United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROD/R05-89/086
December 1988
3EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Wausau Water Supply, WI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
R@giQfI III Information Resource
Center (3PM52) .
841 Chestnut Street .". .'
Philadelphia, PA 19107 ., "..~'.;£j,
'''!'~oA~
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EP A Region 3
Philadelphlol PA 19107
1E1?b\ !?J~(9)@gi C@~~~«:~i(i)H(\}
~1J'i~@WM~l~O@1ffi fJ(ID~@MW@@ [;~Iffi~~W'
~~ [EWJ~ mW@D@1J'i 3
[PJ[uu~(IDrlli@~[9)mJ~D ~~ 1 ~1 IDJ71
-------
50272-'0-1
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1'. AEPOATNQ.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROS-89/086
z.
20. A8dpi8nt. ~C'.....fan HD.
4. "..........
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Wausau Water Supply, WI
First Remedial Action
7. AuIhor(.,
s. ,..... Data
12/12/88
I.
I. "'.f-IIIIII Organizrion A8tIL No.
/-
I. ............ ~........ -- 1M"'"
1Go Pfat8ctlT8IIIfI/Waft UnIt HD.
"
11. ConncICC)" GnnI(Q) ....
(C)
12. ----... o._JuIIoon -- 1M"'"
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(a)
120. Type of R..-. . Pwtod Co-..t
Agency
800/000
14.
15. ... u" ~18I1&8y No..
11. AII8hcI (UIIIII: 2IDO"',
The Wausau Water Supply site, also known as the Wausau Groundwater Contamination
site, encompasses an area. in the northern section of the City of Wausau, Marathon
County, Wisconsin. The site includes five of six production wells in the City Well
Field and is located on both sides of the Wisconsin River. Production wells CW6, CW7,
and CW9 are located in a predominantly residential area on the west side of the river
and are collectively referred to as the West Well Field. The remaining two wells, CW~
and CW4, are located ina predominantly industrial section of the city on the east
side of the river and are referred to as the East Well Field. The wells supply nearly
all the potable water for approximately 33,000 people, as well as irrigation and
industrial water to surrounding areas. In 1982, the city discovered that wells CW3,
CW4, and CW6 were contaminated with VOCs. Since that time, several systems have been
implemented to reduce VOC levels in the water supply. Initially, uncontaminated water
from CW9 and CW7 was blended with water from CW3, CW4, and CW6 to dilute the VOC
concentrations. However, increasing VOC concentrations resulted in regulatory limits
being exceeded. In 1983, EPA granted funds to help design and install a packed tower
VOC stripper, and in June 1984 install~d a granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment
system on CW6 in response to a continued increase in VOC concentration. CW6
(See Attached Sheet)
17. ~ ANIy8e .. o.lc:rIpIDM .
Record of Decision - Wausau
First .Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw
Key Conta~inants: VOC (TCE)
Water Supply, WI
"
b. Id8nllll8r8tOpanofndld T-
.'
Co COSAn RaIdIGtaup
11. Ayllil8bfl1y SI8I8nwnt
-
11. S8curtty a.. (Thi. Report)
None
20. S8curtty aIM (Thia Pagel
JlJrlnl'>
21. No. 01 P89"
73
\
.~
22. PrIce
(S88 A~Z38.1')
S88/netTlM
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCT10NS
p.Io"""'" 272. - -.... P..." --... au-- for........... -. of _.".od T- R.-
NS'-'o-,'" - - -- - 5""""".-' '430 _Yo - V"" - Vorl< ,00'8. Eoch ..........
~und t~ a_pie. 88Ch volume In a multlvoluma ......-8h8U ha'" Ita unique Raport Documentation Paga.
~. ...... _. """" -............ -..... - ..-- ............ -... by"'''''-''''''''
" --.....- by"''''- --.. -- - -.....- ANSI -....,.... T-""
- - (~ Fe<""- of""" -. - N11S - - ....-- .......- VA 221.'. U..
---.--......-............--: F_1_....F...,
l~ RD-75101.
2. \.88V8 bi8nk.
3. Recipient. Acc8881an Number. RaMrV8d tor UN by 88Ch report recipient.
.. ........ - ..... - - -.... -... -- - of"'''''''' .......- ...... \0". m.'.
title. When. report 18 prepared In more th8n one volume. ,.,... the prlm8rY title. add voIuma number and Indude aubtlUa for
the .,.cIllo volume. .
"5. Report Data. E8ch report "'811 carry. detalndlcatlng at I...t month and per. Indlcata the b881. on which It we. 88Mcted (a.g..
de" of 188U8, date of approval. date of preparation. date publl.h8d).
8. Sponaorlng Agency Code. L88ve blank.
7. Author(a). 01". ft811'18(.) In conventional order (a.g.. John R. Doe.. J. Rob8f't Doe). Uat authOr'a a",llation If It dlHara from
the pertormlng organization.
8. partormlng organil8tlOn Report Number. In88ft If ~lng orgenlzaton wl8h.. to ...Ign thla number.
.. -.........-... -.... - -- .Ivo -. --...,........od ZIP -. U.. no -- - _,...,. of
on ~......... .,....."'''''' 0'''' 0"--".""" -,.. .-'-- _h..
Oovamment Reportl Announcemen" . Inda. (ORA .1).
'fOI8CtITa8lrlWork Unit Number. Ua8 the proI8Ct. taak and wen unit numb8r8 under which the report ... prepued.
11. Contr8CtlOrant Number. 1n88ft contrect . grant number under which report we. prepared.
12. Sponaorlng AGency N8m8 and Mailing Addr888. Indude ZIP code. CIte main aponaon.
13. Type of Report and PerIod Covered. State Interim, Hn8I. etc.. and, If appUc''''', Inclualve date..
14. partormlng Organization Code. ua". blank.
15. ..ppI-tory"'- entor ..-. not'''''''''.- but'-" --... Pro""''' -'0. W,"'. . . Yr..'''.o.
of . . . Prtaented at conference of . . . To be publl.h8clln . .. When. report la ravla8d. Include a .tatamant whather tha naw
raport aupe""'. . auppl8rnanta the oIcI8r report. .
1.. ......... ,........ - (200 - - -) ....... ownmorv of ... -. ",,,,,,,,'010"."" -..,... ,. .......... If'"
raport contain. a algnltlcant bibliography or literature aurY"', mention It hare. .
17. Document An8lya18. (a). D88Crlptora. SeleCt from tha """U"'8 of Engl""rlng and Sclantlflc Tanns tha proper authorized terms
, that Identity th8 mal« concept of the re..arch and are au",clently .pedtlc and preci.. to be uaad aa Index entrlas for cataloging.
(b~ --... -- T..... u.......- for"- ..-. code ....... oquipmont ............ ole. U........
ended tarm. written In descriptor form f. tho.. aub1eC'8 for which no descriptor axl.ta.
(c). COSA 11 --,. FIoId"" .rou. - - \0 bo ..... ..... ... ,... COSA 11 ..bjocl Ca'"'''' U... SIne.'"
majority of documenta U8 multldl8Clplinary In natura, the pr.lmary Raid/Group a..lgnmant(s) wUl be the specific discipline.
.... of hum" _ovo'. -typo of ph"'''' - Tho opoi\cO_.) win bo ................ wi" -... AeldiG,...
asalgnmenta that will follow tha primary po.tlng(s). ..
18. Distribution Slatemant. Danota public rel.a..bUlty, for axampla "Ralaa.. unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Clta any availability to tha public. with addra... order numb... and prlCl, If know.n.
". . 20. Socu,il. C1uOI"''''' En'" U.s. ......ily a...,....... In .........,.. wi" U. S. Socu.1y Rogu"".. (I... UNClASS'FIED).
. Numbo' of..- ..- thO ..... nom'" of ......'ncI",1ng ,.IrOd..tory ...... but .xcru."" .....bu"" II... If ony.
Prlca. Enter prIc8 In paper copy (PC) and/or mlcroHcha (MF) If known.
OPTIONAL FOAM 272 BACK (4-77)
'A'. Gpo.. 1983 0 - 381-526 (8393)
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-89/086
Wausau Water Supply, WI
First Remedial Action
16.
Abstract (Continued)
previously had been pumped and discharged directly into Bos Creek to block the
contaminated plume from reaching CW7 and CW9 to the north, but this resulted in
surface water and sediment contamination in Bos Creek. Water from CW6, CW3, and CW4
has been pumped to the city water treatment plant following the installation of VOC
stripper towers at the plant during the summer and fall of 1984. However, there is a
significant risk of plume migration because CW6 remains the sole interceptor well
blocking contamination of the remaining West Well Field. Currently, the city
continues to blend treated water with water from uncontaminated supply wells to ensure
low VOC levels in its water supply. The scope of this expedited operable unit is
limited to the contaminant plume affecting CW6 in the West Well Field. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the West Well Field at the site are VOCs including
TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes ground water pumping and
treatment using air stripping with discharge to the Wisconsin River; groundwater
monitoring; and provision for implementation of an additional extraction well
as necessary. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $750,000
with estimated annual O&M costs of $105,000 for year one and $81,000 for subsequent
years.
-------
RElD«J CF DEI:ISInents of the selected remedy include: .
..
Installation of an extraction well located in the southern p:>rtion
of the contaminant plume; .
Inpletrentation of a treatment system for rerroval of contaminants;
Discharge of the treated water to the ~visconsin River; and,
A provision for implementation of an additional well, as necessar.l.
Ia::laration
As required by Section 121 (a) of CERCIA as amended by SARA, the selectex:1
remedy is protective of hlIm3J1 health and the environment, attains Federal
and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to
-------
- 2 -
the remedial action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes pennanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for this site. Because treatment of the principal threats of
the site was not found to be practicable within the limited scope of this
action, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element of the remedy.
Da~7v( 2 ~ /1>1,
,
-.
-
-------
)
State of Wfeconafn \ OEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
December 19. 1988
C#noiI D. 118Htt,
S«nI."
FILE REF: 4430
Mr. Valdus Adamkus
Regiona' Administrator
US EPA, Regfon V .
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago; IL 60604
SUbject: Wausau Municipal Well Field. Interim Superfund
. Remedy
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
Your staff has requested this letter to document Our position on the interim /
remedy fo~ the Wausau municipal well field. The proposed interim remedy. ide~. ,fe
as Alternative NUmber 3. 1s discussed fUlly in the Record of Decision and inc1ua@st
- Installation of a groundwater extraction well 1n the SOuthern end of the
contaminant plume;
- Implementation of a treatment system fOr removal of VOC's;
- Discharge of the treated water to the Wisconsin River; and
- Provisions to modify Alternative 3 to include an additional extraction we11,
if necessary. .
The costs of the selected interim remedy are estimated to be:
- Capita' Costs - $422.000
. <.
.~-
- First year operation and maintenance. $105,000
- Subsequent annual operation and maintenance - $81.000
u
Based on Our review of the Phased Feasibflity Study and Alternatives Array, Our
agency concurs with the selected alternative. We a150 understand that if the
responsible pa~ties do not ag~ee to fund the inte~im remedy, the State of Wiscon.'"
will cont~ibute ten percent of the remedial action costs. The State's cost sha:
fo~ this project wou1d be $42.200. In addition to cost sha~ing on the remedy,
we aCknowledge Our responSibility for operation and maintenance. Since thIs is a
wate~ treatment/resto~ation remedy, the period of cost sharing may be up to ten
years. The specific 1ength of time will be negotiated in a State Superfund Contract.
Again, this is a11 contingent upon responsible party action.
-
- /
-------
Hr. Valdus Adamkus - December 19, 1988
2.
Thank you tor your support and cooperation in addressing this contaminated
municipal water supply. If you have any ~est1ons regarding this matter,
please contact Mr. Mark Giesfeldt, Chief 01 the Environmental Response &
Repa1r Section at (608) 267-7562.
Sfncerely,
c.~L
Secretlry' - \
cc: L. Wible-AD/S
P. .Didier/M. Gfesfeldt-SW/3
G. Kultbert/M. OWens-NCD--
B. Dobbins-NCD
S. Bangert/C. Dfebels-SW/3
Honorable John Robinson, Wausau
.-
i
,
-------
30e No.
li05/89
rCHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
1 84/09/24 Record of Communication
from Richard O'Hara of the
WDNR re: Wausau PA and 51.
1 84/09/24 Record of Communication
to Jim Anklam of the WDNR
re: Wausau Preliminary
Assessment
1 84/09/25 Record of Communication
from Jim Vennie of the
WDNR re: Wausau 51.
1 84/12/20 Record of Communication of
call to Dan Wilson of the
WDNR re: Populations served
by the muniCipal water
systems.
1 84/12/27 Record of Communication of
call from Dick Boers of
Wausau Utilities re:
alternate source of
drinking water and
continuing efforts
to locate a new well
field.
2 84/12/27 Record of Communication
of call to David Pyles-
Weston Sper TAT re:
Ground Water Grad;ents
in Wausau.
1 85/01/07 Record of Communication
of call to Jack Saltes
of the NDNR re: Nausau
water supply - usage
and pump rates.
1 85/01/07 Record of Communication
of call to Kurt Stimpson
of Neston Sper re: VOC
migration and final
report on removal
activities.
2 86/03/19 Record of Conversation
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCUI
NUMEI
Michael Strimbu-USEPA
Communication Record
Michael Strimbu-USEPA
Communication Record
Michael Strimbu-USEPA
Communication Record
Michael Strimbu-USEPA
Communication Record
Michael Strimbu-USEpA
Communication Record
Michael Strimbu-USEPA
Communication Record
Michael Strimbu-USEPA
Communication Record
Michael Strimbu-USEPA
Communication Record
Tim Conway-USEPA
Communication Record
-------
:ge No.
/05/89
2
:CHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
"
with Mark Thimke-contact
person for the PRP's.
PRP's decline to participate
in the RI/Fs and that the
PRP's plan to initiate
their own investigation.
UsEPA will initiate the
program-funded RI/Fs.
2 86/06/18 Memo of call from Tom
stolzenberg of RMT, Inc.,
contractors for Marathon
Electric, on use of USEPA
well for water measurements
and sampling and the UsEPA
recommendation on that
request.
1 88/06/13 Record of verbal comments
by Frank Rovers on the PFS.
3 85/10/24 Notification of a proposed
Superfund project to be
funded by the USEPA.
3 86/01/06 Response to Information
Request.
7 86/01/10 Request that the recipient
of this letter, before the
government undertakes
necessary action at this
site,would voluntarily
perform the work required
to abate any release or
threatened releases of
hazardous subatances, etc.
into the groundwater.
2 86/03/2& Additional Request for
Information. Sent to
counsel to Wausau Chemical.
2 86/04/07 Confirmation of recent
conversations in which was
discussed the status of
further negotiations with
the PRP's.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCU~
NUMBE
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA
Communication Record
USEPA
Communication Record
Basil Constantelos-UsEPA D.Hanson-Wis.Dept.ofAdmin Correspondence
Russell Susag-3M
Janet Haff-UsEPA
Correspondence
Basil Constantelos-UsEPA See service list
Correspondence
Tim Conway-UsEPA
R.Krueger-Charne,Glassner Correspondence
Mark Thimke-Foley ,
Lardner
Tim Conway-USEPA
Correspondence
-------
age No.
1/05/89
3
ICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
3 86/05/01 Confirmation of results of
recent negotiations and
discussion of recent
correspondence regarding
the RIfFS.
1 87/01/17 Transmittal of the plans
for the proposed extraction
well and a request for a
meeting re: the same well.
4 87/01/24 Installation of an additional
monitoring well for the
Wausau Water Supply
Investigation
and summary of contract lab
sample numbers.
.
2 87/08/26 The WDNR is concerned that
the proposal by Marathon
Electric to begin a
groundwater extraction
system to remove
contaminated groundwater
north of the plant wil
cause-problems. These
- problems include
changing the configuration
of the contaminant plume
and interferring with the
USEPA's study of the area.
17 87/10/27 Package of correspondence
recieved
from the city of Wausau and a
request that the USEPA bring
the senator up to date on
the project.
. 87/12/03 Transmittal of analytical
results from initial
sampling activities.
Letters sent to
lonsdorf of Lonsdorf
& Andrask; Dan LaCerta;
R.Krueger of Charne.
Glassner; and M.Thimke
of Foley & Lardner.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
Tim Conway-USEPA
Mark Thimke-Foley &
Lardner
Craig Rawlinson-Warzyn
Eng.
Gary Kulibert-WDNR
Sen Robert Kasten Jr.
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCl
NUMf
Mark Thimke-Foley&Lardner Correspondence
Tim Conway-USEPA
Correspondence
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Correspondence
Mark Thimke-Foley&Lardner Correspondence
Valdas Adamkus-USEPA
Correspondence
Margeret Guerriero-USEPA See title
Correspondence
-------
ge No.
/05/89
4
CHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
2 87/12/08 Explanation of concerns as to
the implications of
prohibiting
PRP's from implementing
clean-up
activity.
ADMINISTRATIVE qECORD INDEX
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
aocu~
~UMBE
Bruce Cutright-Geraghty & Fleischer-SenProxmire Off Correspondence
~i 11 er
3 87/12/29 Explanation of USEPA action Valdas Adamkus-USEPA
in light of concerns expressed
by the City of Wausau.
1 88/01/22 Correction to letter sent
12/29/87.
1 88/01/25 Response to request for
meeting by counsel for
Marathon Electric.
1 88/02/03 Transmittal of missing
four pages of the
analytical results
package.
3 88/02/04 Explanation of why the USEPA
will not allow installation
of a groundwater extraction
well to be installed on
Marathon Electric's property.
4 89/02/05 Transmittal of analytical
results of ground water
sample data collected during
monitoring well installation.
Results sent to Dan LaCerta;
R.Krueger of Charne. Glassner;
Mark Thimke of Foley &
Lardner and J.Lonsdorf of
Lonsdorf & Andrask.
4 88/02/17 Transmittal of data generated
as part of the Phase I RI.
Data sent to Krueger. LaCerta,
Lonsdorf & Thimke. seperately.
3 88/03/01 Supplemental Request for
Information Pursuant to
Section 104(e) of CERCLA
and Section 3007 of RCRA.
Sen. Robert Kasten Jr.
Basil Constantelos-USEPA Sen. Robert Kasten Jr.
Tim Conway-USEPA
Correspondence
Correspondence
Mark Thimke-Foley-Lardner Correspondence
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA R.Krueger-Charne,Glassner Correspondence
Valdas Adamkus-USEPA
Sen. William Proxmire
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA See title-
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA See title
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Mary Gade-USEPA
Lonsdorf-Lonsdorf&Andrans Correspondence
-------
'age No.
} 1/05/89
5
:ICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TrTLE
Sent to counsel for
the City of Wausau.
3 88/03/01 Supplemental Request for
Information Pursuant to
Section 104(e) of CERCLA
and Section 3007 of RCRA.
Sent to counsel for
Marathon Electric.
4 88/03/08 Affidavit of James P.
Lonsdorf in response
to the Supplemental
Request for Information.
52 88/03/22 Supplemental Response to
Information Request.
2 88/03/30 Notice of intent to delay
the issuance of a WPDES
permit to discharge
contaminated
groundwater to the Wisconsin
River from a proposed
extraction well.
7' 88/04/26 Letter on behalf of the
Wausau Energy Corp.
discussing the review
of the Final Work Plan
for the RI/FS.
4 88/04/27 Transmittal of Technical
Memorandum for Phase I -
of the RI. Sent to Thimke,
Lonsdorf, LaCerta and
Krueger, seperately.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOC!
NUMI
Mary Gade-USEPA
Mark Thimke-Foley&lardner Correspondence
James P. Lonsdorf
Janet Haff-USEPA
Correspondence
David L. Janet Haff-USEPA
Eisenreich-Marathon Elee. -
Correspondence
Percy Mather-WDNR
Mark Thimke-Foley&Lardner Correspondence
Doran,Possin-Foth & Van
Dyke,Assoc.
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Correspondence
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA See title
Correspondence
25 88/05/02 First set of revisions to the Mark Giesfeldt-WDNR
comprehensive ARAR's document
provided on 3/6/87.
. 88/05/06 Transmittals of analytical
results of soil samples
collected during monitoring
well installation. Results
sent to Thimke, laCerta,
Lonsdorf and Krueger,
seperately.
"Bill"Constantelos-USEPA Correspondence
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA See title
Correspondence
-------
Ige No.
/05/89
6
:CHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
2 88/05/11 Work scope, schedule and
preliminary report outline
for the PFS.
2 88/06/06 Notice that the PFS is to
performed along with a
listing of subtasks.
1 88/06/06 Transmittal of the analytical
results for the second
round of the ground water
samp li ng .
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
Dennis Iverson-Warzyn
Kevin Adler-USEPA
Kevin Adler-USEPA
16 88/06/24 Approval of the addendum QAPP Andrea Jirka-USEPA
for Phase II of the RI/FS.
1 88/06/30 Invitation for any further
questions or comments on
the Phase II RI/FS.
4 88/06/30 Transmittal of the Phase
II Work Plan. Sent to
Dave Stewart of DeWitt
& Porter; Thimke of
Foley & Lardner; Krueger
of Charne. Glassner
and Lonsdorf of Lonsdorf
& Andrask.
2 88/08/03 Response to request
for ARAR's.
7 88/08/12 Comments on the ARAR's -
Quality based effluent
limitations.
3 88/08/31 Correction to Alternatives
Array Document.
1 88/09/06 Formal notification of an
additional state ARAR for
the PFS.
1 88/09/13 Perferred alternative of
the State of Wisconsin is
a combination of alternatives
three and four.
Kevin Adler-USEPA
Kevin Adler-USEPA
Michelle
DeBrock-Owens--WDNR
Mi che 11 e
DeBrock-Owens--WDNR
Brian Christfan-Warzyn
Eng.
Mark Giesfeldt-WDNR
Michelle Owens-WDNR
RECIPIENT
Tim Conway-USEPA
Dennis Iverson-Warzyn
DOCUMENT TYPE
OOCU ~
NUMB:
Correspondence
Correspondence
Mark Thimke-Foley&Lardner Correspondence
Beverly Kush-USEPA
Michelle Owens-WDNR
See title
Kevin Adler-USEPA
Kevin Adler-USEPA
Kevin Adler-USEPA
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Correspondence
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Correspondence
-------
3ge No.
1/05/89
7
rCHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
1 88/09/23 Comment on PFS: Report
is complete and accurate.
4 88/10/12 Special Notice of
Potential liability.
40 88/10/24 Group of documents
representing
comments by the counsel for
Marathon Electric.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
REC I P lENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCU
NUI:\8
Michelle Owens-WDNR
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Correspondence
Mary Gade-USEPA
See service list
Correspondence
Mark Thimke-Foley &
Lardner
Georgette Nelms-USEPA
Correspondence
7 88/10/24 Comments on the Public Comment R.Krueger-Charne,Glassner M.Guerriero&G.Nelms-USEPA Correspondence
Draft Phased Feasibility Study ,et al.
made by the counsel for Wausau
Chemical Corp.
4 87/09/00 'Superfund Activities Start
. In Wausau. '
. 4 88/10/17 'Wausau Well Field Phased
Feasability Study Underway:
Public Meeting October 17,
1988, 7:00 p.m., City Hall,
lower level (Rear Cafeteria),
407 Grand Street, Wausau,
Wisconsin.' . .
1 82/06/21 Well Log for Wausau
Monitoring Well No.
Five.
7 87/08/05 Typed notes on meeting
regarding City of Wausau
Groundwater Contamination
Site - August 5, 1987.
11 83/03/28 VOC Contamination of
Wausau's Water Supply.
3 83/05/09 Toxicity Rating for
Asbestos and
Trichloroethlyene.
16 87/06/10 ACTION MEMORANDUM:
Authorization to Proceed
with the Remedial
Investigation and
feasibility Study at
USEPA
Fact Sheet
USEPA
Fact Sheet
Soil Exploration Co.
log
Meeting Notes
Kreul & Baltus-WDNR
Memorandum
Stephen Caldwell-USEPA
All USEPA Regions
Memorandum
Basil Constantelos-USEPA Valdas Adamkus-USEPA
Memorandum
-------
3ge No.
1/05/99
9
ICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
the Wausau Water Supply
Site in Wausau.Wiscons;n.
4 97/06/24 ACTION MEMORANDUM:
.Authorization for
Obligating Funds for
Multi-Sites for
Community Relations.
4 87/09/29 Approval of QAPP for
the RI/FS.
2 97/11/24 ACTION MEMORANDUM:
Authorization to Obligate
Additional Funds for the
Remedial Investigationl
Feasibility Study at the
Wausau Water Supply Site.
Wausau, Wisconsin.
2 99/09/06 ACTION MEMORANDUM:
Authorization for
Supplemental Funding
for the Phased
Feasibility Study at
the Wausau Water
Supply Site. Wausau,
Wisconsin.
1 99/12/16 Air regulations concerning
the proposed Stripping
Tower in the-Wausau NPL
site Phased Feasibility
Study.
2 95/01/25 'State Will Seek Superfund
Aid For Wausau's Wells..
1 97/09/09 .EPA To Hold Public ~eeting
On Wausau Ground-Water
Contamination.
2 99/09/27 .EPA, WDNR Reschedule Public
Meeting And Comment Period
On Wausau Superfund Site.
6 89/05/11 Administrative Record Index:
Wausau Ground Water
Contamination Emergency
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
Basil Constantelos-USEPA Valdas Adamkus-USEPA
James Adams-USEPA
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCU
~UMe
Memorandum
Dikinis & Guerriero-USEPA Memorandum
Basil Constantelos-USEPA Valdas Adamkus-USEPA
Basil Constantelos-USEPA Valdas Adamkus-USEPA
Neal Baudhuin-WDNR
M.DeBrock-Owens-WDNR
WDNR
USEPA
USEPA
Terry Quirk-DPRA
USEPA
Memorandum
Memorandum
Memorandum
News Release
News. Release
News Release
Other
-------
3ge No. 9
1/05/89
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
rCHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE DOCL
NUME
Remova 1.
1 88/06/29 Administrative Record Index: Terry Quirk-DPRA USEPA Other
Wausau Ground Water Emergency
Removal - Update.
2 88/08/16 Meeting agenda - Wausau Well Other
Field NPL Site Phased
Feasability Study along
with sign-in list.
3 00/00/00 Narrative: Site History Jim Anklam-WDNR Reports/Studies
and Description.
12 00/00/00 Proposed Plan For Remedial USEPA Reports/Studies
Action
19 00/00/00 Documentation Records for USEPA Reports/Studies
Hazard Ranking System.
13 00/00/00 Compilation Qf Monitoring Weston*Sper Reports/Studies
Well Analytical Results.
21 84/05/03 Site Assessment and Py 1 es & Richard Bowden-USEPA Reports/Studies
Recommended Immediate Stimpson-Weston*Sper
Actions For Wausau
Municipal Water Supply.
4 84/08/17 Potential Hazardous Waste Jim Anklam-WDNR USEPA Reports/Studies
Site Preliminary Assessment.
7 84/12/27--Hazard Ranking System Michael Strimbu-USEPA USEPA Reports/Studies
. Scoring Package.
227 85/09/00 Hydrogeological Investigation Weston-Sper TAT USEPA Reports/Studies
Of Volatile Organic
Contamination
In Wausau, Wisconsin,
Municipal
He 11 s .
19 87/07/00 Plan Of Remedial Work
Marathon Electric
Manufacturing Company
Wausau, Wisconsin.
Conestoga-Rovers & Assoc. Marathon Electric
Reports/Studies
33 87/09/04 Final Health And
Safety Plc~.
Warzyn Engineering'
USEPA
Reports/Studies
-------
1ge No. 10
1/05/89
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
ICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE DOCU:
NUMB:
71 87/09/04 Final Work Plan: Remedial Warzyn Engineering USEPA Reports/Studies
Investigation/Feasibility
Study
263 87/09/23 Final Quality Assurance Warzyn Engineering USEPA Reports/Studies
Project Plan (QAPP).
25 87/11/16 Community Relations Plan CH2M Hill USEPA Reports/Studies
29 88/03/04 Scope of Work for Geraghty&Miller and Marathon Electric Reports/Studies
Installation of an Conestoga-Rover
Interceptor/Extraction
Well and Construction of .
a Water Main Across the
Wisconsin River.
413 88/04/00 Technical Memorandum- Phase I Warzyn Engineering USEPA Reports/Studies
Remedial Investigation.
60 88/06/16 Final Phase II Warzyn Engineering USEPA Reports/Studies
Work Plan.
161 88/06/28 Final Quality Assurance Warzyn Engineerring US.EPA Reports/Studies
Project Plan Addendum
(QAPP)~
74 88/07/00 Request For Applicable or Warzyn Engineering USEPA Reports/Studies
Relevant and Appropiate
Requirements (ARARs).
177 88/09/30 Public Comment Draft Phased Warzyn Engineering USEPA Reports/Studies
Feasibility Study
75 98/12/23 Record of Decision (ROD) Valdas Adamkus-USEPA Reports/Studies
Selected Interim Remedial
Alternative.
48 88/10/17 Transcript of Wausau Wellfield Nina Bostwick-Court
Superfund Site Public Meeting, Reporter
Wausau City Hall, 10/17/88.
Transcript
-------
Page No.
12/19/88
DATE
TITLE
87/00/00 Summary of Samples Collected
During Existing Well Sampling
Wausau NPL RI/FS September29-
October 7, 1987.
87/00/00 Summary of Soil Samples
Collected During Drilling
Activities Wausau NPL
RI/FS October 14 to
November 14, 1987.
87/12/10 Summary of data samples
collected during new and
existing well sampling
Wausau NPL RI/FS-12/2-10/
87.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SAMPLING/DATA INDEX
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
DOCUMENTS MAY BE REVIEWED AT THE USEPA
REGION V OFFICES. CHICAGO, IL.
AUTHOR
. 87/12/21 Results of split samples from Pencak & Cutright-Geraghty &
monitoring well sampling. Miller
88/01/13 Review and data package:
SMO case no. 8270; SMO
traffic no. EN 331, 333,
334.
88/01/23 Review and data package:
. SMO case no. SAS 3477E;
SMO traffic no. E 01-22.
88/01/25 Review and data package:
SMO case no. 8485; SMO
traffic no. EN 367-376,
387-391.
89/02/01 Summary tables for sample
descriptions for December,
1987 round of sampling.
Patrick Churillo-USEPA
Curtis Ross-USEPA
Patrick Churillo-USEPA
Dennis Iverson-Warzyn
Engineering
88/02/04 Phase I Data: Dennis Iverson - Warzyn
* Monitoring well construction Engineering
details and water level
measurements.
* Water sampling results for
samples
collected during drilling
activities.
* Soil gas sampling results
for .
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
Samp ling/Data
Samp ling/Data
Sampling/Data
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Sampling/Data
Warzyn Eng.
Warzyn Eng.
Warzyn Eng.
Samp ling/Data
Sampling/Data
Sampling/Data
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Sampling/Data
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Sampling/Data
-------
Page No. 2
12/19/88
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SAMPLING/DATA INDEX
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
DOCUMENTS MAY BE REVIEWED AT THE USEPA
REGION V OFFICES, CHICAGO. IL.
DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE
samples collected during the
soil gas investigation.
88/02/05 Reveiw and data package: Curtis Ross-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Samp ling/Data
SMO case no. 8628, SMO
traffic no. MEQ 251-259.
98/02/05 Review and data package: Ida Levin-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 8709 , SMO
traffic no.MEQ 260-274.
88/02/08 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo~USEPA Warzyn Eng. Samp ling/Data
SMO case no. 8333; SMO
traffic no. EN 342. 348-
351.
88/03/10 Review and data package: Ida Levin-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. SAS3498E;
EOI-123, 137-147. 150-160.
88/03/11 Analytical results for Pencak & Cutright-Geraghty & Lonsdorf-Lonsdorf&Andrask Sampling/Data
vac analysis. Miller
88/03/14 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 8637SAS3498E;
ER472, 474. 476, 484. 485,
489: 496. 499. 201-323, 329-
333. 336. 338, 341-344. 346,
347.
99/03/16 Review and data package: Curtis Ross-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Samp 1 ing/Data
SMO case no. SAS 3477~;
SMO traffic no. E 01-27.
29. 30.
88/03/23 Review and data package: Kevin Bolger-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9709. SMO
traffic no. fR 328. 470.
471. 473. 475. 477-483.
496-498. 490-494, 497.
499. 500.
-8~/03/24 Review and data set: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Samp 1 ing/Data
s~o case no. 9629;
SMO traffic no.ER334. 335,
337.339,340.345.349-350.
99/06/23 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
-------
Page No. 3
12/19/88
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SAMPLING/DATA INDEX
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
DOCUMENTS MAY BE REVIEWED AT THE USEPA
REGION V OFFICES, CHICAGO. IL.
DATE TITlE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE
SMO case no. 9952SAS3919E;
SMO Traffic No. ECD76-83.
88/06/23 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Samp ling/Data
SMO case no. 9694. SMO
Traffic No. EP879-883.
88/07/07 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9694; SMO
traffic no. ER 457-465,
467-469, ER 324-327,
511-515, 517-518, 520,
594-597, 599.
88/07/11 Review and data package: Curtis Ross-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9694, SMO
traffic no. MEP 700-
708, 710-720.
88/07/14 Data and data package: Curtis Ross-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Samp ling/Data
SMO case no. 9694,
SMO traffic no. MEP 721-
728.
88/07/19 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9694, SMO
trafiic no. EQ 749,
EP 884-890.
88/07/19 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9659, SMO -
traffic no. ER 413-431,
398.
88/08/01 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9659SAS38878,
SMO traffic no. ER351-391,
436, .39,EQ810-813, 815-
816, EP899.
88/08/04 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9918SAS3919E..
SMO traffic no. ECD1'-16.
88/08/09 Review and data package: Curtis Ross - USEPA Warzyn Eng. Sampling/Data
SMO case no. 9918; SMO
traffic no. MEQ 282-
287, 289.
-------
Page No.
12/19/88
4
DATE
TITLE
88/08/09 Review and data package:
SMO case no. 9918SAS3919E;
SMa traffic no. ECD61-64, 72.
88/08/16 Review and data package:
SMO Case No. 9918; SMa
Traffic No. MEN986-999,
MEP9"-9'5, MEQ281.
88/09/19 Review and data package:
SMa case no. 9918SAS3919E;
SMO tarffic no. ECD19,20,
31.41-43.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SAMPLING/DATA INDEX
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
DOCUMENTS MAY BE REVIEWED AT THE USEPA
REGION V OFFICES. CHICAGO, IL.
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
Kevin Bolger-USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
Curtis Ross-USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
Patrick Churillo-USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
gS/08/22 Review and data package: Patrick Churillo-USEPA
SMa Case No. 9919; SMa Traffic
No. ECDOI-03.05.09,10,
17.18.21-27.36-40.
vd/09/31 Rev;ew and data package:
SMa case no. 9952; SMa
traffic no. MES 2351-359.
99/09/13 Chain-of-Custody Records and
validated analytical data
for samples collected and
groundwater monitoring wells.
89/09/14 Review and data package:
SMO Case No. 9952;
SMO Traffic No. ECD56-57,
66-70, 73.
" 88/10/06 Review and data package:
SMO Case No. 10299; SMO
Traffic No. EP991-897.
89/10/19 Review and data package:
S~O case no. 9919; SMO
traffic no. ECD 46,47,51-54,
71.
. AII/I2/30 Review and data package:
SMO case no. SAS 3477E;
SMO Traffic No. EOI-E22.
Warzyn Eng.
Curtis Ross - USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
Dennis Iverson-Warzyn
Engineering
DOCUMENT TYPE
Sampling/Data
Samp ling/Data
Sampling/Data
Samp ling/Data
Samp ling/Data
Margaret Guerriero-USEPA Sampling/Data
Patrick Churillo-USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
Patrick Churillo-USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
Patrick Churillo-USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
Curtis Ross-USEPA
Warzyn Eng.
Samp ling/Data
Samp ling/Data
Samp ling/Data
Samp 1 i ng/Da t a
-------
Paqe No.
12/19/88
WAUS.ALJ, WlmlSrN GRCWD W4TER roH»tINATlCW SITE
GJIDANCE !XX:UMENTS FOR THE A[1.!rNrSTRATIve RECORD.
!XX:s. NOT (;(PlED - M4Y BE REVIE\
-------
Page No.
12/19/88
2
1'WJS.&ij, WISCWSIN GRtWD WATER roHAMINATlrn SITE
WIDN4CE !:OOJMENTS FOR THE A[J.!INISTRATIVE RECORD.
ro:s. NOT COPIED - M~Y BE REVIE\tfD AT THE
USEPA REGI(}I V OFFICES, QHCAOO, ILLINOIS.
TI TLE
AUTHOR
DATE
FS's.
. ~R Dir. 9834.4
Po Hcy for Enforcing InfonnatiCJ1
~ts 1n
Hazardas Waste Cases.
USEPA
84/09/10
OSWER Dir. 9240.0-01
User's GJide to tre CCJ1tract
Laboratory Program.
USEPA
84/10/01
~R Dir. 9834.1
GJidance CJ1 Issuance at Notice
Letters
USEPA
84/10/12
~R Dir. 9285.1-01-8
Standard Operating Safety GJide
ManJal
USEPA
84/11/19
"--q Dir. 9835.0 USEPA
'im CERCLA Settl9Te1t Policy
~R Dir. 9285.2-03 USEPA
F9JP #8 - Air Surveillance
~~R Dir. 9285.2-02 USEPA
F5:i' n - !8:CJ1taminatiCJ1 of
Res~e
Perscme 1
~R Dir. 9285.2-01 USEPA
FSIY 114 - Site Entry
CS6 Dir. 9340.2-01 USEPA
I'reparat i CJ1 at Deei si CJ1 D::o..r.stts
for
Approving Md-Firwad. and PRP
RA's
Lhder CEFa..A.
CS6 Dir. 9285.2-05 USEPA
FSOP ;9 - Site Safety Pl~.
OSWER Oir. 9285.2-04 USEPA
'#6 - Work lCJ1es.
OSWER Oir. 9295.1-01 USEPA
f(lJ Bet~ tl-e ATSDR and EPA.
84/12/05
85/01/01
85/01/01
. 85/01/01
85/D2/21
85/04/0 1
85/04/01
85/04/02
-------
Page No.
12/19/88
3
TITLE
OSWER Dir. 9835.2
Q.Jidance CJ'I Lrafting Ca1sEJ'lt
!A:!crees
in HazardaJs IoBste Cases
OSWER Dir. 9355.0-0SC
Q.Jid:n:e CJ'I Feasibility Studies
lk'W CERCLA
Wo\USAU. WISCCtISIN GRC.WD WATER CCHT.AMINATf(J~ SITE
QJlOlWCE rxx:tJMENTS FOR THE ACMINISTRATIVE RECORD.
ro:s. NOT COPIED - M4Y BE REVIE'ffD AT THE
USEPA REGICH V OFFICES. CHICAOO, IlLIOOIS.
.AlJTHOR
DATE
USEPA
85/05/01
USEPA
85/06/01
~R Dir. 9355.0-068 USEPA
Q.Jidance CJ'I Reredia 1 InvestigatiCJ'lS
lhder CERCLA
OSWER Dir. 9280.0-02
Policy
-------
Page No.
12/19/88
4
W.AUSN.J. WlSWISIN GmO WATER CCNTftMINATIrn SITE
(lJIOMtE OCCUMENTS FOR THE A[J.!INISTRATIVE RECORO.
ro:s. NOT COPIEO - 1-4AY BE REVIE'fIEO AT THE
USEPA REGirn V OFFICES. OHCAOO. ILLINOIS.
TITLE
AU1HOR
DATE
Ma lytica 1 5.Jpport For 5.Jperfund
. OSWER Oir. 9355.D-04A
5.JperMd Paredia 1 !:esig1 and
Raredial
Act1CJ1 ~idance
USEPA
86/06/01
OSWER Oir. 9285.4-01
5.Jcerftn:I ~b lic Health Eva luatiCJ1
MnJa 1.
USEPA
86/11/07
Standard RI/FS Tasks lk1der OWSER Oir. 9242.3-7 86/11/13
REM Cootracts
Federal Lead Remedial OWSER Oir. 9355.1-01 86/12/00
Project ~agB1S1t Mmal.
~icance Lb::l.r.a1t for Providing OWSER Oir. 9355.3-01 86/12100
Alternative Water Supplies
. Oir. 9355.0-19 USEPA 86/12124
Interim ~idance en 5.Ja!rfund
~lectien of Raraiy.
Interim Guidance en State OWSER Oir. 9375.1-09 87/02/00
Participatien in Pre-
Rtr.'ed i a 1 ard Ralsdia 1
Res~e.
OW5ER Dir. 9835.4 USEPA 87/02/12
Interim ~idance: Streamline Tre
~ttlEr.'S1t
{)!c i s i en Precess
G6ER Dir. 9295.4-<12 USEPA 87/03/11
.Qxnjinatinq AT~ Health
A.cs~t Activities
with SJ;:erilrd PB.e:!ia 1 Process
Qo-..er Di r. 9355.0-78 USEPA 87/C4/01
~jectiV$ for Reredial Resp:J1Se
Activities
Gui~ for tt-e OWSER Oir. 9285.4-02 87/04/22
ratiCJ1 of AT~
Hea lth AsSE!SSIIS1t Activities
with t!-e 5.J;:e~furd REm!dia 1
Process.
-------
Page No.
12/19/88
5
TITLE
~perft.nd Se lectiO'1 of
RsraJy: Backgro.rd
O:x:uI'S1tatiO'1 0'1 Rsraining
Issues .
~perft.nd P./blic Health
Eva luatiO'1 Maroa 1.
Interim Q"idance 0'1 ~ 1 iance
with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropiate ~il'E!le1ts.
52 FR 32496 (8/27/87). .
WNJSAIJ. WISCCNSIN GRCWD WATER CCNTAMINATHJ~ SITE
WIDMtE OCCtJ7.1ENTS FOR THE A[t>!INISTRATlVE RECORD.
!XX:S. NOT COPIED - ,,"Y BE REVIEtED AT THE
USEPA REGICW V OFFICES, OHCAOO. ILLINOIS.
~THOR
DATE
87/05/12
OWSER Dir. 9285.4-01
87/07100
OWSER Dir. 9234.0-05
87/07/09
C&ER Dir. 9235.0-05 USEPA
Interim Guidance 0'1 ~liance with
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropiate Requirements.
OSWER Dir. 9355.0-21
AdditiO'1a1 Interim Q"idance
for FY'87 Records of CecisiO'1.
Interim Q"idance 0'1 PRPs
participation in RI/FS.
Interim Final Q"idance 0'1
Rara./al ktion levels at
Contaminated Drinking Water
Sites.
87/07/09
USEPA
87/07/24
OWSER Dir. 9835.1a
87/10/02
OWSERDir. 9360.1-10
87/10106
Interim Guidance en Administrative OWSER Dir. 9833.4
Records for Deei s; 0'1S 0'1 Se 1 ect i 0'1
of CEFnA P2sPTSe ktiO"iS.
Rlo.tised ~res for
Pl~irq n Ir.p 1 e:e'1t irq
Off Site P.es~e kticns.
FY '98 P.egiO'1 V ROO
Pro:ess Q"i~.
P'sTo f rtr.I Chi ef of
tl'e Er.erqg-cy &
~i81 Res~e Br"~
teste /VIt. Div.
[taft Q"idance 0'1 ~ring
~perft.nd Cecisi01 Ib:u1mts:'
87/11/09
OWSER Oir. 9834.11
87/11/13
fo'ary Gade-USEPA
88/01/20
OWSER Dir. 9355.3-02
88/03/00
-------
Page No.
12/19/88
5
TITLE
Tre Proposed Plan and fiCO.
I)oaft QJicmce en PRP
Participatien in the RI/FS.
Ra::ord of ~isien ~ticns &
k1swers - I)oaft.
W.6LJS&JJ, W ISC(}IS IN GRIDlD WATER
-------
SlJrvJMARY OF INI'ERllw1 RE1'IEDIAL ALTERNATI\lE SELECTION
WAUSA.U GROUNDiJATER CONI'N.n:NATIQ\j SITE
WAUSA.U, WISCQ\JSJN
I.
SITE ~ON. AND DESQUPI'ICN
The City of wausau is located along the Wisconsin Ri ver in i"L3rathon
County, Wisconsin. The Wausau Groundwater Contamination site encompasses
an area in the northern section of the city which includes the City Well
Field and five of its production wells. (See Figures 1 and 2).
The City of Wausau provides drinking water for approximately 33,000
people. The City presently 0t::erates six groundwater production wells,
fi ve of which are located on the north side of the City. A sixth well,
Production Well CW8 (CW8), is located adjacent to the wausau Nunicipal
Aiq::ort, on the south side of the City. The water from CW8 has a high
concentration of iron and is used only during peak demand periods.
Production wells CW6, Gr7, and CW9 are located west of the Wisconsin
River and are collectively referred to as the West ~lell Field. The Vlest
Well Field (Figure 2) is located in a predominantly residential area,
although a few industrial facilities are located in this area.
Production wells CW3 and CW4 are located on the east side of the
Wisconsin River and are referred to as the East Well Field. Tl1e East
Well Field is located in a predominantly industrial section of the City.
The. six production wells are screened in an aquifer of glacial outwash
and alluvial sand and gravel deposits which underlie and are adjacent to
the Wisconsin River. This unconfined aquifer supplies nearly all
potable, irrigation, and industrial water to residents and industries.
located in Wausau and the surrounding areas. Wi thin the study area the
alluvial aquifer ranges from 0 to 160 feet thick, and has an irregular
base and lateral boundaries.
II.
SITE HISTORY NID ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site Historv
The City discovered in early 1982 that its production \-'ells CW3, e;\[4, and
C;'J"6 w'ere contaminated by volatile organic cOlTl};X)unds (VOCs). Toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene were also detected at CW4. Trichloroethene
('ICE) is the predominant volatile organic cOmpJund detected at CW6,
although belO'..f method detection limit (EMDL) concentrations for
tetrachloroedlene (PeE) and 1,2-dichloroethene have also been previol~ly
rep:>rted (Weston, 1984). Since the contamination was first detected in
early 1982, TCE concentrations' from CW6 have ranged from 70 microcjrarns
per liter (ug/L) to 260 ug/L. Therrost recent sampling (M3rch 1988)
-------
""".
..
N
~
-..~
}j
-
:!.:
";'"
. ..
.
~~.. .
,t. .... I
..-
FIGURE 1
REGIOr~AL LOCATION MAP
-------
uj
>
..c:
>-
a:
a:
w
J:
U
o
a:
Z
...
BRIOGE
'II~.
j I I
LEGEND
CW6 .
~ . CITY SUPPLY WEll
)
NOTE:
BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM U.S.G.S. 15 MIN.
QUADRANGLE MAPS WAUSAU EAST & WAUSAU
l~t9
BUGBEE
:.c
w
a:
::::I
CI)
&-
CW6
WEST
STUDY
ARE {?P
e~
~\~
.~
.(;f
~
c:.,
~!j
~
\
;
j
I
I
J
I
/
f-
W7 81
ST ~
WfL TON
STUDY
AREA
$-' CW3
WAUSAU
;
II
~
f..r-,'f'} ;,
IV I.,.
SCALE: 1~ R 1000'
AVE.
-
.~ .
:x:
l-
X
~
ST.
Ii
. FIGURE 2
-------
2
indicates 'KE concentrations of approximately 160 ug/L. Sample results
from the East Well Field (CW3 and CW4) have indicated considerable FeE,
'KE, and OCE impact at both wells. CW4 has generally indicated steadily
decreasing concentrations of the three constituents since February 1984.
CW"3 has indicated decreasing PeE anCl_OCE concentration since tl1e 'i':CCs
. were discovered in early 1982. However, 'KE concentrations at C;.J3 h..qve
remained relati v-ely constant at concentrations ranging between 80 ug,iL
and 210 ug/L.
To reduce vex: concentrations, the City originally insti tuted a prQl]I"am
where uncontaminated water from CW9 and 0iJ7 was blended with water from
CW3, CW4, and CW6 to dilute the "LX: concentrations. However, increasing
va: concentrations in groundwater caused this method to be ineffective,
and resulted in then current regulatory limits being exceeded.
In 1983, the united States Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA)
awarded the City of Wausau a federal grant to help fund the design and
installation of a packed tower va: stripper in order to provide
sufficient water of acceptable quality to City residents. However,
because va: levels in the distribution system continued to increase, U. S.
EPA's emergency res:p:>nse team was asked for assistance. As an interim.
measure in June 1984, the U. S. EPA installed a. granular activated carbon
(GAC) treatment system on CW6. va: stripping towers were installed in
the SUmmer and Fall of 1984 at the City water treatment plant to treat
water from CW3 and CW4. SUbsequently, the GN:. system was rerroved from
service in O::tober 1984. In December' 1985 the Wausau GrOl.llldwater
Contamination site was added. to the National Priorities List (NFL) for
remedial acti vi ties under SUperfund. .
The City has been blending water treated for va: rerroval wi. th water from
uncontaminated supply sources (CW7and CW9) to reduce va: concentrations
in the water supply distribution system. Data indicate that prior to
installation of treatment units (pre-July 1984), drinking water samples.
taken frcrn various taps in the City' of Wausau consistently contained 'KE
with concentrations ranging frem detectable levels ( >1 ug/L) to 80 ug/L.
Lower levels of R:E and OCE were identified shortly after discovery of
the contamination, probably before blending had reduced the levels of .
va:s. Following installation of the packed tower vex: stri~rs, the
water supply distribution sy~tem has had relatively low levels of vDC's
(generally below detection limits of 0.5' .to 1.0 ug/L). These levels are
depe:nde.T1t on continued effecti ve oreration of the treatment system for
CW3 and CW4, the in! luent va: concentration for each well, and continued
use of the two uncontaminated wells (0iJ7 and CW9).
PreviouS'Studies
B.
Previous investigations have identified several :p:>tential :p:>int sources
of vex: contamination in the vicinity of City production wells. Becher-
. HOt:})e Engineers, Inc. was contracted by' the City of Wai.1sau to conduct an
investigation of the East Well Field in the vicinity of CW3. The stud:z'
concentrated on the Wergin Construction Co. property, the fonner site of
-------
3
a City maintenance garage. Foth & Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. r:erfonned
a. groundwater investigation at the Wausau Energy Company property located
just south of the above property, in order to determine the effect of
past bulk oil operations at the site. .. STS Consultants Ltd. r:erfonned
groundwater investigations at the WauSau O1emical Company, also located
in the East ~lell Field, and. instituted a groundwater extraction and
treatment system to remediate effects of past VCC releases from their
facili ty operations. 'I\vin City Testing and Engineering LaOOratory, Inc.
conducted investigations iIi-the East Well Field vicinity on behalf of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Roy F. Weston Inc.
conducted an investigation of both the East and West Well Fields as part
of the U.S. EPA emergency response action. Gi2M Hill Inc. was contracted
by. the WDNR to perfonn a hydrogeologic investigation of the abandoned
City of Wausau landfill, located on property presently owned by r-Br"athon
Electric Company in the southern part of the West Well Field. mvIT Inc.
and Geraghty & Miller Inc., representing lVIarathon Electric COI:?Oration
and -the City of Wausau, respectively, perfonned a hydrogeologic
investigation to determine -the source of 'ICE in the grOlmdwater in the
vicinity of- CW6. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. also installed several w-ells in
the East Well Field in order to investigate VCC contamination of C.-i3.
Locations of facilities discussed above are illustrated in Figure 3, and
a listing of previous' studies is presented in Table 1.
Investigations conducted previously have produced inconclusive results.
Potential sources have been identified, but' data gaps exist on source-
concentration, release rates, migration routes, aquifer characteristics, .
effect of river stage and groundwater plmping on flow direction, and
velocity of groundwater and contaminants. 'Ihe conclusions of rrost of
these studies include a recommendation for further study. At least t'..JO
studies also expressed the need for a camP~ehensi ve investigation to
address the entire w-ell field. 'Ihe rernedial!nvestigation, currently in
progress, was therefore initiated by U.S. EEi to fill the data gaps and .
determine a cost-effective solution to the grqpnctwater problem.
..
c.
CERCIA Enforcement
CERaA enforcement activities l::egan at the. site in 1986. U.S. EPA
identified five Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) as having
p:>tential responsibility as waste generato:rs and/or transp:>rters. r-btice
letters informing PRPs of their potential liabilities and offering then
the opportunity to perfonn the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) were sent via certified mail on JanUary 17, 1986 to the five
identified PRPs listed below:
* City of Wausau
* lVIarathon Electric Company
* Wausau O1emical Company
* wausau Energy COrnp3Ily
* Arroco Oil COrpJration
several negotiation meetings were held - to discuss technical and legal
issues of a COnse.11t decree for the site. Hmo/ever, clue to problems T..lithin
the PRP group, and fai lure of the PRPs to agree to key requi rements ,
-------
MARATHON ELECTRIC FOUNDRY
}C}DiD.LJf~~J:l._}lm_]{ .~, 1 JC:}[
-) l.,~ =:=-l~1 ~Dr- -- J{ _.-l[ ,,~L - I --.- - -] c:Jr
.......... --- - ~- -_. - -----~_._..\;'iHj"RY-___-
- -
~
CORNERSTONE FURNITURE
l
.. -l j
) L---
~(--
~
"."
~
WAUSAU CHEMICAL
OMPANY
MAR ELECTRIC
HAZ RDOUS WASTE
STOR' GE BUILDING
Sf' -
MARATHON EL TRIC . .]~/-'-' .--
MANUFACTURI . i
ENARD ..J--- . / LEGEND
il '!r - -1.-~' ::~~.::~;:
':I~~:Y~~I ~.- ~ SECTlOilCORNERAH
'I 't\'\.\''1- $ QUARTER SECTION "
I i EOGE Of WATER
I ." -.:. CREEK/INTERHITTEH
++++++++ RAILROAO TRACKS
SIGN COMPANY.
PCE SPILL
LOCATIONS
TI N PLANT
"'''.£
co+
s/+
FORMER
CITY
LANDFILL
.--- - --
-- --- APPROXIMAIE Bour/D
fORMR CIIY lANDf
1 '
, CW9
~.
l
-- --.~--
.Pt
1
I
r
lDCATJ~ or 'UIIClPAl wnlS I
IIIOOS1AIAl SUAVU CT."" ~',I',
-------
TABLE 1-
Existing Reports On Wausau, Wisconsin Water Supply Site
1. Hydrogeological Investigation Of Volatile Organic Contamination In
Wausau, WiSCOnsin Municipal Wells, (for U.S. EPA), Roy F. ,",ston, Inc.,
September, 1985.
2. Subsurface Exploration and Testing Program to Evaluate Ground t'later
Cuality at the Wausau Olernical Facilities in Wausau, Wisconsin,
(for Wausau OlerniCal Corrpany), STS Consultants, Ltd., July, 1984.
3. Investigation of An Abandoned City of Wausau Landfill, (for WDNR),
~M Hill, February, 1986.
4. Existing Conditions Report and Exploration Program, Wausau East
M..micipal VEIl Field, Wausau, Wisconsin, (for WDNR), Twin City
Testing Corporation, August, 1986.
5. Groundwater Investigation, (for City of Wausau), Beecher Hoppe
Engineers, Inc., 1983.
6. VOC Grouhdwa ter Investigation At The Former Wausau Energy Facili ty
, In t.JausaD, Wisconsin, (for Wausau Energy Corporation), Foth & Van
Dyke and~Associates, Inc., December, 1986.
"'"
",
7. Hydrogeological Investigation of the Alluvial Aquifer Beneath City
Well 6, I
-------
-.
."--' -~_'_'_H
....J L...
..1
". ",",.- -- . _. ..-
l.;( Ii HI i 'j'
t .11 fit... I' ..+--+-+-+-....t+...,...+,.....+-+-+~--~. ----. ....-..----,..." .-.._.._.~..__.._.... ,,-.
. :::: . f
,i "..1___- ----
! :: '-:!:'
I:!. -...-.-.......... ...- ..'- -.......
'U.
'.....:
()
r'~
I..',~
..~.f'. .'. I
. '-.. ..... ,,"':..- " :.- ,"C ,... ........ ':: ... ~.... ':", '7 ". . .....
i ,....-. Lb.'..L.... ,.LJ:.1.f:li"J.L..~:!,L:
I,' .1 -... ". ': "
I . ..' I I" '. ." .,', ." .
,.... ..., . ~. ",... /"." "'-:,
Iii i / /-~,~,/.~,:(~';:- i~,I,.' ;; i":.~~~I~ilf~,i~~~i;~' '
SOUTHE~N EXTRACT~~~/~~::R~p~~~%MIJi />~:~::~i 111E~;W' NORTHERN EJT~AC;I~~;~~;T~~J-""'"
~~ - ,------- -' ---------- - - T?~~:_,:~,./<;::'::11 j r-f~W=~'_~Gi I ' , ,
/'" . / "'I"'I'~.'''','
.,./" .",
-~ ~ t'(." ":';" (~--> ~ : ::
~',.. ',",-----, "', C<;~. ' \: ,. .~I :, i,/M..~... ..
i:""~i ". in", Ie."
'-''''- \~ l .;: .... STM. (
~~<~ '-, '~:;:" \ ~ :
"""'1....~ " "~" \ ~f. '.
..~.. " ~>.. 6-
" """ 'f.' 'it i'~,
~ ~...\ A (r1~;,
.. ..,)
',,-
"j
i '
I.
t ,.
; LEG~NO 'J" " . . .
f -cw"---; .
. ~: IIIIIICIPAI. '-'CIlIllIlf.LL IGCAIIOII .
IWZ~ £.C _IU [llMe"1II 'Sr5ItIlIlf.LL I
,. E) :.. .:' U'SIIIIG SIOIIII 1[11[1 iwHIlt ;
, --. UISIIIII 110lIl 1[11[1
I ..---- ,lOPOSti _IU UlUCIIOll STS!
#.
6.-
CIlO~S ~I~IIOII IOC"HII
1]
; .
1 '
.........J
. 1';':' >",J,-. "'i:-'
JMJi~~tE~j1
'..
'.'
. L----I.._.._l
i ...
I.~I. !
"
r"
.,: 0
':J
~
;:'.i~ .~':,~,~i
-4~CW6
CONCRETE::
SPLASH: I
BLOCK' .
"'..
'"
. ""'-1 .....
.......... .....
............, . '.
. ........ 'j..f.
......~
'#..0.,..
. .'
r."'IIIt.!.",." ~
'11'.IM'I~l '.
.; .;
'..';
FIGI'
...
''\
. "
..:.,,' <,"'0.:
'.,"':'/'~"'.. ".,' ..~'{1~~;1'f~~"'i '
. , '.
'...
11);~ .J
~:~--?i:'f~(n~~~!r.;~1€J.~i~~";;;~':'X-""." ...," ,
~. . . .~ ~ ~ '
," .
. ",
",:
;".:.:.. ":',
'.
. .
. ", ;,"
,;,
. .
. . . '. ~
. . .-
. ...,
. .
. .
. .
..
-------
',;!,",'~:'~I:" "il:I..'~I;..It. ',(.;;, r',',r')
"; II q..IIhl \ I II,q:J ~
;'",,;" :t~~r ' '~'; , ,
t.:;- -;- -,..~' " .. ':: I T >.."'>-:- .r .' :~J'..~,:.~.~:.f..."..,~,.~:.~:~.~:.,.~.:..~.,~~'..:~.~.,',:,::~,,':.','.:,~..:~:,~~,','.'',,~,~,,~~:
~.~' I~~ . -- . ... ~~'~ J:.~' '::4' "1"" . ;, ~~. \:3.'. ,'~~~" ; ~ -: . . .-
'ic~'~~7.~:~ ..'" " ":'" ".."".:'.>~)\)\')(\"\t.~~
oci./oC. "1:.:~.t -b'~; 'f.. :~.~ " :"':~"';"~"::;:'."-' '
~-. :oJ..' L_f .ti-s-:";."'" ': ': '1,,' - '~."~:,~'.-i'!..: ! \ ...
-"*~\.::.'f;; " '. ,r:' .' -iI" . I
,'r.;...rr;' . .£. "1. ~~~"> >~~:.>~'..;t!,
" ~5t;:I.ii '.. ,'I
, ~.' 'OC. ~ / '~~:'~'.;~.;;~,~:~~:;g::>
. '~~~X,:,""S- "'J IJ
A. ALTERNATIVE
1-NO ACTION
,~-~L~.:.:~7"~~." T::J.~~~.~~'~ "--'" "--.~'~--,' ':, ,rf'-. ~:~i,-',,-"~f::.'~"'~'''~'''''',''~':
. ~.., : ..,.;" ,.#JoJl,;J .iIt!:'"",-c,. 111... , '. ";.8' :, ", ""-"';" .' ,
-- 01:. °i Ii."~ '::-l~~''f...'::~~.'" . .-/. ".': \..' '\-:,~~'l';'-:,,~. . i,i.:,) i:-
.. -" '~~..,'".'.. "', ."'. ,', ,,"'............-' ::':,""'j" ,
, . :_J"~~~=i ~ ;i~:i,',' ':-. ~'::':.' \,'. :~-:. ,.~ ~./,~:':~:.>/../ j
.":' ,', :" ,~'~~L/ J ./.. t', ..~ ''-~~'~''<''''~:~~~::''':~'~~:~:'~:''~.~'/ /.-
" ",......-- _., . I . I ~ '". ~ ,-"" . ~' ,~".../
~ 'J ,'~~' -' ......-",,-,~" .-. ~ '~':. . '" '--,--# I/~~' /
~' 7C'~>i':'<> ')'ie.~1:~~~?:~//:
C. ALTERNATIVE
3-S0UTHERN EXTRACTION WELL
- '".. ,',
It, Iii;"'" '~
.:' :::;'\:{:;':';::,/"..::; :~,:
..' : ~"', :
" ~' ,
...
..
. ,""
"",:
. '
, ,.' :',:: ::':':~'~;",...
,.,.;(: :,<~:;..':':'::' ,..
:\" ::~ ',:,: ~: :~ ":
',:' . .'
, ,. "
. ,
" "',L'
'9' ",'"
'. "'''.-.',
- ,
!,l ~.,,"I!
'lit ttOfIIfO.I'" Vlll lOCA'l(t.
-tt.. PVt'I'" f'tJ,HCIrAl \II(U I
~.. son eolilte l('('1f It''''
, ':.~-- "~,, '1~"I(D "1'; ,~:"f
"I'~ /f."
1.- "", "I~~""~'~<)~'
-'. In, ," ,',.~'~ . .... '.~ ~.) ~!~.:, ,..
- ~~;_. !'~~~~fij~::'~. -, . ,: !;:~.~ .- . $.. ,. -.
(~'~!. ~.~'~:i:.~I.! '~g ::'i=: ! 8::.. .... -;.. I I --1'
81:1.'" L,.~.. .11:. :~~-;",;~~ 'i... ~ -~ ~-. ,'.1
--. .) ..- . ('~ .....~..~. .
= !.~:f& ~'""tji~:; ,
I ~..t:~"~l"~;'
" I'
, ..,."
"'ie jo'
...:.~
if:.
.:.- '
...
',.,-~~:,/
J'
~';~:~T";:-'?'~':~'.:.~:~£~:t.
. - . '--;.'~
,-,,'.
.,~~(" .
:"','
~'~:-
B. ALTERNATIVE 2-NORTHERN EXTRACTION WELL
-:7;..,~cc...)l~~C:C~-;'Dq H_.. '-~'. :t~4f~~+ ,,,.,:i,;;'
,~--- . ~ ~~. '.,.~:
'-- ,.--/----"--.~""'-'-.,.._:.,-Jj" ~ ':.~- __,(11_~::: ::~~~' -~~"~~.Z?',
:ti----- n--~~'~:-~~~:'~:.~ ". ~-~~;!~~~~~~'-~'_.' .~.'~::..\ .
1L 1'" ~_/""" "..' .,c,",', "
= ,:;..~~'~~::~:,:;, "",' '}> ~::... "~-;'~').
~~ ~~~~~r..~~~~:.;~:~,'~,,:~:" . .~~.:.:~ ;~<" " -7r~-"--;-.'-
. : ' ..'., 1 r~:~:'\3 1 . . £".~ " ,"'." .'. .
.. ", : ~.'J ;i" " ! "f' '{', " "''c ',. . <~t} ,
':,,~;~~~
D. ALTERNATIVII 4-NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN
", '. EXTRACTION WELLS'
FIGI
.~;1,. ..'
- """"" '
.,,':..'. :t' r~:,: ~ :1~ :.~
I;",',', .
:;'. , ' ,~:\.:~ " , .~': '; :
" ~ ". '
" ,..:,',':,,:{
-:' ~... .' ~ .
, ' .
":'. .:,. "
. .
''',
..,
, ,',
. .
".,'
',. ,:'''"
-------
! '
LEGEND
fiI El7
.ew4
<)
ft)'
"
IDIIIOII'"
11[11 UltlflOO ..
::{~ IUII(I'AI. 11[11 lOt'
$ E34
SJJ..' 1011 8011'" UICAflOII AN' .
70lAl CHlOI
'"AIIO IIN!'I \
lOlAl (HIOI
11101/ "IRI~IIIO "'" ,,'
""01""1
(0111001 Of I ' t
(HIOII"I(O r;'1 (011(["
- 110 - AI '''''"OIIA,[:~~m:' ,'..
(OIIIMI or c
::"'''0 ~"~OII((""
'-'11- IAS[ or JQUI,:~~'I,'"
(0111001 or [
~~OIINA"O rt:,JOOtl''''
_AICI IUJ~:II""
10IAl (IClDRI
o(l[R"IRt~ ,:1110 ""1 ':
CROOIIOI/AIU 011 00 1111 '
OIlllllIG SMUS (01",
IOlAI CNLOII
0( "IRI"[O ,:':10 ""," ~
'''.[till/IOG v(1~ro 1 "
8MD~
..
...
C6S !\I
!\I CIS
i;
I
Ir2280*
, '
, ,
$ DO""
$ DOT I
......"
J\JT2
$
......--". 5
, ..I' W58
W58A
.
.
::
~~?
TEST
WEll
/5iUW3B
UW3A
"
.CWI
SE28A
BMDL*
;.....;
.-....J
!\I GU2S
£STIM.1I£ or Tor~
""INES IX( I (,.lORiIIMH
"RAIIICE I' '
,.J!!L.&ln~
FIGURE 5
.
~
u~.'
, '
~ ... : ~. ... ~~._~? -: :..~ -~ ~:~:~~.. ~... ,',' .'. ~,' ~-':'" ,. '
:"~(.' :../:,!:',:'",::.'~::::. . .
:;..."':, ..j",'"
':~: :;. ." ':" :.
~\;~~.,.
-
--,
.::.Jf,
L:
~I
. '
"
, "
"
-., .
~. ',;: ~. '...'
..
, "
," ' .: ..::
..
,", .
'.
, '
. ,
. .'
; "
-------
'".. '"''''''''''''
,..,..,.... .
ii
j'" i
~ i
i j
I.EGEND
f\I W5
flJNI10RI"G "Hl lOUIlClt AND NUHtIl
. ,
...
1151,55 VAnl IAlll IlIYA"ON
. CWI 'UIIPI'G ....1(I'Al wIll lOCAl 10ft .'0
IIU~II .
-1181.0 - orrtR AOUHUt rOI(IIIIf)'(I'I( (OfIII(...:~
fD"~"tO ""III( 1"'IIIt(D)
5"1' c;AG! lOCIIIOll AIIO ."'II!I
+ SGI
. , " '" .. .
1184.03
",
i ;
WISCONSIN AIVEA
ELEVATION AT
WVIC GAGE
fAT DAMI 1187.3
--
--
-
1186.5 -
--
-
-
Ii'
rJllf,TI(.of'E!RI( \LPlt!l .~r
FIGURE 4
I. ';.
, ,',' .
" .' ...
. ... .
: '.,
. -..,....~ .
','
. '.'
'.'
':,.
.'
.' ,
,.
. ,
D.. .
" .
'.'
-------
4
negotiations were unsuccessful, and the PRPs declined to ~Lrtici~~te in
the RIjFS. Tl1e u.s. EPA then contracted with WarzyTI Engineering, Inc. to
conduct the RIjFS.
Although the PRPs failed to reach an agreement with u.s. EPA, they have
maintained. considerable inv\)lvement in u.s. EPA's study. 7\.10 of the five
PRPs conducted an investigation of the West Well Field and all have
requested split samples and/or results of data collected. In addition,
tw\) of the PRPs, the City of Wausau and Marathon Electric, offered to
perfonn the phased feasibility study (PFS), and have indicated a
willingness to perfonn the operable unit Remedial Design/Remect.ial Action
(RD/RA). Correspondence regarding this matter is included in the
administrative record for the site.
In January, 1988, U.S. EPA filed suit against four of t1le ?RPs for
recovery of past costs spent on U.S. EPA's emergency response actions.
A fifth PRP, Azroco Oil, was not named in the lawsui t based on
prosecutorial discretion. Trial proceedings are scheduled to begin in
November 1989.
Negotiations with the PRPs are under way for the operable lU1i t RD/RA.
Special Notice letters were sent out on October 13; 1988 to the five PRPs
listed above. Negotiations are proceeding according to u.s. EPA's
general guidance and policies. As discussed abov-e, two of the PRPs have
expressed a willingness to perfonn the RD/RA, and are the only PRPs to
continue to attend these negotiations to date.
III.
CCMvlUNITY REr.ATICNS
A RIjFS. "kick-off" public meeting was held in September 1987, to inform
the local residents of the SUperfund process and the wurk to be
conducted. Issues raised during the meeting, attended IIDstly by PRP
agents and City officials, iIlCluded the cost of the RIjFS, the estimated
tirre to complete the study, and the number of previous studies perfOnned
for the site.
-
Infor.mation repositories have been established at Wausau City Hall, 407-
Grant Street,and the Marathon County Public Library, 400 First Street,
Wausau, Wisconsin. In accordance with section 113(k) (1) of CERCIA, the
administr-ative record for t.~e site is available to the public at t11ese
locations. 'TIle draft PFS and the proposed plan were available for !XIblic
rev'ie1,.l and corrment from October 3, 1988 to October 24, 1988. A public
- meeting was held on October 17, 1988 to discuss the findings of the
Phase I RI ~iI1d PFS, and to present the proposed plan. '!Wo fonml ptIblic
comnents were recei ved during the public meeting and written comncnts'.
were also received during the public comment period. All cornnents
received during the comnent period and u.s. EPA's responses are included
in the attached responsiveness Stnrmary. The provisions of sections
113(k)(2) (i-v) and 117 of crnCIA relating to coImll1l1ity relations have
~..n satisfied.
-------
5
IV.
SCOPE OF OPERABLE UNIT
A contaminant plume, cOmpGsed mainly of 'ICE, exists in the ~':est l'Ie 11
Field and is being drawn toward CW6 aue to pumpage. The appare.11t source
area is located to the south, on or near current r-erathon Electric
property.
Until recently, CW6, whfch the City p..Irnped directly into Bas Creek as
waste (subsequently contaminating Bas Creek), served as a blocking \,'e11
to the rest of the West Well Field. The discharge of CW6 to Bas Creek
has resulted in a contaminated groundwater round between the source area
and ev.r6. The influence of the groundwater round may not l1ave fully
penetrated the glacial OUtwa.s!l aquifer, but Phase I- RI data suggest that
the round served effectively to divide the West Well Field contaminant
plume into northern and southern pJrtions, indicating that contaminant
migtation from the source- area has been slowed.
In surmner - 1988 the City of Wausau placed CW6 back in service after
completion of a transport pipe to carry contaminated water to the air
stripper. Because of this, the pumping rate of CW6 has increased
substantiaJ.ly, and the untreated discharge to Bas Creek 11aS been
discontinued. These two factors tend to increase the rate of migration
from the source ,area toward CW6. Water from CW6 is treated for 'iJCC
rerroval using the existing air strippers at the water utility. Ho\.;ever,
if no further action is taken, CW6 will continue to serve as an
interceptor well, providing the sole protection for the remaining \o:ells
in the West Well Field.
The scope of this operable unit is lind ted to the contaminant plume
impacting the West Well Field and CW6. Ultimately, the solution to
protecting the West Well Field will involv-e additional controls tQ
prevent contaminants from migrating to the north from the source area.'
Due to the apparently slowed <;ontaminant migration to the ~nortl1 caused by
discharge of CW6 to Bas cr~, additional protection of the West ~vell
Field is 1X>ssible by preventing or limiting the extent of future
contaminant rovement to the north. - Implementation of plLnne migration'
controls will effectively limit the time during which O-l6 dr~..rs in
contaminants, thereby also limi ting the period during which water
consumers are expJsed to trace levels of . contaminants .
An expecli ted operable lmi t remedial action is desi rable from a p..tbl ic
health stand::oint. Taking action now rather than tvaiting for the final
action will shorten the time required to achieve long-tenn protection of
the vlater supply. -This expedited operable tmit remedial action js
therefore considered to be consistent with achieving a final site remedy. ':-
The PFS evaluated alternatives to address plume migration control in ~1e
West Well Field of the site. A discussion of remedial action ohj~tives
and goals, as well as a description - and evaluation of al ten1ati ves
dev-e loped, is included in Section \;'II of this document.
-------
6
v.
CURRENI' SITE SThTUS AJ.\lD SITE CHARACI'ERISTICS
current Site Status
A.
A RI/FS is currently being conducted for U. S. EPA by its contractor,
Warzyn Engineering, Inc. The RI entailed two phases or field sampling
events. Phase I of the RI field work was conducted from August through
January 1988, results of which are surnnarized in the April 1988 technical
merrorandum. Phase II of the RI field work was conducted from June to
september 1988. Results of this phase of work will be included in the RI
rep:>rt for the site which is currently being prepared. The final FS,
which addresses remediation of the entire site, is w1der developnent.
The PFS prepared for this operable unit remedial action addresses only a
limited p:>rtion Of the site, the West Well Field plume, and is discussed
in detail later in this document. The PFS was completed in September
1988.
currently being developed, the FS will detail the developnent and
evaluation of an array of remedial action alternatives to address the
entire ~vausau Groundwater Contamination site and sources iTI'pact ing it.
B. Site Characteristics
1. Hydrogeology
The City production wells are located within glacial outwash and alluvial
sediments underlying and adjacent to the w-isconsin River. The aquifer is
located wi thin a bedrock valley which is underlain and laterally bounded
by relatively iropenneable igneous bedrock. Groundwater flO\o/ within tJ1e
unconfined glacial aquifer has been drastiCally changed by tlle
installation of the production wells. under non-pumping conditions,
groundwater flows toward the Wisconsin River and its tribut:aries (Bos
Creek) . Groundwater naturally discharges at the surface water bodies.
HOwBver, under pJIT1page concii tions , groundwater flows toward the
production wells. The natural groundwater flow directions are frequently:...
rev12rSed due to City well PJlrping which induces recharge of surface water -..
into the aquifer. The horizontal flow in the vicinity of the well field
is indicated by the p:>tenticrnetric contours shown in Figure 4.
Tl18 ;::c:.c::.:cmetric sl1ILJ.ce IT'.J.p al~;':J il'"'.cl:C.:lt2S that tJ:e cone of depression
frem the East Well Field appears to affect groundwater flo°.., belm..- and to
the west of the Wisconsin Ri v"Br. M:mi toring well nests located at
r-Jarathon Electric indicate very slight dO\.JI1ward gradients adjacent to tl1e
Wisconsin River. Below the Wisconsin River, the East Well Field
production \./ell pumpage has induced surface water recharge of the
aquifer, causing flow downward tl1rough the river bed and to\varc1 CW'3.
~fer hydraulic conductivity tests rerfonned during the Ph.-1Se I RI
investigation indicated hydraulic conductivity values ranging from -~.
1. 7' x 10-4 an/sec to 8.1 x 10-2 an/sec. The overall average hydraulic
conductivity of the outwash aquifer is approximately 2.2 x 10-2 all/see,
based on test (lata at m:mi toring wells.
-------
7
2. Chemical Characteristics
a. Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality sampling conducted during the Phase I investigation
has identified a vertical and lateral distribution of total chlorinated
ethenes which suggest that a miniInUln- of three sources are a£fecting the
City well field. The estimated areal distribution of total chlorinated
ethenes is shown on Figure 5. The distribution is based on a cOmbination
of data obtained from la:toratory VOC analyses of Round 1 groundwater
sazrples (O:::tober 1987) and field la:toratory analyses of groundwater
sazrples collected during drilling (O:::tober and November 1987).
West side monitoring wells appp-ar to delineate a deep (greater than 100
foot) north-south trending 'ICE plurre. Based on the vertical distribution
of 'ICE throughout the aquifer in the vicinity of the old City landfill
and the presence of 'ICE in the unsaturated zone in this area, a source
a;pears to be located wi thin the northern pJrtion of the fonner City (of
Wausau) Landfill. The plume appears to have migrated northward, under
inf luence of purrq;:age from CW6. The highest 'ICE concentration (4200 ug/L)
within this plume was detected approximately 550 feet south of CW6.
'ICE was also observed in the shallow aquifer between Bas Creek and Ci\6.
This plume is shown on Figure 5 by the lightly screened contours bet\-leen
Bas Creek and CW6. 'TIle shallow' aquifer 'ICE contamination appears to
result from the induced infiltration of surface water from Bas Creek,
which has been contaminated by the discharge from CW6. TIle induced
surface water recharge of the aquifer is evident from the downward
vertical gradients. at rronitoringwell nests in that area. Based on
laboratory analyses of samples collected during O:::tober 1987, 'ICE
concentrations adjacent to the CW6 discharge were above 100 ug/L. Tq:
concentrations in the pJnded area downstream were approximately 70 ug/L.
'ICE was not detected in surface water sazrples collected upstream of the
Gi6 discharge, nor was it det€cted at the pJint of discharge of Bas Creek
to the Wisconsin River.
The distriootion of 'ICE in rroni toring \-lells located between the Wisconsin:"'-
Ri ver and C"W3 suggest eastward migration of a deep. 'ICE plume below t11e
Wisconsin Riv~r from the vicinity of the fonner City Landfill (refer to
Figure 5). 'ICE appears to be -:-?rtically distributed thrOtl'011out tl1e
aquifer in the vicinity of t11e old City landfill, inrlicating close
proximity to the source area. Slight vertical downward gradients were
observed in rronitoring wells in the area. The highest concentrations of
'ICE were detected at a depth of approximately 115 feet. After ITOving
into the deeper pJrtion of the aquifer, a pJrtion of the plume ap;;ears to'
migrate eastward under the influence of plIDlpage from CW3 (refer to Figure
4) . A part of the plume has also been captured by the pumpage from CW6
and appears to migrate northward under the influence of this well. :rile
'ICE~contaminated pJrtion of the aquifer appears to be less t11al1 20 feet
thick and is laterally restricted to a relatively narrow flow ~1.tJl into
the proc.ft.lction wells. Since CW6 produces water nearly eqnally from all
-------
8
sides of the 50 foot screened interval, the resulting
apr:ears to range from 15 to 25. Thus, concentrations
supply well are likely to be 15 to 25 times less than
concentration.
dilution factor
observed at tJle
actual in plume
b.
SOurce Location
The predominant source of 'ICE contamination to 0i'[6 and CW3 appears to be
the Marathon Electric/Former City Landfill area. Elevated concentrations
of 'ICE were detected in groundwC3.ter, soil, and soil gas samples obtained
from the northern tX>rtion of the landfill. SOil gas concentrations
within the land£ill range from below minimum detection limits (1.0 ug/L)
to approximately 82 ug/L. SOil samples obtained from boring in the
vicinity of the landfill contain concentrations of arl>roxirrately 200
ug!kg. Groundwater samples obtained from the water table in tl1e vicinity
of the landfill indicate 'ICE concentrations ranging from 16 ugjL to
approximately 1900 ug/L. Also detected in the vicinity of me land£ill
were l,l,l-trichloroethane (TeA), 1,2-dichloroemene (1,2-0CE),
ehlorofonn, and carbon tetrachloride at concentrations generally below
100 ug/L. Potential sources within the landfill were investigated in
greater detail during the Phase II RI, and will be evaluated during the
final FS.
VI.
SlJl'IJMARY OF SI'IE RISKS
The risks associated with the West Well Field contaminant plume 11ave been
evaluated in the PFS for this operable unit. This effort entailed
identification of contaminants, routes of migration of tX>PUlations
exp)sed to the contaminants associated with the West ~,jell Field. This
information was then used to estirrate health risks based on extXJsure
levels and toxicOlogic data of the contaminants. The final FS wi 11
contain a comprehensive assessment of risk for me entire site.
The predominant contaminant identified in the groundwater in tl1e \-Jest
VIell Field is 'ICE. The 9XtX>sure pathway of concern is the City's water' -
supply. The City water distribution systern supplies fOtable water, .
derived exclusively from the Wausau groundwater source aquifer, to
approxirrately 33,000 residents. Routes of 9XtX>sure to residents tl1rough
conta:ninat.ed grouru:1'..later i,lCL~c..;::: ':':Y~n.::::.i:m via drinking and cooking, as
well as inhalation and dermal exfX)sure \oll1ile bathing. During tlle period
of 1982 through mid-1984, prior to pumping CW6 directly into Bas Creek
and the installation of the VOC strippers, levels of 'ICE sampled at
various drinking water taps throughout the water distribution system
ranged from awroximately 10 to 100 ugjL. PCE and OCE were periodically
detected, but usually below minimum detectable limits. Presently, the
City treats water from CW6 prior to distribution using an air stripper.
M::mitoring in the distribution system indicates undetectable levels'_,of
TCE (detection limit 0.5 ug/L). .
-------
9
Because TCE is the predominant contaminant present, it vias identified as
the indicator contaminant, or contaminant of concern, for the vJest Well
Field. The toxicological effects of TCE, including acute ext=Dsure,
subchronic exp:>sure, and carcinogenis. risk, were evaluated.
Based on undetectable levels of 'ICE present in the treated water wi thin
the City water distribution system, the short-term carcinogenic risks to
heaJ.th associated with TCE. contamination would appear to be minimal under
current water usage pract'ices. The long-term cancer risk associated with
City water use is ITDre difficult to quantify. The U.S. EPA has set a
Maximum Contaminant Level (r-'I:L) of 5 ug TCEIL of drinking water. HIs
are enforceable standards promulgated under the safe Drinking Water Act.
Because TCE, is carcinogenic and is not considered to be without' hazard
below a given threshhold, the U. S. EPA has set a non-enforceable Haxirmm
Contaminant Level Goal (M:LG) of zero for TCE in drinking water.
Prot.ection of residents .£rom exp:>sure to TCE is dependent on adequate
treatment of the water. - The p:>tentiaJ. for expJsure exists in that
failure of the treatment system could result in an exp:>sure pathway
through the City's drinking water. In addition, if CW6 was turned off,
the TCE contaminant plume would migrate north, iropacting the rezraining
clean wells, CW7 and CW9, in the City well field.
Based on the p:>ssibili ty of failure of CW6 and/or the air strippers, a
p:>tential future risk of expJsure to TCE via drinking water ingestion
exists at the site. Therefore, plume migration control to mitigate
future risks is considered a prudent resp:>nse action to address site
risks. Ti1is action will mitigate p:>tentiaJ. long-term risks from
migration of contaminants in water and will be consistent with the final
reredy for the site.
VII.
DESCRIPITCN OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
-
RespJnse Obiectives
...
...
. The phased. feasibility study was initiated to evaluate alternatives for'
remediation of the West Well Field contaminant plume. Based on the risk
assessment, two. primary site-specific resp:>nse objectives were
identified; I) protection from long-term exp:>sure to low levels of 'ICE
frem ingestion of d=inking T..later; and, 2) protection from future
increased levels of contaminants to the West Well Field. .
A variety of technologies to address response objectives were identified
for. further consideration. From these, four' alternatives were developed
and Subject'ec1 to detaiJed analysis using the nine evaluation criteria:.
developed under the SUperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ($\..1:\i\).
Table 2 lists the four alternatives.
-------
10
'IMLE 2
REMEDIAL ACI'ION'" ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative '2
Extraction well located north of Bos Creek,
with packed tower stripping and discllarge to
the Wisconsin River.
Al ternati V"B 3
EXtraction well located south of Bos Creek
near the source area, with packed to'..Jer
stripping and discharge to the wlsconsin River.
Alternative 4
A combination of Alternatives 2 and 3.
B.
Treatment
Groundwater treatment was inco!1X'rated into each of the al ternati ves ,
(except No Action) as a result of technology-based effluent limit
requirements. Section 30l(b) (2) of the Clean Water Act and federal
regulations (40 CFR 122.44 (a» require the consideration and use of tl1e
Best Available Technology (BAT) that is economiCally achievable for
treating water prior to discharge. Corresponding State requirens1ts are
found in section 147.04, Wisconsin Statutes and O1apters NR 215 and 217,
of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
The maximum obsen-ed in-plume contamination concentrations are lO\.Jer tl1aI1
either acute or available chronic toxicity values for effluent limdts for
discharge to surface waters. Extraction wells would exert a hydraulic"
influence radially and throughout the saturated thickness of the aquifer,
drawing in both uncontaminated and contaminated groundtvater, thereby':--
lowering contaminant concentrations in extracted water (relative to in- -
plume concentrations) as a result of dilution. Treatment would therefore
not be required as a result of water quality-based effluent limits.
TIle acute and chronic toxicity numbers listed in Table 3 (below) for tl1e
three major west side plume contaminants are currently being considered
by the vlisconsin I:NR in detennining effluent limi ts for discllarge to
surface 1.-1aters. Tne numbers are being used pending promulgation of ne\oJ
vlisconsin Adrninistrati ve Code chapters regulating tl1e discllarge of toxic
substances.
-'
-------
11
TABLE 3
Water Qualitv Effluent Limits~or surface Water Discharqe
Acute O1ronic Max. Observed
Corrn:x:>und ugjL
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene (DeE) 13,500 Not Avail. 641
Trichloroethene ('ICE) 5,200 Not Avai 1. 3,200
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 528 84 55
The acute toxici ty volues are essentially end-of-pipe effluent limits,
because these values are riot to be exceeded wi thin the mixing zone. The
chronic toxici ty values are not to be exceeded in the stream after
mixing. To calculate allowable effluent limi ts based on chronic
toxici ty , a mass balance is perfonned using upstream, discharge, and
downstream. flow rates and concentrations.
Groundwater treatment required under the Clean Water Act is determined on
a case-by-case basis p.n-suant to section 402(a) (1), using the guidelines
of 40 CFR 125.3. SOme flexibility is allowed in detennining appropriate
treatment technology in a particular application. The final
detennination regarding specific tectmologies will be made by WDNR during
the design phase. The treatment system choice requires justification
based. on li terature data and/or bench or pilot scale testing that
deronstrates effective perfonnance.
The treatment technology used for the purp:>ses of alternative evaluation.
and developnent of cost estimates in the PFS is air stripping utilizing a.
paCked tower stripper. Air--stripping is effective for the types of
contaminants in the groundwater at this site. However, a B'\T-equi valent
treatment coulCl be provided by a passive VOC stripping system, and its.
use will be evaluated as B?\T by the WIl'JR during the design phase of the
remedy .
C. AI ternati ves
Alternative 1 - No Action
Under this alternative, no resp:mse action would be taken at this time to".
protect the uncontaminated municipal wells in the West Well Field or to
rech.1ce the arrount of time that CWG draws in contaminants.
Production Well CWG is noW' on line as a "water supply well. . The dischc-u-ge
to Bos Creek has been halted. Based on cOImllmications with water utility
representatives, CWG will be pumped nearly continuOusly' at a rate of
-------
12
approximately 1600 gpn during the high-demand sumrrer rronths and EX>ssibly
at a lower rate during other times of the year. Contaminants wi 11
continue to be drawn to the north under the influence of CW6 p.nnpa0e.
Water from Production Well CW6 is being. treated at the water utility for
vex: rerroval using an existing striwing tower.
Figure 6a shows a simulated piezometric head contour map for the No
Action alternative under sumnertime pumping conditions of 11 cubic feet
per second (cfs) total flow. A piezometric surface divide trending
northeast to southwest would be created. 'TIlis divide would extend from
the southern EX>rtion of f-1arathon Electric toward Gi 1bert Park to the
northeast. The apparent source area located on Marathon Electric
property is located on the divide. The in£luence of the West Well Field
p..m1ping wells extends to the source area. Contaminants would be dra1tln to
the north from the source area into the West Well Field. Under these
condi tions , CW6 would function as an interceptor well, capturing
contaminants drawn toward._the West Well Field. Both the deep and shallow
contaminant plumes (see Figure 5) are within the zone of influence of
CW6. Wi thout any other controls, this situation would continue unti 1 the
west side contaminant plume has been effectively pJIged from the aquifer
by production well pumping.
Comparison of Figures 7a and 7b shows the effect of taking CW6 off line.
Figure 7a reflects the same conditions discussed above. Figure 7b shows
simulated piezometric head contours with CW6 off and tl1e total summer
production well p..Impage of 11 cfs naintained. The piezometric surfac'e
divide is shifted slightly to the north, reflecting a relatively greater
influence of West Well Field production wells.' 'TIle source area and west
side plumes would be wi thin the zone of influence of CW7 and CW9.
If CWG ceased pumping, contaminants would be expected to migrate furt.her
north under the influence of CW7 and 019 p..Impage. There would be no
provision for protecting uncontaminated CW7 and CW9 in the event of a
failure that results in substantial down time for CW6.
- ..
AFPlicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the No
Action alternative are surnnarized in Table 4. 'TIle only ARARs identified
are federal drinking water standards and Wisconsin Chapter NR 140
standards and requirements. Drinking water ~r::Ls can be met as a result
of VOC reroval at the water treatment plant.
-
Under the ~To Action alternative, there would be no time associated with
implementation however, the time during which water consumers wOuld be
exp::>sed to trace ( less than detectable) levels of contaminants in
drinking water would be maximized. A single City w"ater supply T.-Jell (CW6)
would be relied on to draw contaminants from the soUrce area and from the-'
aquifer on the w"E!st side, preventing further northward contaminant
migration to other west well field water supply wells. '
There is no cost or operation and maintenance (O&H) associ ated wi tll t.l1e
No Action Alternative. Annual costs to operate the present air stripper
were not considered as O&M under this alternatiye.
-------
MULATED PIE
,"ODUCTION WE~~E~6RIC HEAD ~'.APS'E
PUMPING' FFECT OF
~"":: ,,-
, " '~...' ca.:)' ',.:::::r':,"'" '
",." ------- " '" "_",,,;I,
'" ,,--- . ,,"'''''' ' '
.. ,-' - ," '". -:-,,~-:-.--------.,('\~ ,..w~---:.",' I
-'. ~~' ,.---/ ",.' '/' '~~J"I""'~' +'i:T~iR-~~~~~~'~\~
-. " -.. .~ ~ ,,' ' ,~",---..'----- ------ ,,""~"'"
,.-' ri~ ~ -----------' -"," ,- , --~:~{~ ~--....~:---..;: ~'~S~':.....~
~~ L-' /~ ,..' -.' ", .r.~,;:-. ," -~~~:?:". ~' '~~':S:=
, - ,,- ,,' ."' ' " :--oJ."' ---,=-...,......",,~
.. "" ':-....- ~,'" ~,'-.. " ~, "",'/::- I '/ .' /' .. .... '.. -,' "..~:::'~~ ~ ,,~ "-
, ,-" ~~' " --' ..' I I J' .. - .., ,'"-'-..;" ~\",'~' \, ! ,/ /,../~~~~:,~~~'S~~~
- - ..,..,,.,,;.-:- ,..",', ' . " , ' I " ..~' '~~~ ," '. '~
-' -~' -' " ,'''' ,,' , .- ' ,'.' " "
, i';"'.;..a.~. - ,.. ',' -- " ' . ' I"" - -' ""', ~ "" ' ,. ','. ',,,- '-
,/ 'i:lEt~~~'.;~.1 ~'i.' " \ T" \ i I! (l..~----:~/,"~',~.:i'\"\' ,\~>~
, I -, , -"'~" I' ' 1 " . \ . \. II ,.,...- " "". ') ) \ \ \ ' " "
I ,- ....' ",," ' \,' ' -'. ..' - "~,, 1\'" ,-
i ", II _!! I' " -- ,.," \ \ \ \ \\..~ \....J" ~l J ) I \ \' \ -
, ",,,. \ ;")' i;Z' I," -, ,'" \ " ,',~ -----...,,., /' / \\" ''.
, 1,..01 -~,' = I' ' " ,," " ' " ~ ./ "c,; , ,"" I, \ "-
, ,./'-,'..,.', I ~ 0' ," ' \ '\ ~" r;,:; /v ,,y ~' I ~
\..." /;' ,--:.,,".:;~. ~ "'" ",....', '~'l ,~,/>'I. /,//" <:.{t>".i::: !
) -' - ----- CO ~.< ~ ' ' -, , , . ,,-'.' ' /:~ ~ ,,~ /
, U'" ,-, _'0' ~'J" r ~"" " ,,\ ,,~y / /' /' <"
, ~," ,"" ,., ~ ,~,", (~5'y~------ ~~~"~ /, ,-
= J}'.;"~<;'r. '"~~ ~-' ,\ ,'~ y' ,/ .""~,/
.., ' ' .. ," / ' --------=- '
'1 ", 0, ~ ...~ ~
.. ,.jJf'l i - ' ,,:;~; --------- ./
"",.~,~,\::", ,.8.,+ ..~
"..., . '-
f:II~,S ' h_,-
.../:'*,~ -; .', -....,
lE ~\)jjil ) ) "
GENO,i,'" , "
.......
I,~)
A. ALTERNATIVE
1-NO ACTION
s'~e\\~
, '
o
. - 8C.
...
...
.--
.....
, B- .41 T~D
M AT. "I:
.. _...,..
.. ~....
-..
--.'.. -
....~..- .
-------
TABLE 4
ARARS: ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION
. PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY
WAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPL SITE
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
Regulator~utrement
Comment
Safe Drfnkfng Water Act;
40 CFR 141; NR 109 WAC
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs
Drfnkfng water MCLs and correspondfng State standards for health-related compounds
are relevant and approprfate as goals for cleanfng up a publfc water supply source
aquffer.. .
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
..-.--..-.--.--.-.-- -------.------..--..... ..._-- --."'-
No locatfon-specfffc ARARs were fdentfffed for the No Actfon alternatfve.
.
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs
No actfon-specfffc ARARs were fdentfffed for the No Actfon alternatfve.
-------
13
Alternative 2 - Extraction Well Nbrth of Bos Creek
Alternative 2 involves installation of a groundwater extraction well
north of Bos Creek and south of CW6"': Groundwater would be treated and
discharged to the Wisconsin River.
The extraction well would te located in the vicinity of SChofield Park on
a City-owned parcel at - the northwest comer of the intersection of
Randolph and Burek Streets (See Figure 8). This places the well near the
apparent center of the contaminant plume which would be the IrOSt
effective location. The well would serve to rerrove contaminants frcrn the
northern FOrtion of the 'JX:E plume, and would draw in and intercept
contaminants from the south. Based on infonnation gathered to date, tl1e
plume is estimated to te approximately 500 feet wide and 20 feet thick in
that area, and it appears to be within approximately 50 feet of the
bedrock base of the aquifer. A deep well would therefore be used.
Gretmdwater flow Irodel results indicate a groundwater piezometric surface
di vide would be created between the extraction well and CW6 (see Figure
6b) . 'I11.e divide would be located between Burns and Randolph Streets.
Contaminants located north of the divide would migrate toward CW6, and
contaminants located south of the divide would migrate to the extraction
well. The influence of the extraction well also extends south to include
the apparent source area. The extraction well would therefore draw in
contaminants from the source area.
A. conceptual system layout for the northern extraction, treatment, and
discharge system is illustrated on Figure 8. A well and p..mtp- house are
located on City-owned property near the intersection of Randolph and
Burek Street. Section A-A' (Figure 9) shows that a 130 foot well with a
40 foot long, 20 inch diameter screen would be constructed. A small ~1lTIp
house would be constructed at the well head to protect the well head,
ITDtor starter and controls, and above ground piping. Above ground piping
would incorp:>tate a check vaive,' flow control valve, sampling tap and
totalizer flow. A package tower stripper incorp:>rating an aboV~OlU1d -
discharge slump would be located on a concrete pad next to the well
house. The tower pad would be' surrounded by a chain link fence with a--
locking gate. For a 1500 gpn design flow and a stripping factor of 0.2,
a 7 foot diameter tower with 15 feet of 3.5 inch nominal size
FOlyethylene Pall ring packing would provide an estimated 85% rerroval of
'ICE. Treated effluent would flow by gravity to the discharge line and-
ultimately to an out-fall at the Wisconsin River shoreline. The PAT
requirement will be determined by the WDNR during the design phase of tl1e
project.
ARARs for Alternative 2 are sUI11TIarlzed in Table 5. The action would
COITply with NR 140 requirements. In general, the highest contaminant
concentrations observed in the west side plume are less than effluent
limits (5.2 mg/L for 'JX:E) established by the wrnR, so water quality-h'lSed
requirE!IT1PJlts can be satisfied. Technology-based effluent limits can be
satisfied with theVOC stripping technology.
-------
1220
ELEVATION
Wf.LL nnw
--
r--
. I '
I
~.I I '
1180 ~OS CREEK ELEV.
1191(TYt>. )
1140
1100
1060
NORTHERN EXTRACTION SYSTEM
SECTION 'A-A
STRIPPING
TOWER
"
--~!~~O~~~~AA~:_~___!~-~
PVC GRAVITY
DISCHARGE, LINE
STATIC W.L.
~ 1190 (TYP. )
ESTIMATED DAAWPOWN
ELEVATION ~ 1150
AT 1500 GPM
" ~ ~ ~
f / /
/- "
APPROXIMATE
BEDROCK
SURFACE
"
./
18"CONCRETE
STORM SEWER
4
EXISTING
CONCRETE
SPLASH
BLOCK
~
WISCONSIN RIVER
ELEVATION 1188 (TYI
FIGURE 9
CROSS SECTION SCALE:(APPROX.)
VERTICAL: 1" c 40'
HORIZONTAL: I" = 100'..
-------
Regulatory Requirement
NR 140 WAC
Clean Water Act
NA 102 VAC
NA 104 WAC
Safe Drinking Water Act:
40 CRF 141: N~ 109 WAC
Chapter 30 Statutes;
NR 115- 111 WAC.
CWA Section 301:
40 CFA 122.
Chapter 14'.04 Statutes
. NA 112 WAC
NR 200 WAC
NR 211 WAC
NA 219 WAC
ILHA 81-84 WAC
ILHA 50-53 WAC
IND 1. 6 WAC
I,
TABLE 5
ARARS: ACTION ALTERNATIVES 2,
PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY
VAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPl SITE
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN
3, AND 4
CORlllent
CHEHICAl-SPECIFIC ARARs
Groundwater Quality Standards are applicable. RI/FS process is considered to
satisfy substantive requirements for investigation, analysis and consideration
of appropriate response actions.
General requirement for regulatinq discharges to surface water are applicable.
Federal AWQC are ARARS, state numbers are more stringent. . .
Interim numbers used in establishing effluent limits for toxics are to be
considered (T8C).
Drinkin9 water HCls and corresponding State standards are relevant and
appropriate as goals for cleaning up a public water supply source aquifer.
lOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
Hay be applied although proposed facilities do not appear \0 lie
within regional floodway or floodway fringe.
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARAAs
Technology-based effluent limits are applicable.
Applicable to extraction wells.
Requirement for application for discharge permit and State review
may be applicable. Requirement for permit may be waived .
un~er CERCLA on-site action exemption. Honitoring and reporting requirements
may be applicable. .
Sampling and testing methods would be applicable for monitoring.
Applicable to system piping.
Applicable to pump house. .
Applicable to construction phase for worker safety.
-------
14
Probable costs of Alternative 2 are surrmarized in Table 6. Major capital
cost i terns include the extraction well, pump house, stripping tower and
fotmdation, controls and utilities, piping and piping appurtenances.
Major operation and maintenance cost item include energy costs, sampling
and roni toring , analytiCal laborator¥, routine systems inspection and
maintenance, and repJrting. Capi tal costs are estimated to be $432,000.
The first-year operation and. maintenance costs are estimated to be
$105 ,000, and annual operation and maintenance costs for subsequent years
are estimated to be $82,,000. The five-year present net worth 00%
discount rate) associated with the above costs is $760,000.
RespJnse objectives would begin to be met shortly a£ter the well begins
pumping. Contaminants not captured by the system would be drawn to CW6,
and contaminated water would be treated at the City water treatment plant
to meet drinking water M:Ls. A design and. construction period of less
than six ronths is considered realistic for this action. Risk to water
consumers are minimized by the time it takes for CW6 to drat.j in
contaminants presently si1:uated beyond the northern extent of influence
of the extraction well.
Dnplementation of this alternative is not expected to be a problem. 'TIle
technology is readily available, conventional, and well derronstrated.
Construction is straight forward and no unusual features are anticipated
to be required for the system. Coordination between u.s. EPA and the
City of Wausau will be required to acconplish inplementation of the
system.
AI ternati v"B 3 - Extraction Well South of Bos Creek
under AI teI1lati ve 3, a groundwater extraction well would be constructed
south of Bos Creek. GrolIDdwater would be extracted, treated and
discharged to the Wisconsin River.
The extraction well w'Ould 1Je. located near the center of the southern
p:>rtion of the plume and north of the apparent TeE source area. A
location near the southeast corner of the eastern-ITCst Marathon Electric
Company bui Iding would be sui table, based on avai lable information ( See
Figure 8). The plune appears to be relatively wide in this area, and
contamination has been observed throughout ITCSt of the 130 foot saturated
thickness of the aquifer (See Figure 5). The concentration of
chlorinated ethenes (primarily 'ICE) ranges from approximately 500 ug/L t.O
2,000 ug/L in this area, based on Phase I RI results. A deep well would
be used to rerrove contaminants from the southern IX'rtion of the plume,
and draw sane contaminants back .to the south, away from Ol6.
-
Groundwater flow ITCdeling was conducted to evaluate. the effects of
p..m1ping from the southern extraction well.M:xleling results indicate
that a di vide in the. groundwater piezoIretric surface would be creat.ed
between the extraction well and CW6. . Figure 6c shows that a di vide
trending from w'est-northwest to east-southeast would be located in thP.
vicinity of EGs Creek and RandOlph Street. Contaminants located in
-------
Item
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF PROBABLE COSTS: ALTERNATIVE 2
PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY
WAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPL SITE
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
CAPITAL-COSTS
Extraction Well
Well House and Utilities
Well House Piping and Appurtenances
Discharge System
Stripping Tower, Foundation, Appurtenances
Capital Facilities Subtotal
Engineering Design (25%) .
Contract Administration (10%)
Legal and Administrative (10%)
Contingencies (20%)
Water Levels
Water Quality
Flow Monitoring
Energy
General O&M Labor
Reporting
Administration
Contingencies (20%)
Capital Subtotal
Capital Total
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
First Year
.-
$ 4,500
$26,000
$ 2,700
. $42,000
$ 6,000
$ 3,000
j 3.000
$87,20q
O&M Subtotal
O&M Total
11.7.400
$104,600
FIVE-YEAR PRESENT WORTH
Present Worth of Capital (10% discount rate)
Present Worth of 0 & H (10% discount rate)
Present Worth Total
Cost
$55,000
$14,000
$10,000
$19,000
11.50.000
$248,000
$62,000
$25,000
.$25.000
$360,000
.$ 72.000
$432,000
Subseauent Years
$ 3,600
$ 8,200
$ 2,700
$42,000
$ 6,000
$ 3,000
.$ 3.000
$68,500
liUQQ
$82,000
$430,000
j330,OOO
$760,000
-------
15
roughly the northern one-half of the west side contaminant plume would
migrate toward GI6. Contaminants located south of the contaminant plume
would be drawn to the extraction well. Figure 6c shows that a second
divide is located beneath the Wisconsin River. Contaminants near the
source area would be prevented from migrating away from the source to the
east or north. An extraction well at this location accomplishes control
of contaminant migration away from the source to both the east and \.Jest
well fields, while capturing a large p:>rtion of the west side contaminant
plume.
A conceptual system layout for the southern groundwater extraction and
discharge system is shown of Figure 8. A well and pump house are located
on Marathon Electric property east and Slightly north of the southeast
comer of the Marathon Electric IMIlufacturing building. Section B-B'
(Figure 10) shows that a 150 foot, 16 inch diameter well with a 60 foot
screen would be constructed. A small pump house would be constructed at
the well head and a stripping tower would be provided. Approximately 220
feet of buried gravity dtscharge piping would then extend south across
Marathon Electric property to an existing stonn sewer manhole. A 42-incll
stonn sewer drops from the manhole to an out fall at the Wisconsin River
shoreline.
ARARs for Alternative 3 are summarized in Table 5. The action 1,..'ould
comply with NR 140 requirements. State groundwater quality standards
apply to the alternative. Drinking water standards (M:Ls) for VCCs can
be achieved by treatment of water from Gi6 at the City water treatment
plant. '!he highest contaminant concentrations observed in the west side
contaminant plume are less than effluent limits, so water quali ty-based
effluent limits can be satisfied. Technology-based effluent limits can
be satisfied with the VCC stripping technology. '!he ~ requirement will
be determined by the waJR during the design phase of the project.
Probable costs for Alternative 3 are SlmTl1a.rized in Table 7. Najor.
capital cost items include the extraction well, pump house, stripping
tower and foundation, contrels and utilities, trenching, piping and
piping applrtenances. Major operation and maintenance cost i terns inClude'
energy costs, sampling and zroni toring, analytical laboratory services, -
routine systems inspection and maintenance, and rep:>rting. Capi tal costs
are estimated to be $422,000. '!he first year operation and maintenance
costs are estimated to be $105,000 and ~ual operation and maintenance
costs for subsequent years are estimated to be $81,000. . '!he fi~year
present net wurth (10% discotmt rate) associated with the above costs is
$750,000. .
Resp:>nse objectives would begin to be met shortly after extraction we 11
pumping begins. A design and construction period of less than six oontl1S.
is considered realistic for this action. '!he time tmtil long-term
protection is achieved depends on the time required for GI6 to draw in
contaminants from the northern half of the west side contaminant pl1nne
and from the shallow groundwater plume caused by the discharge of Ov6
into BosCreek. .
-------
ELEVATION
1220
1180-
.1140
1100
1060
. WISCONSIN RIVER
ElEVATION
1188 ( TYPo )
-..:
SOUTHERN ~XTRACTION SYSTEM
SECTION B-B
STRIPPING
TOWER
MH B
------_____~APPROXIMAT~GAAD~_____---
PVC GRAV ITY
DISCHARGE LINE
42" CONCRETE
STORM SEWER
.
CROSS SECTION SCAlE:(APPROX.)
VERTICAL: 1" = 40'
HORIZONTAL: 1" = 40'
STATIC W. L.
t: 1190 ( TYP . )
WELL EW;
.....
ESTIMATED DAAWDOWN
ELEVATION ~ 1130
AT 1500 GPM
APPROXIMATE
BEDROCK
SURFACE,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
FIGURE 10 I
-------
. TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF PROBABLE COSTS: ALTERNATIVE 3
PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY
WAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPL SITE
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
CAPITAL CDS~
Item
Cost
Extraction Well
Well House and Utilities
Well. House Piping and Appurtenances
Discharge System
Stripping Tower, Foundation, Appurtenances
Capital Total
$57,000
$14,000
$10,000
$12,000
1].50.000
$243,000
$61,000
$24,000
~24.000
$352,000
~ 70.000
$422,000
Capital
Engineering Design (25%) -
Contract Administration (10%)
Legal and Administrative (10%)
Facilities Subtotal
Capital Subtotal
Contingencies (20%)
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
O&M Total
First Year
$ 4,500
$26,000
$ 2,700
- $42,000
$ 6,000
$ 3,000
u"QQQ
$87,200
1!ldQQ
$104,600
Subsequent Years
.'
Water Levels
Water Quality
Flow Monitoring
Energy
General O&M Labor
Reporting
Administration
O&M Subtotal
$ 3,600 .
$ 8,200
$ 2,700
$42,000
$ 6,000
$ 2,400
l.1.dQQ
$67,300
Contingencies (20%)
1.13.500
$80,800
....
FIVE-YEAR PRESENT WORTH
Present Worth of Capital (10% discount rate)
Present Worth of 0 & M (10% discount rate).
Present Worth Total
$420,000
'330.000
$750,000
-------
16
Implementation of this alternative is not expected to be a problem. Tlle
technOlogy is readily available, conventional, and well derronstrated.
Construction is straight forward and no lIDUSt.1al. features are anticipated
to be required for the system. Coordination between u.s. EPA, WOOR, the
City of Wausau, and Marathon EleCtric coinpany will be required to
accomplish implementation of the system.
Alternativ"B 4 - Extraction Wells North and South of Bos Creek
Alternative 4 is essentially a combination of Alternatives 2 and 3. 1\-10
extraction wells would be used: one north and one south of Bos Creek.
This system would provide plume capture to the north, and source area
groundwater rerroval to the south. Extracted groundwater would be treated
at each location and discharged to the Wisconsin River.
GroUndwater flow m::xieling was conducted to evaluate the effects of
pumping sinultaneously from the northern and southern extraction wells.
Well locations are shown on Figure 8. Groundwater flow trodeling results
indicate tw'O divides in the groundwater piezometric surface would be
created in the west side contaminant plume area. One divide would be
located between the northern extraction well and CW6, and a second divide
would be located between the northern and southern extraction wells.
Figure 6d shows the locations of the divides. The northern divide runs
awroximately east-west and is located between Randolph and Bums
streets.
Plume capture would be accOmplished such that contaminants in the
northern one-third of the plume would be drawn in by CW6. Contaminants
in the central p:>rtion of the deep west side plume would be captured by
the northern extraction well. A p:>rtion of the shallow contaminant pltnne
would also be drawn in by this well. Contaminants near the source areq
and southern p:>rtion of the deep west side plume WOUld be captured by the
southern extraction well. .
As shown on Figure 6d, a large southwest to northeast trending divide in -
the piezometric surface is located beneath the Wisconsin River. This
indicates the extraction system wt)uld be effecti ve in controlling the '-
p:>tential migrating of contaminants to the East Well Field.
Conparison of Figures 7c and 7d shows the effect of a shutdown of CW6 for
Alternative 4. Figure 7c shows a piezometric surface contour- map for the
Alternative 4 system with CW3, 016, crtn, and 019 pumping at a combined
rate of 1437 gpn (11 cfs). Figure 9d shows a corresp:>nding map for
Alternati ve 4 with CW6 off-line and 013, 014, crtn, and CW9 pumping at t..'1e
combined rate of 1437 gpn. Wi th 016 off-line, the northern extent of
influence of the extraction system is shifted a few hundred feet to the'
north, as indicated by the east-west divide located slightly south of
Burns Street. Contaminants located north of this divide would be drawn
. tm.;ard crtn and 019. -
Conceptual system layouts for the groundwater extraction, treatment, and
discharge system are shown on Figure 8. The cross section for the t\-:o
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF PROBABLE COSTS: ALTERNATIVE 4
PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY
WAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPL SITE
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
CAPITAL COSTS
Item'
Extraction Wells
Well Houses and Utilities
Well House Piping and Appurtenances
Discharge Systems
Stripping Towers, Foundations, Appurtenances
Capital Facilities Subtotal
Engineering Design (25%)'
Contract Administration (10%)-
Legal and Administrative (10%)
Capital Subtotal
Contingencies. (20%)
Capital Total
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
First Year
Water Level's
Water Quality
Flow Monitoring
Energy
General O&M Labor
Reporting
Administration
O&M Subtotal
$ 4,500
$ 32,000
$ 3,500
$ 84,000
.. $ 11,000
$ 3,000
L..hQQQ
$141,000
"
" .
','..
'(',
Contingencies (20%)
_$28.000
$169,000
O&M Total
FIVE-YEAR PRESENT WORTH
Present Worth of Capital (10% discount rate)
Present Worth of 0 & M (10% di scount rate) .
Present Worth Total
Cost
$112,000
$28,000
$20,000
$30,000
~300.000
. $490,000
$123,000
$49,000
~9.000
$711,000
~
$853,000
,;-
Subsequent Years
$ 3,600
$ 10,000
$ 3,500
$ 84,000
$ 11,000
$ 2,400
j 2.400
$117,000
j 23.000
-
$140,000
$ 850,000
j 550.000
$1,400,000
-------
17
Sy"Stems are shown on Figures 9 and 10.
been discussed previously'.
The details of each system 1Eve
Resp:)nse objectives would be met shortly a£ter the wells begin ~ing.
Contaminants not captured by the system would be drawn into CvJ6.
A design and construction period of less than six m::>nths is considered
realistic for this action. The time unti 1 risks to water consumers are
minimized would be the time required for CW6 to draw in contaminants in
the plume beyond the influence of the northern extraction w"ell.
ARARs for Alternative 4 are sumnarized in Table 5. The action will
conply wi th NR 140 requirements. State groundwater quality standards
apply to the alternative. Drinking water standards. can be met (l\n.s) for
VCCs by treatment at the Ci ty water treatment plant. The highest
contaminant concentrations observed in the west side plume are less than
effluent limits, so water quality-based effluent limits can be satisfied.
Technology-based effluent limits can be satisfied with the VCC stripping
technOlogy. 'TIle PAT requirement will be determined by the wINR during
the design phase of the project.
Probable costs for Alternative 4 are surrmarized in Table 8. Major
capital cost items include the extraction wells, pump houses, stripping
tower and fOundation, control systems and utilities, trenching, and
piping. Major O&M, items include energy costs, sampling and m:mi toring ,
analytical laboratory services, routine systems inspection and
maintenance, and, reFQrting. Capi tal costs are estimated to be $853,000.
The first year operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be
$169,000, and annual operation and maintenance costs for subsequent years
are estimated to be $140,000. The five-year present net w'Orth 00%
discount rate) associated with the above costs is $1,400,000.
As with Alternatives 2 and 3, implementation is not expected to be a
problem. Technologies are.... readily available and well derronstrated.
Coordination between U.S. EPA, WIl\lR, tl1e City of wausau, and Naratl10n
Electric w'OulCl be required to inplement the system.
<>
-
VIII.
sur.Jr'rARY OF Ca1PARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIiJES
In order to determine the IrCSt appropriate alternative that is protective
of human health and the envirorunent, attains MARs, is cost-effective,
and utilizes permanent sOlutions and treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable, alternatives were evaluated against each
other. Comparisons were based on tl1e nine evaluation criteria outlined
in SARA. A. sUITroary oftl1e comparison is provided in Table 9. FOllowing'
is a disalSsion of each of tl1e criteria and tl1e alternatives' performance
against each of tl1ese.
-'
-------
:::;;..I:!:;:!!!!;ii~:>:.i:;<::::
..
. ..
TABLE. 9
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
PIIASED fEASIBILITY STUDY
WAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPl SITE
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
tion
r
AHernat tvlt .1.
. HoA<:t Ion .. .
. " ., .'u.'. ,.~
; ".=.::'.,' "".:: "~, .
">;-'<"..",
Term
iveness
No additional protection of
community and workers is required.
Production Well CW6 draws in
contaminants from west side plume
indefintte Iy.
VOC removal at water treatment
plant provides protection of water
consumers. ~
Period of exposure to trace'
contaminants in treated water from
west side plume .is longest.
Requires longest time for
purging aquifer due to lack.
of actIve remediation.
Contaminants drl.~n away from source
by production w lIs.
"igration of co tamlnants to east
well field is I kely.
nD
veneo:<;
Could achieve HCls and State
groundwater standards on west side
due to long term purging by
municipal Product1on ileUs C~6(
(west side) and CII3 (east side).
"
c
Alternative 2
. Northern
Extraction We11
Risk to workers during
implementation addressed by
. standard personal
protection. Risks to
community considered
minimal. Production
Well CW6 draws in
contaminants from northern
one-third of west side
plume. VOC removal at water
treatment plant provides
protection of water
consumers.
AHernative 3
Southern
Extraction We11
Risk to workers during
implementation addressed by
standard personal
protection. Risks to
community considered
minimal. Production Well
CW6 draws in contaminants
from northern one-half of,
west side plume. VOC
removal at water plant
provides protection of
water consumers.
Period of exposure to trace Period of exposure to trace
contaminants in treated contaminants slightly
water is shortest similar to longer than Alternatives 2
Alternative 4). or 4.
Requires' longest time for
purging aquifer among action
a Iternat ives.
Contaminants drawn away from
source before capture.
Provides protection against
eastward contaminant
migration. . .
Can achieve HCls and State
groundwater standards on
west side due to purging by
Production Uel1 CW6 and
, northern extraction well.
Requires Intermediate time
for purging aquifer among
action alternatives
(substantially less than
A Iternat I ve 2).
Contaminants captured near
source area.
Provides best protection
against eastward
contaminant migration.
Can achieve HCls and State
groundwater standards on
west side due to purging by
Production lie 11 CW6 and
southern extraction well.
Alternative 4
North and South
Extraction We11
Risks to workers during
Implementation addressed
by standard personal
protection. Risks to
community considered
minimal. Production Well
CII6 draws in contaminants
from northern one-third of
west side plume. vac
removal at water plant
provides protection of
water consumers.
Period of exposure to
tracelcontaminants in
treated water is
shortest (similar
to Alternative 2).
Requires shortest
time for purging
aquifer among action
a 1ternat ives.
Contaminants captured near
and away from source area.
Provides best protection
against eastward
contaminant migration.
Can achieve HCls and
State groundwater
standards on west
side due to purging
by Production ~ell
C~6 and two extraction
wens.
-------
p
TABLE 9 (Cont inued)
SUHHARY Of ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
PHASED fEASIBILITY STUDY
WAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPL SITE
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN
luation
ctor
A Iternat tve I
No Act ton.
Ict10n of
ictty,
i lity,
tme
None
I ementabt1 i ty .
Technical feasibility not
relevant, because no additional
technologies are used.
Not administratively feasible
because public water supply is
threatened with long-term
contamination.
No addittonal servtces
required.
"
. Alternative 2
Northern
Extraction Well
High capacity well and
discharge system are
reliable. Repair or
replacement in relatively
short time is feasible,
should failure occur.
Long term management
consists of monitoring water
levels, water quality,
disc~arge quantity, and
rout1ne ma1ntenance.
None
Well, treatment and
discharge are conventional
and readily constructed.
Potential future actions are
not precluded. System.
effectiveness and
performance are readily
monitored.
Coordination between U.S.
EPA and WONR for plan review
and approval. Coordination
with local agencies is
required. Coordination with
PRP group may be required.
No apparent administrative
difficulties.
Required technologies and
services are available.
. Off-site services including
POTW and sanitary landfill
may be required, and are
considered avai able.
A lternati've 3
Southern
Extraction Well
High capacity well and
discharge system are.
reliable. Repair or
replacement in relatively
short time is feasible,
should failure occur.
Long term management
consists of monitoring
water levels, water
quality, discharge
quantity, and routine
maintenance.
None
Well, treatment and
discharge are conventional
and readily constructed.
Potential future actions
are not precluded. System
effectiveness and
performance are readily
monitored.
Coordination between U.S.
EPA and WDNR for plan
review and approval.
Coordination with local
agencies is required.
Coordination with PRP group
may be required. No
apparent administrative
difficulties.
Required technologies and
services are available.
Off-site services including
POTW and sanitary landfill
may be required, and are
considered avai able.
A hernat i ve 4
North and South
Extraction Well
High capactty well and
discharge system are
reliable.. Repair or
replacement in relatively
short time is feasible,
should failure occur.
Long term management
consists of monitoring
water levels, water
quality, discharge
quant ity, and rout ine
maintenance.
Hone
~
Well,treatment and
discharge are conventional
and readily constructed.
Poteptial future actions
are not precluded. System
effectiveness and
performance are readily
monitored.
Coordination between
U.S.EPA and UONR for plan
review and approval.
Coordination with local
agencies is required.
Coordination w1th PRP
group may be required. No
apparent administrative
di fficul ties.
Required technologies and
services are available.
Off-site services
including POTW and
sanitary landfill may be
required, and are
con~idered available.
-------
...
TABLE 9 (Continued)
SUMMARY Of ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
PHASED fEASIBILITY STUDY
WAUSAU WATER SUPPLY NPl SI1E
WAUSAU. WISCONSIN
Iluation
Ictor
Alternattve 1
No Action
t
No direct monetary cost
~ 1f ance with
~Rs
HCLs achieved for municipal water
supply.
,
.
HCLs and State groundwater.
standards may be achieved in
aquifer in long term.
'al1 Protection
uman Health
Environment
HCLS are met by VOC removal at City
water treatment plant.
Period of exposure to trace
residual VOCs (after treatment) is
maximized.
Continued migration from source to
west side and east side well
fields.
A lternat he 2
Northern
Extraction We 11
Capital $432.000
1st year 0&" $105 000
Subsequent Annual 6&"
$82.000
5-Year Present Worth
$760,000
Discount Rate 10\
"CLs achieved for municipal
water supply.
complies with NR 140
requirements for response to
groundwater contamination.
HCLs and State groundwater
standards could be achieved
in aquifer in long term.
Effluent standards can be
met for contaminants in
discharge.
Other identified action-
specific ARARs related to
design, review and afProval,
construction and mon toring
can be met.
HCLs are met by VOC removal
at City water treatment
p I ant.
A lternat he 3
Southern
Extract ion We 11
Capital $422,000 p'
1st Year 0&" $105 000
Subsequent Annual 6&"
$81,000 .
5-Year Present Worth
$750,000
Discount Rate 10\
HCls achieved for municipal
water supply.
com~lies with NR 140
requirements for response
to groundwater
contamination.
HCls and State groundwater
standards could be achieved
in aquifer in long term.
Effluent standards can be
met for contaminants in
discharge.
Other identified action-
specific ARARs related to
design, review. and
approval. construction and
monitoring can be met.
HCls are met by VOC removal
at City water treatment
p I ant.
Provides greatest reduction Provides substantial
in period exposure from west reduction in period of
side Production Well CW6. exposure from west side
Production Well CW6.
Contaminants drawn away from Contaminants removed form
source prior to capture. aquifer near source area.
Alternative 4
North and South
Extract ion We 11
Capital $853,000
1st year O&H $169,000
Subsequent Annual O&H
$140,000
5-Year Present Worth
SI, 400, 000
Discount Rate 10\
HCls achieved for
~unicipal water supply.
comp lies wi th NR
140 requirements for
response to groundwater
contamination.
HCLs and State groundwater
standards could be
ac~ieved in aquifer in
long term.
Effluent standards can be
met for contaminants in
discharge.
Other identified action-
specific ARARs related to
design, review and
approval, construction and
monitoring can be met
HCls are met by VOC
removal at City water
treatment plant.
Provides greatest
reduction of period of
exposure from west side
Production Well C~6.
Contaminants removed from
aquifer near source area.
-------
..... .
11uation
Ictor
te and Community
eptance
=
TABLE 9 (Continued)
SUHHARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY
YAUSAU YATER SUPPLY NPL SITE
YAUSAU, YISCONSIN
Alternative 1
No Act ion'
No source area control.
Requires most time to purge
contaminants from aquifer by sole
, reliance on CHy supply wells.
likely would not comply with ARARs.
Likely not acceptable to the State.
Specific concerns or prefe~ences to
be addressed in the Record of
Decision. '
'1
, Alternative 2
Northern
Extraction Ye11
Some potential for
contaminant migration to
east well field.
Reduces time required to
, purge contaminants from
aqu1fer.
Complies with identified
ARARs.
Specific concerns or
preferences to be addressed
1n the Record of Decision.
A I ternat i've 3
Southern
Extraction Well
Best source area control,
minimizing migration to
east well field.'
Substantially reduces time
required to purge
contaminants from aquifer.
Complies with identified,
ARARs .
Specific concerns or
preferences to be addressed
1n the Record of Decision.
Alternative 4
North and South
Extract ion Ye 11
Best source area
control,minimizing
migration to east well
field. '
Requires least time to
purge contaminants from
aqu1fer.
Complies with identified
ARARs.
Specific concerns or
preferences to be
addressed in the Record of
Decis ion.
-------
18
1. Short-Term Effectiveness
Each of the alternatives (except No Action) is accompanied by similar
short-term risk to workers and the cormumity. These p:>tential risks are
associated with expJsing contarninatea materials from subsurface areas.
Alternati <:.le 2 uses the area nost accessible to the comnuni ty, but access
can be controlled. Alternative 3 w'Ould be implemented on private
property, but plant workers may be nearby. Access to the construction
area can be controlled. Alternative 4 involves both areas. In all three
cases, site workers can be protected by personal protection equipr.ent.
None of the alternatives are considered to present appreciable risks to
p:>p.llations away from the construction areas, and vap:>r noni toring can be
used during construction.
Resp:>nse objectives can be met by each of the action alternatives, and
the desired hydraulic influence by extraction wells is expected to be
realized within several weeks of the start of pumping. The effects of
the various systems can be- s1..1Im1arized as follows.
* Alternative 1 - provides no active remediation of the aquifer.
Contaminants would be drawn to CN6 from the source area.
Contaminant migration to the east is also anticipated as a result of
CW3 pumping.
,
* Alternative 2 - provides capture of approximately the southern
two-thirds of the west side plume. Contaminants in roughly the
northern third of the plume WOUld migrate to CW6. Contaminants would
be'reroved from the aquifer as they are drawn away from the source
and are intercepted by the northern extraction w~ll. The northern
well is expected to have an influence extending east of the source
area, beneath the Wisconsin. River, thereby reducing the p:>tential
for eastward migration of contaminants.
* Alternative 3 - provides capture of approximately the southern
half of the plume. Migraion of contaminants to CW6 would also
occur under the alternative. The southern extraction well is
eXpected to have a pronotmCed influence extending beneath the
Wisconsin River thereby preventing p:>tential eastward migration rrore
effectively than Alternative 2. Contaminants near the source area
would be rerroved before migrating o:t:f-site, although the northern
extent of influence (for drawing back contaminants) is less than for
Alternative 2.
-
*
Alternative 4 - combines Alternatives 2 and 3. The nortl1em extent
of plume capture .would be similar to that under Alternative 2.
. Rerroval. of contaminants and control of migration away from tl1e
source would be accomplished as under Alternative 3.
Under each of the alternatives, contaminated water in the n0:t]1cm
section of the west side plume would migrate to CW6, and contaIn': n:tted
-------
19
water would be treated at the City water treatment plant for rerroval of
VOCs .
Because of the differenc~ am:>ng the.; alternatives in the areas of
extraction well influence, the major-distinctions am:mg the alternatives
are: (1) the time required to achieve protection and (2) control/capture
of source area groundwater.
2. Lonq-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
There are differences in the time required to achieve long-term
protection of the public water safety, as discussed above. Hmlever, each
of the alternatives (including f-Jo Action) is expected to achieve low
contaminant concentrations ( i . e., approaching fvJ:Ls and State grOt.1I1d'..,rater
standards) as a result of aquifer purging. The long-term residual risks
are 'therefore similar for: each of the alternativ-es, but interim (sl1ort-
term) risks are different, as discussed above.
'!he reliability of each of the action alternatives is similar. Large
p:>rtions of the west side contaminant plume would be captured. The No
Action alternative is less reliable, because GiG is used as tlle sole
protection for the w'est side wells. Contaminants ylOuld also migrate to ... '\
the East tAlell Field under the No Action alternativ-e. '- ./
The technologies used in each of the alternatives are relatively simple
and reliable. Each of the alternatives relies on CWG initially as tlle
last barrier to additiOnal West Well Field contaminatirnl. TIle
consequences of failure would be similar for each of the alten1atives,
i.e., contaminated water would be drawn toward CWG. In the event. of
remedy failure, risk to water consumers should be no greater than at
present, as long as the City keeps CWG in operation and maintains \i'CC.
rerroval capabilities at the water treatment plant.
3. Reduction in 'Ibxicitv. r'bbilitv and Volume
c
No reduction in toxicity, rrobility, or volume of waste or hazardous --
substances are achieved by any of the four alternatives. Such reduction
of toxicity, rrobility, or volume is not cost-effective when compared \.,ritll
the effectiveness and relatively lower cost of an extraction well and air
stripping system alone, versus a system which utilizes granulc3I activated
carton to control air emissions, considering the relatively low levels of
contaminants to be treated.
4. ImPlementability
The individual technologies used in each of the alternatives are
conventional and well dezronstrated.' No unusual diffjculties in
construction of wells or treabnent and discharge systems are anticjpatec1.
Altemativ1:s 3 and 4 may involve trench excavation through rubble in the
./
-------
20
former City landfill, but this does not appear
substantial disadvantage to these alternatives.
to
constitute
a
The technologies and services used. under each of the alternatives are
conventional and similar. Required .contractor services for extraction
well, treatment system and discharge system construction are simi lar and
available. Each alternative requires a clean water supply for \.;ell
construction, and compliant off-site facilities for disposal of possible
drill cuttings and/or trench spoils, and for treatment and dis?)sal of
drilling fluids, if required. Services and materials are considered to
be available for each alternative.
Coordination between U.S. EPA, wrNR, the City of wausau, and, under
Alternatives 3 and 4, Marathon Electric, would be required for each of
the alternatives. Potential future actions would be possible and
effectiveness could easily be nonitored with each of the alternatives.
5. Cost
Estimated costs for the alternatives are presented in Tables 6
through 8. Major capital cost items for each alten1ative include
extraction well, pump house, stripping tower and foundation, control
systems, utilities, trenching, and piping. N3.jor operation and
maintenance items include energy costs, sampling and oonitoring,
analytical laboratory services, routine systems inspection, and
maintenance and reporting. capital, annual operation and maintenance,
and five-year present worth costs (10% discount rate) are st.trm1aIi zed in
Table 9. Variation in costs of major capital and O&M items do not affect
the cost comparison, because similar items are included. in each
al ternati v-e.
6. cOmPliance with ARARs
...
"As shown in Table 5, the same ARARs were identified for each of the -
action alternatives. State groundwater standards could be met in the
long-term. Drinking water M:Ls can be met under each alternative due to -
water treatment by tlle air strippers prior to distribution.
Technology-based or water quality-based effluent limitations can be met
by each of the action alternatives. Other action-specific AR!),Rs can be
met by each of the alternatives. CERCIA exemptS on-site actions from
permit requirements, but State review of plans will be required.
7. Overall Protection of Hum311 Health and the Envirornnent
Short-terms risk associated with the - contaminated water StJ.I:ply can- be
addres!)ed by treatroent for VOC rerroval at the water treatrosnt plant. The
alternatives differ in their ability to capture contaminants and in tJ1e
time required to achieve long-term protection of the water suppl y and a
-------
21
resulting risk reduction. Alternative 2 is less effective d~
Alternative 3 or 4 in controlling source area contaminants, because
Alternative 3 and 4 incorpJrate source area groundwater rerroval and
Alternative 2 draws contaminants away ;from the source before tlley .?.re
captured. The time required under AJ:ternatives 2 and 3 would be longer
than for Alternative 4. The No Action alternative would require me
longest time to achieve long-tenn. protection.
];
Ultimately, the long-term'residual risks are expected to be similar for
each of the alternatives. None of the action alteITlatives are
anticipated to have substantial adverse effects on public health or the
environment as a result of implementation. Effluent standards can be met
to protect surface water quality. Each of the alternatives, except for
No Action, complies with ARARs.
8. state AccePtance
The State' has expressed favor for Alternative 3 with the pro\ti.sion for
implementation of an additional well if Alternative 3 does not achieve
resp:mse objectives for this operable unit. The State and u.S. EPA will
work together in determining whether Alternative 3 is aChieving the
objectives. A, discussion on criteria to be used in evaluating the
performance of this r:emedy is included in section IX of this document.
/ "
,,~ /'
9. Comrrnmi tv AccePtance
The' City of Wausau and Marathon Electric, both of whom are PRPs, have
expressed a preference for AlteI11ative 3. However, they have also
expressed a desire to implement an alteI11ate treatment tec11ll0logy tl1..."'it
meets the technology-based requirements of BAT in the Clean Water Act.
The conmmi ty in Wausau has not expressed a preference for any
alternativ"e. Specific conunents received during the public conment period
and at the public meeting for the proFOsed plan are addreSsed in tile
rest=Qnsiveness st.mmary included with this document.
p
SUm"rarv of comparison
Under Alternative I (no action), contaminants would be purged only
through pumping of CW6. Nei ther control of eastward contaminant
migration nor protection from further west side contamination would be
achieved. This alteI11ati ve is not consistent with the objectives for tlle
interim resFOnse action at the site and is therefore not considered a
viable option for the site. '
Although Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 provide similar results when evaluated
against t.he nine criteria,' there ~e some irnFortant differences.
Alternati ve 2 provides the least arrount of time in which contarninallts
will continue to reach CW6, but it requires the longest time for aquifer
purging. Under Alternative 4, tile arrount of time contaminants will.
-------
22
migrate to City Well 6 is the same, however, AlterTlative 4 l-equires tl1e
least anount of J?LlI"ge time. AlterTlative 3 has an intermediate time
associated with roth these factors. AlterTlative 2 provides less
protection against eastward migration than AlterTlati ves 3 and 4, and it
results in rroving contamination from-- the source area further into the
aquifer before capture by the extraction well.
These two factors, in addition to requiring the longest plITge. time of ~1e
three action al terTlati ves , makes Al terTlati ve 2 the least attract i ve.
Between AlterTlatives 3 and 4, the J?LlI"ge time and costs are the major
differences. Because CW6 is acting as a contaminant barrier well in the
West Well Field, and the water is treated to safe drinking levels, the
small difference in purge time between AlteITIatives 3 and 4 is not
considered to cause any additional long-term healt11 risk. Therefore,
because Alterative 4 is tWice as costly without providing additional
protection, AlterTlative 3 is considered the cost-effective alterTlative.
IX.
SELECTED REMEDY AND STI\'IUIDRY DEI'ERMINATIONS
o
Section 121 of SARA required that all remedies for Superfund sites be
protective of human health and the environment, comply with ARMs, be
cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alterTlate treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Alternative 3, with the
rrodification presented below, is believed to provide the best balance of
trade-offs anong alterTlatives with respect to the criteria used to
evaluate remedies. 'Ihe IrOdification includes the implementation of an
additional extraction well if AlterTlative 3 is unable to perform as
rrodelled, thereby failing to meet the restX)nse objecti v"BS for this
operable unit, as outlined earlier. Based on the evaluation of the
alterTlati rv"BS, U. S. EPA and the State of Wisconsin believe tl1at
AlterTlative 3 (IrOdified) would be protective, attain ARARs, be cost-
effective, and would not be inconsistent with the final remedy at the.
site. The final remedy will attempt to utilize permanent solutions and
alterTlate treatment technOlogi"'es or resource recovery technologies to the .
maximum extent practicable.
-
'd
The selected remedy entails:
* Installation of an extraction well located in t1le southern p:>rtion of
the contaminant plume;
* Irnplerrentation of a treatment system for reIrOvoJ. of VOCs;
* Discharge of the treated water to the Wisconsin River; and,
* Provision for implementation of an additional well, as necessary. .
Determination of whether the initial well meets the resp:>nse objectives
-------
23
for this remedial action will be made fOllowing start-up of tJ1e system.
Cri teria used in making this determination include:
* The extent of the cone of depression created by pumping of the
extraction well;
* The ability of the extraction well to capture the plume;
* The anount of VCX::s removed by the system over time; and,
* . The sy-stern's ability to protect CW7 and CW9 from contaminants, should
CW6 fail.
Evaluation of the system will be based on data collected from existing
nenitoring wells during start-up' and a£ter the system achieves steady
state conch tions in the aquifer.
As stated above, the remedy is considered the rrost cost-effecti ve
remedial action. It cClTplies with Federal and State ARARs. It is
protective of human health and the environment- by mitigating contaminant
nevenent towards CW6 and by providing protection against operational
failure of CW6 or the air stripper currently treating \.Jater from CW6.
Requirements of Section l21(b) (1) (A-G) which have been detennined to be
a;;plicable to this o~rable unit are discussed below. If a particular
section is not addressed, it was detennined not to be applicable to this
operable unit.
1. Protection of HlIDEIl Health and the Environment
Based on the risk assessment developed for this operable unit, chronic
extX>sure to low levels of VOCs, and contaminant plume migration to the
West Well Field are the identified risks associated with the west side
contaminant plume. Implenentation of an extraction well in close
proximi ty to the source area, and treatment of extracted groundwater
under AlteIT1ative 3 provides' protection to hUi'nan health and the
environment by reducing chronic eKf:Osure to low level VOCs and providing
a.ddi tional protection to the west well field from plume migration. An
added benefit of this alternative is the capture of contaminaI1ts
migrating eastward under the Wisconsin River toward CW3.
. G
-
-
Addi tional protection is also provided if Altemativ-e 3 does not ~rfonn
as predicted. The provision for inplementation of Alternative 4 if
necessary provides a backup to the southern extraction well in the event
that Alternative 3 does not control plume migration in the northell1 part
of the study area. .
Implenentation of Alternative 3 will not p:>se any unacceptable short-tenn
risks or cross-media impacts to the site, the workers, or the coumuni ty.
-------
24
2. Attainment of APPlicable or Relevant and APPropriate Requirements of
Envirornnental Laws
(,
Alternativ""e 3 will be designed to meet all awlicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of -Federal and rrore stringent State
envirornnental laws. Table 5 lists the ARARs that apply to each of the
action alternatives and the following discussion provides the details of
the ARARs that will be met by Alternative 3.
a.
Federal:
Clean Water Act (CWA.)
Discharge of extracted groundwater is subject to the requirements of the
Clean Water Act. Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for protection of
freshwater aquatic organisms related to discharges to surface bodies is
an ARAR. General requirements for discharges to surface waters under tJ1e
Wisconsin Pollutant. Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) discharge
regulations are also an ARAR.
Treatment of extracted gro\.1l'1d\.later prior to. discharge is an ARAR.
Section 301 (b) (2) of the Clean Water Act requires the application of Best
Available Technology (BAT) econcrnically achievable to treat IX>llutants
prior to discharge. BAT is detennined on a case-by-case basis by the
WDNR pursuant to section 402(a) (1) of. the Clean Water Act, using
guidelines outlined in 40 CFR 125.3.
-b.
Federal: Safe Drinkinq Water Act (SI:WA) /State:
Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC)
Cl1aPter NR 109
The SI:WA and corresponding State standards specifies maxinu..nn contaminant
levels (M:Ls) for drinking water at public water supplies. Since VCCs,
and in particular 'ICE, are regulated under the SI:WA M:Ls, requirements.
for achieving M:Ls are relevant apd appropriate for this remedial actioIl.
..
c
v
c.
State:
01aPter NR 140 WAC
Ii
Hisconsin grouncrw'ater protection Administrative Rule, Chapt.er NR 140 ~Vi\C,
regulates public health groundwater quaJ,ity standards for the State of
Wisconsin. The enforceable groundwater quality standard for 'ICE is
1. 8 ug/L. Groundwater quality standards as found in NR 140 WAC are AL~\H.s
for this remedial action.
d~
State:
ChaPters NR 102 WAC and NR 104 WAC
Chapters NR 102 and NR 104 of the Wisconsin Admdnistrative Code r~11ate
surface water quality. standards and discharges of wastewater to surf~ce
water, respecti vely. under NR 102. WAC, interim values used for
establishing effluent limits for the contaminants of concern are TBC (to
-------
25
be considered), for this remedial action. NR 104 WAC sets effluent
limits and classifies surfaces waters in the State of Wisconsin.
e.
State:
O1aPter NR 112 WAC
Chapter NR 112 WAC addresses w-ell construction and purop installation for
extraction w-ells which w.i thdraw 70 gpn or greater. Requirements under
this regulation will be addressed. during the design phase of the rrnledial
action. Addi tional action-sF€Cific MARs pertaining to construction of
the remedy will also be addressed during design. 'Ihese include, bm:' are
not limited to, IIRR 81-84 WAC, IIRR 50-53 WAC, and rnD 1 and 6 WAC.
f.
State:
O1aPters r~ 200. 217. and 219 WAC
These chapters of the Wisconsin Mninistrati ve Code cover discharge
pennit applications, effluent limitations, and IrOnitoring and repJrting
requirements for diSCharge activities to surface water todies in the
State. All subStanti ve technical requirements under these regulations
will be met for this remedial action.
3. Cost-effectiveness
Alternative 3 affords a high degree of effectiveness by providing
protection from chronic low level E3XF0sure of 'ICE for production wells
CW"'3 and CW6, as well as providing protection from plume migration in tl1e
West Well Field. Alternative 3 is the least costly alternativ"'e that is
protective of human health and the enviroranent. Therefore, Alternative 3
is considered to be the most cost-effective alternative that is
protective.
-- . .
4. Utilization of pemanent SOlut~ons and Alternative Treatlnent
Technoloqies or Resource Recoverv Technoloqies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable
-
U. s. EPA and wr:r-JR believe the selected remedy is the IrOst appropriate
alternative for meeting the respJnse objectives for this operable unit.
All of the alternatives evaluated (except NO Action) provide adequate
protection from chronic expJsure to low levels of 'ICE and protection from
plume migration. Alternative' 2 does not effectively provide protection
from TeE migration to the East vlell Field, nor does it provide for
capture of contaminants at the source area. Alternati ves 3 and 4 are
CO~able ~li th resF€Ct to the nine criteria with the exception of purge'
titre and costs. Because CW6 is acting as a contaminant. barrier well for
the northern pJrtion. of the plume, and the water is treated to safe
drinking levels through an existing air stripper, the small difference...in
purge time between the two does not cause any appreciable additional
health risk. Therefore, because Alternative 4 is twice as costly \\'lU10Ut
'. /
-------
26
providing additional
al ternati "\-""8.
protection,
Alternative
3
is
the
preferred
EXtraction of the contaminated groundwater in ,the vicinity of the source
area will eliminate additional loading Qf contaminants to the aquifer and
will extract contaminants in the groundwater. 'Ihis action will be
consistent wi th a final ranedy to permanently restore the sole-source
~fer. Air stripping of extracted water prior to discharge is an
appropriate treatment considering the low levels that are expected to be
found and released via the air. The treatment system will be detennined
by the WDNR during the design phase of the project. Therefore, the
selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs with respect to
the nine. criteria and represents the maximum extent to which permanent
solutions and. treatment are practicable. The final remedy. will attempt
to utilize pernanent solutions and alternate treatment technologies or
resource recovery technOlogies to the maxl.m.ull" extent practicable.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment which
, permanently and sigriificantly reduces toxicity, nobility, or volume of
hazardous substances as a principal" element is not satisfied. Treatment
of extracted groundwater to reduCe toxicity, roc>bility, or volume would
seem to be desirable to satisfy' the statutory preference. However,
treatment of contaminants which pennanently and significantly reduces"
toxicity, rrobility, or volume of hazardous substaI1Ces was not found to be
practicable or cost-effecti'V"e wi thin the limited scope of this operable
\IDi t.
-
cJ
'Y
-
Id
-.
-------
RESFCNSIVENESS SUlVMARY:
WAUSAU GROUNI:WATER CONrAMlNATICN SI'IE
WAUSAU, WISCCNSI!.\I
PURFQSE
This respJnsiveness sUImlaIy is developed to document conrnunity involvement
and concerns during the developnent of the phased feasibility study (PFS)
for the Wausau Groundwater Contamination site, Wausau, Wiscons in. Comments
received during the public cornnent period were considered in tJ1e selection
of the operable tmit remedial action for the site. The resp:msiveness
slJmnary serves two PJI'IX)ses: It provides U.S. EPA with information al:out
conrnuni ty preferences and concerns regarding the remedial al ten1ati ves, and
it shows members of the cOIm1UIlity how their cornnents-were incoq:orated into
the decision-making process.
This document summaries the oral cornnents received at the public meet ing
held October 17, 1988, and the written comnents receiv"'ed during the public'
COrmterlt period of O::tober 3 to O::tober 24, 1988.
mlERVIEW' ,
/ ".
The preferred alten1ative for the Wausau Groundwater Contamination (Wausau)"-./
site was armounced to the public just prior to the beginning of the public
conment period. 'Ihe preferred alten1ative includes:
* Installation of a groundwater extraction well in the vicinity of the
- source of the West Well Field contaminant plume;
* Treatment of the extracted water; and,
* The discharge of the treated w-ater to the Wisconsin River; and
-
* A provision for implementation' of an additiOnal well, as necessary.
Judging from the corrrnents recei ved during the public comnent period, all
parties Sl1pfX:)rt the extraction of contaminated groundwater from the West-- "
Well Field. However, concern has been expressed over the type of treatment
systen to be used prior to discharge to the Wisconsin River.
SuH"AAY OF PUBLIC CQ-1MENI'S AND AGE1'JCY RESPONSES
The ,public ~onment period was held from O::tober 3 to O:tober 24, 1988 to
receive conments concerning the draft phased feasibility study (PFS) '.
Because of the similarities, individual conments have been sumnarized and
grouped where appropriate.
'- /
-------
A. Conment: 'TIle Mayor of Wausau, the Wausau City COill1cil President, and
Marathon Electric Corp:>ration hav"B all expressed concern regarding
the type of treatment system to be utilized for removal of Volatile
Organic Comp:mnds (VOCS) from the extracted groundwater. Each party.
indicated that they favor the implementation of a P3Ssive.
volatilization system for treating VOCs, rather than a forced-air
stripping system, because of cost considerations.
~
A. Resronse:. As discussed in the PFS and the Record of Decision (ROD)
for this operable tmi t remedial action, the Clean Water Act ( G-JA)
requires treatment of the extracted groundwater for VOC removal prior
to diSCharge*. This requirement is not based on effluent limits, but
rather on the availability of treatment technologies to reT'Ov"'9
contaminants prior to discharge.
The resFOnsibility for regulating discharges under the G'-L'\ has been
delegated to the State. Therefore, the type of treatment that would
satisfy the B1cr' requirement will be detennined by the Wisconsin
- Department of Natural Resources (WD.'JR) during the design phase of the
project. U.S. EPA conservatively propJsed an air striPFer for
treatment of VOCs in the PFS and ROD only for the pt.lI1X)ses of cost"""'
estimation, in order to comply with B1cr' requirements. However,
another type of treatment system may also meet the PAT requirement.
The effectiveness of a passive system for treating vO:s will be
evaluated by the WIrJR during the design phase of the project.
B. Comment: Wausau O1ernical Corp:>ration reccmnended that the propJsed
remedial action be implemented such that tile contaminants found on
the east side of the Wisconsin River are not pulled to tile west side
due to pumping of. the propJsed extraction well. It further
reconmended. that the remedy must reduce or minimize tile. existing
migration of contamination from the west side sources (s) to tile East
Well Field. .
(';
B. Rest:Onse: The consideration of this conment is embodied in the
selection of Alternativ~ 3, in that this alternative is expected to
have a substantial impact on eastward migration of 'ICE. Pumping of
the extraction well, as outlined in the PFS, is not e.'q)ected t~-
induce East Well Field contaminant migration to the West Well Field.
H:x:1elling perfonned during the phased feasibility study supports this
conclusion. Furthenrore, water level m::mitoring will be p?rfonned
during start-up' and subsequent operation of the system to ensure that
the desired perfonnance is attained. Any adverse imp3.cts wi 11 be
corrected as necessary.
'"
~
.j
*The regulation may be stIITm3rized as follows: For any discharge of .
contaminants to surface water bodies, the Best Available Technology (B"\T)
for treatment of that contaminant that is readily available and not -cost-
prchibi ti v1: should be applied prior to discharge of that water.
2
-------
C. Co~t: Marathon Electric Co~ration requested that the ROD all
U. S. EPA to approve the use of extracted. water as a non-contact
cOOlant in c-erathon Electric's foundry operations.
C.ReSt:Onse: Since the qbove use of the water was not considered in the
feasibility study, U.S. EPA Would not specifiCally address tilis
request in the ROD. Approval for this type of action would be
:l'."equired from the wmR through issuance of, a diSCharge penni t , and
thus the decision. will 1:e made during. the design phase of the
project.
D. Conment: TI1e City of Wausau and Harathon Electric Co~ration have
p'inted out the fact that they offered to implement (a variation of)
the preferred alternative over a year ago and are concerned with the
apparent lack of action taken so far by U.S. EPA.
D: ReSt:Onse: At the time of the prop'sal, U.S. EPA felt the action ',.,rag
pranature due to identified data gat=S regarding contamination plumes .
and source areas. SpecifiCally, the location of the source(s) for the
West Well Field contaminant plume and the OCCUL'rence of 'ICE migiation
beneath the Wisconsin River had yet not been identified.
Furthenrorei U.S. EPA was required to evaluate protective, cost-
effecti ve remedies prior to UIldertaJdng raoectial action. at SUperflUY'
sites. At the tine of the prop'sal, no developnentor evaluation 0-
alternatives had been completed. The data gaps have now been
narrowed, and U.S. EPA feels that it is prudent to go fo~a.rd with
the implanentation of Alternative 3 (m:xlified).
-
".
.'
3
------- |