United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-87/059
September 1987
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
;1
FMC Corp., MN
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Information Res9urCQ
Center (3PM52) ,
841 Chestnut Street r.t/ ,",
Philadelphia, PA 1910" ~'.~f:..~~
-,
\
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
PhIladelphia, PA 19107
~ fPA Report Coflecthm
Information ReSOUrri5 Camer
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia 9 fA 1~~~7
." ~''''-'' .-. '-","''''' ~:-".71' -1"''-''''"";', '--' :-. -':':--------~-"'~~I:": "":":"~~&:~~:"".- .'.:"";':":~.~:".~r-: ~..:=-.''''' ~::~-~~~.~"'~~~~!,;j'::"'P,~~,'~":;'~.~'-W~,'1':r;:~.~J..~n::.:-t.i=""'!:~~"''':'I'::;'!:""'~~~~~-":-::~~'~~~'~
-------
.-.. "",.. ,"
TeCHNICAL REPORT DATA
'Pltllll 'Illd /ffrtrucllofU 011 Iltt 'I-I"' ~rrYI CO",,,ltllfffl
,. III,'O"T NO. f2. 13 "'ICI"'(/Oor 5 ACCESS,~....o
EPA/ROD/R05-87/059
.. TIT... ANO SU.TIT... '$. 1II.'OIllT OATI
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION September 30, 1987
FMC Corporation, MN e. "I III 110 III...,,.,.C OIllCA/Oo'ZATION COOl
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. AuT"O"'SI .. "I 111110111""NO OIllOA""ZAT'ON "'."OAT /000
.. """0111"""0 O"OAN'ZATION NA"" ANO AOO""SS 10. ""00"''''''' I..I""NT ""0
..
11 CQN T III AC;T/Ci III...,.,. T,.,.O
12. 5'ON50"'.NO AO'NCY N"''''' "'NO AOO"'5S 13. TY'" Oil 1II"OIllT A"'O "1111'00 CO\lI"'EO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. 5'ON50"INO 401NC;Y COOl
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
11. Su,ltI.IMI..TA"., NOTIS
1.. AgTIIIAC;T
The FMC site is located in the City of Fridley, Minnesota. The site is approximately
1,000 feet east of the Mississippi River, just north of he City of Minneapolis, and
upstream of the City of Minneapolis drinking water intake which serves approximately. --
500,000 people. This ground water operable units addresses those portions of the site
known as the FMC lands (13 acres) and the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (BNR)
lands (5 acres). From 1941 to 1964 Northern Ordnance, Inc. operated as a naval ordnance
manufacturing complex at the site. Between 1945 and 1969 a tract of land south of the
complex was used for the burning and disposal of wastes, including plating wastes,
paint, paint sludges, oils, bottom ash, and chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents.
In 1964 the FMC Corporation purchased the property and continued to use the waste
disposal area. Disposal was discontinued by FMC in 1969. In November 1980 MPCA staff
received a hot line compliant alleging past waste disposal at the FMC and BNR lands.
Further investigation revealed historical waste disposal practices and found
contamination of the ground water and Mississippi River. By June 1983 approximately
38,6000 yd3 of contaminated soil with VOC concentrations greater than 1 mg/kg were
excavated from the unsaturated zone beneath and in the area of the waste burn and
disposal pits and placed in a RCRA onsite containment and treatment facility. Currently
underlying ground water and alluvial aquifers with discharge to the Mississipi River
(See Attached Sheet)
17. 1(1" .011108 A..O OOCU"""T "'''A... ."..
.. Olse"'"OIll, b.IC...T''''''''/O''''' '''''010 TI""" C. C:CSATI F18ldtCto.ap
Record of Decision
FMC Corporation, MN
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: TCE, PCE, VQCs
'I. QISTIII'luTION STAT.""NT ". SIC:IoI",TY c:~ss I nll~ R,por" 21 ,.,.0 011 "ACIS
None 66
20. SICIoI",TY C"ASS I nil' ;111'" 22 "lIItCI
1'& ,- 2220-1 (It... .-77)
"..""0"" 10' "'0" " 0.'01.1".
- - - --- ------ __A -----_."'-----'-'''''.~--''''''''''''""''''''''''''7"'''' -,....-...:~~r~'i';'M.~';~~::'!'.1:~;:,~.~......~.~"':'~1:~~'"":'.'
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
,.
"I.-o"T NU"I"
In"rl rllf LPA Ifport numOcr U 11 aP1'88n on lhe C:oYer o( '"f ""Ollullon,
2.
1
LIAYI ILANK
"'CI"INn ACCISIION NUM8I"
Rt~ (or 11M by f;&6;11 ~por' It\alllfti.
..
nTU AHO SU8TITI.I
Tille "'ouid UUSICII. dC:&Ily ~nd br.ny III. sub~1 ':o"~n~ 1.11' 1110: ''''porI. ~nd bI:
-------
. . .1.0-" ...:.:... . ... '._~.
",- ~. - -.
EPA/ROD/R05-87/059
FMC Corporation, MN
Second Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
are contaminated with TCE, PCE, benzene, toluene, xylene and other VOCs. TCE has been
estimated to account for 98 percent of the contaminant loading..
The selected remedial action for this site includes: ground water pump and treatment
with discharge to a POTW (sewer system): ground water monitoring: and implementation of
institutional controls with land use restrictions to mitigate against near-term usage of
contaminated ground water between the site and the Mississippi River. The estimated
capital cost for this remedial action is $773,935 with present worth O&M of $744,870.
-------
Recocd cf Decisicr.
Remedial Alte~,ative Selectior.
. Si te :
FMC, Fridley, Mi~~esota
OXunents Reviewed
The followi:",.g docLme:'lts, which describe the physical characteristicc; of the
mc site, FMC and Burlio;ton Northern Railroad (BNR) Lands GrolJ."1d Water. Cperable
U~it, and which ar~lyze the cost-effectiveness of various remedial alt~~atives,
have ~ee~ reviewed by the United States ~vir.onmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) a:id foem the basis foe this Record of Decisio:1 (ROD):
"Repoct o~ Phase I I:westi;ation prcgram, FMC Norther;'l
Ordnance Oivisio~ Plar.t", 5.5. Papadopulos & Associates,
I::c., ~vember 1983. .
"Fi:1al Raport, Phase I &. II Investigation progcam,
Nor.thet'":"1 Ocdnance Division, FMC Cocporation", 5.5.
Papadopulos &. Associates, I:'1c., August 1984.
"Sumacy of A:'lalytical J:Bta for FMC Northern Ordnance
Pla.~t", Conestcga-R:Jvecs &. Associates Limited, r<1ay 1984.
"Supplemental Calculations", Conestcga-~vers &.
Associates Limited, Deca\~r 24, 1985.
"Feasibility Study, mc and BNR Lands Grour.dwater Pegime",
Cc=:estcga-~vecs &. Associates Limit~, Januar.y 1985.
"Evaluation of R:!medial .action Al ternati ves" FMC
a."'1d BNR Laoos Groundwater. ~gime", ConestOJa-~ve~s &.
Associates Limited, May 1985.
"~spo:'1Se Action Pla."'l", Conestcga-Ebver:s &. Associates
Limi tad, Cctober 1986.
"FMC Site Enforcement Decision D::x:unent", Mir.nesota
PolllJtion Centrol }gency, Septembe-c 10, 1986.
nFMC Site SUrmary of lenedial Alternative Pecat1'l\endatior.",
U.S. ~ironmental Protection }gency, August 1~87 (document.
undated). .
Public cannents received duri:ig th~ 21-day CQT1ne~t pedexi, and the
Fespo:isiveness Summary.
9..m'nary of ~ial Alter:1ative Selection.
I have also considered other documents which are included in the admir.istr:ative
record.
. ...~"" ~',;-.:-" \-'i"'.-'-~--'t'..... ~~---~- ~:~~~"!:~':~!:,~~;~.~~~.~....:~~..!!.~.&o>:i:"_~~!'.f-#;"-;.i:~~~'~V].~'t'~~~';:,;~~~":!I;~..~:.tg;E,"~,~~~~'
-------
-2-
Description of Selected Remedy
The selected cemedial altaenativ,: for th~ F~1C and BNR la:1ds gcoundwatec
operable unit is gro~~dwater: intecce~tion and ceduction of the contamination
source, and discharge of extcacted gr.oundwater. to the sanitary sewer Sjst~.
The selected altecnative i:1cludes the following major components:
- Groundwater: extraction and discharge to the sar.itary sewel';" sjstem.
Mbnitoring to assure the effectiveness of the remedy and to define
ter.mination of the extraction system.
Institutional contcols and existing land use to mitigate agai:ist :iear-te~
usage of contaminated groundwater. between the FMC and BNR la.~ds a:1d the
Mississippi River by pcivate wells.
Consistent with the OOmprehensive E:ivi~~nmer.tal Response, Compensation and
Liability A:t of 1980 (CERCLA.), as amer.ded by the Super.f~~d Amendrne:1ts and
reauthocization Act of 1986 (SARA), and National Oil a.~d Hazar.dous Substances
Pollution Continger.cy Pla.~ (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, I have detetmir.ed that, at
the FMC site, FMC and BNR la.~ds groundwatec operable unit, the selected
eenedial alternative is cost-effective, consistent with a peananent cemedy,
provides adequate protection of public health, welfare and the envi-,Qnment,
and utilizes treatment to the maximum extent practicable.
The action will cequiee operation and mainter~r.ce activities to ensur.e continued
effectiveness of the remedial alterr.ative as well as to ensuee that the perfQ~~ce
objectives meet applicable State and Fedeeal sueface and groundwater. ~ality
cdtecia.
I have dete~ined that the action being taken is cor.sister.t with Sectior. 121
of SARA.
In accordance with Section l21(c) of SARA, the cemedial action taken at P1C site,
mc and BNR lands groundwater operable unit, shall be eeviewed no less often than
every five years aftee the initiation of such remedial action to assur.e that human
health and the envirorment are bei~ protected by the remedial actior. bei:-q imple-
mented. A review is expected after: t~ years of opecation at this site to assure
that a review is completed before the extraction system is eligible for shut-down
undee the State Consent Order.
.£'
10M J
t-
ft';:-ter ~/-lr87
(Be
Valdas V. us
Regional Administ
Attachment:
( 1)
( 2)
SUmmary of Remedial Altecnative Selection
Respons i veness SLlt1'!\ary
"':.wt1""~n:':"~.~;"'I'I'~.~;I'"~"":><~~""~--....":t"''''.''7."t'":~''''~~''''~'''''.''''''''-~~r~'---'-...,..,.....""
-------
SUMMARY OF REMI:;OIAL ALTERNATIVE SELEcrI(~
(FMC and BNR La:1ds Gr:ou.'id Water cperaole Ur.it)
I.
Site Location and Description
The FMC Site (see At~chme~t I, site pl~i) is locat~ in the City of
Fridley, ~-:oka Cour.ty, Mi:mesota (see Attachme:1ts II a:-;d III, location
maps) .
The site is approxbnately 1000 feet east of the Mississippi River;
just :1orth of the City of Mi:1:1eapolisi ~~d about 1/2 mile fr.am, and upstr.eam
6f, the City of Min:1eapolis (Minneapolis) drinking water. intake which
se~es approxUnately 500,000 people.
The FMC Site is located on a portio~
of the Mississippi River flood plai:1 which is esse:1tially flat, and lies on
the east bank of the Mississip~i River at an elevatio:1 of abou~835 feet
[National Geologic Vertical Datum (NGVD)].
The area west of the FMC Site was purchased by Anoka Cbur.ty f~
FMC on July 7, 1982 foe developme:1t as park land under the federally f~ided
Great River ibads Project.
It is ZO:1~ "Single Family DNelli:igs," although
thece ar.e ~o occupied structures on the property, and it is expected to be
used as a park.
~e areas on the other sides of tl1e site ace zoned
heavy i~dustrial.
The L1Ortions of the FMC Site addressed by this operable unit are
known as tne FMC lands (13 acres) and the Bur.1ir-qton Northern Pailroad
Canpany (BNR) lams (5 acres).
They are located imnediately south of the
E'MC ordnance manufacturiOJ ~lex at 4800 East River R:>ad.
The BNR la~ds
were O'Nned by FMC, who sold them to Glacier Park Ccrnpany, a subsidiar.y of
~R, in 1969.
!his operable unit addresses a gro~~d water action for the
FMC arrl BNR la.~ds.
Other actio~s at the FMC Site include:
1) the catlpleted
soil renoval for. the FMC and BNR laoos, 2) addressir-q the Naval Industrial
Rese~e Ordnance Plant (NlROP), which is located dir.ectly :1octh of the ~1C
-------
., '"~. -" ",~"",,,,"-~'. ,". ....' -..... ..,,-..,
-2-
and BNR lands and which is being done by the Department of the Navy, and 3)
addressing the land north of NIROP, if necessary (NIROP investigations ar8
expected to clarify the situation.)
'!he Department of the Navy has submi tted
a remedial investig~tion, dated June 1987, to the ~PCA.
~ore field work is
proposed and work is progressing on the feasibility study.
II.
P.-\C and BNR Lands History
The EMC and BNR lands history follows:
1940 - 1941
1941 - 1964
1964
1964 - 1969
1969
1969
November, 1980
/cecember, 1980
Apr il, 1981
May, 1981
'!he naval ordnance manufacturing facility was constructed.
Northern Ordnance, Inc., a subsidiary of the Northern Pump
Cbmpany operated a naval ordnance manufacturing complex
in Fridley, Hinnesota. From approximately 1945 to 1969 a
tract of land (the FHC and BNR lands) south of the manufactur ing
complex was used for the burning and disposal of wastes,
including plating wastes, paint, paint sludges, oils,
bottom ash, and chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents.
fl1C purchased the manufacturing complex property including
the disposal areas from the Northern Pump Cbmpany.
EMC continued to use the EMC and BNR lands for waste disposal.
Disposal of waste at the disposal areas was discontinued by FMC.
A portion of the EMC Site (the BNR lands) is sold to a BNR
affiliate, Glacier Park Cbmpany.
The ~PCA staff received a "hot line" complaint alleging
waste disposal at the F1C Land BNR lands.
past
p
EMC, at the request of the MPCA initiated an investigation
of the mc and BNR lands. .
~c investigation revealed historical use of the ~C and
BNR lands for waste disposal and found ground water contamination
and contamination of the Mississippi River.
~C, at the request of the MPCA staff, initiated a detailed
investigation and study at the FMC and BNR lands. .
-------
... . ..A.-- -. --- ~"-'- .'-. .-'-.-. -.-...
1982
May, 1983
JUrie 8, 1983
May-Jur.e, 1933
Ju~e-Sept., 1983
O:tober, 1984
Q:tobec, 1984
January, 1985
May, 1985
-3-
FMC Site'was first i~cluded C~ the ~coposed Natic~al
Priorities List (NPL).
mc proposed an
. EPA to excavata
contairunent and
larlds.
i~teri~ raTIedial actio~ to MPCA and u.s.
cOritaminated soil 3::d place the.soil i~ a
tr.eabne::t facility located at the FMC
FMC, the MPCA and u.s. EPA executed an Admi~istrative
Order AndIrlter.i~ ~spor.se Oroer By Consent (Order) regardi~g
implemerltation of the contaminated soil excavatio~, cor.tai~me~t
and treatment previously proposed by FMC. The Order also
r.equired the completior. of a ~medial Investigatio~/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) to defi~e the extar.t ar.d mag::itude of :J~our.d
water contamination and to evaluate alternatives foe a gr.ou~d
water. cOritami:"'.atio:1 remedy foe the mc a."1d BNR lands.
FMC initiated and completed co::taminated soil excavation
and contai~nent. FMC also irlitiated the ground water.
RI/ FS.
Fran June through Se!;>tember. 1383 a cemedial actior. tc
address cOrltaminated soils in the FMC and BNR lands was
undertaken by FMC under. ar. Administrative Order by Co~se~t
between FMC, MPCA and u.s. EPA. Mound 38,600 cubic yards
of contaminated soils 'Nere excavated and placed 1:1 an
on-site cOrltainment and treatment facility by June 30, 1983.
Soils havi~ a volatile organic compo~~ (VOC) cor.ce~tratio~
of 1 part per million (p~) or greater 'Nere excavated to
the ground ~ater table. The orl-site facility was co~st('ucted
in compliance with the resource Conservation and R=covet:y
Act (lCRA) cequiranents foe an in~round storage facil ity.
It is doublelined, provides for leachate collectio~ and
leak detection, and includes a gas extraction and activated
carbon teeatment system for volatile contamin~~ts. Drummed
wastes on the FMC-arrl BNR lands 'Neee disposed of at a OCRP.
pemitted disposal facility. Excavated areas were restor.ed
aOO revegetated.
FMC ccmpleted the gro~"1d water RI pursusant to
the Order.
FMC Site was first included on MPCA Permanent
List of Priorities (PLP).
Ft-C sutrnitted a proposed Feasiblity Study (FS), which it :,sliaved
fulfilled the June 8, 1983 Coriserit Order, but which was i~ccmplete.
FMC sub'nitted an addition to the peoposed ground water:- FS
to MPCA and U. S. EPA.
-------
August, 19d5
January, 1 ~86
Februa.cy, 1986
April, 1986
September, 1986
October, 1986
I:acember, 191j6
.~ . "--:,.'
-4- '
MPCA Director. staff ceviewed FMC's proposed FS, a~d selected'
the gr.Qund water. gradie~t contrcl a~d tr.eat..:te~t alter.:-:ati'Je
. as the most appro~ciate r.espo~se actio~. MPCA approved the
feasibility study as modified.
,;
FMC submitted additio~al health r.isk assessme~t data to
u. S. EPA a~d r1PCA.
fMC sutmitted a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) ~Vor.k Plan to Iv1I?CA a~d. .
u.s. EPA.
,MPCA staff approved the RAP W:)rk Plan.
FMC and MPCA negotiated a ground water Response Actio:-:
Plan.
MPCA executed a:-: E:lforc~e~t Cecision rxxLrner,t, a~d executed
a Respo~se Order by Conse~t between the MPCA a~d FMC for.
~le~e~tatio~ of the Response Action Pl~,.
Specificatio~s were submitted by FMC to impleme~t the
Res~~se Action Plan.
III. Results of the Remedial I~vestigation
Investigations at the FMC sita, FMC and BNR lands, beg~, as a r.esult of
discussions with the MPC.~ in Cecember 1980. The work involved the fo11owbg:
Review and evaluation of histor.ical disposal practices and
r.elated compa:-:y recocds.
Site excavation surveys, i~cluding test~its ~~d trenches,
a:-:d magnetometer and gro~~d-penetrating radar.
Soil sampli~ to define soil contami~ation.
.
Ground water monitoring wells to detecnine lithological
char.acte~istics and watec ldvels.
""
Aquifer saq>ling to determine gr.ound water quality.
PI.I1\ping tests to define ground water. flow rates.
River and dri:1king water i:1take sampling to define the
bnpacts of contami~tion.
I~ 1983, approxLmately 38,600 cubic yacds of co:-:taminated soil were
excavated fram the unsaturated zone beneath and in the ar.ea of the waste
-------
-5-
burn pits arid disposal pits located at the FMC and BNR lands.
The RI/FS
indicated that ground water beneath and in the area of the FMC and B..~ lands is
contaminated with trichlorethylene, which has been estimated to account for 98
percent of the contaminant loading, and several other hazardous substances
including:
l, l-dichloroethane ~ l, 2-dichloroethane ~ l, 1 , l-trichloroethane ~
l,l,2-trichloroethane~ .l,l-dichloroethylene~ l,2-dichloroe~~ylene~ tetrachloro-
ethyle."1e~ benzene~ toluene and xylene.
The site hydrogeology consists of a surficial sand and gravel (alluvial)
aquifer system underlain by a bedrock sYstem.
All of these aquifers discharge
to the fotississippi jtiver, which acts as a discharge zone for both systems.
Fran the surface do..m, the surficial sand and gravel aquifer system consists
of:
1) a surficial sam and gravel aquifer, which is discontinuous because the
clay aquitard rises above the ground water table at same locations, 2) a clay
aquitard, which is generally t.~icker than 15 feet thick and which is generally
continuous l..U'xJer the FMC and B.1Iffi lands (the clay thins frO":'l east to west), arrl
3) a oonfined sam. aquifer, which reaches a thickness of arO\.J.OO. a hundre.1 feet.
. .
The water table is 20 to 30 feet fran the surface.
The bedrock aqui fers are
the Saint Peter sandstone, which does oot appear in a north well, underlain by
the Prairie du OUen.
The Prairie du OUen is the major exploited water supply
aquifer in the region.
The bedrock aquifers are used as drinking water supplies
by approximately 70,000 people located wi thin three miles of the FMC and BNR
lands.
Releases fran the fM: and 8NR lands have rx>t contaminated these ground
water drinkjn; supplies.
Contamination associated with the fM: and 8NR lands is sho..m in Attachment
"N.
The contamination exteoos fran beneath the former burn pits and dist:x:6al
pi ts to the alluvial aqui fers which discharge to the Mississippi River.
There
- -- -- --. .--- - .--- ---~--~ . - ". ............-----._-~--"" r,."-~:"~_~~.,-..;r-,r,.'~"?""!:I"""~''':'':'",,,.I'"r.'''''-,"-;.-n~:.,:".'': -;'7" -:~"<'~'?"'~.~. :;'-.-':7--::","7 _.~~~..:. ~ ::':""'7;~'-.-:;"'''''
-------
-5-
are two d13ti~ct zones cf alluvial cc~tami~tio~; the surficial sand a~d
gravel aquifer: :1ear well 36 a~d the co~fi~ed sa."1d aquifer. betwee~ wells 15
and 30.
The cc~taMinatad sur.ficial sand a:1d gr~vel aquifer. has a maximum
thick:1ess of about 35 feet near well 36 and is underlai~ by a clay aquitard
which is about 30 feet thick.
Large areas of the clay ~~it which su~r.our.d
the sur:ficial aquifer are above the water. table.
The flow through this
aquifer is towards the south alo:1g a char.~el cut into the clay aquitar:d i~
the vici~ity of well 50.
The co~tami:1ated confi:1ad sand aquifer is overlain by ~~e clay aquitar:d
a."1d is ~~derlain by the shaley basal portion of the St. Peter. Sandsto~e.
The
confined sa.~ aquifer is about 75 feet thick.
Flow through this aquifer: is
gener.ally towards the west.
Additionally, there is a slight upward flow of
ground water. from the ~"1der.liing Peaicie du Chien aquifer. i:1 the vicinity cf
the Mississippi River.
The contaminated aquifers discharge to the Mississippi River.
The estL~ted total VOC masses remai:1ing i:1 the unsaturated soils
are 388 pounds i~ the BNR lands a:1d 82 pounds in the FMC lands.
The per.cent-
age of giver. compou:1ds are:
benzene, total for fMC and BNR lands 2.7% (FMC
-------
-7-
Co~tami~ar.ts i~ the grour.d wat9~ at the sit~ i~c1ud~:
trich1oroethy1e~e
[up to 47,000 pacts pee billio~ (ppb)]; tetcachlor.ethy1e~e [up to 1200 ppb]; .
1,2-dichlocoethyle~e [up to 2480 ppb]; 1,2-dichloroctha~e [up to 86 ppb]; 1,1-
dichlocoethyle~e [up to 327 ppb]; and ber.zer.e [up to 16 ppb] .
Pceto~e [up to
15 ppb] reported in the sa~les appeacs to have beer. a sa~plir.g or labor.ator.y
artifact a~d is thecefoce not co~sidered a co~tami~ar.t at the site.
Based on 12 samples collected f~ four wells from September. to
tbvember, 1983, cor.taminar.ts at wells adjacent to the Mississippi River., ar.d
ger.erally thought to be downgradie~t of the sita include: l,l,l-trichlorcethar.e
[founj Eive t1mes from 1 to 64 ppb ]; 1,2-dichlocoethylene [found four tLmes
fram 1 to 16 ppb] i ~~d l,l-dichlor.oethyle~e [found twice at 2 ppb] .
Based o~ 40 sa.mples collected betwee:'l 1981 and 1983, contal'[lbar.ts
at the Mi~~eapolis dcir.Kir.g water supply ir.take include: tcichlor.oethyler.e
(fo~,d 26 t~es at 0.2 to 1.7 ppb: l,l,l-tr.ichloroethane [found twice at 1.2
and 1.4 ppb]; 1,2 dichlocoethylene [found five ti.mes at around 0.6 ppb]; and
1,1-dichloroethylene [found o~ce at 0.3 ppb].
Per MPCA staff, tcich10coethyle~e
has also bee~ sampled at 3.1 ppb.
The concer.tr.ations of hazardous substa~ces in the contami:'lated grour~
water vary by sevecal oeders of magnitude within the contaminatio~ plumes.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) compr.izes about 98% of the mass of hazacdous sub-
stances.
The concer.tration of TCE c~~es from none detected up to 47,000
parts per billion (ppb) in the sur.ficial aquifer ~~d from none detected up to
15,000 ppb ir. the cor.fined aquifer.
There is one existing receptor exposed to hazacdous substa:-.ces celeased
from the FMC and OOR 1a:-.ds-the MiMeapolis dci::ki:-.g watec i:-.take located 0:-'
the Mississippi River.
-------
-3-
IV.
Risk to Receptors via Exposure Pathways
The prbnary co~ce~ resulting fr.om cor.tami~atior. at the BNR a~d
FMC lands is. i:"Qestion of cO:1tamina:'lts i~ the grou..,d water., either by
directly ingestbg the ground wat!:!c or. by ir.gesti:'l'~ river. wat!:!r. contami-
~ated by the grou."1d water dischar.ge~ to .the dver.
At the one existing receptor, the Mi~:1eapolis drinking watec i~take
located o~ the Mississi~pi River. approxbnately o~e-half mile dowr.st~eam of
the F"1C a:1d 8NR lands, measureable though low amounts of TCE have beer: sa..-npled.
rhe FMC and BNR lands are among sources Qf TCE co~tami~atio~ r.eachir:~ the Mis-
sissippi River.
The FS subnitted by FMC as mcdified by the MPCA Di~ectoc
i:'ldicates that the FMC a:'ld BNR la:'lds contribute to a threate:'led exceeda:'lce at
the Mi~eapolis dri:'lking water intake of the natio:'lal dri:'lking water star:dard
for TCE (Maximl.Jt\ Co~tami~ant Level) established under the Safe Drir-.ki:-q Water
Act for public water. supply syst~~.
The RI/FS data indicates a preser:t
health cisk of up to 1.lxl0-6 (1.1 additional cancer deaths out of one millio~
~r.sons exposed over a:'l average lifetUne) associated with the releases of TCE
which are found at the Mir..,eapolis drinking water. intake.
Given the RI/FS
data, thece could be a future exceedance of the 10-6 ciSk level at the Mi:1:'lea~lis
'"
dr:i:1ki:-.g water i:'ltake as a result of the canbined releases fran the FMC Site,
Naval Industrial Reser:ve Ord."1aOce Plant (NIR:>P) a.'1d other sources.
Presently, ground watec receptors do not exist at the FMC and BNR
lands or between the PM<: and BNR la:'lds a:'ld the Mississii?Pi River because the
ground water is not beir'q used.
The FMC and BNR lands, and the land betweer.
the site and the river are of concern because contami~ated ground water could
be accessed through wells.
~ types of possible wells are of primary
conceJ::':1: 1) general potable water supply wells and 2) auxiliar.y water supply
-------
-9-
wells for. the City of Mi~~eapolis.
.Recently, the Ci ty of i1inneapol is has been work i::g wi th the U. S. Gec-
logical Survey (USGS) to further evaluate the feasibility of utilizing wells
(potentially betwee:: the FMC and BNR lands and the Mississippi River) as a~
auxiliary water supply source.
Through this investigation the USGS is evaluating
a 3 mile segment along the Mississippi River near the Mi~~eapolis Water. t~rks..
The investigation considers use of numerous wells along this river s~er.t.
These 'Nells \oo,Quld augme~t the existing water supply duri~ the SL.mner.
I~ the short-tean, there are no potential receptors, exce~t pote~tial
well5 to supplement the City of Mi~~eapolis water supply, due to land-use factors.
The area adjac~nt to the site in the direction of the Mississippi ~ver co~sists of
a park, and the City of Minneapolis Water Works property.
In addition, there are
institutio~al controls which restrict use of 'Nells in this area.
The :1i:"mesota
I:2part.1\ent of Heal th has approval authod ty over well construction and location.
Alsc a City of Fridley Ordinance prohibits installation of a potable water
supply well .~en Inunicipal service is in reasonable proximity.
Because a water
rnai~. ru.-;s through the A"1oka Cou."1ty property and because the A.~oka Cour.ty Park
I:2velo~ent Division has indicated the la~ will be serviced by ~~e City
water supply, there is np expectation in the shoct-ter.m that pcivate dr.i:1kir'Q
watec !Nells will be installed.
However, because wells could be placed or. the
Anoka County Park property in the future, U.S. EP~ considers such wells
potential recepton.
The potential wells to supplement the City of Mir_"1eapolis
water supply are not beirYJ constructed at this time.
Consequently, it is
apparent that, in the short-term, use of the ground water. in contaminated
areas is not expected.
The continued operation of contcols over the long-te~n
is of concern, however.
-------
-10-
Releases of TCE to the Anoka Gou~ty Pa~k prope~ty a~e att~ibutab1e to the fMC
Site at the Gxt~eme souther~ portio~ of the Anoka Gour.ty property ~ear well
20.
The concentration of TCE i~ well 20 is approxUnately 6 ppb with a~
associated potential health risk of 2.2xl0-6.
Because wells could also be
placed on the other off-site property, the InaXUnUIn TCE levels which are at
'I
well 45 for the confined sand aquifer and well 50 for the surficial sand and
gravel aquifer are used.
Well 45, at 430 ppb of TCE, has a~ associated health
risk of 1.6xlO-4.
7 .8xlO-4.
Well 50, with 2100 ppb, has an associated health r.isk of
v.
Alterr.atives Evaluatio~
A. Respc~se Objective.
The feasibility study addressed the followi~g receptors or pote~tial
receptors:
l) City of Min..,eapolis drir-.king water intake, and 2) Wells that could
be placed betwee~ the site and the River (both general supply wells ~~d auxilia~i
water supply wells for the City of Mi~neapolis).
The primary concer~ is ingestion of contaminants from the FMC ~n BNR
lar.ds -either fran directly i~esti~ ,9round water or by river water contami:",.ated
by the ground water discharges to the River.
The response objective is to minUnize ingestion of contami~ated ground
J
water and river water contaminated by the ground water.
Institutional controls and existing land use presently mitigate against
..
direct i~e~tion of ground water in the short-term.
The Response Alte~atives
were evaluated as lo~ term solutions for ground water contami~ation and
control of contaminant discharges to the Mississippi River through the grourrl
water.
The goal is to keep the i~estion risks fran exceeding 10-6 additio:1al .
lifet~ cancer deaths at any existi~ receptor.
-------
-11-
q.
Alternatives r.onslrlererl.
1. No ~ct; on
Tl'ns alternatlVp. rleflnes flCt 1Jt1 1 anrt potentlal lmpacts causer! .,.,y
contamlnatlon fro"" the P~r. anrl RN~ lands lf no cleanup actlnns are taken.
It
is userl as a hasell ne ag~1nst WhlCh ot~p.r alternatlves are compared.
~. Long-term ~onltorlng
ThlS lS haslcally t1 no actlon alternatlve thatlnvolves contlnuerl
monltorl ng of the 51t~ to assure th~t cnnta/T'llna~tlon levels contlnue not to
('
pose rlS~S that wo~ln requlre an actlon.
3.
~xcavatlon and rtlsposal
Th 1 S al t ernat 1 ve 1 nvo 1 yes excavat 1 on of saturaterl conta""1 nate<1
/T'Iaterl~ls wlth dlsposal at an off-Slt~ Qesource ~onservatl0n and Qp.covery
Act (~r.QA) facll1ty or an on-Slte contain~ent faCll1ty.
4.
rapPlng
ThlS alternatlve lnvolves placlng a low permeahlllty cnver over
lrlentlflerl areas to rerltlcp. lnflltratlnn through the unsaturaterf zone anrl
therehy re1uce contamlnant loanings to the grounn water.
Ii.
Physlcal tontalnment
ThlS alternatlve lnvolves puttlng a low permeahlllty harrler wall
around contaminaterl areas to contaln contamlnatlon wlth pU/T'lplng wlthln the wall.
The pumplng W1l1 cause water pressure to be greater outslrle the wall t~an lnSlrle
It. therel)y keeping contamlnatlon from leaklng out In the event of a leak.
The
walls must he keyed lntO a conflnlng layer to avolrl leakage under the walls.
n.
Yydraullc ContalnlT'lent
ThlS alternatlVp. lnvolves extractlon of the grounrl water to calise lt
-------
-l?-
and th~ c!')ntarT11natlon It carnes to flow t!') thp extractlon ~r~~. thi"rer,y keeplng
cnntarT11natlon In the area l1fluencerl from f10wlng nff-slte.
7.
r.rounrl "J~ter TreatrT1~nt anrl nlspos.:!l
lIlternatlve5 3, 5 and fi requl re extractlM of the grolJnrf wat~r.
ThlS
lten1 rllscllsses methorls for treat1ng anrl/or rl1spoS1ng of the extr~ct~rI wf!t~r.
a.
TrF'atl'1ent
1) t')1010g1Cf!1 - 1nvolves h10ll)g1C~1 rerluctlon of cont.al'11nants.
(')rgan1c matenals are requ1rerf to rT1a1nt~ln h1olog1cal act1v1ty.
('
~) carr,on adsorpt1on - lnvolves flow of water over an actlvaterl carhon
hen where clos~ contact w1ll cause contal'11nants to arlsorh to the carhon.
3) a1r str1pp1ng - 1nvolves flow of a1r through the contarT11naterl
water wt't1ch w1ll calise volatl1e cOl'P'lpounrls to enter the alr.
h.
r, r 011 n rl 1./ ate r n 1 s po 5 a 1
()nce grounrl wat~r 15 extracterl It IT1ay or may not reqlll re treat"'i"nt.
hut Illt1rT1ately 1t w1ll requ1re ':l1sposal.
1) rf1scharge to the ~iSS1SS1PP1 ~lver.
~) rflscharge to the PUr,llCly nwnen TreatrT1ent Works (pnTW).
~.
Alternat1Vp. Water ~ource ~upply
ThlS alternatlv~ lnvolves supplY1ng an uncontamlnatprl source of water
to reeF'ptors anrl potential receptors.
q.
In-s,tu ~'olog'cal Treatment
This alternat1ve 1nvo1ves use of I'11erohes to degrarle contal'11nants
1n-place.
c.
r.ompl1ance w1th LF'gally Appl1cahle or qelevant anrl Appropr1ate Qequ1rel'1ents
.(ARA~s)
RecalJse tt"s rP.'TIerl1al act1!')n arldresse5 contarT11nateri grounrl water that 15
-------
~. . . . . .
-13-
or ~ay potent1ally ~e i~gp.sterl, Feder~l anrl ~t~te healt~-hased dr1n~l'1q wat~r
u
st~nd~r1s are AQAQ for thOSp. ~lt~rnat1ves t~at rlo not preclurle lngestl~n of
the grounrl water.
As rl1SCl15SPrl 1'1 ~ec~lon 'lIT hel~w, such standards lnclude
Safe nr1nk1ng Water Act ~~L5 anrl ~lnnp.SOt~ ~ep~rtment of Healt~ RALs.
Altp.rnat1ve~ 1, ~, 1 dnrl R wOldd not meet ~rLs at the 51te ~olJndar'y
as they do not .1'1volve conta1nme'1t of eX15t1nq sourcp cont~"nnat1~'1 1'1 the
grnunrl w~ter.
A1ternat1ves 3, 5 ~nrl n 1nvolve grounrl water extr~ct1on, ~nrl treat~ent
anrl/or d15posa1 Wh1Ch coulrl ~et ~r.L5 at the ~lte hounrlary.
I f the grolJnrl
.
water 15 treaterl and rl1 schdrg~ tn tl1e ~lSSlSSlpP1 q1v~r, treatment must mp.et
tl1e ~PnJ:S pef11'll t requ1 rements.
If 1t lS d1scharged to the san1tary sewer,
treatrT1ent. 1 f any, must r'1eet pretretltlT1ent requl rements under the J:ederal
r.1 e~n Water Act.
Alternat1ves 1, c; t3nrl Ii coulrl result 1'1 alr em1sS1ons elther t~rough
rl1stur~ance of the 5011 or thrnllgh gro1lnrl water extr~ct1on, 1'1 Wh1C'" c~se Federal
C1e~n~1 r Act ann/or State reqll1 rements !T1Ust ~e l'I1et.
n.
~erllJct10n of TfJxiClty, r10bility, or Volul'l1e
Alternatives 1 anrl ~ rlo not re<1ucp. the toxlC1ty, moh1l1ty, or vollJme of
contal'l11nants.
Alternatlve A, wh,le not affect1ng contdm1n~ti~n 1'1 tl1e grounrl water,
removes receptor~.
Alternatives 1, 5 anrl 6 remove contaminat10~ from the ground water,
thereby rerlucing t~e volume anrl tOX1C1ty of contal'l11nat10'1 1'1 the grounrl water.
If rl1scharges of extracted ground water enter the M1551SS1pp1 R1ver upstream of
the C1ty of Minneapo11s dr'n~'ng water ,ntake, add1t1ona1 r1sks to that jeceptor
-------
-14-
would nCCIJr.
rt,e vo1ulTI~ rprlllct1()n w()u1rl he gref!ter f()r ",ltp.rnatlVes 1 anrl ,:; than
for a1ternt1vP' 5. 51nCP. grounrlwater extr~ct1()n 1'1 a1ternat1ve ~ wou1rl ~e rles1gnerl
. only to ma1nta1n an 1nwarrl gr~rlient. not tn relTlOvp. contam1nat10n.
r,rounrl wf!ter
extract10n wou1rl only ~P. for dewater1ng 1'1 f!lternatlVe '. but alternat1vP' 3
1nvo1ves pnYS1ca11y remov1ng contamlnaterl sOll.
Alternatlve 4 wou1rl rerluce contamlnant lOarllng to tt,e gr0un~ water frolTl
the unsaturaterl zone, therehy rerlIJc1ng tt,e mohll1t.v anrl the volume of thOSp. con..,
t am 1 '1 a nt S .
Ilnsaturate<1 7.0ne loarllngs are nO longer as slgnlf1cant S1f1Ce a so11
('
removal down to one part per mll110n 1'1 tt,e unsaturaterl zone over the F~r. and
~NQ 1anrls has neen completerl.
~. ~t,ort-term Fffec~lveness
A1ternatwes 1 anrl ~ would he effect1ve In tt,e st,ort-term, only to the
extent the r.lty of '~lnneapol1s rlrlnklng wtiter lntttke rloes not experlence 1ncreaSet.
cnntalTllnant levels anrl to the extent potential receptnrs rlo not lTIater1a11ze.
A1ternat1ve 3 woulrl prov1de the qU1ckest removal of contaITl1nant~, hut
wou1rl pnse the greatest c;hort-terlT'l risks rlue to hanrl11 ng anrl exposure of
contamlnate1 sOlls.
T"'e amOllnt of excavation requ1red to reach the conf1nerl
f!qlJifer contttmlnatlon wou1rl also pose cnnstruct10n rllfflcult1es anrl r1sk.
Altp.rnatlve 4 woulrl posP. minlrnal short-term risk as conta~lndterl sOlls
ahove one part per m,llion total vo1atl1e orgttn1C compounrls have alrearly neen
remnverl from the unsatlJraterl 5011.
Alternatlve 5 would pose some short-tp.rIT'I rlsk to workers plaC1ng the
ba r r; e r wa 1 1 .
r.ontamlnatlon wou1rl be conta1nerl.
A1ternatwe f; woulrl pose some short-term r1sk rlur1ng construct1()" to
workers.
r.nntam;natlon wou1<1 he conta1nerl and rerlilcerl.
-------
-11)-
I\lternativp. A w,oulrl protect Ilsers of pf')t~hle water, hut woulrl not arlrlress
grounrl water conta~inat10n.
F='.
Long-t~~ F.ffect1Vp.nes~ anrl Permanence
Alternative 1 rlops not arlrlress r1sks ~t the slte.
I\lternatlVe? woulrl mon1t(")r eX1st1ng conrl1t1ons.
However, cont1nUOIJS
profess 1 onal 'T1anagerrent woul rl he req1n rerl 1 n orrler to assure th~t necessa ry
responses occur.
The tl~e"ness of reql/1rerl actlons woulrl also he of concern.
The rella~lllty of thlS alternatlve alone lS suspect ~ue to the co~plex1ty of
the management. requl red.
Alternat1ve 3 would remove contam1nants fr~ the grounrl water rapldly
and rellahly as the so11 woulrl actually be removed.
~hort-ter'T1 exposure
rlurl~ excav~t10n would occur to workers anrl nearny populat10ns.
T f rl1 spos erl
off-S1t~, r1sks rlue to aCC1rlents and rerl1sposal woulrl occur.
tf contalned
on-S1te, so~e spread1ng of contam1natl0n anrl leakage of the contaln~ent
facl1lty are POSSlhle.
AS the so11 lS saturated, s1gn1flcant rlewaterlng
wou 1 rl be req u 1 rerl .
Th1S lnCreaSes hanrlling anrl therehy lncreases volatll1zatlon
anrl the opportunlty for exposure ann aCClnent.s.
Lonq-term care o~ an on-Slte
faC111ty woulrl he requlred.
Alternative 4 only rerlucl!!s contam1nation from the unsaturated zone.
tt
noes not adrtress..t',P. contamination 1n the ground water mov1ng off-s1te.
Long
term ca re of the cap waul rt he requ1 ren.'
Altl!!rnative 5 woulrl requlre long-te~ management anti constant 'T10nltorlng
Of the low perl11eah1hty harrier wall.
r.ontam1natlon would he contalnerl.
~reaches
In the wall coulrl be t11SCOVl!!red hy the lncreasl!!d pu~ping rates necessary to
malnta1n an lnwarrl grad1ent.
Qeplacement woulrl be expenslve.
-------
-lli-
Alternat1Vp. I:; r~q"1res 1111n1"'1al construct1!')n, removes cont~rTllndnts w"nle 'not
cauS1ng the s'1gmflcant short-ter"1 r1skc; ~SSI)C1~terl w1th pxcavat1M, 1S commonly
IJSer.!, anrl rel1a"'le.
tt rloes take longer to remove cont~minants than excavat1l')n,
however.
Qeplac1~g wells 1S relat1vely 1np.xpenS1vP, alt~l)ugh long-term Opp.r~t1on
and l11a;ntenance of the 5ystem 1S reqlJlrerl.
Alternat1ve R requ1res 1111n1mal manage"1pnt ~nrl 15 rel1~hle: howev~r, 1t
rloes not arlrlresc; contam1nat1on of the grnunn water ann ~1SS1SS1Pp1 ~lver.
h.
Il11pl e'1'1entah1 1 1 ty
Afternat1vP's 1 anrl? are eas1ly 1mple'1'1enterl, but woulr1 he less'r~l1ahle
that other alternat1ves.
AlternatlVe 3, 5, and I:; wOlJlrl requlre e1Uler a National Pollutant n1scharge
~11"1inat10n ~ystp.m per~1t for rl1scharges to the q,ver or an agreement w1th the
puhl1Cly owned treatment works to r11scharge 1nto the sanitary sewer system.
Alternat1vP ~ woulrl be rl,ff,cult fro~ an eng1neer1ng stannpolnt rlue to
the rlepth of exC~vatlon reqlJlrerl to remove conflnerl aqulfer contam1nat1on.
Alternat1ve d \'ioulrl he easlly llTlplementahlp., nut would not arldr~ss grOlJnrl
wa ter cont am1 nat 1 on now; n thp. satur ated zone.
A lternat 1 ve c; caul d he d1 ff1 cul t to const ruct such that arleqlJate contal n-
IT'IP.nt 1S assured.
Flow through or unrler the barrier woulrl rerluce It; ah111ty to
contain the wastes.
Alt~rnat;Ye 6 1S common and easily constructerl.
r.apture zones can he
measured to assure adequate cov~rage.
Alternatlve R 15 also common anrl easlly constructerl, although graunrl
water conta"1inat1on woulrl not be arlrlressed.
-------
-17 -
~.
r: os t
Al~ernatlVp. 1 h~s no cost.
Alternatwe ~ lS lnclurleti to sotTIe extent 11'1 other Alternatlves un tier
operatlon anti '":alntenance ("n " ~II) anrl morlltonng cap1tal costs.
It w~s not
evaluatet1 for cost ~y 1tself as ~ny alternatwe lS expecterl to reqIJ1r~ 10ng-
tel""1 ITIOn1tonng.
Alt~rnat1ve 3 woulrl have c~p1ta1 constr~ct1on costs of ~4,~d4,~Rn to
excava~e s011s 11'1 the R~R lanrls anrl rllspose of them 11'1 an on-Slte contalnment
facll 1 ty nn tl,e P1C lantis.
Thp present worth of oper~t10n anti ~a1nt~dnce costs
lS ~QRR,S3An.
An arlrled ~1S.nn~ for mon1torlng wells ~r1ngs the total present
worth to ~5.~4R,7~n.
Tl,e ~NQ 1 a nrls r~U1 res excavat 1 on of a'"'out ~~ ,ono CUhl c
ya rrls of overhurrlen.
The F'1': lanrls woulrl reqlJHe excavatlon 0' 30n,nnn cUnlc
y~rrls of overhurrlen i'ln.1 was t'1p.refore not cnrIS1t1erec1 furt"er.
nff-s1te rllsposa1
at i'I ~C~A fi'lCl1,ty was two orders of ~agnit.urle greater '1'1 cost tl,~t an on-s,t~
f i'I c, 1 , ty .
AlternatlVe 4 WrlS not evaluated for cost hec~use the PiC 1anrls cnntam,natlon
lS alrearly heneatl, i'I clay aqultarti, and F~r. anrl RNR contarTllnat,on ,n thp. unsat:Jr-
~tet1 lone 1$ not. a '"1ajor concern d\J~ to tl,e al rearly completerl so11 removal.
Alternatlve 1:): A soil bentonite slurry wall for the RNR 1antis would have
a ci'lpltal construction cost of ~l,on3,5~n, monitorlng capital cost of ~1q,n00,
anti present worth of $1,557,731:).
For the F~r: 1 anrls, a grout C1Jrta, n was
chosen rlue to the tip.pth of constructl,," anrl woulrl have a ci'lpita1 cnnstruct10n
cost of ~S,lQ7 ,Q41:) , mon,torlng caplta1 cost of ~4R,Onn anti present worth ~ ~
~ costs of ~5~7,~3n for a tot~l present worth of ~S,R11,S7S.
Alternatlve n: ~xtract'on wells for the RNR lanrls woulrl have a capltal
-------
-l~-
cost of ~?l~,lRO, ~o~ltor;ng cap1t~1 c~st of ~lR,n~n, anrl prese~t wnrth fnr
n ~ ~ of S113,6?5 for a total present worth Qf ~3n7,8n5.
For the F~C lanrls,
extractl0n wells were c,",osen at a capltal constrllctlon C0St of ~4ql,755,
monlt~rlng c~p1t~1 cost of ~4B,nnn, ~nrl present worth for n ~ ~ of ~611,~4S
for a total ~rp.se~t worth of ~1,1,1,000.
Alternat1ve 7: For alr strlpping anrl ~1scharge to the ~1ver ~ cost ()f
~/,).~S per lOOn gallons was Iisert for t'1e larger hyrlraul1c conta1n~e~t v01umec;,
whl1e ~ puhllCly ownerl treatment works rllscharge harl a cost of ~l.BO per 1000
gallons for the smaller physlcal contalnment volume~.
Alr strlpplng was
1n1tl~1 ly expecterl to he cost-effectlve.
However, because riischarging upstream
of the rlrl ~kl"g water lntake was not envlronmentally dcceptahle anrl hecause
constructlO" of a rllscharge line to a 10catl0n helow the w~ter works was
lmpractlcal due to cost anrl easement rhfflcultles, an untreated rllscharge to
the sanltary sewer was chosen.
Alternat1ve A was not evalunterl for cost hecause ~o receptor 1S In "eerl
~f an alternat1ve water supply anrl the alternatlve does not address ground
water contamln~tlon.
I.
r.ommunity Acceptance
CDmmU~1ty involvement 1" this project has not neen strongly agal"st or
1" favor of any alternative.
The only CDmlT1ents submltted to ".
-------
-1 Q-
water wells.
r:onsP-quently, 1 n rlet.errT'll n1 '1g a cl ~anup stanrlarrl for the p'1(tract 10'1
system, thp. MDr.~ focuse~ on t~e M1SS1SS1pp1 Q,ver anrl M1nneapol1s rlrlnk1ng
water i nt. al(e as receptnrs.
II.~. J::p~IS rel1'1erly rp.qulres the attalnrT'lent of
rlnnklng water quallty (~r:ls) at tl,e slte-nounrlary anrl an acceptahle risk
.../
level at any receptor lnclurfl ng any that are locateti hetween t.he <;lte ,",OlJnrlary
anc1 t~e Q1Ver.
1(.
nverall 0rotectll1n of HUrT'liln 4ealth anrl the F:nvlrOnlT1ent
Alternatlves 1 anrl ? rlo not provlde for protect1on of any receptor or
pot e.nt Hl recpptl1r.
~1tp.rnatlve ? rloes provlrle ,nformat'10n on wl''IlCh the neerf
for such protectl0n c~uld he made, although the long-term managerT'lent and t1me-
llness wnulrl he of concern.
Alternatwe 1 provlrles raplrl re~uct1nn In contalT11natlon, hut has hlgh
snort-term llT1pacts rlue to S1gnlf1cant hanrlllng anci S1te rllsruptlon.
The cost
lS 1,1gh.
Alternatlve 4 provldes a rerluction In contamlnant l~ac11ngs fr~
unc;atlJraterf sOlls, hut because sunstan,tlal s011 removal has a1rearly 'occurred
anrl ~eciluse Slgn1f1cant conta~lnatlon is In the saturaterl 50115, tl"S alternat1ve
woulrl not be sufflc;ent.
Alternatlve 5 provldes contalnlT1ent of tl,e contalT11natlon on Slte alt10ugh
the potentlal for hreachlng the harrler wall woulrl exist.
Altl!rnative Ii provi~es a IInlque CQlT1hlnatlon of contalT11natlon rec'1uctlon
through extraction of grounrl water, conta1nlT1ent of contarT11natlon such that 1t
cioes not 1t1lgrate off-Slte In the grounc1 water, anti low cost.
tt ~oes take longer
than Alternat1ve 1, hilt does not have as Slgn1f1cant short-terlT1 llT1pacts.
Alternatlve 7 becomes rtlscharge to the p~TW wlthout treatment pr1rT'larl1y
-------
-:? n-
hp.cause the 1evp.1s expectprl wou10 not requlre pretre~t~ent ~nrl ~ecause rl1scharge
to the Rlver wou1rl lnvo1ve the olfflcu1ty anrl expp.nse of rllscharglng he10w the
r.lty of Minneapol1s drln~lnq water lntake to avolrl flJrther 10adlng at thp lntrtke.
A1ternatlve R lS not protectwe hecause eXlstlng receptors (io "ot reqllHe
a npw supply I-)aserl on eXlstlng loarllngs, anrl thlS rloes not aorlreC)s the grnunrl
water contd~lnatlnn.
tn-5ltu hlo1oglca1 treat~ent ~as cnnSlrl~rerl POS5lh1e wlt~ the arlrlltlnn
of nutrlents anti oxygen; however, rlata 15 lnsufflC1P"t to eva1uat.e a speclflc
sY'5 tef'1.
~vlrlenCp. lnrllcates thlS rlegraoatlon ~ay occur naturally at slow rates
rlue to sOll ~lerohe5.
"I.
~eco~enrled Alternatlve
---
11.<\. ~PA's rec~~entierl Solutlon con5lsts of I1yrlrau1lc c"ntaln~ent through
grounrl water extractlon wells (A1ternatlve ~), rllscharge of untreaterl, grounri water
to tl1e puh1lely ownerl treat~ent works (On~~) (~ltp.rndt1ve 7.h.?) anrl long-term
~nlt:Orlng (Alternatlve ?).
The eXlstlng lnstitutlona1 controls anti 1anrl-use
are tn he uSP'n to assure grol/nrl water lS not IJserl 1 n lann hetwepn the F.~r. anrl
~NR 1anns anrl the M1SS1SS1PPl Plver rlurlng the periorl the p.~tractlon system 1S
operat1~ ann unt1l the plu~e has suff1c;ently rl;ss1p~terl.
The proposerl grolJnrl w"ter pu~p-out syste~ 1 S further rlefl neri 1 n the
Response Act io", Plan (IUP).
The grounrl water pu~p-out 15 riesignerl to rerluce
conta~inat1on source areas ann to rerluce general offslte ~1gratlon of e1p.vaterl
contaminant levels.
TI11S w1ll protect the eX1sting M1nneapol1s rlr1nklng
water intake receptor ann potentlal future receptors hy provldlng praetlea1
remerllat1"n of tl1e alluvial aqulfers heneath ann rlowngrarllent of the ~Mr. ann
R NR 1 a n rl 5 .
The p111me to thp M1SS1SS1ppl River wl11 he allnwerl to tilsslpate,
-------
-? 1-
hP'C~USP', 1n t~e short-term, use of the ~qu1fers hetwp.en t~e F~r. ann RNR lanns
and the ~1SS1SS1PPl Q1ver 1S not ant1c1p~tP.rl.
T~e Clty ~f Fr1rlley nrrllnancp.
restr1ct1ng pr1Vitte wells ann the ~~innesotit nepartl"tent of Health-requ1rel'i.
review of \~11 10Citt1()nS f()r puh11C hea1t, 11T1pacts itssurp, that no wells w111
ne placP.rl on the 1aorl hetween the F~r. ann ~N~ 1an1s ann the ~1SS1SS1pp1 Q,ver
at l~ast r1ur1 rig the short tern'1.
These 1nst1tut10nal c~ntro1s ~lso restr1ct
wp.11.l/se on the P-1r. anti RNQ lantis.
The prop~serl rel"tel'iy arlnre~ses long-term
concerns.
Tf the r.1ty ~f ~1nneapo11s places wells In thlS area, ~r for any
f'
reason therp. appears to he a 11kel1hoon of placement of wells 1n thlS areit
dur1ng t'1p. per10rl of rl1SS1pi\tlon of t'1e plume, reevaluat10n of the remerly
w111 he requireri.
The se1ecterl ~lternatlve 101111 ensure t~at '1r.Ls or health-hase!1 cleiinup
levels are IT1P.t at the s1te hounnary.
Tn adrl1t10n, after two years of pu~p1ng
ann every f1ve yeitrs t"eritfter, " protectiveness netef"TT11nat1~n anri a transport
ana1ys1S w111 he perfor"!'lerl to ensure that the e1
-------
-??-
~rounrl water extracterl hy the pu~p-nut wells wl11 be rllschargerl
to a gr~vlty rlraln systP"'l to t~e s~nltrtry sewer for trpat~p.nt at t~e 01go; r:y~
'~astp.water Trp.atrT1ent F~c 111 ty whi c~ 1 S nwnerl an<1 operaterl hy thp. Metropol1 tan
"/aste r.ontrol r.o~rTns510n (~IAlr.r.).
The rl15charge 1.01111 conS1st of ahout In~-l~n
gp~ wlth a TCF: concp.~trat10n of no ~ore than In.nnn pph for ? ~onths anrl
',nnn pph ther~fter.
r.oncentrat1ons of the other conta~lnants 1.01111 be suh-
stantla11y lower and thp. total vo1atl1p. organlC co~pounrl concentr~t10n 1.01111
he no ~ore than ~n,nno pph for the f,rst ~ ~onths anrl l~,nnn pph thereafter.
r-
The rr.F: concentrat1on 1.01111 rapl11y rlp.crPdse and lS expecterl ~y the MPCA to reach
around ?70 pph wlt~1n 5 years.
The effectweness of the grnun<1 water plJmp-out an<1 treat!TIent systefTI
wl11 he assesserl through ~on1torlng of receptors, grounrl water levels, ground
water contamlnant concentratlons, anrl rllscharge to the sanltary sewer.
The fTIOn1t~r1ng syst~~ 15 as follows:
1.
'=:xt r actP.rl r,rOqn1 l~ater '10n 1 tor1 ng.
F:xtracterl grounrl water wl11
h~ ~n1torerl to rleterfTIlne flow rate anrl contaminant concentratl0n.
Voht11e
organic cOTlpounr1s w111 he ~onlt'rerl through sa~pling ports In the well chamber
~an~oles 1n e~ch of the three wells In the ~ore h1gh1y contaminaterl areas (OWl,
'N~, ~nt1 Ql"Jj--sep. Attachment VI I).
?.
Hyrlraul1c r.ontainrnent Monltorlng.
Hydraullc contal"mpnt ~onltorlng
wlll con~lst 01 coJlectl0n of water level rlata from bunrlle p1ezometers and
eXlsting monltoring wells (see ~ttachment VIII).
Water levels wlll he measure~
to assure the extract 1 on system 1 s ac1equatel y contal n1 ng contam1 nat 1 on through
lnward grarllents towarrls the extract10n wells.
3.
~rounrl Water Monltor;ng.
The surficlal sanrl anrl gravel aqulfer
-------
-?1-
\'111" he f"Ionl tar~c1 at well ,1 (see ~ttrtchment IX). anrl the canfl nerl sanrl aqul fer
wl11 he Monltnrert at well 4, ~nrl two new wells (rtls~ ~ee Attachment IX).
The
wells are rlowngrarllent near the slte haunrlary dnrl w,ll Io)e userl to rletermlne
s1te hounrlary cnntam1nat1on levels.
4.
qeceptor Monlt~r1ng.
A ~urf1cal aqlJlfer anrl a conf1nerl aqlllfer well
wl11 he mon1 torerl near the '-11 S~1 SS1 pp1 R1 v~r just south of the Water ~Iorl
-------
-'4- .
~on-prryT1ulgat:p.rl ~rlVlsnr1p.s nr gUlrl~nCe rlnCIJ",pl'1ts lSSuerl hy ~erip.ral or
<;tate goverl'1l'1ents 010 not nave the statlls of pl)terttla1 AI)A~s; however, where MA~s
do not e1(lst, or For sOlT'te reason ",ay rtot I)e slJfflclently protective, nnn-prnl"lulqatel'1
advisorles or gUlrlance rloclJlT'tents rTI~'y he conSldereti In rleterlT'tlnlng the necessa.ry
level of cleanup For protectlon of ~ulT'tan healt, anrl the enVlronlT'tel'1t.
<;ee YnterlrTI
~lJlrlance on COl"lpl1ance wlth Appl1cal)le or ~elevant anrl Approprlate QequlrelT'tents
rlaterl ,JtJly q, lQ87.
ThlS sectlon lrlentlfles the req1l1relT'tents of envlronlT'te"tal laws, "egual~tlons
and pollcles that are appllcahle or releva"t a"rl approprlate stanrlarrls for the
recCP'llT'tenrleti alternatlVe for remerllatlng cnntannnated grounrl water at t,e P1r. and
RN~ 1 a nrlc;.
Recal1se of the poterttlal for t~e placP.!!'lent of wells In the cnntalT'tlnaterl
grol1nrl water to prt')vn1e arlrlltlonal dr1nl
-------
-< s-
l1rf11tS for the cnncentrat10n of c~rta'" cnnt~rT'I1ndnts 1n p'J~"C wnter SIJPP"~~.
Tl,ey fire requHert to n~ at l~vels i\S cloSp. t0 '1r.L~s d~ f~as1'1le ti\lung 1nto
account use ~f tl,e nest dva1lahle treatrflent techn~loglP.S anrl costs to punl1C
water systAITIs anti analyt.1cal l1rfl1tS of rietect1~n.
The ~r.Ls (Inn ~~u~s apply at the ,tar> to "pub"c water systerfls," whlCI-t
arp. water systems hav1ng at least 15 serV1ce connections or reguhtly serv1ng
at least <5 1n~1v1rluals.
They woulrl thus he app"cahle to water suppl1erl to users
of the M1nneapolls PuhllC 4ater ~upply.
~owever, they woulr1 not ~e appl1cahle
to the grounrl water 1n the aqu1f~rs unrler the F~r. slte unless the aqulfers were
~elng acc~ssed rl1rectly for punllC rlrlnlung water.
At this tlme there are no
wells rlown-gradlent of the slte SupplYlng publ1C rlr1n~ing water. The ~1nneapolls
water supply lnt~~e reCp.lvec; so~e portlon of the grounrl water hut thlC; ;S
rtllute1 wlth rlVer water, anrl the water 1S treaten before del1very to the
use r.
The <\nw~ stanrlarris woulrl apply after such rillut;on anrl tredt:T1ent at
the ta~.
The ~r)\.IA stanrlarrls are "relevant" cleanup stanrlarrls for the retT1erl1 aterl
grounrlwater, however, hecause the grounrl water may In the future he accesserl
through wells for a c1rl nl(1 ng water supply anrl necause 1 t rT'Iay !'Ie rlrawn 1 nto
the ~lnneap~lls punllC water supply inta~e In thp. M1SS;SSlPPl Qlver rlownstream
of the slte.
r"e Mr,L~s for Tr:F. and certain other volatile organlC compoIJnrls
("vnr.s") found' in the grounrl water under the P~r. anrl RNR lanc1s are zero.
The MCLs promulgated for rr.F. anrl other vnr.s founn at thlS slte are set at
slightly h1gher levels whlCh, wlth respect to each contam1nant, have neen
d~termlner1 to he fully protectlVe of puhl1c health.
II . ~. F. P A has rl e term 1 n erl
that Mr.Ls are releva~t and approprlate stanrtarrls for grounrl water that rT'Iay '1e
useri for rlrlnklng water unless, unrter the Clrcumstances at the slte, more
~- ..., .......'~~- .1"~.- ----~----..,.....-. .... ~.~,,,=,,,.-~~.;""-...,~.-._~~.~...- .':"""'-~~.~ '-"""""":;,,'''1."'':'':..\'..).''''J ~~..- '-':".~.-'':'~'~'-:''-';,'I.:-''''~-;..~'--
-------
-?Ii-
strl nqent stanrlarrls must ~e appl1 erl to enSIJre protectlon of plJbllC h~~lth or
the ~nV1 ronl"1~nt.
(C\ee ,July 0, 10R7 "Intp.r1m r,ulrlanCp. on r.olTlp1lance wltl1
Appllcah1e or qe1~van~ anrl Approprlate Qequ1relTlents" anrl ~ay ?1, 1987 letter
fron Lep. M. Thomas tl) the Honoral11e ,}al"1es ,J. ~lor1t').)
r,round water prot~ctlon standarrls h~ve neen esta"'llsh~rl unrler qr.OA, at
40 r.FQ Sectlnn ~~4.q4.
Qr.PA r~gulat1ons apply to fac11ltles treatlng, stor1ng
anrl r11SPI)Sl n9 of ~~7.arrlolJs waste as of tl/ovelTlher 10, 1080.
~lJcl1 fac111tles were
requl rerl to ~pp1y for an operat1ng pP.M11t hy that rlatp..
~uCh facl1ltl~s are
further reqlJHerl under ~ect10n 1004(u) of Rr.QA anrl 40 r.FR ~~4.1nl to lnst1tllte
"Cf)rrectlVe actlon" as set forth 1n the per"TI1t, tl) remerly releases of hazarc10us
waste anrl const1tuents from any "S011rl w~ste ,..,anagelTlent un1t" at the fac1ltty.
The qrounrl '"ater protp.et1t')n strtnrlarrfs at dn CFQ ~1;4.q4 are to he estahl1sherl
1n per~lts anrl apply to any S011rl waste ITIanaqelTlent un1ts Wh1Ch reeelverf waste
aft P. r July ? ~, 1 ° 8~ .
The qrounrl water stanrlrtrrls servp. hotl,. as a trlgqer for
requH1n9 corrp.C~lve act10n to relTler:ly a re1pase from sue" a so11rl waste ITIanagelTlent
unlt, anrl ~s clean-up stanrlarrls for thp. eorreet1ve act10n.
J.!owever, hecal1se rlO
\~aste was p1aeerl 1n t'1;s area after ,1u1y ~~, lq8~, the grounrl water protect10n
standarrls of 4n r.FQ ?~4.q4 are not "appl1cahle" under Rr.QA to this S011rl waste
manag~I"1e"t un1 t.
rt1ey may, neverthel ess, be "rel evant anti appropr1 ate" tiS
clean-up stanrlards for this grounrt water remed1a1 act1on.
There are three types of stanriards estab11sheri unrler 40 r.FQ ~?,1;4.q4:
Rackgrounrl levels, Listed ~ax1mum r.oncentrat10n L1m1ts anri Alternate r.oncentrat1on
Um1ts (Ar.Ls).
The regu1at10ns spee1fy that the standard for concentrat1ons
of hazardous cnnst.1tuents 1n ground water 1n a fac111ty perm1t must not exceerl the
hackgrounrl level or a 11sted max1mum' concentr<'lt10n 11m1t or an Ar~L estanlisherl
hy the Peg1nnal Arlm1n1strator.
-------
-'7 -
1.
L 1St erl ~ i! X 1 Iftum r. 0 n t af'll ntI n..!. 1:. eve 1 c; .
----
To rlat~. ~axl~u~ r.onc~ntra~lon
Llmlts unrler Rr.P~ hav~ h~en estahllshet1 for fourteen ch~lcals.
Thes~ llrT'lltS are
haserl on anrl are lrl~ntlcal to the ~afe ~rl~~lnq Water ~ct Mr.Ls for these chelftlcals.
~one of t~ec;e llsterl Ch~lCi!ls-are contalftlnants 1n the grounrl water at the
F~r. Slte.
~.
Rac~rou"rl Levels.
The hackgrounrl levp.l 1~ that level of a chemlcal
1'1 the grounrl wat~r 1'1 an area not llftpacterl hy contalftlnatl0n fro'" a speclf1c
sourc~.
3.
Ar.Ls.
11.<;. ,::DA may estahl1sh ~r.ls In l1eu of hac~gr"unrl levels or
l1Ste<1 ITIa'(lmlJ", concentratlon l1mlts If the Ar.l"Wl11 not pose a suhstant1al
prese"t or potentlal hazarrl tohulftd" healt~ or the env;ronl'1e".t as 10"9 as
the r~r.ll 1S not exce~rlerl.1I 40 r.FQ lS7.fi4.Q4(h).
The clean-up levels wh1Ch have heen selecterl ~t th1S slte are llsterl 1"
Tahl~ t on t~e follow1ng page.
Where C;n~A ~~ls have heen e5ta~11sherl for a
contam1"ant 1'1 the grounrl water, the ~r.L has heen selecterl as t~e relevant
and approprlate clean-up stanrlarrl.
~r.Ls are conslrlererl appropr1ate for
protect1on of puh"c health.
These levels wou1rl also he approprlate a~ ~~L
11~ltS unrler ~r.~A.
(<;1nce th~se clean up levels rlo not assulfte ~ pOlnt of
expoSIJre beyond the sHe hou'1rlary, the prohl~1tlon 1'1 <;ectl/)'1 l~1(rl)(~)(R)(l1)
of r.F.Rr.lA whlCh restrlcts the use of Ar.Ls In certain CHcumsta'1ces wOIJ1rl not
ap ply. )
Where no ~r.l u'1rler the c;nw~ has ~ee'1 estahllsherl, the clean-up level has
heen estahllsherl uS1ng the ~lnnesota nepartrT'lent of Health's Qecomlftenrlerl
nrinklng Water llmlts (Q~Ls).
Although these recommenrlerl contamlnant
1 evels are not prolftu1 gaterl state stanrlarrls, anrl therefore are not AqMs, sllch
-------
-~q-
non-prof"lu19aterl F'erlerfil or "t~te arlvlsory l~v~ls "'lay he conSlrler~rlln rleterr"llnlr'1g
an approprl ate protect we remerly.
L,k~ the Mr.Ls t,ese levels are ,n the
111-4_111-7 cancer r,sk range wh,ch II.~. ~p~ has deterf"llnerl to he ficceptahle for
care, nogens.
Therefore, these levels are appropr,ate to c~nS11er as Ar,Ls
under RrRA.
TAqL~ t
----_._- -~-_.-
r. 11 N r. F' N T Q A T I 11 N c; i r. Q I T ~ p I ~
4azar1ous ~ax,""u",,* '1ax, ~u""** !
~lJlistance I1n-~'te 13Tntake ~r.Ls PALs
---- --
l,l-~'chloroethane 1, ?r')11
l,~_n,chloroethane q/i Ii
1,I,I-Tr,chloroethane 11,311n 1.4 :?"n
l,l,?-Trlchloroethane ?Cj 5.1
l,l-n,chloroethylene 1?7 n.3 7
l,?-n,chloroethyler'1e ?4An l1.n 7
Tr,chloroet'ylene 47,Onn 3. 1 ,
Tetrachloroethylene 1,0111 10
Renzene Iii ,.
To 1 uene 5.1 '?,ono
X y 1 e ne ?.5 1il()
*
nn-),te is rlef'n~ as the F~r. and RNR lanrls.
**
13Intake ;s rlef,nerl as t~e r.,ty of ~'nneapol,s dr,nk,ng water ,ntake on
the M'SS'SS'PPI Qlver.
-------
.. --. -".'.-'-"".'. ..-..
-~Q-
nne possl~le Sltuatlon wher~ more strlngent stanrlarrls than MCLs ~lght
be approprl~te for ground water used as rlrln~lng water, lS where ~ult1ple
contam1nants In the grounrl water present extraordlnary rlsks. See July q, lQR7,
Interl~ r,u1danc~ on rompl1ance w1th AQARs.
Although a numher of che~lcal
contaml nant s have been rletect erl 1 n the grolJnrl water under the p~C and RNQ
lanrls, T~~ constitutes QR percent of the contamlnant mass 1n the aqu1fers.
IJnjer these ClrCUrTIstances, 1t lS expected that lf the Tr.F: concentratH)n lS
reduced to the '1r.L of Ii ppn, the concentratlons of th~ other cherTIlcals wlll he
reducerl to non-rletectlhle or near non-rletectlhle levels.
ThuS 'I.S. F:D~ bell evee;
that upon COrTIpletlon of the remedlal ~ction there wlll he no addltlve r's~ fro~
the other cnntarTIlnants.
However, ~s stated ahove, If upon reachlng the ~r.L for
TCF:, addltlon~l concentratl0ns of other conta~1nants remaln In the ground
water, and that wate~ has the potentlal to he used as rlrlnklng water, ~n adrlltlve
rl s~ asse5s'nent wl11 he conduct~rl to determl ne whether more strl ngent standarrls
rTlust .,~ "'et tl1 he protect lve of pun" c health.
The Ferleral r:lean Water Act, 33 II. S.C. 1S1251, et ~., as amenrled,
requ,,-es ". S. EPA to estahll sh water quall ty crlter1a for hodl es of water,
lnclurllng grounrl water, hased on effects of pollutants on human health and
aq ua t 1 C "f e.
33 II.<;.C. &1314.
Section l~l of C~RCLA states that remedlal
actlons shall attain these water quallty crlteria where they are relevant and
approprl ate under the ci rcumstanc~s of the release, hase'" on the IJs~ge or
potentla1 usage of t~e water recelvlng the release.
~ederal w~ter quallty
criterla have neen estahlisherl for T~~ and certaln of the other contamlnants
found in the ground water under the F~r. and RNR lanrls; however, they are lese;
str.ingent than the S1..JnA ~r.Ls for these contamlnants.
Ti"terefore, the selected
clean-up levels achleve Federal Water nuallty r.rlterl~ standards.
-------
-30-
The contam1naterl grounrl water extr~cterl ~y pu~p1ng w111 h~ rl1scharged to
the san1tary sewer for treatment at the P1gS !=.:ye Wastewat~r Treatment F'ac111ty,
a pub11C1y owned treatment works (POT'.J).
~ect10n 307(b) of the r.1ean Water
. Act. 31 I J . S. r. .
&1117(h), anrl regu1~t10ns pr~u1gat~rl thereunrler (40 r.F'Q 403)
requ1 re POT\oJs to develop and enforce pre-treatme"t stanrlarrls (spec1 f1 c eff1 uent
lpntat10ns regu1at1ng the amounts of pollutants that n,ay "e rhscharged to the
POT'~) <;0 as to preve"t 1 nterference W1 th operat 1 on of the P()T',/ anrl pass
through of the pollutants through the system.
Thpse requ1rements ~re ~pp11c~h1e
to thlS ren'led1al actlon hecause lt lS d source of 1nd1rect rllscharge to ~
PO TI.oJ .
The ~Wr.r. ~as est~hl1sherl a dlscharge 11m1t for TC~ of S,OOO pp~ (10,000
ppb for the flrst two months), anrl a 11m1t of 15,000 pph (20,000 pph for the
f1rst two months) for tot~l VOr.s, to he met at the p01nt of rllscharge to the
eX1st1ng sewer pr10r to mixing w1th the ~IROP fac111tywastewater.
In orrler to d1scharge frCJT1 a Superfunrl s1te to a POTW, these requ1"ements
must he met, anrl. c~rtal" f~ctors n'lust he conS1dererl Wh1Ch are ldentlflerl In a
pOlley "'emoranrlum rlateri April lS, lQ86, "r)1scharge of Wastewater frOfT1 Cf:RCLA
~ltes lnto POTWs" from Henry L. Longest, nirector, Off1ce of Emergency anrl
qemp.rl1~1 Response, Rehecca Hanner, nirector, Off1ce of Water F.nforcement anrl
Perm1ts, anrl ~ene Lucero, n,rector, Off1ce 0' Waste Programs Enforcement, to
Waste ~anagp.ment ~iv's'on n,rectors, Regions t-X.
helow.
Jhese factors dre d'scuss~rl
1 .
Potential 0' pollutants to cause pass through or 1nterference,
1ncluding a health h~zarrl to employees at the POTw.
The polllJtants 1n the
d1scharge to th1S POTW are VOr.s, wh1Ch volat11ize anrl m1grate from the sewer
to the.alr as the water travels to the POTW--a rl1stance of 13 m11es.
They wl11
further volat11ize during treatment at the POTW.
VOCs w1l1 not "pass through"
or rema1" 1n the water after treatment at the POTW.
H1gh levels of V()r. 1n a
-------
--".'-"...- .'.-' - ,
-11-
.
rl1scharge coulrl result 1n suff1c1e~t volat1l1zat1on to present a he~lth thre~t to
PO TW wo r k e rs .
That lS not t1e ca~e ~ere.
The total average flow to t11S pn~ 15
around ~20 ~11 110n gallons per rlay (~~n).
The flow from the grounrl water pu~p-out
wi 11 he arolJnrl .144 to .?lli r1~n.
~ven assu~lng t~at no vnr.s volatlllzerl on route
from the rllscharge p01nt to the pnrw, ~llutlnn at the POTW w111 result 1n a vnr.
c~nc~ntrat1on 1n the ~ater (after the f,rst two ~onths) of less than 5 ppb.
~t
these concentrat1on levels vo1at111zerl v~Cs woulrl be far he10w the n~HA Perm1ss1ble
~xposure Llmlt for TC~ In the workplace of 100 parts per mi1110n per ~9 r.FQ
1 (HO.IOOn.
Tr.r: nnes not pose an explosH)n hazarrl ~t thlS slte ~ecallse 1t 1S
1 nf 1 a mma h 1 e .
2.
The abillty of the POTW to ensure compllance wlth appllcahle treat~ent
stanrlards and reqUlrements.
The ~W~C and F~C entere1 ,nto an agreement on
May ~9, 19~7 (amenc1e~ on ,Jul y 1''), 1 Q871, that se~s forth the pretreatment
stanrlarrls, monltor1 ng and other conc1,t,ons for the d,scharge of grounrl water
ext r act e<1 f r ()'1 the 5 1 t e tot h e P 0 ~ .
Th1S agreement was approvec1 hy resolut1on
at a r.om~1SS1on meetlng on ~ay 19, 19A7 ,n accorrlance with state law.
1.
The POTW's recorrl of compllance with the NPnES permit anrl pretreatment
program requlrements.
The MPr.~ has adviserl 11.<;. EPA that the POTW's compllance
recorrl 1 S gnarl.
4.
The potential for volatil,zat,nn of the wastewater anrl ltS lmpact
upon a,r quality.
II.~. EPA has calculaterl that the F~r. slte rllschargp. to the
sanitary sewer wi' 1 result 1n emlSSlons to the air of Tr.~ nnt exceerllng one
to two tons per ye~r.
Thesp. emiSS10ns w111 (')CCIJr through volat,l,zat,on as
the water passes through the sanltary sewer anrl the treat~ent works.
The F~r.
and ~NQ lanrls are locatel'i in an "attalnment area" for OZMP., as deflned under
the Ferleral Clean ~H Act, i.e., the Mea f"Ieets the Natlonal A11h;ent AH
Ouallty 'tan~ar1 for ozone.
In are~s wlth alr qual1ty better than the Nat10nal
Amh1ent Alr ~uallty <;tandar1s, )ectlon lfiO-lfi9 of the Clean Alr Act, 4? U.<;.C.
-------
-1?-
&&7470-747Q, requlres states or IJ.~. ~p~ to regulatp. the construct10n anrl
operatlon of new lnrlustrldl "'11ajor sOtJrcP's" of alr pollutlon (generally sources
with the potentlal to emlt ?Sn tons per year or more), to prevent slgnlf1cant
rleterioration (Osn) of alr"qual1ty In such areas.
The psn reqlJi ref'l'lent S a re not
dlrectly appllcal')le to the emlSSlons from the pnTW hecause lt lS not a new
1nrlustr1al ~ource emltt1ng or wlth the potential to emlt ~nre than ?Sn tons p~r
year of volatlle organ1c COf'I'Ipounrls.
Such requlrements coulrl bp. "relp.vant and
approprl ate" however, 1 f e'T115Sll"1S from tl,P. sanitary sewer werp. grpat enough to
to lMpact a1r quallty in the area.
The emlSSlons froM the F~r, grounrl water
PUMp-out are, however, sul')stantlally helow the t"'reshold for regulation of new
st.at10nary sources ln attalnment areas unrler the Clean Alr Act anrl are helow
l~vels that wOIJlr1 1mpact au qual1ty in the area.
s.
The potentlal for ground water"contamlnatlon from transport of CERCL~
wastewater to the POTW, anrl the need for grounrl water Monitoring.
The levels
of vncs 1n the sanltary sewer are not expected to cause any slgnlficant
contaminatlon of grounrl water on route to the pnTW because of volatll1Zat10n
anrl the probahlllty of lnfiltration lnstean of exfiltratlon to thp. sewer.
n.
The potential effect of the C~Rr,LA wastewaters upon the POTW's rl1scharge
lnto recelvlng waters.
nue to volatil1zatlon of the VOr.s in the sewer or the
PO~4, there will be no impact on the POTW's reCp.lvlng waters.
VI I I .
Enforcement ~ta~us
The RIfFS for the F~r. ann RNR lands was pp.rformerl hy ~'4r. Corporation pursuant
to a consent order that was entered into hetween II.S. ~PA, MPCA and F~r, 1n June
H83.
ThlS tract of lanrl was IIserl hy P-4C for burning and nlsposal of hazarrlous
waste hetween lQn4 and lQ6q.
Just North of the FMr, and RNR lands 1S locaterl thp.
11.5. Naval Tndustrldl Reserve nrrlnance Plant (NIROP).
F~C owns part of the land
-------
-31-
on I,.;"ch the ~I~OP 1S 10caterl anrl the 11.<;. Navy owns the other part.
FI.1C
op~rates the NtROP.
The NI~np has neen !T1anuf~ctlJrlng ~avy .we~pons systelTls
S 1 nce 1 Q41 .
Hazarrlous wastes generaterl hy the NI~np were dlsposerl In are~s
1n t~"s port1on nf the s1te resu1tlng 1n hot!' s011 anrl grounrl water contamlnat10n.
The IJ.~.
Navy 1S currently conrluct1ng an ~I/FC; for the NtRnp port10n of the S1te.
Future remerl1a1 act10n, constitut1ng a separate operah1e un1t, w111 arlrlress
hoth the 5011 anrl grounrl water contam1nat10n at this port1on of the S1te.
Follow1ng cOlTlplet10n of P-1C's Qt/F~ for the FMr. anrl RNQ lanrls 1n May
lqA~. the MPCA anrl FI.1r. negotHterl a <;tate r.onsent '1rrler unrler wh1ch F'1~
agreed tn unrlertake relTled1 at1,," of th~ grounrl water contan"natinn pursuant to
a ~esponse ~ct10n Plan approved ~y the MPCA.
AS rllscusserl ahove, the ~PCA
approve1 a responsp. actlon a1t~rnatlve cons;stlng of hyrlrau11c conta,nment of
the contam1naterl grounrl water and discharge of the extracted grounrl water
1nto the ~1nneapol1s wast~water treatment system.
The MOCA approve~ ~ grounrl
water clean-up stanrlarrl of ~70 parts per h1l110n (ppb) for TCF to he lTIet at
the S1te houndary.
IJnrler the r.onsent Orrler, the grounrl water PUIT'tP-l)ut IT'tust
cont1nue unt11 the TeF concentrat10n In the ground. water extracted from these
wells reaches anrl malnta1ns th1S concentratl0n.
The MPCA rleterminerl that th1S ~70 pph stanrlarrl would he protect1ve of
the public healt~ at the ~i5S1SS1ppi Q,ver anrl at the actual receptor (t!,e
Minneapolis drinking water intake), hecause the relTlainln9 on-Slte contalTl1natlon
would rlegrane hy natural PhY51C~l ~nd h;olog1cal mechanisms anrl rtlsperse anrl
attenuate as lt "1;grate
-------
-14-
of vncs wou1rl occur upon rllschargl? to tl1e ~lVl?r, rp.SlJ1t1ng 1n a further ret1llct10n
1n contamlnant concl?ntratlon at tl1p. nrlnklng ~ater lntake hy at least two
orders of magn1tude.
The projecterl concentratlon of ~R ppb In the County 1anrls
corresponrls to a cancl?r rlsk 1evI?1 of 1n-5; and the proj~ctl?rl concentr~tlon of
~.~ pph at- the drl nkl ng water 1 ntakl? corresponrls to a cancp.r r1 sk 1 eVl?l of
10-1;.
".~. ~PA also has rlete~lnerl that thp. grounrl water pump-out a1ternatlve 1S
the f.!pproprldte remerly for the j:'~r. and RNq lanrls (C:;ep. rllsCIJSS10n In C:;p.ctlon lIT
a~ov~) .
However, 11.). F:PA has rlef:p.rmlnerl th~t ~ clean-up stanrlarrl eqlJlvalent
to the ~erleral
-------
-11)-
(~ )
Monltorlng of the Mlschargp. Qf the collecterl grnunM water tn the
sanltary sewer ~ystem In accorrlance wlth ~WCr. requlrernent~.
(1 )
Monltorlng of ground water and surface w~t~r anrl assoclaterl receptor~
to determlne t~e effectlveness of the response actlons.
These ~ctlons wl11 he l"1ple",entert In accorrlance wlth all appl1cabl~
envlrol1fTlental laws and regulatlons.
x.
r.o~unlty qel~tlons
In lQS1, the ~or.A st~ff helM several puhlic "1eetlngs regarMlng th~ Consent
I')rder hetween the ~Pr.A, II.~. r::oA and F'1r. w"'I1ch was eventually execIJt~rt on
.June 8, lqR3 for t"e F~1r. ~lte.
~lnce lQR3, the MPr.~ staff has routlnely kept
local puh11C ()ff1CHls IJp tl) rlate regarrl1ng the status of t"e F~~r; Slte RIfFS.
The '1PCA staff ~p.lrl meet1ngs w1th local government offic1als on ~p.ce~ber q, loqS
and on nctoher B, lQRn, ~nrl discusserl the RIfFS flndlngs, presenterl the prop0se1
response actlons, anti provH1erl an opportunlty to ~sk qIJestlons anrl ~al(p' cO~l!'Ient~
reg~rr11ng tl,esp. act10ns.
In arlr11tlon, In Octoher.. lQ8fi. the proposerl State Consent
Order and Q~P negotlater1 between the ~PCA and F~C was presented to the publlC for
rev 1 ew a nrl c r,TIl'1e n t .
TI'te puhlic ann local govern~ent support the proposerl re~erly.
In ad/'htl0n to these COfT11'1unlty relatlons efforts, permlts requHed "'>y the Q~P wlll
he lssuer! in accorrtance wit" estahl1shert puhlic notice requlr~ents.
T"e II.S. r::PA
prepared a Re~al Alternat,ve qecom~ndatlon WhlCh was sUhjected to public
c~ment in ~ept~er, lQS7.
A ResponSlVeness <\u"",ary has been preparerl that
artdresses com~nts receiven.
(~ep. ~ttachm@nt ? to Qecord of neci~lon).
XI.
nperable "nit .Justlflcation
TI'tis ground water operahle un,t for the F~C ann ~NR lanns 1S justlflerl
~ecause the requlrements of the Natlonal r.ont1ngency Plan have heen met rSee
-------
-Vi-
40 r.~R 3nn.~ dnrl 40 r.~~ 300.n~(c)1.
T~1S 0perd~le unl~ 15 d d1screte p~rt of
t~e ent1re response act10n 1n t~dt 1t propnsps rerluct10ns 1n t~e concentr~t1ons
of conta~1nants 1n the separ~tp. 11s~osal ~re~s snuth of the NIROP.
n" s r~rllJct 10"
w11 1 rerluc~ releases fr~ t~e F~C anrl ~~R lanrls 1nto t~e grnunrl water, 1nto t~e
~1SS1SS1pp1 Q1ver, an1 1ntn the C1ty of M1nneapol1s rlr1nk1ng water 1ntake.
Th1S opera~lp. un1t has heen shown tn ~e cost-effect1ve through t~e ~ltern~t1ves
analYS1S 1n t~e RIfFS.
It 1 S cons 1 stent 1111 t~ a permanent remerly ,ecilu S~ t~l S
nperahle un1t deals str1ctly w1th t~e p~ys1cally separate F~r. anrl RNR landS, lS
expecte<1 to be t~e peMdne"t remerly for t~dt ~rea, ~r,,1 hec~lJse t~e surface s011
re~ovdl has alrearly occurrerl 10wn to the grounrl water tahle.
-------
~
.~..
~=::=-. ~ ~~ ~
.~. ~ ~...
~.'''~' d:;... ..' ..~.. ...~...~.. ==-..
e---- ..--=..,
#...
~
~.
...=---..
.=---
~..
.,'4t~
,,'IS'S"'"
~
~c
-.1
.1,-
==.
-
.
".
."'r.....,..
~! I . ...,,;~
.. ~
oJ ....1
I .......
=, LO'
..
.
u
..
.
F'MC LANDS
A TT Ar.JIt1f N r I
CRA
SITE PLAN
F Me Norlh.rn Ordnanc~ Plonl
III., "'01'1.
-------
o , I .
~
KEY .PLAN
N.T. s.
-
--
ATTACH.M.E~;7 r r
FMC Site
LocatioT'. Ma~
"
-'
..
-------
t
A TT ACHMENT I I I
~.
'.
..
'~
~"
<)
<)
,.
ridley
___-FMC Northern Ordnance Plant
Saint Paul
. Minneapolis
.'
5
o
5
FIGURE'
FMC Sl~e
LOCATION MAP
-------
, .-.~ -. r ~....._- " ','
" .
"'r .,:..
-- .'
Cround
A-t,
W - acrtment, rv
eSt.er
C'ont.c!~ln .
c! 1.. lOr:
,..., .
J !
N
. .2
n
i
"0"".
0, CI" ' "
."c.
It.." I
I"
LEGENO
o '''.11..
N
.11 -
.' "''I...
0.. ..11
. ."".'
., .
. . . .11
..'.c' (It
eft'.") '."1.
.... CI..
g W."
....".'." 10
.11 .. .". bOI'"
"'It"... '..0
t7 W.II
",,"'It.,
. .,
ICA",!
y
o
~.IT
~
aoo
a..,...."
FMC
.'
a
1
. '6
E
~2
...rll".'."
".r,...,,,
.lIr.. .
-------
.
-
Attachment
v
,
..,....~ con. ....... or .......... ICY,. aLft~.a
t
..
... CD81011A9..
.....atOL'.. ",,,,eora
1...... ~It.a
~~::.::::-.: :~~::~.. .n. T. --.u.. Ot8t
h- ... I~. .IUt ........ I.
-...-... co - "'" ..... t ..."'.-
,. .t ...,.1..' _..1..... ., - .
...... ..I'" _1I-...t8ftU. I
c....,.I--' _II .... - c.. , '."1.'"
,
\
«:8.1181 OH~
qpe...U-. _a..~--. ... ..."...a... ....
_'.1 ........,
... III 088'
......, CD8~
""ua ......,.,
a.'.....".. Cb8'
"'.".
'''..'.
,...... I...
.. ,....
....,...
".1'.. ~.
'..".
W.II.
II.., , ,....
tli. tn I...
II .....
...a...
'.U'. ,n
1..11.
.....,..1.., " ,....
~I ...,.'na _taa-- ., ..
1-.. ..,... ..11-"''-''.
e....'.I--~ ..II ~ ct., c..
'. "'.'"
'..".
"..,.
r...., , .....
"..'.
.....,..a... ., ,....
"I,." ler
,. ,...
...,...
'. "'. ".
,.
.,....I'e -~.,....... .1 ... I.'"
UI, ,.
".."
u. ...
'U.'" ler
I ,...
....,...
..'.en
]
..
...,.I..a _..a...... .r ... ,......
..~ ..... 0..-..1.. .."
',a.' .'"
'.,.0.
II. ,..
,,,., , ,....
tI' .". I...
J. ,...
...,..
,..~.. ,It
U, ...
.......,... " ,....
,.
.,....11. ...~.,..... ., ... I.""
"'. n,
",.0.
" , ,..
"',Je' ,-
II ,...
... ,..
.'.eo_' ..,..
'." I.."
"""'1
~, ....th ..1.. '0. .....1 0"..'1_, ..I..,......e. 4... aon"~f'n. en.'. c.,c.,.,~ ., . ... ...e....
This Table was included
staff do not aqree with
tit i s ','...hle does present
as Table 4 in th~ proposrd FS prepared by FMC. The MrCA
t.he specific costs attrihuted to thealtf»rnativrs. lIow-:ver,
an acceptable comparison of relative costs for these allern.ltiv(!s.
. ..
-------
~
~ fII ... ...
. ..
.
.
.
....
ItW4 .
rMC l aMOS
---
\
\
.
y .-.-~ . y . . . y
-- .. ::::a=:a=I.=.a-=a =
LEGEND
'-'.
. CO"'INrO .OUlrrA r.'A"(fI~ wru S
e SURf 101" IOUlr [A (U II "0 IHN WI liS
. ,WI5I1Nfi r.nouPlowAfi n MOtIlIOfll"r, wn I ~
, A n ACItN[~1T V J J
EXTRACTION WELL LOCATIONS
F Me Northern Ordnance PIon!
eRA
-------
j-
M/~~/S~/~" IIIV~II
~
~
""-
-'
~-
.' -"
~
-~
~
.-:;:;
cou,,'" lAND.
...NHIAroLl' .A'IA_.'
LJi
. "'. " I
LEGEND
o
.
suRfiCIAL AOUIHR .Ill
COHf.HfO AQUlffR .fLl
.
,ROPOIfO 'IUOllfUR lOtAflON
e
SURfICIAL AOUlfUI t.fRACllON .ILl
r-
8
COHlINtO AQu.HR tllRACfION "Ill .
,we lAND.
eRA
Attachment V J J J
fiyurI' 1-'
HYDRAULIC CONTAINMI 1,1'
MONITORING LOCJ\lI( II,I~.
F Me Northern Ordnance /'d/f/:
')111- 10 . 14J:O~
-------
"- -"j
I
i
j
,
.,
'; - -
J
MISSISSI'" III"'CII
~
-'
I
.. ..'
~
~
CGUN" LANOI
..IN"CAPOLII .A'C._-'
Ui
/"" .
/"" -
~-
-,.-/-
~ , .~
~ . ,.-/.~ !
i-~~v/'. ! I
r /,Y' I !
~ /' I ,
I". L."DJ , 'OOC LA"DI
.~..~ //' I "
~ ,~ .
~~._-,._------._.-_l_- J
~j ------ .-----
.;j
Ij
.'
'N'~
~....~
:~
"'
':-1-
:..1
';~ t; A A
~ .~
. L-
)1~11I.,lO -'4/04/0'
~
. NEW MONITORING WELL
. EXISTING MONITORING WElL
r~
J
",,,,,,,0,.,.
'1'1"'1' '" ,
"I "..t
'I
I
AUilct(l1ent I X
Igure 1(;
LONG-TERM MONITORING WELL LOCATI()H~;
F Me Northern Ordnance I '/,I/If
--- ---
-------
qesponsiveness ~u~~ary for the F~C <\ite, F~l. anrl Rurlington North~rn
Railroarl (RNQ) Lantis ~rounrl Water Operahle Iinit, in ~ridlp.y ~innesota
1. IntrodlJction
The tJ.S. F:nvirl)n~ental 0rotection Agency (!J.S. F.PA) o~taine<1 informatil')n
on the types and p.xtent of conta~ination, evaluaterl re~erlial lTIeaslJres,
anrlrecrJT1lT1enrlert refTledial actil')ns for grounrl water conta~ination frl')~ the
F~r. and RlJrlington Northern Qailroarl (RNQ) lanrts pnrti'on of the F~r. <;it.e.
As part of tl1is prncess, II.S. FPA suh~ittP.d its rec()lTlmenrlerl alternaf:ivp. tl')
public comlTlent for a twenty-one (~l) rlay pp.riod. Puhlic participation in
~IJperfunrl projects is rel1uirerl unrler the r.ompr~l1ensive I='nvironmental
q~sponse, Cf)l"1pensation anrl I.iahility Act of lQ~O (r'::Qr.LA), as alTlenrlP.d ~y th~
<\u~rflJnrl A.lTlenrll'~nts anrl Qeautl10rizatinn A.ct nf lqali (<\AR'A), anrl the Natir)nal
Oil anrl ~~zarrlous Suhstances l.ontinqency °lan (Nr.P). r.OI'1~ents rp.ceived ~y
the plJhlic arp consi'iererl in the selection of tile ren1erlial action for the
site. This dOCU'"1ent SIJ~ITIari~es the com"'ents received anrl states 11.<:;. FPA's
res pons es.
The responsiveness sU..,lT1ary has three sectiMs:
a.
Ove rvi p.w.
so lut ion.
Tl1is section hriefly prese"ts 11.<:;. F.PA's recOlTl"1enrlerl
b.
~ackgrounrl on ro~~unity Involve~ent. This section hriefly pre-
sents a l1istory of community relations.
c.
SljlTllMry of Public rOfT\lTIents Received t)lJring the Puhlic r:om~ent
0eriorl' anrl 11.<\. FPA's Qesponsec;.
? .
overview
nuri ng the punli c CCJI1ment periorl, 11.$. F.PA presented nine response
action alternatives in the documents which for~ed the feasi~ility
sturly. 11.$. F.PA reconmenrled a solution in the P-1C Site Summary of
P.emerlial Alternative ~ecommenrlation that ;ncluderl a grounrl water
extraction well systelT1 to kep.p cnnta~inants from continuing to
migrate off-site anrl to reduce the conta'~inant ITIass availahle to
lTIigrate off-site: an untreaterl rlischarge of extract~ water to the
sanitary sewer systelT1 anrl puhlicly owned treatlTlent works to dispose
of extract~ water away from the ~inneapolis rlrinking water intake;
use of existi"g institutional controls anrl recognition of lanrl-lJse
as aSSIJrance that grounrl water wi 11 not he userl in the land hetween
the F~r. and RNQ lanrls anrl the ~ississippi ~iver until the plume in
that area has naturally rlissipaterl; anrl a grounrl water ~onitoring
systelTl t.o ITIOnitor the extractinn systelTl, ground water conta~;nation,
anrt receptors.
The F~C r.orporation was the only com~entor.
F~r.'onject~d to t~e
" ,''''''''~'~,~r'',' ~.~ -;- .'''''~ i"'":":fr;...... ~.~- ...":~:.~ "'-:~""'-'~:"'""'''''''~~-:~~~~~~'~~~':!.-.'':""~;: .;"?:',,;-=--~,.....~,;, --::....:.~_..-(_\~ '"T, ?~-:;-:r,rr,~~,:"~\';~~'f~lTO'.:7=-::~:'~:J:~.'$".~~. :'~"'~~.:~~r.'~.-' .~ -~7"-:-'l1"".-: .-'-;~ -.....::-~~.'..-p-;-
-------
-2-
II.S. ~P~ proposerl remerly to the extent it rliffers from the Consent
Orrler between the State tlnrl p"r:, ot,jecterl to not f1eing sent a copy of
the ~Mr. Site Summary of ~emerlia1 A1tern~tive Qecommenrlation, anrl
ohjecterl to the time available for their comments.
3.
~ackgr(')unrl C?.n r.olT1lT1~"-ity Invol yement
rommunity involvement at the F~r. Site has neen minimal, particularly
in the last few years. The site rlirl receive consirlerahle merlia at-
tention in lQQ1, beciluse at that time it was r~nkerl ~o. 1 on the
'I.S. I=:PA's National °rioritiec; Ust.
In lQAS the ~PCA he1rl a public comment. periorl on the proposerl "pUr'1p
anrl treat" grnlJnrlwilter remerly for the ~Mr: site. In nctober lQAli,
thp. ~PCA helrl anoth~r public comment periorl on a final agree"'1ent "
between F~r: anrl the State ~ich emoborlierl the same remerly. Accorrfing
to the ~Pr.A's Puh1ic Participation Officer, the resident interest
~uring these periorls was low.
The 11.5. I:PA re1easerl the Feasihility Stuc1y for the ~~C grounrlwater
remedy on August ~/i. lQ87. On August ?7, lq87 a press release was
issuerl to persons on the mailing 1ie;t. anrl on Septemher 3. lqA7 a
fact sheet wac; sent to those parties. The public comment period
enrled Septemher !C;, with only one COl'1mentor. the F~C Corporation.
4.
Summary of Punlic Comments Qeceiverl ~uring The PUhlic r.omment Periorl
anrl 11.5. EPA's Responses
r:~m~nts raised rluring the public comment periorl for the feilsil1ility
stlJrly for the ~Mr Site. F~r. anrl ~N~ lanrls grounrl water operah1e IJnit,
are summarizerl. Comments marle hy ~~C Corporation are groupec1 into
three categories: 1) general comments on the proposed rer'1erl.v.
?) comments on timing anrl procerlure, ~nrl 3) specific comments on
the ~MC Site Summa ry of Qemprfi alA 1ternat i vp. Qecommenrlat i on. ~~C
r.orporation'c; Sept~her 15, 19A7 comment. letter, which were the only
comments receiven, is attachen.
1.
r,eneral Comments 0" the Proposed
~emerly
a.
Comment. F'4C ot'ljects to II. S. F.:PA I S proposerl remec1y to the extent" it
differs frCl't the ~emec1ial Action Plan agreerlupon netwep.n the State
anc1 FMr..
II~S. EPA Response. II.S. F.PA's proposerl remedy is generi!lly consistent
with the State's remerly. except ae; to when the grounrl water extraction
systP.m shoulrl cease operation. which is adrlresserl specifically in the
next c/Yf1ment. Since contaminiltion will remain on-site, II.S. FPA will
review the site no less frequently than every 5 years. This is required
by Section 121(c) of SA~A.
b.
COl'1'T1ent.
F~r. rloes not helieve that achievement of Safe nrinking Water
-------
-3-
Act "1axiMIJIT'I r.ontalT'linant Levp.ls (~r.Ls) at thp. facility hOlJIH1ary is
necesSflry or appropri ate. '
11.$. F:PA Response. Although '.S. F:PA will rely t1n the existing instit:u-
tional c6ntrnl~"ljntil the plul"'1p. rlissipfltes, they are not considered suf-
ficient over the long-term to pr~vent use of the ground water hetwee~
the F~r. and RNQ lflnrls anrl the ~ississippi qiver. r.onsequently, over the
long-tef'T!1 the grounrl water coulrl ~e USp.rl for rlrinking water anrl t'1e ~r.Ls
are appropri ate.
c.
r.ol'l1lT'1ent. ResolJrc~ r.onservatinr1 anrl Recovery Act (Qr.RA) A1tp.r~flte
r.once-ri'"fration LilTtits (Ar.Ls) at the site hounc1ary, haserl on a re'TInte
receptor, arp. flppropriate 'Inner ~ection 1~1(rl)(2) Un(ii) of <::AQA.
I.I.~. F:PA QpsoonsP.. II.~. FDA rlirl not use Ar.Ls becalJse of concerns regarrli~g
thelack of proof that contalT'lination frOfT1 the ~'1r. ~ite rloes not or will not
in the futllre cause a "statistically significant increase" in contal'l1inants
i~ the "1ississippi Qiver, considering the IT'Ieasllrahle levp.ls of trichloroethy-
lene at the City of Minneaplis dri~ki~g water intake. and hecause of concerns
ahout tlote existing institutinnal controls to "preclurle "'u",an exposure" to the
contalT'linaterl grounrl water over the long-term in the lanrl hetween the F"1r. and
RNR lanrls anrl the ~ississipp; qiver (see comment l.b. ahove).
r.olT'lment. Achievel'l1ent of ~r.Ls at the site hounrlary ;5 likely to he technically
impracticahle anc1 not cost-effective.
rl.
'.~. FPA Response. This concer~ has heen rliscusserl anrl will ~e part of the
~~EPA-reviews that will occur no less frequently than every five years as
requirerl hy Section 121(c) of ~ARA.
2. ,
r.omments on Til'l1ing anrl Procedures
a.
r,f)l'I1IT1ent.
II.). F:PA rlirl not senrl FMr. a copy of the site SUl'I1mary.
---
".). F.PA Response. FMC is on the l'I1ailing list for pul)lic participation
and was sent a press release on August 2~. 1q~7. and a fact s"'eet on
~eptelT'lher 3, IQR7. notifying them punlic CQIT'Il'I1ent was heing sought and
where documents were ava;lahle. In arlrlition. a put)lic notice was placec1
in the ~;nneapol;s ~tar Trihune on starting the puhlic com",ent period of.
twenty-one ('-1) nays and in~icat;ng where rlocul'l1p.nts were availahle. FMr.
was informed that II.~. EPA was recommenrli ng a re",erfy and that CQlT1ments
were heing sought.
b. COrT11"lent. The coml'l1ent periorl was less than ~ weeks.
II. $. EPA Response. The comment periorf was 21 rlays.
c. r.ofl'1l11ent. I J . $. F:PA refused to extenrl t"'e puh,lic COfl1ment peri od for F~C.
-------
-4-
11.<;. FOA Response. Altl10ugh '!.<::. FPA never explicitly infor"'ert I=w: t~at
the public c~ment periorl wou1rl ~0t ~e ext~nrlerl. the Agency does not
helipve suc~ an extension is ~ppropri~te when ~~r.'w~s sent a press
release notifying thP.m nf t.he puhlic cnm~ent perinrl; wh~n the issues h~rl
he en rli scusserl over an e)t'te~rlprj perinrl of ti~~; a~rl when the Majority I')f
the rerr1erly "tarl ~1 ret1rly "'ep.n agreP.<'l tl") hy P4r; anrl th~ ~tate in a consent
orrler.
d.
Comment. F'~r. wishes to he given arleqllat.e notic~ of 11.<;. FOA's revi~w
of the proposprl remerly anrl a full oPl"ort~nity t!) suppl ~~ent thp; r
c""~ntc:;. .
IJ.C;. ~PA Response. C;incp. the resl,lts of the reviews will ~e "serl to'')
either c!)ncur with nr alter activities at the site, especially cessation
of the grounrl water pumpin~. F'~C will ~P. infomerl of reslJlts req,Ji,.ing
alteration of propos@rl activitiec:;. Further, because the 11.<::. C:0A
woulrl likely see~ to have ~~C make those alterations, rliscussions
between F~r. and the 1).<;. J:0A are likely.
e.
r.of'l1lT1ent. II.). F:PA was invited to participate in negotiations ~etween
the <;tate ann F'~C.
11.<;. F.PA Response. It is IJ.). r::PA's position that it was only allowe-i
tl") be peripherally involved in negotiations ~etween the <;tate ~nrl F'~r..
anrl was never a full party to those negotiations. As a res"lt, so",e
rlifference in re",erly is possi~le.
3.
<;pecific r.o~ments on the <;ite )urT1fT1ary of Reme!jial Alternative Qecr')fTlfTlen1atinn.
a.
r.ofTIment.
Page R
The c:;econ(i sentence in the seconrl full puagraph sho,d Ii
state that IIIlsing a worst case set of assumptions. the ~<::
s"nmitted by F'MC as modifi~ hy the ~pr;A director inrli-
cates that the PiC and R~R 1 anns may contri hute to a
threatenert exceerlance at the ~inneapolis nrinking w~tp'r
intake..." The following sp.nt@nce ShoIJ10 ~lst) inrlic~te
that the RIfFS rlata indicating a health risk of up to 1.1
x 10 (-5) is bas~ on a IIworst casp. set of asc;umptions."
II.S. EPA Qes~onsp.. The continuerl use of IIworst casell is not prOVPrl,
especially S1nce the ~ealth risk "oted was h~se~ on a Measurerl Cl")n-
ta~inant .level at the drinking water intake. Conservative ~ctions
are meriterl rltle to the significance of the City of Minneapolis drinki"g
water s~pply. .
b.
COrT'il'l1pnt.
Page IO
The first sentence of ~ection VI should inrlicate that it
is the Agency's evalljati!)n of t~e RIfF'<:; whic~ has led to
t~e conclusio" th~t response actions are necec:;sary ~t dnrl.
-------
~..: .'....-." '.'
-li-
arounrl ~~e F~r. anrl RNQ lanrl. F~r. continues t~ helieve
that the QT/F~ rloe~ not support t~at conclusion. In arlrli-
tion, th~ final sent~nc~ of t~e first par~graph of ~ection
VI shoulrl stat~ t~at releac;p.s 'rOl"1 t~e P4r. anrl RNR lands
"potenti ally" threaten t~p. 1'11111 ic he~lt~. Tt,e wor\( "thre~ten"
i~plies an unacc~ptahle risk, anrl no 5uch risk ~xists now.
11.$. F.PA Qesponse. Althoug~ there are no existing receptors in thp.
between t~e site anrl Mississippi River, there is a t~reat to any0ne
100('\\Jl rl use the grounrl water in that area. It appears t~at "threat"
a potential impact. We rla not agr~e thAt t~e threat is a potenti~l
hilt <10 agree t"'e il'1pact is a potenti al il'1pact.
c.
r.ol'1lT1ent.
Page In
lanrl
\OIho
il'1plies
t'reat,
T~e calculation of excess cancer risks inclurl~rl at t'e
tt1p of the page s houl rl not he baserl on i nstantane0IJS peak
concentrations. The calculation of excess cancer risks is
haserlon 1l')ng-terlTl exposure; thus, the relevant contalTlinant
concentrations shoulrl ~e t~e average concentrations ~easured
over the long-terlTl.
'I.". F.PA Qesponse. RecalJse of the lack I')f long-term monitoring fiata of
ac1equate fr~uency anti coverag~, and hecause of fluctuatil')ns in the l~vels
~ea~IJrerl, it is consiriererl prurlent anc1 protective to use maxi'T'l'J"1 C'1ncentra-
tions for illustrative purposes. .
ti.
r:orTIrTIent.
Page 11
C~C disagree5 with t~e statelTlent in the first line of page
11 that existing releases contrihute to a potential health
risk to users of the J.1inneapolis water supply systelTl. 'Inrler
pres~nt conrlitions, there is no rlp.~nstraterl ris\( to users
of the water supply syste~. r.urrent concentrations of
hazarrlous suhstances at the water intake are fully within
acceptable liPlits as estan1;sherl by ferlera1 regulatinns.
\1.". EPA Response. The use 0' "potential" is to inc1icate that t~ere is
concern, based on trichloroethylene levels that have approacherl the MCL,
ahout the effect of contamination in the future. The fact that present
levels are below the ~r.L is goorl, but c10es not eliminate concerns over
the presence of trichloroethylene.
e.
r.ofT1lT1ent.
Page 1q
The first full paragraph indicates that ~PA \OIi11 reevaluate
its recom~nc1erl relTlerlial action after two years. Since it
is quite possil1le that F~C will continue to operate its
grounrlwater PUrTIpout system for longer than two years, \Ole
presume that t~is paragraph is intp.nc1e~ to suggest t~at EPA
-------
-Ii -
will ~valuat~ its r~c~menrlation at t,e ce~sation of F~('S
PUI"lP-Otlt.
11.<;. !:PA Qe~ponse. As prespntly ~nvisionerl rI review will he conrlucted
after twO' years hecause it is the minirTIum p~riorl rluring which pumping
will occur. The r~slJ1t<; of that review mayor 'TIay not rlictrlt~ " review
at th~ cessat ion of pllmpi ng. .
.f.
(ol"lments.
Page 4
. Page 1
Page 4
Page c:;
Page 5
Page 7
Page 11
Page 12
Page 14
T'1e entry for January, 1Q85 shoulrl inrlicate that F'1r. helieves
the feasih;lity study suhlT1itterl 0" January ?1, lq~" fulfill"
th~ reqlJirel"lents of the JUr'le R, lqA1 consent nrrler.
The er'ltry for A11gllst, lq85 shoulrl ir'lrlicate that the '-1DCA
approve~ the feasihility sturly suhmitterl hy F~r. as later
mo rli fi erl.
:he entry for Fehruary, lqgn shou1rl indic~te that F"1( sllhrTIitterl
a ~emedial Action Pla" (QAP) wor~plan to hoth the ~P~A d"rl to
t,e I:P A .
The sentence at the top I')f the page which lists the hrlz"rrlous
suhstances idpntifierl ~t the F~r. Site shou1c1 also i"rlicate
that trichloroethylene represent~ qR'- of the cnntarni"ar'lt loarli"g.
nther ir1entifie~ compounrlc; OCCIJr o"'ly infrequently anti in trace
a'"1l"J IIn t s.
The penu1t.imate se"t~r'lCp. in the first f'111 parrlgnph s'olJlrl
i"r1icate that the "hedrnck" aquifers are :,setf dS rlrin~ir'lg
water supplies.
r" the first paragrapl1, acetone shoulrl he rle1etetf as a cOrtta",in~n!:
founrl in the grounrlwat~r at the site. Evic1er'lce inrlicates that
tl1e acetone irlentifierl is a sampling or liihoratory artifact.
The last paragraph shau1rl state tl1at "the F~ analysis, as mor1ified
by the ~Dr.A director,
-------
{'
.,,"""'C Q. -011''''''''
.....o"",Q A. ..AI.
8COC" W. SC"NO..IC:"
o C"" '" c.. ~A"" r ........
808C.'" "."'H'8""
.O~' C .. -O-OC'"
O. ......C: ....ITC...CAO
..t.tCC C8.WtL.~I.
'.CCC.'C. S. .,c:.....0.
a. .08C.'" JO........ON
0".'" ., ....CQ....CIII
808CIII.,. S. .v."
"\01~'" Yo _I.U...."CTT, III
'.CCC.'C'" C:. ."OWN
T...OIllol.. till. 8C8Q
,",..wes ..8"'1:'I.C"-
.J""C5 .o,"oc:",....'"
........1:'" w. '"'INQC.."CIII
<:1..1"080....Q8CC,""C
Q. W' ..~I." "..yr.........
M'C"""C\' O. ,aCC",AJIrII
POPHAM, HAIK.SCHNCE;:;ICH &. KAUFMAN. LTO.
...0.".0 ..... ...... C III., III
1.."... Q. ca"E\.
..14""1: S. "."C-O""
"''''0....10 J. ....CT1'
JA...es ..."THE
0.."'10 A.JONCS
,-cr c.s"'cc"".
A...'''' ,..ceo....
...'8'<:1" A. ",,8"" 10 C""
LESI..IC OII....C.TC
M'C""CL. T. """"",.....
1II08C." "'.1."""'"
T..O"". w, 5'."'1""'8
1II08C8" C. -01 """'N I:N
"''''0'''''. '. ""C\.SON
T"'O....5 j. 8.010
0""""'0 ,-."'''.''''''''L.I..
"''''''''t.CCN ..........TI'"
""'0"''''' c.c,..ll..as
OO""Oi.,A. .. seATO""
T...O"'.S c. s.......,,-
J,j~C =I~(::; ~A:';-~AT ~C""t7
Io4INNCAPOL.IS. ""NNe:S~TA SS40Z
T£LCo~O""C
6.Z-333-4800
TC-.C:':)OICI::I
6'Z - 334 -Z7.3
SUITC Z400
,zoo SCVC"TCc,..T.. STACC.
CE:NvE:R,COL.ORACO 80202
TCL.C""O"'C 303-883-1100
TC~CCO"'CA 303-683-Z I 84
SUITC 300 SOVT..
'600 .. STACCT, N.W.
WAS"'NGTON.O.C.20038
TC~C""O"'C IOZ-8Z8-5300
TC~CCO"'CR IOZ - 8Z~ - 5318
OIRE:CT 01""1. NV"",eE:R
september
15,
MS. Jennifer Hall (SPA-14)
community Relations coordinator
United States Environmental protection
Agency
Region V
230 south Dearborn Street
ChicagQ, IL 60604
Dear Ms.
.1::"'''-0 .... "A-1o.A'"
.-vcc 8. ...c_-CC.C..
0"'.'" O. 8~"C""O.0
SCOTT C. ..c-!clt
..'."'.. ..I.. ""'INSTaOTM
SCOTT A. .'.UTM
EI..IZ".I£T'" A. T-O...SON
"CIT.... J. "'...I.I.CI.AHO
....... 8. .C.C-SO'"
Q.. ."HO""",," 80TC.
....... H..l0"",....50""
TI...OT..." w. "\"IC"-
C...O"", 8. SWA""SON
..vCC A. .C.C8S0""
.lUl.le A.. SWCITZC"
THOMAS c.. "'IC~CN".""'SC""
"'..T"I.CC"" .. .1..""%
"'C;....C.. O.C..ISTENSO'"
J. MIC,..ACI.. SC,",......TZ
I..,,"..C ....05 .08H C
TOeO "'.JO......SON
1987
R- E (:
,Jc.r.c... .. CA'."".
1..0"-"5 -. S...."....
".."",CIS J. c:O......o""'~.,
..uCC "'.1..'''''.1.
...... ". ..1.."'''
-ussel."'" S. .0Ncsa.
...A'" I...C..""'OOO
O."tO .... ."OeN
.....TT...t:w C.O""O'"
""0''"" W. ..0"'0
O-CQO-" a. ..OO"-C.
WI\ot..IA'" .... Q,JIt...C, .I..
TC.."""C:C A. :OS"'C....O
.lesc... O. ..,..5S
.-,..... w. Q.....
STCve.,... .. C:-C...£S"'""
O.C,OO.. Q. SCOTT
.$"""0"" .... ";""IIo."",MC-
O. ~O,",".I"",
".C~ ...."'0.-150""
- .
ED
Re:
FMC'S comments on FMC Site Summary of Remedial Action
Recommendation
This letter is to present the comments of the FMC
Corporation on the .PMC Site Summary of Remedial Alternative
Recommendation,. which was referenced in the Superfund Fact Sheet
mailed from your office on or about september 3, 1987.
Hall:
FMC wishes to register its strong objection to the fact that
EPA never sent it a copy of the site summary, which describes the
remedy the Agency proposes to recommend for the FMC site. copies
of the Fact Sheet were not received by FMC personnel or by myself
until or about september 9. When I noticed a reference in the
Fact Sheet to a proposed ~emedy which differs from the remedy
agreed upon between FMC and the Minnesota Pollution control Agency
(MPCA), I phoned Kerry Street of your office on september 10 to
inquire whether that remedy was described in any document and
whether FMCwould have a further opportunity to comment upon a
-------
Ms. Jennifer Hall
september 15, 1987
page 2 ..
draft Record of Decision (ROD). Mr. Street informed me of the
existence of the site summary and stated that he had not sent a
copy. to FMC. He further stated that september 15 was the deadline
for comments not only on the feasibility study, but also on EPA's
recommended remedy, and he suggested that I try to obtain a copy
of the site summary from the MPCA.
Because the concerned ,MPCA staff members were not available,
I was unable to obtain a site summary from the MPCA, and again
phoned Mr. Street on September 11 to inform him of that fact and
to request an extension of time in which to comm.nt. Mr. Street
replied that he did not wish to grant an extension of time,
because EPA wishes to approve a ROD by september 30. He suggested
that I instead obtain a copy of the site summary from the Anoka
County Library. I did so, but because of a major malfunction in
the Minneapolis phone system on September 11, I was unable to
teletype copies of the document to FMC'S environmental staff in
PhiladelpHia or to FMC's technical consultant in Ontario. As a
result, FMC personnel were not able to review the document or to
prepare their comments until September 14. Of necessity, their
review could not be a detailed one.
For the last two and one-half years, the EPA has not acted
on the feasibility study prepared by PMC. Its recent actions in
establishing a comment period of less than two weeks for its
proposed remedy, neglecting to send FMC--the regulated party--a
copy of that proposed remedy, and refusing to extend the comment
period are at best unfair and are likely a violation of due
process.
In this regard, we note that page 19 of the site summary
indicates that at the cessation of groundwater pumping by FMC, the
EPA will review its proposed remedy to reevaluate whether.
additional remedial action is appropriate. We expect that FMC
will be given adequate notice of the resul~s of that reevaluation
and a full opportunity at that time to supplement these comments.
PMC a150 objects to EPA's proposed remedy to the extent that
it may differ from the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) agreed upon
between PMC and the MPCA. That RAP, which is incorporated within
the consent order of October 1986, is designed to fully protect
the public health, welfare, and environment, and indeed, goes
beyond what is necessary for full protection. As you know, the
negotiation of that order, in which. EPA was invited to
participate, continued for one and one-half years and fully
explored all the relevant issues.
-------
Ms. Jennifer Hall
september 15, 1987
page 3
. Specifically, FMC does not believe that achievement of the
MCLs at the facility boundary is necessary or appropriate.
Because the groundwater of concern discharges into surface water,
because there is no statistically significant increase of
contaminants from the groundwater in the surface water, and
because there are adequate controls to prevent human exposure
between the facility boundary and the surface water, an alternate
concentration limit (ACL) for the boundary is appropriate under
Section l2l(d)(2)(B)(ii) of SARA. Moreover, achievement of MCLS
at the boundary is likely to be technically impracticable within
the meaning of Sections 12l(a) and l2l(d)(4)(C) of SARA, and not
cost-effective within the meaning of Section l2l(a) of SARA.
In the absence of drinking water wells in the area, the
MCLS, which are established for drinking water purposes, are
neither relevant nor appropriate criteria at the facility
bou.ndary. " The appropr iate cr iter ion should be an "ACL based. on
exposure. The only point of exposure is the Minneapolis drinking
water intake. The MCLs are currently being met at that intake,
and the RAP agreed upon between FMC and the MPCA will ensure that
contamination from the FMC site will not contribute to any future
exceedence of MCLs at the intake. Thus, the facility boundary ACL
of 270 ppb incorporated within the existing RAP should not be
changed.
I am attaching to this letter a list of additional comments
on the site summary which FMC developed in the short time
available to it. We look forward to an additional opportunity to
comment if and when EPA reevaluates its position and/or chooses to
act on its recommended remedy.
Very truly yours,
(jes A. payne.
~~rney for FMC Corporation
JAP/mks
Enclosure
cc: William W. Warren
Judy Y. Longfield
Douglas Hildre
Richard G. Shepherd
David T. Richfield
5310v
-------
page .4
page 4
page 4
page 5
page 5
page 7
Page 8
page 10
Page 10
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF FMC ON SITE SUMMARY
The entry for January, 1985 should indicate that FMC
believes the feasibility study submitted on January 21,
1935 fulfills the requirements of the June 8, 1983
conserTt order.
The entry for August, 1985 should indicate that the
MPCA approved the feasibility study submitted by FMC as
later modified.
The entry for February, 1986 should indicate that FMC
submitted a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) workplan to both
the MPCA and to the EPA.
The sentence at the top of the page which lists the
hazardous substances identified ~t the FMC Site should
also indicate that trichloroethylene represents 98% of
. the contaminant loading. Other identified compounds
occur only infrequently and in trace amounts.
The penultimate sentence in the first full paragraph
should indicate that the -bedrock- aquifers are used as
drinking water supplies.
In the first paragraph, acetone should be deleted as a
contaminant found in'the groundwater at the site.
Evidence indicates that the acetone identified is a
sampling or laboratory artifact.
The second sentence in the second full paragraph should
state that .Using a worst case set of assumptions, the
FS submitted by FMC as modified by the MPCA director
indicates that the FMC and BNR lands mar contribute to
a threatened exceedance at the Minneapo is drinking
water intake.... The following sentence should also
indicate that the RI/FS data indicating a health risk
of up to 1.1 x 10 (-6) is based on a .worst case set of
8s8umptions..
The calculation of excess cancer risks included at the
top of the page should not be based on instantaneous
peak concentrations. The calculation of excess cancer
risks is based on long-term exposure; thus, the
relevant contaminant concentrations should be the
average concentrations measured over the long-term.
The first sentence of Section VI should indicate that
it is the Agency's evaluation of the RI/FS which has
. .~-'_.._--' .....-.................- ...--...-,....,..... ~ "',"""".9~-,,_--..-.......-..:-.~.....--~~r..~"""'."'-","1"" ....~-~r~.":"'--nC'I""''''''''~~(I...''::''":t''':7fI='''~~~~~-'-'''Qof''''~~~''
-------
page 11
page 11
page 12
page 14
page 19
53llv
led to the conclusion ~hat response actions are
necessary at and around the FMC and BNR land. FMC
continues to believe that the RI/FS does not support
that conclusion. In addition, the final sentence of
the first paragraph of Section VI should state that
releases from the FMC and BNR lands .potentially.
threaten the public health. The word .threaten. .
implies an unacceptable risk, and no such risk exists
now.
FMC disagrees with the statement in the first line of
page 11 that existing releases contribute to a
potential health risk to users of the Minneapolis water
supply system. under present conditions, there is no
demonstrated risk to users of the water supply system.
Current concentrations of hazardous substances at the
water intake are fully within acceptable limits as
established by federal regulations.
The last paragraph should state that .the F5 analysis,
as modified b the MPCA director, indicated that only
y raulic contalnment....would...protect public
health....
full paragraph should
groundwater treatment
.evaluatedby the F5,.
The first sentence of the first
indicate that several extracted
and discharge alternatives were
rather than .proposed by FMC..
The penultimate sentence of the second full paragraph
should state that .concentrations of other potential
contaminants will be substantially lower..
The first full paragraph indicates that EPA will
reevaluate its recommended remedial action after two
years. Since it is quite possible that FMC will
continue to operate its groundwater pump-out system for
longer than two years, we presume that this paragraph
is intended to suggest that EPA will evaluate its
recommendation at the cessation of PMC's pump-out.
~
~:;:-; 7':~.. -..:- 4~:; ,0""" ~'~- . -', .' ~.~ ;.~ :~"'.~:. -"-'~ -. ~.~7;T:;;~.:- ~~"':; ~~':.r;~_;.\f:~;'~_.~-~:"1~,.'~';.''' ~:~'-::T~~~~..~.:;~~~:,..:::~t1:.~I~~~~:-;~7{':":"~y-::~?''-:7~~{::~::;:;::~J-fl~~"~~:;'0:"'~:~'T~~"
-------
SL'SJ i.Cr TITLE
AUT:10R
D.; T E:
~~O. Of PAGES
Letter to Je~~ifer. Hall,
E?A Re: FMC'S Comme~t C~
Summary of. remedial
Alternative Rec~mme~datie~
Soap t. 15, 1987
5
----.
-- -..------
Summary of Remedial
Alte~~ative keccmme~datio~
August, 1987
25
-----
Additic~al I~te~i~
Guida;.ce fer FY 19d7
Record cf Decisic~
J. Wi~stc~ Perter,
As~ista~t
AdMi~ist~atcr, E?A
July, 24, 1987
8
---
Letter. to Taussig, F~C
Re: Approval Cc~ditic~s
fer. discnar.ge cf cc;.-
tami~ated ~r.cu~~~ater
to sa~itar.y sewer
B)""e i~hu rs t
:.1e t "ct)c 1 i t 3:".
.-;d 5 te Ce:"'. t r.el .
CC11!Tiissic~
July 10, 1987
3
------
Me;ncr.a~durn Re;
Calcu13tic~ ef VOC
e~issic~s resul~i~g
frcm FMC remedial
actio~
St ree t
EP.;
Se t:> t. 1, 19 a -:-
1
--
-- --------...----
Guida;.ce c~ AR;RS
U.S. EPA
July 9, 1987
14
---- --.- ---..--.-------
Guida~ce: Alter~ate
Ccr.ce;.tr.atic;. Limit
u. S. EP.~
July, 1987
66
Jur.e, 1987
Progress ret>ort
FMC Corp.
July 8, 1387
2
May 1987
Progress report
FMC Cort>.
Ju~e 9, 1987
2
April 1987
Progress report
FMC Ccrp.
May 11, 1987
2
. March 1987
Progress report
PtC Corp.
Apr i 1 10, 1987
2
. _.''-''~.'''--'.-~'' >.- ..:.~ v ',-.~'-:"L"'Y'P r:- -.-" ~':~ ("V:--.-'1''f:'','''':';t'' """,:",,,--"'~"':!':;ry;"?~'~~~.?~"'" 'r"':::-"':'r.\-'~;?'~~.-:-,-~Zi1V:;"~;-?'I~~:r:..J'1!";";',::,,":"':'~~:j', y~":::"',1"'!T;';"""",-- :-:".. ....."~V"'"\.:;:').~'-"';-'1.-';::~'"7.r:'.~' .~r;- ~
-------
S:JBJ ECT TITLE
-2-
AUTHOR
DATE
NO. OF PAGES
February 1987
Progress report
FMC Corp.
March 11, 1987
2
January 1987
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Feb. 10, 1987
2
Decembe.r 1986
P r og res s r e po r t
FMC Corp.
Jan. 26, 1987
2
Response to U.S. EPA
Institutional Control
Questionnaire
State of Minnesota
Office of Attorney
General
Dec. 29, 1986
27
Novem:>er 1986
Progress report
FMC Corp.
De c. 12, 19 8 6
2
October 1986
Progress report
F'1C Corp.
Nov. 12, 1986
2
Executed
Response Order
by Consent
MPCA/FMC
Oc t. 2 8, 19 8 6
27
Response Action Pla~
Oc t ., 19 8 6
56
FMC
Agenda Item Sheet for
October 28, 1986 MPCA
Citizens Board Meeting:
Request for Approval of
Response Order by
Consent, with
attachments:
1) Resppnse Order by
Consent
2) Minnesota Enforce-
ment Decision
Document
MPCA
Executive Dir.
MPCA
Oc t. 1 7, 1 9 8 6
55
Oc t. 1 6, 1 9 8 6
22
-------
-3-
, t
SO_"BJECT TIT LE
ACTHOR
DA':'E
!'J'). OF PAGES
September 1986
Progress report
FMC
Oc t. 1 0, 1 9 86
2
proposed Response
Action plan
FMC
August 20, 1986
31
July 1986
P r og res s r e po r t
Fr-1C Corp.
" August 15, 1986
3
" Le t t e r to La n g fie 1 d, FMC
with attached MPCA's
comments regarding FMC's
proposed Response MPCA
Action Plan (RAP)
.J u 1 y 31, 1986
4
': ~ y 1986
'rogress report
FMC
June 10, 1986
4
Memo to W~s~e Management
Division Directors I-X,
Re: Discharge of
Wastewater from CERCLA
sites into POTWs.
U.S. EPA Offices
of Emergency and
Remedial Response,
Water Enforcement
and Permits and
Waste Programs
Enforcement
April 15, 1986
March 1986
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Ap"r i 1 9, 1986
3
"
Letter to Richfield,
MPCA Re: Negotiation
of Consent Order for
groundwater remedia-
tion
FMC Corp.
March 31, 1986
2
- ~'. .'.--~- --. * -"~---r-''''.~_.''''~'''''''--'''' .::.-- .-...-...-- -....,~.- """-.--'~'-'..-_..---'--:;-'",-"=~",-*,,.~,"""~-"""rt.""-...o-.""'-"'*'I""::"1O'I.'~~-"-. -.-- ~--..,---'..-..-..t<----""-"''''.......-.;-r_u'-'''--,,,,,,,,,,,'~''~-
-------
-4-
SUBJECT TIT LE
AUTHOR
DA~E
NO. OF PAGES
February 1986
Progress report
FMC Corp.
March 10, 1986
4
Health, Safety and
Security Plan for
Re~edial Action at
FMC & BNR lands
FMC Northern
Ordinance Division
Feb., 1986
2S
January 1986
Progress report
F~C Corp.
Fe b. 12, 1986
4
Letter to ~arren, FMC
Re: Consent Order
MPCA
Feb. 12, 1986
1
Letter to Richfield
MPCA, Re: Submittal
of Response Action ?lan
and Health, Safety &
Security Plan
FMC Corp.
Feb. 18, 1986
,
.
u.S. EPA Guidance
Health Advisories
u.S. EPA
Feb. 21, 1986
7
December 1985
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Jan. 9, 1986
4
Report to MPCA, U.S.
EPA: Cumulative Excess
Cancer Risk
Calculations
Groundwater Monitoring
Wells FMC
Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates
Dec. 24, 1985
30
November 1985
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Dee. 10, 1985
5
-------
-5-
,CBJ ECT TIT LE
Al'THOR
DATE
NO. OF PAGES
Agenda Item Sheet for the
Dec. 17, 1985 MPCA Citiz~ns
Board Meeting: proposed
Request for Response
Action to FMC and
Northe~n Pump Company
MPCA
Dec. 6, 1985
36
MPCA
Record of Decision
MPCA
Dec ~ 3, 1985
19
Letter to Street l'.S. EPA
Re: Response to the first
two comments of Intera/
EPA on Feasibility Study
(FS)
Conestoga- Rovers
& Associates
Nov. 1 9, 198 5
3
October 1985
Progress report
FM: Corp.
Nov. 13, 1985
4
~etter to Street,
U.S. EPA Re: FMC'S
response to comments
of Intera Technologies
Popham, Haik,
Schnobrich, Kaufman
and Doty LTD.
Nov. 6, 1985
4
Letter to Richfield,
Solid and 'Hazardous
Waste Div, MPCA Re: FMC'S
Response to MPCA'S Comments
on the FS and Request to .
" Negotiate Consent Order
.
Oc t. 31, 19 8 5
6
September 1985
Progress report
FMC
Oc t. 9" 1985
3
August 1985
Progress report
FMC
Sept. 13,1985
4
..:~""'-. ~-- : ':--:,.~'.~ ~: ..- "7~:..:. "".~~.-:.'-:-:7~..'..7" ~ .~-;o.~'-'~~'~':7~.;.~~.~.~:::~~;::.~~:,..,,~'~'~.7 ';":-"";;i"'':J~'~,G '...~T~:'::::~~ r ';~.-~:.~'-:- . -' ;".:-~ ~'::::'f:~.~fI.~:::::.'.0~,~~':'-~~~:-r..~~~"
-------
-6-
SUBJECT TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
NO. OF PAGES
Letter to Longfield,
FMC Re: U.S. EPA
comment~ on FS with
attachment:
Street,
EPA
Sept. 9, 1985
2
1) " Re vie w 0 f F S "
Intera Technologies,
In c . Fe b. 11, 198 5
25
Letter to Warren, Legal
Counsel, FMC: Re: MCPA
comments on FS
MPCA
Aug. 23, 1985
13
July 1985
P r og res s r e po r t
F~C
Aug. 9, 1985
5
June 1985
Progess report
FMC
July 10, 1985
5
Letter to Warren, FMC,
Re: FS
MPCA
June 4, 1985
1
April 1985
Progress report
FMC
May 14, 1985
4
Letter to Warren, FMC
Re: Groundwater FS
~)
MPCA
May 10, 1985
1
"
Report:
8Eva1uation of
Remedial Action
Alternatives"
Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates
May, 1985
170
Report:
Groundwater Flow Rate
& Flow Direction during
1984 in vicinty of
Containment & Treatment
Facility
Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates
April, 1985
18
-. .- -~. \~ -",.:...:. '!;-:---:. ~';.. ~ ::--0, "'17'-' '~..,Y:"" ~.~...: .~.:;.~":'~ .-)..,:" ';7"'.:-~'''-:"'~~. .'~ :,"."';':'"' ~'-. ~"':' ~..':T' ':-~:~r-':-::~7'~j-:- 7"" ~:::..~ ".,~ ::..r~'1"""",,:r1:??~~-~~~~~~~~~,?'"~.~;.W":'~:ti:~.~~::~~.;:~!;j~~-:';""'!f1'~;r:rr-
-------
-7-
SUBJECT TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
NO. OF PAGES
Letter to Longfield, FMC
Re: Replacement of
U.S. EPA project
coordinator
U.S. EPA
April 19, 1985
1
Action memorandum Re: Proposed
Maximum 'Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) of Volatile
Synthetic Organic
Chemicals under Safe
Water Drinking Act
u . S. EP.t..
April 17, 1985
16
Letter to Kalitowski,
Executive Director, MPCA
Warren, Re: FS Report FMC Corp.
April 15, 1985
2
March 1985
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Ap r i 1 11, 1985
4
Le t t e r to 10 n 9 fie 1 d ,
FMC Re: Progress
Reports
MPCA
April 1, 1985
1
Letter to Warren, FMC
~e: Groundwater Feasi-
bility Study
MPCA
March 25, 1985
4
It
January 1985
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Feb. 11, 1985
5
Report:
Review of 1/85
Feasibi.1ity Study
prepared for U.S.
EPA by Intera
Technolog ies, Inc.
Feb. 11, 1985
26
-.- .". . ~_.. ~...._...,-........ .......~.. ..'..- ..----.-_...... .. -" . . ~ .
. -,' ...-- ............- ---'-'..~:--r-~_""-""..-' "-'"--'''''''''-''','~oe!''''.'''''''''''''''.''''~-'------"-'''''.-------.''''i'''''''''''''.-'''''''''''''''''-_.-''''',--'''''-'''......,...,..............---
-------
-8-
SUBJECT TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
NO. OF PAGES
December 1984
Progress repoIt
FMC Corp.
Jan. 8, 1985
4
Report: Feasibility
Stud Y
Conestoga-Rovers
&. Associates
Jan., 1985
77
November 1984
Progress report
F!-1C Corp.
Dec. 17, 1984
4
Le t t e r to Lo n g fie 1 d ,
FMC Re: Proposed Feasi- Basil Constantelos
bility Study ~ork Plan U.S. EPA
De c. 7, 1984
2
Letter to Longfield, FMC
Re: Proposed Feasibility
Study Work Plan MPCA
De c. 6, 19 8 4
3
Report:
Design &. Construction,
upgradient monitoring
well MWS
Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates
Dec., 1984
21
.October 1984
Progress report
FMC Corp.
No v. 13, 1 9 8 4
5
September 1984
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Oc t. 1 7, 1 9 8 4
3
;.j
Feasibility Study
Work Plan
Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates
Sept., 19 8 4
12
August 1984
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Sept. 13, 1984
6
Final Report of Remedial
Investigation conducted
pursuant to 6/8/83 Interim
Response Order by Consent
("Phase I &. II Investigation
Programs, Northern
Ordnance Div. FMC.
(characterization of
groundwater conditions).
S.S. Papadopulos
&. Associates, Inc. August, 1984
-..- n- r,''''--''',.-..-;''':.:,".-:a,.::;~.v-.'''''':~,~''-''''''' ;...~'~';' ,.-...~ . ~,~-:~.. -:'~ ""t-..~.-- ~":"""':-",,:;~"';'''':-:-- .... "":":":"1'""":""""':,,",", -:"'---:,"~.' --:'~~'~.~~':"'~A'~...r'~ ~'?':'.~~!'";~~:':;-"J..~..~:r---;'~-:-~<.1l.~;--~:~"'.
-------
-9-
SUBJ ECT TIT LE
AUTHOR
DA'i'E
NO. OF PAGES
o
July 1984
progress report
FMC Corp.
August 9, 1984
5
Report: Groundwater
protection program for
FMC Soil containment
Facility
Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates
July, 1984
60
.June 1984
progress report FMC Corp. July 10, 1984 6
May 1984
progress report FMC Corp. June 8, 1984 -9
April 1984
Progress report FMC Corp. May 10, 1984 5
Compilation of Analytical
Data collected d ur ing an
investigation of the FMC
Site by FMC between Dee.,
1981 and June, 1983 including
so i 1 sampl ing acquifer sampl ing,
surface water (Miss. River)
sampl i ng FMC Corp. May, 1984
:. Summar y of Analytical -
'v
:: Data collected during
investigation of the
~. FMC site by FMC between
December, 1980 and FMC Corp. May, 1984
June 1983
March 1984
progre~s report FMC Corp. April 10, 1984 .,
FMC Corp.
March 12, 1984
8
~
.
:F;
"-4
:: ~..
. ..:~":,,... ~;:::.~."'_Y;-::r-r'~.. -."'::T~~?'1o.").-..tf:i~~~:~Y''\1~~~,,: "1' '.-~ ~;~~~~';:.;:";::','~ ~;.~~:,~,ry;r:r~~::::;i{~i..~7:.~':tr:~~:07;
..
..
corio
f/r
Feb. 10, 1984
8
-------
-10-
5UEJ ECT TIT LE
ACTHOR
DATE
NO. OF PAGES
Decembe r 1983
Progress report
FMC Corp.
Jan. 10, 1984
3
""
Press Clippin<;s
FMC Site
1983
25
Interim Report of
Remedial Investigation
conducted pursuant to
6/8/83 Interim Response
Order by Consent ("Report
on Phase I Investigation
Program, FMC Northern
Ordnance Div. plant.")
5.5. papadopulos
& Associates
Nov., 1983
Interim Response Order
by Consent
FMC,MPCA,
U.S. EPA
June 8, 1983
30
Agenda Item Sheet for
June 7, 1983 MPCA
Citizens Board Meeting:
Request for Approval of
Interim Response Order
by Consent with C.S.
EPA and FMC "
"
MPCA
Ma y 2 6, 198 3
101
Hazardous Ranking
System scoring, FMC
Site w/attachment:
Documentation Records
for HRS
U.S. EPA
March 30, 1983
'J
Comments
proposed
List and
of FMC's
Facility
of FMC on EPA's
National Priorities
the Li s t i ng
Fridley
FMC Corp.
Feb. 28, 1983
133
.
Letter to MPCA Re:
Groundwater investigation
with Attachement: FMC
-Follow-up Report and
Recommendations
Regard ing Invest igat ive
Programs of the FMC
Waste Disposal Site
Corp.
July 15,1982
4
",
. ~
5.5. papadopulos
" Assoc iates, Inc.
July, 1982
16
---,,---:-,~~-;-,:,........!"....... ."---", -.-''''''~'- '-: .,,,,~. ""I';..,!".""'-~-"'-'~~~-~ -.".~-: t""""-."""""'~~""'~~:;~'':'7'''','''':r::-':~''O::~VY'f.\'~~'':7.~~.r~''N"'.:~.r.8'''ww;.''I~'~""'"!''F:Y':'''''';''''~''''''.~''~~.~:~.~::;~''''~'''
-------
-11-
SUBJECT TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
NO. OF PAGES
i)
Report:
-potential Dnpacts of
the FMC Waste Disposal
Site on the Mississippi
River-
5.5. papadopulos',
& Associates Inc. June, 1982
15
Letter to Plant Manager, FMC
Response to 4/81 ~Evaluation
of Past Disposal MPCA
Practices, Phase I.ft
June 5, 1981
4
Press Release Re:
FMC well contamination
MPCA
April 28, 1981
1
Letter to Factory Manager, FMC
Rei Response to 4/81 Minnesota
-Evaluation of Past of He~lth
Oisposal Practices, -
Phase I".
Dept.
April 24, 1981
1
Press Release Re:
FMC Site
MPCA
March 6, 1981
2
Proposed work plan for Eugene A. Hickok
Evaluation of Past Dis- & Associates
posal Practices At FMC Site
Feb. 3, 1981
5
..
Aerial Photographic Analysis
of the FHC Site
Any chain of Custody documents would be in the possession of the PRP's
or their consultants.
Raw Data obtained during the RI is in the possession of the PRP's
or their Consultants.
The following reports prepared for FMC by E.A. Hickok & Associates
are in the possession of the PRPs or their consultants and MPCA:
Evaluation of Past Disposal Practices, Phase I,
.Initial Assessment, April 20, 1981:
Evaluation of Past Disposal Practices, Phase II, Hydrogeological
Investigation, December 31, 1981.
------- |