Unittd StatM
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency end
Remedial Response
EPA^OO/R10-87/010
Sttptwnbw 1987
SEP A
Superfund
Record of Decision
-------
.
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(PtHU I'Hd "",,,,ctiOils 011 th~ nv~n~ IHfon CO",,,/~t;II')
1. ".'OAT NO. 12. 3. REC''''ENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/RlO-87/0l0
.. TITL! AND SU8TITL£ 5. "."ORT DA TE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION ... .. ber 29 1987
Colbert Landfill, WA e. "ER~ORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
First Remedial Action
7. AUTHOR.SJ 8. peRFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
, ..
.'. . ~",
.. . ...
~. ".A'OAMING OAGA,,!I~TION NAM. ANO ADO".SS , .. 10. 'AOGRAM ELiM.NT NO.
~. . ., 11. CDNTRAc;T/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND peRIOD COVEREO
U.S. ~nvironmental Protection Agency "'in~' ROD ReDort
401 M Street,.S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODe
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
115. SU"LEMINTARY NOTES
.
18. ABSTRACT
The Colbert Landfill, a 40-acre county-owned sanitary landfill is located in Spokane
County, washington. From 1968 through 1986, th& landfill received both municipal and
commercial ,wastes. During ,five years, from 1975 to ~980, a lo~al electronics
manufacturing company, Key Tronic'Corporation, disposed of.~everal hundred gallons per
month of. spent organic solvents, mainly methylene chloride a~d l,l,l~trichloroethane
t~CA) at the landfill.' These wastes. were typically brought ,to th.e landfill in,drums and
poured down the sides of open trench~s to mix with the soil or ordinary municipal refuse
already in the trench. During the same period, Fairchild Air Force Base, disposed of
various solvent' wastes at the site. Pesticides and refinery tar residues were also
disposed on site, but to date, these contaminants have,'not been detected in the ground
water. 'In 1980, nearby residents complained to the Eastern Reqional Office of the
Washington Department of Ecology about these disposal practices. Investigation of these
compl~lints l'ed to the discovery of nearby private well contamination with TCA. In June
1984, an Ini'tial'~~,medial Measure (IRM) was developed to extend the pUblic water supply
mains to effected residents. The primary contaminants of concern effecting the ground
water include: VOCs~ TCA,l,l-dichloroethylene, l,l-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene
TCE, tetrachloroethylene, methylchloride.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. K.Y WOROS ANO OOCUMINT ANAL YSiS
~. OISCAI'TORS b.IOENTIFleRS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C:. COSA TI Field/Ciroup
Record of Decision
Colbert Landfill, WA
First Remedial Action,
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: carcinogenic compounds,
PCE, VOCs (TCA & TCE)
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS ITlli$ R,pon) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 65
20. SECURITY ,CLASS 1T1,;s PtllWI 22. PRICE
" Nt'lnp
.
.
....
I'. ,- 2220-1 (R... .-77)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
RIPORT NUM8IR
Inserlf". I::PA reporl number u it appears on the coyer of the publk-ation.
LlAVI 8LANK
2.
3.
RICIPtENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
RaaYed for IUe by r.u:h report re.:ipienl.
TlTLI AND SU8TIn.E
Title should Indicatel:lc;uly and brieny the subjel:ll:ovct:lJ': IJf th.: n:port.;and be di~rby~'" prumincntly. ~I \Ul1tillc. if u,,"d. In ~millk:r
type or oaherwUe subordinate it to maia tille. 'MIca. reporl is pn:pared in mol\" thiln ,I~ yulumc. rCpo;lt ..'" prIR"'" lille. ;ad'" v,lIlImc
". aumblr lad. iacbId8 subtid8 for tM .,.aIle litle. ,,' ,
. .........~.... O:'.~~t~..7':;'~;~{~~' ..".> " ~
"IJIORTDATI "'" ~ ,',',"" ".i: "
Eacb report sbaU carry . elate indicatiq at leu. montb' and ycar. Indk-alc tlw 1';&.';'" un whi\;h il ~;J~ ",'I,,~I,,"" (t'.K.. J4lt. III iuut". Jiltt" fll
qproNJ. .11 01 pnptllfltiOlt. IIC.).
'"
4.
..
'L
I.
,."'ORMING ORGANIZATION CODI
Leav. blank.
AUTHORCS» '
Give namets. in \:\)nve:ntional order (John R. Doe. J. Ro/x'" Dot', ('(('.), Li~t "ulhu"~ ;lniliilllull if it \Ii""~r~' fruIII 111,' I",rt'urmina: ,'It:;Jni.
ulion.
7.
L
...R'ORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
In.n if performin. orpniution Wlsha to assiJft IhL" number,
"'''FO''MlNG ORGANIZATION NAMI AND ADDRESS
Gin name. s~t. city. state. and ZIP code. Lisl no more than IWO leveb ol';ln ur~nil.:lliunill himr\'hy.
..
,10. 'ROGRAM ELEMINT NUM8IR .
U. the propam element number under whi.:h Ihe reporl wa." prepared. Subor"'iniltc numbllr'l 111;1)' be in\'lu"'~d in I""rclllh,,,,,,...
11. CONT"ACT/GRANT HUM.IR
In.. contract or pant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAMI AND ADDRISS
, Include ZIP cocI8. ',' . .
., . . .. ".,
. .
.'
13. TY'I 0' REPORT AND I'IRIOD COVE-RID, '
Indicate in,terim fbW. Itt.. I(Id if app1ic:able. data cOYered.
14. SPONSORING AGkNCY CDDI
In~ert appropriate code.
15. SUPPt.EMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful. such ...,:
To be published in. Supersedes. Supplements. etc.
Prepared in \:lJopcrilliun with, I'r;l""bll"" ..I. l'r~"'III,'''' ;II """1,'",",,, .....
11. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 \ttIOrds 0' I,") factual summary of the m~t' ~iLCnilinnt Infurm;llilln \,"unl;un\:1I1II III,' "'1'\1". II 111,' "'I".rl \'\1111;1111""
sipific:ant bibliolPphy or litentwe survey. mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS '
(a) DESCRIPTORS. Selecl Crom Ih. Thnaurus of I::nainecrin, ;and St:il:ntili\' 'fl:"n.. Ihl: prupcr ;lUlh..",cd Mill" Ih.1I l\1cnlil'y Ihl: mOljur
concept of the rneuch and ue sufraciendy sp8'o'IJic and pre.:isI: 10 be ~I1 ;&., indc~ .:ntncs fur l,;..tillutUn~. '
(b) IDENTlI~IERS AND OPEN.ENDED TERMS. Use idenlif1en for projc:t:t nilm"". .:ude n;am.:". I:~Ulpml:nll.ll:"l~nlllu",. I:h:. IJ'IC 1111I:n.
ended terms wriuen in descriptor form for Ihose subjects for which no du!ll:riplut C~iSIS.
(c) COSA T1 HELD GROUP. Held and lfouP usipmenh Me 10 be Iilkl:n from the 196.5 ('OSA 1'1 Suhi~I.:I' (';aI"Jfury Li..I. Sin,,"\: Ihe ma.
jority of documents an multiclisciplinuy in nature. the Primuy l'ield/(~roup aJL'Iipml:nlhl will be: ,~"Ii\' lii".plinl:. "rc:-.allf hUlna~
endeavor. or Iype of physica& ObjecL The app1ic:alionCs) will be CfOSHl:fercnc;cl1 wilh 'IC,'un\!;ary I i\'I\lH iruul' ;I"IJlnllll:llh thOiI wliliull..~
lhe primary posunlCs..
a
18. DISTRI8UTION STATEMENT
Denole releasabilit}' 10 Ihe public or limil3tion ror rea.wns ulher Ihan \l:l:urily rur 1:)(;lm"lc "ltl:ll:"\I: (:111111111\.11:" ('II\' "II!, "~ail.llllhl}' III
the public. with address ;lnd pm:e.
J
19." 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submil clauified reports to the National Te:chnic.u Infor"tniltiun Sl."fYice.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the lotal number of pages. inc:1uding Ihis one: and unnumbered p:ll'=". b!'t e,u:ludl: dhtllbuliun lI\t. II "ny.
. '
22. 'RICE '
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Sl:rvicl: ur Ihl: Govl:rrimenl Printing Offil.:l:. if knuwn.
-------
EPA/ROD/RIO-87/010
Colbert Landfill, WA
First Remedial Action
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected,remedial action includes: installation and operation of interception
and extraction welI~: onsite ground 'water treatment: and implementation of an alternate
water supply. ..The estimated present worth cost for this remedy is $24,000,000. .' .
. .. ~. .1. '. .'.,.' '.
..
1:1
-------
, .uNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECI10N AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 6TH AVENUE
SEATTLE, W ASHINGrON "
. '" . ~I.t<;t.~~.~~i..>:;~~,:;"..~ ':::-,:
.. ,. '. . ..
.
RECORD OF DECSrON,
DECISION SUMMARY,
AND
. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
.
" '
R)R
~TERIM FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
COLBERTLAND~Snc
COLBERT, W ASHINGrON
...
SEPTEMBER 1987
'-.
'. .
-------
~ ".~.:~':~ ., .. ~ .
.' '. . ~ . . 7 '.. ,..'" . .~..
.
.
'"
7331a
DECISION SUMMARY
.. . REMED IAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
INTERIM-FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
.SITE
Colbert Landfill Site
Colbert, Spokane County, Washington
: ". :~i'i,:~~;~~{{;:,:,~~;..;::-.,'-....:::'-' ". '
, PURPOSE"" -'-':"'''''''l.''-.: '>.-c"_~
"
'.
.
The decision document presents the selec'ted interim final remedial'
.action for th;"s site, developed in accordance with the
Comprehensiv~ Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable
the Nationa.l Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR Part 300). The State of
. Washington has been consulted and has concurred with the selected
remedy.
BAS~S
, '.
'.
"
This decision is based up~n the administrativ~ record for the site,
as obtained from the files of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology. This
record includes, but is not limited to, the following documents
describi.ng the site, the costs and effectiveness of the remedial
alternatives, and community concerns:
o
Remedial Investigation Report for the Colbert Landfill,
Spokane, Washington;
o
Feasibility Study Report for the Colbert Landfill, Spokane,
Washington (includes the Risk Assessment);
...
7411a
-------
o
o
o
Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection (attached
her,eto) ;
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A); and
Staff. summaries and briefing documents.
. ,'.. .'.<::,,~'{lii~~~~l::>;;..' ::i:,:<:~> . . . ". ,.
'::,'>'::}7l~¥f~~.Jndex (Appendix D) identifies other items which
. . ~ .;-.. '.\~'.. ,~...' .' 1:. ~ ~.' .
, thfs administrative record.
DESCRIPTION ~
are included in
,
This Record of Decision addresses management of the migration of
contamination using a groundwater interception system and attempts.
source control through extraction in the areas of ' highest
contaminant concentrations.
.
The remedy is designed to:,
, .
,0
7411a
" .
o
prevent further spread of contaminated groundwater in two
aquifers by installing and operating interception wells.
o
remove contaminated materials which have entered the
aquifers and are contributing to the contaminant plume.
by installing and operating extraction wells in the area
where the plumes originate.
reduce the toxicity. mobility. and volume of the
..contaminants b~ treating all extracte~ groundwater from
both interception and extraction wells~ and
o
provide an alternate water supply system to any residents
deprived of their domestic supply due to demonstrated
contamin3tion from the landfill or due to the action of
. the extraction or interception systems.
J
-------
.
Treatment will be sufficient to reduce contaminant levels in the
aqui~ers.and in the wastewater effluent to or below performance
standards. These have ~een set at the Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs. 40 CFR 141.61). or a similarly defined health-based level (a
10-6 risk level for carcinogenic constituents). Numeric values
for these performance standards are presented in Table 1.
~~:.,Treatment should be permanent. and should effectively reduce the
'. ',~'.';i.,~~f'~fty.' mabflfty,' and volume o,f the contaminants. Any treatment
.system which will produce air emissions will be designed to meet
any appropriate state Air Toxics Guidelines and to use Best
Available Control Technology (SAC'T) on the effluent air stream.
In order to implement this remedial action. adequate monitoring
will be required in private wells in the area of impact, as well as
in monitoring wells as needed to assess progress of the remediation
and performance of the containme~t ,system. Treated water effluents
, 'also will be monitored to assure that they meet the' appropriate
perfo~mance standards (Table 1). Treated water discharge shall at
all t~mes be consistent with U.S. ,and W~shington State Jaws
, ,
fnc~uding'but '~o,t,,1imited. to RC:W 9.0'.,48 '(Wat~~ Pollu.tion Control)
and WAC: 173-218 (UndergrO'und Injection C'ontro1 Program). Plume
containment will be confirmed by installation and periodic sampling
of monitoring wells and residential wells downgradient of the
interception zone. Extraction will continue until all wells in
contaminated zones s~ow that the contaminants from the landfill
have been reduced to and consistently remain below the health
protection maximum levels.
. "
. .
Those residents who are deprived of domestic drinking water. either
because their well water quality shows demonstrated contamination
from the landfill or because the quantity available has been
reduced by the action of the extraction and interception systems,
will be connected to an adequate supply of 'safe drinking water for
in-home domestic use. The present community water system serving
the area. the Colbert Extension of the Whitworth Water District
No.2. may require upgrading to provide these supplies. The system
will b~ designed to meet state pUblic water system standards.
;;
-.
741111
3
-------
TABLE 1
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONT~~INANT CONCENTRATIONS
Health Protection Levels 11
.,::..n;J;','i~""'*,1.;":: t:.,h"_,?",,:,:, ,.: .' . .
'. ". """-:'""'.~1o~'-,"<".fi,.' ,:,-*:,:c.....,i;, "r..'" " Maximum Concentrat,.on
. "', :':'," .~,~. ~~~:f.i.~~t~~~f.~:t1jf.if:~1t,;:~~~1:.~:~"'~'t:~#~~:'':.r:i.,~j.:' ..,;. ,~,... .
. ,...,,;::';1:;,Contamfnant : ..'.., .' (lAg/l )
Basi s
.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
l,r-Dichloro~thane (DCA)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Methylene Chloride (MC)
200
7
4,050
5.0
0.7
2.5
MCL
. MCL
MAC
MCL
to-6 cancer risk
10-6 cancer risk
11 Health Protection Levels are not to be exceeded, during operational
- . life of remedial action, in effluents from groundwater treatment
systems. Permanent reduction of contaminant concentrations below
.these levels throughout the site will indicate completion of the
remedi a 1 ac'ti on.' . .
-
. '
,.
7411a
4
-------
Institutional controls will be. developed consistent with the final
design to assure that the remedial action will continue to protect
huma~ health and the environmen~. Colbert Landfill will be closed
to meet state Minimum Functional Standards for Landfill Closure
(WAC 173-304-460), including capping, regrading, groundwater and
gas monitoring and post-closure maintenance. .
~
. ,;. This is designed to be the final remedial action to be implemented
...-,~;.,..:~t.~'Uw'~" C~'lbert Landfill site. It is an interim final. action
because the extra~tion and interception well systems 'will be in
operation for decades before remediationfs complete and changes in
. .
. the selected action may be required during that period. The design
. therefor~ wi)l be reassessed and' adjusted periodically; at
intervals not to exceed five years. It builds on the Interim
Remedial Measure which provided alternate water supply, through the
Colbert Extension of the Whitworth Water District No.2, to
residents whose wells had shown contamination from the landfill at
levels above public health concern..
.The performa~ce standards describe~ ~bo~e will serve both as.:
m~nilfttJm 'tre~tmen~ lev~ls fo~ 'eff.l.~ents and as. maximum residual
levels for' groundwater within the contaminant plumes. Completion
of the treatment requirements is conditional upon reaching and
maintaining contamination at concentrations below these maximum
residual levels. The time required for this remedy is not
presently known, but the entire treatment system will be reassessed
by the EPA at intervals not to exceed five years.
DECLARATION
Consistent with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the NCP, it is
determined that the selected remedy as described above is
protective of human health and the environment, attains Federal and
State requirements which are applicable or relevant and
appropriate, and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the
preference expressed in SARA for treatmen~ that reduces toxicity,
. .
'.
7411a
5
. . .
~~_-~c-o-o-or-""r_....,.w-,.......--.,,---.... .~.-_........,...,.__....- -"_.-" "'~ '" -. -- -- .-- _._- c
-------
mobility or volume, as a principal element. Finally, it is
determined that this remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
"J-i~j~~~ff~i?:-.~;7:' '...' ,;:... ,
.
'j- L 1 - t. -1
Date
7411a
..
"
/
0l ::J,
~-C~.~/L/
Robi~ G. Russell
Regional Administrator'
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA - Region 10
*
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I
II
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
SITE HISTORY. . . . .
........
.......
.....
.....
.........
:', .:...;~:,:.~',:,.:':. Landfill History, Operations, and Regulatory Actions.
_. '-',t," ':-~~>"~!/~,~:...'-.t.~.:.". '. ;~.f"'" .' .
',,7-', Site Environment.... . . ... . .'. .. . . . . .. .
"
..
7331a
Natur! and Extent of Problem
.....
........
Organic Conta~inants Detected
, Extent of Soil Contamination.
.....
. . . .
.........
Extent of Groundwater Contamination
......
Future Migration and Impacts of Contaminants-
Upper Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Future Migration and I'mpacts of Contami nants
, Lower ,Aq~; fer . . .'. . . . . . . e.". .. . . . 25
, , Future Migration and Impacts of CQntami.nants
Surface Water.
.....
.....
.....
Risk Assessment. . . .
. . . .
. . . 28
30
. . . .
.....
Risk Assessment of Contaminants
........
Risks to Human Health and the Environment
Page
1
5
5
8
12
12
12
15
27
I II ENFORCEME~JT . . . . . . . .
. . . 30
, 33 '
.....
..'.........
IV
V
COMMUPUTY RELATIOtJS HISTORY.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
. . . .
.....
. .. 34
36
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . ~ .
. . . .
. . . .
Alternatives
.......
..............
Performance Criteria
. . . . .
........
. . . .
Evaluation Methodology
Results. . . . . . . .
. . . .
............
. ,- . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 40
ii
36 '
37
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
Page
: . v~ ;; '.. SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . 46
, :." :;'~'.~-;"";,,')';-1,.'~'i--~k""""'~:"'-'-'."'~;-' . "" ., .
....-.:... ,~~,,'.~:~~~~i~?&i~:;'}:t\':' ~;....'~.~. '.h. .1. .'~ ."
',' . :';;;'J<\<;i>:~ii'~,,-::. Desc:ri pti on . . . . . . .' .' . . . .' . . .' . ,. . . . . . 46
. :', - .""~'~;:.~~~"~:~~~~~'\'~"("';'--"_:~~ . ',' "
'J. '1;:., .' .'
. " Statutory Determinations. . . . . . '. . . . . . . .. 53
"
VII REFERENCES.
......
.........
......
. . . 56
APPENDIX A - RESPOUSIVENESS SUHMARY
APPENDIX B - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT. AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX C - STATE CONCURRENCE WITH REMEDY
APPErmIX Q - WDEX TO THE ADr.;INISTRATIVE RECORD
,'.
. '
~
7331a
-------
Figure No.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page,
1
2
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP OF COLBERT LANDFILL SITE. 0 . .
COLBERT LANDFILL REMEDIAL ACTION SITE. 0 . 0 0
2
3
. . . .
3 SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF LITTLE SPOKANE. RIVER VALLEY
. ...~>:,o~~iJ~;I{?'i'~iTitROUGH COLBERT LANOFILL SITE SHOWING GEOLOGIC
I"~ ...." '..' '.
, 9
11
12
- 7331a
4
STRATIGRAPHY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 . .
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN AND NEAR COLBERT
o . 0 10
~ LANDFILL SITE 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . . .
~..O 13
5
6
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAHINANTS W UPPER AQUIFER. . . . 0 17
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN LOWER AQUIFER
. . . .. 18
7
SCHEMATIC OF DENSE, NONAQUEOUS PHASE lIQUID (DNAPL)
MIGRATION BENEATH COLBERT LANDFILL 0 0 0
. . . .
o 0 21
8
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINATIOU IN
. . ,
. .
.' . .U'PPER AQUIFER' IF PLU~1E. IS' NOT 'CONTAINED
. . . .
o . 23
, .
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINATIOU IN
LOWER AQUIFER I~ PLUME IS NOT CONTAINED
. . 25
. . . .
10
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION FQR SOUTHERN AREA
(COt~CEPTUAL DESIGU) O. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 48
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WESTERN AREA.
(CONCEPTUAL DESIGN) 0 0 0 0 0 o,~ 0 00 0,0'0 0 0 0 49
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR EASTERN AREA
(CONCEPTUAL DESIGU) 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . . 0 0 . . 51
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Pa'ae
-
1
REPORTED SOLVENT MATERIALS QISPOSED AT THE
COLBERT SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
6
. ,..Z '" ORGNHC CONTAMUJANTS FOUND IN COLBERT LANDFILL
. . ~ "~:'~:'~_'~:~~~;:"~~'.: 'f~'.~ . .: . . .'
'-.:';>;'~~jffit1t~;. .. '~~1~1.~ $~ri GROUND\~ATER DURING REl~ED IAL INVESTIGATION
. '",' -~: ~.~.. ~~".4:-fr~~1.:~~l-.;',~ ;:;~f .'./~:f.~~ ~,l.~:. I'~. -.' .. . ". ..
. 3,' MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
AT COLBERT LANDFILL SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
. .. 14
. 4
E~TIMATED CONTAMINANT FLUXES IN LOWER AQUIFER AND
RESULTANT FUTURE CONCENTRATIONS IN LITTLE
SPOKANE RIVER. . .. . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR INGESTION AND
.' . . .. 29
5
DERMAL EXPOSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. 31
6
PERFORMANCE ,STANDARDS - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONT~'~NANT
. ,
CQNCENTRATIONS (HEA~TH PROTECTION LEVELS).
". . .'. ...3'8.
. '
. . 7 . SUMMARY OF DETAILED EVALUATION
1985 RIfF.S GUIDANCE FACTORS.
..........
. . 41,
8
EVALUATION OF CERCLA SECTION 121 (D)(l )(A-G) FACTORS.. 43
. .. ..
. .' ~ . .
"
.
- 7331a
-------
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Colbert Landfill is a Spokane County-owned sanitary landfill that
was operated from 1968 through 1986. The Colbert area is in
northeastern Washington, in Spokane County, approximately 15 miles
north-northeast of Spokane, Washington. The landfill covers 4O-acres
',andfs'located about 2.5 ~iles north of the Town of Colbert and a half
.,' ..:. ~ . ..''''r' --~+~~.;~t..t:t. "'- . - ... . .
. ''':::''''''arile','~astof.U.S"~ Hfghway 2 (Newport Highway) in the northwestern
quadrant of the intersection of E1k-Chattaroy, Yale, and Big Meadows
Roads. It is situated in the southeast corner of Section 3., Township
27 North, Range 43 East, W.M. (Figure 1). The landfill received both
mUnicipal and commercial wastes up to 1986, is now filled to capacity,
and is no longer receiving waste.
.
The remedial acti~n site, the ~rea of potential impact surrounding the
landfill, extends north of the landfill about a half mile, west about a
mile to the Little Spokane River, east a similar distance, and south
approximately five miles to Peone (or Deadman) Cree~. The total area
f,s appr~ximate'Jy 6800,:acres whi~h im:ludes pa:rts' o,f Sections 2"3,, 10,
, 11.14,15,16,21; 22,' 23~'26, 27, 28,'33, 34~ ai1~,3S of the same
, ,
township and range. The site is entire'ly within the drainage basin of
the Little Spokane River, mainly on a plateau bounded by oluffs down to
the river on the west and knobby granite and basalt hills to the east.
The area is semi-rural with an estimated population of about 1,500
'peopl~ within a 3-mile radius of the landfill. There are residences on
all sides of the landfill; however, the closest ,residences are located
north and east. Land use within the remedial action site is
pr~ominantly suburban residential, with some agricultural use, mainly
truck farming or livestock production. The land immediately
surrounding the landfill is planned to remain rural, according to the
Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan (Figu~e 2), a designation
which allows a maximum of one house every ten acres. West and south of
this zone are found, successively, areas designated semi-rural (one
house per two acres), suburban (one house per half acre), and urban
(five houses per acre). '
7331a
-------
-.
" 117""' 3011 W
R. 42E. R. 43 E
:i~..,.:t.. :1: -. rIT~h"'(i~ti- \ -~J ;.~, ~
~ ~1~"'~,,: . 'p~' . ~Yr: ~'~.~-..;~~
~ ' tt ~ f"'4~ ,... ':Y~; ,. '''' \."
, ~ lMj', I, I 1 -~~ ~ ~~~~ ,~
! \ l- ~ ,. '- I ,-,Trt;~' /
,-" I .- ,7...'-. . ...:=tf=' I ~. '\ . \ . .: I
, ~ ~..~~~T~ ~:-, ~. # A » '~)(~ ~
zL ~l.---) :~'" t~ ., .,,7h.~:-, r~ if. ~ ~b
Gt~- .:- 'i=\ .,~ . ) r Vj-r
N ' 1;IaeW-"." . 'l:' ~
. ;"';-'.J'- '~,~~ ~--
~, ' ~: ,., ~ ~ ~ ~d_d ,'IP' ~o
~ .' -t ~ -~-~~r7' ~" /.'~ . ~l.A
1.:.., r-.. -.... ~(~'.....~,
~;'1' ,c; ~ExmNTOF C}i ' ~, 11
~\ .,'. ':COVERAGE' : I', ~ --
';",,;"'L~ .,I. , " ~~
Z ~ ::..> -OF DETAILED fl" ~:.. ..,.:' i I
.... ~ ~~ ~F1G(JRES ~ !::! " "'J- ~~
~j?~~~~~~~ .,,': rJ ~; ~:;:~r'p-. ~
~. ~.:~~-~' ,~.~"~i /rTti"\~ ,~
. . '....' .E~:~~ .~':1 .\.:7 i-/ ,," ri/ ~ ' :.:.u
. ~ .. ~~1,~;::-;:;'-""" to I ~
' I'"'~~g:'~':'''-':'-''' '""'- /' -"'ICI~ ,~...~
. 5)- -I;: "~ ~~.:.. '!ft&~~ ~,~ ~J'1."~~;; - ,
~, - ... -,,-.... '--,;;-g,,,,, , . "':'1,~.,. .~ - --.'
'- ~-;,.-, - '\,." .' ,'-' /:. I. - ~ II
.. ~-=-"" :- ,-,11 t It: '\
.~~.' I ,~~ - J-G--Ij,l ~
~Lt~~~~.. '0:: (l:~~~J~
..:~~~: I ~~jzk~-, .tD~.: \~,:;
A1~"';:'~ ~~~, ....11-" ,.....'" , '
, ;o',1lC:-~~~~ ,""~~ '"'" ."..;..~ r - I
,"i ,,~; i~t.{ ~. I : .. t '7'Jf<:e~":',.;~
-"" j\\'~ _.'\. ""- ' I~ ":'~~:r
.:s::.:: ." - ~N. '- :-': !!~%. k-L I
f~-=- ,; 1:- .""'~' I ,--,.,. ~ '-'-
. . 1:.~'.~ ~ ,~~"'\,""'- I r I'r~_~ - -, , ,-::: ~
Z :~'~.~ ( ~'--.; I .P< --- ":Y"I
IC ! .SIft" " ? '" '. 'Jr:=F- --= .
N ~ :.' f +.i-.., . ' , ~\:
..: --+ ~ i,.'."" ~ I r i1~ ~~ .:,'O~~~
t~~~ t V\:~ "\ ~ G~~\)
/ ~r- 1- '~.l . ~~' .r.;!Y~/f~
I~ i«t '~J/ ';~~ht'~i,~"~~\~~'..~
. ~~;;"I~ ~".:!~ r~~-a~'~~l~~
..:~~~;- ~~I .~-,.~ , ~-, \/f;0~ ~
~ \ / 101 ..c.l~If1"", -- :1\... -----""-..L .;~
P .II ~ -\ " _!.:~ I ,J(' -..1 ~~ ~,:.,~\.;
~-I i, :)., Z~~,::..:-, r/f'-" ~~
GJ..::.
....-.
.
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP OF
COLBERT LANDFILL SITE
SOURCE: USGS 1:210.000 MAP OF SPOKANE. WA.
2.
"
_.
.
.
o
.
5
SCALE MILES
10
-------
i-
!
I
I
I'
I
-1ft
'~:.:.:"f. .~~~
.~. ,
.;~,,:~ ~.
-
... .'- ~ .
= ....
, -.
. u. .......
III --
118. U18'-'"
'8'-
, -GIll., 6C1I(
t tOtU. 1'1 .cIC
1'0,"1'80.'
I ....., U....
FIGURE 2
-------
ihe population density is much lower than permitted because most of the
area is. vacant or agricultural; 1980 census data indicate approximately
. .
6.5 persons per acre in the areas which include the semi-rural.
suburban. and urban portions of the site.
Surface water resources include the Little Spokane River along the
"0 ::.-westernoedge of the area, Peone Creek on the southern edge. and L.ittle
. . - ~:t'r- ''''''-,..-i(-..~1~~i:J:.- ~', '":~''''';;~-~''..'''_.~ .-: '. ... .
o...o:;{ODeep:: Creek floWing. southwest through the .middle of the site.
. . . - . . . . .... "'.~.
Groundwater in the. area is. Obtained from several aquifers but mainly
from the upper and lower sand and gravel aquifers which have become
contaminated by releases from the landfill.
The presence of groundwater contamination in the aquifers has had
socioeconomic impacts in the area. Many of the nearby homeowners
operate their properties as small crop and livestock farms. ° Water was
supplied only by local groundwater resources until 1984 w~en the
~hitworth Water District extended. service. to the currently impacted
area.
0"
.
7331a
-------
II.
SITE HISTORY
LANDFILL HISTORY. OPERATIONS. AND REGULATORY ACTIONS
:<
Colbert Landfill had been operated as a sanitary landfill by the
Spokane County Utilities Department since it was opened in September
.,' ". '
1968' to'its cessation of operations 1n October 1986. During the five
years from 1975 to'1980, a .loca1 electronics manufacturing company. Key
Tronic Corporation, used the Colbert landfill to dispose of spent
organic solvents. mainly methylene chloride (MC) and
1.i.,1-trichloroethane (TCA). 'at an average rate of several hundred
gallons a month '(Table 1). These wastes were typically brought to the
landfill in drums, and were poured out down the sides of open trenches
to mix with the soil or ordinary' municipal refuse ~lready .in .the
trench. During the same period a nearby military facility. Fairchild
Ai.r Force Base, also dis'posed of various solvent wastes at the site. A
variety of other chemicals (such as pesti~ides and refinery tar
residues) from other so",rces ~ere also disposed at the 'site b~t'have
. . . .' . .
. . not, to date', been' detected' in the groundwater at the's~te.
In 1980 nearby residents complained to the Eastern Regional Office of
the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) about these disposal
, ,
practices. State and county officials, under the lead of the Spokane
County Utilities Department. initiated an .investigation into complaints
of groundwater contamination in the area by sampling nearby private
we'lls of which some were found to be contaminated with TCA.
",
In the following years, a number of studies have been directed toward
the contamination problem at the Colbert Landfill. The original
investigation,' whicn was initiated in response to citizen complaints.
was conducted by George Maddox and Associates. The Phase I study.
carried out in 1981 (Maddox 1981), included a revi~w of existing
information on the site and some field study, and recommended a
groundwater monitoring program. Phase II studies,' carried out in 1982
. .
7331a
5
-------
TABLE 1
REPORTED SOLVENT MATERIALS DISPOSED AT THE COLBERT SITE
" .. ,~#.~rr;1;~'~'~~~::E. ~ ."/::',:. .;'.~' .
'. t'''tt,,:.SQ~rc;e. : -~".. -,:::. ~ , "".: C.ompou"d .
. "':.,' T. . . ",".'
Key TronicCorporation'
Methylene Chloride
(20 - 25 percent
acrylic resins by weight)
1,1 ,I-trichloroethane
(20 - 25 percent.
acrylic resins by
weight)
. .
Mix of, above
. .'
(10 percent acrylic'
resins by weight)
Fairchild Air Force Base
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Poly Thinner
Enamel Thinner
Toluene
Paint Remover
Primer Wastes
Source:
CH2M Hill, 1983, p. 25.
.
. 7331a
6
Estimated
Quantity
(Gallons/Month)
300 - 400
150 - 200
. . 100... 150 .
25
12.5
10
10
10
-------
(Maddox 1982), involved monitoring well installation, injection te$ts,
and two rounds of groundwater quality sampling and analysis which also
included selected private and purveyor wells.
In August 1983 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed
the Colbert Landfill Site on its National Priorities List.
Subsequently, Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation, who were both
,- 1dentif~ed as potential responsible parties ,(PRPs), continued to have
,,: 'Geo~g~:'Mlddox and Associ ates . sampl e and analyze well ~aters around the
landfill (Spokane County and-Key Tronic 1986). The EPA contracted
CHi~ Hill to conduct.a' Remedial Action Master Plan (CH2M H~ll 1983)
wh~Ch presented a scope of work for an eventual Remedial
Investigatidn / Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Also in 1983, Timothy D.
Cook conducted an earth resistivity survey at the landfill site as part
of a Masters Thesis (Cook 1985).
Beginning ,in 1984, bottled water supplies were distributed by Spokane
County and Key Tronic Corporation to some of the households with high
contamination levels in their wells. Ecology entered into a
coo~erat,iv~ agreement with the EPA for conducti,ng a. RIfFS at the ,
Col bert L'andfi n Si t~ in. August 1~84. .A. .Focu~edFeasibi~ i ty Study for:-
, Initial Remedial Measures 'at the Colbert Landfill.' (Ecology 1984a) and
a .Community Relations Plan for Remedial Measures at the Colbert
'Landfill" (Ecology 1984b) were developed in June 1984. The chosen
Initial Remedial Measure (IRM) was to supply water to the affected area
, ,
by constructing a pressuri zed water system through 'theCal bert
Extension (System 9) of the Whitworth Water District No.2. The hookup
of. affected residents to this system was subsidi~ed, again by the PRPs,
contingent on three conditions imposed by the PRPs:
o
o
Contamination of well water of more than the then-proposed MCL
values, including a 200 ~g/l limit for TCA
Proximity (less than 500 ft) to water supply mains
Signing of a hold-harmless agreement
o
Other residents, although not meeting'these conditions, have also
elected to receive this water supply at their own expense.
7331a
-------
Ecology contracted Golder Associates to conduct a data review of the
Colbert.Lanqfill Site. They submitted their recommendation report in
December 1984 (Golder 1984). and then developed a work plan for the
Remedial Investigation (RI) which was submitted in January 1985.
Authorization to conduct the RI was received in March 1985. A draft RI
report was released for public review in May 1986 and the final RI
- .. '~p~~ ~as. ~ c~mp 1 ~ted in May 1987. ( Go 1 der 1987).
-.: ~'_;'<:¥~'(~~~;.:<.,;.:~~~:~t:f~~i"'~~;i ;":.' - ~.~.:; ',. ;. .
In the summer of 1985. the-EPA contracted Lockheed-EMSCa to perform
soil gas and earth resistivity surveys near the landfi"l. 'A
subcontractor. Tracer Research Co~pany. performed the soi l' gas survey
for three of the detected chlorinated hydrocarbons while Lockheed
conducted the resistivity survey. The County of Spokane and Key Tronic
Corporation retained George Maddox and Associates and ABC Laboratory to
continue monitoring of private wells in cooperation with the. efforts of
Ecology and Golder through 1985. 1986. and 1987.
In April 1986. Ecology authorized Golder to prepare a Feasibility Study'
(.FS') ba~ed ~pon the R I. .' Th~ FSwas performed by Go 1 der ~nd the1 r
..~~bc~ntractor. Envirosph:t!re. CO'mpany. with input from Hctll and...
. Associates. The .FS ~inal Report was submitted for public comment in
May 1987 (Golder and Envirosphere 1987).
SITE ENVIRONMENT
The site is in the drainage basin of the Little Spokane River. on a
plAteau bounded by bluffs down to the river on the west and knobby
. granite and basalt hills to the east. The climate is characteristic of
eastern Washington with mild temperatures ranging from typical summer
highs around 838F to typical winter lows around 23°F. and a relatively
low annual precipitation of approximately 17 inches falling mainly
during the winter months of November through February (NOAA 1985).
.
7331a
-------
\ The geology of the site consists of a series of glacially-derived
materials laid down on an eroded landscape of clays, basaltic lav~
flows, and granitic bedrock. The stratigraphic units (layers) as
described in the Remedial Investigation (Golder 1987), from youngest to
oldest (i.e., from the top down), are:
.. A... Glacial outwasn/Missoula flood sands/gravels.
~.;:~,ij'a'::"~:'Glac:ial lake Col'~,lInbia lacustrine sit ts/clays.
".." tC .~t....: ~ ..... . ..
. C. . 01der- glaciofluYial .and/or alluvial sands/gravels.
. D. Weathered basalts and Latah (landslide deposits).
E. Unweathered Latah silts/clays.
" F. Graqi te bedrock.
A schematic view of a cross-section of the Little Spokane River valley.
at, the site o~ the landfill $howing the general configuration of these
units is provided in Figure 3.
.
'.
This specific geological system can be hydrogeologically defined as
, .
containing three aquifers and three aquitards. There is an aquifer
, ,
associated with Unit A ~ the glacial outwash/Missoula flood depos)ts'
"', which is designated as 'the'upp~r sand/gr~.;el aquifer. ' Unit S'- The
lacustrine silts/clays stratum is a relatively impermeable layer which
acts as an aquitard. , The, second aquifer, located in Unit ,C - the older
. ,
, glaciofluvial and/or alluvial dep~sits, is called, the lower sand/gravel
aquifer. The weathered zone of the basalts and Latah, Unit D, may be
considered an extension of the lower aquifer. ,The unweathered Latah
silts/clays, Unit E, serves as the second aquitard. The upper
fractured zone of granite, Unit F, is capable of 'water transmission
, .
and, although a poor producer in most areas, it could be considered as
an ~quifer while the deeper, less fractured portions of the bedrock
serve as the confining lower boundary or aquitard to the, entire
regional flow system.
7331a
-------
, "
- ," A
, :.-",:",:.', Gleclal outw....
...: ">;~:~:f~,'~~~f .ndMI..oula flood
0:: '~')i~~~~~~:'~, .anda I Ir.w.~a
, ' ~, , 8
Lacu.trln.
(Lak. Columbia)
.lIt. I clay.
W~
~E
aa.'"
Littl. SDokan. Rlwer
. lVa"', cr.atad b,
Missoula Flow
and subsequent
, stream .rosion)
C
Old., gaclofluvlal
and aUuvlal
..nd. I grav.la D
W.ath.red ba.aU.
, and Lata"
. .." . .. " .
'" , '" .,'" ",
"'....".... .. .I'" , ..-" I.
.t""~..,~ . ~ () .." o~ - . . -" ...:.
,,',,',,"" ~-...;;;: o. '-J .. oc::-.. . .0.(:):. -- '."....'..,'
,,,,,,,,,,,,..., - 0 el:).<:::,0-.,6"'O . ... .'.,1"',,.
"'.:;;.:,4#':,"'" ~,.. .. . -..:. .,...,",'.,'",",.,"',
~,...., "'~/''''~/''''''''I .. - ,'...','...,',"',-., ,..,.,
''''''''''''##',~',-,,'', .... "', .. " ... ,," "'..."
"~"~,'~"~"~"~ ~ . .. .. . . .' ,..'"'''','',:.','.,'',''' :,...~,:,..;'..~
"...,1..,1.-,"'\""'-"'" E ... - '0 0'. ..'.. - .. ',0" ',' ... '... '."'.. .. ..
:"::",;-,,::,,,','';,';0,,;, '. '..'.~ -,,', ... , "\,,',,'..,,,,~,,~.',""'~":"
""";,'''''-'''''-;'''-~\'''--;'....~.,...,...:; Un..ath.red. ::. ..: = ... .." ,~..:',~ ,""'t,..,~...",~..-",~...",~...,~...,t...",~...,~...,'.-..
,..,~~~~,~;-,~;"~.',~;,,~.',~.',,, Lat." . . ;. ';~'.~ . ',' ,~., ~~, ~~, ~',' ~ ':.:'.' ~ '.~~', ',: 'I~~'I ',~ ~',~'.:
'...,r...,'....,'''',''''';'"",,,,,,,,,,,,,, II I I "..' ...,~...,~...,t..."..."I',,,,,,""''''''' " " '" '. \ '
:-,' ,',' i',' ,',' ~' ',',' ~'" i',' ~',' " , , I . t. a .,. , ...','...,'...," J' ... I' , , , ... , " ... I' ... I ~, I' , , :' I' ", ~" -... ,
. '...""" ..-~\ ,--:.,...~ ,'...',\ 1",'''-''''' ...~, ""~"'\''''''''''-~ , ...-" ...~~......" ...~, ...~~...-,~......,~....., ~ .....,~... ...,~... ,~...: ~"',' ~..., ~ "','~ I'~'
;-,~,', ~,', ~,',~.',~;,-~;,,~;,,~,',~,',~,',~ ~'~"~'" , , ...., ~,',~~.~" ~;,~ ~,~" ~~ ,~~, ~',' ~', ',~ ~,~, > ~ ',. ~, ~ ',',"', ',~', ~
~I'~"',~""~"",~""~""~",~"",~""~"",~....,~",~""~""~"",~""",,,,,,,,,,,,~......~...,~....,~....,~....,~...,~...,~...,~:-,~....,~.....:..."".:,.......',.../, ~,'-," ,', "...111:.. :,,' .
.. ,:,,, ,~,,~, ,~" F ,~" ~...,~... I~" ~, I~"~' I~"~ ...,~, I~' '~"~' ,~... ,~ ...,~, I~' 1 ~, ,~,,~ ,,~, I~"~' I,~/..;'''; '-",' - '\' - ',' ..i' ',', ' "', ~ "',',' ::' ~
'....,'..,'...,'...., ". '...,."",'....,.....,I..,.....,a"",'''''''...,\..-,t...,t...,1...,''''''''''''''''''''-''''''''''''''"I11"..'t.-"I11',''''',..-,,'''''' '" I, ,"", , "
. ~,~;, ~;-, ~;, Grantte -V, ~;/~ ;-,~,',~;'/~;,~;,~;, ~,',~;,~;" ~.,,~ ;,~ .',~; ,~; ,~;, ~;,~ ;,~, ,~;,:",~ ~,~ ~'~ ',' ~~',: {~\' ,'t:- ',' ~ ~ ',~,~',,'-" ~
~....,~ lilt '~"~.CI' oak,'""""" ,~....,~...,~....,I ...,~", ...,~... "....,~..."..." .,,'., I I ....,~..-,~ ...,~.... 'l"'~"" t....,~." ,"",'" ","", " ~""'," ,", ......" , ' ,'..
, I~' '~"~' ,,' I..' ,,' ,~..."'" :,' ~,', ",,,;,," ,,,,', " ",,',\, I' :,'," '\ ...',' ,',, ~ ,~~,~, '~"~~ '~"":' ,~'" I~' ,~,,~~ ,~~ "~ '... ~ '.. ~'..','.. ~,,','
~",~.. ,~~,~.... ,~.... '~I'~"",~ '''''~''''''~''''''~''''''l'''''~ ...-,~,,~~,,;,~.... ....,~:~~ .......,~"..,~......., ~ .,...,~ ...~~ ....,t-,~ ",~ ..,~..-, ~"'...'~ "'...'~"'': ~ "",'~ "',', "",'... "',', "',', ",\"#..'.... "",\'...' "',' ,"
, I~' I~ ~ I~' I~' I~' ,~, ,~, I~' ,~, ':...,~ ~/~' t~ ~/~.' I~' I~' ,:,... I~ ~,~" ~ ...,~, ,~, ,~".:' I~' I~' I~' I,' I,..,..~,,~ I...; ,.....'," ,\~...; ,.....;~.. ~ '.: ,'.......,~~.
, ~...,~....,~...,~....,~...,~."~....,~...,~",t....,~....,~...,~...,~,...,~,,,~....,~....,~ .,~....,~...,~...,~....,~...,~...,t....,~.....,~....,~,:~...:.........'.......",,,,:~ ,~,"'," ,'.... ,',:, ,'... ...,,'"
'. ~ ,~, I~' I~' I~' ,~, .1~"~ ~,~,,~,,~ "1 ~,,~,,~, I~' I~":'" ~ ~ I~":'''',,:,,~ ~ J:"'~'" ,~, I~" ~',I.~' I..... t" '..', '".. ~~.. .~..... '.,'" '/...' , ;...,~ '.; ~'......,~ '""',, ,'~
,..-,~....,t"".~'.'~""'~""'l""'~""''''''''''''~'''''~''''''''''''''''~''''''~'''''l''''''"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,''''''''''''''l....,~...,~....,,...,~....,,I11',,,,,,#:,,,,,, ,', ,', """"':", '\ .....
"""~/'~/'\"\"'A/''''":,'',',.,!\""":":,,\,,,,,,,,,',','\:~,-:"~.,:";""""",,,,,""""" "',, " " " " ..., ,. ...,
I .., ... .-. ~. ... ... -. ..... - .. .. . ,. . '.
SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF
LITTLE SPOKANE RIVER VALLEY THROUGH COLBERT LANDFILL SITE
SHOWING GEOLOGIC STRATIGRAPHY
SOURCE: GOLDER 1987
FIGURE 3
-------
The upper aquifer is unconfined with a water table at an approximate
elevation of 1,770 feet, 90 feet below ground surface in the area of
the 1 andfi"". The thi ckness of the upper aqui fer vari es from 8 to 15
feet in the central channel, decreasing as it extends toward the
western bluffs and eastern hills. Groundwater is flowing predominately.
toward the south with velocitie~ ranging from 4 to 13 feet per day
. -,ft/day). The lower aquifer is generally a confined system, with its
. , '! \,' y.' ..",'" . ...,.. .
. . ;:"potentfometi-1c 'surface at an approximate elevation of 1,680 feet,
"., ."- ,"'~."... ,....-, ,. . ~"... ~. . ~~
180 feet below ground surf~~e in the same area. The thickness of the
lower aquifer varies considerably from only a few feet, east of the
laodfill, to over 150 feet as it approaches the river valley, where the
aq,uifer is ~ydraulica"y conn"ected ~o the Little Spokane River.
Groundwater in this lower sand/gra~el aquifer flows predominately
toward the west at velocities ranging from 2 to 12 ft/day. Northeast
of the landfill, the lower aquifer is closer to the surface, and
becomes unconfined, interconnecting with the upper aquifer.
:.
Both aquifers would be cJassified as current sources of drinking water
(Class IIA) according to the EPA Groundwater Classification $ystem
,( EPA 1986)-.
'"
-
The vegetation, in the vicinity of the landfill is dominated by
ponderosa pine, with an undergrowth of grasses that are green in the
spring and dry-br~wn by summer. Along the Little Spokane River the
. '
forest is somewhat denser and includes more species of trees. This
riparian zone also supports a variety of shrub species and broadleafed
herbaceous plants in addition to grasses. Game animals, small b'irds,
. '
and small mammals inhabit ~e wooded areas, and 'the river supports a
variety of aquatic s,pecies, including trout~ Bald eagles are seen
occasionally along the river, especially in winter. Much of the
landfill ,site itself has been cleared of trees, gen~rally leaving bar~
soil, with occasional patches of grasses and shrubs in unworked
sections. Adjacent to the site are both wooded areas and private
res i dences. . Wi 1 dl i fe use of the 1 andfi 11 property is probably 1 i mi ted
to birds, insects, and perhaps small reptiles and mammals', similar to
species found in surrounding areas.
7331a
-------
Most of the nearby residences are mu)tiple-acre homesteads, although a
number of residential subdivisions are located within a short distance
of the landfill, including Wilson Heights, Open Air, Wahoo, North
Meadows, and Hermsmeier Additions, and North Glen Estates (Figure 4).
Several other residential subdivisions are located further south but
still within the site (the total potential area of impact); these
, ~1nclude Riverview Hills Addition, Hilltop Addition, Ranchettes North,
'. .....~.:...;,-:",""~~",.-::,..:~~~~~ :"""':A.:,.~-.:":",, ~'_: . ..' .
>:.':.::,:i;> BalTards Addition, Colbert Heights, Little Spokane River, Estates,
.........~., ~ ...."f':'~.:1~:. ''I.''';;'~,":. ~'#.,:..:...:.-=-~..",....,-~. .
' Golden Estates, Meadow View; Argonaut Estates. Lane Park, Peone Pines,
and Sherwood and Robert. In addition, the site includes the, town of
Colbert and part of the City of Mead.. The area is primarily semi-rural
with limited agricultural land use consisting of part-time farming to
produce garden vegetables and livestock.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM
Organic Contaminants Detected
..
Six volatile ~rganic ch:em~ca1s" al,J ,chlorinated aliphatic ~YdroCarb~ns"
"were the ma.in contaminants ,di!tec~ed i,n the ,groundwat~r at the CO,lbert .
, Landfil1 Site during the Remedial Investigation' (Golder '1987) and are
listed in Table 2. Several other contaminants were also detected in
the RI samples, but occurred at lower concentrations or were less
widely distributed (bottom of Table 2). Because they behave similarly
to, the above contaminants they were not considered separately for
remediation. There is no potential for reuse, or recycle of any ~rganic
contaminants that were detected at this si'te. '
Extent of Soil Contamination
, ,
Although the contaminants placed into the landfill traversed a
considerable thickness of unsaturated soil to reach the. groundwater,
the drilling program carried out during the RI found little trace of
these chemicals in the soil sa~ple~ obtained. This may be because
733la
-------
..'-
,:-
" I
:,
..
iI
8:' -
.-tIt
..;..~-
\
'I
I
I
i:
t
I;
-~.:.-
, .
" ~
,fA l
f~~; ,
-=. j'
.\.\ I.
.,', .
'.\~.
\. .,..II.
, ,
!:
,
t.
,
--";fr.'
I.
,
I
I
.8;
. If
r .
~
~
,. --
.
~ '!I'
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
IN AND NEAR
COLBERT LANDFILL SITE
II
))
I ,j/
~/
t.
~~
...~
.-
.,-
..!-.
1-
I ..~::
-
FIGURE '4
13
-------
TABLE 2
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN COLBERT LANDFILL
SITE GROUNDWATER DURING REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
'Contaminant
Number
of
Well s
Maximum
Concentration
(llg/l)l/
. ,
, -
, ,',:' -~",;~.~~~i:~~7ri'f~~?:~~!:!,:;:tj_Y,4ii<~;':";"','. ,::',':',' ::'>,'~' ,
..,."',',' --Naja'" Contami "ants '. "-:-:: -~',-.: ,\,-.~:: ~, ':', .
.- - .
. ,
1,1,I-Trichloroethane (TCA)
l,l-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
'l,1-0ich1oroethane (DCA)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Methylene Chloride (MC) (also
called Dichloromethane)
20 ' 5,600
19 190
19 600
11 230 "
9 23
11 2,500
Lesser Contaminants
, ,
, A,c7to,ne, (a 150 called Propan~ne)' ' ,
Chloroform (also called' Trichloromethane)
, Methyl Ethyl Ketone (also called
2-Butanone)
1,2-Dichloroethane (also called
Ethylene Dichloride)
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
Toluene (also called Methyl Benzene)
3, .
11
2
,445
6
14
2
5
, 2
5
12
<1
1/ ,In this report, all organic contaminant concen,trations will be
- presented i~ the units of micrograms (~g) of chemical per liter (1)
of water. This conventional unit of measurement is essentjally
equivalent to parts per billion (ppb). '
7331a
-------
borings happened to be placed outside of areas where the solvents were
actuall~ disposed, or due to a combination of influences from drilling
procedures (volatilization of the compounds by the air circulation of
the air rotary drilling) and from natural forces which have had
sufficient time to drive off virtually all the contamination .which
might have originally adsorbed onto the soil particles. The only
contaminant of concern which was detected in any of the soil samples
..,..~;..~",;'t."'.Jo!,..'!>''''';''\~..'.:.. ."" '... . ,"
from auger'or'wen borings was methylene chloride (MC). It was
"n1e'asu;~d"at'levels of about 4. milligrams. per kilogram (mg/kg) in auger
borings from the intermedi~te cover and. garbage ~ithin the landfill,
This was unexpected since MC had not been detected in the upper aquifer
beneath the ~landfill. Similar concentrations of MC were also detected
in well borings 'of the lower aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the
landfill. For these deeper borings, the presence of MC was probably
due to its lower volatilization compared to the other contaminants, and
the presence of higher MC levels in the lower aquifer. It should also
be noted that MC .is a commop laboratory chemical and ~hen it is found
at low concentrations, it is possible that it was introduced
acciden~ally during analysis.
.'
. . .
. .
. Another fo'rom 'in which' contamination exi sts ih the vicinity of the'
1 andfi 11 is in the soil atmosphere. Chapter 3 of the RI Report
(Golder 1987) describes the soil a~osphere survey carried out in
August 1985 by Tracer Research '(Marrin 1986). They tested for three of
the contaminants known to exist in the groundwater, TCA, TCE, and PCE,
a~ probe depths of 3 to 5 feet. Draft results for TCA were presented
. .
in Figure 3-3 of the RI Report, .a~d showed detectable levels of soil
. .
gas contamination over much of the area where groundwater contamination
has been f~und, both in the upper and lower aquifers. Maximum soil gas
concentrations of TCA were in the 100-200 ~g/l level (except for one
reading of 940 ~g/l) and were 'generally found in a semicircular pattern
around and to the eas t a f the 1 andfi 11, an area where" secondary
sources" of the contami nants are suspected to 1 i e', Secondary sources
'are points where contaminants migrating from their original disposal
site collected and from which contaminants are now migrating.
7331a
-------
Much lower levels of TCE and PCE than TCA were detected in the soil
atmosphere during this investigation. According to Marrin (1986), the
highest quantified soil gas concentration of TCE at 0.09 ~g/l was
measured southwest of the landfill. However, an area to the northeast
of the landfill is identified as having possibly higher.
conce~trations. This is the same area where secondary sources of
. ',' ,J:~""O:.", . :'. '. .
'.' c:ontarGination are suspected. . For' PCE, the highest measured soil gas
.", -"....:~ .. l: ;\.\o.~-"~'V~~'<~'-;--"''1~'" ~~ }:... .. . . .
"c:onc:entration was 1 ~g/l northwest of the landfill, in the vicinity of
. '. . -
the highest levels of PCE groundwater contamination (23 ~g/l) found
. ,
. during the RI.
. .
Extent of Groundwater Contamination
Contour maps included in the RI Report (Figures 5-17 through 5-25 of
Golder 1987) show the distribution of the contaminants .of concern in
the two aquifers associated with the Colbert Landfill Site:
.
a.
1,1,i~Trichloroethane. (TCA)
1,1:-Di chlorbethyl ~ne . (DCE)
l,l.;.Dichloroethane(OCA) .
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Methylene chloride (MC)
"b:.
c.
d.
e.
These maps are presented here in reduced form as Figures 5 and 6 in
order to show the general pattern in which each contaminant has spread
in the upper and lower aquifers respectively.
The maximum levels of these contaminants, plus tetrachloroethylene
.. (PCE), which were detected in the 1985 RI groundwater sampling program
are summarized in Table 3. These values are rather dynamic and suffer
from two limitations for representing the maximum contamination levels
in the aquifers. First, they fluctuate due to movement of the plumes,
variations in sampling, laboratory inaccuracies, or some combination of
these. Second, the wells may not be located ~t the point of highest
concentration in the aquifer. nevertheless, they indicate the relative
magnitude of the problem in the two aquifers.
7331a .
-------
::.-..
_1'. I'"
- ,
.~l
. .
- . .r-J
. - .
..
..
.
, .
.
.- ,... .... ""-
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN 'UPPER AQUIFER
(DCE)
(a) 'l,l,l-Trichloroethane (TCA) (b) 1.1- Oichloroethylene
(c}l,l-Oichloroethane (DCA) (d) Trichloroethylene (TCE)
SOURCE: GOLDER AND ENVtROSPHERE 1987
17
. '
-------
.
.
.- .- - '-'-
.
. :
...MC
.
.11
. TCE
.
DISTRIBUTION OF
CONTAMINANTS
IN LOWER AQUIFER
(a) l,l,i-Trichloroethane (TCA)
(b) 1,1-0ichloroethylene (DCE)
(c) 1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA)
(d) Trichloroethylene (TCE)
(e) Methylene Chloride (MC)
SOURCE: GOLDER AND ENVIROSPHERE 1987
..
o
i'
FIGURE 6 .
-------
TABLE 3
MAX.!MUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER AT
COLBERT LANDF ILL SITE
. :':'>,~:.;':~Contaniinant
. ." ;.,...,...~:~ ::.,~'.~',"';t.. -.~~' .).....--~I.... .,.'.,.
. ,n"'"'" .!"''''~'';':'''':'Ir.~f._-...... ',,,,"."'. '. '-
. -~ .' 'YI'!..r' ;...;,: '-!_:';'"\..' ,. .~ "t, .' ""~7 ~ .'. .
I:.
Concentration (ug/l)
Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer
. ,
l,l,l-Trichloroethane (TCA) 1,300 5,600
. 1,1-Dich1oroethylene (DCE) 47 190
1,l-Oichloroethane (DCA) 600 1/ 420
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 72 J/ 230
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 23 1
'.
Methyl ene. Chl o'ri.de (MC). NOE-/.' ' t,500 "
1/
Latest concentrations recorded in 1384 by George Maddox and
Associates in Well ,CS-13 which could not be sampled in 1985
due to low water levels.
~/
NO = not detected to date in any well in aquifer.
Source:
Golder 1987. Measurements are from the Fall/Winter 1985 RI
, .
samples, except as noted.
7331a
-------
As can be seen in the distribution maps, the contamination has spread
much further in the upper aquifer than it has in the lower, with the
upper aquifer plume extending south of the 'landfill toward the town of
Colbert. The iower aquifer plume, on the other hand, has pr~ceeded
further north and southeast. The highest levels of contamination in
. .
.~he groundwa ter. are di v i de
-------
W~E
1880
178
Unweathered Latah
.lIt. I clay.
-
..J
rn
~
-; 1660
~
-
-
c~
,g
-
.as
>
~ 1560
< W
. .
..
1 -160.
Granite'
DNAPL Migration ~
Solute Migration ~
. .
SCHEMATIC OF DENSE,. NONAQUEOUS
PHASE LIQUID (DNAPL) MIGRATION
BENEATH COLBERT LANDFILL
SOURCE: GOLDER 1987
F1GURE7
-------
aquifer. The existence of these constituents is further indicated by
the centers.of contamination in the lower aquifer being shifted toward
the northeast (see Figure 6), and by the high levels of contam~nants
detected in the groundwater at this depth despite the fact that the
lower aqui fer should be further from the ori gi na 1 source. As such, the
hypothetical pools of contaminants at the bottom of the aquifer would
. ,,";'constftute'secondary sources which could cause continuing groundwa'ter
..: ~.'~" r:J- ~.;,A '~'. ~"'~cf:}~"'-:;,r.:".q...",,",,"" r . q ...."v..' I . '. .
, ;: _j~;,f~;'/::c:on~~!na,t~~n. fO,ran extended period of time.
'" :~'~:-:'}7:1'iE~~~~::'t?;;;::~~<.< ' , . ,
Future Migration and Impacts of Contaminants-Upper Aquifer,
, ,
, ,
In, the upper aquifer, the fronts of the contamination plumes for TCA,
DCE, and DCA have extended over the past 8 to 10 years as far as 9000
feet south of the landfill (see Figure S). 'Golder (1987) calculated a
solute p~ume velocity of about 2 to 3 ft/day for the TCA plume by two
separate methods. The other contaminants mentioned above appear to
have similar velocities. These transport rates are likely to continue
for the next several years, although the stratigraphy in the area ahead
~~ the plumes is, less ~ell understoo~ and so cannot be used: to con~jrm
:this., The 'plumes appear to b'e migra,ting towar~ the, town of Colbert. A,'
, portion of the groundwater flow'in the upper aquifer appears to move
toward a granite bedrock outcrop just north of the town, where runoff
from the eastern hills, and the upper ~quifer infiltrate down into the
lower aqui fer, in whi ch groundwa ter fl ows westward to the Li ttl e
Spokane River Valley. Therefore, contamination in the upper aquifer
could also pass into the lower aquifer here and migrate westward.
, ,
, An estimate was made of the future extent of the upper aqui fer
contaminant plume if remediation is not undertaken (Figure 8). This
, was based on an interpretation of the topography of the site and
general vicinity as shown on the USGS Mead and Oartford 7.S-Minute
Quadrangles, the regional geology as derived by Griggs (1973) and shown
in Figure 2-1 of the RI Report, and the stratigraphy and hydrogeology
of the site delineated in the course of ,the Remedial Investigation.
The upper aquifer plume seems to be advancing toward the south along a'
7331a
-------
_.
---
'..:
. "
-i::. iW
,~ ~
~~ .
,."'"~-. ':~.
~
,;
!t
-.,
.--
i:
1.COLBERT .~~D!~:L
--
.
"
.
~.
,
.
..--
- .
APPROXIMATE
PRESENT EXTENT
OF CONTAMINATION
~
o
I
\,
;
'.. W','" .".
o
= =-~. . -. - -...
t
I
I
I
,.
I
~~.
, ..:
'\ I
'-.. .
_.~
'- I
- I
I
..J
.,
~ I'
\.
~'~-.~.: ...
,
~ ...'" ~"'i\
'\
~
. .
. t
'.
to .
~k
..'
..
I
. . ..- -. .
:~
o .
. .
.......,...,.....,.
-' t81ut." .
- -
~..
~ .'
1 ,i~'
,..'
J
I
'. I
./ '::~~~./
~ . I
-..
--f"
..~.. ::....-:e!._-~,,,,,,,.:;tC ~
. - . --ffi\: '''''---. . "
... '........-,~ ,..,,~;... .1'~'"
I .~~.~CV-~.- ~ -~~.:J
. :~J..~..~\$)' .;,;.,..; il'
J 'r.;--...:~;;;.- ~:t.::.~!:..j lit-
I .J-'" I~' ".7.:' .~., .
,. ! 'r1.~..",:;. .::;;.:~~' . . ¥" ,"
. ........ J' ..
'" ~~""4":'~ .. ;
~1 :mt' ,,,.,,~'''''':;'~ J
.,. ., """..~
I :-::' .:: ~}''''''' /
I flt~ '.~ ~ .f'"
:in '." -' '.
!t." ..'
: ~ - fl.' . .
:3.'.. .~
I
, ~.....
..,.;..:
. 1"
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
IN. UPPER AQUIFER IF
PLUME 15 NOT CONTAINED
'me
I ." ..,.. ..
.... If
"I.l:~"~':"
. '0:::l~:::'o:;{
:'.'Y" ", ::~.~:
'.':""'.-~. . .
. .
-
.
SOURCE: GOLDER AND ENVIROSPHE'RE 1987
;.
"
J
i /~
.::.~ to ..:I f
;~n: OF~~~~ _L.r
I~
FIGURES
-------
trough in the Lake ColumDia lacustrine silt/clay aQuitard. This is
most likely ~ channel incised in the lake bottom from recessional
. ,
glacial outwasn flows and flooding events following the draining.of the
ice age lake. The channel follows a paleo,:"valley bounded by tne
granitic hills and older glacial outwasn materials to the east, and the
bluffs down to the Little Spokane River to the we$,t. There are no
.aDvious discnarge areas 'altnougn portions of the flow may discnarge as
..., :.,', . :.-:. :~~~;~~"i1!:.:';~'.,"A¥<"'"'''' ..,,,-'~\' :..~ ",'.. '.
.',': 'SIlll11,,_~pr~ngs..on,', ~e western bluff, feed little Deep Creek wnere it is
" . .' ",..' . ~ '. . .. -0,. . . .
perennial soutn of Green Bluff Road, or drain down tnrougn a connection
in'tothe lower aquifer. Tne bulk of the flow, and tnus ultimately tne
plu~. however,' prObably continues south and discharges in the valley
sides of Peone (or Deadman) Creek. The overall course of the
groundwatep" flow is interpreted to be approximately parallel to
Hignway 2. Approaching Peone Creek the flow will probably be diverted
sligntly by the granitic bedrock hign to the south beyond and.al.ign
with the westerly course of the Little Spokane Valley. Groundwater
flows from other areas, SUCh as Peone Prairie to the east, would al so
tend to divert the plume to the west.
, ,
Based on avallao.le. stratigrapn1cand nydrogeologfc infomation, this
, ,interpretation represents abeS t estimate rather 'tnan worst case.
Using the 2- to 3-feet-per-day advance of contaminants calculated to
date, ~t is estimated tnat the plume will migrate the remaining four
miles to Peone Creek in about 20 to 30 years. Actual migration time
may be snorter or longer than th is due to the wi dth, depth, and
hydraulic ,properties of the aquifer: Clearly, however, it is pos~iole
that any w,ells 1n the upper aquifer in the area delineated in Figure 8
could become contaminated during the 30-year planning period of the FS.
<> '
Various processes. coul~ occur that may cause the quantity of
contaminants in the plume to be reduced and thereby diminisn in
concen~ration during the period of transport. These include:
o
Volatilization ;ntovadose soil gas, and tnen into the
atmospnere;
7331a
-------
o
Adsorption onto soil particles, particularly organic matter;
Microbial degradation; and
.Hydro1ysis, the decomposition of a chemical compound' by
reaction with water.
o
o
Based upon the observation that the concentration levels, at least for
~e contaminants TCA and DCE, are fairly constant over most of the
pl~e.. it appears. that the natural degradation is slow. If degradation
were occu~ing, the concen~a~10n of contaminants at the front of the
plume would have diminisned. Tnere has been a trend in the upper
aquifer for contamination levels near the source areas to diminisn over
the ..time the!; have been monitored. Chemical concentrations for the
upper aQuifer will remain elevated for a significant time, certainly
longer than tne estima ted time for mi gra ti on to Peone Creek.
Future Migration and Impact of Contaminants - Lower Aquifer
.
Tne.RI Report did not develop a plume velocity for the 'contaminants in
the lo~er aqui~er partially because th.e plume nas not. advanced fa.r
. enougn :t~ provide tlie data. required to make any accurate estimates
based upon nhtorica1 data., and also because the hydrogeology of this
. .
. aQuifer is compl icated. Migration of the contamination to the west,
for example, is expected to slow down considerably over the next.
several years as the pl ume moves into tnicker saturated zones adjacent
to the'rive~ (see Figure 3).
Following a similar procedure to that described in the previous section
for the upper aquifer. the future extent of the lower aquifer plume is
predicted to impact a muCh smaller area (see ~igure 9). It is also
suggested that the upper aquifer may be connected with the lower
aquifer in 'areas other than those identified east of the landfill. For
example, in the area of the granite oedroCK nigh north of the town of
Colbert, groundwater elevations from wells indicate that flow in the
upper aQuifer is diverted soutneasterly (i .e., toward the oedrack
nign). This appears indicative of a partial sink in the upper aQuifer
due to connection to the lower aquifer in this area. If this
7331a
. 25
..- .~-- ----_r ---~ - -----"'- ~. --""--
-------
, Ii
I
.. APPROXIMATE
, PRESENT
: . EXTENT I
"OF
CONTAMINATION
-ia: "If
. t' - . ..
, . -
,"=,., .
-/
';t!,.
,'.., ,', ': i \
. I \ \ ,-
. " 1';.kJ;-': ~',
- -----, \# ,. . GRAN TE
.. ' " , " I . :.,." '.. I
i~-:, '", ..'. :::.: " ': ,"', ~ ./ ,/ ~i/. ~~.:, BEDROCK
'I" "', , ,; "', '~: ";':';, ,,' ;'!I'?~ '. ,: ''''l~~~~ '. H~
, 'f'," .', ' '""."",' , " ;;;;;;,' \~).;~, It ~, ' ,',' ;~~~i. ,
-"':0 I~J!. ..:-.=.--.--..,.- I
,I:"~, TOWNOFCOLB£RT',. ';' "
\!\~If(;i: : i : :,!:..:. .... ,!I .~iZiIU1'~, ii' -.-
)H:~~:::~ :1 i I: 'I I'....-u.-
~. .:..,.;'~'1}: i. ...J .!!.. rl
. ~. -'.'tH' -- ...-t.'.... '~~ / L I
..;.~ :',;...' ~"'CI8.88t' "Ii,'!! . -- -...
r,' "I. '~f.nu :.1 ~:t : ", :':
1 :. ';. ~ :.: : 1'~ ~.: Ii',',
.\ . f.",:. C8 --f ;.: : : - - -.j .i'~
8" ..;' . ... II ...
'~"'.,.".. (1bfU !i jLww.
,--- 1;" -: :_jJ " J r-1-: J !/~/:~= =~:!::=_- .~
Ii " ;;. - 1,;/
"W' ". . ,i;I'
, , .. ., I ,. '
.",~;',icuoo' ! , '",
I 71:: gr.",; "!: f,'.'
.. V:''$. ~N1: ~ ., i:.'.iH:-="'''~,~ .__.~~~ .
i: '/1 1,1
'I ~ ,;., r ", !
I I .1';;'" I
-''; -- - ;;:~j~I,:; ,
~ :~~.'~ t~f~ ',~' ~j
~\~l.J~L~: "'.I ,~ .
~ ......;' - A ""7/ '~:}:";':" ','~ ;'
''''''.0 ','1,'" :':1'-. ,., '0..081 '.))
,- :1 '/, ';'.', ',.,.... .._8
, -.[~4: "}~>/:;~I!i'
.Jlil:;~::'" '~';,",---". "',
~~ - ."!if ",'II ............ - , . - '-
.~-"
....'.
-.,
.... -
-
--.
--.
"-.
--
~.. .
="~.
.
,
"
"\
'''''':11 . -
",-=*",.-a ~~JK
.
.
.
.
,I
,
.
.
i,
;. .
~.,
I, ::" ;
EST1MA TED POTENTIAL
EXTENT OF CONTAMlNAT10N
IF NOT CONTAINED
~. '''-i .1 ~
.
~ .
,~=~"'.
~i'.
..
!
.
;
,,~- ",.
J'-, ...
."-:::-~- .."
- ..
~
I
,.
I
SITE BOUNDARY
~
~,
ii
a
,
;~
:t.:.
.. I
.. I
. J
-.-=;
'.:' !
J
\.
'\
I
=-u. .He
, '
...
r
r~
, ~
...,.. ....~ "
,,'II, I "
, ); '.. t
:. . ,~
:Ht.4 '
,
~.
"..
-.:....", t - ................
',"-Qla"8 "
, ..... ...
- -
;;
,
. .-
J ~.
.."
~-M:' ,.:~ -~-_. - N...,:.~::K: ~
--:. :~:,. :~lo.~:".. :~.. ° ~~:
. " It.t.,. :~:~....,.....,v. :0 0-: "',,:',
, ,: :\ ;.- "~.: ~" .:~). ""'.~; l/A'
r ,.-.'''' "~' .
J II ,._-~ ;''''''0-- ;'}.'".~- :~ '
r ." . : .q. ,.:,.,..!¥.., ~..
.;t 't'.,J :..:" .,.. :>
. f., ..~~iAJ~~ 4".
-- :.. .....~.JI.'8=iI\"';.t;~ .
, ~f7,:;:'~:.i~:::""""'" ...', jO
. :i' \., ,;.: of'.;..o-.~ I"
: l~r',.. ." ~i
~ -:'!-
. 0,
,~
,.
-ESTIMATED POTENTIAL
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
IN LOWER AQUIFER IF
PLUME IS NOT CONTAINED
..
.'
f
~
CITY OF MEAD
SOURCE:. GOLDER AND ENVIROSPHERE 1987
FIGURE 9
-------
away, apparently due to the contaminants volatilizing into the air.
Contamination reaching the Little Spokane River from these springs
which are located several hundred feet away from the river will be
dissipated to undetectable levels.
.The contamination in the lower aquifer has not reached the vicinity of
. .
the river. If it does, it will flow into the river below the water
. '. J .,..-. .-
surface and not be subjected to the same immediate aeration processes.
Future contaminant concentrations in the river were predicted (see
Table 4) based on four assumed conditions: the present-day flux of the
chemicals in solution in the lower aquifer beneath the landfill;
unimpeded transfer from the aquifer to the river; full mixing in the
river; and no volatilization from the river surface.
It is expected that the levels attained immediately upon mixing will be
diminished through in-stream.processe~, predominantly aeration, before
the Little Spokane reaches the Spokane River some 20 miles downstream,
at which point the .flow in the larger river will further reduce any
rema!ning. contami.nant levels.
.'
RISK ASSESSMENT
. A Risk Assessment (RAL of the Colbert Landfill Site was. conducted to
provide a quantitative determination of the potential for harm to the
. .
. . .
general public as a result of exposure to site contaminants (Appendix A.
-Golder and Envirosphere 1987L Three primary pathways potenti a.lly
expose humans to the contaminants, which include both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic compounds. The pathway of most concern is ingestion,
'as site groundwaters are presently used as a potable water supply by
many residents in the Colbert area. In addition, many residents of the
community use their properties for crop production and livestock
grazing. Therefore, a potential risk to human health also occurs from
. .
the ingestion of crops irrigated by or grown in contaminated water and
ingestion of beef or dairy products .from livestock grazing in the
area. PathwaY5 of less concern, but still ev~luated in the RA, are
dermal contact from bathing and inhala~ion of volatile contaminants,
. and health impacts for livestock drinking contaminated water.
7331a'
-------
T AS LE 4
£STIMATED CONTAMINANT FLUXES IN LOWER AQUIFER
AND RESULTANT FUTURE CONCENTRATIONS IN LITTLE SPOKANE RIVER
Colbert Landfill
, .". ~~;~~:~;.,-.:~~:'
:,. :.
"
. ~ . .. - '. .'
'. .... ~,.;- ~ ,. .
Maximum Future River
Concentration (~g/')
Contaminant
Present-day
fl ux'
( g/ day)
Mean river flow
conditions
q :I 236 cfJ./
avg
Drought flow
conditions
2/
q7,10 = 7S cfs-;;.
l,l,l-Trichloroethane
(TCA) 9700 17 53
~
l,l-0ichloroethylene
(DCE) 680 1.2 3.7
l,I-0ic~loroethane , '
,( DCA) 730 LJo .4.0
Trichl~roethylene
(TCE) 95 0.2 0.6
Methylene Chloride
( r~c ) 4400 7.6 24
Source: Golder and Envirosphere 1987.
11 qavg is long-term average flow in the Little Spokane River,
calculated for the reach adjacent to the site.
21 q7 10 is the seven-day average flow which is exceeded (on the
- low side) only once every ten years (on average).
.733la
-------
Risk Assessment of Contaminants
For each of the indicator contaminants identified above, Acceptable
Doses (AD) were derived. Noncarcinogen ADs were based on available
toxicity data that indicate a no adverse effect level. ' For ,carcinogens
the ADs were based on a one-in-a-million (lO-o) or one-in-a-hundred-
. thousand (10-5) chance of developing cancer from a lifetime exposure,
using"the E~A Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) evaluation of the cancer
potency. The different pathways were analyzed as sequences of steps,
with partitioning of contaminants occurring ,at each specific step. The
results of, these calculations ar~ presented in Table 5 as Maximum
Acceptable~Concentrations (MAC) values which should not be exceeded in
water used for'drinking (ingestion) or bathing (dermal). The Federal
Drinking Water Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs) and the maximum
concentra ti on detected' in the upper, and lower aqui fers are ~ 1 so
presented for comparison.
RiskS to Human Health and the Environment
, '
, .
Based upon the Risk,Asse~sment,.'the foJlowing conclusions were made
concerni ng ri sks to human health and the envi r'onmen't from 'contami nants
associated with the Colbert Landfill Site.
, .
7331a
o
Concentrations for the contaminants TCA, DCE, TCE, and MC
frequently exceed the~r human ingestion MAC values for both of
, the aquifers. Therefore, drinking the water from contaminated
wells poses the most significant risk to human health. The
subdivisions that are already within the areas of aquifer
contamination above the MAC values are: Wilson Heights, Open
Air. Wahoo. North r~adows, and Hermsmeier Additions. Other
subdivisions which are in the total potential area of impact
include: North Glen Estates, Ranchettes North, Hilltop
Addition, Riverview Hills Addition, Little Spokane River
Estates, Colbert'Heights, Golden Estates, Ballards Addition,
Meadow View, Argonaut Estates, Lane Park"Peone Pines, and
-------
f' . ,-
TABU 5
RESULTS Of RISK ASSESS.~NT fOR. iNGESTION AND DERMAL EXPOSURE !I
EPA
: Naxl.um Acceptable Nu 1.18 ., Nut.IA
Concentration (HAC) Values ("g/It Conta.lnant .Concentratt ons ("2/1t !/
Detected Indicator Carcfnogens!! Acceptible Dose Lel/els (~Lst upper 4Q!f
Contmlnant Parameter (jig/day) In~estfon P.thw~y Oer.al Exposure ("gll) Aqull.r Aquifer
(.I,I-Trlchloro- Yes No 400 200 97.000 200 S.3oo . 5,600
ethalll! neAt
1,I-Otc"loro- Yes Possfble 14 7 3,050 7 41 190
e thy hne (DCE)
NA .!I ..
I.I-Olchloro- No No 8.100 4.050. tlone 600 420
.ettiane (DCA)
Trichloroethylene tlo Yes 6.4 3~2 NA 5 72 2]0
( TCE)
Te trach 1 oro- No " Yu 1.4 0.7 NA None n I
ethylene (PCE)
w
..... Methylene Chloride Yes Yes 5 2.5" 1.200 None liD !I 2 . 500
(M()
" " ".
!! See Risk Assessment document (Appendl. A 0' fe~sfbflfty Study Report. Golder. Ind Envlrosphere 1987).
2/ Data for carcinogens Is given for the 10-6 (one-ln-a-.llllon) risk level only. MAC vllues for I 10-5
""- computed by multiplying the MAC by 10.
3/ NA. not analyzed as part of Risk Assess.ent.
i/ from Table J.
!! NO. not detected to date In any well.
(one-In-I-hundred thousand) rfsk levels can be
-------
, , .
Sherwood and Robert. Some of these subdivisions or portions
of them are already serviced by Whitworth Water District
, No.2. However, the Meadow View and Kellogg Wells, which
presently serve System 9, could become contaminated by the
advancing plume.
o ',Exposure from ingestion of crops grown in contaminated waters
,>\~',:~',does not pose 'a significant health risk due to the volatne
. .,,'" 'na'ture of the contaminants and the location of the
contaminated aquifers below the root zone of local
vegetation. Similarly, a human health risk is not expected
from the ingestion of beef or dairy products.
7331a
a
Some contaminant concentrations exceed the dermal t1AC values
for MC and DCE both as a carcinogen and noncarcinogen;
therefore, bathing in, contaminated water could pose a risk to '
human heal th.
a
Although exceedances of the MAC values .for MC could occur in
, ,
"the ',Littl~ Spokane Ri'~er~' the rive,r 1'5: not used as.a potable
'supply. Therefore, human health risks are negligible, as only'
incidental ingestion is expected. Since no exceedances of the
dermal MAC values occur for any of the indicators, swimming in
the Little Spokane River does not appear to pose a risk to
human heal th.
a
The inhalation exposure to volatile organics was calculated
, .
using two different models for showering and normal domestic
water use, both of which indicated that volatilization of
organics does not present a pUblic health risk.
.
-------
I I I.
ENFORCEMENT
The remedial action is anticipated to be accomplished voluntarily by
the Responsible Parties who have been identified to date. These
include Spokane County, Key Tronic Corporation, and FairChild Air Force
Base. Other responsible parties may be identified in the future. There
ha~e ~eYer been any enforcement actions taken by the regulatory
...... "::0.. '.', . ~'. \ ;. -.
agencies (EPA or the. Washi~~ton Department of Ecology) regarding the
Colbert Landfill Site. If the Responsible Parties decline to implement
the selected remedy' as described in thi~ Record of Decision, however.
EPA will seek appropriate enforcement action.
.. .
-.
. .
.
7331a
-------
IV.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
Community interest in groundwater contamination at Colbert Landfill has
been high since 1980, when local residents complained to Ecology and
the Spokane County Utilities Department that hazardous materials were
.being d1sposed of at the landfill. At that time, Spokane County hired
. .. .,.: 1.. '. ...: to' . ~. ...:: ." ."; ~." .
, a c'onsul tant ~o study the extent of the contamination. The County al so
" " . .
developed a community relations plan and began a public information
program to explain the study to local residents. The County
distributed fact sheets and press releases about the situation.
notified we~l owners of their test results. and established an
information repository at the Colbert Water District building.
The Utilities Department also held seven pUblic meetings between May
1981 and November 1983, expl ai nfng each phase of the study and the tes t
, ,
r.esults. Representatives of several agencies, including the Spokane
.
County Health Department and the Tax Assessor's Office, were available
~~ respond to question~. Ci~izens expre"ssed numerous ,signific~nt " '
concern.s at, th'ese n:t~eti ngs. The primary ctJncern was w~ether or', notth'e
well water was safe to use for drinking or for other purposes~ and 'what
the potential health impacts could be from drinking the water.
Residents were also concerned about how the contamination would affect
their property values.
There were three official acttons in response to these concerns. In
March 1983, Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation began supplying
bottled water to homes whose wells had over 1,000 ~g/l of
, l,l,l-trichloroethane (TCA). Shortly afterward, the Spokane County Tax
Assessor reduced the assessed valuation of homes with wells at this
contamination level and of the other homes within 3/4 mile of the C
1 andfi 11 .
7331a
-------
In response to continued pUblic requests for safe drinking water
suppli es, th-e County and Key Troni c. constructed an extensi on to the
Whitworth Water District to serve the contaminated area. This Initial
Remedial Measure was completed in early 1985. Homes having wells.with
contamination levels over 200 ~g/l TCA were connected to the system.
~ ; ~'.: ;"" ".' ; ~ ~ ~~- .... l . .'. '" ..
In the. ~all.. of 1985, local .residents, not satisfied with County
.. . . V n" ~ #'f' ..- -..., -" .. . .
responses to their request~,- formed the Colbert Landfill Contaminate.
Area Committee. The group's purpose was to collect information and
make it available to interested people. In December 1985 ~is group
presented s~ven recommendations to the Spokane County Commissioners.
The major requests 'were: free water hookup for all homes in the
contaminated area, with no water payments for twenty years; revaluation
of prop~rty in the area; and continued well monitoring for twenty
years. The County's response continued the policy of hooking up only
those homes with specified contamination levels. The citizens saw this
as too restrictive, which increased their frustration..
E.co.lo91 me( f.requentl.y.. wi.tn conce~ned. ci tizeris and County and Key.
.T..oni~ represe~tatives between 1985 and i987... tcol~9Y held a public
. . .
meeting in 1986 to explain the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
process and the results of the RI and held another meeting in May 1987
when the FS report was released for public comment. The main purpose
of this meeting was to explain the cleanup alternatives and the options
for treating the contaminated water. Over 200 people, primarily local
residents, attended. Twenty-nine people returned the detailed comment
forms and six sent letters commenting on the al ternativ.es. Response
strongly favored the recommended extraction-treatment-surface water
discharge alternative and the air stripping treatment option.
.
The major citizen concerns regarding the FS recommendations were the
shortness of the comment period (which was then extended). the
concentration on the County and Key Tronic without searching for other
responsible parties. potential air pollution from air stripping, and
reduced ground water levels caused by the extraction system. These
- .
comments are discussed in detail in the Responsiveness Summary.
. 7331a
-------
AL TERNATIVES
V.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The remedial alternatives which were developed and evaluated in the
:Fe,asibil i'ty Study incl uded:
," ....'" . ~
. . I. ". '.'.
',,'.: ~":"
., 1)
2)
3) ,
4 - 12)
No action;
Alternate water supply;
Point of entry treatment;
Groundwater extraction, treatment, and
various technologies for each) plus an
system.
discharge (using
expanded water
, Each of these alternatives was'considered separately in three
geographic portions of the site:
-
°
o
.-
o
The Southern area, where the plume in the upper aquifer
i$' advanc;-n.g; .
'The Western area, where the. plume in the' lower aqui fer is"
the major concern;
The Eastern area, where the plumes appear to originate,
probably from accumulations of concentrated solvent
fl ui ds.
Each of the alternatives is designated by a letter indicating its area
(~-, W-, or E-.) f,ollowed by a number, denoting the technology.
About 90 different technologies were screened and evaluated during the
feasibility study. As the result of this detailed analysis,
12 remedial alternatives in the southern area~ 7 in the western area
and 7 in the eastern area were carried through for detailed evaluation
using EPA's 1985 RI/FS guidance factors (EPA 1985i.
7331a
.
-------
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
One remedial alternative will be selected for each of the areas of
concern. This Record will not, however, specify a particular
technology 1n order to allow the responsible parties a sufficient
,degree of latitude in selecting the technology required to achieve the
" desi.red performance~ This performance is defined as treating the
"-Wastewater-effluent'to or below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs,
40 CFR 14i.51) or a similar health-based level (the 10-6 risk level
for carcinogens) for contaminants for which MCLs have not been
de~ermined.~ Numeric standards are presented in Table 6 for discharge
levels and for termination of the remedial action. Treated water
effluents also will be monitored to assure that they meet the
appropri ate performance standards. Treated water di scharge .shall at
all times be consistent with U.S. and Washington State laws including
but not limited to RCW 90.48 (Water Pollution Control) and WAC 173-218
(Underground Injec,tion Control Program). WAC 173-218 states in part
that any permit issued in accordance with the provisions of the chapter
are d~si gned: ...8 (a) to satisfy the intent and requ;r.eme~ts of ~a.rt C of '
t~e F.ederal. .Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) '42. U.S.C. Sec.ti'on.3'OOk e't .
seq~' as authorized by RCW 43.21A.445 and of the Water Pollution Control'
Act, chapter 90.48 RC~; and (b) to preserve and protect groundwaters,
including underground sources' for drinking water, for existing and
future beneficial uses {173-218-010 (a){b))."
WAC 173-218-020 enunciates Washington State
carrying out of chapter purposes. Further,
certain classes of new wells.
policy regarding the.
WAC 173-218. prohibi ts
.
Treatme~t systems which may result in air emissions will be designed
and monitored to meet appropriate state Air Toxics Guidelines and to
use Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
7331a
37
-------
.TABLE 6
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
MAXIMUM ALLOWASLE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
. (HEALTH PROTECTION LEVELS)ll
. Con'taminant
Maximum Concentration
. ( 119/1)
. . ~ . .
1,I,I-Trichloroethane (TCA)
1.1-0ichloroethylene (DCE)
l.l-Dichloroethane (DCA)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Methylene Chloride (MC)
200
7
4.050
5
0.7
2.5
1/ Health protection levels are not to be exceeded, during operational
- . life of remedial action, in effluents from groundw.ater treatment
..systems. In addition, permanent attainment .of these levels in th'e'
groundw'ater throughout the site will 'indicate completion' of the'
"re~edial action.' .
.
7331a
-------
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The detailed evalution in the Feasibility Study discusses the
cost-effectiveness of an alternative in terms of technical,
environmental and pUblic health, and institutional concerns. According
to NCP Section 300.68(h), the detailed analysis of each alternative
. should' inc1ude: '
.
, . 0
o
Refinement and specification of alternatives in detail, with
emphasis on use of established technology;
o
Evaluation in terms of engineering implementation,
reliability, and constructibility;
o
An ass~ssment of the extent to which the alternative is
expected to effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize threats
to, and provide adequate protection of public health and
weTfare and the environment;
'An analysis of adverse'environmental impacts, methods for
mitigating these impacts. and costs of mitigation;' and
o
Detailed cost estimation, including operation and maintenance
costs, and distribution of costs over time.
The detailed aspects of evaluating these alternatives are presented by
five major criteria:
.
.
o
'0
" ,
Technical Feasibility,
Institutional Requirements,
Public Health Impacts.
Environmental Impacts, and
Cost Analysis.
o
o
o
'This presentation facilitates the comparison of similar components
- among the alternatives for the same criteria.
. 7331a
-------
The technical evalutionaddresses the feasibility of the technologies
and associated components which make up each alternative. The
evaluation of institutional requirements analyzes compliance with
current EPA policy on the use of applicable and relevant standards and
other criteria, guidance. and advisories at Superfund remedial sites. -
as well as coordination with other agencies and community concerns.
.. . Each:-a~ ~~rrya~ive is eval uatedas to how well. it can 11mi t the
..'''' ~:. ..; . . " ,.,-
concentrations of hazardous substances in the environment to avoid
unacceptable threats to pUblic health as established by the Risk
Assessment.. The'environmental impacts of each alternative are
evaluated by comparing beneficial and adverse effects. The cost for
each alternativ.e includes the capital costs for implementation and the
operation and maintenance costs spanning the thirty year study period.
The results of the detailed evaluation for each alternative 'are
expressed in a rating system utilizing the terms high, moderate. and
low.
, ',. .A high. r~ting indi~a~e.s"that, the alternative promotes. the intent of the
,.criteriaandlor meets ~r ~xceedsthe remedial. objectives. A moderate
. ,
rating indicates that the alternative only partially promotes the
intent of the criteria. however. the alternative does remediate the
problem to an acceptable extent even though it does not meet all the
remedial objectives. A low rating indicates that the alternative does
not promote the criterion and/or does not meet the remedial objectives.
RESULTS
The detailed evaluation according to 1985 RIlFS Guidance Factors (EPA
1985) is presented on Table 7. and an evaluation of these remedial
alternatives according to the Section 121(b)(1)(A-G) factors is shown
on Table 8. The rating system for Table 8 is similar to that for
Table 7. using ratings' of high. moderate. and low to indicate a degree
of compl i ance wi th each factor.
7331a
-------
.
.
TABLE 1
SU.VtARY OF DETAILED EVALUATION
1985 RI/FS GUIDANCE fACTORS
Technical Institutional Pub1lc Health Envtrollllent.1 Cost
feaslbl1lty Requlre.enu Requirements IliplCtl Analysis
Reqedlal Alternatives Rating. htlng Ai tI ng hUftg . U M11110n)
SOUTHERN AREA !! CapHal Present
,. Cost Worth
,
S-I: No action Hfgh low Low Moderate .3]0 0.592 .
S-2: Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions .Hfgh Moderate Moderate Moderate 11.09 18.08
. 1).90
S-.3: Point of Entry Treatment High low low Low 2.11
S-4: Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/Creek Outfall High High Moderate . High 2.4 4.10
S-5: .Deep Well Extractfon/Afr Stripping/Creek Outfall Moderate Hfgh Moderate High 2.23 2.88
5-6: Deep Well Extractlon/Ozone/UV/Creek Outfall Hfgh Hfgh Moderate High 2.66 3.69
Deep Wel1 Extractlon/ltydrogen Peroxtde/UV/Creek Outhl1 High . High Moderate IUgh 2.92 1.02
S-1: Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorptfon/Dralnfleld High High Moderate High 2.43 .1.42
S-8: Deep Well Extraction/Air StrlppfnglDrafnfleid Moderate Hfgh Moderate High 2.28 3.00
S-9: Deep Well Extractlon/Ozone/UV/Oralnfleld High High Moderate High 2.86 4.2]
Deep Well Extractfon/Hydrogen Peroxlde/UV/Drafnfleld High High Moderate High 3.15 9.31
5-10: Deep Well Extractfon/Carbon Adsorption/Recharge Wells High Moderate Moderate . HI gh 2.62 4.68 .
,
)-11: Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/Recharge Wells Moderate' Moderate Moderate HIgh 2.41 3.26
)-12:. Deep Well Extractlon/Ozone/UV/Recharge Wells IlIgh Moderate Moderate Hlqh' 3.05 4.49
Deep We 11 Ex trac tI on/llydrogen Peroxtde/UV /Recharge We lis High Moderate Moderate III gh 3.]4 9.51
IESTERN AREA:
1-1: No Ac tlon High low low Moderate 0 0.124
'.2: A.lternate Water -Supp h/"ater Use Restrictions High Moderate Moderate Moderate 2.81 2.99
,-]: Point of Entry Treatment lit gh low low low 52.10 511.0
'-4: O~cp Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/River Outfall High. High Moderate High 1.5] 41 . 58
-------
fA8L[ J"C~ntlnued)
SUMMARY Of D[JAIUD (VAlUATlOII
1985 AI/fS GUIDANC[ fACTORS
Technlul. Institutional Public lIealth fnvtronMntal Cost
fusibility Requlrellents Requirements IlIPiCts Ana hs Is
Remedl . I A Iternatl ves Rattng Rating Rating hUng U HOlton)
Capita I Present
WESTERN AREA,Contfnued): Cost Worth
W-5: Deep Well Extraction/Air Strlpplng/Rtver Outfall Moderate High Moderate High 1.02 2.15
. W-6: Oeep"ell Extraction/Air Stripping a Carbon Adsorption/ Moder-ite High Moderate High 1.81 22.84
River Outfall
W.J: . Deep We I. Extractlon/Ozone/UV/Rlver Outlal. Moderate. . High Moderate High 2.34 t».26
Deep lie 11 Eatractlon/llydrogen Peroafde/UV/Rlver Outfall Moderate High HotJerate High 2.26 15.31
.
EASTERN AREA
~ E-l; No Action High low Moderate Moderate 1.32 1.50
.,.)
t:-2: Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions High Hoderate High High 2.54 2.89
E.3: Point of Entry Treat.ent High Low Low Low 2.32 3.06. .
E.-4: Oeep Well [xtractlon/Carbon Adsorption/River Outfa.I High: High High High 3.13 22.J
E.5: Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/River Outfall Moderate. High High Moderate 3.39 4.14
E.6: peep Well Extraction/Air Stripping a Carbon Ads~rptlon/ Moderate High High Moderate 3.92 14.13
River Outfall
.[.J: Deep Wel. [xtractlon/Ozone/UV/Rlver Outfall Moderde High High High 4.20 6.52
Deep We. I Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxlde/UV/Alver Outfal. Moderate High High High 4.33 13.58
1/ Costs for Southern Area Extraction/Treatment/Discharge Alternatives 'S-4 through S-12) Include Illprovements to Whitworth Vater District No.2 water
- supply sY5te~.
. 1]11 a
..
-------
.
.
.
T LE 8
(VAlUATlOIi Of (ERClA SECTION 12UbHU'A-G) fActORS 11
A 8 C 0 fY G
Perststence. Threah due
Toxtclty. to Excava-
SoUd Waste Mob lit ~ y Adverse .;~~i future tton, Trans-
. ..
. land Dhpoul Otspoul Act 01 Hazardl)us lIell tit . Costs tf portitton.
Remedtal Alternattves UncertalnUes . Objectives Substances .. E fleets f.t lure Contalrunent
SOUYH£AN AREA
S-I: No.c t Ion H/A ' low low low H/A low
5-2: Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrtcttons HIA low low ModerAt. Low low
5-3: Potnt of Entry Treatment H/A low. low Hoderat. Low low
S-4: Deep Well Extractton/Carbon Adsorptton/Creek Outl.11 HIA . Htgh Htgh Htgh Htgh High
~ S~5: Deep Well Extractton/Atr Strtpptng/Creek Outlall
w. HIA Hoderate Moderate Hoder.t. High IIlgh
. S-6: Deep Well Extractton/Ozone/UV/Creek Outl.II N/A Htgh Htgh High High High
Deep Well Ex trac t lon/llydrogen Perox t de/UV /Creek Outt a II High Htgh High IItgh High
.
S-1: Deep Well Extractto~/Carbon Adsorptton/Oratnlteld iliA High Htgh High Hoderate IIlgh
S-8: Deep Well Extractlon/~lr Strlpplng/Dr.lnlteld H/A .' Hoderate Hoder.te Moderate 140der.te III gh
S-9: Deep "ell.(xtractlon/Ozone/UV/Dralnlteld H/A High Htgh Htgh Hoderate High
Deep "ell ExtractIon/Hydrogen Peroxlde/UV/Dralnlleid HI.gh IIlgh IIlgh Hoderate IIlgh
S- 10: Deep We 11 Extractton/Carbon Adsorptlon/Recharge Wells H/A Htgh High High Hoderate High
S-II: Deep We II Extraction/AIr Strlpp,lng/Recharge Wells H/A Hoderate Hodera te HoderAt. Hoderate IIlgh
. S-12: Deep Well Extractlon/Ozcne/UV/Recharge Wells HIA Htgh Htgh High Hoderate High
Deep~c! I Ex trac t i on/llydrogen Perox I de/UV /Recharge We lis HIgh Iligh IIlgh Moderate IIlgh
WESTER" AREA:
II-I: .'0 Action iliA low low low NIA 1.0101
. '1-2: A !ternotte Water 5..pI" I y/U"ter Use Res trlc tI ons ilIA low low Hoderate low 'ow
1])14
-------
TADLE.B" (Continued)
EVALUAIION Of CfRClA SECTION IZI(b)(I)(A-G) fACTORS
Remedial Alternatives"
A
C . .
.',
o
fY
G
8
",~~-.
J.'O;.~.
..
WESTERN AREA (Cont.)
W-): Point of Entry Treat.ent
W-4: : Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/River Outf.ll
, W-5: .Deep Well Extraction/Air Strlpplng/Rlver,Outf.ll
. .
W-6: Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping I Carbon Adsorption/
Rtver Outfall.
"-7: Deep Well Extractton/Ozone/UV/Rher Outhl1
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxlde/UV/Rlver Outfall
1: EASTERN AREA
E-I: No Action
E-2: Alternate Water Supply/Water Use RestrictIons
E-): Point Qf Entry.Treatment
E-4: Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorptlon/RI~er Outfall
. E-5: Deoep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/River Outtal1
E-6: Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping I Carbon Adsorption/
R her Outt a 11
E-7: Deep Well (xtractlon/Ozone/UV/Rlver Outfall
. Deep lie 11 Ex tr ac tt on/Hydrogen Perod de/UV /R Iver Out It 11
M/A low low
N/A . High High
M/A . Moderate Moderate
N/A High High
N/A High High
High High
. 1,:.~
,I.,:
,',
Moderate
low low
High IlIgh '
High High
High High
High IlIgh
High IlIgh
HIgh
Moderate
High'
High
High'
N/A low low Low N/A Low
N/A Low low Moderate Low low
N/A Cow Low Moderate low low
II/A High High High High High
N/A Moder.te Moderate Moderate High High
N/A High High High High High
ilIA High High High' High ,High
High High High High High.
!lNOTES:
A a
8 .
C ..
o .
[ II
f'lI
G ..
The lon9-terll uncertainties associated '11th hnd disposal"
the goals, obJectives, and requirements of the Solid Waste plsposal Act '
.the persistence, toxicity, lIoblllty, and propensity to bloaccumulate of such hazardous substances and their constituents
short- and long-ter. potential for adverse health effects fro. human exposure
cost of remediation (see Table 7' .
the potenttal for future remedial action costs tf the alternative remedial action In question were to fall
the potential threat to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, and redlsposal, or containment
.'
.
ZI
, factor f 'cost of remediation) see Table 1
1])14
-------
As shown on these tables, all of the deep well extraction, treatment,
and disposal alternatives were evaluated either moderate or high with
respect to all of the 1985 RI/FS Guidance Factors and the A-G Factors.
Any of these technologies is acceptable, as long as the performance
standards in Table 6 are met.
.
.
Alternatives that did not employ deep well extraction were rated low
,-'" . '. J,. .' .
with respect to one or mor~..eYaluation criteria. As a result, none of
these is considered acceptable.
,
.
7331a
-------
VI.
SELECTED REMEDY
DESCRIPTION'
There are contamination problems in the southern, western, and eastern
areas of the site. This interim final remedial action addresses
.management of the migration of contaminants using a groundwater
. . I 1.-' .:'..
interception system in the south and west areas" and attempts source
control in the east area through extraction of groundwater with the
highest contamin~nt c~ncentrations.All extracted water will be
treated to specified Performance Standards, monitored to assure
" .
compliance,~ and will be properly discharged. The water supply system
in the area will be improved to assure sufficient supplies for all
residents who require it.
.
.
The remedy is designed to:
o
prevent further spread of contaminated groundwater "(in the
south and west) in two aquifers by installing and operating
interception well s ~".~ "tre~ting the extra.cted" grou~dwater"," "
o
remove contaminated material s (in the east) which have enterec1
the aquifers and are contributing to the contaminant plume, by
installing and operating extraction wells in the area where
the plu~es originate and treating th~ effluent, and
o
provide an alternate water supply system to any resldents who
are. deprived of their domestic supply by demonstrated
contamination from the landfill or due to the action of the
extraction systems.
.
For interception of the contaminant plume in the upper aquifer
(southern area), a line of wells will be required downgradient of the
plume at the time of impl~mentation. Placement of the wells and
extraction rates will be sufficient to prevent any significant amount
7331a
.
-------
..
of the contamination from proceeding beyond this line of wells. One
possib'-e configuration, based on the location of the plume as
determined at the time of the Remedial Investigation (December 1985)
and developed for the evaluated alternatives S-4. S-5, and S-6 of the
Feasibility Study, is shown in Figure 10.. In this arrangement. about
.eig~t.wel~s, each approximately 100 feet deep, would be used, with each.
'pumping 20 to 30 gallons per minute (gpm). To confirm successful
interception as well as limiting spreading of the pl ume, several .other
wells will be sampled and analyzed, including in this.scenario 24'
private wells and three new monitoring wells.
.
In the western area. a configuration similar to that analyzed in the
Feasibility Study for alternatives W-4. W-5. W-6, and W-7 will be
necessary to prevent future westward migration of this contamination as
. .
shown in Figure 11. In this suggested arrangement ten extraction wells
m3Y be necessary. each pumping approximately 130 gpm. Monitoring would.
. .
involve 33 private wells and four new monitoring wells. Note that
these extractio.n~moni~oring well field con~~Ptsare .not required for
'. the' selected a1 ternatiYe bu~ are rather' merely' f 11 ustrati ve'
. . .
suggestions; such details will instead be chosen in the design phase of
the remedi a 1 acti on. wi th EPA and sta te revi ew to assure conformance
with the objectives of the selected remedial alternative. .
"
Treatment for both areas will be sufficient to reduce contaminant
levels in the aquifers and in the wastewater effluent to or below the
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs, 40 CFR 141.61) or similar
heal th-based criteri'a (a 10-6 risk level for carcinogenic
constituents). Numeric performance standards have been presented in
Table 6. Treatment should be permanent, and should effectively reduce
the toxicity, mObility,and volume of the contaminants. Possible
methods of treatment which were analyzed in the Feasibility Study
include carbon absorption. air stripping, and ~hemica1 oxidation using
ultraviolet (UV) light and either ozone or hydrogen peroxide: Any
treatment system which may result in contaminant air emissions will be
designed to meet appropriate state Air Toxics Guidelines and will.
7331a
-------
,-
o
.,-....
". 0
,.
.
'"
.
.
"
........
o
. . '
: : alii
:0
"
a'
~~
, Ot
It~
I
; I ~
"
,
~; ~
"-
"'I'
",'
QC
~tl
~I
. .
..
. '
.
. .
~ :
. .
; :
~.~
..,
;; 1 r
APPROXIMA TE
PRESENT EXTENT
OF CONTAMINATION
IN UPPER AQUIFER
"!II
-,-
. 00
o
. ,
o
,,,cc
2000
1000
.000 F..I
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION
FOR SOUTHERN AREA (CONCEPTUAL DESIGN)
SOURCE: GOLDER. AND ENVtROSPHERE 1987
0'"
o
o
X
A
o
. .
, .
. .
t'
, '
. :
"7
.'
~
WOOLARQ
,...
.
, .
". "
~ .~
,
INTERCEPTOR WELL
NEW MONITOR WELL
UPPER SAND AQUIFER WELL
PeRIOOICALLY SAMPLED WELLS
48
-------
~ INTERCEPTOR WELL
X NEW MONITOR WELL
o PERIODICALLY
SAMP~D WELLS
I
I
I
I
(
'. " j
. .~..
[!]
;; 11
, '
,. ,
~~
. t. .
, '
, .
. '
. : ~ .
: :
, .
. .
\ '
"
"
, ,
.
.
\~:'
, ,
-9-
041
, ,
. .
, .
. .
'i
~, WOOLARO
41"
.
'1 ..- ---,~.,
.
.
'.
': ' I
: )
. '.!II. -...
~ . . . .
, ~ I ' 0 ,
\~.... ..I ~:J/>{r\i(
~4, .:', .Ii) -
, '..... ,,~~." I
",',7 ,,' "'JV.
. ",,\( \' \, '/
/, .I )}" ;!~
/~~' I '.r~ - /:2--
~
o
I
I
.0
~
(')
~
...
1:
'"
~
~
. (
.
. .
41
o
"!)~O
-,
'-
IS
4l..~
. 01'1»"
-- -.- . . - ...." 1... - ;. . - ... '.
\,\
\ .
\.l.
,
\ I~
I ~.
.0
~I
.
'8...
. ,/
I
.'
.
'.,
\ .
°
'000
2000
3000
.000 F..,
-Q- UNKNOWN
. UPPER SAND
CI LOWER SAND
~ MULTIPLE
COMPLETION
. WEATHERD BASAL T/LATAH
a LATAH
a GRANITE
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IM,PLEMENT A TION
FOR WESTERN AREA (CONCEPTUAL DESIGN)
SOURCE: GOLDER AND ENVIROSPHERE 1987
. .
FIGURE 11'
.' .
~
-------
incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Periodic
sampling"of the effluent water stream will be requi~ed to assure
adherence to the performance standards, and monitoring of air emissions
will verify compliance in that regard.
Discharge of the treated wate~ may be accomplished in any of a number
. ..." of. w~ys.. . The trea:tment a1 ternatives reconmended in the Feasibil ity
:: Study' fncludeddfscharge of clean water to surface water streams,
namely Little Deep Creek in the south and the Little Spokane River in
the west. Because the treated water is a valuable resource, other
opti ons shoul d be consi dered such as recharge of the aqui fers vi a
dtainfield~whi~h may enhance interception through gradient reversal in
the southern area. Release to the ~ublic is possible for some other
beneficial use, such as irrigation, which would not. threaten pu~lic
he.al th if the treatment system temporarily did not achieve performance"
standards.
I~ the. plu~e origin (east) area, extracti~n will be carried out for the
purposes ot source control rather tha~ management. of migration. A .
possible configura~ion ~f the extraction and monitor.ing wells .i.s . .
presented ;-n Figure 12 as it was evaluated for Alternatives E-4, E-5.
E-6, and E-7 in the Feasibility Study. In this arrangement twelve
wells, appro~imately 180 feet deep and pumping 40 to 50 gpm each. would
be used for extraction of the most hi'ghly contaminated groundwater in
order to reduce the strength of the source~ as quickly as possible. In
addition, this suggested design shows 32 private wells which would be
monitored, most of. them already included in the monitoring
configuration shown in Figure 11. No new monitoring wells are proposed
for the plume origin area in this scenario. Treatment and discharge in
this area will be similar and meet the same criteria as described above
for the interception systems.
Extraction in the
monitored in that
reduced below the
plume origin area will continue"until the wells being
area show that the constituents have been permanently
health-based performance standard maximum levels. It
7331a
-------
I'
~
~
'O\P
,
, .
, .
, '
. .
. .
~
...
III
101,
'Q
,It
<
J:
, .
130' -
[!J
, .
, ,
~ :
, ;
~, WOOI.ARO
0,
-Q-
G1
I
" --,...
"
U
.
U
. I
: I
. I
.. "': -.. ..
-,. 'II
\\ / {Pf;i
14 ',', I;~- \
: " " ~_. I
.. ~
',' ., '~p,
,I ;' ,.~.~,~, ' ", /.
.',. j;.' I ~_/
//>::-:.~ -'~ f 1'. J;~~; ~ I
I '
, ,
. .
. ..,.
"
~
~
.
.
I
.
n
.4
...
'/lJ'
~ UNKNOWN
. UPPER SAND
o LOWER SAND
. MULTIPLE
CO MPI,;ETION
II WEATHERD BASAL T/LATAH
a LATAH
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENT A TION .. GRANITE
, FOR EASTERN AREA (CONCEPTUAL DESIGN) ,
o
I!!!
1000
2000
3000
.000 F..,
@ EAST EXTRACTOR
WELLS
o PERIODICALLY
SAMPLED WELLS
SOURCE: GOLDER AND ENVIROSPHERE 1987 ,
F1GURE12
-------
is anti~ipated that this'may ~equire decades of pumpage and t~eatment
befo~e the p~rfo~mance standa~ds a~e ~eliably attained th~oughout the
area of contamination. The treatment in the other areas, whe~e further'
migration of the contaminant plume is being controlled, will also be
based on the permanent. ~eduction of contamination levels below the same
health-oased perfo~mance standards. This will probably require a
10nger period to account for the time of transport from the source
. .
areas to the downgradient extent of contamination. where the extraction
systems are located. In any' case, the EPA will reevaluate the
implemented system every five years to assure that it is wo~king
, -
properly and to propose any modifications that could facilitate the
~ernedi at; on.~
Those residents who are dep~ived of water, either because their well
water quality. shows demonstrated contamination from the landfill or due
to the action of the extraction systems, will be connected to the
al ternate water supply system.. Adequate and appropri ate mon; tori ng
will be performed to demons~rate water quality is maintained. ~he
present ~orrmunity water system .s~rving. the area, the Colbert Extension.
o~ the ~hitworth. Water District No. 2, ~y be up~raded. to assure
adequate 'supplie.s to all residen.ts who may require alternate water.'
Enhancements will be designed to meet state public wate~ system
standards. Institutional controls will be developed consistent with
the final design to assure the effectiveness of the ~emedi.al action.
. .
'.. Col bert Landfi 11 wi 11 be closed in accordance wi th the State Mi nimum
Functional Standards (WAC 173-304) for landfill closure, including
. ,
capping, regrading, groundwater and gas monitoring, and post-closure
maintenance. The state landfill closure regulations are consistent
with EPA Guidelines for the land disposal of solid waste. The closure
of the landfill under the State Minimum Functional Standards will need
to be evaluated to ensure consistency with RCRA Hazardous Waste
Regulations and will be addressed in the final ROD for this site.
7331a
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
.
The selected alternative meets all statutory requirements, particularly
those of CERClA, as amended by SARA. The highest priority in this
regard is that the seJected remedy (extrac~ion, treatment, and
discharge) is protective of human health and the environment; this can
be demonstrated according.t~ each of the potential threats. The
containment of the contami~~nt migration to the south and west will .be
designed to reduce the mobility of. the contaminants and prevent
additional wells from becoming significantly contaminated, exposing
residents i~ those areas to the contaminants through their drinking
water. The containment will also prevent significant contamination
from reaching surface water, mainly the little Spokane River, thereby
exposing recreational users of the river as well as fish and other
aquatic life. Treating the extracted water will be designed to reduce
the toxicity and volume of the contaminants and prevent them from
returning to the environment. .
.The.selecte~ remedy will also meet all substanti~e laws and regulations
.. of .oth'er App1icabl~. or.Relev~nt and .Appropriate Requirements .(ARARs).
These are listed and their application is briefly described in Appendix
B. The laws and regulations of concern. include:
o
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 USC 6901);
"RCRA regulations (40 CFR 261 to 280); Washington State
Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC ~73-303); Minimum Functional
Standards for Solid Waste Handling (WAC 173-304).
The selected remedy prevents further spread of groundwater
contamination and constitutes a Corrective Action Program as
specified in 40 CFR 264.100 and WAC 173-303-645(11). Closure
of Colbert landfill to State Minimum Functional Standards will
be evaluated to ensure consistency with RCRA landfill closure
s~andards.
733la
-------
o
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 USC 300); Primary Drinking
Water Standards (40 CFR 141).
The selected remedy prevents exposing the public to drinking
water which exceeds the Maximum Concentration Levels.
. ':, ,0 ..>. .Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1251); National Pollution
'. ',.'L~';{9i:.Dis'charge Elimination System (NPDES, 40 CFR 122.); NPDES Permit
Program (WAC 173-Z20).
The selected remedy treats the extracted water before
di~charge to surface water. Other. mainly procedural, aspects
of t~e NPDES Permit system will be met during the design
phase, although no permit is actually required.
o
Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health Regarding
Public Water'" Systems (WAC 248-54).,
."
Enhanceme~ts to the alternate water supply. system, in order
to'supply all, residents who',may require these sUPP11es, will,
be in conformance with thes'e regulations. '
EPA review of the remedial design will assure that these. and .all other
requir~ments, will be met by the design which is ultimately implemented. .
Finally, the selected remedy meets the requirements of
cost-effectiveness and use of permanent solutions to the maximum extent
practicable. The cost-effectiveness can be demonstrated by the fact
that extraction treatment and discharge technologies are,available that
will meet the performance standards and have a lower cost than merely
providing alternate water supply (See Table 6). The total (present
worth) cost for the alternate water supply (Alternatives 5-2. W-2. and
. ,
E-2) is estimated to be almost S24 million; the cost of ozone/UV
oxidation for all three areas (Alternatives 5-6a. W-7a, E-7a) is
. .
7331a
-------
estimated to be approximately S16.5 million, not taking into account
any cost savings associated with the treatment of two or more areas at
a single facility (estimated to be n.6 million, see Section 6.2.1 of
the Feasibility Study). It is possible that an a.ir stripping treatment
, ,
system, combined with vapor-phase carbon absorption, would be even more
. cost effective, as it shoul d meet the performance standards at a
'prese~t'~~orth cost of approximately S12.8 million (see Section 6.2.4 of'
the Feasibility Study).
The selected remedy meets the SARA preference to permanent sol~tions to
the maximum extent practicable. Re~ource recovery is, however, not
practicable as 'there is no market for the off-specification solvent
mixture which could be recovered from the groundwater. Nevertheless,
treatment technologies are. used as a principal element of t~e remedy
and they will effectively reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
the contami nants permanently..
7331a
-------
VII. REFERENCES
CH2M Hill. 1983. Remedial Action Master Plan, Colbert Landfill,
. Colbert, Washington. A report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Remedial Planning/Field Investigation Team,
Zone II (Contract No. 68-01-6692). Washington, D.C. 124 pp.
. ,
Cook~~T.D'~~ . 1985. ' Applications and Limitations of Earth Resistivity as
a Technique for Monitoring Leachate Near the Colbert Landfill,
Spokane County, Washington [unpuolished masters thesis (Civil
Engineering)]. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1984a.' Focused
Feasibility Study for Initial Remedial Measure at Colbert
Landfill. Prepared by C.R. Thompson, Hazardous Waste Remedial
. .
Action Section, Remedial Action Division, Olympia, Washington.
26 pp.
Ecology. 198,7b., COJ1ll1Uni ty Re lati onsPl an for I ni ti a 1 Remedi al Measure,
at Colbe~t'Landfil~. Prepared'by C.R. Thompson, Hazardous Waste'
Remedial Action Section, Remedial Action Division, Olympia,
Washington. 10 pp.
EPA (U.S. En~ironrnentalProtection Agency). 1986. Guidelines for
Ground Water Cl ass; ficat;'on Under the EPA Ground Water Protection
Strategy. Final Draft. Office of Ground Water Protection.
Washington, D.C. Decemoer 1986.
EPA.
1985. Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. EPA
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 540/6-85/003. June 1985.
.
7331a
-------
Maddox (George Maddox and Associates, Incorporated).' 1981. A
Preliminary Report on the Geohydrology of the Colbert Landfill,
Spokane County, Washington-Phase I. Prepared for Spokan.e County
Utilities Department, Spokane, Washington. 19 pp.
Maddox. 1982. Geohydrologic Investigations of Colbert landfill,
" Phase II. Prepared for Spokane County Utilities Department,
'<"';'.'..'\'~~~"'.l\r~-.\..' .."""" . .".'.
',- ".- Spokane, Wash f ngton . 6? . pp .
r~arrin, D.l. 1985., Shallow Soil Gas Investigation in the Vicinity of
, the Colbert landfill, Spokane County. Washington (Draft). Prepared
, for U.S. EPA. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
Las Vegas, Nevada. December 1986.
Golder (Gol~er Associates, Inc.). 1984. Data Review and
Recommendations for Remedial Investigations 'at the Colbert
landfill. Prepared for State of Washington, Department of Ecology,
Olympia, Washington. 59 pp.
'. .
. . . .. . .
I n~es ti ga ti ~n ,Report for the Co 1 be~t landfl11',
Prepared for State of Washington Department
and II. May 1987.
Golder.. '1987. Remedial
, Spokane. Washington.
of Ecology, Volumes I
Golder and Envirosphere. 1987. Feasibility Study Report for the
C'olbert Landfill, Spokane. Washington. Pr~pared for State of
Washington, Department ,of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. Volumes I
and II. May 1987.
Griggs, A.S. 1973. Geologic Map of the Spokane Quandrangle,
Washington, Idaho, and Montana (1:250,000). U.S. Geological
Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations. Map I-768~
Survey
7331a
-------
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1985. Summary
. .
of Day-first Order TD3210, Entire Period of Record Through 1985 for
Spokane, Washington. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite
Data and Information Service, National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, North Carolina.
PEC (Pacific Environmental Consultants). 1986.
Update Systems Sand 9'JPreliminary Draft).
Water District No.2. March 1986.
Water System Plan
.Prepared for Wh i tworth
Spokane Coun ty and Key Troni c Corporati on. 1986. Resul ts 0 f con ti nued
Studies at Colbert Landfill, Colbert, Washington,-by George Maddox
and Associates. Personal Communications with Bruce Austin (Spokane
County and Key Tronic, Incorporated), Spokane, Washington.
Williams, J.R. and H.E. Pea~son. 1985. Streamflow Statistics and
Orai nage Basin. Characteri sti cs for the Southwestern and Eastern
Regions, Washington: Volume II.. Eastern Washington. United
St.ates G.eologic Survey open file r~po,.t 84-145-.8, Tacoma', :
Washington.
7331a
-------
~
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
"4'"' .'
. . ,"
... . -'! ~.
.
-------
COLBERT LANDFILL, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into tne
following sections:
Section 1.0
. ..... .. ~
'''t...;'-''.i/1'.-,.~ ~~...
.
Section 2.0
Section 3.0
Section 4.0
Overview. This section discusses the U.S. Environmental
P~otection Agencyls (EPA) prefer~ed alternative fo~ .
corrective action, and.likely pUblic.~eaction to this
al te~native.
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This
. sec~;on provides a brief history of community interest and
concerns raised during remedial planning activities at tne
Colbert Landfill site.
Summa~y' of Major Comments Received during the PUblic
Comment Period and EPAls Responses to tne Comments. Both
w~itten and oral comments are categorized by relevant
. topics. EPAls r:-esponses' to tnese'major conrnents are al so '
p~oYided. '
. .
Remaining Concerns. This section describes remaining
community concerns that EPA should take into consideration
in conducting the remedial design and remedial action at
the Colbert Landfill site.
Community ~elations activities conducted during remedial
activities at the Colbert Landfill site are listed in an
this appendix.
,.
.
7653a
response
attachment to
.
-------
"
1.0 OVERVIEW
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as lead agency
under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), carried out the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study for the Colbert Landfill site north of Spokane. During the
19705, t.ne ,landfill .had received industrial solvents and disposed of
. f~ .,t.> .::,." Of ", .. ..'" . .
. trlem, !n. a. way. that allowed tne cnemical s to penetrate the underlying
aquifer. These chemicals began to ShOw up in nearoy drinking water
wells at levels high enougn to cause puolic health concerns. The
cleanup alternative which was recommended by Ecology's consultants, and
in turn by Ecology to EPA, was to intercept the advance of the
contaminants by extracting the contaminated water, treating it, and
discnarging the cleaned water. Tne cleaned water would meet
health~based drinking water standards. This alternative is described
in more detail in Chapter 4 of the Feasioility Study and in the Record
of Dedsion.
T~iS Responsiveness Summ~ry describes concerns which the community has
expressed. in r~gard to .the p.rool~s at th~ site, the ~e~onl11ended ,
.,' cleanup alternative, and the study process itself. , The most severely
. ,
impacted individuals, tne nearby residents, have long complained that
their welfare has not received proper attention from local and state.
agencies. .These residents hope that the cleanup will be as Quick and
as thorough as possible and not raise additional prOblems througn its
implementation. 'On the other hand, two of the named responsible
pa.rties at the site, Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation, are
concerned that there was insufficient time for public review and that
, '
the cleanup would be too expensive. They asked Ecology or EPA to
search out other potentially responsible parties to share the cleanup
costs; EPA is now doing this.
7653a
-------
Because of tne scarCity'of water and tne reliance on ground water
supplies in tnis area, clean water is a particularly important
concern. Some citizens desire clean drinking water, but do not feel it
is necessary to go to tne additional time and expense to clean tne
aQui fer.
Otner concerns for some people include potential drying up of wells due
to pumping, and possiDle flooding and erosion from river. discnarge.
. :-. ~;.~(,. -,.". ..... ... --
.
. .
. .
<>
.
7653a
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS,
, ,
Community interest in the Colbert Landfill contamination prOblem dates
from 1980 when local residents complained to Ecology and the Spokane
. County Utilities Department that hazardous materials were being
disposed of at tne landfill. Community concern and involvement have
. .
'remai".e~,strong since tnat time. Three key individuals, Mr. Floyd
. .. :.. . ... ~ ."f' ~ , ~ . .
Wakefield, Ms. Grace Garrison, and f4r. Craig Costello, have been
especially active in coordinating community meetings, increasing
. .
community aw~reness, and voicing area residents' concerns to the
Utilities Department, Ecology, and EPA~ They have been successful in
getting attention from these agencies as well as in attracting media
attention to tne site. Tne major citizen concerns expressed about the
Co1oert Landfill contamination problems and now agencies nave addressed
these concerns are described below:
1)
In Octooe~ 1980, a resident near the landfill complained to Ecology
and tne Utilities Department tnat hazardous materials were being
di sposed of at the 1 andfi ," . , . .'
Actions: Ecology investigations revealed that Key Tronic
Corporation nad disposed of solvents.at the landfill and tnat
several priv~te well s were contaminated. Spokane County al so began
studying the ~xtent of groundwater contamination, "iring George
Maddox and Associates, Inc., to study the-hydrogeology of the
1 andfi 11 si te.
2)
In the winter of 1981, citizens called the Utilities Department
witn questions on the Colbert site. Tne citizens had questions and
concerns about: wnat the project status was; hOW the study was
bei ng conducted; now resi dents' coul d get tnei r water tested; wnere
the contamination plume was heading; what the results were to date;
what the study actions would snow; wnat the County Commissioners
were going to do; now contaminated water would effect nealtn,
children, and property values; wnetner the water was safe to drink';
7653a
-------
whetner it was carcinogenic;
tests; how will it be tested
everyone else was doing?
why there were f1 uctua ti ons J n tne
for parts per billion; and what
'Actions: Spokane County organized and implemented a community
relations plan in conjunction 'witn tne r~addox Study. As part of
" .~e plan, ttte County maintained a record of citizens wno called and
" . ", .""~' developed a mai 11ng 11 st from the tax assessor I S records. Ttie
., ;'-Util'fties Department ~~ld seven PUblic meetings,beginning in May.
1981, to explain the intent of the Maddox study and to discuss
study progress and the results of tne water Quality sampling
progra~. The Utilities Department sent eacn homeowner in the well
, ,
sampling program a copy of their test results and also posted water
sampling results at the Colbert Water District Office.
3)
Citizens' concerns from pUblic meetings held by tne Utilities
Departme~t in 1982 and 1983 included whether their water was safe
to use, what the health impacts could be, and how the contamination
woul d impact tneir property values. Ci ti zens thought that, a new
water supply I'tas"nee~ed, immediately.
'Actions': In February 1983. the Spokane County Health District
advised residents with significantly contaminated wells to use
bottled water. Spokane County and Key Tronic began supplying
bottled water to some homes.
In MarCh 1983, tne Spokane County Tax Assessor discussed
reasses~ing the nomes affected by the ground water contamination.
The county tax assessor established a p1an for ~stimating the
reduced value on homes within the 3/4-mile study area established
by George Maddox and Associates, Inc.
.
4)
Homeowners became frustratedoy
for an alternative water system
districts interested in serving
the absence of an immediate plan
and met witn several water
tne Col bert Landfi 1 r ar~a'.
7653a
-------
- .
Actions: In June 1984 Ecology documented the need for an
alterna.tive water supply to residents living near Coloert
Landfill. The County approved a new water system and began
construction in the fall of 1984. The system was completed in the
winter of 1985. This new system, funded by Spokane County, Key
Tronic, and state referendum money, served as an alternate water
:...supply and as .an Initial Remedial rieasure for the Colbert Landfill
.:,
-------
The ,recommendations were:
,a) - Free hoOkup for any household witnin 'the proposed area.
tne known contaminated area. and any future contaminated
area regardl ess of tne 1 eve 1 of contami nati on of the
household well at tne time.
i;,i.~~ D), f-1onthly water fees, maintenance, and any other associated
..:' .\';'-'.~ '.~:~fees to be borne by tne known source of contamination,
, including Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation. for
a period of twenty (20) years.
. . e)'
. .
7653a
c) : Property va 1 ues in tne area to be re-assessed due to tne
devaluation of property.
d)
Existing we~ls be utilized for outdoor irrigation wit~
tne installation of a stationary frost-proof yard hydrant
to ~e installed free of charge to tne property owner.
!~stiog .of we.l.b in the ar:ea ~hould continue a,t, the ,
,"existing scnedu'le for a period of twenty '(20) years at
. . . . .
tne expense of Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation
. or longer if contamination stays at current levels or
increases.
f)
Contaminant-related healtn problems may be pursued on a
individual basis for an indefinite time. including future
generations of tne present residents.
g)
Any property owner whO has previously accepted settlement
and/or monies from Spokane County and Key Tronic
Corporation were excluded from tnis proposal.
-------
, \
Actions: The Commissioners ~rafted a response in January 1986 tnat
include~ specific conditions under wnicn water would be supplied to
tne affected residents. Because of tne restrictive conditions,
citizen frustration increased.
,7) EPAand Ecology released tne Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
:.-..tStudy report in May 1987, and held a pUblic meeting to obtain
-' ."",. :, .';,I~"': :. .' '. . .
"" .>:conments. ,Citizens and Key Tronic complained tnat tne tnree-week
comment period was too .short.
.
Actions:
EPA extended tne comment period by tnree weeks.
8)
A newspaper editorial criticized EPA and Ecology for not using
tneir investigatory and enforcement powers more fully, and for tne
shortness of the comment period. Key Tronic employees purcnased"d
full-page newspaper ad supporting the editorial. They expressed.
tne concern that Key Tronic was being treated unfairly and tnat
other users of Colbert Landfill snou1d.snare in tne cleanup
expenses.
Actions: As previously noted in No. 7.above', EPA extended the
comment periOd. Ecology and EPA nave notified Faircnild Air Force
Base that it ;s a potentially responsible party. EPA is now
. .
searcning for additional parties wno may snare responsiDility.
9)
During the PUblic comment period, citizens expressed concern. about
wells drying up and the Little Spokane River flooding due to
pumping and treating contaminated water and discnarging tne cleaned
water. They also expressed concerns about emissions from the air
stripping towers.
Actions: Ecology held two pUblic meetings on September 9, 1987, to
answer these Questions.
.7653a
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED
DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND AGENCY RESPONSES TO THE CO~1ENTS
Comments from members of the pUblic, primarily Colbert area residents,
regardi~g the feasibility study report are summarized below. Similar
,conwnents are grouped under the following headings: general, pUblic
partic~pation process, contamination levels, and cleanup alternatives.
Eacn corrnent is '011 owed b~ .a res~nse from EPA.
"
Tne pub 1 i c comment peri od ad gi na 11 y ran' from May 15 to June 5, 1987,
but was later extended to June 30, 1987, for a total of over six'
weeks~ Ecology.neld a pUblic meeting in Coloert on May 28, 1987, to
explain the study and the alternatives. The consultants' selected
alternative (Extraction-Treatment-Discnarge-Expanded Water Supply)
recommended air stripping for the treatment option and a river outfall
for the discharge option. Many comments focused on this alternative
and the various .treatment and discharge options.
Detailed' comme!tt forms were distributed to all meetingatte(lde~s.
Ecology received 2'9' completed" forms and si~ letters by. the June 30
deadline, primarily from Colbert area residents.
Meeting attendees were asked to r~nk the four cleanup alternatives on
tne comment form. The selected alternative (Extraction-Treatment-
Discnarge-Expanded Water Supply) was preferred by 26 of the 33 whO
expressed a preference. Six people preferred Al ternate Water Supply.
One person proposed a fiftn alternative consisting of removal and
treatment of the landfill waste.
Among the treatment technologies, air stripping received majority
support. However, twelve peopl e supported ei thercarbon adsorpti on or
chemical oxidation, primarily because of tne potential air pollution
from tne air stripping process. The recommended option of discharging
7653a
-------
the treated water into the river also received strong support.
. .
However, ten. respondents favored recharge wells or drainfields
of fears of lowering the water table or flooding.
because
GENERAl
'1) . Identification of additional potentially responsible parties was a
..:nl.ijo~ concern, 'botn at the PUblic meeting and in sUbsequent written
comments. Key Tronfc !~ its employees were especially concerned
about the equity of the company apparently being.held largely
responsible for the contamination and cleanup; they pointed out
that the company nas not been associated with all of the identified
contaminants.
~ency Response: EPA and Ecology have identified three pot~ntially
responsible parties: the landfill owner (Spokane County) and two
major disposers of hazardous sUbstances, Key Tronic Corporation and
FairChild Air Force Base. EPA is searching to identify other
pot~ntiallY responsible J?drties...
2) The.cost of cleanup concerned several residents. Some felt that.
the proposed program may be too costly. One resident felt tnat tne
nealth riSkS had been overstated and that tne funds could De better
spent elsewhere in the county. Otners felt that no expense snould
be spared to clean the aquifer. The most common response, however,
was that the most cost-effective alternative be selected. Tnis was
mentioned frequently in support of the. air stripping treatment
option, which is less expensive than the other treatment
technologies studied. The PUblic was also concerned about the
source and reliability of the cost estimates and wno would pay the
.cost of the cleanup.
7653a
-------
Agency.Response: Tne cost information is based on data from
equipment suppliers and costs of similar projects. Present
knowledge does not indicate how long the contaminated ground water
at the site will nave to be treated, so 30 years was selected as a
reasonable length of time for planning. Costs were estimated based.
on current pricing and technologies, tnen totalled over the 30-year
period. Tne Superfund law stipulates that responsible parties pay
tne bill for cleanup Whenever possible. Following the formal
. '. ..
sel ection of tne cl eanup al ternative at the Col bert Landfi 11 si te,
. EPA and Ecology will direct t~e responsible party or parties to
undertake the cleanup as specified. If the responsible parties
"fail to comply witn the'reQuest, EPA or Ecology will do tne cleanup
"and sue to recover the cost. Tne responsible parties will also be
requested to pay operations and maintenance costs for the cleanup
measures.
Tne actual costs may be from 30 percent less than the estimates to
50 percent more. More accurate cost estimates will be made when
"t~e detailed project design is done.
. Fed era lregu'l ations .spec; fy that a 1 ess-effective .cl eanup action.
cannot be cnosen simply because it is cheaper. However, if several
alternatives are consi.dered to be equally effective, EPA may select
the least costly.
3)
Property values have been a continuing iS$ue witn residents since
contamination was first detected. Potential impacts of cleanup
measures SUCh as noise, odor, appearance, and air pollution on
property values were a concern to several residents. A major
corporate owner of undeveloped property expressed concern about tne
reduced value of tne property if water were not available for
fu ture deve 1 of)!len t.
7653a
-------
~ency Response: Noise and ai~ pollution gene~ated Oy the remedial
system will be within local, state, and federal regulatory
standards~ Similar facilities in otner communities nave operated
successfully without proo1ems or complaints related to noise and
ai~ pollution. The hsues of future deve10pnent and property
values will be resolved consistent witn implementation of the
remedial action.
~ - ~ -,..:'~. ~::.~::.~~ ~ .;" . . '. ,""
.' . ~ .~ ~ ,-. . .
4)
Immediate availability 0' clean, low-cost wate~ has also been a
continuing concern since the beginning of the project. The
. residents' hignest priority is having an assured, convenient supply
'of c1ean~drinking wate~. The citizens' committee has requested
t~at clean wate~ be supplied to everyone in the contaminated area.
One resident suggested that, witnout tnis, property owners snou1d
not have to pay taxes because their land is unsa1eac1e. At the
same time, another person was concerned that expanding ~e
. Whitworth Water District supply" lines to accormtodate the long';term
growtn ne~ds.of the district would be.unfa~r. Key Tronic and.
. Spo.kane County also see 'it a,s unfair to' charge tn~ fo~ these costs
.Wh1cn would have Deen encountered even without tne contamination
. .
prOblem.
Age~cy Response: The selected alternativ~ requires tnat everyone
affected by tne contamination or tne cleanup process Oe assured o.f
a safe and adequate drinking water supply. .Maintaining and
i mprov i ng tne Wn i tworth Wa ter Di s tri ct Sys tern wi 11 prov ide adeQua te
domestic water supplies for present and futu~e population in the
area.
The Whitworth Water District water system may be adequate for
in-nome water use only. Tne riSk assessment, Appendix A of the
Feasioility Study, indicated that tne~e snou1.d be no adverse nealtn
consequences from use of tne contaminated ground water for outside
purposes sucn as i rri ga ti on. It shoul d be poss i D 1 e to continue to
use existing wells for these high-consumption purposes as long as
these lines are adequately isolated from tn' 10mestic supply
sys terns.
7653a
-------
. .
5) The need for continued long-term monitoring of both drinking water
and monitoring well~ was emphasized.
.
Agency Response: The recommended cleanup alternative provides
continued monitoring of drinking water and monitoring wells. EPA
or Ecology will supervise and manage the monitoring to ensure that
it is ~one properly. Two kinds of monitoring would be conducted.
. .. '. '* '. .
. ~.:,.:rn~. system monitoring program woul d frequently assess how well the
I' . ,.... ,t",
"ground water extraction. ~nd treatment system is working. Tne other
monitoring program would track 'the spread of contaminants in the
ground wa ter .
, '
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
1) Residents, p~rticularly those who had been most involved in the
process, sougnt assurance that their involvement would continue
tnrougn the cleanup design process. A large corporate pro~rty
owner also expressed the desire'to be contacted during the design
phase. One meeti~g participant, not 'a resident o~ tne affected
area, questio~ed the:extent of citizen involvement and review.up to
tnis point." .
Agency Response: EPA and Ecology have appreciated and encouraged
t..,e level of pUDlic involvement experienced at Colbert Landfill in
the process of selecting a cleanup alternative. Tne agencies will
co~tinue to work ~ith tne community and local residents to ensure
public participation through the design and cleanup phases.
Ecology will revise the Community Relations Plan before tne design
process begins.
.
2)
Residents and one agency representative aSked about regulatory
controls or permit requirements relating to the treatment and
discharge options. Specifically, they wanted to Know if air and
water discnarges would be sUbject to state or 'federal law.,
7653a
-------
Agency Response: Cleanup actions at Colbert Landfill do nat
require permits because of tne Federal Superfund law. However. tne
actions must comply witn tne intent and purpose of any regulations
that woul d norma lly appl y. SUCh appl i cab 1 e regul a ti ons waul d '
include National Polluti~n Discharge Elimination System provisions
of the Clean Wa te... Act. 1 oca 1 ai r qua 1i ty standards. and otners.
.,Monito~fng of ~.fr and water discharges will assure compliance wi tn
:,:",'.tnese'standards. ' ,
..
.'
CONTN~INATION LEVELS
1) , Several ~questions were asked to clarify the remedial investigation
findings. One person asked if tne contamination levels in various
parts of the aqui fers had cnanged over time in relation to the EPA
standards. Anotner person asked why tne report seemed to indicate
'that 90 percent of t..,e pollutants disposed of in tne landfi 11 nad
not been accounted for in ,the ground water.
,Agency Response:' Some wells, have snown cons,tan,t contamination
levelS. , In otner 'wells. tne concentrations nav~', been decrea,sing.
'. . .
In still others. tne ,levels nave ,fluctuated.' the wells that are
showing fairly constant concentrations appear to Oe near "pools" of
contamination in the aquifers. These pools nave remained at nign
levels for 'several years. Tliis suggests, tnat tnese pools are still
in place and still releasing contaminants. It is likely that mucn
of tne 90 percent referenced above is in these pools and tne otner '
10 percent lost to evaporati on at the time of dhpo sa 1 (see tne
Remedial Investigation Report. Section 5.4.1. pp. 76-77 for more
information). In the upper aquifer. contamination appears to be
decreasing.
..
7653a
-------
2)
A long-time resident of the area askeq if capping the' landfill in
1980 would have prevented tne spread of tne contaminants in the
ground water.
Agency Response: By 1980 contaminants had already been documented
in wells northeast of the landfill. so capping would have'been too
late and not particularly useful. Colbert Landfill was operated
until late 1986; capping a wOrking landfill would be a difficult
, ,.task. particul arly for a ,1 andfi 11 as 1 arge and as active as tn is
one. Pure solvents travel ~rougn the ,ground easily; they were
dumped, into the 1.andfi11 in sucn large quantities that,it is likely
, that even wi th capping they would have reacned tne ground water on
, thei r own accord. From the time they reached tne ground wa tel"'.
probably well before 1980. the contaminants have continued to
migrate away from the landfill area due to the natural flow in the
aqui fers .
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Extraction Options,
"
, ' ,
, ,
1 )
There were major concerns about lowering the ground water levels
and possibly drying up existing wells througn the extraction of
large amounts of grou,nd water for treatment. Many wells in the
area already have low water levels during tne summer. Water is
needed for irrigation even if anotner water supply is avai laDle, for
domestic use. A related concern was that lowering the water table
would increase the flow of contaminants. including iron. into the
aqui fers .
~ency Response: The wells will be designed to intercept the
can tami nant plume to remove the con tamina ted wa tel"'. The wa ter
whicn is extracted is ooviously not availaole for other uses.
Clean wat~r is. however. also being carried along around tne edges
of the plume. Current information on tne upper aquifer. whicn is
more 1 ikely to be depl eted. indi cates that the proposed system
7653a
-------
would only reduce water levels by about two feet near tne
extraction wells. Over 100 feet away, tne reduction would be
" .
insignificant. ThUS, the extraction systems should not violate tne
existing water rignts in the area. The impacts on people whO use
more than tneir water rignts allow is not known at this ~ime. The
design of the wells will be refined tnrougn additional testing
during the design phase to ensure that adverse impacts are
. J ., It. ~: ..~ ", . '.. . ... . .. .
" :IIi nimi zed. " .
. ..-..
r ..' .
T~e extraction system would not cause high iron concentrations and
otner problems associated with the deep aquifer to spread to more
shallow ~quifers because ~ater will not be drawn from these deeper
zones.
2)
One person suggested that the existing monitoring wells be
incorporated into the extraction well system.
~e~cy Response: Most existing monitoring wells are two inches in
df.ameter, too small to 'extract "the necess"ary 'amoun't of water". In
add"ition, tne monitor.ing.wel rs, witn tneir known hhtory of
contaminationleve.1s, will be needed to observe the changes tnat'
occur during the cleanup process.
Treatment Options
1 )
The pUDl ic Questioned tne effectiveness of tne al ternatives
studied, wanting" assurance tnat tne recolm1ended technologies nad
been used successfully elsewhere. They also wanted tne process to
clean both aquifers effectively, completely, and in a reasonaDle
time periOd.
.
The alternative which has been selected by ~~e EPA. ground water
extraction and treatment, "as been employed successfully at many
s i r;es around the country, using a vari.ety of trea tlnen t
technolog;es~ Treatment similar to that proposed for the site has
7653a
-------
been successfully used at other sites in Washington and sites
across the country. . EPA fu 11 y ~xpects that it wi 11 be just .as
effective at the Colbert Landfill site and will eliminate the
hazards posed by the ground water contamination. The spread of
contamination will be controlled within two to three months
following install ation of the system. It may require a longer time
. .
~ depl et.e tn-e sources tou lly. The 1 ength of time the compl ete
. '..:;~\~cleanup will take is s.t;l1 uncertain. but 30 years is being assumed
. . . .
. "'0.. p'larining purposes.,-
2)
The consultant-recommended treatment option, air stripping,
. provoke~ numerous commen ts. The grea test concern was about
potential air pollution caused by tne release of the contaminants
taken out of the water. Residents and an agency representative
questioned wnetner any health risk assessment had been done and how
. . .
consultants knew that the contaminants would pr~sent no health
risk. There was also concern about its effectiveness, especially
in removing methylene chloride. Some respondents suggested that
. .
treat~nt options be combined to take advantage of the strong
. .
. .
points of eacn and. minimize. the weaknesses~ One suggested tne use
. of carbon adsorpti.on as well as air .stripping to alle.v1at'e the air
pollution prOblem.
Agency Response: EPA has cnosen not to specify a treatment
technology for its selected cleanup alternative, but rather let the
PRPs (or EPA or Ecology, if either does the cleanup) nave the
.widest latitude for designing a treatment system which will meet
. .
tne cleanup needs of t~e site. Air pollution issues will be
studied tnrougnout in tne design process. The option selected will
De tne best for cleaning the water to drinking water standards and
safeguarding air quality. The option eventually selected may be a
combination of technologies sucn as air strippers with carDon
filters. In any case, it will meet Air Toxic Guidelines and will
use Best Available control Tecnnologies (BACT).
7653a
-------
The possibility of corttJining technologies was evaluated in the
Fea~ibility Study; Alternatives W-6 and E-6 discuss combining
carbon adsorption and air stripping. Tnese were found to be less
cost-effective in' cl eaning the water. Us ing carbon fi 1 ters in tne
air stripping towers to clean the air emissions may be considered
as a possible design; it is described in Section 6.2.4 of the
. Feasibility Study. CarbOn filters would capture the contaminants
. .; .~:~r:...:. .;~., ,'..:".J. ~ .". .
" so"tnat tney can be destroyed as part of their treatment.
Metnylene cnloride is the most difficult of the contaminants to
, remove tnrougn ai r str; ppi ng. Neverthel ess, a trea tment sys tern can
,be speerfi ca 11y des; gned to remove th is and otner contami nan ts to
concentrations below dri-nking water standards.
3)
Other concerns were raised that tne moisture emitted by air.
stripping' towers coul d cause ice and heavy fogs on nearby roads.
. Agency Response: Similar systems with air strippers' nave been
s~ccess fully used. througnout the coun~ry, incl ~di ng ,.,i cni gan.. and
Wi ~consin,wnic'n na~e mo're ,severe. win~er c1imatesthan tni s area.'
Devices are included in the air' strippers to reduce moisture'
emissions. References do not indicate problems on nearby
ni gnways. No ma tter wnat trea tment sys tern is used, if prOb 1 ems
develop, the configuration will be modi fied to assure that sucn
problems are resolved.
4)
Otner potential impacts also received comment, including possible
nohe, odors, and tne appearance of air stripping towers.
~ency Response: All of tnese factors will be considered
, extensively in designing the project. Noise. odors, and appearance
nave been considere~ at other sites and resolved satisfa,ctorily to
adjacent residents. Odors, in particular. would not be discernable
even di rectl y in tne exnaust.
7653a
-------
~
5)
Disposal of the contaminated carbon used for the carDon adsorption
process was a concern for one person.
Agency Response: Tne contaminated carDon would be'disposed of
througn incineration at a facility in Yakima. ° Hazards associated
with transporting it there are minor; even in the event of a
complete spill of the carbon, few-adverse impacts are .likely
'.because tne contaminants would remain in tne carDon i.tself.
.' ~'~H':~~. '.:~: ". ~...~ .'.'~ .
o'
6)
One resident asked how bacteria growth in the treatment equipment
would'be controlled to maintain water Quality.'
Agency RespQnse: Bacterial growth nas been successfully
at similar facilities. We are presently envisioning the
use of cnlorination to control bacterial growth.
cantrall ed
occasional
Discnarge Options
1 )
One of the concerns expressed most frequently was that di$cnargi ng
1 arge Quanti ti es . of water intQ tne Li ttle Spokan~ River woul ~ cause'
f1 ooding and ero,sio.n. One res 1 dent 'reques ted that "a contingency
plan De discussed in the event that flooding and low well water
1 evel s do occur. It was urged tndt tne river outfa 11 De
constructed to eliminate hazards to Dotn numans and animals, since
tne river is neavily used for swimming.
,;
Agency Response: The.discnarge from the recommended alternative is
only about 4 cubic feet per second (cfs), whicn is 31 gallons per
seconod. This is qnly about 2 percent of the mean flow in the
Little Spokane River which is 236 cfs. SUCh a small addition is
not likely to be discernible in .its flooding potential. The ground
wa ter extracted t treated, and di sCharged to the Li ttl P. Spokdne
River would have Deen discnarged to it naturally anyway. Tnus, the
difference in flows in the river will De smalT over the long run.
76S3a
-------
Hi gner f1 ows wi 11 occur for a few montns wnen tne treated water is
first introduced and wnile tne natural recnarge is still
occurring. Even during tnis transition time, tne impact will oe
sma 11 .
It 1s possible to safely snut down tne treatment system temporarily
to aY.o.i~ increas.ing tne flood flows at all. Botn tnis and tne
.,:-- .... ' .", ,. . -. .
"Lfttle Deep Creek outfall wHl be dealtwitn in more detail during
tne design p~ase of tne.~roject.
. The river outfall will De constructed to eliminate hazards to
.people (especially cnildren) and animals. Normally tne flows will
be relatively constant, so the cnance of anyane Deing caugnt
unaware oy a sudden increase in flow is unlikely~
2)
Tne PUDI ic wanted assurance that the water discnarged' i11to surface
. stre3ms would De effectively treated so it would De safe for
humans, fish, and animals. .They also.requested safeguards to
prevent acci den tal di:scnarge. of. contami n~ted. wate.r 1 n case 0 f
t"'e~tment equi pnentfai ~ure.
Agency Response: The discnarge water will De analyzed frequently
to assure tnat the water is suitaoly clean. Detection systems may
. De. i ncl uded to snut down tne equi ~ent in the event 0 f a fa; lure.
Even if a fail ure occurred, the effect woul d De temporary and woul d
not have environmental or puDlic healtn effects.
3)
Other potential uses for tne cleaned water provoked considerable
commen~. Some residents considered tne discnarge into tne river to
be a waste of a resource.. They suggested SUCh options as using it
for 1 rri ga tion, for tne Wh itwortn Wa ter Di strict, or for a new
recre3tional reservoir.
7653a
-------
Agency Response: No alte~nate uses of the discharge water,were
discussed in the Feasibility Study because no otner use is likelj
- '
to be able to absoro all the water that must be discnarged.
especially during tne winter montns. Ecology studied the option of
tne Whitwortn Water District using the water. However. the system
would produce more tnan tne District could handle. It is possible
. .,' tnat al ternate uses coul ~ be developed wnen tne des; gri is
:"".. prepared. One important point of content10n remaining is whO
", '!~ "" "
. should pay for any add1.tJonal facilities required.
4)
One of the other discnarge options studied. discharge into a
, drainfi~ld. also provoked several corrrnents. One was that it would
cause a build-up of water. resul ting in swamps, ice, and pests.
Another person was concerned that tnis option would cause water' to
carry more contaminants down to tne aquifer. However. severa]
. peopl e favored recharge well s or dra in fi el ds to mai nta in ,the 1 eve 1
of tne aqui fer and preven,t drying up of exi sting well s.
.
"
~ency Response: Given tne very perm~aDle s01.1s 1n tne area. i~ is
"unl ik.ely, ,tnat swamps coul d develop,. "Instea'~'. 'tne' water woul d seep,'
very readily';"to the upper aquifer." It is 'unli-kely that these
- f1 ows coul d carry con tami nants i nta tne aqui fers unl ess the
treatment system breaks down. A potential advantage of tne
drainfield option is tnat the water wou'ld be directly returned to
the aquifer and be available for additional use downstre~~.
However. tnis would involve ,some of tne water Deing treated again
and result in nigner treatment costs. Tnese issues will be '
considered in project design.
. .
5)
One resident questioned wnether tne private ownership of the bed of
the Little Spokane River nad'been considere1 in the planning
phase. . She al so asked what action woul d be taken if owners refused
. to grant easemen ts for di sCharge facil i ti es.
.
, 7653a,
-------
Agency Response: EPA recognizes tne private ownersni p of .tne
riverbed. .Tne water witnin tne Little Spo~ane River belongs to tne
state, but the bedlands of the 'river are in private ownerShip. EPA
oelieves tnat tne likelinood of contaminating the river.bed is low.
EPA will work witn landowners to make arrangements for putting in
. to~ers or e.xca.vating to put in pipes or river ~utfalls. However,
;::1f arrangements cannot be made, EPA will pursue otner means to
.obtain easements. The. government has a responsib 111 ty to maf ntaf n
tne puolic healtn and safety of its citizens.
'.
. .
7653a
-------
4.0 REMAINING CONCERNS
Several. issues have been discussed extensively, but have not yet been
totally resolved. These issues include:
o
o
Will alternative uses of tne cleaned water be identified?
How will tne fssue of property values be addressed?
: How will tne extent and cost of improvements to tne Wnf twortn
Dfs~ict be dete~i~ed?
How will Colbert residents wno have not declared legal rights
to tne irrigation .water tney are currently using be affected
by.tne potentially decreased water levels?
o
o
. .
..
. 7653a
-------
ATTACHMENT
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
AT THE COLBERT LANDFILL SITE
Community relations activities conducted at tne ColDert Landfill site
'to date include: .
,. ~....."'-:'¥:'.V~i':t.~-:;~:.~;\::..: '-: ~
: _:.. .... ..~.. .
7653a
o
Spokane County developed a community relations plan for tne
Col Dert Landfill site (Apri 11981 ) .
o
SpOkane County held a puolic meeting to discuss tne monitoring
and water quality sampling program (May 1931).
a
A press release was issued Dy Spokane County to announce
PUDlic meetings scneduled for December 1 and 3 (NovemDer 1981).
o
SpQkane County neld two PUblic meetings to discuss the results
of the first .pnase of the study. (DecemDer 1981).
. .
o
~pokane County had a pUDlic meeting to discuss the intent of
the second pnase of the study (FeDruary 1982).
o
Spokane County held a puolic meeting to discuss study activity
(October 1982).
o
Spokane County established an information repository at tne
ColDert Water District Building (1982). .
o
Spokane County Healtn District met with residents to discuss
furtner results of the study (February 1983).
o
Fact.sheets on the well sample test results were sent to tne
well owners (1983).
.
-------
.
'.
7653a
o
Affected residents began' receiving bottled water from Key
Tro~ic Corporation and Spokane County (Marcn 1983).
o
SpOkane County neld a puolic meeting to ~resent the intent of
the third pnase of the study (Marcn 1983).
o
Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was puolished (August 1983).
o
EPA designated Coloert Landf; 11 a National Priorities List
(NPL) site (August 1983,).
'0
A p~ess release was issued by Spokane County on the
alternative water system selected (NovemDer 1983).
o
A letter on the cnosen water system alternative was ~ent Oy
Spokane County to concerned ci ti zens ' (NovemDer 1.983).
o
Puolic comments on the alternative water supply were addressed
Dy, Spokane County, at pUOlic meetings (May -Novent)er 1-983).
o
, .
Ecology prepal'."ed a ..FoCUSed, Feas,;'Dility Study for Initial,
Remedial Measures (June 1984).
o
An alternate water supply was constructed as an initial'
remedial measure (1984-1985).
o
EPA authorized soil, gas, and earth resistivity tests (AUgust
1985) .
o
Ecology met frequently witn citizens, County officials, and
. .
Key Tronic Corporation representatives (1985-1987).
o.
Ecology neld a public meeting to
Remedial Investigation and plans
(:~ay 1986).
discuss the resu1 ts of the
for the Feasioility Study
-------
7653a
o
Ecology released the Feasibility StUdy (FS) for public review
.and .comment and ne1d a pUblic meeting (May 1987).
o
Public comments on the FS were accepted (May 18 - June 30,
1987) .
o . . Puol1 c me~tfngs were nel d (September 9, 1987) to di scuss
citizen concerns.
10
o
Responsiveness Summary final ized (September 1987).
o
Record of Decision written (Septemcer 1987).
-------
.
- 7527a
APPEND IX B
..."
APPLI~~LE, OR RELEVANT AND
-------
APPENDIX B
Applicable, or Relevant and Appropri~te Requirements
Federal Laws and Regulations
o Resource Conserva ti on. and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 USC 6901),
.. :> ". Subtitle C:
._.~.I~!r~~i:~i;":,')). protection of groundwater (40 CfR 264, Subpart F)
closure and post-closure of.landfills (40 CFR 264,
Subpart G) .
[Note: These are administered by Ecology under Dangerous
Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303.]
o
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 USC 300):
Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 141),
enforceable maximum contaminant levels
recommended maximum contaminant levels
i nc1 ueji ng. both
(MCLs) and
(RMC~ s ) .
Contaminant
RMCL(~g/]) MCL (~g(l)
l,l~l-Trichloroethane .(TCA)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,l-DiChloroethylene (DCE)
200 .
o
7
.200 .
5
7
. Underground Injection Control (UIC) standards (40 CFR 146)
[~Jote:. UIC standards .are administered boy Ecology under
WAC 173-218.]
. .
7527a
-------
o
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251):
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
(40 CFR 122)
(Note: NPDES program is administered by Ecology under
WAC 173-220.]
. - '.0 ;~:.. Clean Air Act (CAA) (72 USC 7401): .
"'.:',~'...~~:~~;;t.::L'Nat1onal Emission Standards f~r Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS)
. (Note: NESHAPS Progr~m is administered by Ecology and
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Agency under WAC
173-403.]
Washington State Laws and Regulations
"
7527a
o
Dangerous Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303. Applicable for
, .
handling contaminated groundwater which could be considered
dangerous waste.
a
"
"
o
.' '
Minimum Funct~onal' Standards fO'r S~lid ~as.te. Handling,. WAC
i73-304. Requireinents ,for closure of solid waster disposal
facilities such as Colbert Landfill.
o
. Washington Department of Ecology Final Cleanup Policy.
for guidance in establishing cleanup levels.
Used
o
Water Quality Standards for Waters of the State of Washington,
WAC 173-201. Applicable in determining acceptable contaminant
levels in Little Spokane River or Little Deep Creek if treated
water ;s discharged into them.
o
Submission of Plans and Reports for Construction of Wastewater
Facilities, WAC 1?3-240. Applies to the treatment system
designed to meet performance standards.
-------
o
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
P~ogram, WAC 173-220. Applicable if treated water is
discharged through an outfall into surface waters.
o
Und~rground Injection Control Program, WAC 173-218.
Applicable if treated water is reinjected into the ground for
contaminant migration control.
. ,'..: .:..~;' ,":. ; ~ .:.";~ ":.1. ~. ',:.'.
7527a
- .
o
State Waste Discharge Permit Progra~, WAC 173-216. A permit
is required for the disposal of treated water via drainfields.
o
Washington Clear Air Act, RCW 70.94. Applicable for
discharging pollutants into the atmosphere from a new source.
o
General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, WAC. 173-400.
o
Implementation of Regulations for Air Contaminant Sources,
WAC 173-403.
.0 .
Emission Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting Volatile
. .
Organic ComP9unds (V~C), WAC' 173-490.'.
o
Water Code, RCW 90.03 and Water Rights, RCW 90~14.'
Establishes water rights permits necessary for water
withdrawals, including groundwater extraction.
o
Protection of Withdrawal Facilities associated with Ground
Water Rights, WAC 173-150. Restricts activities which would
. impair senior groundwater rights, including water level
lowering and water quality degradation.
o
Protection of Upper Aquifer Zones, WAC 173-154. Also
restricts activities which would impair .senior groundwater
rights, including water level lowering and water quality
degradation. .
-------
o
Minimum Standards 'for Construction
. Wells, WAC173-160. Governs design
we 11 s .
and Maintenance of Water
of extraction and recharge
o
Water Well Construction Act, RCW 18.104.
, .
.,~ ','0',::,':,' State Environmental. Policy Act (SEPA), WAC 197-11.
o
Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48. Authorizes the use of
water quality regulations at hazardous waste sites.
o
Washington Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201.
. ..
.
.7527 a
-------
..-' :'::;,:<:~:':: '.-".
. APPENDIX C
STATE"CONCURRENCE WITH REMEDY
.
-------
."NDREA BE,"TTY RINlII:EK
Dlu!ctor
STATE OF WASHINGTON
SEP 291W
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
SUPHr.fund 8ri!n(:~
MJil SlOp PV.l1 . Olymp/d. Wdshmgton 985().4-87r 1 . (2U6) .J59-6
-------
"
. ~:":' , .:--.. :'
.
7527a
APPENDIX D
INDEX 10 THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
..
-------
.
NOD 10 ADHINISTRATIVE RECORD OF COLIED UNUFILL
lOCI
file
Type/De'trlptlon
..,!)a te
. Pale.!
=~1. Prell.lnary a.lealment
Potent III h.uardc..s Wlulf' tilte-ldelltlflcaUon "/80
and pre 11.lnar, as!lI'lIs.ellt
=~OOOOO2. Pr~II.lnary aase.l8Pnt
Enforce-nt rrvll'w
=~oo). Prell.lnlr, laaeSiment
Colbert lalldflll, Iwncul .h'iOOcrll'llon ;;an.1
background In"'. 1 lac cst 1..,lc'5 lur alte
cleanup
Enforceaent rev lew/Plltcnt I II hazardoua waIte
.Ite - alte Inapect Illn report/.emu re aa-:
=~000004. Site Inveatllatlon report
)0000005. Site Inveatl.atlon report
)0000006. Site Inveatllatlon report
Sa.ple Ind Inalyala review
PotenUl1 hlurdoua waUf' "I te - alte
Inapectlon report
)OQOQOQ7. State cooperative Igree_nta
Cover letter/cooperative agrecar.nta
between WooE and U.S, f.l'A
J0000008. Stlte cooperative Igre~aenta
Cover letter/EPA 1..lltance aJreeaent -
a.endllent
6/ In/Kit
'fin ....t.. ..
6/)0/80 II
S/19/80 . I
8/n/82 10
2/29/8" )9
../11/8.. 7
a0000D09. State coop~ratlve agreeaenta
Cover letter/IRH cooperative 8greeaent-, 7/2../8..
a.enuent betwt'ell W.1&lIlnlton ~IOE and U.S.' EPA
30000010, State cooperltlve alree_nta Cover letter/F.PA al81at8nce agree.ent- 8/)0/8". 5
l.endlDent
00000011. Sute coope ra t I ve agreellenta Cover .emo/_80 re deviation me~o 'or 9/11/8" 2
Co Ibert
00000012. Stlte cooperltlve agreellenta Hcao re A_ndllellt of Superfund cooperilt Ive ')/10/85 2
agree.ent No, V-000282-02-1
0000001), State cooperat Ive Igreellent a HeIlO/completrd cooperative agreelDent 12/19/85 12
application re IU/FS .'
0000001... State cooperative 8greellenta EPA auhUnce agreement-amendment re ]/1)/86 "
t:olbert RI/FS
..
Author /Orlill lut 1011
Ne II 1110C11'son. F.'A
II. Slcfanl
''';lulClwo ,.
C, Wll8on, EfA
lIuncln Aldll, F.PA
lIunald Hova. ~IOE
l)onald Hoo. WlIOE
]..
lIonald Hoo.. WDOE
EPA
Crlatlnl Griffin. EPA
Nell nlO8lpson. EfA
John Littler. WUOE
Charle. Findley. EPA
Addrealu/Urlanhat Ion
tlnknuwn
Unknown
Unknuwn
Unknowu
Unknown
Erne.ta Barnea. EfA
frederlck
tlea.lnws. EfA
Erneul Barne., ErA
WJlOE
Phil Hillam. EfA
Oddvar Aurda I. U'A
Ernesta lIarnes. EI'A
-------
Dod
file
00000015. State cooperative a.reellent.
00000016. State cooperative agreellent.
OOOOOO17. ~tate coopera~ Ive agreellent.
00000018. State cooperative agreellent.
00000019. State cooperative Ilreellent.
00000020. State cooperative aareellent.
00000021. State cooperative alreellenta
00000022. County-EPA cooperative
'agreellents
0000002]. County-EPA cooperative
alreellents
Type/De.crlpllon
...../letter re f.atenalnn 01 cooperallve .
aar...._nt
"..tter re prnJ..ct and budltl't I.xtellllon for
~ollw.rt
Heao r. f..tenslon of proll'ct ..nd tltutltrt.
,,,rlod. for Colbert uU'I"'r.'llvr "~r&!I'_At..
Letter re tllIe eatenslon 'or h!.1Slbllity
.tudy r. ('.olbert
Letter re project and budjet utenalon for
Colbert
. .
. ..!!!!!..
Author/Or..nhatlun
Addre..ee/Or..nlzatlon
!..J'a,u
8/1)/86
Hell Tho.pAon, EPA
2
Oddv.r Aurd.l, ErA
8/15i86
Uddvu Aurdsl, EPA
.lolln LI at ler, &l!I(IE
'. ,
.!. ,
11/11/8"
'.
Oddvu Aurd.l, fl'A
He I I DI!/lDllson, EPA
"
.., /'1'1/""
Fred .Gardner, WlIO£
bthy II.vld.on, frA
2/2'1/8'1
Oddvar Aurd.l, ..EI'A
Phillip John.on, Wllfl[
He80 re eaten.lon pf cmdlnl date Inr Colbert. 2/26/8'1
cooperative aaree-nt
He II Thocapson, EPA
Oddv.r Aurd.l, EPA
1/6/8'1
Oddv.1 Aurdsl, EPA '
Phillip Johnson, W'IOE
A..lat.nce allendllent to eaten.1 project IInd'
budlet period fur Culbert
HellO re propo.ed cooperstlv.. agree_nt
with Spok.ne Cuunty lor Culbert
Colbert I.ndflll cooper.tlve agree-nt-
propo..l. Att.chllcnt8: Federal A..launce
Application, A-95 Review 1.l'tter, .tatellent. .
of work, co~nlty relations rlan
9/24/81
Fred Headow., EPA
9
Sa.. Horellu, EPA
9/15/81
Willi.. Dobratz, Spokane
County
EPA
28
00000024. County-EPA cooperative Notlflcltlon of .1.lst.nce award .ctlon- 9/24/81 I EPA Spokane County
agreellents nonconstructlon re Colbert KI/FS
OUOOOO25. County-f.rA cooperative Letter /a'i lat.ncealreellent - aJDendlllCllt 10/19/81 5 Wilih. Dobratz, Spokane "ell Thocapson, fPA
.Ireellenls . County
00000026. County-ErA cooperative Co-Itllent not lce/lrant fUlldlol order 9/24/81 2 Barbara Barras, ErA Spollane Couoty
'Ireeaents
0000002'1. County-EPA cooperative Letter r. e.tenslon of project cOllpletlon 2/2/82 I He II ThOlipsoO, ErA Willi.. Dobratz,
.Ireellents date for Colbert Irant Spoklne County
00000028. County-EPA cooper.tlve As.l.t.nce a_nd..nt re extension of budlet 3/29/82 I . Frederick Headws, Willia. Dc>bratz,
.lrt'clDCnts and rroJect EPA Spokane Coullty
-------
.
Doel
file
00000029. County-E'A cooperat Ive
..reellenta
000000]0. County-E'A cooper.tlve
'ireeaelila
00000o]1. St.te cooper.tlve
'Iree_nta
00000032. Work pl.ns .
00000o]]. Work pl.na
00000o]4. York pl.n.
00000o]5. York pl.na
000000]6. York pl.na
oooooon. Work pl.na
00000o]8. Groundw.ter Investll.tlon
.nd report
00000019. Groundw.ter Inve.tll.tlon
.nd report
00000040. Groundw.ter Inveatll.tlon
.nd report
~1. Groundwater Investllatlon
..lId report
000000..2. Groundw.ter InvesUI.tloli
.nd report
.
Type/De.crlptlnn
Letter re ..tellaloll uf prol;.ct c~rlrtIOt~
d.te
A..bt.n&:e ..reellent -lllIend.elll re .('.cllber.
dhpo..1 alte
Letter r. ...enalon of ...tr of Colbforl .
cooper.tlve ilarrellent
He80 r. Colbert 1.lIdflll IfIIRsft'r IllrUIIenl.
tr.n.fer 'Ireeacnl
Site ..n'Ae-nt pl.n for Colbert.l.ndflll
D.te
----
!..!."IU
5/'11/82
9/'110/81
1011/86
1I1ft/81o
10/1/810
Heao/.tt.ch8enta re work pl~n for aeophy.lcal '/'/85
bore hoh: 10Allnii cost utl.ate, flAlQC plan.,
.t.te.ent re cUllllict 01 Intere.t .
York pl.n. for relledlal Inve.tll.llon of
(".glbert I.ndf 111
Work pl.n for fe..lbility .tudy .t Colbert:.
I.ndflll alt.
Work pl.n Colbert I.ndflll .Ite
Letter/reque.t for propos. I. re hydro.
leolollc.1 report and 8Unlturlnl well.
for Spokane County operated I.ndfili.
Letter/'Iency response foras re hydro.
leoloalc.1 .nd 8Onltorlnl vellR rrolect
A deacrlptlon of task. and .ubtask. uled (or
eat I..t Inl the co.t 0 f rh.se I
Alreellent between owner/client .nd Ceorle
Hnddo. 6 AI.ocl.te., for profe..lonal
.ervlcea
1129/85
2/86
No date
2/6/81
2/26/81
10'10/81
10'21/81
Letter /attachllen.. re proposed budget for 8/)1/81
Phase II of Colbert/tUn lalldflll Inve.lIlatlon
Author/Ora.nll.tlon
Ie
WI ilIA. Iklbutz,
Spollane Counly
frederlck He.dawa, E'A .2
"4'., ,.
Fred Catdller I WDU£
",. .
10
Pun Oubo II, WUO[
. "
)
Unllnllvn
J
Bruce Allld, Ceo/anourc. .
(;1I1I.lIlt.lIl.
109
Colder Auoc.
)8
Colder A..oc. .nd
(nvlro.phere
10
Unknown
8
Willi.. Dobutz
12
Harth., Sh.nnon, Spok.ne
Rellonal Plannlnl eon,.
)
Unknown
)'1
George Haddo. 6 A.aoe.
11
George Haddo. , A.aoc.
Addrea.r.e/Or..nlz.tlon
.
Hell Tho.p.on, £I'A
.'",.
Spokane
tuullt y
Kathy D.vld.on, F.PA
..
I.ynd. Brothe"a
Unknown
PoUlt I as Horre II
WOE
WOOE
Unknown
WlIOE
D.8On T.- I
Spokane Coullty
Tech.Operatlona
Sect Ion
Spokane County
DaliPn Taa., Spokdlle
Coullty
-------
~.
file
~1..C~oundw.te~ Inve.tlg.tlon
.nd rel'0~t
~~..C~oundw.te~ Inveatll.tlon
.nd ~el'0~t
0000004S. C~oundwater Inve.tllatlon
.nd nport
00000046. C~oundw.te~ tnve.tll.tlon.
.nd ~eport
00000047. C~oundw.ter Inveltll.tlun
.nd ~eport
OOOOOO~8. C~oundw.te~ Investll.tlon
.nd ~epo~t
00000049. C~oundw.ter Investll.tlon
.nd report
OOOOOOSO.. C~oundw.te~ Invutll.tlon
.nd ~el'0~t
OOOOOOSI. C~oundwate~lnve8tI18tlon
.nd ~el'ort
OQOOOOSJ. Croundw.ter Inveatllatlun
.nd report
OOOOOOS1. ~roundw.ter Inveatll.tlon
.nd nport
.
Type/Delulpt Ion
Re.olutlon No. 81 10It6 uf :>pclkane Count",
Board 0' Co_lulullers re hydroleulogl.: .
npo~t Includllll....11 In511111al.lon a..,1
8Onltorl... at Culbt'rt .nd Hlclllill t.ch...nt.
rrel"ln.~, ~epo~t on a ft".,hydroloRY 01 th.
Colbert landll I I uSpuk.ne (:011111 y, "A.
rh..e I (ducU8ent IUeiltl'd ill \JI1C1f.)
Leuer/Ph..e II proltreSl repult
LeUer/Ph..e II pruguAI u'port re
aeohydroloalc .tudy 01 Colbert and Hie..
l.nd,111 .Ite. .
Letter/.ttach8entl rc technl~ol, p~opert,..
'In.ncl.l .tatu. .nd .UD8ary report.~. .
Irant CA 8097J1-01
Pate
ff/U/81
II Iff/81
'1/1"/82
':1'1"/81.
n/IS/II2
JlJ/8]
Letter/attachmentl re ~e~l.tlvlty data
collection, I'ropoled budl~t, KUph.
Covn lener/lln.1 npo~t re Colbrrt "ndllll)/n/8~
,roundw8te~ .unltorlnR proBra~
Repo~tl CeophYllc.1 Jorellole LoKlln.--
Colbert land' II I (l)oeUliellt 10~i1ted
.t WOOf)
Colbert l.nd'lll baek,round In'or..tlo~.
I'rol~e.. ~eport Ph.ae I, work plan 10'0
and budlet" 'or 1"'86e II
Report I Ceohydrolollc Investll.tlon. 0'
Colbert 1.lIdll II - Phue II
Itequelt 'or proposal. re hydroleolollc
repurt and IIOnltorlnl wells 'or Spokane
'County operated I.ndflils
'1/86
Unknown
Unknown
2/1/81
. rAIU
11'1
20S
Author/Orlanll.tlon
)
SIMtkllne Cuunl y . .
"oArd 0' tAI_I88loner, ..
. .-
';'
'.,. "
. -... ~
~ : . ..'"
Georle Haoldox 60 A..OC'~"'..
JameR .ttollt ROtIpry, ..
(:OIlIlU I t 1111 t.llltr.. .
S
PA80n Taa_, Spokane
Coullty
I"
Coeorle Haddux, (;eorl.
tt.lddox ,. A..o~..
6
l)allOn T.IIIII. Spok.ne
Counly
8
TI. Cook. Geor,e
Haddox Assoc..
(:eorle Haddox, Ceor.e
tLlddox ,. Anoe..
C~o/Re.ource Con.ult.nt.
19
Unknown
1
Georle Haddox 60 A..oc..,
J.... Hontl08ery
Consultl"1 £nlr..
Unknown
Addruaee/Orl.nll8t Ion
Unknowll
Spokane Count,
IItllIllea llept.,
. Ne II Th' .plon, ErA
"I ilia. Pobratz,
Spok.lle r....unty
Betty r~rdon. ErA
PillIOn T..., Spokane
f.oullty Ut 11111"" llept.
"1111.. Pobratz,
Spokane County
Colder Assoc..
Unknown
Spokane Counl y
Ut II hlu Dept.
Unknown
-------
.
~,
fHe
~S'. Re8edlal action ..nng~.ent
plan (RAMP)
I)()()()OOSS. RAMP
1)()()()00S6. RAMP
~S7: Initial Re8edlal Heaaure
o 1Ut)
[I()OOQ()58 . I RH
00000059. IIUt
00000060. IIIH
00000061. I RH
0000006J. IRH
00000061. I RH
0000006'. Remedial Inveatllatlon (RI)
Report
0000006S. .RI Report
00000066. RI Report
Type/Pean Il'lllln
HellO re review o' (:tJlbut lalllllill draft
RAMP
Letter re review o. r~lb.rt lund'll, d~a't
RAttI'
Draft RAMI' 'or C..lb~rt la~dllll
I..ner/au.ury report re (:oibert lai,dlll i
water aupply anti Inter Illca I cc'c11"~r atloll
a.ree.ent between 5pukane WUII'Y /Inti
Whitworth Watu bhtrlct No~ 2
Report: focu.ed rea.lbility Study
'''r IRH at Colbert Ullldll It
Record o' declalon re IRM alternative
.electlon for Colbert Land.III/Su...r,
of Inter I- Re.edlal Alternative.
Selection
Pecl.lon 8e.O re IRH for Colbert l.ndfll1
HellO re Colbert landll It adVAllce -tch
provl.lon./AIII.tance rundlna Ord~r
8rleflnl for the regional ad.lnlatrator,
record of declalon. Colhert landfill
Report: Re.ponllvenes. Su~ary
for IRH at Colbert landfill
Potential hazardou. walle alte 101
Report: Evaluation of . Teaporary
Groundwater r..tractlon Heuure h,r
Colbert Landllll
Report: Re.edlal Inve.tlgallon Report'
for the Colbert Landfill. ~pokan..
WA. Vo I. I
Dllte
, Pal~'
8/J9/8 J
80"/8)
7/29/fU
)/1)/tt..
6/84
8/'''/8'
8/1"/1'
8/29/8"
Unknown
Unknown
2/26/80
9/2S/85
'S/87
11"
Aulhor/Or.8nlutlon
'I
Rene fUente., f.PA
'I
John Anlccat I. 5rohne
I:""n' y nuB h ()ellt.
IInknllWIl ..
22
JaM' l.esst. Spokane
I:""nt y
lit
Carol ThOGlp.on. WOOE
18
r.rne.ta aarnea
)
J
Charlea rind ley. EPA
Ru.aell.Wyer. EPA
1
Unknown
IS
Carol Thomp.on. WIJOE
1
J. W. fey
17
Golder Alloc.
122
Golder ASlioc.
.
L
Addreaa../Or.anlutlon
Me II Th08llaon. ErA
. (
". I
,...~ :
Nelt 11,0Ilp.on. E.PA
,
. EPA
IIob Good..n. WOOf
Unknllwn
Unknown
Erne.ta Barnea. f.PA
Chuck flndley. ~PA
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
WOOf
-------
Ioc'
file
)0000061. RI Report
.
lOOOO068. fe..lbility Study (fS)
~69. feasibility Study. (FS)
10000010. Currespondence. RI/FS
10000011. Correspondence. RI/FS
~000001). Corresrondence. RI/FS
9OOOO01~. Correspondence Rl/fS
00000015. Correspon4ence RI/FS
00000016. Correspondence RI/FS
00000011. Correspondence IIl/rs
D0Q00018. Correspondence RI/FS
00000019. Correspondence RI/FS
00000080. Correspondence RI/FS
00000081. Correspondence Rl/rs
Type/Descriptiun
Report a RelN'dlal Invul Iltol Ion 1II'llort
for Ihe Colh.!rt I.Alldltll, SI","ane, WAf
Vol. Z
Report a feasibility Study, (:,ulherl
Laud fill. SplikalK'. WA Yu I. I
Report a feasibility Siudy, r~l~ert
bud It II. Spokane, WA, Vu I. J
Letter re work plan fur COllnty-U'A
coopera" ve allree...llt
HtoIlO re su.ury report of Culbert
aUrrnatives
Letter re 5tate coopt.rallve IIlrl'I'8IInl
for IU IfS at Colbert landfill
Letter with atUdlllenl re pro~sed field
Investllatlon at fDlberl IlIndllll
Letter re Increased costs of RI/FS
I~tler re a8end8enl to State cooperative
a.ru8ent for per for.anee 01 It! ns taa;ks
at Colbert18udflll
I~tter re coa.ence8ent of III and requestfn,
deferral of cOtllll'ncelient date of III study.
phase
1~lter re review of RI and delay 01
slarl of fS
leiter re requesl for delaY,of FS
Letter re rey Tronlc's wish 10 assU88
reSltUualbllity for Invest 18adon and
re8edlal action at Colberl landfill
Letter re re.ponse to HalKhI's letter of
1/16/81
..
Itat.
5/1U
S/fU
: SItU
8"6/~1
. ~ IHe..
6/1 5/8~
10/2/85
1/1~/86
)/15/86
10/16/86
4/17186
5/5/86
1/16/86
8/21186
UIIKU
25"
)110
nit
~1~r/OrBanlzatlon
r.oldl'r Auoc.
t;oldrr AIIIIOC.
C;older Assuc.
.loanlll! Fu J It a Asaba, E'.
')
Bob r.ood1ll811. Wf)UE
I
(1IU lei Find ley, r.rA,
5
Jeff Ys.it:c, ErA
2
1
Carol Krae8e, WOOE
Charles findley, ErA
2
Spokane County Board of
(;0181..1 one rs
Z
Lewis G. Zirkle, Key Tronlc
2
Carol KracKe, WOO£
2
Gary Halsht, Key Tr~nlc
~
Fred Gardner, WOO£
Addre~.ee/Orlsnllatlon
WIIOf,
WtlClE
WlMIt:
. ltalllOn Taa., Spokane
f.oUllly Utilities
Jaw. l.east t, Spltkalle
tUUllt y IItllIl' es
Lynda Brot he n, Wilt It:
Carol Kraese, WlJUE
He II ThOllp8on, E"A
John Un ler, WlJtIE
Carol KraeKe, WIII)E
Carol Kraeae, WOOE
Spokane County aoard
of COmllla.loners
fred Gardner, WIllIE
Gary ttalaht, Key Troll'cs
-------
Dod
rUe,
00000082. Correspondence Ml/rs
0000008... Cc..rrespondence Rl/rs
OOOOooBS. Corresl1ondence Rl/rs
00000086. Corresl'0ndence Rl/rs
00000081. Correspondence Rl/rs
00000088. Correspondence Rl/fS
00000089.'Correspondence Ml/rs
00000090. Corre.pondence Rl/rs
00000091. Correspondence Rl/rs
00000092. Correspondence Kl/fS
0000009)., Corrupondence Rl/rs
0000009... Correspondence Rl/rs
00000095. Correspondence Rl/fS
.
Type/Descrlptlon
"etter re pro)ectt'd schedule. for Colbert',
.nd North.lde
. '
JJ.te
. P'les
8/1'.1/86
I.etter re Pountler's bCi'lVllt lon's Avell.bliity '1/10/8J
for .ervlccs I',! decolllaal ni'l'" 1:..lb.!rt,
I.ndllli
Letter re t I lie e.t..n:.l..n ft'r t'S
Letter re ellect. (II SANA nn Spokan!! ('"",nty
He80 re .electlon 0' 8Inal re.e""1 1Ie..llre
'or Colbert l.ndU II
Letter re re.ponse 10 letter 0' 2/10/81
,U.le.tln, rounder'. .v.ll.blllty 0'
.ervlce. re decont~.lnatlon 0' Culbert
l.ndUn
Letter r. Colbert l.nd'lll Rl/rs In'or.-tlon
reque.u
Letter re'Colbert l.nd'lll extract Inn/
treltMnt .yste.
Letter re re.pon.e 10 que.tlon. on Colbert
"ndlill Rl/fS
Letter re re.pon.e to question. on Colbert'
land fill IU IfS
"18/81
)/17/81
)/16/87
../10181
5/20/87
5/21181
.6110/81
6111/87
Letter re eaten. Ion 0' public cOl88enu'oi
Colbert I.ndlill fS
Letter re Colbert I.ndflll fS .nd .outhern' 6/25/81
.rea of ~lltworth Water Plstrlct water,.y.tea
Letter re Colbert landflll-Rl/fS report.
.nd attached re.olutlon of Whitworth
W.ter IHstrlct Ho. 1 re drUlIlI1 of well.
"19/81
6/26/81
Author/Or.lnll.tlon
Hell Tho-pson. Er.
1
8111 "snn. Pounder', lac.,.
1
fr.-d Co/udller. WDOE
10
Frr.tlf..lrdller. WIJOE
2
Carol Krsrl". WooE
I
Hd I ThOllpson. EPA
:I
Paul Aald. P.IIe. , Hoor.
:I
I~o Hutchins. Whitworth
Wster Dlstrfct Hu. 2
1
Anthony Bur.e.. Golder
AIIOC .
2
Go Ider Auoc.
1
Koble Russell. EPA
)
Leo Hutchln.. Whitworth
Water District No.2
10
Leo Hutchins. Whitworth
Water District No.2
t.
Addr~..ee/Or..nll.tlon
Fred Cardner, ~*:
'0."
EPA
klthy Iial/idson. EI'A'
Jerry Hr.l. lukin. ~
Ann'"
Colbert l.andflll
file
8111 H.'1IIn. Pountle r ' .
Exclvstlon
Dou. Horell, Golder
Asaoc .
Fred Clrdner. Wf()~
Fred C.rdner. WPO£
rred Cardner. WVO£
A. r.rd'n'. Spokane
Office of Sen. IJan Evans
,.t Huaney, John
HeBrlde. Keith
Shepard
Fred Clrdner. ~)()£
-------
~.
"'Ie
Type/Deler lilt lun
00000096. HellO. Itl/rs
He80/attach8r.nu re In'or.at lun on (:.,on
OIe.leal and (:Olbert 1~'m"llll .Hu
0000009 J. MellO. lul rs
, He80 re Superfund enRlm'erlna 't!.l/IlbIUty
dulln fund.
00000098. HellO. RI/FS
Letter r. Supt'r'und eoup'!rat tv.. AltJl"'lICnt
Guidance
00000099. HellO. KI/FS
Hr.80 re Superfund Conperat Ive ARrer..'nt: '(1,-
Colbert landf III
()()000loo. HellO. Rl/rs
Decl8lClft 8880 r. Colbut bndflll
Cooperat Ive Alr....mt 'r0(l0&8 I
He80 re Colbert und'ill Cooperative
Aaree..nt ract Sheet
00000101. HellO. RI/FS
00000102. HellO. Itl/rs
He80 re Colbert bndflll roopeuUve,
"Aree..nt
0000010]. HellOS RI/FS
He80 re Colbert landlill conta.lnatlon-
substltutln. for versua cleanlns up an,
unusable aquifer'
He80 r. Colbert landlill aroundwa'er
cont..lnatlon, review corrective propos. I.
by CII1HlIIII, Haddox Associates andothu
alterllatlve.
00000104. HellO. Rl/rs
OOoooIOS. Corre.pondence
I~tter're additional [I~ fundlna under
current RAI'
~~
. 'aau
U/29/8o
S/n/81
tlIl6/8 I
"'28/81
9/18/81
9/2S/81
1011/81
11 11181
n/lS/81
U/29/81
Author /Or..nbatlon
9
non llulmh, EPA
2
0'
j" '
'j..,'
ErA 8' ?;;~ :
Joanne' FuJ Ha A.aba, ErA"
1]1., lea Find Ie, ,
I
.loanne FuJ Ita ".aba. EPA'
2
John Spencer, E'A
]
Joanne fujita "aaba, E'A
2
Charle. findley, EPA
S
Hlch.el Ruef, WOO!
8
Hlchael Ruef, WOO!
1
John Littler, WOO!
, .
Addr...ee/Or.anl!atlon
'Hlc:hael Cook, E'A
Hlch"..1 Cook, ,EPA
T(18 Cook, UDQE .
Ed eoate, Alex
Smith, Chuck Findley,
iCen Felaner, .Iohll
Barich, Nell
Tho"pllon, Uoyd
Reed, Clark
Gaulding, Gary
O'Neal, Cheryl
Ko.huta
HI chae I Cook, EI'A
Hary Nell.on, ErA
Bob Jacobson, EPA
John Spencer I EI~
Linda Brother, WUOE
Earl Tower, r.'A
John LI tt I u. WDnE
Phil Hilla.. ErA
lJ
-------
.
~,
ftle
00000106. Carre.pundence
00000107. Qu.llty AI.ur.nce Project
Phns (qAl'r).
00000108. QAPP
.
Type/Delcrlptlnn
leiter re .dv.nc.. utch 'unda at CoUN'rt.
.lte
Report I ~.lIt' Auuunu Pro..oct
'180 for Re-dl.1 Iliveat Igallun5 at Ihe'
Colbert "'ndlill (dUCII.Cllt 101."0Itr&1 at
Wuhlnltnn WIIUt:)
Leiter review rvaluat lun n' Iinal vcr..lnn
0' Colbert 1<10111 tli qAl'P
.0
Date
Aulhor/OrB-nll.tlon
. "IU
7/IS'"''
:I
Phil Hllla8, ForA
I/II~
l;oldp.r Anoc.
Uilitnown
s/lf/es
Bury Town" FoPA
A44re..ee/Orl.nhallon
John Lhller, WUUr.
WDllt:
.'}.
VOUK Harell, Gold~r
A.loci.
. .
-------
~,
00000109.
00000110.
00000111.
00000112.
00000IU.
0000011" .
00000115.
00000 116.
00000IIJ.
file
Public Co..rnt
Rt'lipon.lvene..
SUlllllary
Public Co8ment
Relpon"vellel.'
Suaauy
Pub lie ColUlent
llespon"velle..
Sunauy
Public CoIament
Ruponsivene..
SUllllUry
Pub lie CoIIIIIent
Relponsivenell
SUllllluy
Public Collillent
Respon.lvenes.
8U11111uy
Public Collllent
Responsiveness
Suaaary
Public Colllent
Reapon8lveness
Su_ary
Public CoIuDent
Respon"venen
SUI8ary
Type/Delcrlptl..n
LeUer rea
I.andl III
activit lei at the tolhert
Leuer u,ardlnl ear lIer leU.'r dated
../11/8J to ''Concerned a:ltlzellll"
I.eU.eu on Colbert Landfill, fusitollity
.tudy report alld co_ellt per I,)d
LeUer nil
per'od
..tenllon 01 pu~llc coament
Letter re,ardln, Colbert Landfill
leasibility atudy COl8elltl
Letter re Colbert Landlill re.edlal
Inveatlsatlon allll leallbilit y study
Letter resardln, Colbert Landfill
feaalbillty atudy C08l1leuL
Letter re fe..lbility Itudy
Letter re,ardln, Spokane County Air
Pollution Control Authority review
of Colbert t.andlill leaslbility study
.
.
..!!!!!-
12/8/RI.
. '1,/2"/"'
s/u/ln
6/11/87
6/29/8J
6/29/87
6/29/87
. . 6/29/8J
, 6/)0/81
, 'alea
JI
Author/Orlanlzatlon
'1
Anllrea acatty Mlnl~er, ~
)
Grace c..rr~~on. Resident
~ey Trnnlc e.ployeel,
~ey Tronlc Ilippoll..U,
CoUllt y cOl8lss'loner,
lellillatur, cltlzenl 01
Colhert area 6. other areaa
Robbie RUlle II, EI'A
)
~ey Tronlc Corp.
2
Crals COltello, Colbert
Landfill Conte.lnate Area
Co-Htee
)
PaUlcla A. "..Iney, John t.
HcBrlde, ~ard of
Commlslloner. 01 Spo~n.
County
1
Rhy. A. Sterllnl. Spokane
f.ounty llealth Disuict
2
Chrl.topher HeEnnay,
Spokane County A~r
Pollution Control Authority
Addr~a.ee/Orlanlzatlon
He.hen of Colbert Landlill
roOuta.lllate Area COIIIIIII&('e
. Andrea 8. T. Rlnlker, WIJlI':
A..drea tWany Rlnlker, WIlliE
I
Andrea BeaUy Mlnlker. WilliE
fred Gardner, WDOE
fred Cardner, WDOE
fred Gardner, WlIOE
Fred Gardner, WOOE
fred Gardner, WDOf
10
-------
Doc'
00000118.
00000119.
000001:!0.
00000121.
0000012 2 .
0000012) .
00000 12 It .
ooooous.
00000126.
00000128.
4)0000 129.
000(01)0.
flle
Public Co8Ient
Re.pon.lvencII.
Su..ary
Per.lu and/or
app Ilc:at lon.--
.tate/Federal
per.1t and/or
appllcatlon.-
atate/federal
.
.
lIate
-
,,/lO/8l
:. 1t/11/78
6/1/,.9
Relerence .aterlal. Guidance. for ad8lnlatratlve rrcord
ur l18tlnl 0' (Actual lu1dance. louted at EI" !tellonal Office)
luldance document a uled
Community Relation.
60 Newa Re leases
Com8Untly Relation.
60 New. Relea.e.
CoDnunlty Relallon.
60 New. R.leue.
CO.-unity Relation.
60 News Re leaae.
eo..untty Relallon.
60 News Relea.es
Coanunlty Relation.
60 News Release.
C088Unltr Relations
60 New. Release.
CO~nlty Relation.
60 New. Release.
Type/De.ull,t Ion
C.Glbert l..ndUli re-dlal Invnllgatlon/
leaalbllllJ .tudy &:1_111 II lor suh.lulun
to WOOf
Indu.trlal/c08l8er.clal wa.te dllldlMKt'
p.....1l appl It:at 1011 lor.
118Iardou. "aaU per.1t appllcal.lolli
Notilication uf Itaurdolls W,ut&.'
activit,
Cover letter "Ith attach8ent. rela~dlnl
cooperative alree.ent lor EPA Irant
on Colbert dl.po.al .110. revised work
atate.enq C088UIlIt, re I..t Ions plan
Newa relea.e re federal Irant lor
.ruundwater cont..lnatlun at Colberl
He80 resardln. Immediate news release
Phaae II Co..unlt, Relations schedullnl
Letter re a.enda of Inlo...al public
lleet Inl
Co..unlt, relation. plan lor re.edlal
Inveatlsatlon of leallbility study
with appendlcu
Colbert landfill COmmunity Heetlnl
Not Ice vlth ..UachlllenU
Colbert landfill update
.11/12/81
10121/81
il/21t/81
H/21t/81
U/2S/81
No.date
, 'I120/8S
1!8S
. 'alu
17
28
20
.
.
Author/Or.anlutlon
Addre.aee/Orlanl&atlon
PIlle a 60 Hoore, K~y Tronlc
Curp.
WOOf. .
1'.
)
Kt'Y Tronlc Corp.
'> "'JOE
.,
.'
1
l.evll I:. ~hlde. Key Tronlc . ~PA
CA.rp.
'I
Nell ThOtlP'OIl, EPA .
Wlilla. R. Oobrat&, Da~
Taa., Spokane County Oll,c.
01 r.oullt y Ut III t I..
lie II ThOilpsoll, ['A
EFA
1
Unknown
'I
Unknown.
1
Wlilla. R. Dobrat&, Spokane
County
Carol Ru.hln Th08p.on, WOO!
8
Unlcnown
1
WOOE
-------
:)oct
00000131.
:K)()0013 2.
0000013).
.
0000013...
0000013S.
00000136. -
00000117.
00000138.
00000139.
000001..0.
00000 110"
OOOOOIU.
00000110).
00000 1I0Io.
file
r~nlry Relatlona
t. Ne"a Releasea
Coa8Unlry Relatlona
II. Newa R~ luaea
Com8unlry Relatlonl
II. Ne"a Rc leasea
~nlty Relatlonl
II. Hews Relralea
Community Relntlona
t. Hewa Relelses
CoD8unlty Relatlona
II. Newa Releasea
COm8unlty Relatlona
II. Newl Releasel
Co88unlry Relltlona
II. Newa Relea..a-
Coaaunlty Relltlonl
II. Newl Relealea
CoRaunlty Relatlonl
II. News Relesael
C-UnHy Relatlolll
II. Hewl Releaaes
Community Relatlona
II. Newa Releaaes
Coa8unlry Relatlonl
60 Hewl Relelael
Communlry Relatlona
t. Newa ICe Leilllt' a
Type/Peacrlptlon
Colbert l.andUII urdare
Newa releaae re clean waUr ror Spokane
,ra.llln with polillted ....115
Newl relea..:
Innounced
(:albert l.andlill .'~et 1111
Colbert I.8ndflll updlte
He80 , .Inute. 0' county c~hslnllera'
..etlna he Id January 8, 11J8', i Cu I be It
Landll" (.onta.lnate Area CU hens
Propoula
Notice of public .eetln~ re RI
He80 re prolre88 of Colbert tandflll
Conta.lnate Area eo..lttee
tetter ..e:
actlvltlu
cu..rent ,nd future cleanur
He80 with attached Colbert .al~lnl
lilt
Newalette..--Colbert property owner.'
update
rubllc .eetlnl notification Ind
affidavit of rubllcatlon
flct aheer rei p..opo.ed Colbert
landfill clelnup
for l.-edlate Release: Ground-
water clelnup views ,0Ulht (News
Relea.e)
Alenda for Colbe..t l.andflll8leetina
.
-
Ode
-
RlAS
1/2/8\
lOIn/AS
10/8\
1/10/8fI
-4/22/8b
1/21 /86
8/S/86
1/'l6/86
8/86
S/IIt/8J
S/.Io/87
S/il/87
5/22/87
-, Palrl
24
Autho../Or.lnilltion
I
WOOf
1
WOOE
I
WIIUE
WOllE
It
Itollin S"lnlon
1
WDlJE
1
Colbert Landfill
COllts.lnate Are. CoIRltte.
)
fred Gardner, WOOE
Janet Rhodel, DOE
1
Spokane County--Key Tro~lc
Corp-
Jerry Jewell, WOO£
)
8
WDOE
2
WOOE
.
WOOE
Addre..ee/Oraanll.tlon
'. '
"
.,., ./
:f..\ . ~
; :~
..
Relldellta of
Colbert
Realdelltl
He II l1uJ&lplon, ErA
12
-------
Dod
00000145.
00000146.
00000141.
00000148.
00000149. .
00000150.
00000151.
00000152.
00000151.
00000154.
00000155 .
00000156.
00000151.
. 00000158.
00000159.
000001'0.
File
Co.-unlty Relatlona
6 Newa Releaae.
CoIamunlty Re lat lona
.6 News Re I,.R8t!'
Community R~IHtlon.
6 New. Rele.ses
Coaaunlty Relatlnns
6 News Release.
New.paper article.
Newspaper article.
New.paper article.
New.paper article.
Newspaper ~rtlcle.
New.paper article.
New.paper a~tlcle.
New.paper article.
New'paper artlclea
".ws~.per article.
New'Pdper .rtlclea
Newspaper article.
.
.
TYPI/Ue.crlptlon
LeUer re eaten. Ion tli public cOIIP"nt
period.
r.olbert I..ndlill public _etlllit tnnllcrll't
Air water pollutlun report Around
The States
Cleanln. up the enlbrrt I~ndlill (I"neral
Inlorutlon)
Che.lcal Cllanup 80ney .ay 10 to Colbert
l.andf II I
County II expectlnl report early In '82
on aquifer'. quality
I~.eholdl near landfill de.and end to
pollution
11 Wa.te .Itel propo.ed for cleanup
priority lI.t
2 year. later water near landlill
troubllna
Conta.lnated Colbert l.andllll.aet.
.econd II08lnatlon to [PA'. cleanup II.t
Water woe. need cur In.
County official. .et ready for lecond
landlill lei. Ion
County, C08pany appeal pollution award
Fa.lly of .even qulttlna polluted water
area hOM
Incident brlnal tighter county landlill
control.
Hazardoua w..te bane II burled at. landfill
.Date
. .5/l8/8J
"/9/81
.6/15/8/.
. 1/09/81
12/11/81
.11/11/82
. 11/18/81
11/18/82
11/210/82
1/1/81
. )/19/8)
10/8/81
. 4/21/81
1/12/81
1/1)/81
. paaea
II"
1
..
Author/Oraanlzatlon
.
AndreI &ratty Klnlker, WDOE
Jeanne Buill... Reiter 6
A&lol:s.
1
IInknnwll
f. I"'.
Ie
Unkllown
1
Jel' Shere Spokel.an-aevtuw
'I. Cr08pton, Spokane
WA Weekly Chronicle
1
'I. Cr08ptOIl, Chronicle
1
Crel Darby, Spokelun-Revlew
1
Crea Darby, Spoke.un-Rlvlew
I
Trl-County Tribune
1
1
Spokane Chronicle
John Crala, Spokane Chronlcl.
1
Ken Sandi, Spokane Chronlcl.
TI. lI.naon, Spokane Chronlcl.
1
Ken Sanda, Spokane Chronicle
1
Ken S.nd., Spoke.un Review
<.
Addr,I.le/Or.anlzltlon
Joble RUlaell, [PA
\ ~i(
. t.-,>.
'i' ,"
-------
Pod
00000161.
00000162.
00000 16).
0000016...
00000 165 ~
00000166.
00000161.
00000168.
00000169 .
00000170.
00000 171.
00000 172.
00000171.
00000 17".
00000 175.
00000176.
00000177 .
00000178.
fUe
Nev.paper article.
Nev.paper article.
Nev.paper articles
Nev.p.per article.
Nev.p.per article.
Nev.p.per article.
Nev.p.per article.
New.p.pcr article.
Nev.paper article.
Newlp.per article.
Newlp.per article.
Nev.p.per ortlcles
"pvlpaper articles
N. -;II',1per art Icle.
Nev.psper article.
Nev.p.per .rtlcle.
New.p.per .rtlcle.
Hewsp.per article.
Type/Pe.crlptlnn
Two IIOr. r..ldent.. .ue fiver pollut..d -II.
Colbert v.ter dec lain" rr...hed wi thin Iwo
veek. .
. Contract. place Colberl ~Iosp.r 10 wat..r
.yate.
feulbility of clt'anlnl up Colberl :\11"
. to be .tudle.
Pollution .pr.adlna In .qulfr.rs
Key Tronlc add. fl,.. to lawsuit
Key Tronle vant. other. to .hare d'~plnl
blue
Colbert area veil b.n .Iked
Key Tronle, County ll.ble for pollutlun
Landfill decl.lon left Intact
Key Tronlc, county .tlll II.ble for
dU8plnl
Well vater woe. vorth S"2,)60
Key Tronlc 1.,0ff. '.ay backfire'
Colbert cleanup co.t. could cll.b to
. $1l.5 .UUon
Trouble. bla8ed on vater dl.trict
beveloper vlna Colbert lawBuit for
$1.8 .111100
Key Tronle reduce. It. vork force
Work von't lover well., experts say
..
. ..
Oate
7/17/81
7/.\0/81
1/../8..
. ie/'lJ IltS
11/8/BS
S/)0/86
. . 5/~0/86
6/25/86
6/28/86
8/8186
8/9/86
. 10/21/86
11/22/86
1/20/87
1/)0/87
2/11/87
2/U/87
6/1/87
!...!!I!!
1
I
I
1
I
1
. 1
1
Author/Or.lnll.tlon
Addre..ee/Or.anizatlon
Richard Waloner, Spoke...n '.vlew
Ken Sands, SllIIk.s.an ~vlew
lCen 5andit, 51'IIkane O.ronlc I. .
. ~ ~
ICf'n Sands, 5p"ke'88" Revl.w
.Jeff She.r, 5p"ke..an-Revlew
ICI. CrOmpton, Spokane Dall,
Chrunlcle
KI. Cro.pton, Spoke...n-Revlev
Trl-County Tribune
KI. Crompton, Spokes..n-Revlew
I
KI. Croapton, Spokes.an-Revlew
KI. Croapton, Spoke..an-Revlew
1
2
KI. Cro.pton, Spokes.an-Revlew
alii Sallqulst, Spoke...n-Revlew
Jeff Sher, Spokel..n-Revlew
1
1
KI. Croapton, Spoke'aln-Revlev
KI. Croapton, Spollesaan-Revlew
1
1
8111 Sallqul.t, Spolle...n-Revlew
JI. Caaden, Spokeaman-Revlev
tL
-------
~..
00000 119.
00000182.
0000018].
00000185.
~186.
00000188.
00000189.
00000190.
00000191.
00000192.
0000019].'
00000194.
0000019S .
00000196.
00000191.
00000198.
00000199.
Ftle
Nev.p.per artlclea
Nev.paper article.
Nev.paper article.
Nev'raper article.
Newlpaper article.
Nev.paper article.
Nev.paper artlclea
Lab report./rav data
Lab report./raw data
Lab report./raw data
Lab report./r~v data
Lab reporta/rav data
Lab reportl/raw data
Lab report./raw data
Lab reporta/raw data
Lab reporta/raw data
Lab report./rav data
.
..
typ./De.~rlptlon
ttor. c08Ient U. wantl'd on Colbert Illan
Work won't lover well., eapert. .ay
Colbert cleanup plan ha. hasty arrroaeh
the I..ue .. falrne.. ; Co Iber' cleanup.
Around the State. - Wa.hlngton
Colbert re.ldenta file .ult.
CountJ to run landfill cleanup
He8O/attach8enta r. or..nlc ~n.ly.l.
of aqueou. aa.ple./vater well records/
vater quality report.
table re vater quality at .elected
well. near Colbert landfill
He80 v/attach.nta re well watl'r
...pllng./.ap.
Letter re Colbert Landrlll data.an~ly.la '
Letter w/attach.nta re water quality
teata at Colbert
Well vater .a~llnl re.ults
field aa.ple data aheet
D~te
5/2"/81
. 5/29/81
5/11/81
6/1/81
.6/1S/81
3/11/86
. No date
1/1"/80
Z/'0-11/81
'/2"/81
6/19/81
8/]1/81
. '1/28/82
. 8/"/82
Hetal data-AA-IICA 2100 (Water). Santora well 8/../82
Bau/neutral coapound.
In.pectlon report and .e8O vlth
...ple resulta
JI.2S/82
6/1/86
, 'alu
.
2
I
2
I
I
U
1
1
5
"
5
1
I"
8
.8
Author/Orgonlzatlon
Jeff Shr.r. Spoke...n-Revle"
Sroka liP. OIro,,1< Ie
JI. C.aden. 5roku..n-Revl....
Spokel..n-Rp~lew
lCey Tronlc. The Sroke..an-"vl."
Spokane OIronlele
Alr/w.ter Pollution Report
.1. Croapton. Spokane DallJ
Olronle Ie
Jefr Shere Spoke..an-Revle"
Ale.andr. Smlt". EPA
EPA
Ben Eu.eblo, EPA
Ja... Hal.. WIJOE
Willi.. Dobr.tz. 'Srokana
County Utilitiea
Unknown
tt. Cook. CeorAe Haddock
" AlSoe..
EPA
JI. Blalethlck. ErA
Schlender, WVOE
.
..
Addre,.ee/Or..nlzatlon
CarJ O'N88I, ErA
Dauck FIndley, EPA
Carolyn WI lion. EPA
Joanne fujita Alaba. EPA
R. R. Jone.
ItoJ Jon..
Carol 'raeae. Fred
Cardner. 'WOE
-------
!!2£'
00000200.
00000201. .
00000202.
0000020).
00000204. .
00000205.
00000206.
00000201.
000.00208.
00000209.
00000210.
00000211 .
00000212.
0000021).
0000021.. .
00000215.
fUe
Lab reporta/raw date
tab report II/raw data
Lab reportl/raw data
,Lab reportl/raw date
Lab reportl/raw data
Lab reportl/raw deta
Lab reportl/raw date
Leb reportl/rew deta
Correapondence
Correapondence
Correlpondence
Correlpondenee
Correlpondence
Corre.pondence
Corre.pondence
Correspondence
type/De.erlptlun
He80 re continued ..apllna of
Colbert IIOnltorln" ....111
S..pUn. relulta
Shallow 5011 Cas Inve.tlaAtlon In the
Vlclnit, 01 the Culbert l.a,jdf III/fie Id
Oata
Sa.pl. reaulte, I..b Ho. 2895-'17
Colbert teltln. auulte CAppelllllx A
updated throulh Aprllt 1981). (I~cu~nt
loeeted et WDOE Ille. J.
April 21, 1981, teIUna/".p"na ruult.,
tab. No. 2981-81
Saaplln. re.ulte, Lab No. ]0191-87
Table 1 re water well record. revleved
to develop conceptual IIOdel of the
leob,drolol1
I~tter re propo.ed le.pllna plan
Letter relardln, UA (uture aolld valte
.rant '266)10104
Letter re'lrdl~, po.tponlnl of drlilina
et Hlea Landlill .Ite
I~tter re potential health lapact of
volatile orl.nlca
I~tter re potential health lepact of
volatile oraanle.
Letter re announce.ent of .Ite
.anaaer and foraation o( action committee
Letter re extenalon of public co.ment
period with .ttached newa article
Letter relardlnl Superfund proposal
cleanup o( Colbert l.andllil
.-
.
~
11/19/86
2/n/87
12/86
"/8/87
1980-1/117
5/10/87
5/26/81
Nu date
2/"/81
. .5/1"/81
)/30/82
U,J;U/85
10/1../85
~/"~81
. 5/29/81
. 6/11/81
, PalU
50
Author/Orlanlzation
Carol ~raeae,.WUOE
Unknown
Pon f.leeren, Tracer
Reaearch Co.{p.
s
A8C I.abs, Inc.
Ke)' Trolllc~5pokane Count,
I
Unknown
1
Unknown
1
Unknown
Jellies L. Hale, WOOf
1
Peter R. "alkln., WOOl
2
Georae E. Haddox, Geor,e £.
Haddox' Allou.
1
. Car I Saaener, Dept. 01
Social" llealth Senlcea
Addre..ee/Oraanlzatlon
frrod Cardner, WnOE
,. ,- ~
- ", ~
. \ - .
. ,,,~'.i~ ',".
'::.. trio
.", .
..
ICe, tronlc Corp.
.,
Carolyn 8. Utlaon, 'EPA
Ulilla. R. Dobratz, Spokane:
Count)' Utilitle. Dept.
Da80n ra.., Spokane Count)'
Ut II it 181 Dept.
Carol leraele, .WooE
8111 Lichte, Dept. ot Social
, Health Senleea
Levh C. KirkS", ~e)' tronlc' Fred Gardner, WDOE
Carol leraele, WooE
2
2
A. J. "Iud" Pardini, U.S.
Senate
2
Jane t. Klnl, resident
Robbie RUllell, EPA
Fred Gardner, UDOE
16
L
-------
..
-
..
01:
~, FUe -Type/Description Date 'Pages Author /Org"n tzat ion Addressee/Organization
- "00000216. . .Correspondence Hemo re request for technical ass 1stanee No date 2 Bob Courson. EPA Jeff VanEe, ENSL
" 00000211. Memoranda. Hisc. HellO re revision of work request ESD-82-025 2/2<;,/82 1 Neil 1bo~pson. EPA' Bill Schmidt. EPA
00000218. Hemoranda. tUsc. Hemo (handwritten) re observation of 5/1/8<;' 3 tUke Gallagher. WOOE Carol Kraege. WDOE
electricsl resistivity field work
00000219. Notices Notice re Colbert Landfill comment period 6/2/87 3 WDOE
00000220. Notices Notice of public review period for the 1/11/84 1 WOOE
focus feasibility study for the initial
remedial measure st Colbert Landfill.
00000221. State Cooperative Hemo re deviation from 40CFR.30.308 for . 8/29/84 2 Sam ttorekaa, EPA lIarvey G. Pippin. U
Agreement the Colbert Landfill site. Washington (CVOOO282)
00000223. Haps Exhibit 12 (Alternatives). (Hap at EPA No date 1 Unknown
Regional (Site) file.)
00000224. Hap. Exhibit 13 (Gleneden Plan). (Hap at EPA : No date 1 Unknown
Resional (Site) file.)
00000225. Haps Duplicate of Document' 00000223 (above;
Exhibit 12)
00000226. Hap. Colbert Landfill~ Aquifer 11/86 1 Golder Associates
00000221. Hap. Preliminary General Geologic map. (Hap at No date 1 Allen Grisgs Hap 1-464.
EPA Regional (Site) file) lISGS, H.tl. Haddox AaaoclO./
Hontgomery Engineeu
00000228. Hap. Preliminary locations map of proposed No date 1 Spokane County Utilities
Pha.e 11 drilling and water sampling Department
points. (Hap at EPA Regional (Site) file.)
."
00000229. Haps " Preliminary cell map. (ttap at EPA Regional No date 1 Spokane County Utilities"
(Site) Ule.) Department
00000230. Maps Preliminary relation of hydraulic sradien,t No date 1 N.N. Haddox Assoc../
-------
!!2£'
000002 )1.
00000212. '
000002 J).
0000021...
0000023~.
00000216.
000002]J .
00000238.
00000219.
000002100.
000002101.
000002102 .
file
Hap.
Hap.
H.p.
Hap.
Hip.
Hap.
~p.
Hap.
Hap.
H.p.
Hap.
Hap.
Type/Duulptlun
Prell.lnar, relatlonl of w.t~r level,
e levat Ion and unit "lJu.re arc'"
..E!!!-
No date
No date
Groundwater flow net, .Iddle ,.nd .qulfer.
(Hap ICM:ated at ErA lteAlulIlI1 II Ie . )
PreU.lnu, d.talled potenthlllldric lurhceNo d..'e
.ap, Hlddle Sand Aquifer. (""I,.t EI'A K"fdonal
(Site) file.)
Prell.lnar, leneral potentiometric lurf.ce ',NO date
.ap, Hlddle Sand Aquifer. (tlap at t:PA lIellon81
(Site) file.)
Prell.lnar, d.talled potentiometric lurf.c.
..1', Hlddle Sand Aquifer. (Hap at EPA
lIellonal (Site) '1Ic.)
Pre U.lnary detailed "op.ch .'1', IIpper
Cia, Unit. (Hap at ErA Rellt'lI.1 hlte)
file. )
Prell.lnary leneral potentlo.etrlc lurf.ce
..p, Upper S.nd Aquifer (..p .t U'A nllonal
hlte) IIle).
PreU.lnary lenenl huplCh -p, IIpper CI.,
Unit. (Hip at EPA rellon.1 (alte) file.)
Prell.ln.ry Det.lled Structure Contour -1','
top of Upper Cia,. (~ap at EPA rellon.1
hlte) fll..)
, prell.lnary Gener.1 Structure Contour .ap,
top of Hlddl. Sand. (tlap at ErA reatlonal
hhe) file.)
'Prell.lnar,.Detalled Structure Contour ..p,
top of Hlddle Sand. (tlap.t EPA rellond
(lite) file.)
Prel18lnary Ceneral Structure Contour ..p,
top 0' Upper Cia, Unit. (Hap.t EPA
rellonal (.Ite) '1 ,e.)
..
~
No date
No d.ta
No date
No d.te
'No date
No date
No d.te
, No due
. P'ae.
Author/Oraanll.tlon
&ddr...ee/Orlanlzatlon
'H.H. Haddox AI.oca./
HontlOllery 1::"lllIeen
I
H.H. HaddoA A.loc../
H,,"taUlllery Engl"..,!r.
Spohne COUllt Y Ut III tie.' ':
1 It. 1\111 '1I~lIt ,.
I
Spok.lle County IIt,lltle.
IlepoUtlllenl
1
Spok.ne Count, Utilitiea
()ellar tMnt
I
Spok.ne County Utilltl..
l)epartMnt .
1
, Spokene County Utllltl.a
I\rpartlllent
1
Spokane County Utilltl..
DepartMnt
1
Spokane County Utilitle.
i)epartlllent
1
Spok.ne County Utlll~le.
Del'artllent
1
Spokane County Utilitle.
DepartMnt
1
Spokane County Utilitle.
Departlllent
.t.
18
-------
FUe type/Description D.te , F.ln Author IOrl8nl utlon Addre.see/OrI8nl7..tlon
2U. Haps Ceolo,l~ Cro.. Section CoCo (H.p lit EPA ~ d8te Spokane CoUnty IItllltlee
re.lon.1 (all..) fllr.) [)Ppart.ent. H. H. Haddox
A!llocl./HontKOIIuy [nKlneer.
2". H8p' Ceolo,le Cro.s ~ectlon ft-ft. (ttap.t E"A 11o date Srnhne County Utilltle8
rellon.1 (alle~ tl'e.. Ih'p:1rt8lp.nt. ..H. H. Haddox
A!I!'>""". 'IHonllu_ry Enftlneer.
2"S. Hllp8 Ceolnlle Croll 5et"t Ion A-A. (HAp at ["A Ifu d.te Spok8ne County Ulilitle.
rellon.1 hlte) tile.) IWpar tlllent . H. H. Haddox
ASlocl./HontlU8ery f.nllneer.
2"6. H'pi Frell.ln.r, Loc.tlon 8ap, exl.tlng w.ter No date Spok.ne County Utilitle.
well.. (Hap.t [PA rer.'on.1 (1Ile) Ille.) Deper t.ent .
2.. 7 . H.p. I.oc.tton ..p 01 ptopo.ed drllllni .nd 7/30/81 Ceorle Haddox " Alloel.. Inc.
w.ter ..~pllnl lite. (Hap.t EPA rellon.1
hlte) file.)
2"8. NFL Lilt Inl" Feder.1 'eal.ter, Vol "7., No. 251, 12/3/82 9 EPA
CoanenU pp. S8,.70-8,.. NPL propoled ruin
2"'. NPL Lilt Inl " Feder.1 'ell.ter, Vol. "8, No. 17~, "8/8) 17 EPA
Co8Dents pp. "0658-"067). Fln81 Rule, Nlitlon.1
Prioritlee 1.18t
iA
. "
,I:
~. :~'.
!:::'.~ .
. .
....#" .
I Q
..
!a
-
""
------- |