United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROD/R05-89/115
September 1989
~~~
"SPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Waite Park Wells, MN
U. S. E. P. A. Region RRK
Information Resource Center
--
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Reg'fon .3
. ~~, PA 19107
EPA Report GflHectian
Information ResourcB Cer.ter
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 191~7
"
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION-11~REPORTNO. 12.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-89/115
3. A8dpi8nC'8 Ac-.liln No.
4. Tille end Subt/lle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Waite Park Wells, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
/11'101(8)
s. A8pon 08.
09/28/89
e.
L PwfOnning Org8lliDtion Rept. No.
8. Pwrfonning Org8Jniz8t/on N8me end AddN88
10. Proj8c1lTulliWOI'tc Unit No.
11. ContrIIc:t(C) 01 Grent{G) No.
(C)
,2. Sponeorlng Org8nlutlon N8me end,Addreu
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(G)
Agency
13. Type of Report . Period Covend
800/000
.
.
14.
"5. Supplementary No...
,8. Abetr8ct (Uml1: 200 -Ida)
The 45-acre Waite Park Wells site is in Waite Park, Stearns County, Minnesota, 1,500
feet east of the Sauk River. Waite Parkmunicipal wells .1 and .3 Served the city until
December, 1984 when routine sampling detected organic contamination in the ground water.
The contaminated plume extends east-southeast from the Electric Machinery Manufacturing
Company to the wells which. are situated in the northeast corner of the Burlington
Northern Superfund site. In January' 1985 the State issued a health advisory to
residents to discontinue using municipal water for drinking and cooking. A water hook
with St. Cloud, Minnesota was completed in February 1985 to provide the 3,500 Waite
-_~k residents with an alternate water supply. In February 1988, the five responsible
parties at the site funded a municipal water. treatment system and wells .1 and #3 were
returned to service. Remedial investigations did not identify any significant soil
contamination at the site in the vicinity of the Electric Machinery Company; however,
ground water contamination was ident1fied in. the shallow aquifer and, to a lesser
extent, in the deep aquifer. This Record of Decision represents the final response
action for the Electric Machinery portion of the Waite Park Wells site. The primary
contaminants of concern in the ground water are VOCs including PCE and TCE. (Continued
on next page)
I
'7. Document An8Iye18 .. D8ecr1p80,.
Record of Decision - Waite Park Wells, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (P~E, TCE)
b. 1d8n~.T-
Co COSA11 ~
,... Av8llabll1y 8I-.ne
.
.
.
,I. S8cutty a.. (1N8 A8por1)
Noneo
. . S8cuitty GIt88 (1N8 P8ge)
Nnn". '.
21. No. of P8gH
40
22. PrIce
(s.. A~z::Jt.'.)
s.~on.-
..
. .
(FDm8Ity NT1s.35)
01.....,... of Co-ce
,.
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page Is baaed on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound report-for example, each volume In a multivolume set-shall have Its unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each Individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponaorlng organization In accordance with American National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For reglatratlon of report code, contact NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercaselettera, Arabic numerala, slashes, and hyphens only, as In the following examples: FASEBINS-75/87 and FAAJ
RD-75/09.
Leave blank.
2.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved 10r use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should Indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main.
. title. When a report Is prepared In more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and Include subtitle for
the specific volume. .
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry s date Indicating at leaat month and year: Indicate the baals on which It waa selected (e.g.,
date of Issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
1
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) In conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). List author's affiliation If It differs from
the performing organization.
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert If performing organlzaton wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. ..Glve name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. Ust no more than two levels of
an organizational hlerachy. Display the name of the organization exactly as It should appear In Government Indexes such as
Government Reports An"o.uncements , Index (GRA , I). .
10. ProjectlTask!Work Unit Number. Uae the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report waa prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report waa prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsora.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State Interim, final, etc., and, If. applicable, Inclusive dates~
14. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Included elsewhere but useful, such as: . Prepared In cooperation with. . . Translation
01. . . Presented at conference of . . . To be published In . .. When a report Is revised, Include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report.
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant Information contained In the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here.
17. Document Analysis. (a). Descriptors. Select from the The..urus 0' Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that Identity the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as Index entries for cataloging.
o .
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Useldentlfle,. for project names, code names. equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written In descriptor form for tho.. subjec~a. for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken form the 1964 COSATI Subject Category Ust. Since the
majority of documents are multldlsclpllnsry In nature, the primary, Field/Group asslgnment(s) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type 0' physical object. The appllcatlon(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary postlng(s). . .
18. Distribution Statement. Denote public releasability, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than.
security. Cite any availability to the public, with sddress, order number and price, If known. .
19. '20. Security C:3Sslflcatlon. Enter U.S. Security Classification In accordance with U. S. Security Regulatlona (I..., UNCLASSIFIED).
. 21. Number 0' pages. Inaert the total number of pages, Including Introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, If any.
22. Price. ~nter price In paper copy (PC) snd/or microfiche (MF) If k~own.
-
GPO
19630- 361-526(6393)
.OPTIONAL FORM 272 SAC"
(4-77) -
(I
-------
EPA/ROD/ROS-89/01S
Waite Park Wells, MN
16.
Abstract (Continued)
selected remedial action for the site includes ground water pumping and onsite
t~eatment of the contamination plumes of both the shallow and deep aquifers using packed
towers aeration (air stripping); discharge of treated ground water from the packed tower
aeration system to the Sauk River under an NPDES permit; and surface water monitoring and
long-term ground water monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
.action is $913,000. O&M costs were not provided.
.". .
_...:
""'''-''.-.'
.~'';'_..;'~...,.-
.' .
"
Q
"
o
'_..0.
. .
-------
[R:IAR.:l\T.IQf STAaBG!Hr
I8..1..acu C6 IR ~ II"
srm NAME Mm ICCATICIf
Waite Park Wells
Electric MadtineIy site
St. Claxl, Steams CD.1I1ty, Minnesota
~TDnim' OF BASTS .AND I'Utin) an:i maint:a.inirq an entire
administrative record em the site for its decisicm-maJcin; pn:poses.
ASS~ OF 'mE srm
. .
Actual or threatened releases of hazardcus subst:arres £ran the Electric
Machinery portiem of the Wai~ Park Wells Site, if net addressed by
iJrpleme1'1t.in:1 the selectecl 1.~, may present a O1U.~ut or potential threat
to pmlic health, welfare, or the envu'-lUII::I1t.
r~J.'~CJf ~ 'mE RI!JmI1l
'Ihe final ~-='Iy for the Electric MachineIy portial of the Waite Park Wells
Site prevents migratial of cart:aminants to the City of Waite Park JDJnicipal
wells an:i rest:ares the CXI1taminated aquifer. .
'!be major o.,{-:menta of th8 selecteclleu-Jy.are as follows:
- Install ~ter ext:ractiat wells in the 0C'I'1taminatia plumes;
- Treat CXI1taminated groun:lwater via pac1r~ tower aeratiem; an:i
-------
2
- Di.scbarge treated qram::lwater fraD the packed tower aeratia1
system to the Sauk River URier an NPIES permit.
In additia1, the Respa&:ib1e Parties are rE=Duict:.irg -,. to the site
with a security fence and a security system.
fB:[ARATICIf
'!he selected ~~y is protective of human health and the envirarunent, and
CXIIplies with Federal and State requirements that are 1e;Jal1y cq:p1icab1e or
relevant and cq:prqriate to the ~bl actia1. '!he selected l~ is
CXISt-effective since it provides the r--""'''ry OYerall effectiveness
prqx>rtia1al to its CX&t, ...tUle ~l~ ~;"tia1 of bath the
shallow and deep aquifers. 'Ibis l~ utilizes pemanent solutims and
alt:eJ:native treatJDent ted'u'x>loqies to the ~Y;1I'II1III extent practicable for
this site. 1b1eYer, because treatment of the hazardous subst:arnas in the
qram::lwater and soils was net fo.n:i to be practicable, this r~y does
net satisfy the statuto%y preference for treatJDent of hazardous substances
in the qram::lwater and soils as a principal element of the l.~. '!he
aeratia1 treatJDent of the qram::lwater transfers the hazardous substances
. into other '/IAi; ". Air ~ity emissims 1ft"rlA 1 in:] deDx:l'istrates that
ocntaminants fran the qram::lwater will be transferred and assimilated into
the ann. E{i1ere through packed tower aeratia1, at a rate and oc.n::entratia1
that is protective of human health am the envL.\AIIllt::ut. 'n1e NPDES permit
requirements will ensure that the c:lisd1arge to the Sauk River is protective
of human health and the envirarunent. '!he CX&t of grarW.ar activated
cartx:I1 treatment Q1tweighs arrj benefit of this additia1al treatment. In
additia1, active treatment of the isolated areas of soil ocnt:aminatia1 is
net rteOe'$.sary, sin:2 passive flusl'lin; of the soils will be oollected within
the capture Za1e of the qram::lwater extractia1 wells. '1hese soils are
vegetated am enclosed within the. site feme an:! security system to avoid
human CXI'1tact.
Because this l.~"y will result in hazardous subst:arnas rema.inin; aH;ite
in isolated areas with soil ocnt:aminatia1, the State is expected to SUR>ly
infonatia1 sud1 that the u. S. EPA can cx:n:hx:t a review, 1'X) less than 5
years after .>.....~tt of ~i"l actiCl'l, to ensure that the l:eweJy
cattinJes to provide ~te protectia1 of human health and the
envL. \A 11&8:1 d:. .
u. S. EPA reserves the right to take enforcement actia1S un::ier Sectia1S 106
and 107 of the aa:IA against the Respas:ib1e Parties to assure that the
l:~, as wll as arrj neoeescuy additiaBl f\rt:ure work, is undertaken.
9/VDI&;
J:Bte .
&. rn.~
Vi das V. Jrl;nn1n :LCI
Re:Jia1al 1dministratar
"
-------
~ 1
-------
DRt/Cf- - . .-./ . '..-- /
/.- -=:'-~f ~ -......J ~...-../
~~F7~ -zL ~ tf ~ .
..--
--vr ~
-/2.b
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
January 23, 1989
Mr. lbm Neidergong
U. S. Enviromental Protection Aqercy
Region V
SHR-11 .
. 230 South ~m Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear lbm:
Enclosed is a copy of the executed Record of Decision (RCD)for the EM portion of
. the Waite Park Ground Water Contamination NPL site.
If there is anything the MPCA can do to assist EPA in this matter please let me
. -oN. ROD's for the U.S.Steel and Agate Lake sites will be forwarded to you
.ortly. .
GP:ar
Enclosure
Wl ~ ~:2~ ~8~~
. REMEDIAL &
ENFORCEMENT
.RESf.O.MSE BRANCH
Phone:
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Regional Offices. Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
~
January 11, 1989
Mr. Johann Wagner
BBC Brown Boveri & Canpany Limited
1460 Livingston Avenue .
North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902
Mr. R. G. Ernst, Manager
Electric !oJachinery Manufacturing Co.
800 Central Avenue Northeast
Mi.nneafx:>lis, Minnesota 55413
Mr. Michael 0' Brien
Coop3r Industries, Inc .
First City 'I'oNer, Suite 4000
P.O. Eox 4446
Houston, 'Iexas 77210
Mr. IeRoy DeNooyer
Dresser Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 718
1600 Pacific
Dallas, Texas 75221
Mr. Ro~-rt G.Jggenberger
Plaqt Hanager .
Brown Boveri Turlx:machinery
711 ~..r3on Avenue
St. Cloud~ Minnesota 56302
Gentlemen :
RE: Electric MachineJ:y Site Record Of Decision
The M:i.I1nesota Pollution Contml Agency (MPCA) staff is pleased to send the aOOve
nenti~ Responsible Parties (RPs) the e:x:losed executed copy of the Recoro. of
Decision (RCD) for the Electric Machinery (EM) Site, St. Cloud, !'J.nnesota.
Execution of the RD will r1CIIi allo",r for approval of the EM Revised Additional
Investigations/Resp:mse h:tion AlteI:natives Rep:>rt an:i the Response Action Work
Plan by the MPCA Cc:mnissioner.
Phone:
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Regional Offices. Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
Mr. Johann Wagner
Mr. Michael 0' Brien
Mr. Robert Guggenberger
Mr. R. G. Emst
Mr. LeRoy CeNooyer
Page 2
The MPCA staff v-ould again like to invite the RPs to enter into Consent Order
negotiations at this time, for the response action design, implementation, and
long teDn IrOnitoring. of the packed tower aeration systan. The MPCA staff
requests that RPs respond in writing within ten days of receipt of this letter,
their willingness and preference to enter into negotiations of a Consent Order.
If you have any questions regarding the ROD, please contact me at
(612) 296-7745.
Sincerely,
~~
Lonna J. Beilke
Project Manager
Responsible Party Unit I
Site Response Section
GIpund Water and Solid Waste Division
I.JB: ah
cc:
The' Honorable Sam Huston, Mayor, St. Cloud
The Honorable AlRingsmuth, y,ayor, waite Park
J:oug Connell, Barr Engi.'1~-ring Ccr.pmy
Julie YQthiesen, u. S. Environrrental Protection Agency
-------
Declaration
. u
SITE NAME AND lOCATIOO
Electric Machinery Site
711 AOOerson Avenue
St. Cloud, Stearns County, Minnesota
STATEMENl' OF BASIS AND PURPCSE
'1his decision docurrent presents the selected remadial action for the Electric
Machinery Site developed in accordarx:e with the Catprehensive Enviromental
Response, Carpensation, am Liability Act of 1980 (CElQA), as ameuded by the
Superfwxi Amerdnents am Reaut.rorization Act of 1986 (SARA), the Minnesota
Environmental Response am Liability Act (MERIA), an] the National Oil am
Hazardous Substarv=es Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300).
DESCRIPrIOO OF 'ffiE SELECTED REMEDY
'Ihe final .L&ledy for the Site was developed to protect public health am the
enviroment by preventing migration of contaminants to the city of Waite Park
ItI.U1icipal wells and br restoring the contami.nated aquifer.
The major catp)nents of the selected L1:Sledy are as follows:
- Install ground water extraction wells in the contamination plumes;
- Treat contaminated grourx1 water via packed tower aeration: and
- Discharge treated grourxl water £ran the packed tower aeration systan tQ the
Sauk River. .
~oo
'Ihe selected L1:SI.edy is protective of human health and the enviI:omlellt, attains
Federal am State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate
for this remedial action, and is cost effective. 'Ihe L1:Slely utilizes peI:manent
solutions and alternative or resow:ce recoveJ:y techoologies to the max:iIrum .
extent practicable for the pmp out am treatment of contaminated ground water
£ran the Electric Machinery Site. Neither treatment DX aIrf other type of
L-e&nedy is necessaxy for the isolated areas of contaminated soils remaining
on-site in order to protect human health and the enviroument or attain
applicable or rel~t and appLotJriate requirements.
~
1-5-6cr
0- Gerald L. Willet Date
~Carmi.ssioner "'\-
Minnesota Pollution Centrol /q3rcy 0
-------
ELECTRIC ~y SITE
ST. CIDUD, MINNESOrA
RECORD OF DECISICN
I. SITE NAME, I.O:ATICN AND DESCRIPl'ICN
'n1e city of St. Cloud, with a population of about 43,000, is located in' central
Minnesota, about 70 miles oorthwest of Minneapolis-St. Paul (see Figure 1).
St. Cloud is the county seat of Stearns County. 'n1e Electric Machinery Site
(the Site), consists of approximately 45 acres. 'n1e extent of the plume of
contaminated g:rourx1 water associated with the Site externs £ran the Electric
Machinery Site approximately 2,000 feet to the east-southeast to Waite Park
Municipal Wells No. 1 and 3. 'n1e Waite Park Municipal Wells are lcx:ated in the
city of Waite Park, also in Stearns County, which has a population of
approximately.3,500. Adjacent to the south of the Electric Machine%y Site is
the Burlington Northem St. Cloud Car Srop Site (the BN Site), also located in
waite Park. The Waite Park Municipal Wells are located in the oortheast part
the BN Site (see Figure 2). 'n1e Site plus the BN Site together '-UI~ the
Waite Park Grourd Water Contamination Site. 'n1e Waite Park Grourd Water
Contamination Site is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) with a Hazard
Ranking ~tEm score of 32. 'n1e Waite Park Grourd Water Contamination Site is
also listed on the Minnesota. Pez:manent List of Priorities (PLP).
'n1e two Waite Park nunicipal 'NeIls serle the city of Waite Park, supplemented by
City Well #2, which has limited capacity. City Well #2 is located awroximately
2000 feet south of the Site, outside the area of contamination. After. discover'.
of groun:i water contamination in Wells #1 and #3, these 'NeIls were rerrcved frc.
service and water was obtained £ran the city of St. Cloud. 'n1e city of Waite
Park also installed an additional 'Nell near Well #2, l'o.Iever neither 'Nell has
sufficient capacity to be relied up:m for the City's water supply.
'n1e Site is situated between the Sauk and MississiWi Rivers at an elevation of
approximately 1050 loSL on the sand plains of central Minnesota. The Site is
located awroximately 1,500 feet east and southeast of the Sauk River. The
g:rourx1 surface on the Site is relatively level with a total vertical relief of
less than 20 feet. .
'n1e general geology in the vicinity of the Site consists of surficial outwash
am alluvial dep:)sits urmrlain by fi.ne-g:rained glaciolacustrine sed.i.nent, till
and buried outwash. Up to 135 feet of these sediments have been found to be
deposited CX1 top of PJ:ecarriJrian granite becb:tx:k in the vicinity of the Site.
'n1e surficial outwash fcmns a shallow water table aquifer beneath nest of the
Site and the &nu::roundi.ng area. 'n1e shallow aquifer is generally separated £ran
a doopar buried outwash aquifer by fi.ne-grained glaciolacustrine and till units.
'!be deeper aquifer. beneath the Site rests on a fi.ne-grained, sarxiy clay till.'
'n1e till ltII!IY z:est directly at the bedrock in places, although a thin zone of
sand may separate the lower till £ran bedrock. 'n1e granite bedrock is not
considered an aquifer. Both the surficial and buried outwash aquifers appear to
discharge to the Sauk River. 'Grour¥:1 water flOilf is generally to the oorth l11'Xier
ncn-purrping conditions. Figures 3 and 11 sh:Jw g:roun:i water elevations un:ier
ncn.;purrping conditions in the shallow and deep aquifers. . Figums 5 and 6 sJ'D.
-------
-2-
ground water elevations urrler ~ing corrli tions in the shallo-r and deep
aquifers folladng retum to sez:vice this year of the Waite Park Municipal
Wells.
Lan:1 use in the vicinity of the Site consists primarily of light iIxiustrial and
wareOOusing.
II. SITE HIS'roRY AND ENFCR:EMENr ACTIVITIES
In December 1984 am Janua.r;y 1985, routine samples of Waite Park nunicipal wells
'1 am '3 were obtained and analyzed by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
for volatile organic carp:nmds (VtX:'S). 'lb3 folladng VtX:'s were detected:
acetone (up to 300 ug/L), brarodichloraretha.ne (up to 1.6 ug/L), chloroform (up
to 4.2 ug/L), 1,1-dichloroethane (up to 200 ug/L), 1,2-dichloroetha.ne (up to 0.9
ug/L), 1,1-dichloroethene (up to 30 ug/L), cis am trans-1,2-dichloroethene (up
to 5.9 ug/L), 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene (up to 300 ug/L), and
1,1,2-trichloroethene (up to 14 ug/L). Of these chanicals, 1,1-dichloroethene,
1,1,2-trichloroethene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene are suspected or krnom
carciJ'r:)gens . .
In January 1985 the MtH issued a health adviso1:Y to Waite Park residents to
discontinue using municipal water for dri.nk.ing am cooking. Also in January
1985 the MFCA Carmissioner issued a Determination of Emargen:y. A tarp:>rary
supply was provided until a mok-up with the city of St. Cloud was canpleted in
February 1985.'I'he DeteDnination of Emergency allowed use of State Superfund
ncnies to begin a Limited Raredial Investigatioo (IRI) which was initiated
inrnediately. 'n1e LRI involved placsrent of soil oorings, installation of
ncnitoring wells, measurement of water levels in wells, and sampling of private
wells in the area. MJnitoring wells were. installed on both the Site and the BN
Site. The results. of the LRI were reported in Nova1ter 1985 am coocluded that
tha Site was one of several sources of contamination affecti.ng the City's wells.
'lb3 IRI report recarmended additional investigation at the Site. Simultaneous
with the LRI, the MPCA conducted a water S\Wly focused feasibility study for
the city of Waite Park. In March 1986 the Catrnissioner selected the addition of
treatJtent (air stripper) to existing City Wells '1 and '3 as the ItDSt
appropriate long teJ:Jn water supply resp:>nse action altemative.
The MPCA issued a Request For Respx1se .Action (RFRA) to Burlington Northam in
Cctober 1985. A RFRA was issued to Ba:: Brown Baveri & Carpany, Ltd. (Brc7.om
Boveri) and Cooper Industries in March 1986. In SepteI1i:)er 1986 a RFRA was
issued to Dresser Industries, Irx:. (Dresser Irxhlstries) and Electric Machinery
Man~facturing Carpany (Electric Machine1:Y). Each of the RFRAs directed the five
carpanies naned (the :t'eSpOnSible parties or RPs) to carplete folloring specific
response actia1s: preparation and inplementation of a water supply resp::mse
action plan to ~lement the selected al ternati ve, remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) at the Site (or the EN Site in the case of Burlington
ti)rtheJ:n), and response action plan (RAP) am response action (RA)
iDplarentation .
Sin::e the issu.an:e of the RFRAs, the wa~ supply response action has been
jointly funded am inplarented by Burlington Northem, Brown BoYeri, and Cooper
Industries. (Cooper Irxtustries assuned the responsibilities of Dresser
Industries am Electric Machinery under their RFRA.) City Wells '1 am '3 were
returned to service in February 1988 with initiation of the nunicipal water
treab1ent systan. The Electric Machinery Site RI final report, subnitted by -
-------
-,j-
Brown Beveri, was awroved in July 1987, subject to satisfactory canpletion of a
limited suwlanental 1nvestigation of soil and ground water contamination in the
southwest portion of the Site. This additional work was undertaken separately
by Brown 80veri and Cooper Industries in fall 1987 and was canpleted in late
1987. '!be RPs jointly subnitted the Site feasibility study in January 1988 wi..
a revision sutmitted in April 1988. The RPs carpleted the RI/FS in accoz:dan:e
with the RFRAs an:! with MPCA staff oversight.
III. cn1MUNI'l'Y REIATIOOS
Public interest anj media coverage of the g:round water contamination in Waite
Park was highest during the period imnediately following discovery of the
contamination. Altinlgh extensive media coverage was given to the Site during
the Superfurx1 RI/FS process, the public interest has generally been lQrl.
A public carment period for the alternatives assessment and. the recamerxied
alternative began on August 10, 1988. Copies of the Revised Results of
Additional Investigations/Assessment of Response Action Alternatives Rep:>rt and
a fact sheet detailing the al ternati ves. evaluated and the recarmended.
alternative were made available to the carmunity at that tine. The St. Cloud
Public Library served as the info:anation z:epository for the ci:x:uments. Copies
of these documents were also made available at the Waite Park Public Library.
'!be MPCA issued a press release to the affected media am all enviromental
organizations in the State anJ'¥JUlX:ing the public Cument period arx:i the
recl.Alll.etJded al ternati ve.
The Waite Park City Coun:il was infomed of the firdings of the alternatives
assessment and the recarmended. alternative, and the MPCA staff appeared before
the St. Cloud City Courx:il on August 15, 1988, to present the fiIxiings of the
RI, the alternatives assessment, an:! the .L~1.A111l::l1ded alternative. The courcil
members an:! a member of the general public had questions ab::Iut the proposed
alternative. '!base questions were addressed by MPCA staff at the meeting. No
additional CuIII-=l1ts were received by the MPCA £ran the city courcil meeting.
The public CIoAllllcut period erxied August 31, 1988, J'¥) public I.."UIII-=llts to the
recarmended. alternative were made. Judging £ran the lack of public ccmnent, the
MPCA believes that there are J'¥) major con::erns in the camunity with the
recarmended. selected alternative.
IV. SCOPE OF RESPCNSE .ACTI~
'!his LE!II-=:Jy ~ts the final response action for the Electric Machine%y Site
except for long teJ:m gz:cund water m:>nitoring to dete1::mine the effectiveness of
the punp out system. As a result of this response action, the prin::ipal threat
at the Site, ccntaminated gx:ound water, will be mitigated.
V. SITE OfMK:TERISTICS
'!be nature and extent of the contamination at the Site, as determined fran the
remedial. inve8ti.gations corvJucted to date, is described belQrl.
.RI activities at and in the vicinity the Site in::luded soil borings, test
excavations, installatiat am sanpling of ncnitoring wells, measuranent of water ,
levels, am soil gas sanpling. 'Ib date, 32 ncnitoring' wells have been
,-
-------
installed at 23 locations. M:>re than 100 soil borings or tanporary soil gas
sampling p:>ints 'Nere installed during the RI. In ack:ii tion, several wells
previously installed for either private water supply or as part of the BN Site
remedial investigation were also sampled. The locations of nDni toring wells are
SDJwn on Figure 7.
-"
A. Ground Water
Groun1 water samples collected during the RI identified the presen=e of several
VOC's in the shallCM and deep aquifers on and off the Site. Grourx1 water
oontamination at the water table and capillaxy fringe was investigated using
soil gas techniques. The contaminant with the highest on-site con::entration is
tetrachloroethene (PCE), altbJugh trichloroethene ('It:E) and 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane ('R:A) are also present at significant levels. PCE has been found on-site
in the shallCM aquifer at con::entrations as high as 34,000 ug/L. - Figure 8 shc7.11s
concentrations of total halogenated va:' s for the shallCM aquifer. The deep
aquifer has been less severely affected with the highest PCE coramtrations of
approximately 600 ug/L found in both on and off-site wells. Figure 9 sh:Jws
concentrations of total halogenated va:' s for the deep aquifer. Other
contaminants on-site at lesser corw:entrations irK::lude l,l-OCA (maxinum
contamination 380 ug/L) and 1,2-OCE (maxim.1m corx::entration 4,000 ug/L).
Analysis of contaminant distrihltion in the two aquifers and .consideration of
the effect of the Waite Park municipal wells while in operation irxiicate that
va: contaminants first affected the shallow aquifer under the Site. These
contaminants were then entrained with ground water m:wing east ta.rlard the city
wells when they were pumping. Just east of the Site, at nDnitoring well EM-22,
a ''Win::tcM'' bebEen the shallCM and deep aquifers exists, alladnq contaminants
to pass fran the shallCM aquifer to the deeper aquifer. ~ contaminants were
then induced to travel to the city wells which draw water £ran the deeper
aquifer. Also, Contaminants have ncved dcwnward on-site to sane extent fran the
shallCM aquifer to the deeper aquifer through the intervening till layer. SirK::e
the Site lies near the outer limit of the city well field capture zone,
relatively lower concentrations of VCX:::'s in the ShallCM aquifer have migrated a
soort distance m the oorth fran a source area in the souttrwest part of the
Site, and have also.migrated in both the shallCM and deep aquifers a short
distance oorth of the main plant Wilding fran source areas imnediately south of
the main plant Wilding. No off-site inpact on potable water supplies fran this
migration have been identified.
B. Soil
As mentioned above , extensive soil sarrpling and investigation has been corducted
at the Site. Soil borings and soil sanpling was corx:iucted over DDSt of the .
Site, with errphasis on the south one-half of the Site. Sarrples were analyzed
using an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) or gas chranatagrcq:i1 (OC) headspace
analyses for VOC's. Although there are sane very localized amas of soil
contanination, 00 significantly contaminated soil requiring specific remedial
action has been identified. In addition, there are only a few locations where
measurable contamination occurs near the surface.
Based on the RI, it appears the va:'s that wire released on or near the surface
entered the generally san:iy soils un:Ierlying the Site, sane of .which have since
been flushed by precipitation into the shallCM ground water or have volatilized
-------
-:J-
into the at:m:>sphere. According to the supplemental RI, less than 55 cubic yards
of soil conta.ini.ng >10 ng/kg total VO:'s currently remain at several locations
on the Site. Figure 10 sOOws the maximJm OVA readings measured in soil aOOve
the water table.
VI. StJMHARY C. RISKS
An evaluation was perfoDtEd using ncnitoring data collected prior to an:! during
. the RI to estimate the potential iIrpacts to human health an:! the enviroment.
Because .the entire area is served by IIIJIlicipal water, the human exposure' patiwJy
of greatest corv=em is inhalation of volatiles £ran soil or g:rcund water. Minor
amJUnts of volatiles may be released to the a1:IlCsphere fran the soil, ho.>.eve.r,
rreasurable release fran undisturbed soil to the a1:IlCsphere has oot been
identified. Direct human exposure tQ contaminated so~s is oot PJSsible sir¥::e
the Site is fen::ed and a security systan is in place. The exposure pathway of
greater corx:em is transfer of volatiles £ran g:rcund water to air by the
selected L\':Ilaly of packed tower aeration treatment., No pathway currently exists
whem enviromental receptors in the Sauk or Mississippi Rivers may be exposed
to contaminated grourxl water, sir¥::e the contaminated g:roun::i water does not
appear to have reached or discharged to either of these rivers.
A. Health Risk Assessment
The Minnesota Department of Health (!oDi) has prepared a health assessment of the
Waite Park Water Sua:>ly for the Aqerr:y for Toxic Substan:es and Disease RegistI:y
(ATSDR). The health assessment addresses both the EM and EN sites. The following
is a 5\mnary of the health assessment as it relates specifically to the EM Site.
Contaminants of con:em at the Site include tetrachloJ:Oethene (PeE),
trichloJ:Oethene ('It:E), 1,1, 1-trichloJ:Oethane (1,1, 1-'lt:A), 1,2-dichloroethene
(1,2-0CE), and 1,1-dichloroethane (1, 1-0CA) . .
PeE is classified as a probable human, carcinogen. HE has aQ:,pted as a '
RecxAIIII&lki:d Allowable Limit (RAId) a. con:entration of 6.7 ug/L based on lifetine
ingestion of 2 liters per day presenting an increased caB:er risk of one excess
can:er per one hurxIred tirIusarx:i popllation. No Maxinun Contaminant Limit (M:L)
has been established for PCB.
"
'1t:E is also classified as probable human carcinogen. M[J{ has aQ:,pted a ?_~
con~=eutration of 31.2 uq/L based on lifetime investigation of 2 liters/day
presenting an increased can::er risk of one excess cancer per one hurxIred
tb:Jusam population. EPA has established an ~ for ~ of 5 uq/L. '!his.,
concentration oo.aesponds to a lifetime risk of 2 x 10 '
.
1,1,1-'lt:A is classified as a Group D Caxcincgen - Not Classified chsnical. At
this time them is mt erD1gh infOImation available to further classify thia
,chemical. HE has adJpted a RAt, of 200 u9~' ~ting at!u:esmld or
oo-iJrpIct COdceutration for l1fetiJre ingestion of 2 liters/day. No M:L has been
established far: 1,1, 1-'lt:A.
l,l-OCA is classified as a Group 0 Caxcincgen - Not Classified chemical. At
this tine is thm:e mt erD1gh infcmnation available ,to further classify this
-------
-""-
chemical. MDi has adJpted a RAL of 810 ug/L Lep.cesenting a thresoold or
no-.iJrpact con=entration for lifetime ingestion of 2 liters/day. t«>!CL has been
established for l,l-OCA.
l,2-OCE is not classified as a carciI¥Jgen by EPA Carc!.oogen Assessnent Group
(~). 'lb:! EPA Office of Drinking Water (CUi) has derived a Lifetime Health
Advisoxy of 70 ug/L based on lifetime ingestion of 2 liters/day. t«>!CL has
been established for l,2-OCE.
As stated previously, the entire area is sez:ved by l1IJI'1icipal water, therefore
thete is 00 diJ:ect human eJq;X)Sure to contaminated ground water. 'lb:! Site is,
b:Jwever, at least partly within the Waite Park Municipal Well field a.rxi has
contributed to pmlic exposure prior to the discovexy of l1IJI'1icipal well
contamination in 1984. The length of exposure is not knJwn, rot exposure could
not have occu.c:ed prior to 1969 when operations at the Site began. With the
treatment systan installed on the Waite Park l1IJI'1icipal systan, the water supply
is 00 longer contaminated. .
Regarding contaminated soils at the Site, direct human exposure to these
materials is not p:>8sible, sin:e the area is vegetated, is carpletely fen:ed,
am a security systan is in place. Measurable VOC emissions fran urxiisturbed
soil to the at:ncsphe1:e have not been identified.
The greatest remaining human. exposure concem is via air which nay contain .
low-level VOC's £Ian soils and ground water, or by VOC's £ran the air striwer
on the nunicipal 'lJater supply, or the on-site air stri~ irv:luded in the
selected. Leuedy. Air iJrpacts are discussed in the following section.
Regarding exposure to contaminant mixtures, MDi staff has stated that at the
corv:entrations identified in 1984, persons consuming water £ran the Waite Park
Municipal Wells (which contain contaminants sjmjJ,ar to the EM Site) were at
minimal risk for effects other than can=er £ran ingestion of PCE, 'ICE and
1,1-0CE, altlnlgh the risks £ran ingestion of the mixture is unkoown.
B. Enviromental Assessnent
Soil sanples taken at the Site iniicate limited contamination of this ne:li.a.
Soil contamination on the Site consists of VOC's, primarily south of the main
tuilding. 'ft1e limited soil contamination that has been identified is typically
foun:1 between 1.5 am 15 feet in depth, altbJugh sana minor near-surface
contamination has been identified. 'D1ere is an estimated 55 cubic yards of
subsurface contaminated soil in several locations. In the past, contaminants in
the soil have . leached into the aquifers below the Site. Based on extensive and
detailed soil sanpling am analysis, significant leaching of VOC' s to the ground
'lJater beneath the Site does not appear to be occurring at this time. In fact,
analysis of soil at or beneath the water table iniicates IIDSt of the VOC
leaching may have already occu.c:ed a.rxi only limited additional leaching of soils
~ to the shallow aquifer will take place. .
When the! Waite Park nunicipal wells are ~ing, grourx1 water flow is towards
the nunicipal wells in the deep aquifer, .an:i 'lJater is pulled very slowly through
the cOnfining layer or J1DJ:e directly. through a "wimcw" in the confining layer
-------
-7-
just east of the Site. 'Ibis action also transports contaminants fran the
shallOoti aquifer into the deeper aquifer. As a result, the nunicipal wells have
been ~ted by contaminants fran the EM Site.
During the period of January 1985 to Febru.uy 1988 the mmicipal wells 'Nere rot
purtl)ing. As a result, contaminants appear to have I1DVed rorthward a short
distance wxIer influen::e of the aquifers wxIer oon-punping comitions. Now that
the nunicipal wells are back on-line and on-site recovery wells in bJth the
shallOoti and deep aquifers will be operating, contaminant migration will be
reversed and controlled.
'lb! Sauk River in the only surface water body near the Site. '!here is 00
evideoce the Site has or will affect the Sauk River.
Although instrunent readings of air at the Site have rot been above background,
lOoti levels of va::' s (belOoti instnJment detection limits) may be in the air above
the contaminated soil at the Site. Possible lOoti level air VOC's could result
fran gradual release through the soil column of VOC' s in the soil or in the
upper part of the shallOoti aquifer. vex: emissions to the air will result fran
the selected '(€21~ of the air stripper unit and discharge to the Sauk River.
Mxielinq of the selected "~:::II.eJy has been carpleted to ensure that the canbined
effects of the air stripper at Waite Park M.1nicipal Wells .1 and #3 and the air
stripper at the Site will not have adverse effects on the aarbient air quality
and will maet all air quality criteria.
c. Catpirison to MAR's
'lb! corx:entrations of contaminants found in the mnitorinq wells associated ~
the Site and Waite Park !bUcipal Wells *1 and *3 which exceed Federal and Sta~
applicable or relevant and awLOIJLiate requi%ements (ARARs), or criteria that
are to be considered, are shown in Table 1.
On the Site, max:inun col¥:entrations of 'It:E and 1, 1, 1-'lt:A exceeded M:L's and PCE,
'It:E, 1,1,1-'lt:A and 1,2-r.cE exceeded Minnesota RAt/s. ARARs are discussed
. further in Section X.
VII. IXX:t1MENTATIcn OF SIGm'ICANl' CHAtG:S
No significant changes in the selected Leut::dy have been made sin:e the p.1blic
meeting and release of the Fact Sheet/P~ Plan.
VIII. IESCRIPl'ICIf OF ALTERNATIVES
. A. Cbjectives for Remediation
'lb! primlu:y ~lSe oojective is to abate or minimize the contirn1ed migration
of volatile organic CC11'pJl1J1ds £Ian the Site through the grnmd water system.
'lb! RI Report, ~ July 14, 1987, contained the following list of possible
alternative mspoase actions.
v
- No actia\
;;; Soil excavation with o££-site disposal/treatment
- Soil excavation with on-site contairment
- Soil excavation with on~site aeration
Souxce control by air venting
-------
. -8-
- Ground water gradient control .
- Groun:i water t.reat:nent at off-site point of use
A revised supplsnental RI and Feasibility Study (FS) was subnitted in April
1988. 'l11e FS evaluated a variety of respollse action technologies for soil and
ground water contamination at the Site. 'D1ese were:
- excavation of contaminated soil with disposal off-site or on-site or on-site
. t.reat:nent
- in-situ soil venting
- ground water gradient control with discharge to sanita%y sewer or stom sewer
- t.reat:nent of water fran gradient control system by granular activated carlx:m,
packed tower aeration, packed tower aeration with air emissions t.reat:nent,
. and t.reat:nent at point of ~.
The technology screening concluded. that in-situ soil veriting would oot be
feasible because of the small quantity of contaminated soil and the isolated
nature of the areas of contaminated soil. Of the ground water t.reat:nent
tec~logies examined, the screening' concluded. that the prefen:ed technology for
treating ground water £ran a gradient control system at the Site is packed tower
aeration. Emission control may not be necessary because of the low
concentration of volatile organics in the tower emissions. . Treat:nent of
discharge waters using granular activated carbon is oot ecoranically feasible
for this Site.
. Following the techn:llogy screening to identify feasible and effective response
actions, the FS examined the following alternatives. 'l11e alternatives are
listed in order of irx:reasing effectiveness:
ALTERNATIVE I - Continued ground water ncnitoring . .
ALTERNATIVE IIA.l - Shallow aquifer gradient control and dischaJ:ge to sani~
sewer
. ALTERNATIVE IIA.2 - Shallow aquifer gradient control, packed tower aeration
treat:nent, and dischaJ:ge to. sanitary sewer
ALTERNATIVE lIB - Shallow aquifer gradient control, packed tower aeration
treatItent, and discharge to stomsewer
ALTERNATIVE IlIA - Shallow and deep aquifer gradient control and discharge to
sanitary sewer.
AUmRNATIVE IIIB - Shallow and deep aquifer qradient .control, packed tower
aeration treatment, and dischaJ:ge to stom sewer .
Each alternative was analyzed for effectiveness, cost, reliability,
constructability, iJrplsnentation schedule, and secondaIy envirorlrental effects~
'l!U..s analysis is sumnarized in Table 2. .
-------
-J-
B. Alternatives After Screening
Of the six alternatives evaluated, only two, Alternatives IlIA and IIIB, are
effective for ooth the shallow and deep aquifers. These alternatives differ
only in the approach used to handle the purrp-out water fIan the gradient contre..
system. Alternative IlIA proposes discharge to the St. Cloud sanitary sewer,
while Alternative IIIB p~ses packed tc:Jwer aeration treatment follONed by
discharge to the Sauk River via a sto:cn saer. Each of these alternatives is
similar in effectiveness, cost, constI:uctability, inplanentability, and
secorxtaty envirormental effects. 'l11e remaining evaluation criteria of
reliability is of great iIrp:>rtance to the Resp:lnsible Parties. The corx:em for
reliability is based upon urx:ertainty of the long-te:cn availability and the cost
effectiveness of sanitary discharge to the St. Cloud systan. Because of this
wx:ertainty, the Responsible Parties have iD:1i.cated a preference for Alternative
IIIB."
C. CariJinations
Analysis of canbinations is not applicable in this case. sirx:e technology
catbinations are iIrplicit in the six alternatives evaluated in the FS.
IX. SUMMARY OF a:M?ARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Each of the alternatives tNeJ:e evaluated using a number of evaluation factors.
Table 3 sunmarizes this evaluation, sOOwinq generally favorable and unfavorable
carparisons ancnq alternatives.
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Envirorment
Only the alternatives that irx:lude resp:mse actions for both the shallow and
deep aquifers pmvides adequate protection of human health and t.t}e environment.
WitbJut ground water control of the deep aquifer, as irx:luded in Alternatives
IlIA and IIIB, contaminated ground water in the deep aquifer will continue to
migrate £ran the Site. .
B. Catpliance With MAR's
Both of the protective alternatives, Alternatives IlIA aIXl IIIB, are designed to
attain the applicable or relevant aIXl ~OJ?riate requirement..q of Federal and
State enviromental laws. 'lb:t other alternatives will net attain MAR's for
either the surface aquifer, the deep aquifer, or both.
C. smrt-Tem Effectiveness
Both of the protective alternatives, Alternatives IlIA arxI IIIB, will provide a
good ~ee of sl1ort-te:cn effectiveness sirx:e control of both shallow aIXl deep
aquifers can be iIrplanented quickly and tJ;:eatDEnt of the contaminated water will
occur siI1u.ltaneously with essentiaily m adverse inpact £ran btplanentation of
the .L'=II-=Jy. '!he ,other alternatives, sirx:e they cb net ac:Xh:ess the deep aquifer,
the shallow aquifer, or both, cb net have adequate shcrt-te:cn effectiveness.
-------
-10-
D. IDng-'nmn Effectiveness
Both of the protective alternatives, Alternatives IIIA arw:1 IIIB, provide for
, long-teI:m effectiveness. Contaminated grourx:t water will be I'EIIDVed fJ:an both
, shallow am deep aquifers and the design of the shallow aquifer recovery program
will control any leaching fJ:an the limited vel\.1l1eS of contaminated soils that
may occur over time. 'n1e other alternatives, since they do not aQ:Iress the deep
aquifer, the shallow aquifer, or both, do not have adequate la1g-term
effectiveness. Both protective alternatives pxovide for a pm:manent .Lell~.
E. Reduction of M::>bility, '1bxicity, or Volume
Both of the protective alternatives, Alternatives IIIA arw:1 IIIB, provide a
reduction in the lIDbili ty of contaminants in both the shallow am deep aquifers
by effectively controlling grourx1 water migration. In Alternative IIIA,
contaminated ground water will be discharged to cm:i treated by the St. Cloud
sanitMy sewer system; thereby J:educing contaminant toxicity.cm:i vel\.DE. In
Alternative IIIB, ,reduction in toxicity am velURe will rely on the assimilative
capacity of the at:Dcsphere am the Sauk River. Air emissions m:x:Ieling will be
c:kme to deteJ:mine the ability of the atM::>sphere in the vicinity of the Site to
assimilate emissions fJ:an both the Waite Park Water SUpply am the Site packed
~ aeration syst:ems. Discharge to the Sauk River will be J:eqUired to meet
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge ~ts.
The rataining oon-protective alternatives will not provide a similar level of
reduction in IrDbility, toxicity, or velURe.
F. IIri>lemmtability
.
All alternatives can be iJrq;>lemmted when considering technical feasibility am
the availability of services and material. Both of the p'o~ protective
alternatives, Alternatives IIIA and 11m, may encounter sane ackninistrate delay
related to the various peImits am approvals J:eqUired.' Where possible, ,
prelimi.naI:y discussions arr::Vor review of the protective alternatives with the
appropriate agerx::ies have been corxiucted.
G. Cost
'lba protective alternatives, Alternatives IIIA ani IIIB, have the highest
present worth cost, $882,000 ani $913,000 respectively, of the six alternatives
evaluated. 'n1e nOn-protective alternatives range C:an $236,000 am $652,000 in
present worth cost. 'n1e RPs have recamerded the iIrplemmtation of Al ternati ve
IIIB, the alternative with the highest present worth cost.
H. Camunity AcceptarK::e
No specific '-Ullueuts were received during the public '-Ulilleut period regarding
the proposed response action, Alternative IIIB. Given the rredia coverage at the
public meeting, this lack of response may be inferred as carm.mity acceptaIx:e.
AlthJugh not an official Culilleut, the MPCA staff is aware that the St. Cloud
water Treat:rren1;, ~d prefer to not receive additional volumes.of ~ter
containing mlatively low-levels of contaminants if' other b:eatment cm:i disp:)sal
options are feasible.
"
-------
--,.,.--
I. State Ac:ceptarce
The MPCA staff has selected the Lt:lledy presented bel~ for the Electric
MachiI1my Site.
X. SELEX::TED ALTERNATIVE
Based. on cun:ent infozmation, the MPCA staff selects the RPs reccmnended
alternative, Alternative IIIB, as the IrCst appropriate final Lt:lI.:dy for the
Electric Mach.i.ne%:y Site. The con::eptua1 layout of the Lt2lely is sl'Dm in Figure
11. 'nUs Lt:l11t:\Jy invol vas: .
- Installation of groun:i water purrp-out wells in both the shall~ arx1 deep
aquifers; .
- Treat contaminated water with a packed tower aeration system (air stripper);
and,
- DiScharge treated ground water £ran the air stripper to the Sauk River.
Cleanup Requh.:slll::uts
The tlu:ee areas of. cooc-em in relation to cleanup requirements are groun:l water,
air quality, and the Sauk River.
Ground water at the Site will require bwo separate tut related actions:
satisfactozy captuz:e of shall~ and deep plumes neving oorth £ran the Site arx1
rencval of sufficient quantities of grourx1 water to reduce the concentration of
the remaining ground water to the requiJ:ed level. Captuz:e will be achieved b:
the f>"~ design, placElueut, and operation of the shall~ and deep purrp out
systems. Ground water risk reduction will be achieved by continuing to operate
the puII1? out system until the IrCre restrictive of H:L' s or RAL' s for va:' s in
both the shall~ arx1 deep aquifers is met. At this Site, the only instan::e
where M:L' s are ncre restrictive than RAL' s is for the contaminant 'It:E where the
M:L is 5.0 ug/L arx1 the RAL is 31.0 ug/L. The cunI1l.ative excess carcinogenic
risk of the bwo carc~, PeE and '10:, at the stated cleanup levels is
approximately 1.2 x 10-. '!his level of protection is deemed adequate sin:e 00
one at the Site is actually drinking the water or is l.iJ(ely to sioce the entire
area is served by rramicipal water. The target clean up level for the othe.~
three contaminants of concern at the Site (1,1,1-'lCA, 1,2-ocE and l,l-OCA) al.~
set at the M:L or RAt. whm:e 00 K:L is available. Upon consultation with MtH, it
was determined that analysis ofcunW.ative effects of these oon-carcirogens was
not needed since the systemic effects of each of these c:ontani.nants was
different. .
Table 4 lists each contaminant, its M:L, RAL and target cleanup level.
Contaminants outside the zone of ~tion at the Site which are cun:ently
being transported to the Waite Park !tJnicipal Wc.t.er SUpply will be treated by
the stripper at that location.
.. ..
The target cleMJup levels for on-site va: cont:aminants listed in Table 4 may oot.
. be achievable by the selected response action. If that becaues the case,
alternate corx:entration levels may need to be considered.
,.
-------
va: ' s will be renoved fx:an the recovered ground water prior to discharge to the
Sauk River by using an air stripper to transfer the contaminants fx:an ground
water to the atnDsphere. '!'he emissions at both the on-site stripper and the
discharge point at the river have been analyzed in:li.vidually and in relation to
each other and the Waite Park Water Supply stripper. '!his analysis has
determined that the total projected risk fx:an the air Emission eources
associated with the recaunended alternative is well below !D{ action guidelines
and therefore the MPCA Division of Air ~ity will oot require additional air
EI1\i.ssion controls.
Effluent fx:an the air stripper will be discharged to the Sauk River. 'nle Sauk
River is oot classified as a drinking water source, therefore only the lor.Er of
fish consurrption a.nd aquatic life chronic toxicity criteria will be applied to
water in the Sauk River at the discharge point allowing for 7QlO dilution.
'1'hese values are also shown on Table 4. In addition, an NPDES peDnit will be
required for the discharge. PeDnit limitations, as shown on Table 4, are a
daily max.iJrum of 15 ng/L total hydrocartx:>ns with a maxinun daily effluent volume
of 200 gpo a.nd an average daily effluent volume of 120 gpo. '!'he NPDES peDnit
will cane off public ootice on January 7, 1989, and will be issued in final fom
soortly thereafter.
The MPCA staff will require that a deed ootice be placed on the property
plrSUant to Chapter 115B.16, Sub:i. 2 of the Minnesota Enviromental Response a.nd
Liability Act. .
. Raned.ial Action and Operations and Maintenance
'!be Site is being cleaned up un:ier the t:eIm; of a Request for Resp:mse Action
(RFRA) issued to the four Responsible Parties on March 25, 1986, and
September 23, 1986. '1'he RPs have asS\.UTled resp:msibility .for the investigation
am cleanup of the Site.
XI. STATUroRY DETERKrNATICN)
A. Protection of Human Health am the Enviroment
'"
The selected J::ealedy provides protection of human health a.nd the enviroment
through extraction and treatnent of contaminated ground. water using an air
stripper. '1'he aquifer restoration will prevent ~tion by the plblic of .
contaminated ground water posing a greater than 10 CUItIllativ.= lifetiIre excess
carx:er risk. It is estimated that the ground water may be restored to
health-based risk criteria in 5 to 10 years, altbJugh operation of the systan
longer than 10 years is ~s.ible.
'l!1e .Leu.edy is also protective of human health sirx:e the risk £ran exposure to
con~ts £ran the air striJ:p!r will meet Emissions staOOards which are based
on 10- risk criteria. 'l!1e air stripper will operate in conjUR:tion with the
gt'CIUIKi water extraction systan until the discharge can meet NPDES am .Ambient
Water (:uality Criteria (»q;) requi.rarEnts for the Sauk River.
'l!1e discharge to the Sauk River will be protective of human health a.nd the
enviroJalleut sirx:e the lor.Er of fish consumption or aquatic toxicity will be .
required. '1'he Sauk River below the discharge is neither classified oor used for
-------
-13-
drinking water. The Sauk River enters the Mississippi River approximately four
miles below the discharge: the Mississippi River is protected for drinking water
at that point.
B. Attainment of ARAR's
Selected alternative, Alternative IIIB, will neet the following Federal arx1
State ARAR's:
10 Resource Consez:vation and Recovezy kt (RCRA) ; 40 CFR Part 264.
40 CFR Part 264 requires the rarcval of all waste residues and soil contaminated
with haz~ waste. 1iJwever, RCRA has oot defined the level of .
decontamination required. EPA guidarx:e requires that any contaminants left in
subsoils will not impact any environmental media. The shallow aquifer punp-out
systan of the .selected alternative will control any I1\in:>r arrD\mts of VOC's
~ in the subsoils that may neve dcMnward through the soil colUllU'1 arx1
enter the shallow ground water beneath the Site.
2. Clean Water kt (CWA) ; 40 CFR Parts 122 and 125.
Treated ground water will be discharged to the Sauk River. »l;1:. will be met by
the discharge through the requi.remants of an NPDES peJ:Init.
3. Safe Drinking Water kt (S~) ; 40 CFR Parts 141-146.
The SI:WA specifies M:Ls for contaminants at public drinking water supplies. The
ground water beneath the Site is within the capture zone of the Waite Park
Municipal Wells, 1'xJwever a treatrrent systan is already in place for the Waite
Park water supply. The Waite Park water supply is currently meeting KIs.
4. Minn. Stats. 115 and 116 and Minn. Rules. chs. 7001 and Minn. Rules pt.
7050.021.
These statutes and rules regulate surface water discharges un:jer NPDES permits.
The discharge fran the treatrrent systan will neet the quantity and quality
requi.remants of an NPDES pemit.
5. Minn. Rules pt. 7050.0220.
'!his rule requires that discharges to gI'O\m1 water which will be used for
consunption attain H:Ls and RALs for drinking water. The selected alternative
will not discharge to groun:I water, b:Jwever as stated previously, I1\in:>r arrDUnts
of VOC's may J'ICYe dcMnward through the soil to the grown water within the
capture zone of the punp-out systan where they will be rEmJVed and treated.
6. Minn. Stat. S 116.07, subd. 4.A.
The operation of the air stri~ will oot require an air quality pemit un:jer
this statute, which regulates air emissions of toxic pOllutants. The emissions
have been 100deled and c:b not require additional control measw:es.
-------
-14-
7. Minn. Stat. ch. 105.
Operation of the punp out systan will require a Water AflpLOJILiation PeDnit iran
the Department of Natural Resources to assure a groum water supply adequate to
meet long-teJ::m ground water needs. I}}]e selected alten'1ative will meet the
mquiIenents of the water ~OJILiation pemit.
Whm:e State ARARs are mre stringent than Federal ARARs, the State requirBrents
. will be net at the carpletion of the remedial action.
c. Cost-Effectiveness
All costs have and will be borne by the Responsible Parties wDar teIms of the
existing RFRAs.
D. Utilization of PeI:manent Solutions and Alten'1ative ~tIrent Techrologies to
the MaxinL1m Extent Practicable.
'!be MPCA has deteDn.ined that the selected .Ll:2ledy is the nest ~Oj?.!"iate
solution for neetinq the remedial action goals at the Electric Machinery Site.
Extraction of the contaminated ground water will pemanently restore the "
aquifer. Air stripping is "the IIDSt appropriate treatIrent prior to discharge to
the Sauk River. The selected .Ll:2ledy provides the l:::est balance anDl1g the nine
. criteria. The selected .ceul::ldy is a pm:manent solution that uses alten'1ative
treatment techoologies to the maximum extent practicable.
E. . PrefeIeJCf3 for Treatment as a Principal Element
'De statutozy preference for remedies that anploy treatIrent which pez:manently
and significantly reduce the toxicity, mbility, or volume of hazarOOus
subs1:an=es as a principal elanent is satisfied sin:e the contaminants
transferred to the air or the Sauk River will be naturally degraded.
XII. SCHEOOLE
'Die response action for the Site is expected to be iJrplanented in accordance
with the following schedule:
- Execute RD and approve FS
- Carplete Response Action Plan
- IIrplenent Respouse ~
XIII. IXX:UMENl'S REVIEWED .
December 1988
January 1989
FebJ:uaJ:y 1989
Dec. 1984, Jan. 1985 samples results..
!Of health advisoJ:y, Jan. 1985..
MPCA DeteDni.nation of Emergerq, Jan. 1985.
Focused Feasibility Study, City of Waite Park Municipal Water Supply (late 1985,
early 1986). . .
Selection of air stripper by MPCA Ccmnissioner for City Wells, March 1986.
-------
-lS-
RFRA to EN, Q::t. 1985.
RFRA to BOC Brown Bever and Cooper, March 1986.
RFRA to Dresser and EM, Sept. 1986.
~ EM Site Feasibility Study, SuJ:mi.tted Januaxy 1988.
r Revision sul::mitted April 1988.
Fact Sheet for EM Site pt'epared by MPCA, Aug. 1988.
Press Release annowx::ing public ccmnent period, Aug. 1988.
Barr Engineering Co., 1986, Plans/Reports Subnitted Pursuant to Parts rv and V
of Exhibit B to Request for Response Action, Electric Machinez:y Site, St.
Cloud, Minnesota. .
~ Barr Engineering Co., 1987a, Ranectial Investigation Report, Electric Machinery
Site, St. Cloud, Minnesota, Report prepared for Brown Beveri 'l\1ri::x:IIachinexy.
Barr Engineering Co., 1987b, rbrk Plan for Additional Investigation Activities,
Electric Machinery Site, Prepared for Brown Beveri 'l\1ri::x:IIachinez:y.
Braun Engineering Testing, 1986, Phase I Rare:iia.l Investigation BBT Plant Site.
ERr, 1986a, Review of Water Supply Study for the City of Waite Park, Minnesota,
Report prepared for Burlington Northam Railroad.
ERr, 1986b, NJrk Plan for a Rare:iia.l Investigation at Burlington Northern Site
in Waite Park, Minnesota, Report pt'epared for Burlington Northern rcailroad.
ERr, 1986c, Initial ~logic Assessnent for the Waite Park Site, Waite
Park, Mi.m1esota. .
ERr, 1986d, rbrk Plan for the Iong-TeI:m Water Supply Response Action Plan for
Waite Park, Minnesota, Report pt'epared for Burlington Northern RailIoad.
ERr, 1986e, Iong-TeI:m Water Supply Response Action Plan for Waite Pa1~~~
Minnesota, Report pt'epared for Burlington Northern Railroad.
ERr, 1986£, 1d:Ierxhmt to the Im1g-TEmn Water Supply Response Action Plan for
Waite Park, Minnesota,' Report pt'epared for Burlington Northern Railroad,
5 pp. .
ERr, 1986g, Remedial Investigation Report;. for the Burlington Northam Waite Park
. Site, Waite Park, Minnesota.
ERr, 1987, MJrk Plan for Supplemental Rare:iia.l Investigation, Burlington
ti:)rthem waite Park Site, Report prepared for Burlington Northern Railroad.
. .
Hart, Fmd C. ard AsSCX:iates, Inc., 1987, rbrk Plan for a ~logic
Investigation, Electric Machinery Site, St. Cloud, Minnesota, Report
pt'epared for Cooper Industries.
-------
-.0-
MPCA, 1985, Limited Rared.ia.l Investigation Final Report - Waite Park Groundwater
Contamination Site.
Rieke Carroll !-W.ler, 1985a, Prel.i.minaJ:y Alternative Evaluation Report, Report
prepared for the MPCA, 3 pp.
Rieke Carroll !-W.ler, 1985b, Alternative Report, Water Supply arxl TreattTent,
Waite Park, Minnesota, Report prepared for the MPCA, 26 pp.
Rieke Carroll Muller, 1985c, Waite Park Water Supply Study, Task 3 Report,
Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives, Report prepared for the MPCA, 31 pp.
Rieke Carroll Muller, 1986d, Waite Park 5uA?ly Study, Task 4 Report, Draft
Feasibility Study Sunmary Report, Report prepared for the MPCA, 23 pp.
Rieke Carroll Muller, 1986e, Waite Park Water Supply Study Final Feasibility
Study Sumnary Report, Report prepared for the MPCA, 24 pp.
-------
Table 1
CaIparison of Contaminant Coocentrations
All Coocentrations in ug/l (g:b)
Maxinun Contaminant
~tration *
Other Criteria to be Considered
Anbient Water ()1ality Criteria
ARAR's Drinking Water Fish
Contaminant 9( Site M.mi.cipal M:1,'s RAL's and Fish** Consurrption Aquatic Life
~lls ~lls CoJlSUlll>tion OUy Chronic
PCE 34,000 680 NA 6.6 3.8 8.9 47
'ICE 5,100 60 5.0 31.0 25 123 226
1,1,1-'lCA 1,300 NO 200 200 216 454 138
1,2-OCE . 4,000 11 NA 70 67 449 NA
1,I-OCA 380 270 NA 810 NA NA NA
1,1-OCE tI) 94 7.0 7.0 5.5 50 168
1,2-0CA' N) 7.2 NA 3.8 3.7 128 656
*tbte: In transit, 1,1, 1-'lCA degrades catpletely and these degradation processes may result in
the awearaoce of 1, 1-OCE and 1, 2-OCAin the lII1lli.cipal wells.
IB:ludes data 00t:ained after nun.icipal wells returned to service in February 1988.
**Sauk River is ~ classified for drinking water use; the listed values are for CXI1parison only.
R> - mt detected
NA - mt available
-------
;./ /
1//"
: .:
.
TnEAtEO WAJf=ff D'S
CHAnGE LINE
OI~CIMRGE LINE
OUTFAll
~f(
. .
~,---...' n,'''''' T,ock,
'" ~
~ :'
"-...~) . .
~ .
...~ l!n~ri I
Ii
M
-
IHECTnIC MACHINERY
MANtJF ACTURINO
COMPANY
I
,
j
,
L_-
.
,,-
-..-
PlANT BUILDING
PWt
PW3
---
-...~
-"
.
~ oun~NO~ON NOI1THEnN SITE ~
[]
J
CJ
~nl II II I I It I II
~ G
on
0
0 500 1000
I I I
Scale In feet
.FIGURE 11 .
DISCHARGE LINE
CONCEPTUAL LA YOU-
?
<>
-------
I
- I
I
I
I 26
I I.
.
I
IpC:8C
1-
o
o
,
100
Scale in FHt
10Q
.
I
ASPHALT
PAD
.PCA60
-I
.5
10, I I
EIoI3K EM3
'I80:J'
uu~'" '12
£soY, EU32
. .,.JaD
EMU.SO
PCAIS.
.4
J
1-
EM PLANT BUILDING.
tfJ2O' .HJ29
,'to 20
11. .
. HI!22
>11100
.ttI24
&.8
telS.
.ttI2J
-I
,,~ 'I: ~~:I8
.'1121 te~8
>1000
.tfl:'6
. roo .
1182' :-ICIIIO . 1-
FlNJMAB.E
STOOAa:
9JIl0lNG
-1-
, ~ENCE
.
L
. PCA 178
.!elg
PAINT BOOTH
OHAIN LINE "'-
EXCAVATION' '" 101
'o.lP.J9
zJ ttlJJ
(/)
o
I-
-------
"\
~
")
PMi4
. NS/ NS / BOL
")
JI
,
I
,
~
~ ~
I . MW3 1-
") .m. / NS IBO~ I
i \\
A .
I '
.') ~
~AE.
I
,
-0
'"
..,.,
-;J
!:M24
.' J.S
1 I
: I
I
eM 20
..50
.
I~.
I C:1
I
=M~ \]
jro.
I
!
! \
U
EM PL.ANT BUIL.DING
t t
'. ;M
91
....
8MW' ,
4..$/ 8.1/ 4
1
,. A
. MW2
D./'NS / SOL
=.n=-
z
x .
,
. Deep Aquifer Monitoring Well
am. Below Detection Limit
lIS Not Sampted
I MOH Analysis
'. .
1~ C.I /,~ Wadswor-thl AL.:RT
.
, Braun Analysis
o
0 200 -00
L I I
Seale in Feet
Analysis
RGURE 9
TOTA~ HAL.OCENATED VOC CONCENTRATIONS, ug/L.
" DEEP AQUIFER
October 1987
-------
,
.,
.,
,
.M'I
-------
,
I f""O
. r...'1
-.
.EMJ6
.u..
. EM38
.
4
EMH
..
. EM 20
..
EMI9.
~i
~
UU~
EM PLANT BUILDING
EM9
PI
"'c
'eEM22
I'lind
.EMJ1
.
VP2
Fence
.ME""
.. 'CA"
.NW3
6 Shallow Aquifer Pleromeler
V Upper Confining Unil Plerometer
.. Shallow Aqul'er Monitoring Well
. Mid-depth. Shallow Aquifer Monitoring Well
. Deep Aquirer Monitoring Well
. Deep 5011 Boring
e Waite Park Municipal Well
o.
o
o
200
.
-00
o
PeAl ~
Scale In Fnl
o
.. Ewe
.. PCAI3
PCA 12
I ~
---,
I
D
c:::=:J
MONITORING Well. PIEZOMETER
AND OHP SOIL BORING I OLA TIIINe:..
.
. "W2
. .
PCA'
..
.
AGURl
-3
0--
!M,0 ~
PCAJ
-------
. EMZ'
'028." .
""
,
,.,.no
o
o
-:-- --
...- -
/'
'00
Scal. in F.., .
Ccmtour Interval. I Foot
"-
. "
-?t-~"{} ~01:~
- [J" ,
-- ""'-.. "
. -..... --- ............ '- ",,-
-- --,
.--- - - --
1026 ----
/ . ._-
/ // ..--'."-- k,:=---=J-:'---==
/ / ./'. W--1-----
/ /" --'023- /
. / / /./" / -- ",- - -- t022 ...vtJ
I / / /" it_2
. / / 'OZ'.8'
. /
I -
.
.
zoo
.~N40
.OU-GO
I
,
--
1017
.-
, t t
I
I .
:.301_"
I lOU..JO
,
.
MW] 100'
0-
MWIG
.
PC"':'
~
. Deep Aquifer Monitoring Weh
. Waite Puk Munlclp.ll Wen
I .rCAII
. rCA"
FIGURE 6
City wells pumping
CROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS'
DEEP AQUIFER
I FEET. MSL)
I
D
c=:::::J
I
-------
/
..~:~
1031.-'7
, .I
i.
I
, I
I ~.
I !
i ,
",
~,.,
~
-
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
t
J
I
I
I
i
I"" : -
S ~ '..
.. :. '''9 i ,- ::')...4315
-:on..; .,_.
'~"J 1 .
~
~ \ .. :>.0- .. ="',.
\ \ 1032.". 1032.61
\... "--
\ \ ---............ 1 033
., \
:..".:" ~.
-....--
1o:l3.19
,.
iE
,.
=~r .. ,-
103cUA r:
r~ .
:v ""\;:,
~ :~~.. ~
.. ::~A 1 1030;07 i I
. 1030.83 ~ : . .
",- "I ;~
:\O~O ~ .
~ ,,9 I : I ~
~O.. ~.!! "
.I , I ' ,,&
-;.{"'" .. ="oIio : ! ~O..
10:9.28:. 1029.14 . ./'-
(=:f - --- -'1~
- =~)i:" " r
I "')~... ;02.... !l 'I
I ( : ~
I ..
I I:
I : I .
4\ ! i " """,.....
;:.~~~!" i II~
. ~. ~;~ (' :nv~
NO s.& 7UtA TED
SHAJ.J.OW AOUIr:=!f
.. :-".0
ii;w.84
~ !
.:a.,""- .
-"~-
I
I
, !
i
I
i
~
C'~~
.. ~!-.~ ~
7 o:J3.&er
/
I :s
.. ~=A 10i
o
o .
%00
400
.. Sh.llow A~lJife:" Mcni:e,.:ns Well
"
Sc::a.. in ;:ee~
,~
Centeur" Interva' == 1 Foot
FIGURE 5
'.
City wells pumping
GROUNDWATER E1.EVATI0NS
SHAL.L.OW AQUIFER
(FEET, MSL.)
June 1988.
-------
.//
.11'"
r:
fCAI
.".
'O"O.IS.
o
. no ..0
I I I
Sui. in 'eet
. II8cutc M8ChIn8ry
Plln8
-
.
.-
. ------ I'~~unl,\ _I .
, IIlilt.... T'lcIIa . ,-,..
(I i---.---.---..
~('" UlGOON. - 'In~11 PO''''U'UIIIIII'-..c.:~.-.
t- .... . '- ,0»... ...
i:: . .1eA1.. : TAHa c:AII .
\ \~, 8Of.... , . om" . i a
~ ~!a. U
.~\ . .~. J8-'~ a CJ
"'- -.J f \ ~"=_.: &AU NUR 0 '-:":.~
............. ~ -- -- J .CIIft AVL ANa ~ IT. . ,,"t
. ---- /l{1 f\ Ili!l (""411111 11.11 rSlt1ftj
... .. - ~
~ 8 ~
- -
IANDILAST lAND
III&POSAL AlII.'
ro.1I8U 'AINT WASTI
DISP08A&. AlItA
I
-
....
...-
r I !
:"...8 r-
I,.,.. --
..-
. .....
1\11
I IUchuc: SHOP ANI!
IOIUII ..--
1.1
~.
..
JCKMNAL lOX UIIVlClNa
8UUMIIG AlItA
;;
City wells
not pumping
o
[:=:1
1.II8Ing Building
Bldg. no longer In
f.ne.
Municipal Supply Well
Monitoring ..11
exl.lenci
e-
.::
Cround.ll.r Elevilion
Nol U.ed 'or Con.ourlng
Con.our Inllr"ll 0.5. Fe..1
FIGURE 4
OEEP AQUIFER CR
Ih
WATER ELEVATION
-.SLI
AuguSI-Seplember. 1986
-------
NO
SA TUIIA TEO SHALLOW AOU'FEII
/
// ~~ -
, ,I OS' ..&8
;: ... . ~~' IO~'.U
I ~u / ~~
Iou... 118 ........ 1U""
I'CA ... . / IA.& . IAH08LA8T 5.utD
: ' IN&".-~ / U"" DIUO~AlliA
'/ ----- ~~UN,_- --------~ .:~.. ,----- ~~-- __1=~ --
,'" lI'i1I~ - --=: --. ~~
({(' LAGOCII8I~... "" 0. ,"~ '~'1IAI8D ~. . - ;,,:;;;-,-'-'-;;;;;;e. e---' ,....-'" ~-
: ,.,r'j'l. ",..I 1.~..41 I /'MlllCAII '~N ""-,.--' J~4.0~ "('" --?~,/
" \, -.... . I a AIIIA~OI IIH4.7:I '044." ....... "Y
\ ,,~O~.'JbJ~ IAn'!.. '0".1. SHeW...... I'C.4Q~.. .fiCA" _I. "
~.~ ,....1'" ~~ ;;'./. . '044/~~,~:t..:,~"844... i "'.. P
..~\; '''''''~I i ~L.... ~ D' '047 r---E"--' :;;~;:'in-'044 r~.~~:::
"'- ~'~~~~.~~: ~\_IIIDI.s1'L-.J CJ 'Ma::<~ "-r~~.-;~___~04"'4 ~.~Y
. INVQ8A&,AIIIA I '84a.U I . .. ----- ~»;
! .ut.. ...AII ' -- /' /" ..
-"""",..'-3/1' -~ --111 1~~r~~llT~ rI ~.~ r511'''~ /...... .""'::::-7' JOUII~IOXSiIl\llC~"G
i! II, i!' I . I I I I I Iii I 1 .~cWc._.utD I:! ,,/ IUII.!llHG..aIA
C ,C C .0k&1I.- C
~ .
~ ti
"'"''
-
.
o
, .00 .00
I I
Selle In t..&
ro551'~ '''IHT WASTI
1)l5ro~ AlIi-'
/
'04'."
PC.\.
81&0
..
..
City wells
not pumping
D
C:=:l
Exll&ing Building
Bldg. no longer in
F.nce
Municipil Supply W"U
Moni&oring Well
e"i,'cncc
e""O
.::
Contour In&..' VII I foul
FIGURE 3
Sit AllOW
AQUIFER CROUNOWAIER ELE\lA 1101
(h,,'. MSll
Augu,&-S"p&emlJ"r. 1~'6
-------
,.
/'
") / ...-
o .
.. ".
'.... -''''
,;,'
..
/0"0
,
[1:
I
,
J
.
:r:=
.
- ..
I
.
~
. I..
.
Bas. Mao: USGS 7 1/~ - Mlnut.
Sr. Cloud Quadrangl., 1974
I .
. -,r-
o
o
I
1000
Scale in Feet.
2000
,
FIGURE 2
LOCATION MAP
-------
<,
E
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF "WAITE
PARK
"
-------
TABLE 4
Elecric Mac~ Site Target Cleanup Isvels
Media Contaminant M:L* RAL** '1t:L***
Ground Water PCE NA 6.6 6.6
'1a: 5.0 . 31 5.0
1,1,1-'lt:A 200 200 200
1,2-OCE NA 70 70
1,1-OCA NA 810 810
*Mu.i.nun Contaminant I.evel ug/L
**Recamended Allowable Limit ug/L
***Target Cleanup I.evel ug/L
1tnt>ient Water Quality Criteria (ug/L)
SUrface Water
PCE
'1a:
1,1,1-'lt:A
1,2-OCE
l,l-OCA
8.9
123
138
449
NA
For water in the Sauk River at discharge point allowing for 7Q10 dilution.
Criteria listed are the lower of AW;!::. for fish cc:"oSlmption or
aquatic life toxicity (see ~able 1). .
SUrface Water
NPDES Discharge PeImit Limitations
Effluent daily maxinun 15 ng/L total hydroc::arl:xJns
Maxinun discharge 200 gpn
Average discharge 120 gpn
Air Emissions
!Of Action
level Glideline
1 x 10';;;S-
. M:xIeled Total
Projected IJiSk
5.87 x 10-
,.
-------
TABLE 3
a:J.IpARISOO AKH; ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
IIA.l IIA.2 lIB IlIA IIIB
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ + + + +
Evaluatia1 Criteria
Overall protection of human health.
aId the environnent
CatpliaB:::e with ARAR's'
SIDrt-teIm effectiveness'
wng-t.eIm effectiveness
Reduction of JOObility, toxicity, or volURe
lJrpleneltability'
Cost
CalmJnity ~
State AcceptaJ¥:e
I
+
+
+
+
+
-------
Al~.rDa~ly.
ALTERNATIVE I
Continued ground watar
eonitoring
'fUL8 2
BUllllARt OF BVALUAnD ALnUA'J'IV88
.ff.c~IY.D..8
Co.t-
..11ablU~y
COD.trac~abill~y
lapl"'Dtatlo8
ie.ediate
88G08dary
.eYlroDe.D~al .ffecta
n/a
ALTERNATIVE IIA.1 not affective $553,000 good; poasible standard one s..son with no aigni ficant
Shallow aquifer gradient for d..p aquifer concern for construction . eonth lead; aecondary effecta
control and discharge to long-terll techniques posaible pereitl
sanitary aewer availability at approval delay
sanitary diacharge
ALTERNATIVE IIA.2 not effective $726,000 good; poasible standard one seaaon with no aignificant
Shallow aquifer gradient for deep aquifer concern for construction . eonth lead; secondary ettecta
control, packed tower long-terll techniques possible pareitl
aeration and diacharge availabili ty of approval delay
to sanitary aewer sanitary discharge
ALTERNATIVB 118
Shallow aquifer gradient
control, packed tower
aeration, and diacharge
to.atora aewer
ALTERNATIVE IlIA
Shallow and deep
aquiter gradient
control and diacharge
to .anitary .ewer
ALTERNATIV. IlIa
Shallow and deep aquiter
gradient control, packed
lower aeration and
discharge to store sewer
-------------------
,
. Present worth cost
not etfective for
shallow or deep
$236,000
nla
nla
aquitera
not effectiv.
tor deep aquifer
$652,000
good
standard
construction
techniques
eftective tor both
ehallow and deep
$882,000
good; poaaible
concern for
standard
construction
aquifera
long-tere
availability ot
sanitary discharge
techniquea
etfective tor both
sha 11 ow and deep
$913,000
good
standard
construction
techniques
aquifera
one aeason with
. eonth lead;
poaaible pereitl
approval delay
one aeason with
. eonth lead;
possible pereitl
approval delay
one seaaon with
. eonth lead;
possible pereitl
approval delay
no significant
aecondary effecta
no eignificant
aecondary ettecta
no aignificant
aecondary etfecta
-------
~~ 87'..~
.,J ..... \p.
"i -- \
~/1'"
i~~
~ ~.Lt
+>:'1. fIfIl(Jff-~
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
130 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
ClDCAGO.ILUNOIS ~
al!PL Y TO THE A TT£NTlOM Of':
5R A -14
% 8 SE? 1989
Mr. Gerald L. Willet
Conrnissioner
Minnesota Pollution
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota
Control Agency
55155
Dear Mr. Willet:
Enclosed is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.s (U.S. EPA's)
Declaration Statement which concurs with and adopts the Record of Decision
(ROD) completed by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for the
Electric Machinery portion of the W!itePark'Wells Site.
Our concurrence with and adoption of the ROD are based on the remedial
action plan outlined within the ROO. It is our understanding that the deep
aquifer extraction well discussed in the ROD is not currently operating.
Apparently, infonnation obtained by the MPCA indicates the capture zone of
the Waite Park municipal wells air strippers is sufficient to remediate the
deep aquifer plume emanating. from the Electric Machinery Site. . Therefore,
we reconrnend that MPCA provide to the public an explanation of significant
. differences in implementation of the remedial action plan.
In addition, we have been informed that the current owners of the Electric
Machinery property are interested in selling the property. Our concurrence
with your ROO is based on the condition that the site ~ill remain enclosed
by a fence with a security system to avoid human exposure to the areas of
contaminated soils, regardless of the property owner. We recommend that
any potential buyers are made aware through deed restrictions or ~ther
means, of the soil contamination and the need to maintain the fence and
security system or remediate the soils.
Q
~
When cleanup levels are attaingd at this site, the cumulative. excess
carcinogenic risk is '1.2 X-10-. U.S. EPA.s policy is to utilize the risk
level of 10-6 cumulative excess carcinogenic risk as our point of
departure. However., the site conditions allow us to vary fran this point
of departure. The immediate surrounding land uses are light industrial,
and the entire area is ~rved by Waite Park and St. Cloud municipal water
systems. .
-------
o
2
We look forward to continuing this productive relationship with MPCA on the
Waite Park Wells Site.
Sincerely yours,
~rA.W
[,.(' Valdas V. Adamkus
\) Regional Administrato
Enclosure
..
,;
v
-------
9 j
5.3
HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES BY EPA REGION
Figure 5-2 shows the distribution of hazardous waste quantities managed at
TSDRs by EPA region. Those regions with concentrations of industries that
traditionally generate hazardous wastes show the highest quantities. With the
exception of Texas and Louisiana, those areas west of the Mississippi River managed
low quantities of hazardous waste. Regions 7, 8, 9, and 10 account for only 3.2
percent of all waste managed in units regulated under RCRA and 17.4 percent of all
waste managed in units exempt from RCRA permitting requirements.
This higher percentage of hazardous wastes managed in units exempt from
RCRA permitting is primarily due to hazardous wastes in Region 9, which includes
California. California regulates wastewater treatment technologies and waste oil
recycling, requiring more quantities to be treated or recycled than do many other
state.s. Most states do not regulate waste oil as hazardous. Wastes managed in many
of these technologies are reported as quantities managed in units exempt from RCRA
permitting requirements.
These results appear to support the view that the following factors may
influence the geographical distribution of hazardous waste management activities:
.
Industries that typically generate large quantities of hazardous
wastewater are not located in the western part of the United States
because of./ess plentiful and, often, more expensive water.
Industries that typically generate hazardous wastes that are
hazardous have been concentrated in the eastern and central part of
. the country. .
.
.
Significant petrochemical and chemical manufacturing facilities are
located in the New Jersey-New York. area and the Texas-Louisiana
areas.
. The western states of the United States typically have lower
population densities.
'.
5.4
NUMBER OF FACILITIES
v.
I
The Screening Survey was mailed to 5,666 facilities. Based on the results of
this. census there are 2,971. active facilities (as defined in Section 5.1). This total does
not include facilities that began operating after January 1986. The follow-up survey
will also address the issue of facilities that began or have ceased hazardous waste
operations, updating the number of facilities active in 1986.
. Figure 5-3 shows the distribution of active TSDR facilities by EPA region.
Region 5 has 761 facilities while Region 10, with 71, has the least number of facilities.
Of the 259 facilities in Region 9, 223 are located within California. The other states in
that region have very small numbers of TSDRs.
,.
I
. PAGE 27
-------
FIGURE 5-2 QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGED BY ACTIVE FACILITIES
DURING 1985, BY EPA REGION
50
""(J
»
Gl
m.
N
(X)
TOTAl WASTE MANAGED IN UNITS REGULATED UNDER RCRA ;; 272 MMT
TOTAL WASTE MANAGED IN UNITS EXEMPT FROM RCRA PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS;; 31 1 MMT
. UNITS REGUI.J\ TED UNDER RCRA' I2J UNITS EXEMPT FROM RCAA
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
NOTE: Some waste may be managed in both regulated and exempt
units. Consequently I the total amount of ACAA hazardous waste is
less than the sum of waste managed in exempt and regulated units.
1
-------
FIGURE 5-3 NUMBER OF ACTIVE
FACILITIES DURING 1985. BY EPA REGION
209
-u
>
G)
m,
I\)
to
761
346
1
147
:::::::::::;::'
:;:::::;:::::::
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
::;:::::::::::.
3 '....,',',',','
!~j~~~111!:: 2 5
I TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE FACILITIES = 2.9711
,
fIT] TOTAL FACILITIES . COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
NOTE: Commercial facilities include those with at least one
commercially available technology. See text for further details. ,
------- |