
believed to have been released fran the landfill. Surface water
sanples were collected sroth-so.rt:heast of the landfill in the
wetlanis area. No Federal or wi.socnsin (NR 105) Water ().1alitY
Criteria were ~ or equalled in the surface water sanples.
No Max.iJIum 0:I1taminant Levels were ~ or equalled in the
surface water scmples. '1he AMIE is located at the headwaters of a
small creek, am therefore no backgr'cu'd surface water sanples
oa1ld be taken.
Sanple
QJanti tation Limits
10
)'ay; ,.,.1111
~tions
Rarqe of
Backarom:i Cbnc.
!AT
None
30
25
1
37.2
48.7
3.1
.9
5.5
Not available
- All ocn:mtt.ratioos in ug,/L.
*
'!he MU, situated CI'1 a san:! am qravel aquifer with m:xierate
pmneability (2 x 10-4 to 3 x 10-6 anjsec), flews with a velocity
of awraximately 50 feet per year. '1he grom:1 water, which is
Class II A, JIIOVes to the east-so.rt:heast across DI..1d'1 of the
site, except in the area of the NDA, 'Mbere the flow directioo
~1"'S to be to the north. Class II A is described as grouJ'd
water that is sui table for bJman oonsunptioo and is currently used
as a source of dr~ water.
'1he results of the RI irdicate that localized releases of
*
-------
TUlE 1
CIIOnCAlS DETECTED .. ...... "TEl CI8SE"ATICII YELLS
ALOOM lA8)f III
Sl8lPie lange of
QuInt itat Ion "a.i~ leported 8ackground Concentnt Ion Included In
'r~Y Lt_1 Ie c~entrat Ions Concentrat Ions of Significance Endengennent
~h_IC81 of Detect Ion (alllL) (Ma/U- (aaJUa.b (Ma/llc Assessment htl-Ie for Eac:lualon
A. Volatile Qr98nln
Chloroethane
(ROdId 1) ]/U 5 ]J lIot ~tected T
(ROdId 2) 5/U 2 ].1 lIot ~tected
Methyl- Chlorl~
(UE/19111o) 4/" 5.2 4.5 ilIA
(ROdId 1) 11/11 5 68.1 38.1 4D II preeent In .thod blankl/c--'
(ROdId 2) U/11 1 0.88.1 D.58.1 10 I abor.tory cont.lrwnt.
1.1.0Ichloroethane
(ROdId 1) 1/U 5 2.1 lIot ~tected T
(ROdId 2) 5/U 1 D.4.1 lIot ~tected
Chiorodlfluor08ethene
(ROdId 1) DIU lIot ~tected lIot ~tected lIot ~tected by repeat _lysis.
(ROdId 2) 2/11 1.U lIot ~tected II
Acetone
(ROdId 1) 3/11 1D 168 lIot ~tected 180 II Present In .thod blanks/c--'
(ROdId 2) 2/U 2 2 lIot detected 9 labor.tory cont..lrwnt In blank
(for _lyse. of ...Ie frOM
AtOll- 51).
8enr-
(UE/19111o) 1/4 1 5.9 lIot detected
(ROdId 1) 3/U 5 2.1 lIot detected '
(ROdId 2) 6/U 1 0.7.1 D.4.1
T' (1,1-0.ybl. .thane)
(R~ 1) 1/11 11.1 lIot detected II lIot detectad by repe.t _Iysl..
(R~ 2) 0/11 lIot detected lIot detected
chi orof 0...
(R~ 1) 4/11 5 78 lIot detected 35 II preeent In .thod blank; not
(R~ 2) D/11 lIot detected lIot detected repe.ted.
All footnote. .re .t the end of thl. table.
-------
TAillE , (aIIT"O)
CIIDUCAlS DETECTED .. .... ""TEl .!EIYAfllII ~llS
AlGOM lA8flLl
S~le lIange of
Qu8ntitatlon/ MaRI~ Reported 8ackgrcx.nl Concentrat Ion Included In
fr~y ll8it8 Concentratlona Concentratlona of Signif icence End8nger8eflt lIatl_la
Ch8lical of Detection (aa/Ll (lig/l )" (aa/L) I,b (lig/LlC A ssesslllrnt for bcluelon
2. but 11lIOI'I8
(f lEI' 9&f,) '110 5.10 lIot detected
(Rcx.nI 1) 0/11 lIot detected lIot detected II 'Present In 8ethod
(lIcx.nI 2) 1/11 2 0.5J 0.10 blenks/c-"
laboratory cont..lnent.
,.'.1-tricholoroethene
(lcx.nI 1) 2/11 5 18 lIot detected ,
(1CU1d 2) 3/11 1 10 lIot detected
11 C: propenol
(1CU1d 1) 1/11 8J lIot detected II lIot detected by repeat
(1CU1d 2) 0/11 lIot detected lIot detected _lysis.
foul Xylene
(UE '9810) 1/10 15 lIot detected II Preaent only In AlOll-91
first s~tlng rcx.nl. not
con'l..-d by .&bs~t
II. s~II",.
I. s.iwlatlte Orgenlca
bis(2-ethyheRyl)phthalate
(EIE. '~) 10110 7 47 7 II C~ laboratory
(RCU1d 1) 0/11 10 lIot detected lIot detected cont_l"...t.
8utylbenlyl phthalate
(II cx.nI 1) 3/11 10 22 lIot detected ,
Ol.n.butyl phthalate
(UE. '9810) 10110 2 3.6 2.3 II
Present In b8cllgrCU1d
end .011 (cros. 8edia
tr_fer)i not con'lrwed
by II. ...lIng of grCU1d
..ter.
Dlethyl phthalate
(II cx.nI 1)
1/11
10
]J
lIot detected
,
All footnotes are at the end of thl. table.
-------
YUlE 1 (CDIT'D)
C"OUCAlS DEJECTED II QICUG IMTEI 08SEIVATImi YEllS
AlGCM UU81f III
S~le aange of
....tltatlon "alll- Reported .ackgrCK.nd Concentrat Ion Included In
frequency L 1.1 ta Concentratl- Concentratl- of Signi flcanee Endengerwoent RaU-Ia
ChMiul of petect ton (.8IU (JI!IIU8 (.a/U,b (JI!IIl )c Asses sment for bcluslon
di-n-octyl phthalate
(UE, 19810) 214 4 4 lIot detected II [C8IIOn leboratory
'conu.lnent; not repeated
in I' 1-.>11"11.
TIC: PlbutYOIIY 8ethanol
(RCK.nd 1) 2111 8J lIot detected II lIot detected by repeat
_IYIII.
TIC: Podecanolc Acid
(RCK.nd 1) 1111 12J lIot detected II lIot detected by repeat
_I}'WII.
C. lnor.-nlce
Ah..I.....
(Io.nt 1) 9/11 SSd 332 1218 II Present In b8ctgrCK.nd weill.
(RCK.nd 2) 6/11 SSd 99.J. 748
Ant llIIDny. SSd
(Ro.nt 1) 6/11 206 62.1 N Present In bectgrCK.nd wells;
(Round 2) 0/11 4 Not detected lIot detected not confll"8ed by lec and
rCK.nd.
Arlenic.
(RCK.nd 1) 2111 2 4.2S. lIot detected 24 N Present In blank flrlt
(Round 2) J/11 2 " . 8IIdI 2.2811 round; present In b8eltgro.nt
lecand round.
81r iI...
(Round 1) 6/11 3S 166818 lIot detected '
(Round 2) 1/11 JS 1S0S. lIot detected
aeryll I~.
(Round 1) 8/11 1. 988 lIot detected II lIot canf II"8ed by lecand
(Round 2) 0/11 lIot detected lIot detected rCK.nd of RI _I}'WII.
Cedlh...
(Round 1) 8/11 4 12.1 lIot detected ... II lIot conf II"8ed by lecand
(Round 2) 0/11 1 lIot detected lIot detected round of RI _I}'WIs.
footnotes Ire It the end of thll tlble.
-------
TULE 1 (CDIT'D)
CIIOUCALS DETECTED .. CiIKUD ..TEl ...IVATI.. YELLS
ALOOM Ull)f ILL
SlIIIPte llIIIge of
Qu8nt I tat 10!1' ..axlMUm leported 'ack,round Concentret ion Included In
frequency LI.iu Concentret Ions Concentrat 1- of Significance EndIInge,-.,..t latlonate
Chelliut of Detection (aalL) (lig/l )8 (liglU ,b (liglUe Assessment for hctUilon
CetcI"".
(Round 1) 11/11 141,000 69,500 467 II Present In beck8round.
(Round 2) 11/11 134,000 67,IlOO 1,465
Chraeh..
(Iound 1) 7/11 10 31.9 lIot detected 80.5 II Detected In fletd
(Round 2) 0/11 10 lIot detected lIot detected btenk _tyel.. 10 lnd round
conf I....t I on.
Cobel t.
(Round 1) 1111 30 31.3" lIot detected II Hot conft~ by .ecand
(Round 2) 0/11 30 lIot detected lIot detected round _tyel..
COAIer.
(Round 1) 11/11 31.3 24.11 40 II Pre.ent In blenk. 8nd
(Round 2) 11/11 12.1" 9.48 25.5 beck,round 8I111Pte..
Iron.
(Iound 1) 11/11 12,200 164 ,
(ROW1d 2) 10/11 25 13, 1 ODE. 73.88E.
LeJ
(ROW1d 1) 3/11 2-10 ]8. lIot detected 10 II Present In btank flr.t
(ROW1d 2) 7/11 2 3.48 lIot detected rOW1d; detected et 3 "till
In 1(...,,- cCU\ty lieU in
USGS 8rOW1d Meter dete bese
(beckground).
"egneslun.
(ROW1d 1) 11/11 92,000 36,100 II Pre.ent In beckgrOW1d
(ROW1d 2) 11/11 911,500 39,000 ]55 'IIIIPtee.
lIeng_5e.
(ROW1d 1) 11/11 ]93 111.2 ,
(ROW1d 2) 9111 5 400E 79.4(.
footnotes ere et the end of thl, table.
-------
'ULE 1 «(DIt'O)
CIOIIW.S DEtECtED II IJI(IJ8) ..."E. QlSEIYAUCli WEllS
ALGIMA tN8)f ILL
frequency
Chellllc.1 of Detection
MerCury.
('cu-d 1) 1/11
('cu-d 2) 0/11
Pot 815 II...
(.cu-d 1) 11/11
(.cu-d 2) 11/11
Sliver.
(.cu-d 1) 1/11
(.cu-d 2) "/11
SodiUli.
(.cu-d 1) 11/11
(.cu-d 2) 11/11
vened h...
('Olrd 1) 3/11
('cu-d 2) 0/11
Zinc.
(.cu-d 1) 9/11
(.cu-d 2) 11/11
Cy.nlde'
(.cu-d 1) 2/11
, '(.cu-d 2) 0/11
- Qu811fiers denote the foUowl"9:
S~le
OU8ntit.tlon
LI.lt.
(aalU
lienee of
lackgrcu-d
concentntl0n8
(aG/U"
/
M.xl- lIeported
concentr.tlons
(ag/U-
0.2-0."
0.2
1.2 lIot detected
lIot detected lIot detected
~,300 1,1601
26,100 8228
11.1 118
11.511 lIot detected
66,200E. 2,3208£
89,300£8 2,81,08£
25.788 lIot detected
lIot detected lIot detected
1.1.8 16.61
17.18.82 11.28
28.7 38.7
lIot detected lIot detected
5
5
15
15
15
10
10
J . (Ul_ted v.lue.
8 . Anelyt. .... 'CU'd In .ssocl.ted blri .s _U .5 58lllP1e.
B8 . Reported v.lue bal. Contract 1I~lred Oetectlon Lt_lt (C.DL).
II . Spike recovery not _I thin control II.lts.
w . Post-digestion spike out of control II.lts.
S . V.lue reported ...1 deter8lned by the _thod 0' additions.
b leckgrcu-d observ.tlon...11 for II' h ALOW.1"- lackgrcu-d _II for £lE/1981. 18IIiP""9
C II.,. dat. used to deter8lne concentntlons of .Ignlflcance 8S discussed In text.
d S8lllPies not _IYled for seIIIlvohtUe organics during second II' s8lllPUng rcu-d.
- "et.ls concentr.tlons represent dissolved fraction detected In filtered s.-ples.
, unfiltered semple used for cY8nlde 8nalysls.
II ALOW'2.
14Q3.50 101:RTF:ftl~oOl19.7t
concentr.tlon
of Significance
(1I1IIUc
3.5
1,1,1,5
2,260
97
119
Included In
Endenger.nt
Assessment
II
,
II
,
II
II
II
lI.tl_le
for Exclus'on
Present In 'Ield blenk.
Present In backgrcu-d well.
lot conf I nRd by second
rcu-d s8lllPln.
Detected In field blris.
-------
General
ocnsti t:uents of c:x:n:Jem have cxx:urnd fran the ID\ to the grcurd
water. Table 1 in:l\Deis a list of all grwn::! water ccntaminants
detected in ctservatia1 1118.118. Benzene, ira1, cadmium ard
manganese cx:n:entratia1S ~ the wiscxnsin NR 140 grc:un:1
water cpality enforcement standards (ESs). Benzene was in
e.xoeeOal'O! durin} a 1984 scmplin}. 'Ihe ESs ard Preventive Actia1
Limits (PAIs) for these
-------
dj~l area within the 1m, less than 1 acre in the ND.\, am
~tely 1.5 acres in the SDI\. '!he fAJIVej did net identify
arrj areas of ocnoentrated metal, indicatirq drum d i ~l areas,
within the~. '!he ~ej ~ that waste materials may De
pt es et It under the haul road alcn:) the sectiat of road ~ the
1m's OCNer material was d.i.sbJrtJed. Since part of the haul road
~ the ~, a port-iat of it ~d have to De rercuted for
arrj remedial activities.
SUn1narV of site Risks
'!be RI ~rt oc:ntains an Erdargermel1t Asstr~ (FA) whicb characterizes
the nature and magnitude of potential risks to human health and the
environnent caused by the oa1taminants identified at the WiU'. '!he FA,
utilizin; data obtained fran the RI, has identified the followin; pathways
or routes of actual or potential cart:aminatim that JraY reach the pc:p.1latian
and/or the envirc;nnent and whicb need or may need to De addressed throUgh
saDe type of remedial actiCl'\:
A.
SelectiCl'\ of In:ticator Q1emicals
'!he foll~ indicator c::bemicals were ccnsidered to De representative of
site c::xrrtaminatiCl'\ and to p::se the greatest potential health risk:
* Chloroethane qfI
* 1, l-didlloroethane qt1
* a.rt:yl}:)enzyl P'1thalate sw
* cadmium qfI
* ~ qfI
* Potassium SIll
* Barium qw
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Benzene qw
1,1,1-trid1loroethane qw
Diethyl P1thalate S'W
Xra\ qw
Sodium S'W
Arsenic s
Beryllium s
qw - grwn1 water
sw - surface water
s - soil/senimPJ!t
"
B.
Expo6i1re Assoe-.,t
'!he objective of an ~.1I'e assessment is to esti;aIate the type am
mgnitude of eIXpOSIJZ'8S to ccnsti t:uents of potential ooooem that are .
present at or migratirq fran a site. '!he foll~ exposure scenarios for
bath 0JI'1"eI'It lam use an:S future land use were eva).uated based on an
estimate of the reascraable maximally ~ individual (R€!) and the
JDa)l;1Mlly ~ individual (MEI) for future land-use scenarios:
*
R.Jman cx:nsunptiCl'\ of nearby private wells that use the shallow
aquifer. Human cxnsurrptiCl'\ inchD!s deDnal cx:rIt:act Wle bathi.n;
and inhalatiCl'\ of VOCs while showering.
Irqestioo of soil by ca<;'l~' visitors, nearl;1y gravel pit wrkerS
*
-------
ard rec:reaticnU. users suct1 as h..1nterS.
Inhalatia1 of VOC gases by casu,,' visitors ard neart:Jy gravel pit
~.
*
*
~a1 of fish and surface water fran recreatia1al users.
CeI1nal oontact Vlile swiJImirq is also inc:l\D:!d.
*
~ia1.of Q1rface water an1 sen;mP.11ts for livestock, aquatic
biota, an1 terrestrial biota.
c.
Toxicity Ass~C!lftAJ"It
'!he Toxicity Assessment explains CXI'1taminatia1 levels, risk levels ard
potential carcincgenic effects for ocrttaminants of ocncem. Risk levels
sOOw the potential for increased cancer frequen=y based a1 a lifetime
exposure (70 years) of the oart:.aminants known to cause cancer. An
acceptable risk rarge for the u. s. EPA aooordirq to the NCP is 10-4 to 10-6.
'Ihis means an increased cancer frequen::y of ooe acXlitia1al penon cut of
10,000 to 1 cut of 1,000,000 peiq)le. Risks to n:2'K2I'Cincgenic health '
hazards are based a1 a Hazard Irdex value. '!he Hazard Index value is
calo.1lated a1 the e>cpo6IJre am::unt OCIT"red to a Referera! Dosage. Referera!
~ guidelines are established by the u.s. EPA. Hazard Index values CHar
1 in:ticate there may be potential health risks associated with expo6IJre to
the chemicals evaluated.
Table 2 lists the potential carcincgenic effects for the oart:.aminants of
ocncem.
D.
Risk O1aracterizatia1
'!he risks assoCiated with each of the potential pathways us~ the
in:ticator dlemicals for the »fIE are as follows:
1. Un:Ser current site oondi. tia1S, a potential health risk was
identified for in:tividuals ~ to COi"ltaminants identified by incidental
i.n;Jestioo of surface soil by c:"C:U..' site visitors ard workers at the
adjacent gravel pit. A calo.1lated carcinogenic risk, us~ the contaminants
arsenic an1 beryllium, of 1 x 10-6 ( or ooe persa1 cut of 1,000,000) was
identified with the assurrptia1 that this in:tividual is exposed to reasonable
maxiJrum ~Jre estimates JD9='c:lJred t:hI't:ug!) direct soil contact a1 the
lardfill prqmty. A higher risk (2 x 10-5) 1I01ld result if it is assumed
that the inUviduals are ~ to a1ly worst case scenarios. Risks fran
non-carcinogenic health hazards associated with sOil i.n;Jestioo at ~ are
listed in the RI as low, with a total exposure pathway Hazard Imex Value of
less than a value of .02 for worst case scenario ard .004 for reascI'18ble
scenarios. '
2. For gro.1n1 water ocnsunptia1, future lard use was evaluated
because there is 00 current oontaminatia1 in drinkirq water SUWlies.
Potential carcinogenic risks, us~ contaminants benzene, 1,1-
-------
T AILE 2
ALCCICA l..UI)FILL: aIISTlTU!ITS Of alia..
TCIIUCITT VAL~S: P01EII11AL CAIICI.aIlIC EFFECTS
Sl. WOE.
Factor (Sf) 1~ of
Chemicl1 (1IIQ/kll'davf' Class Clncer SF B..il Sf Sourcec
Oral loute
1,1.d;chloroetha~ 0.091 B2 Hemll"I9; osercCIIII Glvlga HEAS1
Benzene 0.029 A leukemia IntI.lation IllS
Butylbenzyl phthalate IIAc C IllS
Arsenic 1.]5d A Skin c.ncer W.ter . lRiS
lary II h"" IIA" 82 w.ter 1115
lM8l.tion loute
8enzene 0.029 A uuk..ia IntI.l.tion IRIS
. WOE . weight of evidence cl.ss
A . Humen c.rcinogen
I' . Probably humen cercinogen; li.ited humen dat. .v.il.ble.
12 . Probable hl.lll8n c.rcinogen; .nilll81 dau only.
C . possible human c.rcinogen.
D . lIot cl.ssifi,ble .s to humen carcinogenicity
E . Evidence of nonc.rcinogenicity for humens
C HEAST . ..e.lth Effects Assessment Summ8ry 1.ble, USEPA, July 1989
IllS. rntegr.ted Iisk Information System, USEPA, OCtober, 1989
"
" IIA . lIot .v.il.ble
d 1he slope f.ctor w.s c.lcul.ted from the unit risk r~rted in IRIS IS 0.00005 _all Issumil"l9
2 L/dly ingestion by . 70 kg ICi.Ilt.
-------
did110r0ethane, and bJtylbenzyl Iitthalate, rarqed fra'I1 3 x 10-7 for
rea,sa'\able JDa)/'; 1l'\:1li' ly exposed in:ti vidual (R£I) to 3 x 10-6 for a 1IIa)l; m;:II' ly
exposed irdividual (ME:I) urder a worst case scenario. Potential risk fran
the adverse nc:n-carcin:qenic effects ~ch my result frem a sutx:nraU.c
e>cposUI'e period have been calculated as havin;1 the hazaId irdex value of .02
for reasmable maximally exposed irdividual and .2 for a JDa,Y;1I'\:III1ly exposed
irdividual.
3. Air emi.ssias for oa1taminants of ~ were cxnsidered in the
RI worK plan to be of historical intarest a1ly. Air emiSsia'lS of VOCs fran
the »fU' were not evaluated quantitatively for the follc:wirg reasoos:
*
No vinyl d1loride was detected by gas du'anat.ograpUc analysis of
soils usin;1 headspace volatile analysis durin;1 the RI.
Volatile ~ were not detected by air JIO'1itorin;1 with a Hnu
meter while drillinJ durinJ the RI.
Vinyl chloride, the constituent of most cxn:em in larxlfill gas, was
not expected to ocxur in high coroentraticns in the soil gas or air at
the »fU'.
*
*
Inhalatia'1 of Volatile Orqanic ~ (VOCs) by nearl:Jy wo+kers and
residents Vlile showerin;1 was evaluated and quantified. A calculated
carcin:qenic risk, usin;1 the ccntaminant benzene, for VOC inhalatioo unjer a
worst case scenario, was 1 x 10-7 for RMEI and 1 x 10-6 for MEI. Risks
associated with subdu"aUc lDi-<2I'Cin:qenic health hazards due to air
ocntaminatia'1 at »fU' have a Hazard Index value of .0003 (R£I) and .002
(ME!) .
Exposure of envi.ra'mental organisms to oa1taminants of cxn:em ider1ti.fied at
the AMU' is expected to be low due to the small nmtIer of contaminants and
their generally low oonoentratia'lS at the site. No ocntaminants of ooroem
exceeded water quality criteria for surface water. '!he potential
detrimental effects a'1 livest.ock and wildlife are expected to be small
because of low concentraticns of contaminants ard the existin;1 cover which
prevents direct contact with contaminatioo sources.
'!he anal~cal methods used in maJdng the risk calculaticns are described
within the FA p:>rtia'1 of the RI Report. '!he sunmaJ:Y of the risk
characterizatia'1 for the IMLF is listed in Table 3.
E.
uncertainties
In adiitim to the d1em1.cals CXI1Sidered in the erdargeIInent assessment,
there are eeveraJ. other oa1taminants present in the waste am groJ1d water
1IIhich were not incl\D!d as irdicator chemicals. 1hese contaminants were
below PAIs, Quantitatia'1 Limits, or resnaved fran the FA for statistical
reasa1S .
Waste c:baracterizatia'1 was not exmpleted for the AMU' so as not to c1istm'b
the present landfill CCNer. Historical recxmis provide a base for waste
estimatioo and d1aracterizatioo, b..rt not a detailed descriptia'1.
-------
TAiLI 3 .
.......' 01 1111 CMAAACnllZATlCIII
Al.1D'A LAIID fI LL
CAICIIIOGUIC 1111 IUIMTII
~ure klNdo ~tCaM- t..MNble-
laute. taut..
Tenal ..-IUC Totel lp8C'UC
Ilat- lilt laut..- lilt- lilt taut..-
~,.."t Land UN Z I '0. Z I '0. loll' ngelt I on , I '0. , I '0. IoH I"'"tton
Fllture Land VlI,_1 Z I '0. Z I '0. loll I,....t Ion , I '0. , I '0. loll l"8"t Ion
J I '0" GW l"8"tlon J I '0" GW I,...t ton
, I '0" va: Il'IIllltlon , I '0" we Il'IIllltlon
Futyrl Land UII~I Z I '0. Z I '0. loll IngestIon 5 I '0. J I '0. IW Irvntlon
~ J. '0" GW IngestIon , . '0. loll Irvntlon
, I '0. va: II'IIII.tlon , . '0. va: lmal.tlon
IIOIICAIC IIIOG£III C KAZAIO 11011 elll) IITIMTI
l~u~1 Sc8nl~lo ~t CU,- "'laNDI'-
taut,- taute.
..-Iflc taut..- Ip8Clflc taut..-
ToUI II. II Totel III II
current I.and Uat 0.02 0.02 loll I","tlon 0.0010 0.0010 loll I",..tlon
llItu~1 Land Vle"..1 0.0/0 0.02 GW l","tlOft 0.02 0.02 GIll I,.... t I Oft
0.02 101 I I","tlon 0.0004 loll i,.llt I on
0.0003 va: 11'II.lltlon 0.0003 va: i"".I.t ion
llIturl LIf'Id Vle/Mf. 0.2 0.2 GW Ingestion O.Z 0.2 ell Ingestion
0.02 loll Ingest 10ft 0.02 loll 'ngestlO'\
O.ooz va: 1I'IIIIItion 0.002 we '''''alation
- weaST-CASE ..tl..t.. Inc.~ 1<81 daU that MY not be r.,-eunutlve of thl aitli a.I., .,...,Ic.
811 lEASC*AILE est;..t.. Inch.. reO.ctlon of tOUI rllt tr( r88Wi,.. contributION frca .,..tlONbII
conatltuentl or c~entratlona (I.. dilCUIllon in I4Ctlona 7.5.' throu8l\ 7.5.3>.
!ill '
TOtAL liS&: II thl total I.C"I ~r tIord llf.tl- creer rlat ~ ecroal aU ~~Iatl "autes
for eech .~rl IC8ft8rlo.
.., I(IITE.PlCIIIC liS&: ta tile "llt contrll:luted tr( tI\t l!'Idlylct.A1 "-\II"e !"OUtes.
.. I(IITIS .". ~ eapoaur. "aut.. that contrlbutl to thl rlak.
GW . 1~0IIId ..t8f
va: . woletlll .""Ie c~
l1li. . ....1_lly upoaed 1!'Id;yl..1
_I . rillorwbit 8L&;..lly t~1CI Indi"Ict.A1
-------
VI. fV1cm:m~ S'lUDIt': ~T17r"TCJf c:I RDImIAL ~
'Ihe FFS, based era the finiin:;s of the RI am the FA, has identified am
evaluated an array of remedial alternatives that cxW.d be used to mitigate
or oorrect the oontaminatiera prci)lEIIS at the site. Aooordin;J to the
guidelines wi thin the Naticnal 0::nt.in;Jer¥:: Plan (NCP), the gI"CJU1'Xiwater at
ani near the site my be classified as a Class II -A aquifer, gI"CJU1'Xiwater
that is o..trrently beirq used as a drin:kin) water sole source, ard therefore
treatJDent is preferred ~ practicable. AWlicable or relevant and
awrc:priate requirements (MARs), sucn as Federal ani State regulaticns
goY~ prcper landfill closure, JIIJSt be cxnsidered in evaluatirq each of
the alternatives. 'I11e alternatives cxnsidered for the site are present.Ed
within the FFS and are 5UI1IT\arized below. For a more detailed descriptiera of
the alternatives, please refer to the FFS Report.
~ 1 - II) ACl'Iaf
tJrder this alternative, the p.1blic health, welfare and errlirorunental
~ of t..akinJ no further actiera at the »tIP site will be
evaluated. '1h.is alternative W10Uld ~ oatply with State requirements that
are relevant ard awropriate to gromd water remediatiera (WAC NR 140) ard
landfill closure (WAC NR 504.07). 'Ihe requirement of these regulations are
c;!ic:n~cat'1 in more detail in the descriptiera of Alternative 3 below ard in
the oarparative analysis sectiera below. 'Ihere are no costs associated with
this actiera.
~ 2 - I.'DIrJm ACl'Iaf - ~ ~DUCl'ICH;, QUJND ~
IDQ'1'CIU1I; IBXPM
'1h.is alternative will involve the iJlplementatiera of a l~-term grc:uD
water Darltorirq ptU:lLam, ard the use of deed and lard use restrictions to
assam! that future use of this site does not increase the release or
potential release of hazardoos substanCeS to the errlircnnent or Lecate
~ to the life or health of the p8q)le. A fence will be installed
around the site to restrict a~ and prevent damage to the site.
'!be grourd water Darltoring program '-01ld SUR?lement the cn:JOing quarterly
grourd water..Darltoring that is currently being ccn:Ncted. '1h.is
su;plementa1 program incl\.des sanple oollectiera frcm eight 1IIel1s ard
analysis for selected VOCs annually. Neart1i private 1IIells W10Uld also be
cxntin..1ally analyzed for inticator parameters am VOCs annually.
'!be fencing, deed restrictions, anj/or lard ~itiera inclOOed with this
alternative wculd be partially effective in preventirq direct contact with
solid wste. '!his alternative WOlld not reduce the potential for release of
cxn:;tituents to the gromd water via leac:hirJ; or the potential for ingestion
of grourd water cxntainin3 constituents of~. '1h.is alternative '-01ld
only be chosen if more active responses were determined to be int:>racticable.
'!his alternative '-01ld not o::rrply with ~ NR 140, or ~ NR 504 sta,rdards.
Fence ard m:nitoring well installatiera are the aaly cx:nst.roctiera aspects of
this alternative, wch are readily i:q)lement:.able. Inplementatiera time
'-01ld be wi thin ooe year.
-------
- -. . ~ - - --- --- - .
Capital ccsta associated with the L1mited-Acti~ Alternative 1ncla5e
m:nitorirq wll insta1lati~ and fenc:irq. ~ti~ and mairJtenanCe costs
1ncl~ grcurd vater Kl'\itorilg desCribed abcNe far 30 years. Estimated
cx:sts are listed be!0II:
Capital ex&t8:
Anrual O&M costs:
Pt .:;s a1t worth:
$37,000
$4 ,000
$98,000
~
~ 3: - ~ RSDUCl'ICJ6, ~ OF EXISTDG CJ)IJm, GUN>
~ ~, HID UN['FIIL GAS VEN1'IlATI~ S'CmX
'1his al ternati ve cx:nsists of Urprovilg the ex.istirg CDler of the IDA to
provide tetter frost protect.ioo ard ~ infiltratioo; 1n;tallilg a gas
ventilg system; ~ a p:>rtioo of the ~ road; fenc:irg the IDA;
iJrplanentirq a lcn;-term grcurd water m:citorilg program: ard ci:Jtai.nin:J deed
restricticrrs and/ar purcnasin; additiaW. property.
A ~c SJrVf1'i ard additia1al soil borin;Js ~d be perfocred 00 the
IDA to deteI'mine local depressicrrs and clay depths. Usin; the SJrVf1'i, final
grades ~d be established. '!he t.qsoil ~d be rE!llX'Ved to the clay layer
and then aQ:titicral clay performinJ to the permeability rate of 1 x 10-7
centiJDet.erS per seocn1 (CD/s) ~d be aaSed to a c5epth of approximately two
feet. '!his layer ~d cx:nsist of various QCl!i:)inaticns of rei and exi.sti.rg
clay. Grar1J,lar material of a miniJIUID depth of c:ne and a half feet or a
depth that ~d pItWide Ialfficient treeze-thaW protect.iat for this area
-.,culd be placed 00 the clay before t.cp;oil ani vegetaticn ~d be restore:1.
A gas ventirg system ~d be installed CNer the site alc:n;J with a gas
migratioo trerdl 00 the northweSt side of the IDA. Gas 1ID'\itorirq prc::t:es
am wells ~d be cxn;tructed with periodic 1ID'\itorirq of the prciJeS.
'the gas wells ~d also provide a ]IIE!anS to flare off the gas so air
qJality sta,rdards are actU.eved. .
'!his alternative wcW.d nduoe the potential far release of ocnstituents to
the qrcurd vater and the potential far izl3esti00 of grc:un:1 water (XI1t.ainirg
ocnstituents of ocn::2m. '!his alternative ~d also nduoe the erosi~ ~
the lardfill and the area ~ it. '!he c:cHer bprovements, fenc:irq,
an! deed restricUans ~d further ~ the potential far direct ocntact
with the 8)lid waste.
As stated 8bc:Ma, the qrcurd water classificaticn for gro..1nd water at ar near
the sita, ~ to the NCP 40 ~ Part 300.430(f) (5), ~d be Class II
A. Class II A is desCribed as CJrord vater that is witable far human
ccn:;unptioo ard is currently used as a source of drinkinJ water. 'Ibis
classificatioo is appropriate since residentS are usirq water fran the
8hallcw aq.rlfer. CDCLA SeCti~ 121(d) req.Ures that ~;A' ect..ionS
eelected far Superfurd sites weet "awlicable or relevant ard ~iate
~" (~) of Federal or)lOre str~ state env~lI.ent laWS.
under U.S. EPA's gro..1nd water protecticn poliC'j, relevant ard appropriate
chemical ocr.oentrati~ sta,rdards for Class II A aquifers are Ma.xiJll.1m
-------
Q:rIt.aminant LeYels (M:[s) aM lDt-zero M:L goals (M:LGs) prarulgated urder
the Federal Safe Drinki.n:J Water Act or JIOre str~ state stardards. '!he
State of wi.soc:n;in has prarulgated grwnd water cpUity starrlards at ~ 01.
NR 140. Q1apter 160, Wis. Stats. and NR 140 direct the WI:NR to ta)ce acticn
to prevent the 0CI1t:i.ru.ing release of oart:.aminants exoeen;~ these starm.rds
(PAIs aro ESs). 'these stardards are relevant aro awr'q)riate to all c;ram
water in the state. since ~ NR 140 c;ram water cpU.ity stardards are
Dn"8 stri.z13ent than the Federal K:Is aro lDt-zero K:LGs for the
0CI'1taminants of ooncem at the ~ site, cx:mpliance with WAC NR 140
gro,niwater cpality stan:Jaias is required uroer cncIA.
'!he exist~ CXNer does mt pl'O'Vide secure CCI1tainnent of the waste.
Infiltratioo, aro consequently leachin;J, may not be CCI1trolled due to the
px>r corditicn of the clay layer. 'Ihis CXNer, therefore, ..ould not be as
protective of h\..U'l\al1 health and the env:iralment since CCI1taminants oculd
still reach the gm.D'd water. 'this cxn:lusioo is based a'1 the lan:ifill
Ct:Ner stLxiy cx:ItPleted in the RI ~rt. A large percentage (14') of
grarular material was fcamd in the exist~ clay layer with hydraulic
ccrductivity greater than the 1.0 x 10-7 an,/sec for DL1ltiple sanples. 'lhi.s
alternative does oot meet the exist~ ~ NR 504.07 requirement of bIo feet
of c:x:mpacted clay, ard therefore does oot cx:mply with this ARAR for the .
site.
'!he c:x:nstructicn of this alternative is readily iJrplementable with stardard
landfill CCNer tedmologies, materials, ard c:x:nstructia'1 techniques. 'Ihis
actia'1 ..ould be iJrplementable within a en! year period.
Capital costs associated with this alternative are based a'1 the e:stiJIate
that 6 acre-feet of fill would be needed for the local depressia'1S, an:! 3
acre-feet of clay ..ould be needed for the OCNer. '!he clay fill volume
awroximatia'1 is 9,680 aJbic yards ard the general fill volune is 24,200
aJbic yards. 'these estimates would be further refined with data frau the
~c suzvey, inclmed with this alternative. 'the estimated costs
whid1 incl\XSe ronitor~ are as follows:
".
Capital Costs:
, Annual O&M Costs:
Present Worth:
$480,000
$7,000
$590,000
~ 4 - ~ RPSDUCl'Ia6, a:HmIJCl'Iaf aP tmI S>IL CDV'ER, AND
I.ANIFIIL GAS VfNl'IIATIaf SYS'IUI
a) 1his alte.mative CXI'ISists of ocnst.ructin:3 a soU/clay OCNer CNer the
entire ID\ .ita CawraxiJDately 10 acres), inst:allin3 a c;as vent system,
rercutin;J of a p)rtia'1 of the aooess road, fen::in:} the lDa\, iItplement~ a
lcn;)-tem gromd water JID'litorin:} program; and ci;)tai.n.i.rr;J deed restrictions
ard,Ior p.11"d1as~ acklitia1al property.
Specifically, the alternative inc:luies the rem::wal ani stoc)(pil~ of the
exist~ topsoil, placement of the clean fill ocnsistent with design grad.in;
c:x:rJtoJrs, am placare.nt am carpactia'1 of a 2-foot clay CCNer layer with a
penneability of 1 x 10-7 aD/s. 'the or:Ner layer DUSt have a m.iJrlJrum of a
1.5-foot layer of fill am .5-foot layer of topsoil CNer the clay layer to
-------
primarilY serve as a frcst protectiat layer. '!he qeneral fill layer &hcUld
be deep eBJUgh to ensure the clay layer is not exposerl to the frost layer.
'!he clean fill layer will also protect the clay layer fran penetratiat trj
deep-rooted plants ard ~ aniJnals an:l provides lateral drainage for
precipitatiat. '!he awraximate anomt of select clay fill rec-=-=-ry is
32,270 OJbic yards. General fill weW.d CXI1Sist of 24,200 OJbic yards of
material.
'lbis alternative wo..\ld ccnform to WAC NR 504.07 cap requirementS ard is
expected to result in reductioo of contaminantS in the grc:urd water so as to
achieve the ~ NR 140 grcurdwater qualit:j stardards.
A gas ventilatioo system similar to Alternative 3 will be installed, as
well as ccnstruction of fen::irg, inplementatioo of deed restrictioos to
preserve the eDler, ard relocatioo of the access road to the ..est of the
MJA. '!he NM an:l SM will be characterized for waste c:cntaminatioo an:l
include an awropriate soil eDler if det.ermined ~=-ry.
'D1is alternative wo..\ld reduce the potential for release of conta,minants to
the grcurd water ard the potential for in;Jestiat of grcurd water 0CI'1tai.I\in;
c:cntaminantS of ooncem. 'Ihi.s alternative weW.d also reduce the erosion' on
the landfill ard the area ~ it. '!he c:DIer iJIprovenents, fen::irg,
ard deed restrictions weW.d further reduce the potential for direct contact
with the solid waste.
'!he cx:nstroetiat of this alternative is readily inplement:able with stardard
lamfill a:Ner technOlcqies, materials, an:l cx:nstroetiat tectuU.ques. '1his
actioo WOlld be ~lanentable within a a1e year pericd. ResolutiCl'\ of
prqerty ownership i90:1- is neoe""=-ry to detennine if a waiver fran
required setbacks fran property bouOOaries is needed.
Capital oosts are based at the fact that the clay volume used for the
estimate does not inclu:ie the existirg clay. '1he iItplementation time for
this alternative WCA.lld be 1 year. 'Ihe probable CXJSts are as follows:
Capital eosts:
AnnUal O&M Costs:
Present Worth:
$1,100,000
$7,000
$1,200,000
b) '1his alternative CXI1Sists of the ccnstructiat of a soil/clay CDIer
CNer the U». site, as in alternative '4a, and also includes the SOUth
D~1 ArM (SIY\). An additiatal 4,840 amic yards of clay and 3,630
OJbic yards of c:DIer soil weW.d be reoe""=-ry. '1he iltplementation tine for
this al temative '-'CUld be 1 year. '!he oosts are segmented below.
Capital Costs:
AnnUal O&M Costs:
Present Worth:
Jm..
$1,100,000
$7,000
$1,200,000
SD.\
$210,000
$3,500
$240,000
~l
$1,310,000
$10,500
$1,440,000
'!he sna. primarily received ccnstructioo debris and ..rote goods. Sl\li;Je
0CI"Itai.I\in; asbestoS was believed to be iroorporated with the debris.
-------
Adcli timal waste c:haracterizatiCl'\ for asbestos wculd 0C0Jr dur~ the
remedial design to determine if asbeStoS is ~ to the air. A
soil/clay CCNer ..wld eliminate the potential release of asbestos to the
air. GrcUrd water cx:rJt.aminatiCl'\ is rot attribItable to the SDi\ an:!
therefore the foa.1S of asbestos cxxrt:.airment is for air pathway migratiCl'\. A
soil layer aver the area wculd be effective in prevent~ direct contact an:!
a release of ~ an:! wculd be Dm'e cost effective than a soil/clay
~.
c) 'nUs alternative cx:nsists of the ocnstructiCl'\ of a soil/clay CCNer
aver the Il}\ site, as in alternative t4a, and also in:l\deS the North
Disposal Area (NDt\). An acHiticnal 3,230 cubic yards of clay mterial and
2,420 cubic yards of OCHer soil wculd be ~~ry. '!he iItplementation time
for this alternative wculd be 1 year. 'Ihe costs are segmented below.
Capital Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Present Worth:
..m...
$1,100,000
$7,000
$1,200,000
NDt\
$150,000
$3,500
$190,000
Total
$1,250,000
$10,500
$1,390,000
'Ihe NDt\ primarily received CXI'1Stnx:tiCl'\ debris dur~ operatiCl'\. Sl\D;Je
c:xrrt:ainin:;J asbestos was believed to be i,ro)rporated with the debris.
Asbestos is a CERCIA hazardous waste aooorc1in;J to the Clean Water Act (GlA),
SectiCl'\ 307 (a) an:! the Clean Air Act (C'AA), SectiCl'\ 112.
Adclitiaal waste c:haracterizatiCl'\ for asbestos woold 0C0Jr dur~ the
remedial design to determine if asbestos is exposed to the air. A
soil/clay CCNer wculd eliminate the potential release of asbestos to the
air. Gro.In:! water cx:rJt.aminatiCl'\ is rot attribrt:able to the SM and
therefore the foa.1S of asbestos ocntainment is for air pathway migration. A
soil layer aver the area wculd be effective in preventin;J di:rect contact and
a release of asbestos and wculd be DOre cost effective than a soil/clay
OCHer .
~ S - 1ICC!SS RfS'DUCl'Ia6, QH)']HJCl'ICIf fZ NEJf cnaa;rIE CDYfR,
AND IN«:FnL GAS VENl'IIATICIf S'mm(
a) 'Ihe 0..'\ oC6ite CCNer is identical to the soil/clay CCNer alternative
('4), except that a 6O-mil ~rane ard a sam drainage layer is placed
on tq> of the clay layer. In acHitiCl'\, a geotextile fabric woold then be
placed CI'\ the grarular fill. '1hi.s CCNer 'MOUld provide acHi ticral reductiCl'\
of infiltratim because a large portiat of the water infiltration is
. diverted by the flexible merrbrane liner ard drains through the sand layer
. off-sita.
'nUs alternative 'MCUld ~ the WAC NR 504.07 requirements and address the
NR 140 grcurdwater cpa.lity st.amards.
similar to Alternative 4, the ocnstructiCl'\ of this alternative is readily
iJlplezrentable with st.arDard landfill CCNer technologies, materials, and
CXI'1Stnx:tiCl'\ t.ec:hniques. 'nUs action wcu1d be inplementahle within a ooe
year period. 'Ibis alternative 'MOUld satisfy the substantive requirements of
-------
---..- --------.-
---...------ --
w,isc.cniin NIt 500-520.
o:sts are similar to Altemative '4a, except for aMitiCNl e:xperses
iJ'onT8d for the 6O-1nil flexible merrbrane, tbe sard dninage layer, and the
~e fabric. '!he inpleuentatioo t.iJDe for this alternative -.o.Ud be 1
year. '!he costs are shewn belCN.
eapi ~ Q:ISta:
Anrual O&M Q:ISta:
Present Warth:
$1,800,000
$7,500
$1,900,000
b) '!his alternative consists of tbe cxn;t1'uetioo of a \A.&l~ite c::t:N8r
CNer tbe entire I.n\, as in Alternative ,Sa, with a similar design ~er the
So.Jth D~l Area (SD\). An aOiiticnU 4,840 cubic yaros of clay
material, 2,420 cubic ycm5s of grarclar fill, and 3,630 cubic yards of
c;cNer soil '
-------
- . -" ~.- --- -
.-.._--"----~.- - ---
- --.. .--~ -- - ---- _.- -.
. - - - . --
c:r:sr irclu::ieS estimated capital, cperatiat aRS 1IIiUrJt:,enanc, aRS net ~es~
wrth ccsta.
~ ~ irdicat.es..tlether, based at its nHie.1 of the JUIFFS ard
~ Plan, U.S. EPA an:l WI:NR agree at the selected I.~.
a:JKI{1Ti ~ irdicat.es the p.1blic SUAX'rt of a qiven alternative.
'Ihis criteria is di~~~ in the ~lSiveness $lJJIWN'1'Y.
'1he followi.rq briefly describes b:IW the selected alternative for the site
~res to the other alternatives with ..~ to the nine criteria.
1) ~ ~.Ln:TICN OF ~ HF.AImi AND 'IHE~: All
alternatives ..nich inx>rporate cawirq as an element of the alternative
will te prot.eetive of human health an:l the envu,..dnt. Direct human
cx:ntact p,tent.ial 'rtia'\ of the remedY will also p~ide OIIerall prot.eetia'\
of human health ard the envu,.. usnt.
2) o:MPLIANCE WI'lH ARARS: '1he Selected RemedY (t4a , 12) will meet AFARs,
in::l\dirq tW: NR 504.07, Wich alternatives fl, 12, ardl3 do R't meet. '!be
0JrT8l1t WisocI)9in NR 140 Enforceaent Standards (ESs) of .67 u;/l for
tenzene, 300 u:}/l for iran ard 50 uq/l for marqanese are ~. Benzene
was f(U'd in ~r'1C8 of ESs at 'Wells eMS ard CM9 for both saIlPling
~. '!his IS is scheduled to i.n;:rease to 5 uq/l an ()ct.c:i:)er 1, 1990. '!be
PreVentative lIctiat Limit (PAL) for):)enZene will rsnain the Sa1Ie at .067
uq/1. Cadmium was f(U'd in exceerb'T'O! of Federal Maxi1tum c::cnt.aminant Levels
(M:[S) an:! NR 140 ISs of 10 uq/1 durirg the first rcu-d of saItPling at cne
wn. '
'!be selected remedY, installatia'\ of a NR S04. 07 ~er to prevent migratia'\
of 0CI'1taJDinar1t to the q1"Cd"d water, is an awropriate rc;:ofJOllSe to IS ard
PAL exoeedaroeS, ~ to NR 140.24 and NR 140.26. ~ to 140 CfR
3oo.430(f) (5) (iii) (A) of the NCP and ocnsistent with SeCtia'\ NR 140.22, U.S.
EPA is settirg a p:>int of st.ardards awlicatia'\ for qrcund water staJ'dardS
for the w.u at the waste toJrdarY. Accordin::J to 0\. NR 140, PAll. are the
at,ardards that DUSt be met at the waste bOOrI3aIY. '1he ~ade in the
soil/clay ~er CNer the I.Da\ will sutstantially reduce the nux of
(XFItami.nantS 0Jt of the lardfill by reduCirg leachate generation. '!his
-------
reductia'\ is mcpected to result in a reductia'\ in the groun:1 water
oart:a:minatia'\ levels to the PAIs for benZene, ira1, ~, and cadmium,
thereby meet:.in; this State ARM.
Al~ the ~ SUbtitle C lanifill closure nq.U.ranents are relevant to
the JIMU' because it did receive ~ type wastes, in the form of paints and
solvents, it was determined that these recpirements are not ~,-¥date
\.D-der the ci.ra.mstances at this site. Specifically, with the low
oa~ticns of o;m.aminatia'\ tein:;J released fraD the site, the NR 504.07
cap will effectively reduce infiltratia'\ and cxnsequent leachate generatia'\
and migratia'\ to the grcurd water. 1he greater iupermeability of the ~
SUbtitle C cap is not neoeE'~ry \.D-der these sits specific ci.ra.mstances to
achieve these remedi.atia'\ goals.
Alternatives involvin;J the treatment of ~ water were rot carried
thrc:u3h the evaluatin:;J process within the FSS due to the relatively low
levels of CCI'1taminants found and the assunptia'\ that a proper larrlfill cap
will directly reduce the levels of CCI'1taminants within the gra.D'rlwater.
WAC NR 504 requirements for cawin:;J landfills were identified as ARARs for
the N'lU. 1he State an1 Federal regulaticns that have been identified and
that will te met by the Selected Alternative are listed within the FFS aM
the RJD. .
3) ~ ~ AND~: 1he Selected Remedy (,4a , '2)
will provide lCl'J3-term effectiveness an1 pm:manence. Alternatives 1 and 2
do not provide lCl'J3-term effectiveness, mainly because of the lack of 8
frost line protectia'\ layer an:i the inadequacy of the pI esent clay layer.
1he Selected Remedy ('48 , '2) will provide more substantial lon;-tem
effectiveness and permaneroe than Alternative 3 sira! the clay layer will te
thicker an:i less permeable. Alternative 5 WI:A.1ld provide tetter lag-tenD
effectiveness than the Selected Remedy, tut the extra degree of
effectiveness offered by Alternative 5 is rot warranted at this site. If,
after minimal further waste characterizatia'\ for asbestoS, a soil caver is
warranted for the NDA and/or SCA, lm;J-term effectiveness will te achieved
by eliminatin:;J the ~ for artj aiJ:bome ccntaminatia'\ in these areas.
f\1rther wast.e characterizatia'\ would be air JII:I'1itorin:;J for asbestOS to
detect 8 i'elease. Alternative 6 would provide the greatest degree of lcn:J-
term effectiveness an1 pe:caanence for the NDt\ and SDA.
4) ~~: 1he Selected Remedy (t48 , .2) will provide
sate ~M of shcrt-tem risk. Sime the Selected Remedy ...ould take .
awrax.imataly 1 year to CXI'1St1'uct, sane exposure to 0CI'1taminants by worken
oculd oocm', tut should be m.ini.mal if pr'q)er installatia'\ procedures are
follewed. '!he limited act1.a'\ portia'\ of the Selected Remedy ('2) will
produce iDnedi.ate short-term effectiveness, by provid.in;J ao::ess restrictia'lS
to waste areas, wle the c:xI'1taiment portia'\S of the Selected Remedy (,4a)
will nat provide short-term effectiveness sira! portia'lS of the present
OCNer will need to be disturlJed prior to the placement of the new cap. '!he
short-term effectiveness of Alternative 4 is oarparable to Alternative 3.
Alternative 6 will nat provide short-term effectiveness because of the
~ risks that would be caused by the excavatia'\ of the NDA and SDL\.
-------
5) REDJCl'Iaf OF 'roXICI'lY, K>BILIT'i ~ VOILME ~~: '!he
Selected JeDedy will not ~ the taricity, m::bility or volume of the
ha.Za,rdoJS waste thI"cA41 treatment at the site. Nc:ne of the al ternati ves
wi thin the FFS provide treatment tec::hnOlogies to acXkess the CXI'1taIninatia'\
fcun:l at the site. Alternatives inYol viIq the treatment of gromd 'Water
were not carried thI"cA41 the evaluatiIq prcx::ess within the FSS due to the
relatively 10.1 levels of 0CI'1taminantS fcun:l ard the assunptia'\ that a prc:per
lardfill cap will ~y reduce the levels of contaminantS within the
~ter. 'lbe treatJDent .of gromd water was not considered to be
Warranted at this time. Mlile the selected alternative will not reduce the
taxici ty, nOOil i ty, or volume of haza,rdous wastes thI"cA41 treatJnent, the
preferred c:oIer will reduce infiltratia'\ ard a:n:;equently, reduce the
leach.in;; of (X)I'1taIninatia'\ into the gro..u-d water.
6) ~: '!he Selected Remedy (14a , '2) is readily
int>lementable ard W01ld satisfy the e;ubst.antive requiIare.nts of the actioo-
specific MAR of WAC NR 500-520. cawirq Alternatives '3 ard 15 pose
similar i:q;>lementatia'\ tasks as will Alternatives '4 a,b, ard c.
Alternative 6 wculd be the JOOSt difficult to iItplement siIce the waste
,within the NDI' ard SDI' W01ld be excavated ard o:nsolidated. 'n1e Limited'
k:tia'\ Alternative ('2) wculd be easily iJtplemented tut may have similar
ao::ess problems as the cawiIq alternatives.
7) ersT: '!he costs, presented in the FFS~, inticate that the
Preferred Alternative (14) is the least oostly with ~ to total
present worth and is similar in total (O&M) costs c.atpared to other
alternatives prcd\X:in3 similar prat.ectiCl1 to huma1'1 health and the
envi.rc:nDent an:i adU.eviIq ARARs. '1he SelectEd Alternative has the secx;ni
lOoleSt total present worth am:::n; the cawin; alternatives presented. '!he
cost estinates for the remedial actia'\ alternatives do not include the
possible costs associated with the p1I'ChasiIq or leasirg of neighbOrirq
prqerties. '1heSe costs wculd be similar for Alternatives 3,4,5 and 6.
Alternative 1 (No 1t.Ctia'\) and Alternative 2 (Lilnited1t.Ction) are lONer in
cost than the cawirq alternatives, tut they do not aQ:1ress protectia'\ of
human health and the environment nx do they achieve ~.
'!he total est.iJnated oosts for the Selected Rsnedy is as follows:
Total Total Total
A]~tive ~n;t-"l cost o&M. 30\11:'.. Present Worth
'4 soil/Clay CrNer $1,100,000 $ 7,000 $ 1,200,000
'2 Limited Acticn $ ~7.000 L.QQQ 98.0QO
'n:Ital 1,137,000 11,000 1,298,000
A soil et:NeI, if reces=-ry after further waste characterization, a-Ier the
to am,tor SCI\ (Alt. 4b , c) wculd be cost effective when c:x:mpared with
Alternative 6, Widl calls for the excavatia'\ of these areas, particularly
with tco:>peCt to short ard lorg-t.erm effectiveness. '!he cost for a soil
et:NeI a-Ier the NDi\ ard SCI\ is not inclu:\ed in the cost sumnary for the
alternatives, b.1t wculd be JDinJr c.atpared to total oosts. '!he costs
-------
associated with Alternative 2, the Limited ActiCl'1 portiCl'1 of the preferred
nmady, my ct..Jplicate fenc:irq and insti tutia\aJ. CXI1trol cx:sts already
in::l\Xied within estimates for Alternative 4a.
8) CXJHJNI'lY ACX:EPrANCE: No significant i~c:I- were raised durirq the
PJblic meetirq to alter the CXaI~1el1ts of the Preferred Alternative, '-'rlch
was identified in the Plqx)sed Plan. '!he overall respalSe by the ~nUty
was negative based CI'1 the cost an:! low levels of ocrrtaminatiCl'1. Irdividual
~J'1ts an:!letter& are suumarized within the ~iveness SUmDary
(Attad1ment 1) located at the back of this a:x, -'It.
9) STME ACX:EPrANCE: '!he letter statirq the Wt'NR' s c:xn::urren::e of the
u.s. EPA's Selected ~al ActiCl'1 Alternative is foond as Attachment 2 to
this doc! 1IftP-nt.
VIn. 'IHE SELB:'Im REJ4EI:1l
Based CI'1 the fi.n:lirqs of the RI/FFS an:! the d, meets the statutory requirements in that it is protective
-------
of h\,mIan health ard the envircnDent, attains ARARs, ard provides lag tem
effectiveness t.hrc:u3h cart:airInent.
ProteCtic:n of Human Health ard the Envi1. \.II i\ent:
'n1e selected remedy, a CXI'Ibinatic:n of alternatives (,4a ard '2) addresSin;J
the N1U', will be protective of human health ard the envircnnent t.hrc:u3h
lard use restrictims, containnent of wastes ard subo=\rfaoe soils, ard by
the ext.ractic:n of l~ill gas.
ProteCtiveness will be adUeved by the installatic:n of the a soil/clay cap
ard by assur1.rg the prc::pr ma.ir1tenance ani ~inage c:x.nt.rol for the »fU'.
CrNer installation and prc::pr ma.ir1tenance p~ctioes are reliable methOOs to
alleviate the di.rect contact threat fran the site's contents ard will also
help in reduc1.rg leachate ge.neratic:n, t.hereb'i reducin;J the aITOJnt of
contamination reac:.hirg the gro.Jl"d ~ter. Si.nJe untreated wastes wi.ll remain
within the site, the ground water will ocntinJe to be monitored to ensure
the protectiveness of the selected remedY. Grcurd water may be restored to
the State's PAIs via natural attenuatic:n, CNer a reascnable period of tilDe.
'!he point of ite that may daJrage the COler and alla.i di.rect exposure of
contaminants to humans ard the environment.
Attainment of ARARs:
'!he selec::b!d remedY will be designed to meet all the awlicable, or
relevant ard awrc.priate requirementS (ARARs) of Federal ard rore strirgent
State envi.rcranental laws. A list of the prci;)able ARARs for the »fU' site is
listed within the FFS. As d.i~:IS~ earlier, the primary ARARs that will be
achieved by the selected alternative are as follows:
ActiCl'\ specific
* cawin;} requirementS as stated in W1tC NR 504.07.
Q)emical-specific
* W1tC NR 140 grcun1water quality staroards.
I.ocaticn-specific
* there are no location-spec:ific ARARs.
22
-------
~ effectiveness;
'n1e selected rE!IDSdy for the N'fIF is oc.nside.red ocst effective, partio.1larly
when ~red to the otber alternatives that achieve both protectiveness of
human health and ARARs. 'n1e acX5ed protectiem by installirq a RC&\ facility
o:Ner (Alternative '5) ~d be minimal in amparisoo to the chosen nmedy
at a significantly higher ocst. 'n1e o:Ner ~.L~ (Alternative 3) does not
oc:nform to ARARs an:1 therefore ~d not be effective in performance
al tlx:u:3h the ocst is less ~ the dxsen remedy.
Utilizatia1 of Permanent Solutia1S to the MaJl;1IIIJm Extent Practicable;
'n1e alternative chosen represents the best balaro! of alternatives
evaluated to address the CXII'1taminatiem problems fcum at the 1tMI.P. Al thcu;h
the CDler alternative dxsen does not provide a treatment solutioo, it does
retard the ~ of CXI1taminants to the gromd water by reducirq the
generatioo of leachate. 'n1e u.s. EPA and WI:NR feel this .Lt:al.edy is
sufficient to provide the neoe""~ry protectioo at 1tMI.P due to the levels of
CXII'1taminatiem and site. specific exnlitia1S. 'n1e land use restrictioos
~lemented by the selected remedy will further assure added pratectioo ,to
the pJblic health an:1 envircnDent. tn! to the JDCderate size of the landfill
and the di..soavezy of no "hat spots" within the landfill durirq the RI,
alternatives involvirq the treatment of rea:aval of wastes were de -M
iJlpracticable and were not carried forward. 'n1e selected remedy represents
the maxu-Jm extent to ~c::h a permanent solutiem can be practicably utilized
for this actioo.
'n1e wr:NR has cc.ncurred with the selected remedy. A majority of the loc:al
oc::mn.mity does not feel the ocst of the selected remedy is warranted based
em the low CXII'1taminatioo levels.
,
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element;
'"
'n1e principal, threat posed by the Algana MJnicipal landfill is the presence
of CXI1taminants in the grc:und water in OC8'1Cel'Itratia1S that exoee::i WAC NR 140
gromdwater quality st.an:iards. Cadmium was also fcum to exoee::i MCIs durirq
a18 of the scmplirq rcurm. 'n1e selected remedy does not utilize treatment
because it was deemed ~ractical.
x.
IXXIImfJM'ICIf OF SIQfIFICANl' ~
'n1e selected ~~ has not ~ significantly fran the preferred remedy
that was presented within the P.tqx)sed Plan and ~c::h was available for
pJblic revie.r and cxmnent fran July 23, 1990 1:hrQ.1gh August 22, 1990.
XI.
~
1he presence of grcurd water CXII'1taminatioo at and aI'Q.1nd the Algaua
MJnicipal Iandfill requires that remedial actions be iJrplemented to reduce
the actual an:Vor p:1tential risk to human health and the envira'lment. 'n1e
-------
u.s. EPA an:1 wrNR believes, based a'1 the lUfFS an:1 the Administrative ~u
file, that the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-<>ffs am:rq
alternatives with respect to the criteria used to evaluate the remedies.
Based a'1 the informatia'1 available at this time, the u.s. EPA believes that
the selecte:l remedy will be protective of human health am the envi.ronmerrt,
will attain ~ an:! will utilize treatJrent to the Jna)iinum extent practical
am is oost~ffective.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
RE5FCNS~ ~
c:r:MIDn' 1: R-fI' O:mnents at PrcpJsed Plan for the PRPs
IMl' has reviewed U. S. EPA' s Pr<:;posErl Plan dated July 20, 1990, for the
Algcma M.micipal L:m:ifill (AMIF) site and hereby subnits these cx:mnents at
behalf of the AespJrrlents to the Administrative Order by O::nsent.
1.1 Based at the infonnatiat contained in the Remedial Investigatiat (RI)
and F~ Feasibility Stu:iy (FFS) reports, the m:st apprcpriate response
for this site is Alternative 2 - Limited Actiat. Alternative 2 inclu:3es
additiooal nonitorin; W1ells, lorg-tenn ~ water 1ICl'1itorin;, acquisiticn
of prcperty rights for the dj~l area, ferred disposal areas, and deed
restrictioos to prevent future use of the ni ~1 areas . Alternative 2 is
protective of human health and the environment and, after balancin; the
criteria set forth in the NCP, shcu1d be the preferre:1 alternative for
. addressin; cxntiticns at the site.
1.2 '!he AMIF exhibits no present threat to human health or the
envi.ra1ment. '!he landfill has had a miJrlJDal iJrpact at ~ water quality,
and even then a1ly in the imnediate vicinity of the landfill. '!he final RI
report ocnfir1rs that the AMI.F has rot had a ~c:urable iJrpact at water
quality in private residential W1ells east-scutheast of the site to date.
'!be RI also addressed possible iapacts at surface water and soil/~imP.rrt:
near the landfill. '1hese investigaticns also shewed "... there is no
evidera! of the transport of ha.zar'da1s ~ fran the landfill into the
wetlands, swales, and valleys in the vicinity;" and "...there has rot been
~ ~ release of hazardcus substanCeS fran the AMIF to arrj surface
water tx::dy."
It is clear tbat, in its present ocntitiat, the AMI.F does not pose a
threat to human health. In eva1uatin; site risks, U.S.EPA cx:n=lu:Sed: '''!he
effects of the CXI'1taminatiat at the environment are expected to be law due
to the small l1\.DTb!r of oc:n;tituents...and their generally law concentrations
at the site." A reasa')able estimate for ~9 cancer risks urder 0Jrrel'1t
ocn:titicns was en! in a milliat (10-6). U.S. EPA considers this level to be
protective of human health. Risk of non~ effects was belaw a level
of c:x:n;Jem for these ocn:titicns. '1his was to be expected since private
PJtable wlls have not been affected by the site. M:>reaver, the area of
iapact is highly localized and is not used for drinkirg water plI'POSeS.
Risks associated with future uses were calO1lated assuming placement of
a potable well directly within the affected area. Even urder these highly
\m1ikely ci..rcumst:anOeS, the exoE!S9 future career risk had an ~ bc:u'xl
lifetime risk of 5 x 10-6, a1lY slightly above the 1 x 10-6 point of
departure.
1.3 All organic ard irorganic CXI1Stituents in gI"OJRi water sanples
ccllected durin; the RI were f~ to be belaw the Federal Drinkin;J Water
Stardard 1CLs. In additiat, benzene was the a1ly organic to exceed the
wiscxnsin NR 140 groord water quality Enforcement Stardards (ES). Benzene
-------
EPA'S CCI'ft,r8Ctar in 1984: this CI1f! saDPle had the highest benZene
c:x:n:srt:ration detected to date (3.9 Ai', wch is belOti the K:L of 5 Ai') .
In acklition, benzene was fc:an:l abaYe the wisconsin NR 140 EnfOloel1Co1tt
Stardard (c:urrently .67 ppb) in only 3 of 32 saII'Ples dur~ the RI, with all
~tia'1S belOti the quantitation limit. As a practical matter,
c::onoentratia'1S below the quantitation limit sho.1ld not even be reported
because tbey have J'¥) statistical validity.
With regards to benzene, a revision to the wiscx:nsin NR 140 groom
water enfOI'CE1tS1t stardards for benzene has been prq:osed by the WI:NR to
ircrease the enforcement starDard fran the present value of .67 ppb to 5
Ai', wch is the sane as the Federal DrinJd.n; Water St.aOOards M:L. When
this revision is made effective, the ~ will be in carpli~ with all
Federal and State p.Jblic health-related gro..n1 water stardards. 'Ihe WI:NR
&1reau of Leqal Services was oontacted on Au;JUSt 21, 1990, rega.rd.irg the
scnedule for finaliz~ the NR 140 revisia'1S. 'Ihe WI:NR in:licated that the
revisia'1S are final, and are presently await~ p.Jblication, wch has been
scbeduled for oct.cXEr 1990.
After the benZene enforcement stardard un:ier Wi.sc::a1sin NR 140 is raised
to 5 Ri', the only gro..n1 water quality ARARs that will not be met un:ler
present cxn:litia'\S are enforcement stardards for iron and man;anese urrler
wiscx:nsin NR 140 in an area ~ gro..n1 water is not even presently used.
'Ihe ARARs for iron and marqanese are p.1blic welfare-related stardards (NR
140.12) rather than p.Jblic health-related stardards (NR 140.10). Iron and
man;anese are both essential rutrients. 'Ihe iron starmrd is based on the
aesthetic effects of taste and staini.n; of fixtures and clothin;J. 'Ihe
man;anese standard is based on taste and color.
'I!1e only effect caused by minor uamts of iron and marqanese is a
slight in:rease in water hardness. '!he grcurr:1 water hardness near the
lardf ill, cxrItrib.rt:ed by iron and marqanese, based on the highest iron and
man;anese CXIOOer1tratia'1S detected dur~ the RI, is only awroximately 24
milligrams per liter (as CaCDJ). WateN are CXItIt'CI'1ly classified as ''hard''
only ..men total hardnesS is in the rarge of 150 to 300 milligrans per liter
(as CaCDJ).
Moreover, these naturally ocx:mT~ irorganic:s were within the
CXIOOer1tration ran;JeS fourn in the ~ sand and gravel aquifer in
Wiscx:nsin. 'Jhus, the c:x:n:Jent.ratia'1S fourn do not neoe""~ily reflect a
release frail the lardfill.
'I!1e presence of certain metals might also be attri.tJUtable to localized
"reducing cxniitiCl1S." organic matter in the waste materials provides a
~ of food for microorganisms. Aercbic degradation of organic mtter
cxnsumes axygen, wch is taken fran water percolat~ t:hrc:Ugh the area.
'Ihese axygen-depleted ocn:1itia'1S in the grca.n:l water are called "reducin;J
ocn:1i tias. II 'I!1e effect on grourd water chemistry is to enha.ra! the
solubility of certain JIIlltivalent irorganic parameters such as iron, and to
acme extent marqanese, present in natural soils. As backgrt'A.n1 cxn:litia'1S
return dcwn;Jradient, ~er, the solubilized metals are again precipitated
aut of solution and ~ generally inm:bile in the grourd water. For
f!)C2IJIple, umer reducing ocn:1itions, iron exists in CI1f! of its hydraXide (or
eoluble) states as ferrcus iron (Fe++). As oxidizing cxniitions return
dcwn;Jradient, the iron is precipitated aut of solution.
Finally, oatplianoe with NR 140 stardards, to the extent ex1stirJ:;
u..1I JOentratia'1S are a c:x::nce.m at all, might be addressed in an al t,emate
-------
fashia'\. '!he City of AlgaDi! may acxpi.re properties adjacent to the AMIF
site. If such properties were p.u:cnased, the point of stardards applicatia'\
for p.np::E'" of NR 140 oould be extended by an additicnal 300 to 450 feet
fraD the present edge of waste at certain locaticns a.rcund the In\ (see NR
140.22 an:! NR 140.26). As provided wder NR 140.22(5) (d), cx::nst.lu:::tia'\ of
an additiooal m:nitorin;J well may be neoE'$-~t}' at the new prcperty line to
dsooustnte oatplianoe at that locatia'\. If this were dcne, hcweYer, the
m:nitorin;J wells where Enforoement Stardard exceedanoes have 000JITed wculd
fall well within tM pI'q)erty" bourdaries. Before inpleme.nt.inq an expensive
alternative to aci:1ress "hardness" or aesthetic grwn:1 water quality, the
q:Jtia'\ of exten:l.in;J the point of stardards applicatia'\ should be
in::x>:rporated into artj final remedial alternative.
1.4 '!he WtNR is-c:l~ pennits, m:nitored operatiCl1S, and approved the closure
of the~. 'the Prcposed Plan in:ticates that the U.S. EPA i.rtt.ems to "re-
<:pm" the ~, and will require the Algaoa CCIII!'I.mity to bear the high cost
of additiooal cx::nst.lu:::tia'l at the lan::lfill siJrply to meet new state lan::lfill
regulatiCl1S which were prarulgated after the lan::lfill closure was approved
by the WtNR. It is unreasa1able to require re-reaver, no --!O:IJres other than those set forth in Alternative 2 are
required to prevent or abate exoeedanoe.s of the stardards.
1.5 '!he r1 ; en lSSia'l in items 2-4 above establishes that Al ternati ve 2 meets
both threshold requirements for al tematives wder the NCP (pratectia'l of
human health am the envira1ment and ARARs oatpli.aooe). To the extent there
is artj remaining ~ about oatplianoe with NR 140 or NR 504, an
exceptia'l under NR 140.28 arD,Ior an MARs waiver under 40 C.F.R.
3oo.430(f) (1) (ii) (C) wculd be appropriate and are hereby requested since
onTent am future cxrditiCl1S under Alternative 2 wculd not p::ee a threat to
p.lblic health ar welfare.
'Ihe J:'88.inin) criteria for the evaluatiCl'\ of alternatives are
characterized as "balancin;J" criteria am "m:xtifyin:f' criteria, urder 40
CFR 3oo.430(f) (1) (i) . No single criteria'l govems ~_I.edy selectia'l.
Instead, ead1 criteria'\ shcW.d be ocnsidered and balaooed in the process of
selectin:J an appropriate respase.
Far Alternative 2, iDplementability am reductia'l thrcAJgh treatment are
mt nally an issue. With respect to short- and lm:;J-tem effectiveness, .
there is every reasa1 to believe that effectiveness will be assured by the
se.lectioo of Alternative 2. wastes have been in place for a1m:st a ~~.
'the ~s-~ of time has helped stabilize the waste. 'the fact that
-------
suJ'-!tr!aoe iJrpacts are mirm' an:! localized irdicates that the existirg COler
is an:l will remain effective. 'Jhis is especially true s:ime lUte.rnative 2
will assure that the site will not be d..i.gt:w:'bed in the fut1.1re. Moreover,
the selectiat of Alteznative 2 will eliminate risks associated with exposure
to waste caused by cx:n;tIuctiat activities at the existi.n; cap.
1.6 '!he estimated present worth cost of the ~;Al actiat p~ by
U.S. EPA my be as 1!11Ch as $1.6 miUiat. '!he City of Algana's TreoaSUI"er has
estilMted that financirg of the City's share of this cost will cause the
average taxpayer's ahnUal pe.rsooal prq:erty tax to ID:rease by awroxbnate.ly
$2.50 per $1,000 a5~ value CNer the next 10 years. a:mrents made at
the plblic hearirg in Alcpna at ~ 13, 1990, reflect the seriOJS
~ felt by local taxpayers.
In recent years, the City has st.r\q;Jlecl to retain its p:p.l1atiat,
rosinesses and tax base. As for other WisconSin camunities, there have
been ever-in::reasirg de!rands for plblic-furded facilities and sexvioes. An
up;raclirg of the Wastewater Treatment Plant is estimated to cost
$3 . 5 milliat. 'nUs experdi ture will be furdecl thrc:ut1 the sewer use
charge, llilhich is expectecl to double ..men the project is OCITplete in 1992.
'!be average sewer use charge will go frcm $10.00 Jd1thly to $19.75 Da1thly.
A $2.1 milliat harlx>r iJrprovement project will be exmpleted in 1991: this
project is furded with 50 percent city Jra'B'f an:! 50 percent state Jra'B'f.
'!he $1.0 milliat city share of the harbor project will also be furded
thrc:ut1 the tax roll.
'!here are few laxqa etplayers in Algaua. 'Ihree of the larger euployers
are mamfacturirg cxmpanies that are ~ dents to the o:nsent order for
the RIfFS. 'Ihe:Se cxmpanies have ~eed to acx::ept a share of the cost
allocated within the ~dents' CJI'CUP. As taxable entities within the
cx:mrunity, they will also have to bear an aQ:iitiatal share of the exISt for
the work at the lardfill thrc:ut1 in:;:reased local taxes. 'this aIIOJnts to a
do.Jble tax. 'Ihe:Se acklitiatal oosts, with other tax pressures at the
~ cxmpanies, will have a omulative, detrimental effect at the
local rosiness labor situatiat.
Other potentially responsible parties (}'IU)s), not currently Ra::stJOld.ents
to the ecnsent Order, incl\.de the owners of manufacturirg cxmpanies that
generated and transported waste to the N«E, bIt have si.roe gone cut of
rosiness: c:x:mnercial transporters of waste taken to the WiU: an:! an omer
of prq:erty at the soothem end of the WJ.E, within the site ~. '!he
State of wiscxnsin is also Jcncwn to have ~;~ of aniJnal carcasses at the
WJ.E. '!he lack of f~ial participatiat by these ncn-participatirg ~
will unfairly and disprcporti.a\Bte.ly :i.nc:rease the cost b.1rden at the
participatin) parties.
RESFaSE
1.1 Alternative 2 - Limited Actiat - provides m::nitorirg for the site ani
institut1.atal cootrols, tut does not satisfy AAAR threshOld criteria.
~ have ooourred of wiscxnsin NR 140 plblic welfare ES for irm
an:! marqanese and plblic health PAL for benZene, cadmium, d1raDium, an1
silver. 1.COOI"C:lirg to wiscxnsin NR 140, specific acticns can CICO.1r based at
these ~rx:es. Alternative 4 - Cap aocoI"C:lirg to the wis. NR 504.07 -
Wid1 has been determined to be an AFAR and is en! of several qJti.cns
-------
listed in Table 6 NR 140, will satisfy the ARM ~ acx:x:>rd.irg to
WtNR inteIpretatien.
In ldtitien, there are other factors which have cxrJtrib.rted to the
decisiCl'1 for a NR 504.07 CXIYer. First, the site has a histoty of acoeptinq
hazardoJs waste. ']he potential exists for fubJre release of oart:aminants
and actiCl'1 to prevent this ocx:urrer'O! is warranted. Seocn1, the current
oc:rditiCl'1 of the present a:Ner reflects weathering of the a:Ner therefore
.increasing infiltratien into the lan:!fill. 'Ihird, the lan:!fill exists in a
sardy soil envi.r'a'lISnt. in which rapid DJJVEI'Der1t of oontaminatien 00C1II"S in
the su.rrcundin;J envu'CODel1t via grcurd water. 'Ihese factors were cxnsidered
in the final remedy selectien for the site.
1.2 ']he}HU C1lIT'eJ'1tly mchibits no risk to human health or the
envi.ra'lnent, tut potential risk exists as shewn in the En:3a.rgeI'ment
Assessment. Based en the factors of site histoty an:! present oc:rditicns,
the possibility of future release an:! transport of oontaminatien JIIJSt be
ackire:sssi. Acticns can be based CI'1 risk or ARMs. 'Jhis actien is based en
ARMs.
AI thc:u3h cnly the :iJmediate vicinity was shewn to have grcurd water
ocntaminatien present, future develc:pnent of this area oculd occur. ']he
likelihood of this ~ is oot an issue in the U.S. EPA evaluatien
process, rather the possibility of an ~ JIIJSt be ocnsidered.
1.3 '!be Fe:Eral Drinkin; Water St.ardard M:L for cadmium is QJrJ:'e1"Itly 10
uq/l an:! ptqn;ed. to be 5 uq/l. Cadmium levels have been fc:un:! to be as
high as 12.1 uq/l an:! therefore Fe:Eral ICIs for cx:rstituents in grcurd
water are exceeded. Ira1 am ~ 1IIeI"e also fc:un:! to exoeer' Fe:Eral
Sec:aDary 1CIs. Seardary ICIs are oot enforceable.
Benzene was the cnly organic to ~ the current wiscx:nsin NR 140
water PJblic health IS of .67 uq/l with a level of 3.9 uq/l ~ch was founj
by the U.S. £PA's axrtractor in 1984. ']he Federal K:L for benzene is 5 u;Vl
an:! is oot ~ as of the saDplin; oon1\x::ted 2 years eqo.
']he RI shews cnly 3 of 22 sant>les cxrrt:ain.iI'J) benzene Wich 1IIeI"e all
bela.l cpantitatien limits. However, the U.S. EPA recoc;dzes these
ocncentratioos as presented in the RI ani are statistically valid even
thc:u3h they 1IIeI"e bela.l cpmtitatien limits. In additien, the ocncentraticns
were incluSed in the RI as usable data, vuch was prepared by the PRPs.
A revisim to the wi.socnsin NR 140 grcurd water IS for benzene my be
PJblished'in October 1990. At that time the IS will ~ fran .67 uq/l to
5 uq/l am the N'lU will be in CUlpliance with the NR 140 PJblic health-
related IS. 1iJweVer, benzene will still ~ the PAIs.
Un:Ier p::esmt oc:rditicns, the Wisca1sin NR 140.12 PJblic welfare IS for
ircn am ~ are exoeec'-'. PUblic welfare gra.n:lwater quality .
starr::1ards are based at aesthetic effects for ircn an:! taste am color for
man;J811eS8. Althcu;h the effects of in::reased hardness my oot ~r as
significant - PJblic health-related stardards, the State interprets them
ncnrt.heless as enfm:oE!lIsnt stardards. As such, the State requires that they
be addressed in the sane manner regcmlless of the effects.
'!be State of wi.socnsin is authorized to administer the inplementatien
of the Federal safe Ddnkin;J Water Act (S~). ']he State has also
prarulgated grcud water cpUity stardards in 01. NR 140, WAC, Ydch the
WtNR is cx:nsistent1y cq:plying to all facilities, practices, am activities
~ch are regulated by the WtNR and vuch my affect grcurd water quality in
the State. 01apter 160, Wis. Stats., directs the WtNR to take ectien to
-------
prevent the ocntin.U.rg release of oa'1taJILinantS at levels exceet" i rg st.ardards
at the point of st.ardards a;plicatia1. ~ water quality st:ardaMs
~ to 01. NR 140, ~, may be PAIs, !Ss, ard,Ior alternative
~tia1 limits (N::!.B). PAIs (ard !Ss) are generally DOre strirgent
than OOd:~dirq Federal st:ardaMs. 'lhese state stardards a;ply to all
grc:un:1 water in wisccnsin regardless of use.
Ira't am marganese are naturally CXX11ITirg ioorganics tut not within
the ~tia'l ~ foord in the oon~dirg san1 ard gravel aq.rifer,
adjacent to the N'flE. '!he .(XIlOeI1traticrs at wells ~ent of the
lan.:lfill are as m..1d1 as 40 times m:>re than !Ss am backg1"OOrd levels for
irate MarganeSe was foord at levels as 1IUCh as five times greater than !Ss
ard three times the backg1"OOrd levels. '!he p~ of ioorganic
~ticrs significantly different frail backg1"OOrd woold not be
attrib.Itable to local ized "reducin;J ocndi tiers. II
Pursuant to 40 em 300.430(f) (5) (111) (A) of the NCP, u.s. EPA is
settirg a point of st:ardaMs awlicatia'l for gro.n1 water st:ardaMs for the
»fI2 at the waste bc:J.Jndary. State or Federal gro.n1 water st:ardaMs,
whichever are DOre strin;Jent for a cx:atp::JlD1d in gro.n1 water, JILISt be met at
that point. In this case, the State c:h. NR 140, wis. Adm. Q:Ide, PAIs are
the st:ardaMs that JILISt be met at the waste bc:J.Jndary. AcqUirin;J prc:perty
. beycn1 the waste bc:J.Jndary will not c::han;Je the point of stardards
awlicatia1 for the N'flE, n::>r brin;J the N'flE into ocmplianoe with the groon:1
water st:ardaMs at that point of stardards awlicatia1.
1.4 '!he WOOR awl"OYed of the N'fU closure aooordirg to State lardfill
regulaticrs in 1983. 'Ihi.s actiCl'\ is separate frail arrj U.S. EPA acticrs
relatirg to SUperfun1. sin:e the N'fU was inclu:Sed CI'\ the NFL in 1984, the
decisia1 for acticm at the site do RJt anside:' previcm state actim;.
'nle U.s. EPA ~~ Plan does not require the 01ITeI1t lardfill to be "re-
~n. ~ther a m:>re effective CDler will be placed a1 the current a;Ner.
'I'q)SOil will be remr::wed and st:oc)(piled for I"B1S8, tut the waste will not be
~. Sectia1 506.08(3) allCMI the WOOR to Uv- NR 504 requirertents if
the departlnent :makes a determinatiaa that such requirertents are re.oe""~ry to
attain or abate ex~ of NR 140 grt1JJ'd water stardards. Sin:e there
are ~11CE!S of NR 140 st:ardaMs for ira1 an:i marganese, the WOOR has the
authority to require an actiaa to exmply with new State landfill
regulaticrs in order to effect reducticrs in grc:und water CCI'1taminants to
P~. '!he,selected remedy incl\¥SeS a CCNer that carpHes with NR 504.07 for
the actiaa at N'fU, sin:e the NR 504.07 is an ARAR.
1.5 '!he previoos arguments in items 2-4 do not establish that Alternative 2
meets the threshold requirements under the NCP. Protectiaa of human health
is Q1I"I"eI'1tly nat violated, tut ARARs carpliance woold not be achieved.
O:n;istent with the mcerpti.aa criteria of NR 140.28 and 40 em 300.430
(f) (1) (ll) (C) a waiver fran the PAIs may be granted under specified
ci..ro..Jmst,anC. No sDJwin;J has been made that such a waiver is justified.
'!he ~ "balan=int' an:1 "Dxtifyint' criteria are evaluated an:1
cx:nsidered for the decisiaa process by the U.S. EPA. No sirgle criteria is
beirg selected in the evaluatiaa withcut cx:nsideratiaa of all criteria.
Alternative 2, if c:hcsen, ~d have aaly been an interim actiaa that
~d nat Mve aa:h'esSed the current problEID of an inadequate CCNer at the
~. IDplementability ~d not be difficult for Alternative 2, tut
reductia'l thrcu;Jh treatInent would not be ad:1ressed sin:e this al temative
does not provide arrj treatJnent remedy. Short an:1 lm;J-tem effectiveness
-------
will not neoes~ily be assured t.hrcugh Alternative 2. Wastes that are
placed in the lanifill may not be released SOCI1 thereafter. '!he pae~ of
time does not stabilize all wastes. In SCIII8 cases the deterioratiera of
cx:rrt:.ainers stor~ waste such as dIuns might not ()CQJ%' for several years.
'Ihe pa.ssage of time also oontriD.rt.es to the deterioratiera of the lardfUl
CXNe:r. ']his is especially true for the c:x:Ner at N'fU' because it does not
have a freeze-thaw protective layer. Alternative 2 will not reduce the
risks associated witJ'l exposure to waste caused by cx:nst.ructiera activities era
the ~ cap. '!his is me reaSCI'1 tkrj Alternative 2 is inJorporated in
the RX). liJWeVer, Alternative 2 alooe is not aooeptable for a final remedy
msed era all nine criteria set forth by the NCP.
1.6 '!he estiJnated present 'MOrth of the remedial actiera is $1.2 milliera not
$1.6 milliera as stated in the cc:mnent. As a ~ the City of Algc:ma is craly
ooe of seven entities ard pl'qlOrtiooate costs can be allocated at the ~
steer~ cx:mnittee's discretiera. '!he ocn:m:ns of the local taxpayers are
iJIportant to the U. S. EPA ard the ocmne.nts regard.irq costs of the remedy are
duly rx:Jted. O:st oart:rol and c:pticn; to reduce the cost durin; remedial
design ard actiera will be pJrSUEd. One such c:ptiera is the use of the
current clay material as a borrow sc:uroe if it c:xmplies with stan:3ards for
clay SQ1r'Oe5 a
-------
awrcpriate un:Ier ciro.1mst.aro!s Were, as in this case, or:rrt:.amiratia1 is
highly localized ard private wells have not been adversely affected. 'IhuS,
Al ternati ve 2 in the Pt \:4)()sed Plan (as well as Al ternati ve 3) assure
OCIIt'liame with NR 140 for all p.1blic health-related stardards.
2.2 '!he RespCl'Dents advtx2te the acx:JU.isitia1 of property as a means of
deJIJ:n;tra~ carpliaoc:e with NR 140 un:Ier Alternative 2. 'there is no need
nor basis to cx:nsider active restoratia1 of grcun:1 water in the RD. '!he
final RI reflects a .thoI'CQ3h SllbsI..lI'faoe investigatioo ani the absera! of
significant threats to human health or the emi..1:aDent. Arr:I further
inIIestigatia1 of the north and SQlth d;~l areas, for exant'le, (while not
reqrlred urder Alternative 2), can be acxx:nplished dur~ remedial design.
An acXti ticna.l f~ feasibility study s~ly is not required.
2 . 3 It W1CUld be inawrq>riate to dismiss Al ternati ve 3 base::! 00 the o.n-rent
oon:li tiCX1 of the exist~ a::Ner. '!be awroad1es described in Alternatives 2
'3 are cxnsistent with NR 504 ani NR 506. (NR 506.08(3) (a)-(d) identifies
a CDler design that is sufficient for landfills like the JtM1F where an NR
504 CDIer is not reqrlred).
2.4 Feasibility stm.ies in general frequently di~JSS alternatives that' are
"Dore" protective, "Dore" effective ani pra'{ide a "JD:)re" permanent solutioo.
SUch alternatives are frequently rejected, hcwever, because of other factors
such as cost am cx::mmmity aooept:arga. ~ cost am oc:mtIJl1ity aooept:arga
~, as here, that an alternate respcnse is more awrq>riate, the fOC11S
shcW.d shift to .nether such alternatives are sufficiently protective,
effective and permanent un:Ier the ci,ro.mstanCeS. We believe that
Alternative 2 (arrl Alternative 3) are sufficiently protective, effective an;i
permanent to justify their selectia1 as the preferred alternative for this
site.
RFSFaE
2.1 A revisia1 to the wisoc:nsin NR 140 grcun1 water ES for benzene is
projected to be p.1blished in ()ctc:tJer 1990. At that time, the ES will d1an;Je
fraD .67 ~l to 5 ~l an:1 the JtM1F will be in OCIIPliaoc:e with the NR 140
p.mlic health-related!Ss. ~er, the benzene PAL will still be ~.
Un:ier present cx:rditia1S, the wisoc:nsin NR 140.12 pJblic welfare ES for
iroo an::l marganese are exreeded. '1heSe ESs are not treated differently by
the State because they are pJblic welfare-related rather than health-related
stardards. '!be WI:NR has in:licated to the u.s. EPA that if PAL exoeeda.rreS
were the c:nly violated regulatia1S at the WII.F that the basis for selectin;
awrq>riate remecual acti.a't the remedy, ~d not c::harge, because the c:h. NR
140, Wis. Adm. O:rle has authority to require such an actia1 based solely 00
PAL exceedAla!S. '!be three q7tia"lS menticnad in the cxmnent based a'1 PAL
~'1OeS are c:nly a fel of several alternatives available. 'lberefore
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 do not assure oatpliaoc:e with the NR 140
pJblic health-related !Ss a
-------
beyad the waste b:JUrdary will rw::Jt c:i1anI)e the point of standards ~licatien
for the MIl, nor brin;) the »tIE into oc:mplian:8 with the groond water
stardards at that point of standards awlicatien. Active restoratien of
~ water will not be incluied in the RX). ~ final RI reflects a
tho~ 1nYestigatien an:! the ~ of significant threats to human
heal th at the present time, however, patent:.ial threats to human health an:!
the envira'lDent exist ocn;iderin;) the history of N'iU' a
-------
DrinJdn:} water stamards de n:Jt haVe to be ~ by marrj
c:x:ntaminaJ'1t in order to justify actioo at a particular site. I.ra'1,
Cadmi\DD, eenzene ard Marganese are in ~r,oe of ESs and PAIs. PAIs are
enforceable levels ard actioo is justifiable acx:xxdirg to WtNR.
3.2 For a JlX)re detailed djc:t"u~c:;.ioo cxr.oemirg cost please see ~1Se
1.6. '!he U.S. EPA evaluates all nine criteria set forth by the NCP before a
decisioo 00 actioo is chosen. K:xritorirg as an actioo -.c:uld rot be a final
remedy ard if oont.aminatioo worsens, the cost of a CXNer ~d be ~=-ry
urder future actioo: .
'!he c:xrrt;.aminatioo level for benzene was lcuer for the RI sanplin:}
ro..1I'"ds in 1989 cx:rrpared to the initial investigatioo wnen the site was
placed 00 the NFL in 1984. '!he potential exists for in::reased c:xrrt;.aminatioo
based 00 the weatherirq of the present CXNer ard sazrplirq ~ cxnt:>leted
durirq drcU;Jht ocnii ticns.
a:Mo!ENl' 4: p. 51 1 ine 1, Mr. J<:ei th HaaSCh
4.1 '!he ~oo of ~ ard tilirq the tq) portioo of the landfill CDJJ.d
be ccn;idered. }ob.Jn:lirg ard tilirq ~d t.aXe the water away so it doesn't
qo cbm into the waste. 'Ihis ~cn wcW.d pravide the sane results as .
CXNerirq the lan::lfill by prevent..in;J water fran ~ the waste. If yo1
keep the water a:way fran the waste ard the solutioo is JlX)I'e permanent as
well as less e>epenSive it -.c:uld be a tetter solutiat.
msFam:
4.1 Mr. Gari E)je1stein WtNR project manager, pravided a rcS~1Se to this
cx:mnent durin;J the pJblic hearirg an:i the ~rt of p~; TY;JS can be
reviewed for a detailed answer. ']be reasoo Wrrj drain tiles are J'X'3t use1 for
lardfill caps is that drain tiles are au.y effective \Ihe.re saturated c;rcurd
water cx:niiticns exist. A lardfill CXNer att.erpts to prevent saturated
~ water cxn:titicns so no water readles the waste to produce leacnate.
a::MotENl' 5: p. 55 1 ine 8, Mr. Norbert Dier
5.1 ']be Algana Lardfill was closed ard cavered acxx>rdln; to the wisoonSin
Department of Natural Resc:m'Ce5 guidelines in 1983. At that time, the state
am erqineerirg (XI'1t.raCtOr CNer&aW the ocn;t.ructioo of the caver. HoweVer ,
within five years there is r'DII a demm:l for an aMiticnal cap. '!he
pemanence ard effectiveness of this rBrI caver is questiooable based at
previoos e.xperierv::2.
mslOtSE
5.1 ~ to ~Ialent 1.4 d;c:n)s:r:~ the WtNR closure of the present AMI.F
CXNer. '!he pemanence and effectiveness of the rBrI caver acxx>rdin;J to NR
504 .07 regulaticns haS been stutied at the Onega Hills tan:ifill in
eermantown, WisconSin, aexx>rdin;J to Mr. E)je1stein. A cap that meets the
rBrI stardaIUs ~d be JlX)re effective than me that met the old stardaIUs.
'!he in::reased effectiveness is mainly attri}:utable to the extra protectiat
frail the freeze-thaw cycle. Further d;c:n)S..c:;.iat at this tc:pic is provided in
the report of ~; TY;JS.
CXJ+tENl' 6: p. 65 line 12, Mr. Mike eavichi
10
-------
6.1 '111e ~iA' InYestigatia'1 does rx:Jt indicate at all cxn::lusively that
there is, in fact, less than two feet of clay material en that .ite.
'Ihe ~-rJt reads that the soil 18 fracb.1red ard the Shel.by 'l\Jbe
p.1Shed stmes thrcuj1 the clay. 'lherefore, it was very diffiOJlt to c:t:Jtain
good ~les because of these ocrditiCIW. Before a definitive statement
reqardi.rg the unsuitableness of the clay cap is presented, acbJal 8011
borirgs am or back hoe pits shoJld be dLJ) am the results doc1Jmented.
Pushirq Shelby 'I\Jbes is rx:Jt an ~le methcd. 01apter six of the RI
descr:ilies the pJrPOSe of the Shelby 'l\Jbe was to det:.erI$1e soil type and
permeability .
']he soil type meets or exoeads all of the Q1ITel1t state stardards.
Specific:a.lly, the permeability, li~d limits, plasticity ani clay
perc;.entage are aR>rcpriate. ']he average permeability of the CJ:Ner at 6.9 x
10-6 oentiJreters per seccn:l is definitively restrictive of filtratla'1.
RESFCNSE
6.1 ']he RI report provides informatia'1 to satisfy cbjectives as set forth
by the u.s. EPA. ']he cbjective for the CJ:Ner evaluatia'1 was to evaluate the
I=hysic:a.l characteristics of the CJ:Ner material. Based en this cbjective,
. the CJ:Ner thickness was estimated at 1 to 1. S fraD the interval depths ~
usin; the Shelby'l\Jbe. soil ~ or back bee pits walld have JII)I'8
cxn:lusively determined the CJ:Ner thickness b1t walld have also dist::urt:Ied
the CJ:Ner JlQre than the Shelby 'l\Jbe methcd. Si1'1ce the cbjective of this
portia'1 of the report was to det.exmi.ne the PtYsic:a.l characteristics of the
CJ:Ner material, the Shelby 'l\Jbe method is an aooeptable practice. '111e depth
of the present CJ:Ner is informative, b1t not the 1ID5t vital informatia'\
~.......ty. '1he soil type ani c:haracteristics Provide the 1ID5t useful
informatia'1 as well as Q1ITel1t cxn1itia'1 of the stzucture due to
weatherin; .
Silo! cnly fan- of the 10 sanples cpn:d were aR>Iq)riate because they
were urdist:uIbad, the average permeability oanes fran a limited group. 'Ihe
iJIpact of weatherin;J and age also degrades the current CJ:Ner since there is
n:> freeze-thaw protectia'1 layer.
CXHo!ENl' 7: p~ 69 line 3, Mr. Mike Dcvic:hi
7.1 an-rently, the madtorin; wells are right at the edge of the lamfill
~ oart:aminatia'1 walld be expected to be fc:und. However, if the city was
to 00tai.n property 150 feet aroon:1 the existin; limits of fill ani install
aa:titicnU JllCl\itorin} wells further away, then the possibility of little or
n:> oart:aminatien cculd occm'. At that time, the need for arrJ enfOloement
actioo my IU be justifiable.
RESFCNSE
7.1 Please see the final paragraph of the respollse to cx:ament 1.3 for an
~lh answer to this ~J1t.
CXHo!ENl' 8: p. 7S line 2, Mr. David Groessl
-------
8.1 since the current a:Ner was awraved by the State ard Ql1Tel1tly does
not perform to State regulaticrs, there is no guarantee that a CXNer pIt. 00
rDtI will OCI'lform to the fUtm'e regulatia1S. Based 00 that scenario, a
~ water JID'litorin; program ~d be JD:St effective beCause of d1argeS
in tuture regu1aticrs that '8CUld require aQ:1iticnU wrX.
Jm5FOm:
8.1 Please see the I=ot".ouse to ~ 5.1 for infonratioo regardirq the
perfox:maroe of the current a:Ner. 1tcCOrdin:J to Mr. F.de.lstein, there is no
guarantee that arrj actioo will cx:nform to tuture regulaticrs, sin:S those
regulaticrs are not)(n:JWn. }bIeVer, {'ut:ure actioo at the site WOIld have to
be warranted by a current or potential threat at that time. 'the prcp!r
in;tallatioo ani maiJ1t,enarX)e of the NR S04 CXNer ~d, acoordin:;J to the
stu:1:y oc:n:lucted at Onega Hills Lardfill, provide significant proteetioo ard
prevent the {'ut:ure release of contaminantS to the envu-cunent.
a::Mo1ENI' 9: p. 78 line 10, Mr. Norbert Dier
9.1 '!be clay material used for the CXNer is a significant portioo of the
cost ard '8CUld be diffio.1lt to fiM in the Algana area to the specificaticrs
required. 'the cost of the o::Ner at $1.2 millioo may not inclu:ie adeqUate
transportatioo costs of the material.
Jm5FQE
9.1 '!be clay CXNer is a significant portioo of the oost for the N'i!.F.
Approximately $500,000 of the total oost is for the two feet of clay
material. '!be t,ransportatioo cost was inDrp:>ratEd into this figure an:i was
an average value that the oontractor uses for all of its projects
~ the state. Sin:2 the estimated ccsts irrotpOrate a rarge of
-30 percent to +50 percent, as allowed by ~, the diff~ in
trar\SpOrtatioo costs WOlld net excean this rarqe. '!be soil characteristics
of the regioo aro.md Algana may irdicate transportatioo costs are
\.D"dereStimated because an additicnU cii.st,aooe may be required to fW clay
soils of the characteristics specified by the WtNR.
a:HtEm' 10:, p. 89 line 20, Mayor orville [)eMeUSe
10.1 At this time, Altemative 2 wdl is mccitorirq of the qro.:n1 water
ala-g with Q21tiroouS c:heCkiJ'q of surface water and residential wells, ~d
be sufficient to ensure no prc:i:)lem. '!be negative ramificatims ard
potential tuture problems of di.st:urbin) the present cap c:x:W.d worsen the
current ccn:1iticrs.
~PaQ
10.1 Alternative 2 W01ld net OCI'lform to the ~ criteria used to evaluate
an actioo. '!be ~ of the present cap urrler Alternative 4 shOUld
not significantly worsen the problem if da1e with prcp!I' c:xnstIUCtioo
~ an:! in a manner so as net to expose waste or the c:urrent ~
for ext.err3ed periods of time.
a:HtEm' 11: p. 90 line 14, Mr. TerrY !\1lwiler
-------
11.1 In lieu of the very low levels of oootaminatia\ at the site, 1Iihere mst
of the levels are urder the drinking water stamards as well as enfOtoerDf:& It
stamards, an1 the fact that there is no ~ that the pI"q)OSed cxwer
will solve the problem of grtQ'd water oootaminatia\, the grtQ'd water
m:nitorirq alternative walld be the most awrq>riate solutia\.
11.2 SirO! cost is a major factor for the Algana tarnfill site, the cost-
effective solutia\ Waud be to JD:I'\itor qrcuU water for a n.m:ber of years
ani if a prcblem presents itself at a future time, then iJIplE!ll'e.J1tatia\ of a
cx:Ner or water p.trificatia\ system walld be awIq)riate.
RESKNSE
11.1 Please see r~~ to cxmnents 5.1 an1 1.4 for an in-depth answer to
the effectiveness of the ptesmt a:Ner.
11.2 Q:st is aUy ooe of five balancirq criteria used in the u.s. EPA
evaluatia\ process. Q'1e of the bIo threshold criteria Wic:h is net
OIrrently satisfied is ARARs. Specifically, NR 140 regulatioos are
OIrrently net beirq met. Mcnitoring for a n.mt:Ier of years to wait an:! see
if a problem mac;pUfies an1 then take actia'\ walld net be as cost effective
as iJIplement.in:J an actia'\ new. S.iroe WDm interpretatia'\ of NR 140
regulatioos demards that a NR 504 o:Ner is n80e$''''-'''yY un:Ser current
~T1CE!S, a CJ:Ner JIL1St be CXI'1St:nJCted.
cx:JoMENl' 12: p. 92 line 7, Mr. tawrenoe Sdmdtz
12.1 At this time, Alternative 2 walld be most feasible to mcnitor gro.m.:1
water an1 then identify artJ weak areas in the current a:Ner. 0:I'1stIu::tia'\
an:! iJIprcvement of the wrrent o:Ner could be ao:xmplished like a quiltirg
pattern or DDlified step; a'\ a vol\D'1tary basis through ocnstzuctia'\
oatpanies in the area and the City of Alqcna. '!his process walld aooarplish
both objectives.
RfSKNSE
12.1 Ccnst.ructia'\ an1 inprcvement of the current CJ:Ner was evaluated in
the R::ID an:! rejected because it still walld net meet WrfiR NR 504.07
requirements. As stated above, uroer State law, remedial actioo mJSt be
taken to aa:lress exceedl'nces of groon:l water quality starnards. M::nitoring
alooe irsufficient.
CXJ+!ENl' 13: p. 93 line 3, Mr. Mike Davic:hi
13.1 'lhrcugh the readirq of the Remedial Investigatia'\ an:! Feasibility
Sb.dy, there is no scientific justificatia\ for the cost that is goirq to
be in:;un'ed an1 the alternative that is reocmnended by the EPA an1 WDm.
1M feur years that this site has been (";I\~ has to be weighed against the
14 or 16 years that the site was open, exposer' to prec:ipitatia\ an1
infiltratia\, and artJ gran1 water oootaminatia\ that might have occ:urred
during this period.
'!he limited anount of oootaminatia'\, as irdicated by EPA records, does
net justify spend.ir'q $1.2 millia\. In additia'\, the cost of mcnitorirq
-------
wells for tuture observatia\ is too JIIJd1 of a financial burden a\ this
(XJIIII.D'\ity. 'this WOlld be a better cap tut there is R' justificatia\ for it
at this point.
13.2 As an alternative, the I.~weroatia\ is to cap the R'rth and scuth
d i ~J areas with a'Hii te soils &0 they are abanX;ned aid no lcrqer
~, potentially p.It in a fen:e aroJJ'd the area and have the city either
obtain easarents or.p..uxhase the p~ aro.Jrd the existirq site.
MSFa6E
13.1 CERCIA requires tht the selected remedy for a site be cx:st effective,
Le. that the effectiveness of the remedy prq:orticnU. to its oest. '!he
upgrac1irg of the cap '-laB determined to be the DJSt cx:st effective means of
remedyirq the existirq grwnd water (D'1taminatia\ aid preventi.n;J further
releases .
'!he gI'CU'1d water (D'1taminatia\ '-laB fwn1 durirq the IU ~lirq in
1989. '!his '-laB eight years after the lardfill ~ allc:wi.rg the n;~'
of refuse aid six years after the lardfill '-laB closed. Q:rItaminatia\ '-laB
still fc::AJrd in these sanples durirq drcu;Jht ocnditia1S irdicatirq that
cx:rrt:.ir'ued releases are oa:m-rirq. .
13.2 '!he ~lleroatia1 to cap the tma. and ~ with a1-Site soils is
part of the current preferre1 a1 ternati ve based a\ testirq done durirq the
~;,,' design. A feooe is also in::lu::Sed as part of the preferrs1
al temative. '!he a,taiJ'1lnent of easarents or p..uxhase of p~ will net
be fWi!Oe""c:;ary aid further infomatia\ a\ this tc:pic is available in the
t~ se to cxmnent I'IJl'IiJer 1.3.
a:M'!ENI' 14: p. 95 line 2, Mr. Jerry Qlth
14.1 '!he people of the City of Algana aid the ~ area, if they kneW
there was a real disaster or real prci>lem, WOlldn't be afraid to back their
rrrrey up am pay for a solutia1, tut it has net been prc:wen that there is a
seric:us prci>lem.
MSR:NSE
14.1 '!he ~ratia1 by the City of Algana ani other PRPs as respordents to
the on;ent eec::ree for the RIfFS is greatly awreciated by the U. S. EPA.
'!he U.S. EPA does not cb.Jbt that the citizens W1CUld I~d to actim un::ler
adverse cx:n:titia1S. Based a1 the histoty of the NlU' acoeptirq ha..zardcUs
waste, the current o:Ner ani lack of protectia1 fran weatherirq, naturally
oa:m-rirq &arm ani gravels in the regia\, and the ~roe of ~, the
prci>lem at the NlU' warnnts the actia1 of cawirq a
-------
dcM1 the tubes because they are pay~ the taxes here. '!he FRPs an:! the
CXIII!L11"li ty are the 5a1I8 -...qJt. for O1aDpioo Intematiaal.
JID;KNSE
15.1 ']he ~auel.t regarding the interpretatioo is duly noted. '!he U.S. EPA
did not i.nten:l to dim.i.nish the severity of the cost ~ to the
citizens of Algana. ']he intentioo of the U.S. EPA project manager was to
nXe that the City ~ not respalSible for the total cost, tut rather a
portioo of that cost.
c::x:J+fENI' 16: p. 100 line 21, Mr. Warren Maddke
16.1 J\D;~ fran the CCI'1'IeI'Satioo at the public meetin; an:! the different
cx:mnents an:l questias, it ~ that the report to sane extent my be
creat~ a JID.Il1tain out of a IDle hill. '!be $90,000 addi ticral tnaU. tor~
will take care of the IDle hill an:l that' s it.
RES~
16.1 Please see the Iespa1Ses to c:x:mnents 10.1 and 12 .1.
c::x:J+fENI' 17: p. 102 line 9, Mr. Keith Baasch
17.1 '!he ocr1taminatioo that was fCUJ'11 CX11ld have been fran the graud water
10 years llqO, not fran any ground water that came in lately. No one kncws,
so until t.hin;Js get worse, IX) matter who pays for it, it is wasti.n:1 JJ.rre'f.
You have qat to keep 00 wat.c.hirg it. aIt new you a'1ly have five years or
less than five years of really wat.c.hirg. '1hese wells are not that old.
RESFCH;E
17.1 Please see I espa ISe to (2.,...et"It 13.1 for a descriptioo a1 the
possibility of ground water ocr1taminatia1 fran the NfU original
cxnstIuctioo stages.
a:r+tEm' 18: p. 106 line 12, Mr. Mike tbvid1i
18.1 'lbrc:u;Jh'read.in; the RI report, it .in:licated that the garbage may, in
fact, be 1n the graud water table, so that my want to be looked at again.
If that is the case, then sane of the statestents made taUght at the p1blic
meet~ are a little shaky.
JID;FCH;E
18.1 '!be waste in spots is in the grcun1 water bIt net the entire landfill.
'Ihis is based a1 historical rea:>rds examined dur~ the RI preparatia1.
'!he follOlJfin; cxmnents were su1::mitted at the p1blic meetin; or thr'c:u;h the
mail as written cxmnents.
o.,..oM'It 19: Letter to SUsan Pastor, Office of Public Affairs, frcD
Mr. am Mrs. carl Novak
-------
19.1 AlgaDi1 is a CXIII1L1nity of 4,000 mstJ,y retired pecple who carn:Jt afford
the preferred alternative ocst of a million dollars.
19.2 ReView of the RIfFS irdicates J'W:) evidenJe of extensive c:a1tamination.
RESFCIE
19.1 'the present financial hardship on the oamunity of Algana is duly
noted. 'the city of Al9CIM is only one of seven FRPs at the WIU' site and.
therefore will rot ~ the. entire ccst directly.
19.2 Q:rJt.amiratioo presently e>roeetic: levels man:Jated by Federal and. State
regulatias and., by law, DUSt be adjressed. 'lberefore, by law, an actioo
DUSt be taken, ard aocoIdin; to WtNR interpretatioo the NR 504 exNer DUSt be
inplemented.
Cament 20: TerrY F\l1wiler, O:;:mnent Sheet
20.1 Jesul ts fran the RI irdicate less ocntaminatioo than the original
~lirq W'hien placed the site 00 the NPL list.
20.2 '!he current PAL for benzene is .5 R:b ard the enforcement limit is 5
. R:b. One of 13 wells has 3.9 R:b of benzene presently, hcweVer, the wrnR,' is
raisirq the PAL for benzene to 5.0 R:b in the near f\Jt11re.
20.3 Water sarrples irdicate the water is still fit to drink.
hXliticnUly, the water cpU.ity at other SUperfund sites after clean-up is
'WOrse than the water cpU.ity at this site if J'W:) actioo wculd be taken.
20.4 'Ihe $1.2 mi11ia1 cost wcmd place a CJI"St t:urden at the citizens an:1
small b.1sinesses of Algc:ma.
20.5 Ccntiroed m::nitorin; of existin; D:nitorin; ~lls ard the
installatioo of a new D:nitorin;J well dcM'gndi.ent of the lanifill wculd
give anple warnirq of arfi in::rease:1 ocntaminatioo.
RESFCNSE
20.1 Less ocntaminatia1 was fourd for benzene ani ocW.d be attribItable to
the drcu;ht oi:n:titias ,.,roc:h existed durin; the 1989 RI sarrplin; rourds.
'the 0JI"I"8l'1i ccn1ition of the lanifill CJCNer, historY of acoeptin;J ~
waste, ani geological envira'1merJt of sardy, pemeable soil in ..mien the
~ is located were all CXI'1t.ribJtin; factors to the preferred
al temative.
20.2 '!he aL for benZenS is on-rently .067 RJb ani is rot goin;J to c:baJ'qe.
'the enfCk~ stardard for benzene is .67 RJb ani will likely be c::harqe:i
to 5.0 R*> en OCtober 1, 1990. PAtS will still be exceeded for benzene at
this time ani, acxDIdin; to waa interpretatioo of PAL exoeedarX::eS, the NR
504 CJCNer will still be recpired.
20.3 '!he current (XI'ttamination is minimal. Please see I"E::SpCIISe to ~allent
20.1 as to other cx:n;ideratias evaluated for this nmady.
20.4 '!he awrc:ociJDate tax in::reaSe ocst of $350 per persa1 in the City is
based on the city in::urrin;J the entire cxst of the ~b' action. Siroe
there are seven ~, the ocst shcu1d be distrib1t.ed ~ tb::ISe other
parties. '!he U. S. EPA is ~ CNer the (X2I1tL1nity awareness of this
issue. '!he U.S. EPA is willin; to look at ccst~ffective ways to inplerrent
16
.
-------
the preferred alternative such as usin;J the present clay material as a
torIQi SQJl'C8 if it CXlIplies with ~ specificaticn;.
20.5 A rW!ItI JlD\itorin;J well at a further c1i.st:.aro! fl'tlD the landfill wcW.d net
be neoe""~"Y based at the dic=n:assiat provided in respc:nse to . u...~ 1.3.
ea....-It 21: tetter to SUsan Pastor, Office of Public Affairs, traI
James L. Evarw
21.1 'Ihe citizens of Algaua cannot afford to pay far the cleanJp.
21.2 'Ihe lan:!fill does not ~r to be a threat to anyone's health.
21. 3 0::rrt.inJed mcnitorin;J of wells awears to be the most awrc:priate course
of actiat at this time.
RFSFaE
21.1 'Ihe City of Algaaa is not the atly I~sible party in this actiat am
will not bear the entire ocst of the actiat.
21.2 At the present time, the Il'IU' is net a threat to anyone's health.
Protectiat of human health am envL.u.aent is the first of b10 threshold
criteria the u.s. EPA uses to deteImine if an actiat is warranted. 'Jhe
seccn1 is carplian::e with ARARs Wich are Federal and State laws. 1his
secxn:S criteria is not met am therefore actiat is warranted. In additiat,
the U.S. EPA cxnsiclers future threat to pmlic health in the evaluatiat of
alternatives. Based at the history of ~ aooept.iJ'q ha.zardcuS waste, the
pexmeability of ~ soil, and the JXX)r ccn:litiat of the current
cx:Ner, a pJtential threat exists to human health.
21.3 Based at the criteria evaluated by the u.s. EPA, the preferred
alternative is far a cx:Ner in carplianoe with NR 504 requirements. See
I =>POI se to oaJ1I'P.nt 1.1 far further details.
O::mrent 22: Sharon a1SCh, o:mnent Sheet
22.1 Hazardous ~ have not been relea.se:1 into either of the b10
nearby c:::reekS. 'Ihe RI cxn:lu:led that the landfill has had no measurable
iDpact at "rater quality in private dr~ water wells near the site.
'Iherefore, no actiat shcu1d be ocnsidered far the site.
RFSiOS
22.1 'Ihe RI bas cxn:lujed there is no ~CZ11nble iJIpact at the private
drinkin; walla or the nearl7i c:reeJ
-------
23.2 (D1ti.ruid Jla'\itor~ of ~ wells is the 8Wr'q)riate course of
actiat.
RfSPCNSE
23.1 Based at the initial investigation am ~~ m::nitorin; of the IMU'
there is no reasoo to believe an alternative &QlrO! of ocntami.natiat exists.
23.2 Please see t~1Se to ~l8udlt 1.1.
. .
o.....nent 24: CarOl NiDmer, Q:mDent Sheet
24.1 A $1.2 million cap is too expensive. cmsider option B as the mst
feasible.
RES~
24.1 Please see ~ to cxmnent 1.5 rega.rd.i.rq cx:st am 1. ~ rega.rd.i.rq
Al ternati ve 2.
ecmnent 25: Annille [)eMeUSe, ecmnent Sheet
25.1 If continJEd u:citorin; of existin; an:! aatiticral wells i.n:1ic:ates
in;:reas~ ocrrt:amination then alternative 3 ooold be justified.
25.2 '!he landfill ~esents no threat to tuman health or the environment.
25.3 DistuIb~ the cap ~d ;in::rease the possibility of ocrrt:amination,
especially disturt>iJ'g the asbestOS.
25.4 Based at the informatia\ in the RI, Alternative 2 is the best
6Olutiat.
RESFOSE
25.1 Alternative 3 ooold not be justified aa:x>rd.i.rq to Wt'NR inteIpretatia1
of NR 500 , 140 codes. Alternative 3 also ~d not prevent continuirg
releases of ocrJta1ninants to the aq.rl.fer. Alternative 4 is the preferred
remedy based.en the nine criteria used to evaluate the alternatives.
25.2 Please see I~ to cx:mnent 21.2.
25.3 Please see I~ ISe to \,;Ula,.ent 10.1 rega.rd.i.rq the c:li.stuJ:banCe of the
present cap. '!be asbeStO& is not believed to be within the ID\ \/hidl is the
area that is p~ to be oavered. Previous investigatioo of the site
~ this wcW.d not be a problem.
o:mment 26: Mariat Mess, ecmnent Sheet
26.1 '!he citizens of Algana cannot afford a $1.2 millioo cap. Limited
ect.iat (Alternative 2) ~1"'S to be all that is ~-"Y.
RfSPCNSE
26.1 Please see n:spa ISe to cxmnents 1.5 ard 1.1 for details rega.rd.i.rq ocst
am Alternative 2 as a cnosen remedy.
-------
o.-uent 27: Jchn DeKeyser, o..wld1lt Sheet
27.1 Widespread future ocntam.inati~ CDJld ccst more, keep it frcm ~irg
8 problEID for future qeneratic:ns.
~KJ6E
27.1'Ihe preferred alternative ~d ad::lress the future release of
ocntam.inati~ by providin; ,8 m:>re secure CDler to prevent the peroolati~ of
water t.hro..r#l the waste. For future protecti~ of human health and the
envu-c.lDeI1t, OCI1Pliance with ARARs, andlcn;J-term effectiveness the cnosen
alternative is JD:>St ~te.
0cmDent 28: DlVid G. HI.dsa1, O:mnent Sheet
28. 1 Alternative 4 is too mcpensive until 8 different health hazard can tie
proven. 'Iherefore, Alternative 2 is the best L~I&I.erdaticn.
RESRNSE
28.1 Please see respase to c:xmnent 1.1 and 1.5 regardin:J ccst and
Alternative 2 as the preferred remedy.
o...w-nt 29: Gerald I.eGreYe, o...auent Sheet
29.1 M:rd torirg the W1ells and wai tirg for sanet:hin;J to haI:Pen is foolish.
Prevent further ocntam.inaticn by usirg a clay cap and inplementin;J
Alternatives 2 and 4.
RESK'tE
29.1 'Ihe cx:mtent is duly n:Jted and a;preciat.ed. Please see respase to
~J"It 27 for further informaticn.
ecmnent 30: Reiny Hown;e, a..lauent Sheet
30.1 'Ihe results of the tests shew no significant hazarcb1s material in the
groon:l water..at this time. 'Iherefore, it ~ that no further acti~ is
~~1J.ternative 1. Alternative 2 ~d certainly tie adequate at this
time. .
RESRNSE
30.1 'Ihe results of the RI show that benzene, margane.se and i.ra\ exceed' of
NR 140 !Sa ard PAIs. Qrltaminaticn is present in W1ells off site and the
potential far future release of ocntam.inaticn is present. For further
informaticn regardin:J no acti~ or Alternative 2 as an cpti.~, please see
1:~..s es to ocmnents 22.1 and 1.1.
o..went 31: Earl B. Krueger, O:mnent Sheet
31.1 ~lirg results fraD the site in:ticate CCI'11:aminants are un:5er
aooeptable limits by U.S. EPA st.ardards.
-------
31.2 AlteIMtive 2 is the 1IIC6t feasible far the site since Alternative 4
'aQ11d be an ~anic blow to Algaua irdustI'Y ani the citizens of Algana.
~fCNSE
31.1 tJrder a1C[A, re~~'HAl acticn; lUSt meet awlicable or xelevant ard
awropriate Federal or State stardards, ..nicheVer are JlCre strin;Jent. State
regulatioo NR 140 is JlCre strirqent than federal stardards ani it is
awlicable to the gra.ni water at this site. By law, the u.s. EPA 1IIJSt
~ this law am act aocxm:1ingly even if U. s. EPA.stardards are net
~.
O:mnent 32: 'IhcmaS J. 1bIdenne, O:mnent Sheet
32.1 To this point, ncthin;J that WOlld be a darqer to huDan health ard
safety has been fc:urd. 'Iherefore, (XI'1t.ir'BJed m:nitoring of existing '
-------
33.1 Please 1188 respaase to o....--at 22.1 far informatiem.
o..idSfIt 34: ~ H. 8Jsctl, O:mnent Sheet
34.1. ']be landfill has a cap that was awrcved by the wam ~ it was
ocnstructed. Mtiticnally, the lan:ifill will be restricted by a fence to
prevent cx:ntact with waste em site. '!herefore, Alternative 2 is the
~iate cn.u:se of actiem.
RESFCI6E
34.1 Please see IespcI1Se to 0 ....~11ts 1. 3 for wam closure awraYa1. am 1.1
for Alternative 2 as ~riate cx:urse of actiem.
O::mnent 35: tetter to SUsan Pastor, Office of Public Affairs,
fran Harold Nell
35.1 ']be pJblic meetinJ for the Algana landfill inticates no further actia1
is needed other than ocntinued uari torinJ of existinJ wells. 'Ibis case
'-'CUld not hold up in a CXA.Jrt of law.
35.2 '!here is no justificatiem far sperdirq $1.2 milliem em a cap, it ~d
a\ly pIt an extra bJrden em Algaaa ta)cpayers.
35.3 '!he lanclfill presently has five feet of required. clay am ctirt CNer
JD:St of the area am at no time was it un::Jer the required aDnmt or depth.
RESRHm
35.1 Please see Iespc:nse to o..".~ 1.1 ~ mcnitorinJ as the
recx:mne.njed cn.u:se of actiem. Qmnents directly relatinJ to the
alternatives are addressed in this respcrsiveness sunnary. 'Ibis O"l....eJit
does not d.i.rect:.ly relate to the alternatives an1 therefore will not respond
to ~rrt:.s ~ legal enfoJ:'CEllel'1t.
O:mnent 36: tetter to SUsan Pastor, Office of Public Affairs,
fran Michael D. DcNichi
36.1 '!he ~.s. EPA an1 ~ sIXIUld not have initiated the expenditure of
$500,000 worth of study withcut first havinJ the City cx:nfirm the presence
of the ocntaminants detected by (the c:xrsul ti.ng firm) E , E in 1984. '!he
City shcu1d have been given the qportunity to have an Infield O:n1itions
Investigatim CCIIPleted as defined in NR 140 Grcmd water OJality. 'Ibis
type of iJM8tiqatim cxW.cl have been CCIIpleted for a tenth of the cost
spent to data.
36.2 'Iher8 is a lade of meanin;Jful data in the RIfFS. '!he ~c map
is a tSGS 10 foot c:x:.ntcur map instead of an up-to-date two foot c:x:.ntcur map.
'lhere are also no cress sections in the report to shew that an evaluatiem
1I1U mde of the subesJrfaoe mterial, grcurd water surface, an1 areas of
cantaminatiat. 1d:litimally, there has not been an invest.igatiem of
alternative soorces of cantaminatiem in the area. '!his is critical since
the CXI'1taminant is benzene, a highly volatile ~.
-------
36.3 1his lardfill was ocn;t.ruct.ed in highly permeable soil, daily CDIer
was spotty to ncnexistent, the area up;radient of the cx:rJtaminated well was
filled in the late 19706, am no other volatiles were fourd in this well.
'Ihis pc6Sibly in:licates another SQ.IrOB of cx:rJtaminaticn.
36.4 Given the opporbmity to awly the design management zen! criteria to
the lardfill, the City 'tiICWd be in cx::mpliance with the State of Wi.9cxrSin
qrcu-d water staroaros. A 300 foot [Jo1Z WOlld awly to this site siIre it is
regulated urder SS. "144.43 to 144.47 Stats. '!his statute ani associated
administrative oOOe were develcp:d because the scientific oamunity
~zed that lardfills leak, especially rm-ergineered lardfills. '!be
fact that this 1ardfill haS leaked so little justifies the c:x:n;ervative
di.stance of 300 feet.
36.5 '!be positicn that the final CD.Jer is inadequate is J'¥:Jt justified based
upon the data presented in the RIfFS. '!be c:nly value of oollectirg SheJ.Dy
'I\1be sanples in gravelly soil is to tzy to obtain an un:li.sturl::e1 sanple.
'!be fact that urdist:urbed sanples could J'¥:Jt be oollected does J'¥:Jt justify
the U.S. EPA ani WtNR positioos that the present cap is unaooeptaDle.
'n1erefore, before sperd.iJ'q $1.2 millicn to recap the lardfill, additic:na.l
doa.mentatia'\ is required.
36.6 '!be c1eanJP plan ~ by the U.S. EPA is J'¥:Jt justified c::a1Siderirg
the lack of sericus c;art:.aminatia'\, insufficient data regardirg the quality
of the final CD.Jer, ard the extreme iJrpact a'\ the ~ of the city.
36.7 By the U. S. £PAl S om statement, the site has had minimal iDpct to
the envi.rcrlment to date am siIre there is no :iJmediate threat to human
health or welfare, Wi J'¥:Jt take the time to gather additimal ground water
data to establish a trerd? '!be wrNR requires a mi.nimJm of eight quarters of
grcurd water scmplirg before it will permit a new lardfill to be cpned.
Why J'¥:Jt haVe the city take an additicnU fc:ur rc::unds? Jdiitimally, a 300
foot [Jo1Z shOOld be created arcurd the lardfill ani if awrq>riate,
additicnU wells could be installed to mr:nitor the gro.ni water quality.
QUy after the scientific data ~ that the lardfill is actually hav~ an
inc:reaSirg iJlpact a'\ water cpUity shculd ren-iiatia'\ begin.
"
36.8 I wish to voice JItj ci>jecticn to the manner in Wieb the p1blic meetin;J
was held a'\ ~ 13, 1990. '!be m::xSerator o.tt off participants am did n:1t
allow as many cpestioos to be asked as needed. a:nsiderirg this was the
c:nly opportunity for the p1blic to 0; Cl"'I1C:..c:I the RI study, FS, ani P~ ~
Plan, the ~ shQJ1d J'¥:Jt haVe been o.tt short. .
RESKNSE
36.1 '!his ." ~n.'~ is duly noted.
36.2 '!be c:x:mments fran this secticn pertain to the RI ani will be duly
mted. Q:I1ta.1r maps with two foot inteIva1s ani aa;s sectia'\ elevatioos
WQ1ld haVe been helpful bIt n:1t rBOe""'-ry in the deteIminaticn am
evaluaticn of the N'J.E. '!here was no reasa'\ to believe alternative SQ1roe&
existed at the NtfU because of the backgro.D'd data and field c:t:.serJatia'\.'
36.3 '!his (X:IIIWIP1It was cx:nfusirg am will be answered baSed en the
22
.
-------
~tiCl'\ of the mean.in;J. '!he soU in this area is highly permeable
wc:h is CI1e reascI'\ V:rJ an NR 504 CJ:Ner will protect fl"Clll actual ar
p:rt:ential tuture releases fraD cx::01ITin;J. '1he fact that the area up;radient
of the oart:am.inated well was fUled ck1rin;J the cpentiCl'\ of the lan:lfill ani
spotty daily 0CNer was prcwided does not proYe that the volatiles ~
have already been cx:mpletely released ar that arother scurce is respcndble.
36.4 '1he WtNR has provided int:erpretatiCl'\ rega.rd.in:) the tJo1Z an! ita
awlicaticx\ at »tIE. Please see the Iespa ISe to ~.lIent 1.3 for further
informaticx\. .
36.5 '!he current aNer inadeqUacy is based CI'\ the informatiat in the RI as
well as the fact that there is no protecti. ve CJ:Ner fl"Clll freeze-thaw. '!he
stardards for a cap layer aooorc:1in; to NR 504 specifications include: a
m.inimJm 50 PerOent by weight passin;J the 200 sieve, a saturated hydraulic
ocn:iuctivity of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per secxn:1, and six i.nc:b lifts
~ to 90 percent Drdified or 95 percent stamard proctor density.
Four of the 10 saITPles did not pass the '200 sieve test, and atly 1 of the 4
saJIPles capable of bein;J tested for hydraulic ocrductivity pi!lS'~, with an
geanet.ric average of 6.9 x 10~. '!he six i.nc:b ~ lifts CXA1ld not be
verified. ,
36.6 O:I1taminatiat of grc::urd water was found at levels above State NR 140
ESs and PAIs. A Federal ICL was also ~ for cadmium durin;J one rcun::l
of scmplin;J of the RI. '1hese ~'1Ce5 warrant the actiat taken based at
the i.nterpretaticx\ by the WtNR of NR 140 regulatias. For infomaticx\
rega.rd.in:) the ~.JaCY of the present o:Ner, please see ~espalSe to
o.....Artt 36.5. 'Jhe cost iDpact far the citizens of Algaaa is addresSed in
~~ to (pmIP.TJt 1.5.
36.7 '!he site has had minimal iJrpact to the erNira1ment and there is no
iJIp:w'1jAte threat to human health ar welfare. HaweYer, there is ~T1Ce
of ARARa, specifically State NR 140 PSs ani PAIs. AccordirrJ to WtNR
il1teIpretatiCl'\, AlteJ:native 4 is warranted. 'Jhe current data validates the
preferred actiCl'\ and additiatal1ll21itorin;J is not required. Please see the
h:;;:,t.a1Se to ""-AW.ent 1.3 for i~c:tJeS rega.rd.in:) the tJo1Z. Scientific data
shewS that the ltMIF is actually havin;J an inpact at water quality.
'lberefore, actiat is justifiable and to wait and see if it ~ an
in:;:reasing iJIpact of water ~ity is not neoesc:rary. 'Jhe highly pmneable
soils, history of aocept.in) hazardaJs waste, and poor current o:Ner
ocn:titiat are all cxnsideratioos for this actiCl'\.
36.8 ~ ~Ient is duly noted. '!he iroorPQratiCl'\ of questioos and
<> ....~-'1ts together by the PJblic diSJ:upted the order of the meetin). '!he
intentiat of the DOSerator was not to QJt off arrj questiat or shorten the
meeting, but enaure all these ptBsent had an ~ty to ~uent. If you
have ~ ar CJlSStias that had not been addressed either thrcu;Jh the
pmlic 1IIB8tirr; or writin;J, please CCI'1taCt the u.s. EPA project manager at
(312) 353-6261.
o ....oH1t 37: Dean R. Egr;Jert, o..w.ent Sheet
37.1 'Jhe »tIE was closed and ~ in 1983. OIer the years it has been
mcnitorecS and in the u.s. EPA's own words, "the site has actually gotten
better. " '!he st:u:1y an:l fi.n:tirgs show such a mirute aDOmt of oart:am.inatiCl'\
at the site that Altemative 4 wcW.d not be ~.
-------
d
37.2 '!he financial b..1rden of $1. 2 millia'\ ~d really hurt the citizens of
Algcma. Please dcr'\'t bJrden the citizens of Alqana with this acXtiticnal
(XSt. IDplement Alternative 2 for m:nitoriIq instead of Alternative 4.
~1Q6E
37.1 Please see respcnse to \,AAlalent 1. 2 regardirq ocrrtaminatia'\ at the AMU.
37.2 Please see tespa ISeS to ccmnent 1.1 regardirq Alternative 4 as a
preferred remedy am 1.5 regardirq costs incurred by the citizenS of Algana.
-------
APPENDIX A
LISl' OF RESR:Mam) tIJRIN:; 'DiE roBLIC cx:t+tml' PmIOD
FCR 'DiE AI..IXK\ MJN1CIPAL INIDFIIL
FKM JUIN 23, 1990 'It) N.:GJST 22, 1990
a:rflENI' t
CXMotENl' 1:
o::I+JENl' 2:
a:r+tENI' 3:
a:r+tENI' 4:
~s:
. NAME AND AFFILIATI~
ERIC Gt(t;I .:1 I.
Ro!I' , DlC., a::NSULTANl' FtR
RES~ 'It) a:NSENl' ~
ARmUR A. VtGEL JR.
~ & BRADY, ~ ftR
RESFCNI»n'S 'It) CXNSENI' ~
TERRY FUIJIJIIER, roBLIC
~, RI:J 1':I'J1'INGS
J(El'IH HAASai, roBLIC MEEl'JJ'C,
REPCRI' OF ~I ")o:I'J 1n«;S
~ DIER, roBLIC MEEl'JJ'C,
I(t;fiCRl' OF PR) I':I'J JDGS
a:r+tENI' 6 & 7: MIJ(E OOV'IatI, FUBLIC~,
~ OF ~n«;S
a:r+tENI' 8:
"
a:r+tENI' 9:
a:Mmf1' 10:
CXJototml' 11:
a:r+tENI' 12:
D.\VID GR:>ESSL, FUBLIC MEEl'JJ'C,
J<£PCRl' OF m, ")0:1'] JDGS
MR. DIER, roBLIC MEEl'JJ'C,
I(t;f(Rl' OF ~ ")O:I'J )~
CRVnzE I»tE1JSE, MAY~, PUBLIC
~, ~ OF ~.n«;S
MR. FUIJIJIIER, FUBLIC MEEl'JJ'C,
~ OF FK:I")o:I':J)~
L\WRmCE SOiMlTZ, FUBLIC
~, ~ OF PR)")o:I'JJDGS.
SCXJRC:E OF CI:Mo!ENl'
lEITER, DM'fD
NnBr 22, 1990
lEITER, DM'fD
N.:GJST 22, 1990
S'I'ATEMFm' wa: AT
'DiE NJGJSr 13, 1990
RJBLIC HFAJUlI;
S'I'ATEMFm' !WE AT
'DiE ~ 13, 1990
roBLIC HFAJUlI;
S'I'ATEMFm' !WE AT
'DiE NJGJSr 13, 1990
FUBLIC HFAJUlI;
S'I'ATEMFm' wa: A'X 'DiE
NJGJSr 13, 1990 FUBLIC
HFAJUlI;
S'I'ATEMFm' wa: AT '!HE
NJGJSr 13, 1990 FUBLIC
~
S'I'ATEMFm' M1\IE A'X '!HE
N»JSr 13, 1990 FUBLIC
~
STATEMENI' !WE AT '!HE
NJGJSr 13, 1990 FUBLIC
~
S'I'ATEMFm' !WE A'X 'DiE
NXUi1r 13, 1990 FUBLIC
~
S'I'ATEMFm' !WE A'X 'DiE
NJGJSr 13, 1990 RJBLIC
-------
JE AT 'mE
REFORl' OF mx:EEDnGS ~ 13, 1990 RJBUC
HEARJN;
cx:Mmn' 15: MN ~, RJBLIC~, srATOONI' w.IE AT 'mE
REFORl' OF ~nGS ~ 13, 1990 RJBL!C
~
~16: WARREN w.I:D
-------
a:Mo1ENl' 27: JCIiN IEKE'iSER, RESIIEfl' cx::MotmI' SHEE1'
CI\TF.D NnJSr 15, 1990
a:JflENI' 28: ~VID G. ~, RESIIEfl' a:Mo1ENl' QiEEl'
tWreD NnJSr 15, 1990
a:J+tEm' 29: GERAID ux;REVE, RESII»n' a:H'!ENI' SHErr
tWreD N.XnSr 15, 1990
a:JflENI' 30: REDf{ }DtlRSE, PRESIIEfl', a::.M-1ENI' SHErr
AI.CD9. tamER a:MPANY Dt\.TED N.XJJSr 15, 1990
cx::H!ENI' 31: EARL B. ~, RESIIEfl' a:Mo1ENl' SHEE1'
Q\TED N.XnSr 19, 1990
cx::H!ENI' 32: 'IHN\S J. ~, RESIIENI' CIJflENl' SHEEl'
Q\TED NnJSr 13, 1990
CIJflENl' 33: ~ ~u:;KL~, ~, CIJflENl' SHEEl'
AI.CD9. WISCX:'mIN tWIm N:GJSr 13, 1990
CIJflENl' 34: VlNN H. BJSai, RESIIENI' CIJflENl' SHEEr
tWIm ~ 10, 1990
CXJflENI' 35: H1\RJID NEIL, RESn:EN1' I.EITER 'lO SUE p~
Q\TED ~ 14, 1990
cx::H!ENI' 36: MIOiAEL D. to'JIO{[, RESIIEfl' CIJflENl' SHEEr
Q\TED N.XJJSr 19, 1990
CXJflENI' 37: lEAN R. ~, RES:ItfNI' CIJflENl' SHEEr
tWIm N.XJJSr 22, 1990
-------
~
81 State of Wisconsin \
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
eanon 0. ,...dfl'l, Itorttary
801 7.21
...t/eon. WlfOO"cJ" 13707
TfLDAJ NO. 'O'.~7~571
TPP NO. 80'-117"'87
lOUD WASTI T'fLUAJ NO. 108-287.17..
Sept8~ber 25, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO: 4440
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus,
U. S. EPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, III 60604
Admi nistrator
SUBJECT: Selected Remedy, Algoma Landfill Superfund Site
Town of Ahnapee, WI
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The Department is providing you with this letter to document our position on
the proposed final remedy for the Algoma landfill Site. The proposa', IS
identified in the July 20, 1990 Proposed Plan, includes the following:
Construction of . new soil/clay cover over the 'andfill disposal area
(LDA) meeting the requirements of s. NR 504.07, Wis. Adm. Code.
Construction of the same soil/clay cover over the north and south
disposal areas (NDA and SDA), unless pre-design investigations find that
the arias show no potential for contributing to the contamination at the
site.
Insta"ation of a 'andfill gas venting system at the lDA.
Groundwater and gas monitoring, installation of additional monitoring
wells, a site fence, obtaining access rights and obtaining deed
restrictions for property the disposal areas are located on.
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
.
Total Present Worth Cost:
$1,100,000
S 1 L 000
$1,300,000
.
B!s!d on 30 years of O&M
The Department concurs with the se1ection of this remedy, 15 der
-------
2
'\,
Mr. Viildas V. Adamkus - September 25. 1990
The S~ate of Wisconsin will contribute 501 of the remedial action costs
associated with this action and 501 of the OiM costs for the first year and
provide for .1' O&~ after .that. if the potentially responsible parties lPRP'S)
do no~ agree to fund the remedy and the OiM. We provide this assurance on the
assumption that U. S. EPA wi1' pursue all actions with the PRP's prior to
expending the fund at the site.
We also understand that our staff will continue to work in cl05e consultation
with jour staff during the pre-design, design and construction phases of the
remed.f .
Thank you for your support and cooperation in addressing this contamination
problem at the Algoma Landfill Site. If you hive any questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. Paul Didier, Director of the Bureau of Solid and
Hazarjous Waste Management, at (608) 266-1327.
Sincerely.
-
c.~~~.
CDB:GAE
cc: Lyman Wible - AC/S
Linda Meyer - LC/S
Paul Didier - SW/3
Doug Rossberg - LMD
8111 Ktubo1d - U. S. EPA Region V, 5HS/ll
Mar~ Giesfe1dt/Sue 8angert/Gary Edelstein - SW/3
------- |