United States
Environmental Protecdon
. Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROO/ROS-88I066
June 1988
b~PA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Long Prairie, MN
U.S. Environmental Protedion A~ency
Region III Information ResoYrG~
C~nter (3PM52) ./ ..
84\ Chestnut Street .. ~.:~
PhUadl'Jl~hi8, PA 191Q1, ~:;;.~~;a::..{.~
/
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EP A Region $ .
PhlIQdeIpblQ.PA:19107
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-88/066
12.
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
.SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Long Prairie, MN
- . ~st Remedial Action - Final
5. Reff~/2~' 88
5..
--
- -
':'thor(s)
8. Performinll Orllanization Rept. No.
9. Performlnll O'8anization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
- -
-- --
--
11. ContractCC) or GrantCG) No.
(C)
(G)
. -
.'---~.
- - - "-- ---- - -
12. Sponsorinll Or.anization Name and Addre..
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
I&. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Long Prairie site, as defined by the extent of the plume of contaminated ground
water, .extends 2,100 feet by 1,000 feet in Long Prairie, Todd County, Minnesota. The-
Long Prairie River flows within 500 feet of the contaminant plume. In August and
October 1983, routine municipal well monitoring by the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) indicated contamination in two of five municipal wells. The MDH ordered the two
wells shut down in October 1983, and in November 1983, issued an advisory to provide
~tled water for area residents. About 50 of the area's 300 private wells were
~ected by the groundwater contamination. Since the advisory was issued, 39 of the 45
acre homes using contaminated ground water have connected ~o the municipal drinking
water system. Well monitoring in 1984 implicated an area dry cleaning operation as the
potential source of contamination. The primary contaminan~s of concern affecting
7,000,000 gallons of ground wat~r and 3,800 yd3 of soil are VOCs and include: DCE,
PCE, and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: ground water pump and treatmen~
using air stripping with discharge to the river; spill trea~ment using active soil
venting; and ground water monitoring. The estimated capital cost for this remedial
action is $680,000 with annual O&M of $290,000 for year land $150,000 for years 2-5.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Oocument Analysis a. Dascriptors
Record of Decision
Long Pr ai'ri e, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw, soil
Key Contaminants: VOCs (DCE,
It. Identlflers/Open.Ended Terms
PCE, TCE)
1
c. COSATI Field/Group
,liability Statament
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
21. No. of Pales
63
.-
20. Security Class (This Pa.e)
None
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77\
(Formerly NTlS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-88/066
Long Prairie, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $21,706,300 without
pretreatment, or #23,078,200 including pretreatment, if necessary.
-------
DECIARATION
SITE N»tE AND IOCATION
Ion; Prairie Groun:i Water COntamination site
Ion; Prairie, Mimesota .
S'rA'JEt!ENl' OF !w;IS AND RJRFa;E
. '1hi.s decision docn~J1t presents the selected ~ial action for
the tcnq Prairie Groun:i Water COntamination site developed in
aocordance with the CCDlprehensive Envircnmenta1 Response,
CCIIIpensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), as amerned by
the SUperfun:i Amerdments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
and to the extent practicable, consistent with the National oil
and Hazamous SUbstances Pollution contin;rency Plan (40 CFR Part
300).
'1hi.s decision is based upon the contents of the administrative
record for the IDn:J Prairie Groun:1 Water COntamination site. '!he
attached irrlex identifies the items wch comprise the
administrative record.
'!he state of Mimesota has selected and concurred with the
remedy .
DESCRIPrION OF '!HE SEIECI'ED REMEDY
'!he final grourxi water ~6ly for the site was developed to
protect public health and the environment. by preventing ingestion
of contaminants found in the groum water, and by restoring the
oontaminated aquifer. .
'!he major cx.mp:ments of the selected remedy are as follows:
"
o Install groum water extraction wells in the contamination
plume:
o Treat contaminated groum water with an air stripper;
o Discharge treated grourxi water from the air stripper to
the IDng Prairie River: and
o Treat contaminated soil with an active soil venting
system.
/- "
-------
DECIARATION
'!he se1.ected ren~ is protective of human health an:i the
environment, attains Federal an:i State requirements that are
applicable or relevant an:i a~~iate to this ~ial action,
an:i is cost-effective. '!his lQl-=dy satisfies the statuto%y
preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility or volume as a principal element an:i utilizes
pe%'manent solutions an:i altemative treatment technologies to the
1Mvi T1111'1J extent practicable.
Because this ~ will not result in hazardous substances
remaJnirg on-site a1:xJve hea1th-based levels, the five year
facility review will net apply to this action.
b- '7,.. 7 -~~
Date
fn."~, *1, cZ-v1~ft
Valdas v. Adamkus .
Reqional Administrator
u.s. EPA, Region V
d:, -11./ - Fr~
Date
~/: 7J:.Mf
Gerald L. Willet
Commissioner .
Minnesota Pollution -Control Agency
~ .
"
-------
"
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SEIECl'ION
.
. Ion;J Prairie Ground Water Contamination site
Iorq Prairie, Minnesota
I.
SITE NAME. IDCATION. AND DFSCRIPl'ION
'n1e City of Iorq Prairie, with a population of about 2,800, is the
camty seat of Todd county in central Minnesota about 120 miles
northwest of Minneapolis/st. Paul (Figure 1). 'n1e Iorq Prairie
Ground Water Contamination site (Iorq Prairie site), as defined by
the extent of the plume of contaminated grourxlwater, extends from
the business district in downtown Iorq Prairie approximately 2,100
feet to the northeast. (Figure 2). '!he Ion;J Prairie River flows
through the city am passes within about 500 feet of the
c::cntaminant plume. '!he city is situated at an elevation of
approx:iJDately 1,300 feet on the sands am gravels of the IDnq Prairie
sam plain which is a lon;r, narrc:w glacial outwash plain. '!he
glacial outwash plain is recharged by precipitation am inflow from
the Ion;J Prairie River. SUrface soils consist of sam am gravel
deposited by outwash streams with scattered, discontinuous clay
layers. '!he surface fomation is a water-bearing unit which ranges
in thickness from 7 to 66 feet. TJmerlying the outwash deposits is
glacial till ~I~ of san:iy clay with varying amounts of gravel.
'D1e till extends to a depth of at least 200 feet. below grounj level,
am appears to be continuous beneath the site. '!he till is
reportedly urxierlain by Precambrian igneous arx:l metamorphic bedrock.
'!he bedrock is not considered an aquifer. Generally, ground water
flow at the site is toward the north-northeast, unless locally
influenced by pumping. GroI.m1 water not withdrawn by production
wells is eventually discharged to the Img Prairie River.
Prior to rli r:=LYYVery. of the giound water contamination, five municipal
wells seIVed approximately 2,400 people in. IDnq Prairie. After the
ground water contamination was detected, two wells were shut down
am a new well was installed. In addition, prior to the
contamination approx:iJnately 300 private wells seIVed about 440
people in Lon; Prairie. About 50 of the private wells are located
in the northeast quarter of the city which is. affected by the ground
water contamination. '!he wells are set in the glacial outwash sand
am gravel am are screened at elevations ranging from 10 to 76 feet
below ground surface. .
Land use in the vicinity of the site consists of light industIy and
commercial establishments near the plume origin in downtown IDnq
Prairie arx:l residential dwellings throughout the rest of the plume.
II. SITE HIsroRY AND ENFORCEMENI' ACTIVITIFS
In August arx:l October of 1983, routine municipal well monitoring by
the Minnesota DepartJnent of Health (MIH) irdicated contamination in
the IDnq Prairie rmmicipal wells #4 arx:l #5. I, I, 2, 2-tetrachloro-
ethylene (PCE) was fourd up to 26 uqjl, . arx:l 270 ugfl in wells #4 am
-------
bO~LONG PRAIRIE
COUN
"
LOCATION OF LONG PRAIRIE
FIGURE 1
-------
---
-. ""-
"'))
I~
_/
./ -...-'
(:
I /
,8.../ . ~".: 1/ ,,' "'flr.J,~lf''''' .T I~; ; ~;~:~ =L__-.
I.. "/ :'~ .. .O'.;. ""'ii~':'j;i0~~~:':": :'. '"':::~., 'D ---=--=--
,.. ' I. "LI:J'i.it~:.: .... ~7 ,,'~:'j ~'
, '/(/~. I 1: ~~f ' ~. ,I:, "~~. "'EB" r;:.~~'''~
,- ~~/ I ,I/, ." ' ~: . ~ ,~ ' '" D::J:.';:.J:TI
, '="\; ; /!', ..' i . .~.i ~ .: .~!.r '. ., .=:. ;. ,. !fIj ~{J]i
' ifi1 t.!j~l' ,~.:'.j: 9 :I: : ' ,:1=:11 i. . :n.: ;, ;r} .
fl ! ;. -: --: :of:, ; l:o,:!'o>.. :;W; " i ! i"IOU; '. I,' ;
" F.'~ll~ '~~~.i"."i" r:;!:J~~f=-~# [[[]r'~/bE3RIl'~'~:':'~.
r ;.) ",' ~f(c:.; r::~ t=~ r~~ [t[] t:jr1D . ~ \.. . c: I
r;:-r-~~D "'] ----!-_- ":~~~;"'~-: -~ ,;-- - ~ LDC., S. ;~nn. .O?O.UD e..,e" :5 ~'~
[', I " ~ ,--- ': ..::)r-..£:] t---- L' : -. P... ' . I '
p~q ~ -"~~" r'~'--f,:~~ L~_~~- ~-,~L--,~ . ~ I' , . ,
I
I
1
I
LI MIl1S OF
I
HEALTH ADVISORY AREA
\1
, 1\
\1\
N
1
lr
'i)II"o~'.ln .
/ ..~ "L-~".
) ~.,;, ',/ ,_. ' ---
f .l't .'"'
::1 . ./ I I .u,
r- tt~ d I 'J : "
_I.~-
L I -~~ -,'----1
I ~,~ a.. ,
: : 'I. ~~ -- -~
I, ,.
-~-+ ~ '
'T~
10
I
I
\
------
SCALE I"' 500'
,r..
'..
~OUHOS
AVt. "f.~
---
, .
I
i
-,--~
,
cI.
LONG PRAIRIE
.- -
<.b..
. :.t .
"I
...$". ..
. I
I .
==---===--
....
---
:t1+
1-5' "~C"'I"
.. " .: ~ . -, ::'
:;. "~~_I.
. ~~-!
.Y(. $.
~ B- ;8- S=j' -
~ .. ,
D. ", L--" ;'_I"~:"
...
s.
D'D. 'LJ
r ----. r- 1 ..-~
I. ..1 J. .,,1
LONG PRAIRIE FEASIBILITY STUDY
GENERAL
SITE LOCATION
2
-------
#5, tespeCtively. '!he PCE concentrations were above the U.S.
Environmental Protection Aqency cU. S. EPA) drinkin:] water heal th-
based OOl'tCiel1t.rations for protection of human health (8.8 uqJl) .
1,1,2-trichloroethylene ('la) and
-------
on Apr-il 24, 1985 depositions ~ taken from two of the fo:cner
owners and one Employee of the I.org Prairie dJ:y cleaners. 'nle
depositiORS irxlicated possible sources of 1:a leakage or spillage;
hcMever, neither of the owners deposed nor the deposed Employee
stated ~ major spills cx:x:urred.
on May 20, 1985 certified letters were sent to the three former
owners of the dJ:y cleaners identifyin; them as potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and givin; them the opporbmity to
c:orx1uct the RIfFS. one of three PRPs respc:njed to the letter but did
not admit to bein1 responsible for the ground water contamination
problem. General Notice letters were mailed out April 14 and May 4,
1988 to the tl1ree fOtmer dJ:y cleaner a.mers. '1hese notice letters
demarxied payment for the costs already incurred by the gcvemment, .
and infozmed the parties of the U.S. EPA and MPC'A intent to ~
a ~i~l Design,lRemedial Action (RDjRA) at the site and the
decision not to offer the opporbmity for these parties to un:lertake
the RDjRA because of their limited financial resources. It was
learned after mailin; out the notice letters that two of the three
PRPs are now ~sed.
In September 1984 the U.S. EPA and the MPC'A entered into a 1>t1lti site
Cooperative Agreement (MSCA) for iIDplementm; a Remedial .
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIfFS) at this site~ '!he site was
listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in OCtober 1984 with a
Hazard RanJd.n; System (HRS) score of 32. '!he final RI report for the
Long Prairie site was submitted to the MPC'A on October 15, 1987, and
the FS report was completed on April 4,. 1988 ~
III. cn1MlJNITY REIATIONS
. Public interest in the ground water contamination in Long Prairie was
highest durin; the pericxi immediately following discovery of the
contamination. Public interest in the SUperfurx1 RI/FS has been low.
As required, a public. ocmment pericxi for the FS and the reccrnmenjed
alternative began on April 7, 1988. COpies of the FS report, the
Proposed Plan, a fact sheet detailin; the alternatives evaluated and
the rec:c:amnerDed alternative, and the Administrative Record were made
availabJ.,e to the comrmmity at that time. '!he Long Prairie City Hall
served as the info:nnation :repositozy for the documents. 'nle MPCA
issued a news release and placed a notice in the Long Prairie
newspaper announcin; the public comment pericxi and outlinm; the
alternatives evaluated and the :recommended alternative.
'lhe public n-eetin; was held on April 19, 1988. No public ccnmnents
were received. '!he public ocmment pericxi en:ied on May 6, 1988.
Although the MPCA did not receive ~ comments durin; the public
\,AAIIU.ent pericxi, the city provided comments on the draft FS prior to
the camnent pericxi. '!hose comments are summarized in the attached
responsiveness summa:z:y.
-5-
-------
rJ. SCDPE .oF RESroNSE ACrION
nus ren61y repri!sents the final ~ial action for the Lon; Prairie
site. As a result of this :response action, the principal threat at
the site, contaminated grol.1nl water will be mitigated.
V. SITE amRAcrERISTICS
'!he following diSCIlSsion SUImnarizes the nature ani extent of .
contamination based on the finiings of the RI.
As part of earlier site activities, sixteen mnitorirq wells were
installed. D.1rirq the RI, eight additional mnitorirq wells were
installed to more clearly define the extent of grourxi water .
contamination. '!he location of these wells is shown on ~igure 3.
GrouM Water
Salrples collected durin::J the RI imicate the presence of three
volatile organic compoun:3s (VOCs). Isoplots shcwin; lines of equal
concentration of PCE shew an elon;ated plume exterm.nq alon; an axis
fran the center of the City to app~tely Fourth ~venue, NE near
municipal well #4. '!he contaminant plume was founi to be . .
approximately 2,100 feet Ion; ani up to 1,0'00 feet wide (see Figure
4. Contamination appears to exterxl throughout the saturated depth of
the sam aquifer from the g:rourxi surface near the Ancc~ to about 55
feet in depth near municipal well #4. '!he volume of contaminated
g:rourxi water is estimated to be about 7 million gallons. '!he
maximum ani mean concentrations (in: uqJl) of the three contaminants
detected durin; samp1in;are as follows:
lotmicipal Private Monitorin;
Wells. Wells Wells
Max. (mean) Max. (mean) Max.
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene 280 (136) 1000 (190) 22000
1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene II (7) 220 (13) 45
Cis-I, 2-
Dichloroethylene 17 (8) 250 (22) 40
Vinyl chloride was detected in a fewmnitorirq well samples at
levels below method detection limits, but were not confiDned by
. duplicate or other samplin; I"O\.1IDs.
A plm'p test was corxlucted durin; the RI on municipal well #4.
Information obtained from the plm'p test was used in a computer model
which Wicated that pLmIpirq municipal well #4 alone would not remove
the grourx:l water corrt:aminants ani that municipal well #6 probably
would not be affected by the plume.
-6-
-------
L"'__"'--~j/- -- --~~-_. t'~7\ ~.::: T -=-.,.- ::: T-~
i~ ('0~1:::-~~! - j
, I ~ ~( JLj/~--r~-r~~~- 1~:Al-2b
. I )) . 1:--1 . II11l.1... L- '~
. \ (~ LJ f]' -:-'r~ I
-.-n---.J~J . , - - h - -. - - . . -1~;-,. . h.~ 11.. 'I - - - - , -...- .
\, \\ i:~;~lf I I
II t -~ '13c..'" I ~
'I: \ jl ~t"~:' -',;7 ,'.~;. L.,r' - ,- -', I 1
I' .' A.'. " ~.. ;..' i , t' I' III~~
I I . ' ). '~"".I <& . ,";::: ~ -;'::.- Ii. I 1 "'~",'!i'~,r, ~
/ : - '" ,-- c ~ -.., I ,~.....-
.' ; (>_.:..~ , :1:5J~r:g-D -' . ,.' '7T" - i ,. r '" '11'i-j
/,i I'~C-~~:L~:[ ;. :B~:' -.1 :1: "'-.i- ~ - 'n- ....~:R;:~
. I----J ~ ' ; S' , =B'" '.. --:-' at.--' " '-' ." ,~.' '...-"': ~r2'i':~:~:tF-~3p,-!, ~[_.- - -" I
---- .~" . t.~. I .. . .
-- --- I . .~ .. .... .. . ........ .t.. . ... --
-' I' I - B ' '. - "'-.".. ". ..' - ,-
I ....- .;..< I .' I , f - '.- - -,....-r--," ... I -- 8-- : r.ITm1' ,
'~--ILA_--- .... :', .. rJ':: ;~,),. ~... . ,', -.' ~ .1" ~~, ~ ~ '.,~~! .-- --- I
F~':B;' ":8' :-::8' .:IIJJ::: "', lr.-=-W'. ':B;::';~:B" ';., ;':'I,io:~,: :rtij;1'~ili'-EJ- QI'1t'':~(,-,- :
"\ -- , IT!:1 0 JJ-' Iii"'- ---, ~ '''-~I - ~...- -~- ,~"~,' ,j' ,.r. I
I " ' - - . . -' I -. . .0,., - .' I I . ' ...' '.,...." '.' ',' 'I I ," Ii. '1'" . . ,/, I '
I ~f.". ' . . ... .... . 81ft':' . . .. -. ~ a " :. .., .,. - "~'-I". . ... I
'[J1JwDBD LJ~--;lf.W1"JT.'Ir-J.tJ..,,~ r""- --I'-lfJl '\ I
1m DO : . 0 :: ~ i'2Q ..- il~}1fL... :t,1i .:' I;,;~ :>~ mJ :tJ~)i:-: j
!rc;~] I~~-] Ej F~::I (1il.~~J1t ~ r 7 J " U, ':'c ;."IJ~ J L.: . (~:I~:'I:111T1f:iIf~':_; ~
,
lONG PRAlijIE. MINNESOTA
LEGEND
.' I.""IOG MOIO"OIl WILL LOCAtlOlf.
o II" 801l.lfG.
o MUIf.C...AL WILL.
...
l
Hc-~,-
MAlCOLM ...IIH'I, 'HC,
NEW AND EXISTING MONITOR WEll LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3
-------
\. \J 'I"~ ;'~. -y---""_--=..!'~.
"'\ ~ / ',';r';' .~ ~-----:-... !
'r'~ r--~'~, ,n.. OJ ".((/! J'
J)) I I..~,~~..' !
~"/:/' ~ .. I' . ~ . -
~rr L -:::'71 -.. ~'--Hi .
I / I I -- ~,~ CE~:
- \...J..._. ---- ------------'.-:.,: or,' :, :.. - II.M 1'1. ~ ._--J
'\ \ CITY OF ;;: i j,..W:~-' ..., !
I] \ LONG PRAIRIE;; m' !' '
;, ; i \)~ .~. i! ~ ~j::; --,_.!~- 2-- CElli.
8: . ' , - I ....
=: t : ,} 1- :' ~CUltTM . .. . A~ 11.[..
~ t ! SCALE ," = ~OO' ;/,... C,rf'OM&80 1.i! i ..' I~~ I ~. .
z: I j" -..... --- -.. :.... :~TIC'. _3._,
~:k1 , ~ .0"-' ,.'IU;" . ,-';.
!; ; . . TtIIID ~ AWL fU:..
~, , ~ - ...
i:.. ..; ---. ..' =;.-' ~L -.:lw~' '-', .
~! " ~,,~r ~Zu' ZLr:~ =-,' -;W-'"
~ I,.' J I I ;. I .' -
f'~. ~U. ,~ ; Lo;'tJ :;; r. ,,:; 0 ~,.
-, ......'f'- , ." 0 - ~ J
I !LeONG " 0
'8 0
I I ~ 4t I s ~
; ~ . ~
: .. t»1
; '. . tollC 1t,J. :
'~ "{:'j:'J
I :"'r.I;~O~ uQ/1
:1
N
.'.
1\
\, t "
I I
..JL
lr
I
; I
I
I
;
j
.---l
!
I
.
eI..
,
'~. ;~i' :l~0' [
I i <,11"', III ~ I. .90'"
,. Q' :.. o,~ ,I" 0- ° I"~! "'~.
AVI. N.L .
. . --.I 0 . i : i ! 0 ~;' " ,": r ":::: '::. : [
. I ". - l_flD
I . . i 10 . I I f iC ... I. fA". Z
: . I I :,.. I .:
500 u g II , "!' ~ i . ''''0 ". L "
"i~.I.'.Jg':: .~t.~:. EBB'. ~B~:;
. '.. ,.... ~ : ,. ~.o. I: 11861t011" wi, -
..: - ..' ..
AVL S. L.
T
Cn.
, C;[IITItAl.,
'( . ~f '. ~. : '. Q."1c ....~'
~ z ' .
w ~ '0
I: . I '.: !. ...., ~:.
~ .. ~
J' ~ .. . ........
, 'I"T.
11}38t ;;"]f:j: ,~.~ ::: i . : :~::.i ! 'I o:CTl::. i '
4 VI~8 :;to. : .'. :; ~!" .:;; "o~ I!'.:; LLlJ ~ ° I I i'." In ~ :;' . ; ,', :;
stCo..o .
1 EJ~. ,': OO""o:--l 8~' .:, !:"i'. ':I]:"; r~'; :';~ ~g F-~ - .:q-''-~: ~ ~~? .: E-
: . . i~ t':Il ~ ~'.r;.; t I .! i~"L- ... UJ.J.J j I( I t
~~. 1 '~I ..1 i 1-'--:--- ~ .. . I: . \ ~~J I t ! II ; J _.
LEGEND:
AV!:. s.!:.
-100-
PCE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR
CONCENTRATION OF PCE (ug/I).
I, I, 2, 2- TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) ISOPLETHS - FEBRUARY 1987
LONG PRAIRIE FEASIBILITY STUDY
MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC
FIGURE 4
SEPTEMBER 1987
-------
soils.
soil boriRgs an:i surface samples were obtained within the source
area in the alley park.irg lot behim the dry cleaners. All samples
were analyzed for VOCS including PCE, 'la, DCE, an:i 26 other VOCs.
PCE was detected in 21 samples at 11 of the 14 sampling locations
at concentrations ran;in; from 150 to 1,600,000 ugjkq. '!he maxinu.Im
concentration was fourx:l in material from the partially buried" barrel
located 22 feet south of mnitorin; well 10, where the highest levels
of g:t"OUM water contamination was also fourx:l. '!he barrel contained
approxjJnate1y fifteen gallons of qrey flour-like material which
emitted a PCE odor. '!his material appears to be from the ''muck
cooker" used by the dry c1~ \mtil late 1980. '!he muck CXIOker
used diatomaceous earth material to filter an:i recycle used PCE in
the dry c1ean:in;J machine. 'ibe material in the barrel appears to be a
source, if not the only source, of contamination. 'la was detected
in one sample at a conc:entration of 410 uq/kq. Trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene was also detected in one sample at a concentration
of 87 uq/kr:J. 1,1, l-trich1oroethane was detected in two samples at
conc:entrations of up to 93 uqjkq.
'!be resUlts of the Toxic ~cteristic Leachin;J Procedure ('Icr.P)
test an:i analyses mucate the potential for additional leaching of
PCE from contaminated soils to groum water. b data in Table 1
irdicate that some of the soils in the back lot area leach PCE at
high concentrations. SOil remediation is required to mitigate the
source.
VI. SUMMARY OF RISKS
An evaluation was performed usin; mnitorin; data collected
prior to an:i durin; the RI to estimate the potential impacts to
human health an:i the environment assuming no remedial action is
taken at the site.
, '!he human exposure pathway of greatest concemis ingestion of
contaminated grourrl water used for drinking arx:f/or used in CXIOking.,
At I.on;J Prairie, given the volatility of the chemicals an:i their low
dennal absorption, bathin; an:i routine washin;J activities do not
appear to be viable exposure routes. Another human exposure pathway
is ingestion of contaminated soil.
Risk Assessment
carcinogenic potency factors based on oral exposure have been
developed for PCE, 'la, DCE an:i vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride was
included in the municipal well calculations even though it was not
detected above method detection limits. '!he carcinOgenic risks are
reported as excess lifetime cancer risks. EXcess lifetime cancer
risk is defined as the incremental probability of gettirq cancer
compared to the probability if no exposure occurred. For exan'ple, a
-9-
-------
TABtE '1
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
RESULTS OF SOIL LEACHATE ANALYSES
DECEMBER 1987
LEACHATE CONCENTRATION (ug/L)
Soil
Sample Depth 1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro- Trans-1,2-Dichloro- 1,1, 1-Trichloro-
Locati on (feet) ethyl ene (TCE) ethylene (PeE) ethlyene (DCE) ethane (TCEA)
2C 10 NO (5.0) . 290 NO (3.0) NO (5.0)
3C 10 NO (0.5) 28 NO (0.3) NO (0.5)
48 5 NO (50) 29000 NO (30) NO (SO)
10 NO (5.0) 380 NO (3.0) . NO (5.0)
1S NO (5.0) 2800 NO (3.0) NO (5.0)
Proposed Regulatory
Level 70 100 None None
Notes:
ND = Not Detected at the detection limit enclosed by ( ).
Table 1-2 volatile organic analytes not listed above were not
detected.
Regulatory level proposed i~ Federal Register, 13 June 1986,
34042-54
-------
1 x 10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk represents an exposure that
could result in one extra cancer case per million people exposed.
The assumptions for calculating the cancer risk levels used
ingestion of two liters per day of contaminated water for 70 years.
The cumuiative excess lifetime cancer risk resulting from ingestion
of chemicals of concern in the ground water are below:
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Pathway
Advisory Area Private Wells
Average Worst Case
Municipal Wells #4 and #5
Average Worst Case
Ingestion
of Water 6.5 x 10-4
5.5 x 10-3
3.8 x 10-4
7.9 x 10-4
. .
The above risk calculations assume municipal wells #4 and #5
operating without treatment and without dilution from other
municipal wells. The risk for the advisory area private wells were
calculated using the maximum concentration detected in any well for
the worst case, and the average concentration in each well for the
average case. Currently, seven of the original 46 residences with
private wells in the advisory area are not connected to municipal
drinking water. Other exposures to the chemicals, such as
inhalation and dermal contact, may increase these risks.
Tne maximum excess lifetime cancer risk for ingestion of PCE
contaminated soil in the back parking lot by a 10 kg child ingesting
5 grams of soil per day for 5 years ;s currently about 7.9 x 10-6
excluding the buried barrel co~tents.The risk due to exposure to
concentrations encountered at the barrel is 1.1 X 10-3. The residual
PCE concentration corresponding to an excess lifetime cancer risk of
1 X 10-6 is about 1~400 ug/kg.
Environmental Assessment
No pathway curre~t1y exists where environmental receptors (fish and
other aquatic life) in the Long Prairie River may be exposed to
contaminated ground water since the plume has not yet reached the
river. However, ground water eventually flows to the Long Prairie
River north of the contaminated area. None of the contaminants have
been detected in the Long Prairie River. If the contaminants were to
reach the Long Prairie River the concentrations would not be high
enough to impact fish and other aquatic life when compared to aquatic
life toxicity criteria. The Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)
for freshwater organisms for PCE, TCE and DCE are compared to the
average and maximum values observed in the plume as follows:
-11-
-------
Acute (96 Hour)
O1ronic
Plume (Averaqe)
Plume (Maxj- "1
R:E (uqjl)
TCE (uq/l)
OCE (uqJl)
. 5,280
45,000
11,600
840
21,900*
2,800*
190
13
22
22,000
220
250
* No actual chronic values available. TCE is behavioral response, OCE
is for single test. .
All the values in the plume are well below the ~ except for the maximum
level of PCE.. '!he 22,000 uqjl R:E ~ detected at the source area,
located about 1,500 feet from the I.or:g Prairie River. '!his level is not
representative of the plume. '!he next highest concentration of PeE
detected was 1,000 uq,Il, which would probably be ~uted to below the
chronic level. If no action is taken, R:E concentrations :reaching the
river are expected to be less than the 100 uqj1 isopleth shewn on Figure 4
due to dilution ani attern1ation if the plume were allowed to migrate.
COmcarison to ARARs
'!he concentrations of contaminants fourxi in the muriicipal, private and
. monitoring wells exceed Federal .and state applicable or relevant an:i
appropriate requirements (ARARs) or criteria that are to be considered as
shown in Table 2.
'!he averaqe ani max:iJmJm concentrations of R:E exceed state and Federal "to
. be considered" criteria. '!he average and maxinnJm concentrations of TCE
exceed Federal ARARs ani the "to be considered" criteria. '!he state
criteria for. rx:g in private wells was ~~.
ARARs are di ~sed in detail in section X of this document.
VII. w::oMENI'ATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGFS
No significant d'1arges have been made since the publication of the FS
am Proposed Plan.
VIII. DESCRIPI'ION OF ALTERNATIVES
'!he FS was initiated in November 1987 to evaluate alten1ative
response actions for soil and groun:l water contanrlnation at the Long
Prairie site. Ground water and soils are the identified pathways for
contaminant migration at the Long Prairie site. However, it is
possible that other pathways may beo:nne measurably impacted during
the iIrplementation of a grourxi water or soils remedial action.
'!herefore, objectives are presented for each of the potential
contaminant migration pathways at the Long Prairie site.
-12-
-------
TAmE 2
I
comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in Groun:i Water to ARARs
am other criteria
(X denotes exceedance; all units in ug/l)
ARARs Other eri teria
Contaminant Well Contaminant MCIs .RALs A~
'IVPe Concentration
PCE NA 6.6 0(0.88)
z.t.micipal Max. 280 . X X
Private Max. 1000 X X
Monitoring Max. 1200 X X
z.t.micipal Mean 136 X X
Monitoring Mean 119 X X
TCE 5 31.2 0(2.8)
z.t.micipal Max. 11 X X
Private Max. 110 X X X
Monitoring Max. 45 X X X
z.t.micipal Mean 7 X X
Monitorim Mean 6 X X
OCE NA 70 NA
. z.t.micipal Max. 17
Private Max. 250 X
Monitoring Max. 50
z.t.micipal Mean 8
Monitorim Mean 6
Vinv1 CUoride (No EXceedances) 2 0.15 0(2.0)
Notes:
MCIs - USEPA Max.i1m.nn. Contaminant Levels.
RALs - Minnesota De~t of Health Recammended Allowable Li1ni.ts
correspon:li.ng to 10-5 carcinogenic risk level.
~ - USEPA Ambient Water Quality criteria for the protection of
human health. Adjusted for drinking water only as per USEPA £1986) .
Concentrations in parentheses correspond to the midpoint (10- ) of
the risk range for potential carcinogens.
NA - Not Available.
ND/NR - Not detected or not reported.
-------
'!he two objectives for ground water remediation are:
,
o to p%"C\dde a safe dr:inJdnq water supply for present am future
users of the I.orq Prairie Sard Plain aquifer; am
o to prevent the spread of contaminated ground water to wells
presently unaffected, including the City of I.orq Prairie municipal
supply well #6.
'!he primaJ:y objectives of soil remediation are:
o to prevent future iJrpact on dr:inJdnq water due to leaching
migration of contaminants fran soils to ground water; am
o to prevent ingestion/contact with "c:ont:aminated soils.
'!he objectives of air am surface water remediation are:
o to prevent du:onic am acute adverse iJrpacts on human health
durin] implementation of grourxi water am soil remedial
technologies; .
o to prevent adverse effect on aquatic organisms due to implemen-
tation of ~al action.
Table 3 is a compilation of ARARs am other criteria to be considered
for the site contaminants in the various media.
'!he full range of technologies that would address remedial action
goals were identified am then screened accominq to their ability to
meet the site objectives in order to el:iJninate those that are not
technically implementable at the site. 'lhese were evaluated and
screened based generally on the technology's effectiveness,
in'plementability, am cost.
A list of ten applicable alternative response actions remained
after screenirq am were analyzed in detail usin] the nine
evaluation criteria which are defined in Secion VIII of this
dno1:inent. '!he alternatives for evaluation included a ran;Je of
choices. '!his range included:
o A no-action alternative.
o At least one alternative that involves containment of waste with
little or no treatment, but provides protection of human health
am the environment by preventing potential ex};XJSUre or by
reducirx] the nd:>ility of the waste.
o Treatment. alternatives ranging fram one that would eliminate the
need for lcn;-tenn management (including mnitoring) at the site
to one that would use treatment as a principal element to reduce
the . toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants.
-14-
-------
TABLE 1-
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
COMPARISON OF ARARS AND OTHER CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED
ARAR
Pathway ARARs Contaminant Concentratl on Units Other Criteria to be Considered
RAls (10-5) 10.6CA RISK /MQC (10-6) ,,""
Ground Water MCls ug/L HA
1.1,2.2-tetrachloroethylene (PCE) NA 6.6 10 0.7 0"8
'.'.2-trjchloroethylene (TCE) 5.0 - 31.2 NA 3.1 2.7
cis-1.2-dichloroethylene (DCE) NA 10 70 NA NA
vinyl chloride 2.0 0.15 NA NA 2.0
So 11 s 110 CFR 264.197 ug/kg lEACH1 lEACH2 INGEST(10-6)
'.'.2.2-tetrachloroethylene (PCE) tlA 1200 10 1400
'.'.2-trichloroethylene (TCE) NA NA NA 6400
Air NMQS 3 1\ TlV 10.SeA RISK 10-6eA RISK
. ug/m
1.'.2.2-tetrachloroethylene (PCE) NA 3350 0.69 0.069
'.'.2-trichloroethylene (TCE) NA 2700 0.8 0.08
Surface Water NPDES ug/l AWQCs (10-6) AWQC (Fish) 10-SCA RISK
1.1.2.2-tetrachloroethylene (PCE) NA 0.8 15 8.0
1.1.2-trichloroethylene (TCE) NA 2.7 197 27
cis.'.2-dichloroethylene (DEC) NA NA 138 NA
vinyl chloride NA 2.0 5.3 20
Notes:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material (NARH) radon and radionuclide emissions
regulations are also AHARs for ground water, soils, and air pathways. .
NA. = Not Available
.IClS = Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant levels
RAlS .. l1innesota Department of health (HDH) Recommended Allowable limits corresponding to a Hfetime incremental cancer risk of 10-5
HA- - .. USEPA lifetime Health Advisory for drinking water exposure --
10 5,10 ~CA Risk" Concentration corresponding to a lifetime incremental cancer risk of 105 or 106
AWQC (10 ) .. USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria - drinking water and fish consumption
AWQC (Fish) = USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria - adjusted for fish consumption only .
40CFR 264.97 .. RCRA closure and post-closure decontamination and monitoring requirements (also Minnesota Rules Chapter 7045)
lEACHl .. Soils concentration which may leach PCE into ground water at a leachate concentration of 100 ug/l
lEACH2 = Soils concentration which may leach PCE at 6.9 ug/l
INGEST = Soils concentration which, if ingested by a child daily for 5 years. corresponds to an incremental cancer risk of 10-6
NAAQS = National hnbient Air Quality Standard
TlV .. Threshold limit Value work-shift time-weighted average
NPDES .. National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System (also Minnesota Rules Chapter 1001 and Minnesota Statutes O1apters 115 and
116). .
= 96-hour median tolerance 1tmit
TML
-------
Alternative
1
- Np Action
2A - Plume Diversion
and Soils Capping
2B - Plume Diversion and
Excavation/Landfill
3A - Activated Carbon
(Ground Water)
3B - Air Stripping
(Ground Water)
3C - Air Stripping and
Carbon (Ground Water)
3D - Two Carbon or Air
Stripping Units
(Ground Water)
3E - ~ITP Treatment
(Ground Water)
3F - Active Soil Venting
3G - Soil Flushing
TABLE 4
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Goals
.No Action
Contaminant containment
Meet site objectives with
little or no treatment
Treat ground w~ter to MCLs
Treat ground water to MCLs
Treat ground water to MCLs
Treat ground water to MCLs
Treat ground water to MCLs
Remove PCE from soi1s to
acceptable level
Protect ground water quality
Protect ground water quality
Remove PCE from soils to
acceptable level
Features
Divert ground water to Long
prairie River
Cap soils in back lot area
Divert ground water to Long
prairie River
Excavate soils in back lot area
and landfill in off-site facility
Centralized carbon treatment
Centralized air stripping
treatment
Dual technolo~ treatment
Use separate recovery/treatment
system
Provides treated effluent in
back lot area
Discharge ground water to J.ong
prairie WWTP
Active gas collection in back
lot area
Carbon treatment of off-gas
Flush PCE into. ground water and
recover
Excavate hot spot soil areas
Present Worth Cost
$
80,000
980,00(;}
1,600,000
2,000,000
1,100,000
2,100,000
2,000,000
-2,200,000
1,100,000
300,000
350,000
-------
Seven. of the ten alternatives involved treatment of grourxi water or
contaminated soil. A list of the applicable alternatives arxi
technologies is fourxi in Table 4.
Alternative 1 - No Action
capital cost:
Present WOrth cost:
Annual O&M Goe;t:
Time to Implement:
$ 0
$40,000
$ 4,200
None
'!he no-action Alternative involves only long-term mnitoriIg arxi
the renx:wal of mnitoriIg wells not required for the long-term
mnitoriIg Prog%a:m. Urxier the no-action alternative, there would
be liWe ch.a:n;e in contaminant concentrations in the plume over the
next ten years. 'n1e plume 'N'OUld be diluted arxi dispersed somewhat
arxi would exten:l northward until it would dischaJ:ge to the Long
Prairie River. Private wells arxi 11D.1nicipal wells #4 arxi #5 would not
be useable for at least ten years into the future. Contaminants
would continue to leach from the soil into the grourxi water. 'Ihi.s
alternative is considered a baseline scenario to which other
alternatives can be compared.
'n1e followiIg seven alternatives (2A through 3E) involve grourxi water
extraction. '!he goal of the groun:i water extraction system is to
stop the spread of the contaminant plume arxi reltDVe contaminated
grounj water \mill Maximum Contaminant Ievels (MCLs) or other
applicable criteria are reached in the aquifer. '!he grourd water
m:xleliIg performed during the RI was usej to develop a rect:Nery
netwprk, consisting of five extraction wells, pumping a total of 260
gallons per minute (gpm) for five years for which alternative
technolOgies can be compared. Additicmal IOOdeliIg am field testing
will be necessary during tha design phase to detennine the opt.i1nal
number, location am pumping rates for the extraction system. For
those grourd water alternatives that enploy treatment (3A through
3E), the water will be treated.to meet ARARs.
Alternative 2A - Plume Diversion and Soils cappinq
capital COSt:
Present WOrth cost:
Annual O&M cost:
Time to Implement:
$500,000
$980,000
$ 89,000
5 years (grourd water)
< 1 year (cap)
Al ternati ve 2A consists of containrrent of contaminated soils by a
1m.1l.ti-layer RCRA capping system to control infiltration, am
diversion of contaminated grourxi water away fram potential users by
p.mping am discharging to the Lon:J Prairie River without treatment.
'!his alternative will achieve grourxi water am soil site objectives.
'!he useful life of the cappiIg system is expected to be about thirty
years, am the cap will require above grourrl long-term maintenance.
-17-
-------
Penetration or erosion of the cap ,may cause oontami.nants to migrate
fran soils to ground water. A cap can be constructed within the back
lot area,. but will require above ground relocation of several
\.1l'Xiergrouni utilities. '!he alternative wculd not meet the
substantive National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDFS)
permit requirements because the untreated dicharge does not employ
best available technology (BAT).
Alternative 2B - Plmne Diversion and Soils Excavation and Off-site
Iandfill
capital Cost:
Present Worth COst:
Annual O&M COSt:
. Time to Implement:
$1,200,000
$1,600,000
$ 89,000
5 years (ground water)
< 1 year (excavation)
Alternative 2B also requires ground water withdrawal and diversion as
described above. Hc7Never, the need for lon:J-teJ:m narltorirq at the
site is eliminated by excavation of contaminated soils in the back
lot area, and disposal of the soils in an off-site lan:ifill facility
in compliance with U.S. EPA's off-site policy. Excavation areas are
backfilled with clean fill.
Alternative 2B involves soil rem:wal. The volmne of contaminated
soil that needs to be I'eItCVed was determined based on the threat to
groun::l water due to leaching from the soil. The target cleanup level
was determined based on results obtained from the proposed 'ICLP test
performed on selected scmples from the soils investigation. The
proposed regulatory level for PCE in solid wastes (Federal Register,
13 J\me 1986, 34042-54) is 100 uq,tl as measured in the leachate.
Regression analysis and a safety factor of two was used to determine
the target clearmp level of .1200 uq,lJ
-------
Alternative 3A - Activated Carbon Adsorption
Capital Cost:
Present Worth Cost:.
Annual O&M Cost:
Time to Implement:
$ 870,000
$2,000,000
$ 300,000
5 years
Ground water treatment consists of withdrawal and on-site treatment
of contaminated ground water with granular activated carbon (GAC).
Treated water is discharged to the Long Prairie River.
GAC is a. demonstrated technology which results in the thermal
destruction of contaminants during off-site carbon regeneration.
In granular activated carbon treatment, ground water is first pumped
into an equalization tank. The equalization tank provides operating
flexibility which can compensate for maintenance downtime at the
withdrawal wells or carbon treatment units. The estimated
concentration range and estimated average influen~ concentrations
expected at the Long Prairie site and examples of removal
efficiencies are shown below. The average influent concentration was
calculated based on five extraction wells pumping at varying
flowrates, for a total of 260 gpm.
Reference Reference Estimated
Influent Effluent Estimated Average
Organic Compounds Concentration Concentration Concentration Range Influent
in Water Range Range at Long Prairie Concentration
Tetrachloroethylene 5 ug/1-70,000 ug/l <1 ug/l 400 ug/l-1,000 ug/l . 700 ug/l
Trichloroethylene 5 ug/1-16,000 ug/l <1 ug/1 8 ug/1-600 ug/l 200 ug/l
Cis-1,2- 5 ug/1-4,000 ugil
dichloroethylene <1 ug/l 10 ug/1-48 ug/l 30 ug/l
Granular activated carbon treatment may be ineffective in removing
vinyl chloride.
Alternative 3B - Air Stripping
Capital Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Time to Implement:
$ 730,000
$1,700,000
$ 250,000
5 years
The air stripping alternative consists of ground water extraction
with on-site treatment using a packed column air stripping tower.
Treated water is discharged to the Long Prairie River. The
conceptual design criteria for this alternative were taken from
previous pilot column tests.
-19-
-------
COMPRESSOR
EXTRACTION
POINT
AS PHALT
-,
//
.
GROUND WATER
TABL E "V
LONG PRAIRIE FEASIBILITY STUDY
EXHAUST AIR
TREATMENT
COMPRESSOR
INJECTION POINT
~COMPRESSOR)
~
CONTAMINATED
SOILS
ON- SITE SOilS TREATM ENT
IN-SITU AERATION
EXTRACTION
POINT
~/
/~
FIGURE 5
SEPTEMBER 1987
-------
'!he design packed tower height is based on the reDVJVal of PeE. PeE
is :the controllirgc::orrpol11'Xi based on the concentration of the VOCs
detected on-site. At the PeE design criteria (5 uqjl), all other
c::oIr'pOUnds, including vinyl chloride, are renrwed to levels equal to .
or lower than MC!s. TreatJ11ent to meet groun:i water Mcrs requires a
strippirg tower with a 4 foot diameter am 27.5 feet of packing.
'!he results of preliminary modelirg usirg worst case data irxiicate
that treatJ11ent of stripper emissions may not be required to meet site
air criteria for PeE. Dispersion effects were 100deled by u.s. EPA
am MPCA. '!he TNOrst case PeE, 'la, am vinyl chloride concentrations
are expected to cx::cur 20 meters from the air stripper at groun:i
level. '!he total excess cancer risk at that location is 2.8 X 10-6.
Requirements for vapor phase trea'bDent will be re-evaluated durirg
the design phase of the project. with the benefit of additional data.
Generally, vapor phase treatment, if required, is ace- AI~lished by
CX)11ectin:J tower emissions am forcirg them through a GAC oontactor.
'Ihe spent GAC is periodically replaced with fresh carlxm.
'!he GAC am packing material will be monitored for breakthrough of
radon decay products. Radiation problems can oriqinate with air
strippirg because some soil am grcurxi water can contain substantial
concentrations of radioactive radon am thoron. 'these are evacuated
alCD] with chemical contaminants durirg these operations, am may
a~1Inl1'ate on the collection media. '!he costs :include a contingency
for vapor phase treatment.
Alternative 3C - Combined Strim1rx:r am AdsomttQn
capital Cost: $ 980,000
Present Worth Cost: $2,100,000
Annual O~ Cost: . $ 300,000
Time to IIrplement: 5 years
AI ternative 3C incol:pOrates both strippirg am adsorption
technologies. Volatile c::cmpouni concentrations are lowered by
initial strippirg treatment, then reduced to MCL levels by effluent
polishing usirg adsorption technology. '!he advantage of combined
tedmology is that a high quality effluent can be produced. The
disadvantages of the combined technology are higher capital and
operatirg costs.
'!he design is based upon a 'NOrst case ass1..mption for an influent
vinyl chloride concentration of 10 ug/l. '!his concentration for
vinyl chloride was obtained by doubling the highest well
concentration detected during the RI, 5.1 ug/l. Adsorption rezrovaJ.
of vinyl chloride is not well-demonstrated, but vinyl chloride is the
IIDSt easily stripped c::orrpol11'Xi of the four contaminants of concem at
the site. 'Ihe initial strippirg tower was designed for an effluent
concentration of 2 ug/l, the vinyl chloride MCL.
. .
'Ihe packing height required for vinyl chloride renrwal is about 6
feet. '!he corresporxlin:J renrwal of PeE, at a packing height of 6
-21-
-------
feet ani air to water ratio of 40, is about 65 percent. stripping
tower effluent PCE concentrations are therefore about 245 uqjl.
Adso%ption treatment is then used to lower the PCE concentration to
the 5 uqjl criterion.
'!he adso%ption tmits utilized for combined treatment are the same as
those used urxler Alternative 3A. Volumetric loading ratio controls
treatment vessel size, ani influent flow rate has not changed.
However, the influent contaminant concentration is lower, so the
carbon usage is decreased. It is estimated that the requirements of
carbon :regeneration will be lowered by app1:oximately one-half under
the combined treatment alternative. '!he GAC ani packing material
will be m:m.itorecl for radon.
Alternative 3D - Two Carbon or StriDCincr Units
Capital Cost: .
Present Worth Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Time to IDplement:
$ 850,000 - $1,000,000
$1,200,000 - $2,200,000
$ 310,000 - $ 320,000
5 years
AlteJ:mtive 3D utilizes two separate withdrawal treatment systems
instead of one centralized tmit to effect grourn water treatment to
attain drinking water MC!s.
Treatment is by either two adsorption or two stripping systems.
'!he ground water plmne was divided into two areas as follows:
1.
A northen1 area characterized by high in:tividual well pumping
rates, lowered initial cxmtaminant concentrations, ani proximity
to municipal well #4.
A southem area characterized by lower in:tividual well pumping
rates, high initial contaminant concentrations, ani proximity to
the back parkirg lot area. .
2.
Both adso%ption ani strippin] systems benefit fran lesser piping
requirements to link recovery wells to. remt:e treatment mrits. An
additional capital cost savirqs for the carbon adso%ption system is
realized because the contactor size requirements are less under the
lower flow rates. Stripper costs, however, virtually double because
of little change in the packing height requirements for PCE removal
to Mcrs. .
Use of either dual system would require the location of a treatment
tmit near the southem en::1 of the ground water plmne ani the back lot
area. '!he effluent from the southem treatment system would be
utilized for (a) soil treatment; (b) reinjection; (c) discharged to
the Lon] Prairie River; or (d) introduced into the I.org Prairie
municipal supply system near the existing water treatment plant.
-22-
-------
Effluent from the remote northem treatment system would be
introduc::ed into the I.on:J Prairie supply system at nnmicipal well #4.
'!be GAC will be monitored for radon.
Alternative 3E - Discharqe to the City of I.onq Prame Wastewater
Treatment Plant
capital COSt:
Present Worth COSt:
Annual O&M COSt:
Time to Implement:
$ 520,000
$1,100,000
$ 150,000
5 years
U1'X!er Alternative 3E, the grourxi water plume is withdrawn, collected
am discharged into the City of I.on:J ~ie Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWI'P). Treatment is a~lII:Jlished by air strippirq am
biological degradation in aeration units.
'!he City of IDn.:J Prairie operates an aerated lagoon system. '!here
are no irxiustrial pretreatment stan::1ards which would prevent the
discharqe of the recovered grourx1 water into the wwrP collection
system. However, the Ion; Prairie wwrP is currently hydraulically
overl~ed, ani an expansion is not expected to be ccmpleted prior
. to October 1990.
'!he soil treatment technologies, Alternatives 3F ani 3G, are active
ventinq am flushing. Each treatment technology !lill be applied to
the entire back lot area, from grourx1 surface to the grourxi water
table. 'n1e entire back lot area is treated to assure that
contaminants are actually renDVed from the soil media, and not simply
relocated to untreated central areas. '!his re5ul ts in a greater
volmne of contaminated soil than what was estimated for the
excavation alternative (2B) .in order to ensure against oontamiI1ant
migration. '!he followirq initial corxtitions are assumed:
o SUrface area equal to 6,900 ft2.
o Depth of treatment to 15 ft.
o Volmne of contaminated soils": 3,800 yd3. "
o Average initial PCE concentration: :2 ,000 ug,lkq.
o 'IWo hotspot areas near the buried ch:um ani grid location lE.
o Hotspot areas are cylin:lers of 30 foot diameter and 15 foot dePth.
o Average initial PCE concentrations in hotspots: 400,000 ug/kg.
For purposes of designing the treatment systems, the average initial
PCE concentration was assumed to be twice the average PCE
concentration at grid locations within the excavation area.
Alternative 3F - Active Soil Venti.ncr
capital COSt:
Present Worth COSt:
Annual O&M Cost:
Tin's to Inplement:
$ 160,000
$ 300,000
$ 140,000
1 year
-23-
-------
Active soil verrtin3 involves aeratin;J contaminated soils by forcin;J a
subsurface airflow with compressors am vacuum extraction. Volatile
organic contaminants are stripped fran the soils by the air urxler
similar transfer phenanena as those which occur in the ground water
air strippin:] column. A schematic of the soil ventin;J process
plO~ for. the long Prairie site is shown in Figure 5.
In general, an active soil ventin;J system is na;t effective in sandy
unsaturated soils such as those present in the back lot area.' '!he
system prcposed for the Long Prairie soils begins with a compressor
used to inject air through a perforated PIC tube placed at the center
of the back lot area. Withdrawal wells are placed in all parts of
the back lot area in order to avoid blowin:J contaminants, am
possibly odors, into clean ~ils am ba~. A secord compressor
is used to withdraw air from the subsurface am discharge into a
vapor phase treatment system. rrhe ccmpressors act to create a
subsurface air flow am strip volatile organics from contaminated
soils. Withdrawn air is treated, if required, by cartxm adsorption.
Radiation problemg can originate with active soil verrtin3 because .
soils can contain substantial concentrations of radioactive radon and
thcron. Radon am thoron are evacuated alonq with the contaminants
am may accumulate on the carbon. 'thus, the GAC will be m:mitored
for radon. rrhe costs include the cost of cartxm treatment.
Alternative 3G - Soil Flushing
Capital COst:
Present Worth COst:
Annual O&M COst:
Tbne to Inplement:
$ 290,000
$ 350,000
$ 61,000
4 years
. .
Alternative 3G accoll~lishes soil treatment by flushing contaminated
soils with treated ground water. Flushing utilizes the solubility of
the volatile organic CCl'I'IpOl1nds present in the soils to carty
contaminants into the groun:i water below the back lot area. '!he
contaminated leachate is then recovered am treated along with the
shallow groun:i water plume in the withdrawal well network. It is
expected that at least one of the recovery wells will be located
immediately down:Jradient of the infiltration area in the back lot.
'!he key parameters for flushing treatment are the infiltration
capacity of site soils, contaminant concentration expected in the
infiltration (flushing) waters, am residual contaminant
concentration in soil for which treatment will no longer be
effective. Infiltration capacity is estimated for sandy soils using
regional precipitation data. .
Based on regression analysis of obseIved concentration of R:E in
leachate fran the 'IcrP test, it is estimated that flushing waters
will have a PeE concentration of 85 uqjl after infiltratin:]
vertically through 15 feet of soils contaminated with PeE at a
concentration of 2,000 uqjkq. Considerin;J this value, the an-ount of
-24-
-------
PCE to be rem:wed from the soils, am the infiltration rate results
in an estimated time for average soils remediation of 90 days using
about 320,000,000 gallons of treated qrounj water. '!he voltnnet.ric
loading is about 56 gallons of water per square foot of surface area
per day. '!he infiltration water requires about 3 days to travel
vertically 1:.0 the qrounj water table, where it is withdrawn during
grourxi water remediation.
Infiltration treatment will not be su~sful in remediating hot spot
areas to soils criteria within a reasonable time period. Under
s:i:milar asst.mi'tions for contaminant transfer rates from a starting
PCE cxmcentration of 400,000 uq,Ikq, it is estimated that 420 days am
3.2 million gallons of water will be required to leach PCE to soil
criteria. After saturated c:::cniitions are nm:wed, it is estimated
that treated soils will continue to leach flusl'lin; water for up to 2
years. ~ for cold weather interruptions, flusl'lin; may
require up to 4 years (2 years of treatment plus 2 years of residual
leaching) before c:::ontaminants are nm:wed in withdrawal wells.
'Iherefore, it is more cost am time efficient to excavate the hot
spot at the buried drum am lardfill it at an off-site facility. 'nle
estimated cost for flusl'lin; treatment includes excavation am off-
site lardfillin1 of about 60 cubic yards of contaminated soil near
the buried drum.
Combinations of Interaction of the Altematives
'!he response action at the I.onq Prairie site will require two
al tenlatives, one source control am one management of migration
process. Treated qrounj water from. an air stripper or caJ:bon system
will provide safe drinking water to the public that meets Federal and .
State drinking water starx:1ards am will manage the migration of
c:::ontaminants. SOil treatment, rem::wal or containment would control
the source. However, the public water supply cannot utilize the
entire volume of treated water that would be generated therefore an
altenlative discharge to the river would be necessary.
VIII. SUMMARY OF a:MPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AIlI'ERNATIVES
Each of the alternatives were evaluated using a number of evaluation
factors. '!he regulatozy basis for these factors carnes from the
National Contingency Plan am Section 121 of SARA (Cleanup
Stan:iards). Section 121(b) (1) states that, "Remedial actions in
which treatment which permanently ard significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity or IrObility of the hazardOUS substances, pollutants,
am contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred over
remedial actions not involving. such treatment. 'nle offsite transport
am disposal of hazardous substances or contaminated materials
without such treatment should be the least favored alternative
remedial action where practicable treatment technologies are
available." Section 121(b) (1) also states that the following factors
shall be addressed during the remedy selection process:
-25-
-------
(A) the long-term \meert:ainties associated with land disposal;
(B) the goals, objectives and requirements of the Solid waste
Disposal Act;
(C) the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioa~11'muate of such hazardous substances and their
constituents ;
(D) short- and long-term potential for adverse health effects from
human exposure; .
(E) long-term maintenance costs;
(F) the potential for future remedial action costs if the
alternative ~al action in question were to fail; and
(G) the potential threat to human health and the envirornnent
associated with excavation, transportation, and redisposal,
or containment.
Section 121 of SARA requires that the selected reJ:Wy is to be
prctective of human health and the envircnment, cost-effective, and
use pel]1Ianent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maxiJDum extent practicable.
Alternatives were evaluated usirg cunent u.s. EPA guidance,
incJ.ud:i.nq: "Interim Guidance on SUperfurxi Selection of Remedy" dated
~ 24, 1986 and "Additional Inter:im Guidance for FY'87 Records
of Decision" dated J'uly 24, 1987. In the J'uly 24, 1987, guidance,
the foll~ nine evaluation factors are referenced:
1. OVerall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection, and
describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will meet
all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARARs)
requirements of other environmental statutes arx:1/or provide
grounjs for invoJd.rq a waiver.
3. I..onq-term effect~veness and PE!nYlanence refers to the ability of a
remedy to maintain reliable protection of hUman health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met.
4. Reduction of toxicitv. mobilitv. or volume is the anticipated
perfo:rmance of the treatment tedmologies a remedy may employ.
5. Short-term effectiveness involves the period of time needed to
achieve protection and any adverse iInpact on htnnan health and the
environment that may be posed during the construction and
ilnplementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. ImPlementability is the technical and administrative feasibility
of a remedy, includ:i.nq the availability of gocxls and services
needed to ilnplement the chosen solution.
-26-
-------
7. Cost includeS capital an::l operation an::l maintenance costs.
8. State Acc:eptance Wicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS an::l Proposed Plan, the MPCA concurs, opposes, or
has no comment on the preferred alternative.
9. COmmlmitv Acceptance Wicates the public support of a given
IelL.eUy. '!his criteria is di co..cussed in the Responsiveness
SUmmary .
A summazy of the relative Perfonnance of the alternatives with
respect to each of the nine criteria is provided in this section.
Included are Tables 5 an::l 6 which provide a ocmparison of
alternatives an::l the nine criteria. All cala.1lations regarding
. alternative Perfomance were based on the worst case situation which
usually consisted of takinq two times maxmum obse%ved ooncentration.
Based on this conservative approach each alternative is expected to
perform better rather than at or below projectiOns. 'Iherefore, those
cases which appear to be borderline on mee1:inJ criteria are expected
to perform satisfactorily dI.1rin1 bplement:ation.
OVerall ~on of Human Health an::l the Env1ronment
'!he no-action alternative does not provide adequate protection of
human health an::l the envirorment since it would result in an extended
~ via the grourxi water pathway, continued gI'CI.]ni water
contamination fran soil, an::l potential for ~ through
disturbance of contaminated soil.
Each of.the alternatives containing activated carbon arXI/or air
stripping or treatment at the I.onq Prairie WWI'P can be effective in
protecting human health an::l the envirorment. '1he health risk
assessment performed by the U. s. EPA an::l MPCA utilized computer
~~ling results of several scenarios an::l detennined that there would
be a cala.1lated total excess cancer risk of less than 2.8 X 10-6.
Based on these results, air stripping will not require vapor phase
treatment of emissions in order to achieve air quality criteria an::l
to protect human health. . .
Plume diversion may not be environmentally protective. Ground water
wculd be discharged without treatment an::l contaminants would be
transferred to surface waters at levels which may exceed ambient
water quality criteria (~) during low' flow con:litions in the
river. '!he Long Prairie River is not classified for drinking water
use, but recreational ~ is tX'Ssible.
All soil remediation methods are protective to vcu:ying d~.
Excavation to target cleanup levels an::l offsite disposal of
contaminated soil will provide adequate protection of human health
an::l the environment at the site. '!he long-term management of the
soil will be the responsibility of the offsite lan::l disposal
facility. If properly operated an::l maintained, a cap over the
-27-
-------
Description:
No Action
TABLE 5 .
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 1 EVALUATION
Criteria
1.
Short-Term Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
4.
Implementability
s.
Cost.
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
9.
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Not effective. Protection against ground
water contaminants not achieved. 30-year
monitoring period.
Not effective. Ground water contaminants
remain at levels which exceed MCLs. Back
lot soils will continue to leach to ground
water.
No reduction.
Not applicable.
Capital: $40,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $4,200 for 30 years
Present worth value: $80,000
Noncompliance with ground water and soils
ARARs.
Not protective since contamination remains
in soil and ground water. Potential risk
to human health and the environment.
Not Acceptable.
Not acceptable.
-------
TABLE 5
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 2A EVALUATION
Description:
Withdraw ground water to MCL criteria if technically practica-
ble, discharge untreated ground water to Long Prairie River, and
cap soils in back lot area.
Criteria
1.
Short-Te~ Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Per.manence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
MObility, and Volume
4.
Implementability
5.
Cost
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
9.
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Somewhat effective. Impacts surface water
quality in the Long Prairie River. 5-year
implementation for ground water withdrawal:
30-year monitoring of cap. Short-term
impact during construction.
The long-term effectiveness of cap systems
is unknown. Long-te~ impact on surface
water quality depends on monitoring and
maintaining the integrity of the cap.
Potential for failure of the cap and threat
to human health and the, environment remain
indefinitely. Not a permanent remedy.
Reduces toxicity of ground water contam-
inants by dilution and volatilizat~on.
Reduces mobility of soil contaminants by
reducing infiltration.
- Technically feasible. Untreated discharge
to Long Prairie River will likely be denied
by per.mitting authorities.
Capital: $500,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $89,000 for 5 years: $15,000
for 30 years
Present worth value: $980,000
Noncompliance with NPDES BAT requirement
for surface water discharge. Complies with
ground water, air, and soils ARARs.
Questionable. Requires further data on the
effect of contaminant discharge on the Long
Prairie River. Residual incremental c~gcer
risk at the completion of pumping = 10 .
Not acceptable.
No objection
-------
Description:
TABLE 5
LONG PRAIRIE, HINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 2B EVALUATION
Withdraw ground water to MCL criteria if technically practica-
ble, discharge untreated ground water to Long Prairie River,
excavate soils in back lot area, and remove to off-site RCRA -
Complaint landfill.
1.
. Criteria
Short-Term Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
4.
Implementability
5.
Cost
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
9.
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Questionabl~. Impacts surface water
quality in the Long Prairie River for
5-year pump and discharge period. Soil
excavation in back lot~area may release
volatiles in populated area. Monitoring is
performed during construction to minimize
potential affects.
Effective. Removes contaminants from site
soils and ground water. Threat is
. transferred to soil disposal facility and
Long.Prairie ~iver.
Reduces toxicity of ground water
contaminants by .dilution. Relocates soil
contaminants to off-site' landfill facility.
There is no treatment of the contaminants
to reduce toxicity, mobility, vol rime.
Questionable. Soils disposal may be
subject to landfill ban on organic
solvents. Untreated discharge to Long
Prairie River will likely be denied by
permitting authorities.
Capital: $1,200,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $59,000 for 1 year; $89,000.
for 5 years
Present worth value: $1,600,000
Noncompliance with surface water ARARs.
Complies with ground water, air, and soils
ARARs .
Questionable. Requires further data on the
effect of contaminant discharge on the Long
Prairie River. Residual incremental c~cer
risk at the completion of pumping = 10 .
Not acceptable.
No objection
-------
TABLE 5
LONG PRAIRIE, M~NNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 3A EVALUATION
Description:
Withdraw contaminated ground water, treat by granular activated
carbon adsorption, and discharge to the Long Prairie River
and/or use treated water for public supply.
Criteria
10
Short-Term Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
4.
Implementability
5.
Cost
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
9.
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Effective. Minimal impact to community and
workers during 5-year period of remedial
action. Residual incremental cancer_Sisk
at carbon effluent about equal to 10 .
Effective. Residual incremental cancer
risk at the complet!gn of ground water
pumping is about 10 at receptors.
Permanent ground water remedy.
Contaminants destroyed during carbon
regeneration process. May be ineffective
in vinyl chloride removal.
Demonstrated and reliable technology.
Minimal permitting requirements. Several
established vendors. Monitoring
required to assure adequate removal.
Capital: $870,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $300,000 for 5 years
Present worth value: $2,000,000
Complies with all ground water, surface
water, air, and soils ARARs.
Protective for ground water since it
eliminates the threat to human health and
the environment.
Acceptable but not preferred.
Negative initial reaction to use of street
right-of-way for ground water collection
piping.
-------
. 9.
TABLE 5
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 3B EVALUATION
Description:
Withdraw contaminated ground water, treat by air stripping, and
discharge to Long Prairie River and/or use treated water for
public supply.
Criteria
1.
Short-Term Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
4.
Implementability
5.
Cost
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Heal th and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Effective. Use of vapor phase carbon
treatment minimizes potential impact to
community and workers during 5-year period
of remedial action. Residual incremental
cancer risk_~t stripper effluent about
equal to 10 .
Effective. Residual incremental cancer
risk at the complet!gn of ground water
pumping is about 10 at receptors.
Permanent ground water remedy.
Contaminant toxicity reduced by dispersion
of air stripping tower emissions. Contam-
inants destroyed if vapor phase carbon
treatment utilized. Monitoring required to
assure adequate removal.
Demonstrated and reliable technology.
Several established vendors.
Capital: $730,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $250,000 for 5 years
Present worth value: $1,700,000
Complies with all ground water, surface
water, soils, and air ARARs.
Protective for ground water since it
eliminates threat to human health and the
environment.
Acceptable but not perferred.
Negative initial reaction to the use of
street right-of-way for ground water
collection piping.
-------
TABLE 5
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 3C EVALUATION
Description:
Withdraw contaminated ground water, treat by air stripping and
activated carbon, and discharge to Long Prairie River and/or
use treated water for public supply.
Cri teria
1.
Short-Term Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
MObility, and Volume
4.
Implementability
5.
Cost
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
9.
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Effective. Minimal impact to community and
workers during 5-year period of remedial
action. Residual incremental cancer ri~~
at treatment effluent about equal to 10 .
Effective. Residual incremental cancer
risk at the complet~gn of ground water
pumping is about 10 at receptors.
Permanent ground water remedy.
Some contaminants destroyed during carbon
regeneration period. Other dispersed to
atmosphere~ Monitoring required to assure
adequate removal.
Demonstrated and reliable technology.
Minimal permitting requirements. Several
established vendors.
Capital: $980,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $300,000 for 5 years
Present worth value: $2,100,000
Complies with all ground water, surface
water, air, and soils ARARs.
Protective for ground water since it
eliminates threat to human health and the
environment.
Combined technology is iIrpractical.
Negative initial
right-of-way for
piping.
reaction to use of street
ground water collection
-------
TABLE 5
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 3D EVALUATION
Description:
Withdraw contaminated ground water, treat by either two. air
stripping or two carbon units, and use treated water for public
supply or surface water discharge.
Criteria
1.
Short-Term Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
MObility, and Volume
4.
Implementability
5.
Cost
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
9.
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Effective. Possible impact to community
and workers due to treatment unit located
in the downtown area. S-year period of
remedial action. Residual incremental
cancer risk_~t treatment effluent about
equal to 10 .
Effective. Residual incremental cancer
risk at the complet!gn of ground water
pumping is about 10 at receptors.
Permanent ground water remedy.
Contaminants destroyed during carbon
regeneration or dispersed to the
atmosphere. Monitoring required to assure
adequate removal.
Demonstrated and reliable technology.
Minimal permitting requirements. Several
established vendors.
Capital: $850,000 - $1,000,000 .
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $320,000 for 5 years
Present worth value: $2,000,000 - $2,200,000
C~mplies with all ground water, surface
water, soils, and air ARARs.
Protective for ground water since it
eliminates threat to human health and the
environment.
Negative aspects made this undesireable.
Negative initial reaction to use of street
right-of-way for ground water collection
piping. .
-------
TABLE 5
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 3E EVALUATION
Description:
Withdraw contaminated ground water and discharge to municipal
wastewater treatment plant.
Criteria
1.
Short-Term Effectiveness
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobili ty, and Volume
4.
Implementability
5.
Cost
6.
Compliance with ARARs
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
8.
State Acceptance
9.
Community Acceptance
Evaluation
Questionable. Possible impacts to
treatment plant workers during
implementation. Possible impact on
Prairie River due to WWTP effluent.
Long
Effective.
risk at the
pumping and
receptors.
Residual incremental cancer
completion of ground !gter
treatment is about 10 at
Contaminants removed by air stripping and
possible biodegradation. Possible
concentration of organics in waste
activated sludge.
Not immediately implementable. Long
Prairie WWTP is at hydraulic capacity, and
expansion is not expected prior to 1990.
Capital: $520,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $150,000 for 5 years
Present worth value: $1,100,000
Compliance status with surface water
criteria is unknown. Complies with ground
water, air and soils ARARs.
Unknown. May transfer risks from ground
water to surface water pathways.
Not ACceptable due to WWl'P capacity.
Negative reaction due
to WWTP capacity
-------
TABLE 5
I
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 3F EVALUATION
Description:
Install active soil venting system in back lot area, strip
volatiles from contaminated soils, and treat vapor phase with
activated carbon.
Criteria
Evaluation
1.
Short-Term Effectiveness
EffectLve. Possible impacts to workers and
community during soil venting system
installation. Minimal operations impacts
during less than 1 year period of
remediation. Monitoring to assure no risk
to workers and community.
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Probably effective. Should achieve
residual levels for leachate and ingestion
criteria. Permanent soil remedy.
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
Contaminants destroyed during regeneration
of carbon.
4.
Implementability
Demonstrated technology with innovative
applicable. Minimal permitting
requirements.
5.
Cost
Capital: $160,000
Annual operations, maintenance, and
monitoring: $140,000 for 1 year
Present worth value: $300,000
6.
Compliance with ARARs
Complies with all ground water, surface
water, air and soils ARARs.
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Protective.
8. State Acceptance
Yes.
9.
Community Acceptance
Minimal impact to present land usage in the
back lot area.
-------
TABLE 5..
LONG PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 3G EVALUATION
Description:
Flush soils in back lot area with clean water, recover flush
waters in ground water withdrawal network.
Criteria
Evaluation
1.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Questionable. Ties up land usage in the
back lot area for a lengthly period.
2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Probably effective. Should achieve
residual levels for leachate and ingestion
criteria. Permanent soil remedy.
3.. Reduction of Toxicity,
MObility, and Volume
Contaminants recovered during ground water
treatment. Reduction in contaminant volume
and long-term mob il i ty .
4.
Implementability
Long period of remediation. Requires
landfill disposal of residual hotspots
after flushing treatment. May require
variance on reinjection.
5.
Cost
Capital: $290,000
Annual operations, maintenance and
monitoring: $61,000 for 1 year
Present worth value: $350,000
6.
Compliance with ARARs
Complies with all ground water, surface
water, soils and airARARs.
7.
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Protective.
8.
State Acceptance
r-bt Acceptable due to negative physical aspects and
tirrefrcnre .
Potential negative reaction to loss of land
usage in the back lot area.
9.
Community Acceptance
-------
TABLE 6
J,ONG PRAlinE, MINNESOTA
NINE CRITERIA EVALUATION
COMPARISON AMONG ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Evaluation Criteria 1 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 3F 3G
Short-Term Effectiveness
Protection of Community + + + + +
Protection of Workers + + + + + +
Environmental Impacts + + + +
Time +
Long-Term Effectiveness
Magnitude of Residual Risks + + + + + + + +
Adequacy of Controls + + + + + + + + +
Reliability of Controls + + + + + + +
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, Volume + + + + + + + +
Implementability
Technical Feasibility + + + + + + +
Administrative Feasibility + + + +
Availability of Services and Materials + + + + + +
Cost + + +
Compliance with ARARs + + + + + +
Overall Protection of Uuman Health & Environment + + + + + +
.f- +- + -I-
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance + t- + .,.. +. - +
Notes:
+: generally favorable in comparison to other alternatives
. generally unfavorable in comparison to other alternatives
blank space: neither favorable nor unfavorable
-------
contaminated soil will provide adequate protection of public health
am the env:irorunent. Future migration of contaminants to groum
water or volatilization may occur if the cap is damaged.'
soil treatment using active soil venting or soil flushing provides
adequate protection of h1.mlan health and the envirornnent since target
cleanup levels are met at the site and the contaminants are
pennanent.ly reIIK:Wed fran the soil.
All alternatives, except no-action am direct discharge, provide
vcu:ying degrees of protection, although they do so through different
ocmbinations of treatment or containment. '!he greater the degree of
treatment, the less reliance there is on assuring the alternative I s
prct:ectiveness through maintenance.
COmDliance with ARARs
All prct:ective alternatives are designed to attain the applicable or
relevant am apprqn-iate requirements of Federal and state
envi.ronmenta1 laws. '!be folla.d.rg alternatives or portions of
alternatives will not meet ARARs.
'!be no-action alternative will not meet ARARs. Also, it is
inconsistent with the u.s. EPA grourxiwater protection strategy. '!he
contaminated grourxiwater will continue to migrate at levels that
exceed Mas am other health based risk levels.
'!he plume withdrawal and direct discharge. portion of Alternative 2B
will not meet the requirements for best available technology (BAT)
treatment. It al.so may exceed ambient water quality criteria.
'!he reinj action portion of Alten1atives 3G may require a special
waiver from the State of Minnesota. '!be State has approved
infiltration, but not injection \mless potable water is used am
injection waters are recaptured in a dcwngradient withdrawal network.
'!be waiver would be required to define treated grotmj water as
drinkinq water. .
Short-Term Effectiveness
'!he alten1atives involving groum water treatment using GAC arx3/or
air stripping (3A through 3D) provide a high degree of short-tenn
effectiveness by protecting the workers, carnmuni ty and the
envirornnent while having. no adverse impact fram implementation of the
1: eme~.1y .
'!he grotmj water alten1atives involving grourxi water extraction and
direct discharge without treatment (2A am 2B) provides a lesser
degree of short-tam effectiveness since the contaminants are being
transferred to the river.
-39-
-------
'!he grcurd water al telmtive involving discharge to the I.on;J Prairie
wwrP (3E) has questionable short-ter.m effectiveness, since there are
potential adverse inpacts to the trea'b'nent plant Workers during
iIrplementation am subsequent discharge to the I.on;J Prairie River.
'!he iIrplementation time for all groun:i water extraction al telmti ves
is the same (five years) .
'!he altelmtive involving capping (2A) provides short-ter.m
effectiveness by eliminating ctirect contact threats am reducing the
threat of contaminant migration to the grcurd water. '!he al ternati ve
involving soil excavation am offsite disposal (2B) provides short-
ter.m effectiveness since ctirect contact am g:t'OUl'Xiwater contamination
threats from the site are rem::wed. Hc:Mever, there are negative
short-ter.m inpacts resulting fran waste handlinq. Considerable
quality cozrl:rcl am technical ability is necessary to protect workers
am the sur:rouniinq camm.mity during iJDplementation. Risks to the
crmummity also exist due to the offsite transport ~ssary for 1,500
cubic yards of material.
'!he alternatives involving soil treatment (3F am 3G) present some
short-ter.m threats to the community am workers durinq
bnplementation. 'Ihe soil venting system will include trea'b'nent for
off-gas to prevent exposure to the community. Possible short-ter.m
effects due to the interx:led introduction of contaminants into the
groun:1 water from the soil will be mitigated by the a~ing
grourxl water treatment in Altelmtive 3G. '!he soil technologies will
function equally well only if the hot-spots are excavated for offsite
disposal for the soil flushinq altelmtive. '!he time to implement 3F
is approximately one year am 3G is approximately four years.
Loncr-ter.m Effectiveness
'!he no-action alte:mative provides no degree of long-ter.m
effectiveness. '!he unacceptable long-ter.m release of PCE fran the
soil continues am the oont:ami.nated groun:i water continues to
migrate.
Each grcun:1 water extraction alternative has the capability to
~ate grcurd water to the target cleanup levels am provide
similar degrees of long-t:em effectiveness am pentlanence.
Alternatives 2A am 2B have some unfavorable long-ter.m effects when
catpared to the other grcurd water altelmtives. Plume diversion
achieves site objectives for grourrl water. However, there is no
treatment of the grourrl water am it is ctirect1y discharged to the
surface water. '!his provides no pentlanent trea'b'nent.
'!he capping alternative (2A) is a containment remedy am its long-
ter.m effectiveness is deperrlent on maintaining the integrity of the
cap. It provides a lesser degree of pennanence since the
-40-
-------
contaminants remain at the site. '!he excavation and offsite disposal
:t:~ (2B) provides lorg-term effectiveness at the site but is not a
pezmanent ~ since the risk is transferred to an offsite disposal
facility. Both soil treatment alternatives (3F and 3G) are effective
over the long-term. since the contaminants will be treated prior to
release to the atmsphere or surface water, they are pezmanent
remedies .
'!he State will make an effort to get private well users within the
advisory area connected to the municipal system prior to
implementation. Residents using the municipal system are not
presently or in the near future expected to be at risk fram
COl'1tamiJ1ated grouni water fram the Iong Prairie site. Groun:i water
mnitoring will be corXh1cted throughout the remedial action to assess
effectiveness. If after five years of remediation the goals have not
been obtained and the efficacy of response action is in question, the
technical feasibility of meetin:J the cleanup goals will be
~~sessed. once the cleanup qoals are reached, monitoring will
continue for at least five years after remediation to verify lorg-
term effectiveness and to assure the remeJy Sl100eSsfully cleaned up
the aquifer.
Reduction of Mobilitv. 'I'oxWtv. or VoltDDe
'!he no-action alternative does nothin;;r to r'€
-------
TABLE 7
IDNG PRAIRIE, HINNESOTA
COST ANALYSIS
Total
Alternative CaDi tal Cost 0&.."1 Cost Period Present North
1 - No Action $ 40,000 $ 4,200 30 years $ 80,000
2 - Plume Diversion 430,000 89,000 5 years 770,000
2A - Soils Capping 70,000 15,000 30 years 210,000
2B - Excavate/Landfill 790,000 59,000 1, year 850,000
3A - Activated Carbon 870,000 300,000 5. years 2,000,000
, 3B - Air Stripping 730,000 250,000 5 years 1,700,000
3C . - Air Stripping and 980,000 300,000 5 years 2,100,000
Carbon
3D1 - Two Carbon Units 850,000 310,000 5 years 2,000,000
.
3D2 - Two Air Stripping
Towers 1,000,000 320,000 5 years 2,200,000
3E - WWTP Treatment 520,000 150,000 5 years 1,100,000
3F - Active Soil Venting 160,000 . 140,000 1 year 300,000
3G - Soil Flushing 290,000 61,000 4 years. 350,000
Note:
A discount rate of 10 percent is used to calculate the present worth of
annual O&M costs. The present worth factor is as follows:
30 years - 9.43, 5 years - 3.79.
-------
are technically feasible. Groun:l water extraction is Cuulnl.Jn place
am the treatment technologies applied to the pIJ1Ip-OUt water have a
demonstrated perfomance record for these Contaminants. Altemative
3E, wastewater treatment plant, was not feasible due to hydraulic
overloadin;1.
AlteJ:natives 2A am 2B entail administrative requireJnents which
~ unfavorably with the other altematives e.g., BAT
requirements, lam ban for excavated soils, problems with relocation
of utilities am difficulties associated with accessibility am
c::onstructability. Alternative 3G has the disadvantages of a lorg
inplementation;treatment period, the potential necessity for special
measures to protect adjacent buildin;;s, am uncertainties associated
with lam disposal of soil fram hot spot areas. 'n1e RCRA land Ban
Regulations for treatment prior to lam disposal may apply resultirg,
in serious iJrplementability issues for Alternatives 2B am 3G. 'thus
in-situ treatment is preferred, if technically feasible.
Cost criteria
'n1e estiJ1Bted present werth value of each ~ial alternative is
listed in Table 7. No-actia1 am plume diversion are the lowest
estimated ca;t grourd water ~i ~tion alternatives. Discharge to
the City of I.on;J Prairie wastewater treatment plant is the least
expensive grourd water remedial' alternative that utilizes treatment.
However, the estimated cost does not include arrj capital costs to
increase the hydraulic capacity of the treatment plant.
Air strippirg costs are estimated to be lower than activated camon
. costs. Costs for sirgle treatment facilities are less than those for
multiple facilities or combined air strippin; am activated camon
treatment technologies yet provide equivalent protection.
Discharge costs are incurred if treated grourd water is reinjected
into the I.on;J Prairie San:i Plain aquifer or routed to the City of
I.on;J Prairie wastewater treatment plant.
'n1e estimated ca;t for soils ~ation by excavation an:! off-site
disposal or flushi.n:] are higher than soil cappirg or active soil
venti.nq due to transportation am lan:lfill charges. Active soil
ventin] costs are comparable to cappirg contai.rnrent costs.
COrmnunitv Acceptance
COrmmmity response to the altematives is presented in the
responsiveness summary.
state Acceptance
'n1e State of Minnesota (MPCA) is the lead Agency for the site.MPCA
has selected the remedy presented below.
-43-
-------
IX.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
.Based on current information, the U.S. EPA and the MPCA select
Alternatives 3B and 3F as the most appropriate final remedy for the
Long Prairie Ground Water Contamination site. The significant
features of this remedy are as follows:
o Install ground water extraction wells in the contamination
pl ume; ..
o Treat contaminated ground water with an air stripper;
o Discharge treated ground water from the air stripper to the long
Prairie River; and
o Treat contaminated soil with an active soil venting system.
Target Cleanup levels
For carcinogens, U.S. EPA generally considers risks of 10-4 to 10-7
unit cancer risk as acceptable and generally protective of human
health and the environment. The total potential risk at the site
ranges from an average of 3.8 X 10-4 to a worst case of 5.5 X 10-3
for ingestion of contaminated ground water. Since the potential
risks from the site are greater than 10-4, the target cleanup level
for the remedial action will be health driven. Protection will be
provided to the 3.3 X .10-5 risk level at the potential receptor under
estimated worst case conditions and the 8.8 X 10-6 risk level under
average conditions. Further discussion of the method of determining
these levels is in the FS. .
listed below are the Target Cleanup levels (TCl's) that need to be
reached for each contaminant to achieve the worst case or average
risk level. These concentrations are based on ground water data from
the private wells in the advisory area.. However, during the remedial
action, the TClis may not be achievable. If that becomes the case,
alternate concentration levels may need to be considered.
Although it is not now being proposed, if the treated ground water.
were to be used in the municipal drinking water system, the
potential risk would be 2.3 X 10-5 without mixing with other clean
municipal wells or receiving additional treatment in the existing
iron removal system.
The maximum potential cancer risk for ingestion of PCE contaminated
soil in the back parking lot by a 10 kg child ingesting 5 grams of
soil per day for 5 years is currently about 7.9 X 10-6 excluding the
barrel contents. The residual PCE concentration corresPQnding to an
increased cancer risk of 1 X 10-6 is about 1,400 ug/kg. Soil
ingestion is presenting an unlikely exposure pathway given the
location and the fact that it is a paved parking lot. The 10-6
-44-
-------
inc:rementa1 risk is ac:x:ept:able since it falls within the generally
allowed ran;Je of the EPA of 10-4 to 10-7. To prevent future ground
water c:ontamination through continued leachin;r, the soils will be
treated to a 1,200 uqjkq level. 'nUs is protective since it is below
the 10-6 risk level. In addition, the leachate pro:iuced is expected
to be about .100 ugjl KE, based on the 'ICLP tests run on the site
soil. Although the leachate will be greater than 'n:L' s in ground
water, this leachate will be extracted am treated along with the
groun:1 water until ARARs are :reached in the aquifer if techniCally
practicable. .
'n1e potential cancer risk through inhalation of KE, 1t:E am vinyl
d'lloride is estimated to be 2.8 X 10-6 fran mQ arxl MI:H air quality
1OOdelin:J of the air stripper, witha.1t vapor phase trea'bDent. 'nUs
risk level is estimated to occur 20 meters southeast of the air
stripper. 'n1e nearest residence is greater than 100 meters from the
px~ air stripper location. u.s. EPA also corx:luct:.ed an
aSS'9E~nt on the risk from the air stripper. 'n1e risk from ~
to the VOCs !ran the stripper was calOJlated to be 3 X 10-8. Both
calculated potential risk levels are protective of human health.
'lherefore, no off-gas treatment will be required for the air
stripper .
Discharqe of treated grourd water to the Long Prairie River with a
PCE c::oncentration of 5 uq/l is expected to result in a worst case
potential cancer risk level of about 1.6 X 10-7 based on drinki.rJ;
water in;estion- ani fish or aquatic organism consunption arxl about
1.5 X 10-8 for fish or aquatic organism c:::onsurrpt:ion alone. '!he
assumptions arxl ARARs considered are below.
o Di.scharqe of treated grourd water with 5 ugJl PCE at 260 gpm
(0.58 cfs) 111ix:in;J COI1'pletely with:
o I.ong Prairie River seven consecutive day once-in-ten year low
flow (7Q10) of 21.2 cfs which yields a river concentration of
0.13 ugjl PCE.
PCE
Discharge
Concentration
River
Concentration
~ 10-6 Risk Level
Water & Fish Fish Only
5 uq/l
0.13 uqjl
0.8 ugjl
8.8 ug,/l
Acx::orclirq to Minnesota Water Quality Classification am Rules, the
I.ong Prairie River is not classified for use as drinki.rJ; water.
'Iherefore, fish consumption is the only likely route of ~ to
contaminants. Minnesota criteria for fish consumption only is 15
uq/l PCE for local species.
Remedial Action and Operations and Maintenance
'n1e u. s. EPA will pay 90 percent of the construction costs am the
State of Minnesota will pay 10 percent. Acx::orclirq to section 104 of
-45-
-------
the SUperf'urXi Amerx1ments arxi Reauthorization Act (SARA), treatment or
other measures to restore grol11'Xi water are considered remedial action
for a period of up to 10 years. 'Iherefore, U.S. EPA will pay 90
percent arxi the state will pay 10 percent of the operations am
maintenance (O&M) cost of the extraction wells, air stripper am
grourxi water nx:mitoring until cleanup levels are reached or for 10
years whichever comes sooner. After that, the state will assume full
responsibility for O&M.
STA'lUroRY D~'l~ONS
X.
A. Pratection of Human Health arx:l the Envtrornnent
'!he selected J::ellaly provides Protection of human health for
future users through extraction arx:l treatment of contam:irIated
grcurxi water using an air stripper arx:l treatment of contaminated
soils usin.;J active soil ventinq. '!he aquifer restoration will
prevent the public fran in;Jestion of cXmt:aminant concentrations
in the water that are contaminated by carcinogens posing a
lifetime excess cancer risk for all oontaminants of 3.3 X 10-5
for worst case and 8.8 X 10-6 for average corxiitions. It is
estimated that the groum water will be restored to MC!s or
health-based risk levels in 5 years.
In addition, the nmely will prevent the ingestion of
contam:irIated soil posing an urxiue risk of cancer greater than
10-6. '!he potential leaching fran the soil into the grol11'Xi water
will be adequately reduced to protect human health arxi the
environment. It is estimated that the soils will be treated in
. one year.
'!he J::eu-=dy is also protective since the risk fran exposure to
contaminants fran the air stripper will have a total excess
cancer risk for all contaminants of less than 2.8 X 10-6. Air
strippin;J will be done in time frame of approximately 5 years
dur:in;J grourxi water treatment.
'nUs discharge to the Lorq Prairie River will be protective of
human health am the envirorunent since the cumulative excess
cancer risk of 1.5 X 10-8 will be aCCOluplished.
B. Attainment of ADDlicable or Relevant arx:l ADDrocriate
Reauirements
A combination of alternatives 3B am 3F will meet the following
Federal arx:l state ARARs:
1.
Resource ConseIVation arx:l Recovery Act (RCRA); 40 ern Part
260 arx:l Part 264
Clean Water Act (0lA); 40 ern Parts 122, 125
2.
-46-
-------
3.
Safe DrinJdn:.J Water Act (SWDA); 40 em Parts 141-146.
Mimesota Rules Chapter 7001 am Minnesota statutes 115
am 116. .
4.
5.
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050
Mimesota statute 116.07 SUlxl. 4.2
6.
7.
Mimesota statute Chapter 105
1. Clean Air Act
'!he Clean Air Act is not an ARAR, since the U.S. EPA does not
have air quality regulations for the release of volatile organic
c:xm'Q;)OUnds to the atm::>sphere that would a:Ner the action proposed
here. Mimesota Statute 116.07 SUlxl. 4.2 is relevant because it
requires air quality pe:rmits which regulate air emissions of
toxic pollutants.
2. Resource Conservation am Recove%v Act (~)
40 em Part 260.10 defines tanks, which oculd apply to the buried
barrel in the alley parking lot. '!his oculd cause ~ tank
closure regulations to be relevant an:! appropriate for this site.
'!he buried barrel and contents will be reroved from the site.
()
40 CFR Part 264.197 requires the rea:waJ. an:! decont:amimtion of
all waste residues, contaminated system Q:)h~lents, contaminated
soils am structures/equipment contaminated with hazardous waste.
It, therefore, is an ARAR. RCRA has not defined the level of
decont:amimtion required. u. S. EPA guidance regard.inq the level
of decont:amimtion requires that arr:l ccntaminants left in the
subsoils will not jmpact ~ environmental media am that direct
contact will not result in a threat to human health am the
environment. '!he active soil ventin:J system will decont:amimte
the soils so that 1eachin:J from them will not jmpact other
envi:ronmenta1 ~ia (grourxi water) am so that direct contact
(i.e., in;estion by humans) will not result in a threat to human
health. .
3. Clean Water Act (ewA)
'!he ~ is an ARAR since treated site ground water will be
discharged to a surface water body (Long Prairie River) near the
site. Ambient Water Quality Criteria (~) are established for
the protection of freshwater aquatic organisms am the protection
of human health from potential carcinogenic effects due to
exposure through ingestion of contaminated water am contaminated
aquatic organisms. 1M:!C will be met by the discharge am the
requirements of an NPDFS permit will be met for this discharge.
-47-
-------
4. Safe Drink:ina Water Act (~)
'!he SI:MA specifies Mcrs for dril1ki.ng water contaminants at public
water supplies. '!he SI:MA is applicable since regulated volatile
organic ~ exceed Mcrs in the c::cmrmmity dril1ki.ng water
supply aquifer. '!here is no MCL for PCE or DCE. '!he target
cleanup level for TCE is expected to be below the Met.
5. Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules
'!he following Minnesota statutes arxl Minnesota Rules regulate the
reccmnen:ied remedial alternative to be perfoJ:IDed at the Long
Prairie site.
a.
Minnesota Statute 166.01 SUbd. 4.A. - regulates air
~i~ions through pemits arxl requires that toxic arxl or
carcinogenic pollutants attain appropriate levels at the
receptor which dispersion modelin;r imicates wculd be mst
iJrpacted.
Minnesota Statutes 115 arxl 116 arxl Minnesota Rules Chapter
1001 - regulate the discharge to surface water under NPDFS
pemits.
b.
c.
Minnesota Rules O1apter 1050.021 - regulates water quality
pemits which require that dischaxges to surface water
attain 10 percent of the acute toxicity (96 hour threshold
l:iJnit value) for toxies arxl 10-5 risk. level for carcinogens.
Minnesota Rules Chapter 1050.0220 - requires that
discharqes to grourxi water which will be used for
consumption attain MC!s arxl State Recc::munerx:ied Allowable
Limits (RAIs) for dril1ki.ng water, generally at the 10-5
risk level for carcinogens.
d.
Minnesota Statute Chapter 105 - requires the Minnesota
Deparbnent of Natural Resources to develop arxl manage
water resources to assure a supply adequate to meet
lcn;r ran;e seasonal requirements for domestic, municipal
am other uses £ran surface or qrcurxi water sources.
Water aPP1:O£.Iriation pennits are required for extraction.
Where state ARARS are mre stringent than Federal ARARS, the
State requirements will be met at the carpletion of the remedial
action. No pennits will be obtained for onsite activities. The
substantive pennit requirements will, however, be met.
e.
c. COst-Effectiveness
'!he selected remedy is effective in restoring the grounj water
arxl soils in a short time period (five years) while protecting
human health arxl the envi.rornnent. The selected remedy is the
-48-
-------
least expensive of the alternatives which meets site cleanup
goals ani treats the contaminants.
D. Utilization of Pennanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or
Resource Recovery) Technoloqies to the Max:iJnum Extent Practicable
MPCA ani U. S. EPA have deteJ:mined that this remedy is the nest
appropriate solution for meetin;J the remedial action goals at the
Ionq Prairie site. All.of the grouni water extraction
alternatives (2A through 3E will remediate the grouni water in
about the same time ani will provide adequate protection of
pJblic health with respect to the grour:d water. Alternatives 2A,
2B ani 3E may not be protective of the environment since
contaminants may be released to the surface water. Alternatives
3A through 3D will provide similar levels of treatment to the
discharged grourxl water ani air. Of these, Alternative 3B is the
ncst oost-effective since it meets site objectives for the least
cost. No-action will not protect human health ani the
environment for potential future users ani will not result in
municipal Wells #4 ani #5 bein:1 usable in the near future.
Alternative 2A, capping, does not use treatment to reduce the
volmne or toxicity of the soil contaminants ani would require
lon;J-tem maintenance to ensure the integrity of the cap in order
to reduce contaminant mobility. Alternative 2B, excavation;
offsite larxifill, transfers the risk to another location without
treatment ani is the nest oostly of the soil alternatives.
Alternative 3F is the least oostly of the remaining alternatives
ani will treat the soil contaminants to reduce the ndJility,
toxicity ani volmne in a shorter Period of time than 3G.
Alternative 3F may also be npre convenient to the local
businesses than 3G.
Extraction of the contaminated grourxl water will permanently
restore the aquifer. Air strippiIq is the IOOSt appropriate
type of treatment. Active soil venting provides an adequate
degree of trea'bnel1t in a shorter time Period for less oost.
'Iherefore, the selected remedy provides the best balance among
the nine criteria. '!his is a pennanent solution that uses
alternative treatment technologies (air strippiIq, active soil
venting ani GAC off~ treatment) to the maxinn.nn extent
practicable. .
E. Preference for Treatment as a PrinciPal Element
'!he statutory preference for remedies that E!lTploy treatment which
permanently ani significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or
volmne of hazardous substances as a principal element is
Satisfied since the contaminants from the soil will be thema1ly
destroyed during regeneration of the GAC.
-49-
-------
Although treatment of the extracted grourn water with an air
stripper reduces the volume of contaminated water, the mbility
an:i toxicity of the contaminants will not be pennanently reduced
. beyorn that which will occur naturally since the air stripper
transfers contaminants from water to air. '!here is no need for
GAC off-gas treatment based on health effects. Treatment of the
soil with a soil active ventin; system with GAC off-gas treatment
reduces the toxicity, mbility an:i volume of contaminated soil in
the back parkin:J lot area.
Schedule
'!he foll~ are key milestones for implementation of the
r~J.~ial action:
Approve ~ial Action (EKecute ROD)
Initiate ~ial Design
CaDp1ete ~ Design
Initiate ~al Action (Award Contract)
JUne 1988
september 1988
September 1989
January 1990
-50-
-------
)51' ii
-"{'\f '* .
/31/9! , ~~~ r
~
~l'
;e ~~J.
:HE/F~~~E ~Af~S DAi~
iI':'L£
e6/tl/l9 Notifi~ati0n ~o ad~~=~~2
t~at soil :orir.~~ ~ill be
~erformec on :~e~r ~ro~2r~y.
'+
(u)/ t)1) i 0(1
L2t":er ;,)
.. .
a.l.l ~e=:~e!rr.s
ir;f:Jrrning
~hOS2 ~::at
. .
11 '-/':
~n ~:1e
aff~~ad
a~a sr.o~l~ ~~t C~~~IL~e
well i'l4tEr.
:~;~ir
2'3
8~1 :2102 ~2s..Il ~s iJf ~r~ '.s.a rOe2 ~:
$a!J1~lin~
at ,:wer.~y-~i!'!e
=e~;t'l1;2
reSl::e~:9~.
'j
..
~,3/12lG6
~ . .
~e=:l~ ':5
rjf :t':V~~=
;>i>?: :
sa~~!i~g It t~a ~2::~ar~:
a~d ~a~=~~~t te=::?~c~S,
'j
..
83/:2!Oi
Let~c~
';'e~ar'~ :r:;
:...:r.g
Prair:2
Systei!:
Wa~ .~~..
:~"';?~::;
19
83/12/30 ~es~l.=
.:;f ~r~ ~'a~?
~el: ildt::~
Sa~1:liri; i;
fi f:a~n
s:;:at.;-:;;
~s:::C!!:Ces.
=../:)~ /23
~~:~::1
Le~~2r ':11'1 '::1:
. -- '.
C!"~~2~:~n
or:c ;~-: !.:~ ~
~~"'2l ,~
c~ntatJinl~ i.:n
t/ T:~ ar.:: ~!~=:.
6 ~ e4"(:2/2~ ~2~IJ1:3 .)f .jl'~v~:a
...:11
sar.:p 1 i rig .;t
reSl.:an:9S
~::( :e::i":r::a
2
e4/~2/23 ~es!~!t: l:Jf
:r": 'lit?
/t:~ ;
sa:.~pl:fI; ar,d ~n
t,)
acv:s':~r::' net
U~E ~M2 ~a~2r 7:~
c~nsc".1;t :'~n.
a
94/03/C6 Resu!~s of prl~i=2
ti~l !
ADr::~!:7;A:!VE ~£~CRD
.
A!J7:~~:~
:..:::8 :.J?j~I:~r~,
~I:,;~~E:C::-A
~ai'lk _a&1t i!':e!i-''i1':~:A
S6r:~r.3.
~l:~a.=l
)11 ::-;.:.=:
~arc;:~~:~g~PC~
C.:r.'ier''I~:f;;'Cri
: ;;.;'.:er::-'-:~~/l.
~~~,~-:~-;;~: =!"S,:'~':.i;;s~.:.=.
:'~!.:~:~ ~
:
-------
.J~se NQ.
);Y3~ lea
::IC:~EiF?.P.~'E
-,
..
...,.,,..,...'"
r'H-;:':
~A7E
.~
...
.9it/04/0.3
r:
~4!:)4/13
i
T!T:..E
sa.m;::i irIg
at ~i~n~ seperate re5idE~c9S
~es~l~s af ;r:vate well water
Sa~~~:r.g at :~2 Pederson a~=
;gpin resi:enc;s,
~e~~lts of pr:v2te well water
sampling :t r:ve seperata
r~side~cgs and rec:~endaticn
that they ccm~let21y
~l:~n:~nua
the 1152 ,jf the wells.
94i09i20 ~esul~s of ;r~vate well ~ater
sa.:,~ 11 rig
ft,.,
- ~'./
at seven s~pera>e reElcen:?s.
8~/:0/~2 ~ec~as: fer
r tlf::'r~c~ i ,:n ~y
.
w
e4/::/~:
.~
a~/::l2~
3~/!:/27
0:.
JC: ;(.~ ;~.. ~
U""': .'"",. -."...;
4
:0.41'"11''''''
i.::-',..~
~::n~ wi:h ;valla~le
~~~~C,t"i~2S.
~e~::l: t:: .:Jf
Jr'~'ate t4ell wa~a!'(
';aIi1~ll~ at
~fJ'=: ~lumcln~
1 ~e=t:~g, T:mcchy wil~ey'~
a~~ :t Mr~. Gr~c~la's.
~~~I.l1 ~s
ADM!N:ST~P.T!VE ~ESQRD'rNCEX
LO~1G PRArR~~,
~lNNESaTA
A!JTHaR
Mic~ael Convery-~PCH
!:a'li t: Gt'Ciy-:1n.
De~:rc .
~ichaei Convery-r:pCA
~ha S.:r~c= ~ilsc~~'~C~
~iC~a~l Cc~vgrJ~PCq
.jf ~relvate ~11 ..,atcl' ~lc:;ael CClnvery-:'iPQ;
s~rdp! :n;.
.=te:!.11 ~~
.:.f ;Y'':. ';.~e
~21: flata~
.;: "'r'~ ~ ; V'I"
-Q...w. ...~.
~?C1~=S-: fijiA
;~=:=tarlc2
:y ~;'je
I~~:~ ~.) t~E
:'lr"'e~t
c,~;n2!' I c1~et'.~t,::r
of :n; dry ~l=an~ns
at 2::,~ ::n:~".:d :~ve.
faC::l~1
85/(:/20 L=t~Er ~J f1~ rg~lr1:n;
:lEcn-~c a~c ocher re14~e1
res;unslbili~ies of PFPs
4
8:/(:5/20 L?t~~~ ~,) ~RP :'eganH::g
respo~~ibi~:t:es as p~p
"'1",p..~::11
"1......:,_-
CC'n',s!'::~PC.~
~i:~ael C~nvErJ-~PC~
G. ;JIll fQr:, ;f;PCA
G. ::\11 ft;:te, ;t!~C~
of :-!2aI t;,
RECIP!ENT
Seg title
See t:~la
D. Ver::OOt':'I &
:r!rs. IeTia ~e}"~s~
D. V2i'':-:':'rn-:~
J. DyOCi, Jr.
P.Pauls2!\
~. !11:'E5
C::a:.!":er'S
-'
DC:L:~E\ii T'{c~
Ccr'r2E:-cr.:er:ta
Ccr~'s=~v:;c=r.c=
CJ~rr=:~:.r;Cer;==
C:: r~'=: :,:-~;~2~-.:?
c;;~:"'~~: :'r.~at~:=
C;r~=::;:'r;~ar:=.=
C,:.t'r::'! ~:::(Ica~~~=
C.:,r~~~ ::':,l~;:=j":=?
CCl"~':S:':~::~rac~
Ccrr=::~~~e~=? .
-------
:.
: ~~o.
31/88
3
~E/F~A~E ~P~~S ~;'TE
rrLE
,-:'
...
B5/05/20
r:PCA lettar glving ;~e forme~
Qwr.er~ of the drl el~a~er~ an
op~!rtunity to cor.cuc~ the
~r l:=C
R... i ""'.
18
85/06/11 ~e=ul~s of ~rivcte well wate~
sa~pli~~ at six s~~erate
re5idene!!s.
3
a6/01/13 Lattar ccmt'enting on
review of SUP for VCC
analysis
3
Bo/O!!!.?: Revietf ')T SO;' sU!J:llitteti by
Pace La~;ratory, tne. VCC's.
10
25/0~i07 ~=:ul~s of prlvate ~ell
samp:ing
at saver.
S2~e~"a:=
resider,ee:.
9
86/CC/23 aesri~ti(ns 0f :he
;~edl::ll
mcnitQring pr~;ra~s in 15e ~y
the Projec~ Te~d
7
86/0;/03 Sr~~aarl of fi~in;s of PE
sa~~:es analy:e~ JY ~aee Labs.
5
36/~8/;S :~;;ificaticn that it ~ill
be r.e:2s:ary to install
~ni~orin; well u~wn
cit: p~pe~ty wit~ at~cc~ed
u
ac::== d~~~~en~.
4
9S/10/13 L!!t:ers tv f~r r~si~e~ts:
SIJr'lc:er;, ~~U't'e~, ~lis~hd~'~ .~
War~er :nforxlt.g the~
that t~e1r we:ls w~:l
te sc::10~~.
A~MrNIS7~hTIVS ~ECCRD !NCEX
.
La~~G
;RAr~!E,
M I :~~.E3~7 H
AU7"r:Q~
REC!PIEr;T
CQc~~~e(:- ::c:
Gc1I'Y~, Pill r;JI,,:-:r;PCA
Pc1ulsE~IChy~a,2ta~.
C:r:~=s:I~r:ce~.:~
t'tl:hagl
C';'l"r:S;IJ:':uer-: =
C!:rnvery-':"~CA
GH2."1 ~i 11
USE.: rl
Ccr~=p':'r~:;-..:-=
Rcnal~ ~e~~~~ ~l!l
Dave Payne-u£S~A
C::;.t'r--a: ~ (;C =r:;:~
~~r~ ~~'ti~~~-~PCA
~)rr==:,:.:':~c';;:=
9. Car:~i3.1::'~1 ~~::CA
~rJ Tyscn-~S~:~
.~
~.t'~'=~ ~:.f:i:: ::.- c::
Renald ~el'\
- C'~2.~ Hi 11
P ayr:e-: j:~:::~
C)t"'t''2S~:Lr;:=?':,:=
Dave:
~irk ~an~inan-!~CA
D.V2n2kamp~i:1vf~c~~~~a.
C'}'~e~;\i~~er;.:'=
~ar'k ~:;1~ ~ r;2~';-:'~~'C;;
Coi'~'~ ::: TIC 2 :'.~~
S!?e title
4 B6/11n2 ~lotifieahQn ~o the ~irs~ tl!ai'~ La.~1; i n2n-;1~CA See title Ccrr~5::;n::.-::~
Nati.:-:nal Bank .)f L.:ng ~'!'arie
an~ to :ast ~est Rea 1 ~y that
mit 1S ne,=~ssary t.o) ins~all
monitoring \,a! 1 s :Jpc:n tr.eir
proper':y.
BE-I 1112,) L.etter ..' aadit~onal Malc~iJ1 Pu'me tJlPCA ~.rre=~:r.==~.::
'" regar",1r.g
-------
)~ge rlo.
)3/31/88
. r
4
~r~/F~PJ~ PAGE3 r~~
irTL£
~~rings,rat9s and samples-
Lcngrarie Re~edial
Investigation
3 86/11/20 C~sts of drilling ~ork and
authorization of a shallow
well and revielf of soil boring
res:ll ts.
'3 86/12/22
Resulta or ?rivata well
water s~pli~g. at nine
separate residences.
2 87/04/27
~e5ults of the soil ~oring
and ~ll monitoring on East
We5t ~ealty ~ro~erty.
4 87 It';5/ ~2
~fjti ~i:l~ i':i}i tl~ reSl=e~,;s
LQfficr2=ht!P2!erson,W;rlinge~
an~ ,il~er ~f upco~ing
(~sijen~~al fte:l Natar
scmpling.
3 ae/Ol/1~ ?rc;csed s~a~= ~p;l::aQ!e or
Re~evan. a~~ A~=ro~la~e
Req~ire~e~ts fer the L~ng
Prairie Gi"1J!lr.dwater
Cor.ta~una~ion
Site,
3 CQ/CO/CO Superfur.d ?rc;ram ~act ~'eet:
Lons ~ralrie g~und ~~2r
~'nta~l~a~ 11:n.
4 00/COi00 ~e Lo~g ~rairie Gr~ur.d ~at2r ~~A
C.:nta;;:ina: i,jr,
P~~le~, !n Brle~.
2
. 85/05/2~
Fae: Shee~ ";oe Long
Prairie Gr~~r.: Water
Ccr.;~lnatl~n ~~Dl:~J
4 87/10/00 Sup2rfur~ Pr:;r~ Fact Sheet:
Lon~ Prarie Gr~und Water
Conta~ina~i(n ~emedial
Inves:igatiJn Report.
2 ~)/00/00 Sampling ~vi~ts of private
ADMI~IS;RATIVE RECCRD INDEX
LGNG PRArRIE,
ri!HmE=OTA
AUTP.OR
P.Cangialosi-~al~; Pirnle
Mar~ Lan~ine~CA
i'la1'X La.'tirje~;;
~ark L~~ti~e~~~C~
~ark La~~lne~~~rl
~A
/!!PCA
~CA
MicMae! Cunvery~C~
RECIPrE:::
lItar.~ ~'tinefh";:'CA
DO~~E;\ T TY';:E
Corr==~..:~er;te
CorreSpi:'M2r~
R.~~ny-=-4S: \~s~ Realty Ccrr:==c~der~e
522 ti~12
roar,! 7ys':n-'JSS:A
Fi~2
C:::'r:::\:,r:.:~:":":=
c.:.jl\r~= :': ~.~E!:::=
-------
, .
2 N,).
~;/88
5
~!/F~~E P~G~S DATE
TITLE
and mcni:oring ~ells tested
.)n 4/23/85.
'3 83/11/01
Ager.da It2111 Cont:"Ol Sheet
for ~~e meeting to be held
at t~e 1IPCA on 12/20/83
t;) request auth'Jri:ati.)r, to
CC~d~=t an RI/FS.
7 84/02/10 ~c~ A~~r.da rtem Con~rcl
Sheet ~~ obligate funds
for a temcc~3ry Water
Tre=t~en~ Sys.eo.
3 84/10/01 rrj;p~c:tion na~Qrt on the
PND C~einers, 243 Centt'al Ave.
2 a4/:0/0~ ~e]o on inte~viEW with
~r. P=~'l L. Dharni.
1 85/05/0& Lcc:atir.ns of watar~ain
extensions in nQr~~eas;ern
Long Prairie.
85/(;5/i)9 Di';c:ls~l')n of Naptt'ia Base
or Petroleu~-Distil~ate
501 vent.
v
2 eSi09/:i te~o of si:a visit to ~eC:K
Kater levels. Al~) discus;ed
actual
owne~~nio ~f Ian:, and
d i '!i:~vel'Y
of a partially :uriec ~arrel.
87/~0/!4 ~ews qe:eas~: ~~C~ io ~olct
~c~~~ng In ~on£ Prairle
1 !€/:'.)/!~J ;!el'/'!. AI't. .Pet'~i=~ !ocoies
Rea~ar, on Superfund".
3 83/12/03 qge!'~~ for the ~PC~ Re~ular
Board ~ee~ing to ~e held on
12/20/e3.
s 84/02/:7 ~~e~ca fer the ~PCA Regular
Bcare Meeting to be held on
2/29/84.
ADMINISTRATiVE R£~CRD INDEX
LONG PRArRIE,
i'lIN.\ESOTA
AUft70R
a.Wilson & S.~ee-~PCA
Bruce ~ilsc~~PCA
Michael Convery-MPCA
Wilso~ & Convery-~A
r.i~~a21 Ccnv~ry-~PC~
Micnael Cc'nve~y-~~CA
Dale ThQmps~n ! ~arK
Laht i nen-:".PCA
E~i:a~eth G~ltn~nn~PCA
TriolJr:e
I'IPCA
MPCA
REcrPI£NT
DGC!.:!t!ENT :t1=~
tte:SC'I'ar;':UJ
~A
Me!OOrand:~
File
1ie::c;r;MI3
File
~e~1cr:.!!Ct::
F; '0
11.-
~=~~;:i{':n;::1~
FEe
~e~::r .~TiC!j~
File
~e!:!c;ranC!l~
SEws Rel:==~
New'!~a;er Ar~~c:;
Other
CtiHir
-------
:.
.ge No.
,'3~/aa
6
ChEjF?~~~ PAG:2 DA7~
rr TLE
1 8if:O/2S
A~enca for pu~lic mee~in3 on
Lon~ Prairie g~unC water
C1:,nta'Jir.a~iQn held on
10/25/37 at 7:00 p.m.
AC~!N!SiRAT:VE RE~DRD IND:X
AUTr;c~
PIPCA
~Q~;G p~Ar~!E,
PI!i'jr~E:OTA
4 82/11/04 M~CA Dir~c~cr's De~er~ination Sandra Sardetring-~~
I)f E:teqency
2
85/0:/1: News Release I~CA Fin~s
Sou~e of Long Prairie
6rouna Wat2r Pc.llutionil
86/10/15 Ne~s ~elease 'Superfund
rnve~tigaticr. or Long
Prairie Ground ~ater
Ccnt~ina~ion to Be~in.
7
c%o/co C~~mtinity ~e:aticns Plan
Long Prairie Gi,:)uYJd ~tei'
Ccr:tcmi nat ic;n
57
00/00/00 ~ulti-Site Cvo~erative
Agre~ent ~innesota
PQllution Cont~l Agency
Quarterly Pt~gress Report
7
83/12/20
~eques~ for Aut~~rizati~n
to Contrac~ for ~I a~d Fa
ne~essa~J for :~rrec~ic~
or Munlcipa! Well Cont1~i-
nat:cn
14
84/03/:6 Pcter.~~al Hazardous ~s,a
5i:2 rn~pe~~:on Repurt
14 84/03/16 Sita rns~ec~ion Re~Qrt
22 84/06/14 P.aza~ous Ranking Sys~em
Scorin~ Package
6
84/:2/27 Pot2ntial Hazar~ous ~ste
Site Preliminary Assess-
raent
~PC~
MPCA
MPCA
!";Cri
E.:urc:aK,£=~lcgy&E~viron.
Ellen Jur::ak~col. & Envir.
Ellen !ur::ak-E&E
D. Pat~r.er I .~PCA
RE~!P I8!i
DC:::J.'k~lr ;t"PE
Ot:;er
P!eading~/Qrt=I'S
p~s Rele::e
;:Ire~= ~elease
Re9.::t'\~ 5/3: :.!c: es
E~A
Re;':lr~s/Stucies
"
Re~Qr~,s/St UO i =5
l;SE.~
Repo:"ts/St:ldi2S
USSOA
Re;:O'~5/StIlCi=5
USEPA
Re~orts/Studies
USEPA
Re~ci"ts/Sbdies .
-------
c '
:e No.
'"u/e8
7
~E!F~~E PAGE3 GAT~
nTLE
6 84/12/27 Preliminary Asses:;e~:
34 , 85/09/18 RZ/FS ~)rk Plan
of i/ol"k
45
:co~a
85/10/14 Si~e ~ana~e1=n~
Report
Plci:'\lS:.a~us
a
86/06/30
118
Guar~~'ly ~~grgs; ~g;:~~ ~o
USEPA - T~nic~i ~tatas -
FY 1ge6, 3re Guar~=r.
86/07/00 R:/FS Wor~ P:an
187 ar::/07 i(~O
2S~ 86/07/00
95
Quaikity A=3uran:a ~~~E~:
Plan\G;~P) - 'Jo:. ::
Appe!"l: lC:~ ~-;:.
Quali~y Ass~ra~c= ~~~~;:~:
Plai'\(!JP9P) ~ Vd. II:
App=nal;:~s :~.
86/07/00 aua~l:Y ~s;~ranc=
Plan (QP.PP)
~'t'f:.j~t
7
eS/07/C3
\,
c
6 8£/12/31
67 87/03/31
~Et:2r ~ran=~lt~i~~ sUjm~rl
of f:~:n;s .;f P=rf;jr~=~::e
E~a!ua~ion tP£) :a,cle:
an:ly:~j fJ~ Lo~; ~rQir~=
Pr-:, j act
QUdr~erly ~gr~~~ ~e:~rt :0
USE.'~iec~~i=al St.i::.:s-
FY 1?3£, 15:; Quar':er.
Guar~2r!y ~~jgr=ss '=~~r~ tc
U5~A-
Tecnr.:ca! Sta~u5- fer ?t's
1'?8S 1st
GiJal~ter to :387 2~~ Q{;al'~~I".
6 87/')3/31 I1lJart2r~y ~Qgt~ess Repc:"~ tel
USEPA-iec"nl:iL S:a.~s-
p.c:m,:S;RATIV~ ~£;iJIW INCEX
AUTH~R
Lmm P~AIR!E,
i'H.':NE:STA
D. PO:'i''.::'';2t-MPCrl
Ma:com Pir\'!le
i~Cri
:!Ial~1~1
i!!~ 1 :.:.~
:>ta::::~
;1~"1:2
Pir~i'=
~'ir'lr::2
~alc-:'!tJ Pirnie
R.;4er:
'l!r'r"
I,,. ...11
M9CA
MPC~
REC!P!E.';T
DOC!.!~E:\jT TY;:E
USA
Reports/Studies
,...".."
.;U-~n .
Rep')rts/St~diES
Re~or: s/S: ~~= i es
tJSE.i:'~
Rep~rh/S'.:;.::ies
MPC,q
R2pC:}"ts/~t~t:iE=
~A
Re~'Jr"~s/8~ ;lC iES
/!!PC~
Rc~ort~/St:l=~2S
MPt~
Re~;Jrt$iSt:.:cies
U£::'~
Re~ort s/S:~a le-=
u~VA
Re:Xl.tS/St~~di ~s
Rep'Jrts/S~~lCie;
lE.~p.
Re;:cl"':s/S~!,;dies
-------
. r"
;2 N,J.
/~:/B8
8
:~/FR~~E PAGES DATE
TITLE
FY 1987.
6 87/06/30 Quarterly Progress ~2~Qr~ To
USEPA - Te~hnical Statu: -
FY 1987, 3rd Quar~er.
44 87/07/02 Site ~anaqe~ent ?lanl
Status Repo~ts fro~
10/14/85 to 7/2/87.
. 205
87/10/00 Final Rem~jial Investi-
g..tion Report
222 87/10/00 Re~ial Investigation Final
Rep.Jrt
AD~r~r5TRATiy~ R~O~D !~~X
'" jTI...:r ~
t'IU Ii.";.;
r;c~
USEPA
LONG PRAr:tr::,
:.1INNESCTA
iIIal~l!JI Pir:'\ie
>!al~m Pl:"nle
RECIP 121T
C£W~iT r"{~E
USEPA
Fapor~s/S::~ti=s
~c:!)~~!S:~is=
/IIPC&;
~f;::.;'~~:2~~c: i as
~
~~!rtsiSt~.:di::~
-------
Page No.
:)b/OBI ea
F!ChE/Fr.H~£ PHGES DATE
'v
c
198 8e/~/(;5
ADMINISTkATIVE RECORD INDEX UPDATE
LON6 PfiAIRlE GROUNOWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
CIrY OF LONG PRAIRIE, IIIINN£SOTA
TlTLE
AUfMOR
Feasablilty Stuay Report
Malcom Plrnle, Inc.
RECIPIENT
PlPCA
OOcu."1E,OjT TYPE
Reports/StudIes
- . ". .- . -- ...- -'
-------
|