,
(
I
I
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of .
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROD/ROS-90/119
December 1989
(j)
I
~~ - E P A
I tr '
I ' :: . "', .'
I ,', I,
". . .;. /
. ~.
Superfund
Record of 'Decision:
. ,
. ..
: '..,'1 . t~ .
. ,','J ..:~~' '..' . ..~'. ..' .
!'. "'. ~.. "I
JanesvilieAsh Beds, WI
R g\on ,"
U. s. E. P .~. eutce Centet
\n1o{\'Oat\on ReSO
I .
I
I
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philod~lphlo, PA 19107
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphi~, PA 19107
"
"'\
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO. , 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-90/119
3. Rec:ipienfa AcC8Mion No.
4. Tille and Subtille
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Janesville Ash Beds, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(a)
S. Report Da..
12/29/89
&.
8. Pltrforming Organization Rept. No.
II. Pltrformlng Orgainlzation "'1118 and Add....
-.
10. !'tojee1lT..kiWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C)
-------
EPA/ROD/ROS-90/119
Janesville Ash Beds, WI
16.
Abstract (Continued)
refuse dump, accepting unknown types of waste. This site does not significantly
contaminate the JDF area. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water and air are VOCs including benzene, PCE, and TCE; and metals including arsenic.
Remedial activities at the JDF site will be implemented at three of the sites and
include upgrading the landfill cap, and providing site drainage as needed, at the JAB
site; treating the landfill gas by extraction and flaring, upgrading the landfill cap,
and air monitoring at the Old Landfill site; and treating the landfill gas by .
extraction and flaring, upgrading the landfill cap, improving the leachate collection
system, and air monitoring at the New Landfill site. No further action will be
implemented at the Janesville Old Dump site. Overall, contaminated ground water at the
JDF site will be pumped and treated onsite by air stripping, with discharge to Rock
River, in conjunction with ground water monitoring. Ground water and land use and
deed restrict.ions will be implemented at each site. The estimated present worth cost
for this remedial action is $12,328,000, which includes an annual O&M cost ranging
from $163,600 to $408,100.
-------
~ OF m-ISI(:tf
~~ RD4EDIAL ~
site Names am I.ocati.as:
" I
J'anesville Ashbeds (JAB)
J'anesville Old Ian:ifill ("1978")
J'anesville Old Dmp ("1963")
J'anesville New Ian:ifill ("1985")
(Collectively refen-ed to as the J'anesville Di~ Facility (J'DF),
located in J'anesville, Wi.scx:I1sin)
Statement of ~c::is am FUIpose:
'lhi.s decisicn doo~ presents the selected ~; ::.1 acticn for tl1e
J'anesville Ashbeds am the J'anesville Old Ian:ifill Sites {both sites are on
the National Priorities List (NPL), am the nitorin;J of the ~ter am air.
-------
. -.. - ---- .-
Janesville New Lan:ifill or "1985" site: ~/lan:1 use x~L...i.ctia1S,
reJ:XNery ard treatment of lardfill gas 'aj means of extract.ioo ard fl.arirq
(the "1985" systEa shalld be u...a1l)eCted to the system ,installed at the
"1978" site, it the mPs do rot test cut of the system at the "1978" site,
ard batll shcW.d be able to be possibly up;raded, to an energy CX'I'1YerSia1
system) p the ~ of the cap to meet the stardards set by WAC NR
504.07 (the FRPs were able to shai that the WAC NR 504.07 cap, alaq with
the repiW:s/~ement:s to the leachate ccUectia1 system ard the
inst.al1Altia1 of the lan:lfUl gas extractia1 and treatJDent syst:.e=, will
meet or E!)CCeEId the perfoman::e standards of ~ SUbtitle C/WAC NR 181.44
(13) ), ard the oc:nt.inJed m::nitorin; of the ~ter and air, alag with
the ~ of the leachate ccUectia1 system. 'J1)e cap of the "1985"
site shall be tied into the cap of the "1978" site.
Ja.nesville Old D.mp or "1963" site: 'n1e no acticn alternative was
c:hosen for this portlcn of the JDF, but ~/lan1 use restrictias (tied
in with the restrictioos selected for the JAB site) and ~ter
Daritorin; will need to be oc:nt.inJed, alaq with the ather sites within
JDF.
Overall JDF grcurrlwater ocxrt:aminaticn: Grc::un:twater use ,rE=:ot. ictia1S
for the entire JDF area an:1 the extractia1 and a1-Site treab:Dent of the
grourdwater with the extractic:i1 wells placed bebJeen the JDF aid the Rtx:k
River. 'Ibe grcurrlwater will need to be extracted and treated, as laq as
the grounjwater dam;radient of Jti' CCI'It:aim c:x:rrt:am.inan that exceed the
WAC NR 140 standards. '!he grcurrlwat.er extractia1 and treab:Dent system may
be o:IIJbined with the system that m.y be ~lemented by Parl
-------
=~s~:sa..::) :';:5-:
-
:~ae"'~=8
:E': ~..,. : ;ac;
~2:S~;::'"
:;).22
~
. State Or Wisconsin
\ CEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOU~~ ......,.
~..,.,
.... Inf
",~ wr...,.... 10170,.
, )
DEC t 7 1989
F i 18 Code: 4430
Hr. Valdus Ada~kus, Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn Stre.t
Chicago, Illinois 60604
SUBJECT:
Seltcted Sup.rfund Remedy
Jantsv1l1. Disposal Facility
Jan.sv1ll., Wisconsin
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
Th. Department is providing you with this letter to document our position on
the proposed final remedy for the Jlnesvil1e Disposal Facility (JOF). The
proposal a$ identified in the draft Rlcord of D.c1510n includes the following:
1985 S~ A landfill gas and flaring system,
upgrading the cap to HR 500 standards, and
repairing and/or improving the leachate collection 5Y$t.8.
Est 1laated Costs
Construction. S2,949,000
Operation and Maintenance. $39,500 to S142,000
30 Vear Pres.nt Net Worth. $4,521,000
A landfill gas and f1aring systera (or to test out of the need to
install the landfill 9as system) and .
upgrading the cap to HR 500 standards,
1978 S1te
Estimated Costs
Construction - S3,993,OOO
Operation and Maintenance. S52,500 to S135,000
30 Year Present Het Worth. S5,331.000
No action other than groundwater extraction (see ~)
and continued monitoring.
illU!1J
Est.imated Costs
Monitoring Costs (not quantified)
-------
=~:~:s:~:: -~=-=
::;a2-:-~==
--=,""" -- ---
..-- ~--:' ~ -==-=
~ 3~c,-
= -.-
.(,..;:
2.
Mr. Adamkus
JAa
Cap Maint.nance
Est.imated Costs
Construction. $75,000
Operation and Maintenance - S14,100
30-Year Present Het Worth - S 292,000
Est imaUd Costs
Ground water extraction and treatmtnt to address the
contaminated ground water.
Construction - $504,000
Operation and Maintenance - S57,000 to S117,OOO
30-Year Present Het Worth. S2,184,000
ill G ro.u.~.J. a t e..r
The tot&l 30-year present net worth for tht JDF remedial action is
approximately 512,000,000. Wt understand that if the potential'y responsible
parties do not agree to fund the remedy, the Stat. of Wisconsin wi"
contribute 50' of the remed,al action costs associated with the Janesvil'e
National Priority List (NPL) sites.
We &}~ understand that our staff will continue to work in c'ose consu1tation
~1th your staff during the pre-design, design, and construction phases of thiS
project.
Thank you for your support and cooperation in addressing the conttmination
problem at JCF. If you have any Questions regarding this matter, p1ease
contact Hr. Paul Didier. DIrector of the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, at (608) 266.1327.
Sincere1y,
C.O~~
C. D. BeSad~YI sec~eta~
COB:MT}j
cc:
Lyman Wib1e . AC/S
L;nda Wymore. LC/5
Paul Didier - SW/3
Mark Giesfeldt/Sue Bangert. SW/3
Joe Brusca/Mike Schmo11er . 500
Dan COZZi - [PA, Regton V
-------
,
t
\
I
j
,
.
ACRONYH LIST FOR JAN~SVILLE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
JANESVILLE. WISCONSIN
AR
ARAR
CERCLA
COJ
FS
JDT
PPC
RI
RI/TS
RCRA
ROD
USEPA
VOC
fiDNR
.,
I.
I
I
Adminl$Cr~ClV~ R~cord
Appllcabl~ or R~l~v.nt and Appropriat~ Standards
Compr~h~n$lV~ Environ~ental R~$pon$~.
Comp~nsatlon. and LiabilIcy Act ot 1980
Cicy of J~n~$vill~
F~a$lbl1ity Study
Jan~svlll~ Disposal Faciliti~s
Park~r P~n Company
R~m~di~l Investigation
R~m~di~l I"veseigaeion/re~sibility Study
Resource Conservation and Recovery Ace
Record ot D~cision
Un'iced sc~c~s EI1VlrOnmenc~l Protection Agency
Voldcil~ Organic Compounds
If 1 SClJnSl n D~p.' r cmell cot Na cural R~sources
.
-------
~ OF RfMEDIAL ~ SF.I"Frl'IQ{
.wmsvruE ~~-tHl':1:B ('UN!J")
.wmsvruE OID INU'IIL (.1978.)
~ OW ~ (.l963.)
~ !IDol IANLFII.L (.~)
a::MB.rnED 'ID RR'4 'mE ~ DISIQ;AL ~
I..OCATED IN~, wrscx::tEDI
~ 1989
(.JrF")
,;'
-------
I.
II.
III.
IV.
v.
VI.
. VII.
VIII.
IX.
x.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
'!:ABLE OF ~
Page
SI'rE I.J::X::A.1'IOO mD ~OO ...................
................
1
SI'rE HISItRi, ~ ~ AND
SITE SIUDIES
A. site HistoIy
B.
c.
3
4
4
.4
... ........... ...... .... .........................
......... ... ..........!t.................
E::r1f'or~ .........................................
site Sttrlies
..... ...................... ... ..........
a:JwMJNIT'{ REIATICNS
. ....... ..... ... ......... ....................
6
5a:>PE MID roLE OF 'mE RESfQ5E ACI'IOO
6
.... ............ ...........
StM1ARY OF C1JRlIDll' SITE OJNDITICNS mD SI'rE RISKS
7
...............
FFASIBILIT'i S'IUD'i:
DESaUPrIOO OF REMEDIAL ~
...... ...................
10
froI=a:)ED PlAN
....... ........ ............................... .....
13
IXX1.JMD'1TATIOO OF SIGNIFICANI' ~ '10 'mE IroI=a:)ED 'PlAN
14
.......
~ OF a:MPARATIVE MW..,YSIS OF ~
15
.................
'mE SEUX:TED REMED'i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,- . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
a:JwMJNIT'{ ACCEPI'ANCE
............ ..... ... ........................
24
STATE ACCEPI'ANCE
.............. ...... ... ............... ...... ....
24
STA'IUfORY OETERMINATICNS
....... .................. ....... .... ....
24
~
................................. ....... ... ...... ........
28
A'ITAaiMENffi :
RESro-JsIVDID3S ~Y
1.
2.
U::l'l1:J< FR:M 'mE WI:NR '10 'lliE U.S.
EPA ~TED DEX:EMBffi
1989
-------
/
~ OF ~ ~ ~Fr!I'Iaf
~ ~ (.ThB)
~ OID u..NIFIIL (81978.)
~ am IXMP (.1963.)
~ NDl u..NIFIIL (.1985.)
D) alorq with tYJO
non~ sites, the J'anesville Old DIrtp (the "1963 site", closed in 1963) an:!
the Janesville New Lardfil1 (the "1985 site" I closed in 1985). Tcgether I
these fa.lr sites CClT{>rise the Janesville Disposal Facility ("JDF"). 'I11e JDF
is lcqited in the north west corner of Janesville, wisconsin (see Figure 1)
an:! occupies a total of awroximately 65 acres sooth of Black Bridge Read
ard east of the OUcago-Milwaukee Railroad. '!he PDck River is located
approximately 1200 feet to the west of JDF. '!he Janesville o.n-rently
~ratirg Iarrlf ill is located llmc:liately north of JDF was rot adiressed in
the JDF sb.rly ard is not a&:lressed in this roo. Irrlividual site locations
(seE! Figure 2) arrl descriptions are as fqllo.o.'S:
A) The Janesville Old Dump site ("1963 site") operated fram 1950 until
1963, occupies approxiInate1y 15 acres arrl is located at the westen1 portion
of the JDF. The "1963" site operated as general refuse durtp acceptin;
unkI)C1.tffi types of wastes. '!be "1963" site was an abardoned sarrl arrl gravel
pit. '!he Janesville Ashbeds are located atop the northwest comer of the
"1963" site ard a recyclin; firm row occupies the northeast portion of the
site. '!he "1963" site is not on the NFL, b.Jt is included in this R:)D
because of its proximity to the JAB arrl l:Ecause it is a solid waste
mmagement unit urrler the CaTprehensive Envi.ranIrental Response,
CoITpenSation, and Liabil i ty Act of 1980, as an-errled (CERCIA) jResoUrCe
Conservation and Fs?a:Nery h:t (RCRA) Q)nsent Order. The Rerocrlial
Investigation (Rr) has sha,.m that the "1963" site nay be contribltirq to the
groW"rlwater contamination ~dient of the JDF.
B) '!he Janesville Old Larrlfill ,( "1978 site") operated fran 1963
until 1978, occupies awroximately 18 acres ard is located in the' a?.I'\tral'
portion of the JDF. 'I11e "1978" site accepted both nunicipal ard Wustrial
wastes, includirq dried sludges fran the Janesville Ashbeds ard was licensed
'ai the wisconsin Depa.rt:ment of Natural ResourCeS (WLNR). '!he "1978" site
was an abardoned sarx3 and gravel pit. '!he "1978" site does oot have aITj
bot:tau or ~ide liners, 1::ut was capped with variable soils, inc:ltrlin; silty
sarrl, sarrly clay, 'arrl sarrl and gravel, at the time of its closure' in 1978.
'!he "1978" site was listed on the NFL on Sep~ 21, 1984 after it was
m that the groordwater aro..url the site was contaminated with inOrganic
organic ~. .
-------
t
.
.
,
.
-
.
~
.
.
~
Ei .... t:::"::
:E~;'''.~=
--.-
--..--... -
..-....-.... ....
..-..--
-....--.-.
....---..
.-.-
---
---
----..
------.....
, ¥ik~~l~~;
ftfJurc I
c
.
&
.
:
1
.
.
:
01 MOL "10"
WAI., 1I11'OIAl
III(
~
"ANtlwaU CU'''''..n, O,.(nAIIHQ ,A,."U.
.
.
""II.rl".U
AI" 8.01
11"-.
:
r
=.
.
i
(~)
lEGEND
.
.
.
-
.
j
..
"AI- "A~ lit a U AI" 1101 -i:1..ctA a ltC"A
..n- "AHtS"..U OLD OUIM' III.
.".. """(s"aU OlO lAHO,al-CrltClA
""-"AH(lwlur Nt" lAHP'IU'''C''~
~ IU'UIfUIIO UUO' 1'''14
JAtf[SVllLE SITES
SUPFnFUUO STUDY AnEA
.~
-------
Fi.,gu re
2
...~~'
.. .,.
- ...... .
/. ,
-/
--
-
,/_'
\..'i../' .:.
.7 .-
.-
~
I
I
I
. ,
.
1- - ---_.::-~.
- ,
=::GIONAL
o 2000
~iiJi
SCALE IN FEET
iOPOGRAPHY
4000
I
h,~AP
~
north
;~
!~HC~ "JoRI, .~:~~:()!I ANt N\..etR
WISCONSIN
:....-:='" 1;'\
---' '-..,.I
:.7ES
I
I
S;T[ LOCATION ~P CEV[."AEC rROM THE 7 I/Z MINUTE
u.S.C.S OUACRANG"[ ~AS. JAHESV!llE WES~ , J4NEsvllLE EAST.
WIS:OHSIN. DATEC 196:. PHOTCREvIS£O 1971 A~~ 1976.
tErti TO STANo.le U.S.~... :CPOCRAPM(C KiP STH80LS.
*
t(rtl TO CRAWIHG IJC9i.68 rea ACC!:IONAl LOCATION
1 "rORI\AT ION rOR 1"01 VlOuAi. rAt IL 111 tS.
SITE LOCATION MAP
~
north
-
WARZYN
--..
0>-- 5c.
()Jo.. 9 ~
1__- A~5
... (E LOCATION MAP
R(~(CI~l IHvESTlr~TION AND
r(~Slnll:'T STUCT
JAI.(SVlllE DISPOSAL rt.CILITIES
AnAT or SECTION Z~ AHO Z5. T)H, AIZE
c;~. or JANESVILLE. ROCK COUNTT, WI
"''''''~'-.c. 8C
-.-
-~'c...-
-
-..
- ~ s/iQ
-, -_.~- ---.-
-------
2
C) '!he Janesville New Lardfill ("1985 site") q:erated fran 1978 until
1985, <:x:'a.1pies awrox.i:!M.te1y 16 acres. an:! is located en the eastern side of
the JtF. '!he "1985" site acx:epted D..D1icipal am ird.1strial ..astes irc1u::li.n;
dried slu:iJes trau the Janesville Ashbeds an:1 was licerned to accept solid
wastes by the wr:rffi. '!he "1985" site is not en the NPL, bIt is inclOOerl in
this roD because of its proximity to the "1978" site arrl because it is a
~ regulated unit urrler the ~ Consent Order. '!he "1985" site is
regulated urrler the ferleral Resoorce Q)nsezvatien arrl F£:t:xNery Act (RCRA) as
a facility that clcsed urder interim status. '!he "1985" site is located in
an extension of the same abarrlonerl sard arrl gravel pit as is the "1978"
site. '!he "1985" site has clay liners arrl sidirq arrl was ~ with clay
'When it clcsed in 1985. '!1)e site also has a leachate collection system.
'!he "1985" site has had a history of poor cap maintenance and high levels of
gas erni.ssic:ns. '!he RI has sho.m that the "1985" site may be ca1tribrt:inq
to the gro..Jrrlwater contamination at the JrF, is cx:ntriJ:utirq to the
contaminaticn of the air araJrd the JDF, arrl has exoE'$-sively high leachate
head levels within the leachate collecticn wells.
D) '!1)e Janesville Ashbeds or "~", operated' fran 1974 to 1985 and are
located on tcp of the nortlrwest coz:ner of the "1963" site. JAB consisted of
five (5) ashbeds in \oJhidl irdustria1 liquids a.ra sl~ were depa;ited arrl .
allowed to evapOrate or dry. '!he resultant dried slLrlge was then disposed
of in the "1978" site, arrl upon its closure, the dried sltrlge was di.sI:csed
of in the "1985" site. '!he wr:rffi issued a plan awrcwa.l for the JAB in 1974
ard it was I iccnsed to accept haza.rda1s wastes by the wr:tm in 1983. '!he
si te has been ~ regulated since Novent:er 1980. '!1)e JAB site' was listed
on the NFL on Sept.ezrber 21, 1984 after it was shown that the grc::urdwater
arourrl the site was contaminated with inorganic arrl organic carp:U'rls.
8eginnirq in 1983, p:>rtia1S of the JAB were clcsed, with the whole site
closi.n:J in 1985. Closure of the JAB consisted of excavati.n:J m:st of the
contaminated soils, backfill1rq, ard cawi.n:J with clay. Presently, an
abarrloned ash pile rarains on site..
'Ihe Rock River (see Figures 1 ani 2) is the prilrary surface water bcrly in
the JDF area, flowirq fran oorth to sooth in the vicinity of JDF. '!he Rock
River is considered an effluent stream with gro..Jrrlwater di.scharge SUWlyirq
base fla.o/ corditia1S. Other water bodies located near the JDF are the
excavations created by the sam am gravel minirq. cne pard is located
iIrore::liate.ly sootb of the "1978" am "1985" sites. 'Ihese excavation };X)rds
are. thought to be in cli.rect contact with the grc::urdwater.
'Ihe JDF area is Ul"rlerlain by sarrl ani gravel c:cl:wash deposits arrl
grc::urdwater is present urrler water table corrliticns. .'!he thickness of the
sarrl arrl gravel depcsi ts varies from approxilrately 80 to 350 feet .in the
ime:Uate vicinity of the JDF. '!he depth to grc::urdwater varies with
t.oJ;.o;rar:hic elevation, bJt generally is 80 to 100 feet belew gt"OlU'd surface
in the uplarrl areas arrl within 10 feet in the low lyirq flcxxi plain areas
directly adjacent to the river. . 'D1e grourrlwater discharges into the Rock
River. Gro..1rrlwater flew direction in the JDF is toward the sa.rt:hwest:
to..Jard the Rock River. 'lbere are no m.micipal S\Wly wells in the imnediate
proximity of the JDF am no private wells exist in the line of the plume
"
/
,)
-------
3
bet\o.een the JDF and the PD::k River. '!he closest ~ent private well
is a high cap3Ci ty well Q'X)e used for irdustrial ~ at the Parker Pen
0::rTpany, b.1t presently Parker Pen rnrpany is
-------
4
'!be clay CCNer was graded, slq:m, and CCNered with 6 in:hes of tq:J soil and
~. Final Facility Closure ~tation At;pI"'OYal. was received frc:m the
wr:NR on Noveri:er 10, 1986 and the City of Janesville resp::8ded to the
cx::n::liticns in the closure awI"'OYal. letter on ~r 9, 1986.
B. Enforcement
Prelimi.naIy assessrents, site inspectioo reports and Hazard Rank.in; system
("HRS") scorirg packages, all corrlucted in 1983, for the .JAB and the "1978"
sites irdicated that there exists actual or potential for releases of
hazardalS substances into the erwi.roraTent which may pose a risk to htmans
arrl/or the envi.roraTent. 'n1e sites' liPS scores \oIIe.I"e high en:u;h (arove the
28.5 cut off) so that both sites were included an the NFL in Sept.e!IDer .
1983.
Notice letters informirq 24 potentially resp:-.nsible puties ("mPs")
(inclu:lirq the sites' cwoer/~tor, waste generators and transporters) of
their potential CERCIA liability for the JAB and "1978" sites, and offerirg
them the q:p:>rtunity to perfonn the Remedi.al InvestigatiCl'1jFeasibility St1x!y
("RI/FS"), \oIIe.I..emailedviacertifiedmailonNovem::er27.1985.D..1rirg the
cc:urse of the RIfFS negotiations, it was agreed by all parties to cx:rrCine
the fO-lI' sites that cx:mprise JDF into a sin::Jle RIfFS urrler the joint
authority of CERCIA and RCRA. '!he U.S. EPA, WI:NR and 15 mPs signed a
Consent Order \..1I'rler the joint authority of CERCIA and RrnA in the fall of
1986, with the effective date of Dece1rber 8, 1986. 'Ihe O::nsent Order sets
forth the agreer.ent that the mPs will corrluct an RIfFS at the JDF urder the
direct guidance of the u.s. EPA and the WI:NR. '!he PRPs hired Warzyn
Eng ineerirg, me. to oorrluct the RI/FS.
Negotiations for the remedial desigrVremedial action (RDfRA) with the PRPs
will proceed acx::orci.irq to u. S. EPA general guidances and policies. 'Ihe
participmts in the negotiations will likely i.ncltrle the PRPs, wr:tm and
CERCIA and RrnA offices of u.s. EPA. .
C.
Site Stlxties
'!he JDF area has been the subject of rrany irdeperdent studies to detennine
specifics for each of the irrlividual sites. Sare of these stu:ties/rep:>rts
deal with the :Ra'A requirerrents of the .JAB and the "1985" site. The past
studies/I"efOrts can be foorrl within the Administrative Record as referenced
in the Administrative Recoro Irrlex attad1ed to this ROD. '!he RI Report,
the FS Ret;ort and the Preliminary Health Assessments for JAB and the "1978"
sites are also incltrled in the h:bnini.strative Record and their results are
summarized in this roo as follQWS:
1.
Preliminary Health Assessments for JAB and "1978" sites:
Preliminary Health Assessments for JAB and the "1978" site TNere corrlucted by
t))e Wisconsin Division of Health am prepared for the }qercy for Toxic
SUbstance and Disease Registry (ATSm) as per Section 104 (i) (7) (A) of
CERlCA. 'Ihe I"ep)rts are dated April 14, 1989, bJt utilized data gathered
only through the. first t'O..lrd of the RI. '!he Health Assessments' conclusions
-------
5
anj reccr.':7e.rda ticn; state that CXI1taminated grc:u-rlwater is the 1M in aJrCern
at this time, ard ~aa::rds that the residential wells located to the
oortl"r,..Jest of JDF be tested. 'Ib! Ass./?s.~ also I'€J::) ml~ dad that more 'WOrk
be done to evaluate the potential of air CXI1tamination arrl that DOre
information be obta irej regard..irq the II1D'1icipal wells. M:6t, if mt all, of
AT$CR's ~ were aci:lressed in subsequent RI ~, iocl~ the
sanpling of the residential wells located to the ~ of JDF. '!he
heal th a.ssesslrellt also reo:mnerded that air sa:rrples for volatile organics be
cx:rducted in residences that lie CNer the oaltaminated CJI"O.lTrlwater plUIOO.
'this saII'plirq needs to be corrlucted before. or duri.n;J the design of the
CJI"O.lTrlwater reJrO:liation. .
2. Rem?dial Investigation (RI) Report
'!he RI field ~rk began in SepteIrher, 1987 arrl was carpleted in March, 1989.
'!he RI at the JDF consisted of the installation of gro.m::]water m:nitorirg
wells, leachate headwells aOO gas prc:tes to be cx:II'bined with the existing
wells an::! probes to enable extensive sanpling of the lead1ate, CJI"O.lTrlwater
ard gas at ard arc:un:l the JDF. SUrface water ard secllinents fran the p:n::i
located i.mnediately sooth of the "1978" aOO "1985" site were sanpled as well
as surface water ard sediments fran the Rock River. '!he RI Report, with an
~errrent Assessment ("FA") inchrled, was carpleted a1 July 20, 1989.
'!he RI Report as well as the RI ~rk plan ard Q..1al i ty Assurarce Proj act
Plan, are part of the Administ.rative Record.
The RI consisted of five rourrls of sarcplirg with the follavi.n;J media an::!
pararrete.rs involved: (SanFle locations are labeled in Figure 3>' .
Ra.1rd I - SaIrpled select CJI"O.lTrlwater IIOnitorirg wells (14) ard leachate
wells (7) for the full scan of Target Carp:J.lrrl List parameters ani
irrlicator para.neters to determine if parameters cx:uld be deleted fran future
ra..trds of sampl i.rq. RCRa. ~ IX pararooters were also saII'pled for
durin;; Rcurd 1. (~1-5, 1987)
Rourrl II - 44 CJI"O.lTrlwa ter m:>ni tori.n;J wells am 10 surface water locations
within the Rock River am the Porrl salth of the 1985 ani 1978 sites were
sarrpled for Volatile Organic ~ (VOCs), Semi.-volatiles, n-etals,
cyanide ard irdicator pararreters. (April 18-21, 1988)
Rourrl III - 44 gro.m::]water IOC>ni torirg wells ard 10 surface water ard six
sedi.Jrent locations within the Rock River an::! the farl saJth of the 1985 arrl
1978 sites were sa:rrpled for VOCs, metals, cyanide an::! irrlicator parameters.
(July 1.1-15, 1988)
Ra.1rd IV - first IU..1rd of air sanplin;; for VOCS. am partio.1lat.es fran
leachat.e wells, gas vents, sewer blCJoJer ard the aIrbient air. (September 26
ani 27, 1988). .
Roorrl V - secorrl ro..Jrrl.of air saroplirg. for VOCS an::! partio.1lat.es fran
leachate wells, gas vents, sewer blower am the aIrbient air. (~8
ani 9, 1988) .
-------
.)
, i\ : Ij, ,
:-.~&\:~ ~ -I,': ;,
'.'~' : ..
~", \:1 ..i J\' .
, ',~'-' ' , 5: '1~\05'"
,::' '"'::'\ ~~'9,"'91, -.- ,~ 'r"'''\~r~!' 5-,,-l.' ,
,: .: , . , '.. -".c:' ~ " .., ' ~ JAj! . ""..
\ 1\' ", " .' ~'213 'cB JAB ' \,/2t..."
'8\0 ON t .," ': ' ~JAiI . ...
\\,,';;. : ~'~'~'I~,"":9f' \,\~~\~: " l~ 1':/.\7 ,
... ~~.. ~ .. . .. . \ ~;a~ ',....,...J ... ,'.. ,
i\ ,', }-;",''''bA,'''~8 .:.:',':\' '" ---:;-";..,, : ,/1,'4Al
(.",', S-; "qf
'~V~~"':~-:'~' '.\,~ .", .. / '~' ,\ '
SGI r":", " " ..,... ~, L.,..:: ~ " 8 JII , '
':' .,~ \, j' ;"'20\,/"A ',' \ ,=-:; ~ , ...,
-:.., " '..1 ',i.. ,c" AI. AfI~"~XIMATE,' GPI9"\
to . ..~ '. or ,., .'. ~..., C,) Loe" 0",' . .~"
'~7 OOON", ,~ -. .': .. "-'0; T'c S~"'L: ~~~~~'f ~-----
:'\!;'~J~'lN~ ~~10 70\1,7A./}4 r's-.::rl ' ':, ", $I.'za
: L~~I\T(D"" ",,:5; ~ '~!U'I~~1f J, ,,-,-'
.,:",.P.IJJtI~&t~y :'" "\A'" ',;;".--.,.
. ):,::~' SLJUTJi 6 st!I.!IiI' "t " . ' -.-
. :~tJr _I!OCA.!:It1N , ' \1.17,",1710 L CII CD ...,/'
, , ' S"Ci'~'N ,.., ,,1 '.. . .... APPltOX/1I,1. T( ., 100 .
, ' ;":' ,,', 'soutl:L.O£' LO f.f
..~~; "" SHp""" , ".. ;,;; ..,: ,
"" ,I' ,'" <='
, . £. : '. 0
, "":!'W ' I ~
" +' ~~,,~~7~:~ii. :. ,?'
...........
LEGEND
-.70----
x 10: )
o
--
C,'
~ :.....-...
'---- -'"
----
----
~----
---
"" 1('1
S\l1
SOl .
SG. 1-
G\l1 9
1.."'.
,,.,~
,,--'4 ~
JAI I~
,\I'],I/IoIl.
\."~8
u
"
!
'~!~.. -,--.-r,
\~'.."f
I '
\,i, '.' ::
.,.., ,
~ ,\, \: ;'
;.J\ '
~' *~.
\t " ,,', .
. , -'.""
"
, ~
Figure 3
NOTES
;, '')1 i'~ r.D(')uMu (,..,.10,,1:
'"I 'O'~""IC I~[ -~t IS . ()OI'~I'( 0' A(IIAl \U",{'\, reJ"O[C I'
11'[ (lit or J.\I!(SV"ll. ,.( UIA II(S1 or Tol SI)() uoi ';':~IO'..
N('tC:t.. (\r Ilottl O'I~( COI-: '''0 WeST f't( IU(
('''(loGO "'0 '()IIT...(\!(", U'llo.O It AIfT1" .,) r(""..(~
tit ~h HU.~ 1(IUl ~l.it';t'. hltm(AP()lI\. 1II1"t4(srl::.. r..I"~'.
,"\ 'o( 1(""11'0' U(L ..S ~~r{)lllO(O IT &110,"""':
'-"IIt(III', 110(. \00(10'-, "'S(OOI"", ,,-' ..,t.'"
tOO'O'JI ,IT(".l .1 'f(IJ(CT MfA . l rt, t('lolooC\ &:( '("CPo({.
10 101 tl" or JAII(\'lllI OA'''', TO COOV(II ,~ " \ (, \ 0"'"
1.00 6:(,SI 'HI 10 tl" OA''''.
I I . '); ".(, ~rOI (l (.../1 ~ 10".
;';" I"~ "Jar,"',\
, '.~ c.r ";.;('
. :'(S I.IoiJ ~H'ua')
'.l j 1. r<'\.(
:.: . .:~:.~ 11;,1.(1
(~:.~ rr GUW(l rp
_1100'''' tOOIlOl. IS "ISCOIISII STAT( ~AIO( COO"O'o"( ,..e
S'I'I" To( (,110 "'S lOCATtO 1.\t0 Q111.rQIIW,I!()tl '1"'10:.0
I' '''1 lOCI C~I" SUlYI'OII,
'101'11" UI( IOC""!'i "IS ~10(0 I' TtI' (II. or ;"(S.lll(
'110 IS ""11011",,1( II "'lUll:.
: -;~ C'~.r.u,"IAV(L I.).'.~..:C;'I~
;~r;OII"""( JAIf(SWILL( Ol~rv.~:'. ''::H."'
. ,:,'.~.
£'''011'''1( ,lAIBrlll! "0'(':' ll~t::
"':'"081'" II(l\ lOCU'OO UI~ o.,O..-!(C
TOI'OC:U",IC '1'1110011'_1100 II "'(AS or '198!' !11! UlU ';00'
WAS '10'10(0 IT tIT' or _SWlU(, l.utO !'i tlOSl"( "la.,
oocuotOT\
loroc.a-IC l"OIIIIATIOO taI1SIor flit SIUD' M(., '0::" or Il""
I"DC.( IIOAO. ItsUl"'" r- 1M( CIIT f1I J"'(\>llU l~'~' al
"'""'ltS AIIO ;AII(UILLI SMO MO SUYll (lth&lIOO. dS oOT
IUI _ltltO,' '
.
Il.r't( ""'(11-'1'" lOC&TI(I; ----
'(AS"I~I" SflDl --.,..-
.q~ ,IAIo(SWI~~( OISI'OSAI. '''II1TI(', &~L.HI~ ""~ ~ -
a:J "It f1I S(CIIOII Z8 MO n. nl, IIn
(,Q Cln f1I ,IAIoUYluL lOCI C~I1, "I,
-.. --".:J1.. c--- A'!5
4 , -
-- {JJ... ~ ~ - 'ir lr~ I
/ V
\. ' \
. .- I "'I~R>.,:
- .. --.-- .-
. - ,- -
'.. -
,_.
"-\ -t \DCAT'OO AIIO _II
SO II 8011... 1 OCA "'" AIIO ---(I
-
II
.,..l(nT 'II SMP\I'" \DCATIOO AltO -(I,
Il1O] (uP.IIIIII 0Vl (_1110)
IIIC",,1[ IWIIQ,[ " 0,"'0 Sit(
..
'"
""
..
..
..
on
...
~
, ..
"f
f,t
, "
r.
',J ":
-'
. .........-.... -
1\'
:"
..,' . i
,I,
.!
----r
c-
,
".t:
, .
5
- -.. ,; ," /,,,1,
, ':1,:'
f "'II
.i1..', ,/"
,~ ,
: 'j'"
.. . .' 'Y." ~,. : ~ . '.
"j ,. .
00 , "I "
, .-. . .
I:' -:: ,. . .
. '4>:~-'" ,.
'r .. ,..-
"'-. ""
,
./
.
,.':
.:-- .
.'" ~.
, II
~
,:L-.::,
1,-: ..
. ;'f:""
I .
-,
".,."
-.
"
. '. ,;
'. "
, , , WIZoJl
',-&": "
i '
St.BI'"
, "','
~;a'$!
..
.'.."
" -"'
\,/
I
, Cln 0' JAN£SVILLE I
( .: CUAIIEIIT ~AlU.1u. :: ,:
:/:.;,~~,"~o' ,-' . ,,; .,; L:(ip,O
,,0" ."6." "'-'(0.\,/,(0& .""'5.\'/,5 \,/ \'/'I~ . " ;&"
.( ~--- ":& ~, I
. .;::-~' .. " . Z~. . L2.1.I. .:-~!='Jj " -~-:-; - S ---':: i
.rzo-ff -~-.: ,_-._~_.~--::;;:-.:M-- ~....-~----_':-'--'
~/i'. D\,/4 ' "i'. (iVI c;V2 (i\lJ ~V~ '~._vl>!~I7J,5C?9 "'C?9A' :
. ~' \. IQ BV.I . ~. ~ '
I' -5 . .:, ~"".'. ..::; .....
.,1, n"" :ff>- LI'IC' ,", " , :,... '
I!l7U'
SIYF.
~LH7
~TP,
~L.!'6 ,
d';o; ~PC? IN
,.
81.H'1185
::..----' S \,,/ 1
... ...-.
':" J,..3&"--'" -5 .
I '''-'-'-'' .., ,
1 . S\,/2°'
St.-4.- S\o'J SDl
If . Sc;Z . "
A S\,/~
ieSD~
I
l.s\,/6
"
.~--------,--
"
-----------
~
c
c
c
.. .
,\
~
north
~
<
<
o
o
.;. "
~ 0 400 800 ,
:~
~ SCAI.E IN F!OET ,
...
.....
-------
6
Six residential dri.nki.rq water \oo1e.lls, located to the oorthwest of the JDF,
were sanpled for ~ cnly by the U.S. EPA a1 March 27, 1989. 'Ihe p.1rpose
of these saIIples '-IaS to screen the residential 'Wells to determine if the
ccnclu:;icns fran the draft RI were oorrect, ard to determine if mre
investigatioo may be wa.rranted. No ~ were deta::ted in these wells that
ca1ld be at:t.rihIt.ed to the JDF, b.It the residential area shall CXI1tinue to
be 1ICf'litored.
3. Feasibility St1.rly (FS) ~
'llie FS Report was su1::mi tted in draft form by the Resporrlents to the U. S. EPA
on August 7, 1989. O::mrents were trade by the U. S. EPA ard the waffi am the
Re{:ort was released for p..1b1 ic a::mIent an August 21, 1989.
I II. p:»uNITI RElATICNS
An RIfFS p.1blic meet~ was held an August 13, 1987 to inform the local
residents of the SUpe.rfurd process ard about the ~rk to be cx:n:hx:ted urrler
the RI. Many of the issIleS raiSEd by the cx:mrunity involved the a.trrent.ly
c:::peI'C!t,irg lard.fill oorth of Black Bridge Road, general health related tq:>ics
ard ooncen'1 about crlors caused by o.1ITel1t am past larrlfill activities.
Two infornatioo I"'ep:)Sitories have been established: at the Janesville
Public Librazy, 316 5oJt.h Ma in Street, Janesville, WiscxJnsin ard at the
Janesville Municipal 9.Jildin3', 18 North Jackson Street, Janesvi+le,
Wisc:x:nsin. Aa::orciirq to Section 113 (k) (1) of CERCIA, the Mmi.ni.strative
Rea)rd has been IMde available to the p.1blic at the Janesville ~lic
Library .
A p..1blic meetirg, atterrled by nearly 40 residents, was held en May 31, 1989
to discuss the firdirgs of the RI. 'Ihe wisconsin DepartJnent of Health was
also present at the treet~ 'am disal5Sed health related issues ard the
Prel iminary Health Assessn'ent.
TIle draft FS arrl the Prq:osed Plan were available for p..1blic a:mnent fran
August 21, t:.hr'o..1gh Septelrber 15, 1989. A public meetirq was held on August
30, 1989 to present the Prq:osed Plan ard the FS RefOrt. O::mrents received
durirq the p..1blic <::x:1'!U1'eI1t pericxl ard the u.S. EPA's ~ to those
corrvrents are incllrled in the attached Responsiveness SUnInary. '!he
provisions of Sections 113(k) (2) (B) (i) - (v) arrl 117 of CERCLA have been
satisfied.
'N.
SCX:>PE AND ROlE OF 'THE RESFONSE ACITON
The SOCJI::e of this response action is to provide a final l~ue:ly to ad:lress
the cantaminatioo arrl potential contamination caused by the waste disposed ,
of in each of the JDF sites. The response action will address the principal
threats caused by the sites, such as the graJrrlwater rontamination between
the JDF arrl the Rock River arrl the air contamination at arrl near the "1978"
arrl "1985" sites. '!he final rem=dy will also include cap repair or
enhanceJrent for each of the fem- units within the JDF arrl since wastes will
remain on-site, periodic nonitoriIg will need to be maintained, as well as a
-------
7
reYiew of cx:n:li ticns after 5 years.
V. ~ OF aJRREN1' SITE cx::tIDITICNS }..NO SITE ~
'!be RI/FS Reports have adeq.Jately descril::ed the a.l.rTeI1t cCrdi ticns of the
ton- sites within the J"rZ. Contaminants detected at JDF, their
oc::n=entratiCl1S ard the affect..OO media are SlIl'!1'r'.arized in Table 1-
O:x1taminants foorrl that can be ~c;nciated vith specific 5a.lrCeS or sites am
specific media within thc:se sites are listed in Tables 2 t.hrcu;Jh 5. .
'!be RI Report ard the EA make the fo11""'inj oonclusims:
,/
* Gro.lrrl water in the area of JDF flC1w'S tc:::1wards the sa.rt:hwest an:!
di.sc:narges into the Rock River.
* 'Ihere are m residential or m..micipal dr~ water ~1s in the
direct line of ~ter flow between the JDF am the Rock River.
* '!he JAB is ccrn:ril:ut.irq to ~ter contamination ~ich ex~s the
Federal Maxinum 0::rrt.a.inIe1t Levels ("HCL&") am wisconsin Enforcement
St.arrlards. 'Ihis cxrrt:aminant plurre is headirg away frem the site toward
the sa.rt:hwest with a small cx:IIpJnel1t headirg mrt.tf..,.1est prior to tuntin;
towards the sa.rt:hwest. JAB is mt believed to be contr.ibJtinj to air
contaminatioo in the area of JDF or to the cantaminaticn of the FQ-d.
h.rt: may be cont.ri.bJtinj to the contaminatioo of the Rock River due to
local grc:urrlwater disc:narge into the River.
* '!he JAB is c.ont.ribJtinj to the groord,.;ater contami.nation of the area.
'!he 1963 site is believed to be contri.bJtirg little or m contamination
to the grc:urrlwater. '!he 1963 site is mt believed to be contri.bJtinj
to the air contaminaticn of the JDY area except for 1"", concentrations
of 1rethane emmatinj fran the s1 te.
* '!he 1978 site is cantr.ihItirg to ~ter contami.nation in the
area. Corce.ntratiCl1S of VOCs am inorganics in the groorrlwater
dc1..lrXJradient fran the 1978 site have been foorrl to exceed the State's
Enforcement St.arrlards.
* '!he 1985 site a1XVor the 1978 site are contri.bJtinj to the
contaminaticn of the ~ter as detected in the nonitorirq ~ls
located between the tW10 sites.
* Groun:twater narltorirg wells located in uwradient positions to the JDY
have sha,.m saTe o::II'rt:ami.naticn, rot this is IrOSt likely, especially in
the case of the wells nearer to the JAB, caused by ~ effects of
the groorrlwater due to the volume of wastes PJt into the sites.
* SaIrples fran the gas vents wi thin the 1978 site am the 1985 site am
of the arrbient air at the s1 tes' borders irdicate that these. sites are
ani ttin;1 VOCs am rethane into the air. Potential cancer risks due to
air quality an-site is high rot risks off-site are not knc:7.m sin:e
factors to acx::omt for a~eric di~rsioo were not incorporated
into the site's risk potential. Concentraticns foro rethane in gas
probes in am near the "1978" am "1985" s1 tes were foon:l to be in the
explosive hazard~. '!he JAB am the "1963" sites have not been
sho..rn to be ccrn:ril::utirg to the air contaminatioo in the JDF area.
* '!be 1978 site is ca1tril:ut.irq low levels of organic am inorganic
o::II'rt:ami.nation to the {XX"d's (located just sa.rt:heast of the site)
surface water and ~i~. '!he 1985 site may also be the cause of
-------
TABLE .
CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT THE JDF
Number Loca'=ions
Chemical Conc!ntration Samp 1 ed for Ana1vsis
Envi ronmenta 1 Geometric Positive
Medium Chemical Minimum Maximum Mean Total Detection
GROUNDWATER
Volatile ~ ~ ~ 42
Ch 1 oromethane 50 1
Vinyl chloride 1 15 5 7
Ch 1 oroethane 1 4 2 3
Methylene chloride 2 720 10 .7
Acetone 12 2400 73 2~
1,1-Dichloroethene 1 6 3 3
l,l-Dichloroethane 2 6 4 8
l,2-Dichloroethene 2 420 20 14
(Total)
Chloroform I 32 3 8
2-Butanone 2 8 4 -3
1,1, I-Trichloroethane 9 36 16 6
Trichloroethene 1 1300 44 16
Benzene 0.5 3 1.4 7
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 4000 45 14
Toluene 1 16 4 2
Ch 1 orobenzene 5 1
Ethylbenzene 6 1
Styrene 7 1
Xylenes (total) 6 8 7 2
Semi vo lat 11 e ~ ~ ue/L 42
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2 1
I sophorone 0.3 0.8 0.5 2
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.6 1
Diethylphthalate 0.3 3 0.5 15
Di-n-butylphthalate 0.7 1
Butylbenzylphthalate 0.4 43 3 4
bis (2-Ethylhexyl) 1 14 5 6
phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate 0.9 1
Pesticide/PC~ 14
None detected
-------
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Number Locati
Chemical Concentration Samoled for Analvsi
Environmental Geometric Positive
Medium Chemical Minimum Maximum Mean Total Detection'
-
Metal/CNb l&Lb l&Lb l&Lb 42
Arsenic 2.3 33.5 15.1 9
Sa r; um 232 529 298 6
Cadmium 5.4 7.0 6.1 3
Chrom; um (total) 5.1 . 1
Lead 5.0 13.3 7.5 11
Manganese 26 1790 206 23
SURFACE WATER
Landf; 11 Pond Volatile l&Lb ua/L ua/L 6
1,1-C;chloroethane 2 1
1,2-Dichoroethene 2 1
(total)
Tri ch 1 oroethene 1 1
Toluene 0.8 1 0.9 2
Semi volatile 6
None Detected
Pesticide/PCB
Not Analyzed
Metal/CNb l&Lb l&Lb l&Lb 6
Manganese 42 458 92 4
Rock River Volatile Mill Mill ~ 4
1,2-0ichloroethene 2 1
(tota 1)
Chloroform 1 1
Tri ch 1 oroethene 4 4 4 2
Tetrachloroethene 0.8 1
Toluene 0.8 1
Semivolatile ua/L ua/L ~ 4
Ciethylphthalate 0.3 1
-------
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Number Locations
Chemical Concentratior. Samole.: for Analvs;~
Environmental Geometric Positive
Medium Chemical Minimum Maximum Mean Total Dete-:~i~n
-
Pesticide/PCB
Not Analyzed
Metal/CNb ygL1 ygL1 ygL1 4
Mangenese 57 135 85 . 4
SEDIMENT
Landfill Pond Volatile UQ/IcQ UQ/kQ ~ 2
Acetone 61 180 105 2
2-Butanone 4 , 1
Benzene 0.9 1
Semi volatile
Not Analyzed
Pesticide/PCB
Not Analyzed
Metal/CNC 2
None Detected
Rock River Volatile uQ/kQ UQ lkQ Y.illg 4
Acetone 87 1
1,2-Dichloroethene 0.9 3 1.6 2
(total)
Ch 1 orofonn 7 1
Tr1chloroethene 5 1
Benzene 0.5 1
Tetrachloroethene 5 1
Sem1volatile
Not Analyzed
p'esticide/PCB
Not Analyzed
-------
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Number Locatio' oJ
Chemical Concentration Sampled fol'" Anal - I S
Env i ronmenta 1 Geometric Positive
Medium 'Chemical Minimum Maximum Mean Total Dete':t1on
}
Metal/CNc ITIQ/ka ITIQ/ka ITIQ/ka 4
Cadmium 1.3 1
SUBSURFACE
SOIL Volatile ua/ka ua/ka ua/ka 7
Ch 1 orofonn 6 8 7 2
Benzene 1 1
Tetrachloroethene 12 1
Ethylbenzene 17 1
Semivolatile ua/ka ua/lca ua/lca 7
4-Methylphenol 78 1
Naphthalene 44 1
Acenaphthene 18 1
Phenanthrene 270 1
Anthracene 40 1
Fluoranthene 290 1
Pyrene 220 1
Butylbenzylphthalate 160 680 330 2
Chrysene 100 1
D1-n-octylphthalate 69 1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 140 1
Pesticide/PCB 7
None Detected
Metal/CNc ITIQ I ka ma/ka ma/lca 7
Cadmium 1.7 1
AMBIENT AIR
Volatile ma/m3 ma/m3 ma/m3 6
o-Xylene 9.1E-04 2.1E-03 1.4E-03 3
m,p-Xylene 3.2E-04 4.8E-03 2.2E-03 6
Isopropylbenzene 9.8E-05 2.8E-04 1.4E-04 4
Hexane 4.9E-04 3.3E-03 1.7E-03 6
Heptane 4.5E-04 2.3E-03 1.1E-03 5
p-Oichlorobenzene 4.1E-04 6.6E-04 5.5E-04 3
Acetone 2.9E~03 9.0E-03 4.8E-03 3
Benzene 7.0E-04 8.6E-03 .2.9E-03 6
2-Butanone 2.0E-03 2.9E-03 2.4E-03 3
Carbon tetrachloride . 6.3E-04 1. 5E-03 9.4E-04 6
Chlorod1bromomethane 6.0E-04 1
Ch 1 oro form 2.1£-04 3.2E-04 2.7E-04 6
Ch 1 oromethane 1.2E-05 5.4E-03 5.8E-04 6
1,1-D1chloroethane 1.1E-04 8.1E~04 3.0E-04 2
-------
Envi ran~enta 1
I"ec:;uITI
Che!11ical
l,2-Dichloroethane
l,l-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
l,l,l-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride
Se!11ivolatile
Not Analyzed
Pesticide/PCB
Not Analyzed
~etal/CN
Not Analyzed
TABLE l
(Continued)
Number
Sa!11'Jled
Locations
for Analvs~s
Positive
Detecticn
Minimum
Maximum
Che!111cal Concentration
Geometric
Mean
iotal
-
1. 1 E-04
3.9E-04 4.4E-04
6.3E-04 4.8E-03
1.4E-02 1.3E+OO
2.1E-04 4.1£-04
2.4E-04 1.2E-03
1. OE-03 2. OE-02
1. 9E-03 9. 8E-02
4.3E-04 2.0E-02
6.2E-03 3.0E-02
1. 2E-03
4.0E-04
r.3E-03
7.3E-02
3.1E-04
7.SE-04
4.1E-03
1.1E-02
2.3E-03
1. SE-02
1
2
5
6
3
6
6
6
6
3
1
a Refer to Section 8.3 for data sources and criteria for site contamination
chara(:teri zat ion. Also, refer to appropri ate appendi ces to detenni ne total
chemi(:als. included in each analysis.
Elements considered as positive detections for groundwater and surface water
samples exceeded available State of Wisconsin Groundwater Standards, .
Preventive Action Limits as described in Chapter NR 140 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code (Table 53). .
b
Elements considered as positive detections in subsurface soils and sediments
exceeejed the upper 1 imit of the common concentration range for soil s as
described by Lindsay, 1979 (T~ble 53).
13076.50
BJC/ j 1v /M'WK
[j 1 v-400-3ge]
c
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF VOCs DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
"1985 SUe"
Compound Upgradtent Wells Downgradtcnt Wells
W-14 W-29 W29-A lR 2 3 4
Benzene
Toluene 1
Xylenes 8 2
Ethyl benzene 6 4
Vinyl Chloride 113 1
Total 1,2-dlchloroethene 10 4 4 10
1,I-dlchloroethene 4 6 2 3
Chloroethane 4
Acetone 12 69 17
2-Butanone 2 10
First Column Is Round 2 data; Second column Is Round 3 data.
Concentrations In ug/L; If no value Is reported, compound was not detected at contract
lab required detection limit.
AJS/sss/NG
[jp 1-602-20d]
13091.80
::..
-------
. .
TABLE 2
ROUHDS 2 AND 3 TCL "ETAlS AND CYANIDE CONCENTRATIONS
-1985. SITE
Upgradlent We11s ~jrldltn~ Uells
W-14 W-29 U-29A IA 2 3 4
~runlc 7.4 6.4 15.7 15.1
r..arlu. 60.6 69.1 64 124 46.2 41.8 529 299 18) 45.1 49.8 35.1 38.9
lud 3.4 ).5 4.8
[ron 52.3 40.5 20) 100 12,500 156300 7,910 31.4 26.0
Manganese 35 21.3 51.1 6.0 I, 90 1,160 21 241 48.4 32.4 5.9
.:obalt 7.5 8.1
'Itll~neslu. 36,400 41,000 44600 60,600 40,200 40 000 61,900 56i 900 83,700 72,300 42~400 48,300 36.600 40~900
t'Co ISS lu. 1,060 I, 00 It~80 I~IIO 1,460 1,~20 88,800 5 ,000 11,400 8,300 I, 61) 1,610 I, 60 I, 60
~odlu. 4~050 3,930 I )500 2 ,800 5,980 6,800 98,900 56,500 34~100 9,900 59190 5~610 4,450 4!580
Onc 2.0 66.4 30 99.1 1.6 184 48.4 23.4 II 45.4 2.8 3.5 34.6 3.2
1\, u.1 nU8 41.4 40.0 32.1 55.3 31.4 30.2
...:",1 cI U8 11 ,200 16,400 96,600 168,000 85,300 8) 1500 116,000 104,000 114,000 96,600 14,200 "! 400 11,400 12, 600
C'pper 20.1 8.1 II. S.] 8.8 8. 18.3
CJenide (IIg/L) 0.049 0.020 0.0]8 0.038 0.308 0.])4 0.012
~ncentrltlons are In ug/L unless otherwise noted; If no concentration reported, co.pound
~as not detected at contract laboratory required quantltatlon II.It5.
t091. 60
JS/sss/NG
'pte.p-400-63]
-------
TAnl[ ?
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 TCL H£TAlS AND CYANIO£ CONC£NTRATIONS
"1981)" SIT(
Upgradlent Veils Oown~~~~t ~~ I Is ----- --h "-- - ----
V-14 V-19 V-29A IA 2 1 4
--
rStnlc 1.4 6.4 15.1 15. I
'arlu. 60.6 69.1 64 124 46.2 41.8 529 299 18J 45.1 49.8 J5. I J8.9
fad J.4 3.5 4.8
ron 52.) 40.5 10) H)o 12,500 156)00 1,910 11.4 26.0
angantse )5 11.) 51.1 6.0 I, 90 1.160 11 141 48.4 12.4 5.9
obalt 1.5 8. I
a~nfS lu. 36,400 4 11000 44 ~ 600 60,600 40, 200 40~000 61,900 56,900 8),100 11 ,300 426400 48.)00 36,600 40~900
) an lu. 1,060 I, 00 I 80 I ~ 110 1,460 I, 20 88,800 51,000 11,'400 8,300 I, 6J) 1,610 1,460 I, 60
)dlu. 4~050 3,9JO It}500 2 ,800 5,980 6,800 98,900 56,500 34~100 9,900 5,190 5}610 4,450 4\580
Inc ' 2.0 66.4 30 99.1 1.6 184 48.4 lJ.4 II 45.4 29.8 3.5 34.6 J.2
u.lnU8 41.4 40.0 32.1 51).) 31.4 30.2
JlclU8 11 ,200 76,400 96,600 168,000 81),)00 8)1500 116,000 104.000 114,000 96,600 74,200 "! 400 11,400 72, 600
Jppfr 20.1 8. I II. 5.) 8.8 8. 18.J
Ian Ide (1I9/L) 0.049 0.020 0.038 0.0)8 0.308 0.3)4 0.012
)nCfntr.tlons art In ug/L unless othenwlSf noted; If no concfntratlon reported, Co.pound
as not detected at contract laboratory required quantltatlon 11.lts.
1091.60
IS/su/NG
fpte.p-4oo-6))
..
-------
;:
"
TABLE 2
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 INDICATOR CONC£NTRATIONS
-1985- S IT£
Upgradient Weiis
. Upgrad I ent We 115 Downgradlent Wells
W-I4 W-29 W-29A IR 2 3 4
BOO 4.0 4.0 20 6.0 40 4.0 1.0 2.0
Alka1lnlty 302 353 529 299 281 909 668 496 323 343 293 267
Chloride 16 42 78 37 39 130 82 28 21 24 18 18
COO 23 107 64
Total Kjeldahl 0.68 1.12 0.70 0.)] 0.78 50.0 31.2 2.62 0.44 0.28 0.29
Nitrogen
AlIIIIOnla 0.14 0.18 45.5 24.9 1.40 0.36 0.21 0.46
Nitrogen
Sulfate 31 36 47 33 37 30 20 18 32 32 31 34
TOC 8.3 4.8 3.3 6.5 68 37 3.4 1.5
. Total Suspended 132 346 166 180 1380 2000 52 76 422 53 108
So 11 d s
Nitrate 4.02 6.42 4.90 6.17 6.54 0.28 0.38 0.34 2.49 2.56 4.03 4.52
Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus 0.11 0.34 0.18 0.01 0.20 1.22 1.80 0.22 0.05 0.08 . 0.05 0.07
Total Dlssohed 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02
Phosphorus
Total Su1flde
First column Is Round 2 data, second column Is Round 3 data
Concentrations are In mg/l, If no concentration Is reported, compound was not detected at CRQl except for
Wells W-I4 and 2 for Round 2 data In which no samples were collected for Indicator parameters
SGW2/sss/TJH
[wptemp-412-90]
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF NR140 EXCEEDANCES
Monitoring Wells - 819858 S1te(l)
Preve.nt 1 ve Enforcement Concentration
Parameter Sanwle IO Act 1 on L 1 m1t Standard in Samole (2)
Arsenic 1R-02(3) 5 50 7.4
2 -02 14.3
1R-03 6.4
2 -03 15.1
Barium 1R-02 200 1000 529
2 -02 299
Iron 1R-02 150 300 20100
2 -92 15900
1R-03 12500
2 -03 7910
Manganese 1R-02 25 50 1790
3 -01 55
2 -02 270
3 -02" 48.4
lR-03 1160
2 -03 247
3 -03 32
Trichloroethene 2 -92 0.18 1.8 1.0
Vinyl Chloride 1R-02 0.0015 0.015 1.0
2 -02 1.0
1R-03 13.0
1,2-Dichloroethene 1R-02 10 100 10
2 -03 10
(1) Downgradient Wells - 819858 Site: lR, 2, 3, 30, 4
(2) Units in ug/L unless otherwise noted.
(3) W25-01 indicates Well W-25 Round 1 data; -02 indicates
03 indicates Round 3; 92 indicates Round 2 duplicate.
Round 2;
AJS/ndj/TJD
[ndj -401-68P]
-------
T AALE :t
SUMMARY OF VOCs DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
-1978- SHe
W-I0 W-16 3A 4A W-22 W-26 W-26A
Benzene I . I 0.5 r-
Vinyl Chloride 1 7
Total 1,2-dlchloroethene 5 7 5 4 3 7 10
Trlchloroethene 2 2
l,l-dlchloroethane 3 2 5 6 2
Chloroethane 1
Acetone 400 16 13 280 76
Methylene chloride 5 4
2-butanone 8
. First column Is Round 2 data; second column Is Round 3 data.
Concentrations In ug/l: If no value Is reported, compound was not detected at contract lab
required quantltatlon limit.
AJS/sss/NG
[jp 1-602-20f]
-------
TABLE 3
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 TCl METALS AND CYANIDE CONCENTRATIONS
"1918" S lIE
Upgradlent We'h Dovngradlent Vel's
V-IO W-16 3A 4A V-22 11-26 11-26A
Aruntc 26.9 3).5 23.6 28.8 10.6 18:0 20.3
Barl U8 19.9 86.5 41.9 45.5 111 190 152 IS) 111 260 91.2 189 34.6 38.8
lead 5.2 3.2 3.1 2.9
Iron 83.5 36.5 61420 ',4)0 8,0)0 8,550 3,410 6,340 4~410 10~5()() 18.)
"anganese 1.5 15.2 16.8 1 .5 1.5 245 262 11140 661 4 1 45 26.2 6.6
Coba It 2 .9 8.1
"a~ntS ttlll )2~3oo 32,400 314400 32,600 49,200 S I ,400 44,)00 50,000 45,000 49,500 34~00 48,800 35 000 )8A200
Po ass ttlll .98 1,190 I, 50 1,450 23,100 2),200 11 ,800 16,100 19,400 18,400 6 0 II ,900 I,A90 I. 10
Sod I U8 9~550 114900 61900 '!010 64,600 59,800 25,900 2),000 66,600 86,600 It 100 )56000 5i420 5,)50
Zinc 5 .6 9.3 8.2 4.9 13.2 9.2 18.3 24.5 22.6 21.3 25.0 15 I 3 1 4
..tekel 16.1 13.9
A'u.tnu. 41.4 32.1 34.1 41.7 29.3
Ca 'elu. 139,000 1)2~OOO 66,000 64,200 68,400 691500 11 , 800 80,200 109,000 107AOOO 85,000 114 i 000 14 , 400 14. 100
Copper 13. ).1 19.2 15. 15. 16.}
Cyan Ide (1IIJ/l) 0.010 0.025 0.0)5 0.014 0.014 0.082 0.016 0.018 0.024 0.020 0.001
First co'uan ts Round 2 data; second colu8n ts Round 3 data. .
Concentrations ~resented In' ug/l unless otherwise noted; If no concentration reported, co.pounds was not detected at contract
laboratory requ red quantttat10n It.tt.
1309 t. 60
AJS/sss/NG
[wpte.p-4oo-64]
-------
TADLE 3
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 INDICATOR CONCfNTRATIONS
-1978- SITE
Upgradlent Wells Oowngradlent Wells
W-IO W-16 3A 4A W-22 W-26 W-26A
80[; 2.0 1.0 24 11 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0
Alka1lntty 225 423 364 492 539 312 447 288 270
Chloride 34 115 57 94 123 40 60 21 22
COO 36 21 26 30
Tota 1 Kje ld"ah 1 0.92 22.5 8.85 8.2 14.1 4.9 8.94 0.37 0.48
Nitrogen
Anwnonla 21 8.55 6.0 12.8 4.7 1.95 0.22 0.36
Nitrogen
Sul fate 28 26 54 20 12 40 36 33 30
TOC 5.8 8.1 6.1 18 9.6 1.8 7.8 6.8
Total Suspended 192 36 36 616 428 1050 372 332 143
So 11 d s
Nitrate 1.77 0.31 0.30 0.88 0.40 0.04 0.41 2.13 2.97
tH trogen
Total Phosphorus 0.11 0.04 0.03 1.0 0.48 0.80 0.40 0.04 0.05
Tota 1 01 sso 1ved 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01
Phosphorus
Total Sulfide
"first column Is Round 2 data, second column If Round 3 data
Concentrations are In mg/L, If no concentration Is reported, compound was not detected at CRQl, except no samples
collected for Indicator parameter data. Wells W-IO Rounds? and 3; W-16, JA and 4A Round 2.
SGW2/skb/TJH
[wptemp-~12-90].
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF NR140 EXCEEDANCES
Monitoring Wells - 819788 S1te(l)
Preventive Enforcement Concentration
Parameter Sarnole TO Action Limit Standard 1 n Samp 1 e (2)
Arsenic 3A-02(3) 5 50 26.9
4A-02 23.6 "1
W-22-02 10.6
3A-03 33.5
4A-03 28.8
W-22-03 18.0
W-26-03 20.3
Barium W-22-01 200 1000 223
W-22-03 260
Lead W-I0-2 5 50 5.2
Iron 3A-02 150 300 6420
4A-02 8030
W-22-02 3410
W-26-02 4410
3A-03 7430
4A-03 8550
W-22-03 6340
W-26-03 10500
Manganese 3A-02 25 SO 71.5
4A-02 245
W-22-02 1140
3A-03 87.5
4A-03 262
W-22-03 661
W-26-03 452
Tr1chloroethene W-26-02 0.18 1.8 2.0
W-26A-02 2.0
Vinyl Chloride W~26-02 0.0015 0.015 1.0
Benzene 3A-03 0.067 0.67 1.0
4A-03 0.5
W-22-03 2.0
W-26-03 1.0
1,2-Cichloroethene W-26A 10 100 10
(1) Cowngradient Wells - 819788 Site: W-26, W-26A, 3A, 4A, W-22
(2) Units in ug/L unless otherwise noted.
(3) W-25-01 indicates Well W-2S Round 1 data; -02 indicates Round 2:
-03 indicates Round 3; 92 indicates Round 2 duplicate.
AJS/sss/TJC
[dlk-400-48a]
-------
T ADl[ 4
SUMMARY OF VOCS O[T[CT£O IN GROUNDWATER
"1963 Site"
Compound . Upgradient We 11 s We11s located in or Oowngrac!!ent of S"ite
! W:-I0 W-26 W-26A 8-105 8-109 W-21 \4-25 \4-27
/ Benzene 1
Vinyl Chloride 1 7 7 15 4 4 1 8
1,l-dichloroethene 6 3 3 2
Total 1,2-dichloroethene 3 7 10 120 100 8 7 2] 37
Trichloroethene 2 2 180 100 49 120 50 29 96 110
Tetrachloroethene 20 20
1,l-dichloroethane 5 6 2 4 4
Chloroethane 1
Methylene Chloride . 5
Acetone 400 76 ]2 19 15
First column is Round 2 data; second column is Round 3 data.
Concentrations in u9/l; if no value is reported, compound was not detected at contract lab required
quantitation limit.
AJS/sss/N£G
(jp1-602-20i]
13091.80
-------
TABLE 4
SUHHAAY or HETAL AND CYANIDE DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
"1963" SITE
Upgradient Wells Wells Located In or Oowngradlent o( Site
V-IO V-26 W-26A B-I05 8-109 11-21 W-25 u.n
7~ -- ----
rsenic 20.3 2.3
arlu8 ,79.9 86.5 91.2 189 34.6 38.8 54.4 53.3 123 94.1 234 260 106 1<)1
ead 5.2 4.4! 3.6 I. 1
ron 83.5 4,410 10~500 78.3 26 4,230 2,140 1 ~720 11 1,420 2,180 10.4
anganese 1.5 421 45 26.2 6.6 20.4 8.6 1,100 7 2 797 1,540 1,590 9'11 1,310
)ba It 9.3 11.9 7. I 8.1
srnes t UII 32~300 321400 34,500 48,800 35,000 38,200 40~400 40,000 56,400 55~300 43,900 51,400 61,100 66,600 48,000 51)000'
) ass iUII 98 1 90 6,000 11, 900 1,890 1,810 I, 40 1,450 6 070 3 30 1 80 1,860 13 I 800 13,500 13,400 13, 00
)d i U8 95550 11. 900 13,700 35,000 51420 5,350 5,850 5,870 4~,400 IA,900 3~,100 9,810 48,700 47,700 IR,OOO 15,800
Inc 5 .6 49.3 25 150 1 3 114 151 139 53.6 31.4 16.1 95.3 101 25 71.8 J I
It illOny 29.5
Idel 13.9 11.1 17.2 15.8 11. 4 15. I
I UII i nUll 41.4 29.3 30.7
11ctull 139,000 132,000 85,000 1141°00 74,400 74,100 93,700 88~200 144,000 142,000 145,000 148~000 128,000 130,000 128,000 131,000
~pper 13.9 15. 16.3 7. 5.4 1 .2 14.5 8.8
'anide (I\9/L) 0.010 0.018 0.024 0.020 0.007 0.014 0.030 0.028 0.043 0.083 0.065 0.022
rst co1umn is Round 2 data; second column is Round 3 data.
Incentrattons tn ug/L unless stated othenflse; if 00 value Is reported, compound ~as not detected at contract lab required quantitatlon limit.
;091.60
IS/SSS/NG
pl-602-20c} ,
-------
(,
TAUlt 4
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 INDICATOR CONCENTRATIONS
"1963. SIT [
Upgradlent Wells Wel1s located In or Oowngradlent of site
- - ----
W-I0 W-26 W-26A 0-105 8 -1 09 W-21 W-25 W-71
- ---
4.0 1.0 ].0 2.0 4.0 2.0 ].0
447 270 335 407 454 574 552 545 533
60 22 29 40 41 88 92 ]!J 32
32 ]1) 36
8.94 0.48 0.61 2.68 1. 78 11 10.2 12.4 10.9
1.95 0.36 0.52 0.28 0.6] 8.1 9.81 10.8 9.94
36 ]0 31 58 50 44 38 48 46
1.8 6.8 1.5 18.1 51 4.4 7.6 3.6
]12 143 400 54 1000 4280 1550 908 70
0.41 2.91 5.66 1.52 2.83 0.05 0.44 0.31 0.73
0.40 0.05 0.31 0.05 0.36 5.44 1.81 0.74 0.08
0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03
800
ABca 11 ntty
Chloride
COO
Tota I Kje ldah I
Nitrogen
AlIIIIOnla
Nitrogen
SuI fate
TOe
Total Suspended
So 11 ds
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Tota I Dissolved
Phosphorus
Total Sulfide
First column Is Round 2 data, second column Is Round 3 data.
eonce'ntratlons are In mg/L. If no value Is reported, compound was not detected at CRQL except
no samples were collected for Indicator parameter analysis. Wells W-I0 and 8-109
Rounds 2 and 3; nd Wells W-26, W-26A and 8-105, - Round 2.
SGW2/skb/TJH
[wptemp-412-90]
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF NR140 EXCEEDANCES
Downgradient Wells - 819638 Site(l)
Prevent1ve Enforcement Concentration
Parameter Sampl e ID Act 1 on li mit Standard 1n Sample (2)
Barium. W-25-01(3) 200 1000 236
W-27-01 232
W-25-02 . 234
W-25-03 260
Lead W-25-01 5 50 5
W-27-03 7.1
Iron W-25-01 150 300 767
W-25-02 1420
W-25-03 2180
Manganese W-25-01 25 50 1640
W-27-01 1130
W-27-02 991
W-25-03 . 1590
W-27-03 1310
Tr1chloroethene W-25-02 0.18 1.8 .96
W-25-03 110
V1nyl Chloride W-25-02 0.0015 0.015 1.0
W-25-03 8
W-27-03 8
Tetrachloroethene W-25-02 0.10 1.0 20
W-25-03 20
1,1-01chloroethene W-25-02 0.024 0.24 3
W-25-03 2
1;2-Dichloroethene W-25-02 10 100 23
W-25-03 37
(1) Downgrad1ent Wells - .1963. Site: W-25 and W-27
(2) Units in ug/L unless otherwise noted.
(3) W-25-01 indicates Well W-25 Round 1 data; -02 indicates Round 2;
-03 indicates Round 3; 92 fndfcates Round 2 duplicate.
AJS/sss/TJD
[dlk-400-48b]
-------
TABU 5
SUHHARY Of VOCS 0[1£(T£0 IN GROUNDIIAHR
JAB
Upgradient Vel 15
Compound V-lO V-21 8-105 8-109 11.5 II-SA 11-5B
Vinyl Chloride 4 4 7 15
l,l-dichloroethene 6 )
Total l,2-dlchloroethene 8 7 120 100 87 160
Trlchloroethene 50 29 180 100 49 120 190 180
Tetrachloroethene 480 )30 0.7
l,I,l-trichloroethane 7
Hethylene Chloride 5
Acetone 400 19 32 33 370
Oowngradlent lIells
"
11-28
11-28A
420 280
310 210
840 480
10
19 1
70 6
410 30
14 2
First coluln is Round 2 data; second column is Round 3 data.
Concentrations in ug/l; if no value is reported, compound was not detected at contract lab required quant I tat Ion limit.
AJS/d1lc/NEG
[dlk-400-36]
6011
6B
8-104
-- -----
\J-n
'2 2
DO 140
4h
24 28
4 4
32 15
-------
UPlr"I'ft' W,III
W-lL --~ ~1L- -I.: 127-
Arlplc I.)
IIr II. "., 16.~ ~I.I 5).) 11.' " U) ".1
I,.... I).~ 16 1.110 ~II I.no 1.140
II.ftt"1t1t 10.1 .., 191 '" 1,100
(0..1'
ftatnellU8)I.IOO 11.100 10,100 '0,000 U, tOO ~I.IOO SI,'OO S~,)OO
..,...1- 1.190 ,n I.~'O I,no 1.110 I,'~ '.010 ).1)0
~1U8 '.S~ lI,tOO s.no ',110 IS. 100 '.110 U,4OO 1',tOO
. 11M U I' IS! I)' 11.1 ISl 5).' 11.1
AlltI-r It.~
Ilc"l 11.1
,\1..1- 11.1 )0.1
I.IU 5
.au.0\ 1 AMO ) lei K(I.IS ..0 ('..101 (0.(1..1.110.\
J.I
Do""9radltnl Ihl..
-~- __~8_- _!:!04-
_!!.?!-
- !!.?&.-
--":~-
--":)~ -
_n~ -
-_!!.l) -
lS.l 16.' 1'.1 16.'
110 184 61.' 69.1 IS.I 9'.1 66.'
'.990 1,'SO '9' I" '.ISO S,OOO
161 10. 491 S91 10.' I, )10
I.' '.1
10,600 ",100 16.900 41.000 11,100 SS,)OO '0,900
". tOO IJ ,100 1.)10 ',.)10 ).160 ),110 I,)~
91.100 61. SOO 14,000 I.Sl0 1S.700 11,900 " SS,'OO
III I" Sl.1 n.' )1.1 )1.' ".1
)I.)
)0.1 II.) 11.1
)0.1
".S 11.1 11.) 19.1 91.1 11.' n.) ".1 41.1 19.) 18.'
10.1 II.) 41. I
'.1 1. I 1.1 19. I 11 IS.l 11.1
U,'OO 1,000 '1.600 S4,'00 6'.'00 ,".'00 ".100 '0,800 '1,100 .s,l00 SI.loo
1.160 1.ISO 1,100 .I,S'O 1.600 I.S\O 1.4&0 2,110 1.9t.O I.SIO I. no
10.100 '.SOO '.)80 'S,'OO 61.)00 )."0 ),)10 '.120 ',290 )1.100 4.890
n.' 4\.1 S9.' 41.) S8 1.) 10 11.) 26.' 11.1 28.8
hid.. 1)',000 \)1,000 tJ.700 ",100 In.ooo "1.000 "'.000 "',000 IU.OOO IIS,OOO .2.)00 94.600 ".100 142.000 111.000 IIS.ooo 60. SOO ".800 141.000 1\1.000 1.. \00 11.)00 11,200 1,. \0 11\.000 118.000
(o",r n.' 7.~ 1).1 S.' 14.1 II.' 6.' IJ.' 20.1 '.1 '.1 1.9 14.1
(,ani'. «../l) 0.01
0.01'
0.0)0
0.01'
0.061
0.016
0.016
0.008 0.09
0.02
0.001
0.008 0.011
flrat c.l- Is l0un4 I "U. IIc0n4 col... II roun4 ) ..1.
(OftC..tr.tlonl 1ft ug/l unl'll olh.rwl,. nol..; I' no cOftc,ntr.tlon r'porl", coepound .'1 not ',t.ct,' .1 contr.ct
..~,.torr re,.,lre' 'I.,.ntIUIIOft lIalli.
I)OtUO
AJS/,'./IIG
(.,t..,..OO.IS)
.
-------
TA8L£ ~
ROUNDS 2 AND) INDICATOR CONCENTRATIONS
JA8
Upgradlent Veils Oo~gradlent Wel's
V-IO 8-105 V-21 8-109 6011 68 8-104 11-28 W-28A V-5 W-S8 W-l)
- - - - - - -- -- --. -
'00 ).0 1.0 18 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 ).0 2.0 6.0 2.0
Hkallntty )55 487 454 601 )2) 325 560 481 259 284 524 523 299 281
~hlorlde 29 40 41 100 24 20 30 51 16 21 86 116 14 16
COD 32 65 23
Total Kjeldahl 0.61 2.6 11.1 14.2 0.33 1.82 5.24 0.91 0.15 0.41 0.24 0.22 1.19 0.14
Hi trogen 0.52 0.28 0.11 1.41 0.21 0.2) O. J)
AnIOnla 0.63 1.15 0.30 0.25 0.18
Nitrogen )1 58 50 . 41 40 41 25 22 29 32 30
Sulfate 29 35 ]I
TOC 1.5 18.1 15.9 11 6.1 64
Totll Suspended 400 54 1000 3540 89 148 1130 596 14 25 180 116 9380 50
So I ids
Nitrate 5.66 1.52 2.8) 0.45 2.6 1.64 1.16 6.06 6.92 2.04 2.21 6.16 6.92
Hitro~en
Total hosphorus 0.)1 0.05 0.29 1.28 0.04 0.14 1.1 10.)) 0.0) 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.81 0.02
Total Dissolved 0.0) 0.02 0.04 0.05
Phosphorus I
Total Sulfide
rlr~ COIU80 .Is Round 2 data second coluan Is Round) data.
Concentrations are in lICj/l, h no value is reported, co.pound was not detected at CRQl
Veils V-IO, 8-109 and V-2), Rounds 2 and ); and We' s 8-105, 60W, 68, 8-104; Round 2.
except no saGp'es were collected for Indicator parameter analysis.
SGW2/skb/TJ"
[wpte.p-412-90)
-------
TABLE
5
SUMMARY OF NR140 EXCEEDANCES
Upgradient Wells - JAB(l)
Parameter
Prevent he
Act ion L1 m1t
Enforcement
Standa rd
Sample TO
W-21-02(3)
8-109-02
W-21-93
W-10-02
Iron
150
300
Lead
5
25
50
Manganese
W-21-02
8-109-02
W-21-03
W-21-02
8-105-02
8-109-02
W-21-03
8-105-03
8-109-03
1.8
50
Trichloroethene
0.18
Vinyl Chloride
W-21-02
8-109-02
W-21-03
8-109-03
0.0015
0.015
l,1-Dichloroethene 8-109-02
. 8-109-03
0.024
0.24
1,2-Dichloroethene 8-109-02
8-109-03
10
100
(1) Upgradient Wells-JA8: W-10, W-21, 8-105, 8-109
(2) Units are in ug/L unless otherwise noted.
(3) W-25-01 indicates Well W-25 Round 1 data; -02 indicates
-03 indicates Round 3: 92 indicates Round 2 duplicate.
AJS/sss/TJD
(dl k-400-48c].
Concentration
in Sample (2)
1720
4230
892
5.2
792
1100
797
50
180
49
29
100
120
4
7
4
15
6
3
120
100
Round 2;
-------
Parameter:
Arsenic
Barium
Il"on
Manganese
Tri ch 1 oroethene
Tetrachloroethene
TABLE 5
SU~A~Y OF NR140 EXCEEDAN~ES
Downgradient ~ells - JAB\l)
Sample TO
Preventive
Action limit
Enforcement
Stanc:arc:
Concentra~;on
1 n Sa mo 1 e ( 2 )
60~-02(3)
8-104-02
60\01-03
8-104-03
5
50
25.7
14.2
26.6
16.4
60W-02
60W-03
W-5A-01
60W-02
68-02'
8-104-02
60W-03
8-104-03
200
1000
270
284
226
6990
494
4150 .
7650 .
5000
150
300
60W-02
68-02
8-104-02
60W-03
68-03
8-104-03
W-23-03
25
50
168
498
80.6
104
592
1320
W-5-02
W-28-02
W-28A-02
W-5-03
W-28-03
W-28A-93
W-23-02
W-23-03
W-5-02
W-5A-02
W-28-02
W-28A-02
W-5-03
W-28-03
W-28A-03
W-23-02
0.18
1.8
190
. 310
70
180
210
7
130
140
0.10
1.0
480
0.7
840
410
330
480
30
46
420
19
87
280
160
1,2-Dichloroethene W-28-02 10 100
W-28A-02
W-5-02
W-28-03
W-5-03
Chloride . W-5-03 125 mg/L 250 mg/L
176 mg/L
W-23, W-28, W-28A, 8-104, 60-W, 6-8
(1) Downgradient Wells-JA8: W-5, W-5A, W-58,
(2) Units in ug/L unless otherwise noted.
(3) W-25-01. indicat~s Well W-25 Round 1 data;
-03 indicates Round 3; 92 indicates Round
-02 indicates Round 2;
2 duplicate.
AJS/sss/TJD
[j 1 v-400-39~]
-------
8
cx::ntaminaticn fc:urx:l in the p::n:1.
* 'Ihe cx::ntaminatim of the grc:J.JI"rlwater at and near the .)IF may be
influerced arrl,Ior c:x:mDined wi tll cx::ntaminat.ia1 traD sources wtside of
the J'I:i" area. Other PJtential or "("M" 1 swrces of cx::ntaminatioo
i.rcl00es the Parker Pen Facil i ty I located just west of the JtF I the
a.u. x -ently c:peratirq larrlfill just north of the J'tf', and other potential
scuroes which may be located upstream frcm JtF I at the Ib:k River.
* D::1wrqraclient Ib:k River surface water and ~i ~ has sham sane
s.~nt which characterizes the
nature and estimates the magni t:uje of potential risks to p.Jbl ic heal th and
the ernri.ronIrerrt: caused by the cx:ntaminants identified at the JDF. '!he FA,
utilizin; data obtained fran the RI, has identified the followin; pathways
or ro.rt:.es of actual or potential cx::ntaminaticn that may reach the
pc:pl1ation arrl/or the ernrirorarent and which need or may need to be
acXlressed t.hr'a.1gh sane type of rem=dial acticn:
a. Irdi. viduals breat:h.irq contaminated air I assumin;J they are exposed
to concentraticns 1nPrl~ in ant>ient air on-site;
b. Hyp::Ithetical users of private W'el1 water, assuming a private W'el1
is installed within the contaminated aquifer in the future;
c. Olildren which may swim in the porxl .ilIroodiately sa.rt:.h of the "1985"
and "1978" sites; and
d. F.rrIiro1"'lIrerItal damage to the organisms within the RocJc River arrljor
the pard located sooth of the "1985" am "1978" larrlfills.
'!he following irrlicator chemicals \Were ronsidered to be representative of
site contamination arrl to ~ greatest p:>tential health risk:
*
*
*
*
*
*
vinyl chloride
acetone
1 I 2-dich1oroethe.ne
l,l,I-trichloroethane
tetrach.loroethene
arsenic
*
*
*
*
*
methylene chloride
1 I l-dichloroethane
tr.ich1oroet.hene
bez\ze.ne
bis (2-ethyl}-~exyl)~ate
'~
-------
9
G
'"
The risks associated ..n. th each of the p:Jtential patbolays usin; the irdicatar
d1emicals for the JDf' are as follc:ws: .
e. urder o.n-rent site cx:n::li ticns, a potential health risJc was
identified for intividuals ~ to contaminants identified in anCient air
m-site via inhalatim of volatile contaminants. A calculated carcinogenic
risk, usin; the CXI"1tamiraants methylene chloride, benzene a.nd vinyl chloride,
of 7.0E-04 (or seven peq>le QJt of 10,000) \as identified with the
assurrpt.im that these inti viduals WOlld be ~ to average oontarninant
cx:>noentraticns measured m the larrlfill prc:p!rty. A higher risk (1. 2E~2)
YJOO.ld result if it is a5-5I~ that the irdiV1cin;thr are ~ to a1ly ,
zraxi:m.m. oontarninant cx::n:::ent.ratias. 'Ihese risJc estimates, hawever, did ndt
i1x:orporate factors ....nidl wc:W.d ac:camt for at'lra~c
dispersiaydegradatim of the CXI"1tam.inants off-site. Risks to subc.hrc:nic
non~'Cinogenic health hazards associated with air cxrrt:.aminatim at JDF are
listed in the FS as lOtI, with a total ~ pathway hazard irdex, of less
than a value 0.05 for maxim.Jm e>rt conchrjes that the ~ of
envirormental organisns to contaminants identified fran the JDF
investigatioo is very lOtI due to the low cxn::entratioos of chemicals
identified in the Rock River ard in the lardfill p:xrl's surface water ard
sediIrerrt:s. Aa:x>rdi..n;J to the EA, it awears that there is little potential
for adverse effects to the aquatic organisms in the Rock River or in the
lardfill pard ecosystems because the lowest reported toxic concentrations
-------
10
(Arrbient Water Q-jal i ty Criteria) in arrj freshwater on;anism are JrOre than
1000 times greater than ..nat is ~e::.t:ut in the surfaCe water or ~iInl?l1ts
near JIF.
'!he analytical Jrethcds used in ~ the risk calculaticng are described
within the FA portioo of the RI ~. "
'!he potential ~ patn.Jays are 1.isted in Figure 4 and in Table 6.
SUntnaries of the can=er am ncn-ca.rc~c (chronic arrl Sti:x:hraUc) risks
asscciated with the overall JDF are I isted in Tables 7 arrl 8. Table 9
sha.oIs state arrl fErleral enforcanent starrlards that ~ly to the in:licator
che!I1icals for the JtF s1 tee
VI.
FEASIBILITY S1UD'i: tESCRIPrICN OF REMEDIAL ~
within the FS ~rt, several technologies arrl process c:pticng W1ere
presentOO for the sites carprisirg the JDF. Cr1 teria used to evaluate the
alternatives for awlicability at these sites arrl to oonduct the initial
scree.nirq of the alternatives for each of the sites are explained within the
FS Report. SUntnaries of the alternatives retained for final consideratioo
at the fcur sites carprisinj JDF arrl the alternatives to address the overall
si te prcblems are 1 isted below. l-bre detailed descripticns can be fo.Il'Xi
within the FS Report.
'lEE" 1985" srm
ALTrnNATIVE 1 - 00 N::J:ICIf
Urrler this alternative, the public health, public welfare arrl envi..i-onner1tal
ronsequenoes of t.ak.i..rq no further actioo at the "1985" site will be
evaluated. ARARs cxn:erni.nJ larrlfill gas ("UG"). emissions arrl larrlfill
cawirg will not be met with this al ternati ve.
~ 2 - ~ ~.LNICl'Ias, a::NI7ill~ OF WAS'm, REXD\1ERi OF
I.ANDFIIL GAS AND H:NrImIH;
'Ih.is alternative will involve the use of deed arrl lard use restrictions to
assure that future use of this site does not increase the release or
potential release of hazardous substances to the environment or beccne
cian:3eraJS to the I ife or health of the pecple. A fence will be installed
ei ther ara.mj the entire site or only aro.Jrrl the gas vents, to restrict
a
-------
CONTAMINAt-o ,
SOURCE
MATERIALS
OISPOSEO OF
IN ASH OEOS
OR lANDFillS
/
II""'.,.", bold
.010'..'." mnc.",.
CONTAMINANT
RElEASE
Volalililallon
leachl
CONTAMINANT
TRANSPORT
Air
~
EXPOSURE
POINT
I\mhlonl
Air
f
I ami/ill Pond ~
rtock !llVor
Disch argo '0 Landlill
Pond and Ilock Hivor
Gmvrnlwal.' ~ L P'iV~:,:.1I
Munic' al
Walor Supply
~
EXPOSURE
ROUTE
~
/nhala.ion
EXPOSED
POPUlA JlON
~
Janosvillo
'Iosidon. 5
Inridon.al
Ingostlon
Dormal
Ahsorphon
nioconccnlr allon
IllOaccurnulalion
Inhala'ion
Dormal
Ahso.plron
I.... Childron Playing
r in Pond or rtlvor
. ~qua'ic Qr!lanlsms
in Pond or nivor
1 ~ n':;i~~~:I~~;~~g
I nosldenls Us~
Municipal WaltH
FIGUrfE 4
POTENTIAL EXPOSUnE PATtIWAYS
JANESVIUf DISPOSAL fACII.I111:S SITE
-------
[nvlron.ental
Hediu8
Groundwater
Surface w.ter
and sedl.ents.,
landfill pond and
Rock River
bblent Air
. 13016.50
BJCI j Iv/AJS
. (j Iv-400-39j]
Exposure
Point
Hunlcipal water
supply
Private well
water
Direct contact
Direct contact,
vo lat II halion
frOli landH 11
TABLE 6
POHHTJAL £XPOSUR£ PATIIIIAYS - JOf
hposed
~eceptors
Janesyili. residents
Janesville residents
with prlv.te wells
Chi Idren phylng
In pond or river
Aquatic or9anls.s,
terrestrial
wildlife
Routes
hposure
Ingut lon,
Inhalation,
der.al absorption
Ingut lon,
Inh.latlon,
der.al absorption
De,.al .bsorptlon,
Incidental
Ingut Ion
Bloconcentratlon,
bioaccullUlat Ion
Janesvll1e residents, Inhal.tlon
Pathway
COllpletel
"0. 80nlclpal wells
are not I.pacted by
conta.inants
identified at the site
Unlikely, although
private wells not
sa.pled, data
suggests private
wells not currently
I.pacted. Howeyer,
potentl.1 for future
prlv.te we I' I.pact
nlsts
Yes, children
observed playing In
pond
Yes
Yes
hposure
Potential
Hone
Likely None; currentlr.
Hoderate; private well
users could be exposed
In fu~ure through
cont..lnant .igratlon or
new private well
Instellatlon.
Very low,
conta.inant concentrations
low
Very low, conta.lnant
concentrations low.
Hoderate
Risk
Quant Hied?
----.-- ---
Ho
Yu
Yes for
children
playing In
pond.
No
Yes
-------
T 1\- - L 7
HAlARO INDICES FOR NON-CARCINOGENIC EFfECTS FROM SUOCtlRONIC EXPOSURE
TOlRAXl~n-AV£RACr-CORTAMT"Aur-rO"C[RTRATTONS
Adu 1t
Ingestion Inlta laUon
Surf ace
Water
!:lIfllr
Inu~ ~ Ion
Amhlent Air
lhll d AdiiTr
Inhalatton Inha la lion
Groundwater
Chl1d
Ingestion Inhalation
-----
-_.- _. --- - -...
-----
Methylene chloride
Maximum 4.8£-01 ].5[-01
Average 6.1£-0] 4.8£-03
Acetone
Maximum 9.6£-02 1.2£-02 6.9£-02 4.0E-03 4.0E-04 1.4£-04
Average 2.9£-03 3.1£-04 2.lE-OJ 1.2£-04 2.1E-04 7.1[-05
l,l-Dlchloroethane
. Max'i mum 2.0[-04 6.4£-04 1.4£-04 2.lE-04 1. 2£-01 8.1£-04 2.6E-04
Average 1. ][-04 4.3[-04 9.2£-05 1.4£-04 2.9£-04 9.7[-05
1,I,I-Trlchloroethane
Maximum 1.6£-03 1.8[-0] I.lE -OJ 5.7£-04 4.4£-02 1. 5E -02
Average 1.1£-04 1.7[-04 5.1£-04 2.6E-04 4.9£-03 1. 6E -03
Tetrachloroethene
Maximum 1.6£+01 LIE +01
Average 1.8£-01 1. 3[-01
bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Maximum 2.8[-02 2.0£-02
Average 1.0£-02 1.0£-03
Arsenic
Max I mum 1.3£+00 9.6£-01
Average 6.0£-01 4.3£-01
-------
TABLE
~
(
EX?C:S~;,:
~"-4""'1""
I."!.,-~:.J
:~S:CES FOR NCNC~~C:~CG:~!C EFFECTS F~aM CH~C~::
TO MAX I ~UM A,"10 A ',' E.~G E C :t,i';'~: ,'iMIT CONCEN T M -;- I :NS
Ground""'at~r
Ambi~nt Ai"
Lif~tim~ Av~~aG~
Lifetime Averace
Inqestion
Inhalation
Inhalation
Acetone
Maximum
Average
7.4E-Ol
2.3E-02
5.7E-02
1.iE-03
1. 9E-02
1.OE-03
l,l,l-Trichlcroet~a~e
MaximL:m
Average
1.2£-02
5.6E-03
8.3E-03
3.3E-03
2.1:-01
2.4:-02
Intake Route Total
Maximum
Average
7.5E-01
2.9E-02
6.5E-02
5.0E-03
2.3E-Ol
2.5E-02
Exposure Pathway Total
MaximL:m
Average
B.2E-Ol
3.4E-02
2.3E-Ol
2.5E~C2
Since potent1al cancer
frcm chronic ex~osure,
only non-carcinogens.
concentrations.
effects were considered the most severe health tr.re::
hazard indices (HI), were calculated for exposure to
HIs were calculated from lifetime average
U.S. EPA verified reference doses for l,2-dichloroethene were not availa:le
and thus, non-carcinogenic hazard was not quantified.
Since exposure to surface water was defined as a subchronic exposure,
calculation of risk to noncarcinogenic effects from chronic exposure was not
applicable.
13076.50
BJC/jlv/JOO
[j 1 v-400-39r]
~'.
~
-------
G
('
'AlII r
7
( ron
,IICt! )
Groundw.l t e '"
Cnna-------- u---J\du 1 i-----
Ing~~! I~f!-!fi!!~ 1 anon !l1u~H!~~!-- !~F~l~P~~
Surf ace
Water
-Clii 1(1-
!~U~~ l r ()!!
Ambient Ai,
LliTld l.d" II ._-
liifial anon mh.ll,l t i (i,i
-------- ---
- -_._- - - - - -
_.-
-- ---- ---
----
----
ntake Route Total
Maxtmum .
Average
1.8[.01
0.0[-01
1.4[-02
1.6[-0]
1 . 2[ ..0 I
5.n-01
4.01'-0]
5.2[-0'1
1.2[-07
4.5[-02
5.4[-0]
1. 5£ -02
I.tJL-03
xposure Pathway Total
Maximum
Average
1.8[.01
8.0£-01
1.2[.01
5.][-01
1.2[-07
4.5[-02
5.4[-0]
1.5[-02
l.tJ(-03
azard Indices were calculated only when Critical Toxicity Values were available (Table 8.6). Therefore, olily Indicator
hemlcals with U.S. ErA vert fled reference doses are shown In this table. AIC values were used as healtll-protectlve
stlmates for AIS values when AIS values were not available.
subchrontc exposure ts an tndeftntte period of ttme often constdered to be tn the range of 101 of an Individual's
Ifespan.
--) Indicates that either no reference dose for the exposure route was available (Inhalation), or that the compound was
at detected tn the medium (surface water - Ingest ton).
JC/jlv/MWK
jlv-400-39n]
3076.50
-------
C~HCE~ RISK F~CM EX~CSu~E TC ~AX:~~M AN: AVE~~E
CCHTAMIHANi C:NCESTRAT;ONS
TA8LE 3
!~"I~5~~C~
Vinyl chiorice
MaJ:.
Ave.
1.1£-03
3.7£-04
Methyle~e c~loride
Ma~. 1.7£-0:
Ave. 2.3£-C5
; .l-Dic~ioroethane
Max. ~.7E-~5
Ave. 1.1£-05
Trichloroe~~ene
Max.
Ave.
4.4£-04
1.5£-05
8e~ane
Max.
Ave.
4.8£-06
2.2£-06
7tt~a=~~cro!~~en!
Max.
Ave.
6.1£-03
7.1£-05
G~unc..at~r
Denial
Abs=",~;cn
1. 3£-06
4.4£-07
3.8£-07
5.3£-09
2.1£-08
1.4£-08
5.4£-07
1. 9£-08
5.7£-09
2.8£-09
7.7£-06
8.7£-08
8is (2-£~hylhexyl) Phthalate
Max. 3.6£-076 9.2£-09
Ave. 1.3£-06 3.7£-09
Arsenic
"'ax.
Ave.
1.8E-03
8.5£-04
:~:ak!
Max.
Ave.
~cu:! Total
9.6£-03
1.3£-03
Exposure Pathway Total
Max.
Ave.
NA
NA
1. 0£-05
5.7£-07
1.2£-02
1.4£-03
Sur~ac~ lia~!r
AJnoie~t Air
Denllal
!~hala~icn
!~;esticn
At:sor;:tion
Inhalation
3.0£-04
1.0£-04
2.3£-04
7.0£-04
9.8E-06
1. 2£-02
6.3£-04
3.8£-05
2.5£-05
1.3£-03
1.0£-09
4.9£-05
2.5£-09
1.5£-07
5.3£-09
7.8£-10
5.9£-11
1. 4£-04
2.5£-09
5.5£-06
2.5£-06
1.4£-04
4.8£-05
9.2£-04
1.0£-05
2.4£-06
1. 6£-06
NA
NA
HA
NA
2.03£-03
1.5£-04
1.4£-08
1.13-09
1.2£-02
7.0£-04
1.5£-08
1.2£-02
7.0£-04
Cancer riSks -ere calculated from lifetime avera~e intake fer the groundwater and ambient air
pathways.
To provide a health-protective assessment, risks via the dermal absorption route were estimatec usin;
the highest available cancer potency factor derived for either the oral or inhalation exposure.
routes. Also, the oral cancer potency factor for l,l-dichloroethane was used to estimate risk frem
inhalation.
Cancer risks calculated from surface water exposure (assumed to be a subchronic exposure) are likely
conservative estimates since cancer pote~cy factors are based on chronic exposure conditions.
NA . Hot applicable to exposure route
(-) Indicates that the compound was not detected in the environmental medium.
13016.50
BJC/jlv/MWK
[j lv-400-39s)
-------
G
7AoLE: :..
A~~LICAaL£ OR ~E~EiANi AND APORCPRIATE ~EQU:RE~ENTS
FOR PQC7ECiION OF HU~~H HEALTH
Safe Drinic:inga
''',!te~ Ac~
!:1::ica~:f"'
:~~"'1cal
~c:.
~
~CLG
~
Vinyl chloride
2.0
~.thylene C~lor1de
Aceter.e
1. ~.vic~ioroe~.~an!
Tr1 cn i oroet~e~1e
c: ,..
~."
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
200
200
Benzene
5.0
7e:rac~loroe:~ene
b1s (2-Etnylhexyl)
p~t~,a 1 ate
l,2-Cichloroe~hene
70
Arsenic
50
wisconsin G~~ndwate~C
S t anc a:-: s
o
E?A Drinic:ing .ate~~
Health Ac:v1sory
I:TIC /:.)
I-day/child: 2.6
lO-day/child: 2.6
Longer te~/child:
Longer tens/ adu it:
0.013
0.0':6
Enfor::etllent
SUndar-d
luc/l)
0.015
Prever.:,'.e
Act10n :.irr.,:
(~::/~\
0.00:5
I-cay/child: 13.3
10-c:ay/cr1iid: 1.5
150
:5
o
850
1.8
85
0.18
o
l-day/child: 140
lO-day/child: 35
Lon;er term/child: 35
longer tens/adult: 125
Lifetime: 1.0
I-day/child: 233
lO-day/child: 0.233
0.0:7
200
40
0.67
o
lO-day/child: 34
Lor.ger term/child: 1.94
Len;er term/adult: 6.80
0.1
1.0
50
I-day/child: 4.0
10-day/chi ld: 1.0
Longer teMl/chi 1d: 1.0
Longer term/adult: 3.5
l1 fet i lIIe: 0.35
I-day/child: 0.05
10-day/child: 0.05
Longer teMl/chi1d: 0.05
Longer term/adult: 0.05
50
5
100
20
~aximum CI,ntaminan: Levels (~CL) are enforceable standards defined under the Safe Drinking .ater
Act, to determ1ne safe leve1s of a given contaminant in the puOllc drinking water supply. The
I1CL is de'fined as the allowable lifetime (70 yr) exposure (2 L/d) to a qiven contaminant for an
average adult (70 ,k~) not to be exceeded without risk to health. Factors involved in its
determ1nat10n ,ncluae gastrointestinal absorption, a safety factor to protect potentially
sensitive populations and the economic and. technical feasibility of clean-up.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG) are the non-enforceable health guidelines for a
contaminant level in drinking water which would cause no known or potential adverse effect.
MCLG, which are always less tnan or equal to MCLs, do not consider factors related to clean-up.
a
b
Health Ad'fisories (HA) are non-enforceable standards provided by the EPA Office of Drinking .ater
which represent concentrations of contaminants in drinking water which are not anticipated to
cause adverse health effects. The HAs were determined from toxicity data describing non-
carcinogenic endpoints only and are calculated for acute (1 day), subchronie (10 day) and longer
tenD (months to years) exposure scenarios. In their derivation, it is assu!led a 10 ~g chi ld
(infant) consumes ene 1iter of water per day ana that a 70 kg adult consumes 2 1;1.~s of water
per day. Since the cis isomer of DCE usua11y prodominates in environmental samlll~), ,alues are
for cis-DCE.
Chapter H~ 140 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code defines standards for state ~~oundwater
quality. .Enforcement Standards. and'.Preventative Action L1mits. are health-bd~~d concentration
of contaminants which when attained or exceeded require appropriate mitigative arr Ions.
c
13076.50
BC/jlv/AJS
[j lv-400-39q]
~
-------
u
of a wisccrss in htninistrati ve O::de (WAC) NR S04. 07 cap or up;rac:iirg the
e:xist.in; cap to I!J2et the requirexre.nts of a ~ SUbtitle CfWN.= NR 181.44 (12)
cap for ~ interim status facilities or ~ SUbtitle ~ NR 181.44(13)
cap for ~ licensed facilities (see Figures 5 arrl 6 for typical cap
designs). '!he \oW: NR S04. 07 cap is DX>re st.r irqent than the cap that is
awlic:able to this site, the ~ SUbtitle CfWAC NR 181.44 (U) cap for
interim status facil i ties, siooe the ~ NR 504.07 cap requires an extra
soil layer to aa:nmt for frost line protection.
~ uaU tor~ portion of this al ternati ve calls for the cx:>nti.n.Jed
ITaii tor~ of the grcurrlwater arrl air, arrl the la-q-term Ira intenarce of the
cap in accordarx::e with the awrwriate wisccrssin h:1ministrative Cedes.
MJN'.s regard ~ UG emiss iCX'\S arrl larrlf ill caw~ will be acXlressed by this
al t.e.rnati ve. Estimated cx:sts are based a1 rarges depen:lirq on what type of
caw~ is selected.
Estirnated Cbnstruction Cost: $1,141,000 - $5,278,000
Estimated AAnual O&M Cost: $39,000 - $142,000
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $2,713,000 - $6,850,000
'I1iE "1978" SITE
~ 3 - 00 N:rICtl
t:rrler this al ternati ve, the p..1bl ic baa 1 th, PJbl ic 'Nel fare ard env i.rcnnental
consequerx::es of tak.irg no further actioo at the "1978" site .will be
evaluated. ARNG concerning UG emissions arrl larrlfill cawi.n:J will not be,
met with this alternative.
~ 4 - ~ ~ll
-------
:':;-.re :
~
t>
1
~
o
TOPSOIL /' , 611, '
LAYER. ~ .,' . .. -... -.,
v -- ,.. 'i,..,u.,l''''' ..
. '--.J'" ~, :."",-. i -
.. : '
-
COVER LAY~R----- C J~.MQ ~1 E.~~TH '-
<""":.
,
.
C:";'.Y C;'??:~IG :
LAYE? CC~PAC7E:; CLAY '<::",
N:
I
.
!
i
I
,
I
,
,
,
I
".. -..- (",,"':, L,:' '~.~~ I I ~" S~~'::,::-:~J . - 1/'\ r, I . c: . 1 ,f"',"",- ,...,-- ---, .-."", I
., ,- .. "'" '... . "',....., .....1 ...-.J . It. ,,~ .-' 1'1\"--:-..., \".,-..:::. ~ -:'.,.-:--.. oJ'
-,.. ;..~:~::SS -,.- Cor~::RNS OF NR 50~.07 (5).
IU I~:'
.
WARZYN . STRUCTURE OF SUBTITLE D CAP \NR 500)
PER NR 504.07
SCALE: 1" = 4' ~.. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND
I"PI)O A~5 10ATE t-J1-!>q 113091 A43 FEASIBILITY. STUDY
CMI N:1,- JANESVIUE 0 I SPOSAL FACILITY
r
~
-------
. I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I V~G~'7';" iE:J
TjP LAYER
..
:~':-:~i~GE
LAYE~
LOIoJER
P EK!~EA3 I Ll TY
LAYER
:-. ;'..i"'e :
'\ I
I
"
. 'wi
~
- j
~,
Ni
I
1 ~ G~G7EX7:~!
6"",\:: ~I ~SANO mo; sG
---~~ SYNTHEiIC
~I ~ ~~~~R~~~O I :~G
,
~
'./
\ ,
-
~
.
CC~.~C~1 EARiH
SAND & GRAVEL DRAINAGE
r
rr[
. LLO":-:
I "'...
L COMr::,'IE~ii
UP?~~
COMPACTED CLAY
"
COMF0NENT
.
. THE J~~!r~~G~ ~~YER WAS S~EC!~:EJ ~T 2~ !~~. TC ME~T THE
~
'"
1
'"
I'
I
.
Q
KE1~U I REj~E~,i
THAi THE U?:~; COMPONENT OF THE LO~ PERME;..arLIiY LAYER 8E LOCATED AT LEAST
12 IN. SELO~ THE ~AXIMUM RECCRDEJ DEPTH OF FROST IoJH!CH WAS ESiIMATED
TO 8£ 36 IN.
"
WA~ZYN
SCALE: 1" = 4' ~.,.
IAPPO~J.5 IOATE ~-~-\~ 113091 A42
STRUCTU~E OF sys1iTLE C CAP (NK 10.
PER NR 181.44 \131 .
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY
JANESV1LLE DISPOSAL FACILITY
-
r:J.N ~ jC.'
..
- - ---.
-------
12
"
~ 6 - ~ .RESIRICITCNS, AND ~ OF WAS'IE:) AND
SUI~.lHF1LE OOllS .
h::ces.,<; restricticns will inchrle deed and land use restricticns for the
property carprisin;l the 1963 site far the plI'pOSe of assurin;l that future
use of the site does not in=rea.se the release or potential release of
~ substances to the envi..rcnDent or ~ a threat to p..1blic health.
'!he cantainnent of wastes and sut6I.lI"face soils is to be aCCClTplished by
first evaluatin:; the present cap, and by ~ the lardfill cap to
obtain a cx:nsistent t'-O feet of f~ soil CCNer CNer the entire
lardf:i1l or to ~t the starrlards set by RrnA SUbtitle DjWAC NR 500
regulaticns. Cent irn.1t ilnated Annual O&M Cost: $14,100
EstiInated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $292,000 - $1,377,000
'!HE JDF GR:UNI:K\~, m~~ OF'F'-Srm GUJNrJolATm ~TICN
M1I'rnNATIVE 9 - 00 ACl'ICN
Urder this alternative, the p..1blic health, public welfare and envirorurental
conseque.rx:x;!S of takirg 00 further action at the overall JDF site perta:i.ni.rq
to grc:urdwater will be evaluated. AAARs regardirg grc:urdwater contamination
will not be a&:h"essed by this alternative.
Al1I'ERNATIVE 10 - ~ tEE RESIRICrICNS
'This al ternati ve will prarote the use of deed an1 .grc:urdwater use
restrictians for the area wit.hin the grc:urdwater plume, arxi between the JDF
am the Rock River. Grourrlwater IOOnitorirg will need to be ca1t.inued.
ARARs regardirg grc:urdwater contamination will not be a&:h"essed by this
-------
13
al ternati ve. Costs associated with this AI ternati ve are related to the
a:sts of cant inued g:roJ1"dwater m:ni torirq util izirq the m:ru. toriIg ~ls
already in place.
Estimated O:nstruct:.ioo. C:st: May be sane repair oosts associated with
the 1IOI1.i torirg \/ells, sum as re-deYel~ c:csts.
Estimated AAn.Jal O&M C:st: $55,000
Est.UIated 30 Year Present Net Worth: No Estimate Available
~ II - ~ EXmACrICN AND ~
'I11is al ternati ve calls for the installatioo .of g:roJ1"dwater ext:ractioo wells
to intercept the gru..D"rl.water nsideratioo will
need to be given to the tained. If Parker Pen decides rot to c::x:J'l"bine resaJrCeS with the JDF
reJ'iEdial action, then the gm.Ird.water extracticn wells called for by this
alteITiative may be plaa:rl da.Jrqradient of JDF bIt uwraclient of Parker Pen.
ARARs will be addressa:i dowrqradient of JDF with regard to graJrdw'ater
cantaminants .
Estimated Constructicn C:st: $504,000
Estimated Nuiua1. O&M C:st: $71,900 - $146,000
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $2,184,000
~ 12 - ~ rn-srru ~
This alteITiative involves the in-situ treatJrent of the grcwrlwater by means .
of extractin:J the graJrdw'at.er, SUWlerre.nti.rq it with rutrients am oxygen
am rechargin:J it back into the aquifer to enhance bicdegradation of the
graJrdw'ater contaminants in place or in-situ. A portion of the extracted
gru..D"rl....ater wcllid still need to be treated by air striwim, as in
AlteITiative 11, am discharged to the "Rock River, to enable the in-situ
treatJIent to maintain a "closed-lcq>" injection-recapture system.
Estimated Con.stIuctionCost: $1,426,000
Estimated Annual O&M C:st: $69,400 - $240,000
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $4,797,000
VII.
IR:>FCSID PIAN
'!he U.S. EPA's PI'q:x:)sed Plan was released [or public cx::mrent frem August 21
through Sept.eIrCer 15, 1989 am the :mPs, through their steerirq Camtittee,
requested am received an extension to the cx:mnent period givirq them until
5eptarber 20, 1989 to sutmit their cx:mrents. In the PI'q:x:)sed Plan the U.S.
EPA stated that the preferred alternatives were as follC1oolS: .
-------
14
G
.1985" site: Preferred Alternative: CaIplianoe with the awlicable
req.ll.rerneJ1ts of ~ whim will inc1\rle the ~ of Alternative 2;
access restrictiCl1S, ret.::XNerj arrl treatment of lardfill gas, ard ~
SUbti tle C/current state cawirq requirements \ihim nay be net by ~ NR
181. 44 ( 13) closure, al<::n:1 wi th the eMarx:aiaent of the leachate oollect.ioo
systEm. Gralrdwater ard air narltorirq vUl also be cx:nt.in1ed, (all
awlicable ~ requirements will still awly to this site. '1M l~
prcp:JSed for the "1985" site does not conflict with the awlicable ~
requiraDents) :
"1978 " site: Preferred AI ternati va: AI ternati ve 4: access restrictions,
roc:cvery arrl treat:mertt of larrlfill gas, am the <:n1tainment of wastes ard
sul:surface soils CCltplyirq with the staIrlards of W1\C NR 504.07; 0
"1963" Site: Preferred Al ternati ve: C::Irt:>l ianoe with the awl icable
requirements of RC&\ whim will iIx::lOOe the cx::I1'pOOe11ts of Al ternati ve 6;
access restrictioos, ard the CXY1tai.nnent of wastes ard ss1bsurface soils by
maintainirq ard up;Jradirq the present cap ard site drainage as ~;
"JAB" : Preferred AI ternati ve: Al ternati ve 8; access restrictioos,
containment of sub;urface soils by mainta.inin:3 ard ~ the present cap
am site drainage as ~, arrl contimed gro.m:1water nonitorirq. (All
appl icable :RCW\ requi.reD-ent.s will still awly to this site. 'DIe 1 ~edy
prcp:JSed for the JAB does oot confl iet with the awlicable ~
requi.reroe.nts). '!he ash pile remainirq onsite will also be renovedi ard
JOF GRCU~~: Preferred Alternatives: Alternatives 10 and 11:
gro.m:1wat.er use restrictions am gro.m:1wat.er extraction with an-site
treab'nent with discharge to the Rock River.
VIII. DCXlJMENTATIOO OF SIQITnCANr ~ 'ro THE FroFCSm PlAN
After the p..1b1 ic cx:mnent pericxi arrl a:mnents fran the 0:::mrI.mi ty ard the mPs
were received, a 60 day tecnnical negotiation was corrluct.ed between the u. S.
EPA, WI:NR ard the mPs, p..1I"'SUaJ1t to Section XXVI of the RIfFS Consent Order.
'!he folla..llrq significant chan:Jes were warranted after all cx:mnents am the
results of the teclmical negotiation were evaluated. Specific responses to
a:mrents fran the p..1blic ard the PRPs are adiressed in the attached
~-ponsiveness Sun1naIy. .
the "1985" site: '!he preferred Ielledy will still CCltt>ly with the
applicable requi.relrents of RCRA, whim in:11.rle the cxrrponents of Alternative
2, as previo..1S1y stated, but the cawin3' requirements for the "1985" site
may be met by WAC NR 504 .D7. '!his cap, alorg with the iltproverents to the
leachate oollect.ion system arrl the extraction ard treatment of lardfill gas,
can IOOet or exceed the perfonnance staIrlards ootained by a RC&\ Subtitle
C/WN= NR 181.44 (U) or (13) cap. '!he WAC NR 504.07 cap is oore stri.rqent
than the cap that is awlicable for this site, the RCRA SUbtitle C/WAC NR
0181.44(12) cap for interim status facilities, sirx:e the ~ NR 504.07 cap
requires an extra soil layer to accx:AU1t for frost line protectioo. 'Ihe NR
504.07 cap in c:a1junction with the inprovenents to the leachate collection
system, wili be able to maintain a leachate head level of one foot or less
'~,
-------
15
above the site 1 iner. All awl icable ~ reqil.rements will still awly to
this site ard to the l~ selected.
'!be "1978 " Site: '!he preferred 1: euuly will still cx:nsist of the
elements within Alternative 4, except that the PRPs have the cptioo to
either iIrplerent the lardfill gas extraction ard treatJIsrt: portioo of the
al ternati ve or to test out of the need t:) 1,nplenent the lardfill gas
extractioo ard treatment by 1) installirq adiitimal gas prcb?s to verify
that the ~ts of WAC NR 506.07{J) are met, and (2) followirg the
hazardcus air CXX'Itaminant test out procedures specified by the WLNR, as
alla.llSd' by W1>.C NR 506.08 (6) .
'!he "1963" Site: Based on cx::rments an::! further review of the data, the
no action al ternati ve was proposed, al~ with the deed an::! lard use
restrictioos and ca"Jt.inued trcni torirg . Al ternati ve 5 is rt::hI the preferred
alternative for the "1963" site.
'!he "JAB" site:
al ternati w.
No~. Alternative 8 is still the preferred
JDF Grcordwater: No significant~. Alternatives 10 arrl 11 are
still the preferred al ternati ves. 'Ihe mPs raised the issue of util izirg
alternative o:>noentration limits (IIACIs") instead of usirg the federal
IMXimlra o::>ncentratian 1 imi ts (''MCIs) ;Wisconsin Enforcenent Starrlards as
guidel ines on when gra.,urlwater extraction arrl treatIoont is ~. '!be
u.s. EPA, in o::>nsultatian with the WI:NR denied this request beCause of RCRA
requirements for corrective actiOn ard due to WAC NR 181 ard ~C NR 140
staroards .
Another issue rega.rdirq the gra.,urlwater extraction ard treatIrent is that the
systeln be canbined, therefore avoidi.rq tmnecessary duplication of efforts
with the extraction ard treatment system that may be installed by Parker
, Pen, iIrtnediately d<::1wrrqradient of JDF. '!he u.s. EPA ard the WLNR agree that
dupl ication shculd be avoided ard will agree to this requeSt as lorq as the
performance staroards are met between JDF ard the Rock Ri vex and if
as.5l1I"a1X:eS can be given that once Parker Pen has met its cleanup goals, the
system will still be operated as lo~ as is needed to meet the performance
staroards for the JDF as stated in this roo.
Ccrnnents received duri.rg the p.1blic ccmnent period are presented alon;J with
the U.5. EPA response to ead1, in the attached Responsiveness SI..minary.
IX.
St.1MMAAY OF a:t1PARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AI..n:R."iATIVE<;
'!he alternatives for the "1978" site, JAB, the "1985" site, the "1963" site
ard the overall JDF gra.,urlwater reIOOdy have been evaluated within the FS
usirg nine criteria. '!he nine criteria are SUI11'I1arized as follows:
OV1:-:RArL FR:1I'OCTICN OF lJ.W..N 'HFAL'IH AND '!HE ~ addresses wnether or
not a re.xoody provides adequate protection an:) describes ~ risks }X)5ed
through each pathway are eliminated, reduced or o::>ntrolled through
treatIrent, erqineerirg ntrols.
-------
16
a:MPLIAN(~ wrm ~ (APfILIc:::l\BIB ~ REI.EWm' MID ~ ~)
aQ.iresS(:!S whether or mt a relOOdy wrill meet all of the awlicable or
relevant arrl awrc:priate ~ of other Ferleral arrl State
errvircn~ statutes ard/or provide gra..u-rls for .i.nvokirg a waiver.
~ ~ MID ~ refers to the ability of a L=a:Jy to
maintaiJn reliable protectioo of human health ani the envi.ronnent CNer time
cree cleanup goals have been met.
RIDJCTICN OF TOXIcrIY, K>Bn..r1Y, CR ~ is the anticipatErl performance of
the treatIrent technol~ies a L-eu£rly may etploy.
Sl~ ~ aQiresseS the pericd of time ~ to achieve
protection, arrl arrj adverse iJIpacts on hUJra.n health arrl the env i.ronnent that
my be posed durirg the a:nstru:tioo arrl iIri>lerrentation pericd until cleanup
goals are achieved.
:IMPID!ENrABILrlY is the technical ani administrative feasibility of a
rem::dy, i.rx:lu:ii.rq the availability of materials ani services needed to
int:>leme!l1t a partia.1l.ar ~ioo.
a::sr incltrles estbratErl capital ani ~tion arrl mainte.na.N:e cx:sts, arrl net
present worth costs.
Sll\TE Jv:x:::EPrJ'\Na: in:licates whether, oo~ a1 its review of the RI/FS arrl
Prq:csoj Plan, the state concurs in, q::poses, or has no cx:mnent 'an the
preferred alternatives at the present tilre. '!be State's aa:eptaN:e is
acklressed later within this RX).
a:»UNITY ~ will be aI"Ir.'Cl1t. '!his CCIT'bination of alternatives will eliminate the potential
ard future threats caused by the exmtaminatioo to the grc::AJTrlwater ard to the
air by restrictirg access to the sites or portions of the sites, by
extrac:tin; arrl treatirg the grc::AJTrlwater ard by extractirg arrl flarirg the
contaminatErl larrlfill gas prior to its migratioo off-site. Prcper closure
of the sites, inclooin; iItproveuents or ~ of the ~ such as; a
larrlfill cap at the "1985" site xreetirg the st.armrds of WAC NR 504.07 in
conjunction with leachate collectioo repairs arrl/or i.nt>roverents for the
1985 site, which will then neet or exceed the starrlards of a RCPA SUbtitle C
-------
"
..
----- -
'.' ~, . . .. .. ."-:
["" t. ""',',
. ~"r..:~C~IGn C~
("-r. '"1''' ~Ur,r"
;;~-~Clll' tCllCn~
. PrctHt IG" cf
'worll tq C:ur 1"9
rtelcodlal actlor.1
. Tie. ynl i I
peolHI ion"
.Ch'tytd
2,
long. It 1"11
£fhcthtnfU
. ~'9nl!ydt o(
rr,,~y,1 rilk
:. '..,."
---'-
'. ~ ~ l ~ - II i r. i ""~ j r: ~ II
fcr(cn~tct: It,.,~flii
~t~;,-= .. 1111".1031 r 1 ~ t ;
Grct.:"':-:...~~" .. r,SI
C1H'.:~~t; 1n 1.1:.
S.},. J.-~1~"q l1r
on.. S 1 t ~ .. ,~..
c.nlC nIl! o~ I.C[.
~:. to 1.;:[..2
~c~ t=;:11c~bh.
'C:\O;'l~ l'.tn.
Poltnll,l r"k 1r08
,ebltnt ,Ir Inhili.
t,on cOntinUf\ 'S
long II lfG ..isl ionl
oCCyr II lybll,nli,1
1...1s .hlch ",y 1111
fer 'h. nul lb
yun.
SyblUnlll1 risk
rt811nl 1r08 '.bltnt
IIr (on\..ln,\ Ion
.hich "ill Ilktly
Occyr II long II ue;
"g.nt"ltd. Risk
rrh!td 10 ground-
"U" il di,cyu.d III
All. 9.12
j. : . .. .." .~: ' '" ~ ..
lr.cr~4\t in ~uH if
tnhdnCt~ capctn;
OCcurs aM dunnQ
;nll.llu'cn of lrG
Iyll..., ~C'c..:t
controls un bt
illpl...n!td.
~o
Prottction rtquirtd
'Cl1nll ~YII Ind
\,(;C ..,lIiOl11
dyring eloping, Ind
dYlt. VOC, ItIC
CO":'YII iblt g,lts
dur'"q ;n1t.11.tlon
o( lfG Iyll...
-:-able
;. . : .. ... r,~ ~ . ... ~ :
Wd\t~ and Su::\ur(act
\01 h . mjnl~al r1St
for ccnllCt; l.nMill
pond. 8lnl.al rlsl;
Grour.dw.!t~r..r1 s k h
d'scYls~d 'n Ail.
9-12; '..~..nt air on-
s;t~ - carcinoo~n1C
rnls cf I.Of-u. to
1.;(-02.
.;
Hct appliObl..
act 10"\ talfn.
Pot.ntlal 1'1\. 10r
I.bitnt Ilr ;nhl'
ht 10ft cont Inyu n
long n lrG ..; II ;on\
OCCyr It lubllintill
1...11 ..hich .'y Int
(or th. nut 9 ytarL
s..bHlnttll rilk
r.....ins fro. ..bitnt
Air contl.,n.t ion
wIIleh "III 1 i~tly
OCCyr n 1""9 II He;
Is gtntrat..,. RIs.-
rthttd to ground.
"att,. Is dl\(YII.d In
Ale. 9-12.
10
;";~':~'r.~~I"'~ .4
Incrta~t in dust
d\Jnn~ con~truct iCrI
or .nnanetd cap ."~
lfG Iyll.... AdtGyat.
controll can b~
,.pJtlDfnttC:.
Ho
Protect 10n rfC:UIf~d
'qalnst dY\( aM VOC
~.IS~10n1 dunng
capplnq. Ind ~u\t.
VOC I and c 0110.. II I b It
QIStS cjuril"lq Insul-
latlon o( lfe. Iyst....
:.. : ~
~'dstt a",~ subsurface
10lh . I:lniw.Jl r1\k
for COf':l(l; Grcun~.
watt!" rlS~ 11 011-
cu~~t~ 1n ~lt. S-:2.
,t.t:'.~ 1 ~r: t .:.,,. - -I S6)-
Site not CC~~1(~trtd a
sc\.rc~ t~':.h~\t ..a1tt
...!.. ~lJrr,~::.
I'fct <5i:::1C~~lt.
act \cn~ t~1. ~!'\.
HOI .ppl icoblt. Air
un1'kr)y contributor.
Groynd..ttr il dn-
cYlltd in AIL g-12.
Rt1ath.ly low rhb
.,ist prt,.ntly.
lisk rtlattd to
qrounch..ttr is
d'ICYlltd in Alt.
9-12.
;":~~.~~,...~ "
Incr.al. in dYlt dyrinc
construct ion 01 tnhanctd
cap. Ad~QYatt controls
can bt ;~plt.tnt~d.
~o
Prottct ion ~qu i rtd
'galnll dYse dyring
tnh.nctd c.pping.
(nhlnc'" clpplng
COy Id lak. 2 ytln
allowing 101'
duiqn, bidding,
conservcllon ,nd
down tl.. during
",nttr. A lrC
lyse.. cO
-------
A"~ dut 10 conuct Risk dut conl4Ct ..ilh Poltnl ;41 fUlurt '01tnt141 risks would Alsks would bt low Risks would bf 10..
..i I~ ..ult is .lnt..1 ..ult" ..n.-.I "I~I 10 4ru h low II long U S inet tround...ttr s tnet bolh tn.s itu
stnct 8011, If lICIt s 1 nu 8Ost, If not ru ,dtnl S would uposurt to conualn- ulroc ion 4nd 4nd dirtCI
411 "Ult r~td. 411 "ult rNOytd. 11111 uill dut 10 Altd ground..4ttr Is lrutatnt Is pl"OYldtd ground"4ltr trutatnt
Soef risk rtlAlfd to SaM risk nlAlfd to conU.in4nl conlrolltd by II proyidtd.
tlflcltncy of up to tfflclme, of up 10 .Igrll Ion. ,nforc.....nt of USf
rtduct Inf tI Irll 1011 rfduce Inf Illr41.Oft . rtSlrlct Ions.
of pr,clfl14t1on to of Prfctfllllton 10
poltnlh Iy rt8Alnlng poltnl II ly rfUlnlng
conll.tnlltd sub. conuolnllfd sub.
surf OCt sot Is. Alsk surf4U soi Is. Ais~
rtl41td 10 ground. nl4tfd to ground.
...trr " diuu"rd tn ..lItr Is dlscusud In
AIL 9.12. All. 9.12.
~Ol 4Pf1iClblt. Air ftncln~. up rtp4ir ~Ol 4ppl iClblt. (fftel iHnui would "tlhods toployrd 4rt ""hods tap 10ytd art
unl i~f 'f «()f\trlbutor .nd fn .nerd C'PO'"3 'Inet no .C(ton Jtptnd upon I~r gtntr411y dfreliH. 41t~ough
And grOund.IIH II 4rt ..tll Ullbl1sht t.~tn. 'b,I.ly 10 tnforct conyrnt ion.1 .nd in., i (" yt"'C?undw.lrr
dl\c...Utd ift Alt. ItChnolog.u. Atg. c;round.,trr uS, tlftCI '.r. trtU.rn "10.«-
9-12. ular InSptCI Ion 4nd rUlriclions bolh on. ..h41 Ius canHn.
8Alnltn4"U Is 4nd off-silt. t \on41 Ihln d Irret
nqulrtd for uch 8fthods.
ttchnology.
Mot Ippllubh. 10 lIktllhood of IIlIurt MOl Ippllubh hlllbllllt dtptndlnt ""hods t.ploytd Are "elhods e.ployed Irt
dirtCI t"'jineHlng Is s..11 IS long II ,inCt"o .cbon upon Ihe 4 iI i Iy to gtntrally rtlllbit generally nlilblt
conlrols ...plt8tnltd. nguhr 0 .. " is U~tn. enforct ground",Ur ..ilh I low ..llh I low problbil.
perfol'Md. uSf restricl ions bolh prob4bllilyof ity of IIlIurt.
on- Ind off.site. f4i lure.
). RtduCI ton of ~o rtduclion In will ....1 rtfult in I "0 rrduct ion in 10 reduction In Mo reduCllons In 50<8t rtduCI Ion In
10. icity, 80bi Ilty or rtduct ion in 10&l(lt,.80b.lily 10licity, IIObl Illy Or 10liclly. 8Gbllily Or 10liclty Ind yolullt
liclly. /Iobtllty yolu.. tOllcity", 80blllty Or or YO IUlllt 01 yolumt 01 ground...ltr yoluw 01 conti.. of groundwlUr con-
yol_, t..y ground..a\tr conta.. conu.in4nu would bf. In.nli wou Id bt 11..nlnl5 would bt
volulllt rfduct tht .igral ion .n4011 ..ould bt IChitYd. ac~ i tytd. Mowntr, croyidtd by in-lilu
polfnt h I 01 4ch I tYtd. 4quif.tr chan-up 10rtcl".1 ion.
conll.inlnU dut 10 would bt IChintd by
cac rtPllr Or groundW41tr
tn anctd clpping- utracI ion.
Q
\
I.t ."
", ;,'"''''
!.
:',:r:. i,......, .
((f~r:~i"n_,!~~
. r r-:' ~17. 1 to(l. c!
(c"r'J."ty ('J"1r~
rH~~1t\ tCl1c.:n
. Frct~ct ion of
wcr.,.,.\ c:unnq
rtC"~dul 4Ctlcn\
. Tiat unlll
proltel ion Is
IChuud
2.
long. h",
(f fHI htnus
. ~IQn i ludt of
rtSldu41 rlst
. ClftCI,.tntSl 01
cc"ntrol,.
. Atllibilily of
(onlroll
Teble
10
cont.
;. '"""., ... .
.:. ' t...... ~: 1",. i j
,,: :....,..~t 1d' 11
;'"'"
--- ---
... '... ~ .' , . r ~
'.J:~~ ,...)~t. if net
aii r~r.wh"~: :u~~ur.
fJ(~ ~,:iI~ ~~: d
r.o~ a i} (Ontl!lH~a:t~
SOI:~ r(QCvtC
",n1I':al rI~i fer
cOnltct: Grcun(.c!ttr
~,\k rdatta 10
crcunC:-.ttrr h
C1<;CU~~"~ In A1t.
S-12: ~r.~I.nt aor -
J;'b nct (or.~ I(crt~ .
~ource bc(au~c .~ntt
re:w;)"e~ .
Shcrt-tcn"I r\~ls due
t., t;roul'\d.~ t er arc
pr.Hnt Iy I"".
~..n;Clal ris~\ to
(cr.r~.Jn1 ty Ct.:r1ng
\CP I Ulcntat Ion.
~~tcuatt conlrols
woula bt illp1t8tnltd
10 control halar~OU\
CC':1SS Icns.
Ir.crct\c 1n C:'.:~t
~ur 1 nr: cor:~ t fu( t \ on
of fnfldnc~~ Cdp.
~~'Cuat. control\ can
be ir.pltlPltn~t~.
~t.crt.t~r:.; rH~\
c:u~ to ~rcun~.,:!ttr
tre prt~tnt iy Jaw.
j
}.':t t~: 1 \c.\::' \-:.
dC~lcn\ t4i~n.
~o
Protect ton r~uH~~
.agaIn\( C:uH c:unnlj
cnndnccd C.1PP 1°9.
Not trciI(J::1~
\lnCt no re...,tJu1
de l ,or.\ ..ou Ie: be
taktn.
~ot appl;cab1. lin«
no rf't!I~(jul acl10n\
woulc: be tdilen.
low risis assvainq
a~ecuale person.a I
prolectlon (or
wor.trs il pro.ided.
NOI 4p~1icablt. Air
unll't)y contribulor.
Ground..ltr Is
d' !cuutd in All.
9.12.
(nh4ncfd capping
could II't 2 yurs
4110wing for duign.
bidding. conHruc-
I ion 4nd down I,.t
during "inttr.
ftnc'l\q could U~t
stY"41 wt..\.
Mo prottelion would
bt .chiC'ffd O'ltr
tht lhorl-Itra.
~roltCI ion wou Id bt
ICh i t.td wII. It
groundwlltr USt
rfS trlct ions 4rt
.nfor«d.
Groundwattr \lrgtl
conCtnlr41 ion Itytls
for conll.in.nlS of
conCtrn ...y bt
4c~.t.td wllhin
approl i...lt 1y 10
lurs.
,.q~~rnttl't~ 12
~'nl,..1 ril.\ to
co~un t ty dur in9
icnp1tl:ltntdt 'on.
Adtoual. conlrol\
would bt i..pltlltnttd
10 control h4urdou\
(miss ions.
low rhks'assuGllnq
bd~Qu.ate persona I
prolect ton for
woratrs is pro.idtd.
Ground..I~r \lrgtl
conctnlr4lion It.tls
for conla.in.nIS of
conCtrn .ar bt
IChitYfd wIthin
approli...I.!y 2)
yur\.
-------
.. ,...
. ,
: ... ~', !.
..
.t. C .. 1 r ", ~ r ~ t 1 ....'
; tt ~ It: 11 i:'
,c..a,I~~l\lty of
~tr"'lc~~ ar.~
I'"i4ttrl.l\
s.
e~~\..nCt .'1h
~~l.~\
eht,,'cll.Sp
-------
r~~:...::~ .:. .'
'. I"':;,; "'-"'-.~. .
. T,~" ~ 1 C oS j
rU.~It.1 j1:...
. Adaini\trati're
ru,ibilitt
. ~,.;I.blllty 01
Sfrvin' to,.1"9
rrQu i r.8«nll s/lou Id
b. ~t.
Not .pproprt.te.
Ailk 10 hu..n hullh
I r08 UPOlurr 10
conlaainu.d qround.
"Uer ..ould bt
controlltd as 10"9 as
on. .nd off.'lte
ground.U.r ulf
rUlrl
-------
(....1 v' t I <:,n i A"; I ~...
7, (Oil
, (ap I ta I
'AnnulI 0 , II
. PrtStnt nt! ""rlh
130-y, . 5\)
8.
SIIU
A(Uplln( 0
t.
(_11117
A(UPIiIlU
!2!lli
AIUrllitiu I:
Allo,nllh. z:
Alterlliliu ):
Altunllh. 4:
Allt,nlHu s:
Alterniliu ,:
AltunUlu 1:
Allunllh. I:
""uIII"" 9:
'." .
. .. ", ~.. ~
-;-c::le
~iJ
con~.
,., ' : (' r;, ,1 ( \ . C ~
.. C': 10 ~, 500 . D.~;].OCQ
;""''\' j. I:. j(! .C:O ~R :81 - 16. 6li. 000
,..;,- ~':~ ~~.9(9.00)
~; j t I . IS. Zit. CoW
10 IJS.OOO to \ 1 -" . 000 ~O 15Z. SOO to Im.ooo
10 c..p 10 ~Q 500 . 15.331.000
~,. ;-"1 r. 12.713.00:) ~Q 181 . 17. S56. aco
.; ~:') 1-.52: . C.):)
.: it! Ie. F:':.OOQ .J
10 b, I~~r,",~ In
Ih, IIOQ "'1.. 1,.n(1
(fylt. 01 tht I).
10 bf' "Odl"fHfd '"
Ih, teo .ft"
"~tn(" rtY!f. of
Ih. IL
10 b. Id~rt"od In
Ih. !:IOO lIt.. rub1l(
(o-tnl, on Ih. rs
Irt r.CfI..d.
1o b. I~~r.".d In
II" COO 1ft..
r'lb II e (08lftfnt' 0"
'ht IS Art
rre.".~.
~-,~:~-1-
To bf ..ddf"f\\td In
Ih. tOo .fI., 10tn(1
(t"it. of lht rS.
10 b. Idd..".d In
Ih, Aon "'1.. rubll(
(_n\\ Ol\ Iho IS
trc rtCt"td.
10 bt Iddrtuod In
tht ~OO A(ltr ''jtlt(l
r..I.. of Iht n.
10 b. Add'''Std In
Iho AOO lIt.. ""bll(
(o-.nt, on tho IS
Irt rtCf I..d.
10
"
'v
10
10 bf Add,,('\ \ td In
tht AOO Afl,.,. "~(n(l
rtwit. of lIlc (S.
10 L. Iddr"\(,1 In
Ih. AOO """ rvbl\(
<08II(nl\ on lhe (j
irt rtctlwtd.
.19IS. Sit. " "0 Act Ion.
.IUS" SIC. . A(U" A"lrI(llon.. (..,,"i...onl 01 Vnl.. lceo.." 0,001 l,uI..nt 01 llndlill Con (lie.) Ind
/Ion 110' In9.
.1918" SII. . "0 Action.
.1918" SII, . A(U" 1"1'1(11...,. (..'III_,nl 01 Vnl" Ind wl"u,hu Soli,. ond lce-." Ind 1,ul.onl 0'
llnd"" Con (lICo).
.1961- SII. " .0 A(lIon.
JA' . ~o A(lIon.
°1961" SII< . /I(U" AUlrI(lIon. Ind (onlll.-,,1 01 VIII" Ind Sul"u,llu Solh.
JAI . A«,,, R..I,let,onl. (onlll",..nl 01 Su~'url'(f ~oi" Ind IIonilorin9.
1.11""111.. 10: Jor Ground.llff . Uu RUI,tellon\.
Jor trcvndw.ttr . NO AClto".
Alt,"".tt., III JOr 'I"O""~.'t'r . (-tr.etlon inca tr't'8,nt.
AII"nlll.. 12: Jor Co,ou.wI.ll" - In..llu ',ul.onl.
13091.10
8Al/d\k(IISI(AJS
(d Ik-401-94dbj
F\.~;~~::.~~.,~"r,.!;~ .
I;~ ~OO . ~2.5':C.GC~
~:; . ('C J
r(l~ I t i,,~ Or31nl~C .
~ Z . ~: : . O'J;
,,= : .MJ . iJ.':Sj,C:C
10 bf ~~dr(\\(d in lh~ ~(
Afltr '9(n<1 rt"tt'" 01 1I
r:;.
10 bt Id,lrc\\.d In 11,. ~(
,If If;( Jluul \e (O""tol\ 00
II.. rs Ir. rcccind.
-------
o
\
.". ."
. (~" r
,
,.
CI"J\~
. (l~ I t 3 \
'Annual 0 L ~
. Pr'~'nt ,."t .~rtt'
(JO.yr'S\j
8.
~.. t <
Att.(GJ \0 1:<0,000
~ 4. is; ,o-:"J
To b, Iddro Ifd In
Ih. RCO .(1" .q.ncl
,,,I(w 01 Ihc H.
To b, Iddrtl"d In
Ih. ROO 1(1" publl,
(oon,ntl on Ih. H
If. ,«Cl..d.
-------
.,
17
cap, m?Jetin;; WAC NR 504.07 starrlards for the 1978 site, arrl the ~ of
the JAB cap to assure. proper maintenanoe arrl drainage, will help to reduce
the am:unt of cmtaminants by reducirg leachate generatim arrl causirg a
reductioo in the JIOVarent of c:x:rrt:aminatim frcm the site area into off-5ite
locatic:ns. cawin; iIrprovements were rot deaDed ~~ry at this time for
the "1963" site sirx:::e the site is CXI1t.ril:ut~ little or 1"0 c:x:rrt:aminatioo to
the gra,n-dwat.er. '!he no actioo alternatives, (Alternatives 1, 3, 7 arrl 9) ,
will rot provide arrj ad:liticn:U protectim to human health or the
envhanent as will the pl"q)05OO al ternati ves sin::e the c:x:rrt:aminatim
(gra.11"dwater an::! air) will rot be treated am access to the sites wculd
remain \mI"eStricted. GraJrrlwater extractioo with cn-si te treatIrent,
Al ternative 11, is ~rable with regard to CNerall protectioo with the
grc:urdwater i.n-si tu treatment al ternati ve, Al t.ernati ve 12, bJt Al t.ernati ve
11 is ]1X)re feasible arrl eccn:m:ical than is Alternative U. '!he larrlfill
caps oot pl"q)05OO do oot OOtain ~ for the partia.ilar larrlfill, are not
as protective as the cawin; alternative chosen, or are CNerly protective
ard therefore deeIred ilrpractical arrl infeasible for the partia.ilar larrlfill.
a::MP~ WI'TH~: '!he cx:rrbinatioo of pl"q)05OO alternatives will meet
all State arrl Federal APARs in::l\.Xiin; the carpliance with ~ interim
status am corrective actioo requirements for the 1985 site, the upgradirg
an:3j or enhanceIrent of the caps at the JAB arrl "1978" sites, arrl the
treatment of contaminated air arrl grc:urdwater thrc:u:Jhcut the JDF. By
extractirq arrl treatin; the contaminated grcurd..;ater dc:1.oJrqradient of the
JDF, bJt prior to its discharge into the Rock River, the grc:urdwater
contamination ~ the Federal K:LsjWisconsin Enforcarent Starrlards
will be acXiressed arrl will rreet ARARs. 'n1e no action alternatives
(Alternatives 1, 3, 7, arrl 9), will rot meet AAJ\Fs for site closure nor
will they prcperly ad1ress the ~ for contamination in the air an:3jor
grc:urdwater. '!he in-5i tu grc:urdwater treabrent al te.rnati ve, AI ternati ve 12,
wcW.d ad::3.ress the ~ for the contamination fcon::i in the grc:urdwater bJt
the pl"q)05OO al ternati ve util izirq on-si te treattrent is rore practicable arrl
feasible because of site ccn:titions. For the gra.11"dwater treatment
alternatives, any d.isd1arges to the Rock River will need to ~ly with
APARs .
u:t.JG-TERM EFFEX:I'~ AND Prn1ANENCE: '!he cx::rrbination of proposed
alten'\atives will provide reliable protection of htm'an health arrl the
environr.'e11t over t.iIre. 'n1e cawirq options afforded by the proposed
alten'\atives, incltrlirq the actions to be taken to ~ly with RrnA
corrective action at the ;'1985" site, ard the up:Jradi..rq of the cap at the
"1978" site, will maintain or intJrove the protectiveness with regard to
direct contact with onsite CXX1tami.nants in soil arrl larrlfill contents arrl
will reduce the aITOJnt of contamination reac:hin:;J the grc:urdwater by rOOucirq
leachate genaration. '!he caps, inclOOin; the present cap at the JAB, will
need to be rointained to ensure their effectiveness. Gra.lI"rlwater arrl
larrlfill gas extraction arrl t.rcatJrent options afforded by the pl"q)05OO
alternatives will effectively prevent the spread of contamination arrl will
continue to reduce the levels of contamination. Grcwrlwater arrl larrlfill
gas extraction arrl treatJrent will require IIDnitorirq arrl inspection to .
ensure effectiveness. wi th proper maintenaI'o:!, both the capp.in3
altel:natives arrl the extraction arrl treatment alternatives (g:ro.urlwater arrl
~,
~
\,
-------
18
o
lardfill gas) will be reliable. '!he no acticn alternatives (Alten-.atives 1,
3, 7 arrl 9) wo.1ld not offer arrj lcrq-term effectiveness at all since
oart:aminants W1CUld <:xr1t.irue to be released to the erwita aa::i1t. Cawin; am
~ter extractiqn arrl treabrent options not chosen W1CUld prtNide
vary~ degrees of lon:J-t.erm effectiveness arrl pe.rma.nerx:e (in sane instances
the cawhq alternatives my provide 1JX)re pexmanerce) b.It the pl~
alteITIatives are ~ 1JX)re practicable aId feasible to ad1ress site
ccn::titicn;. Alternatives to ad:lress site contaminaticn, such as
solidificatioo, in::ineratioo or other 1JX)re pe.nnanent ~'?1.lreS, were rot
evaluated for the JU' since no "hat spots" of contaminatia\ were found
within lli! JDF area, arrl to rem:we all the waste !rea the JtF wo.1ld be
deercai extremely ilrpractical arrl infeasible.
o
\
REIUCrICN OF 'roXICI'IY, MJBILIT'i, OR VOllJME: Prcposed Al ternati ve 2 for the
"1985" sit.e arrl Alten1ative 4 for the "1978" site inclu:lirq IFG ret::::J:Nery arrl
flarin;J, vill reduoe the toxicity arrl the m::bility of the lemmtation of any of the proposed alternatives. '!he alternatives not
proposed for this site either do not afford any protectioo ard therefore
have no short-term effectiveness (no actioo alternatives) or have similar
~lementation tiIres ard effectiveness as the proposed alternatives.
J
I
~
IMPI..EMrnrABILIT'i: The al ternati ves wi thin the prq:csed al temati ves
inchrle differirq degrees of ilIt'larentabil i ty. '!be acoess restrictions
portions of the prq:csed alternatives; will be easily bpleroonted since the
City of Janesville o..ms the JDF Site aId governs the area iJIpacted by the
contami.nat:icn. Sane coordination between local agen::ies will be required to
int>lerrent the deed restrictions 00 aId near the JDF Sites. '!he cawin:J
portions ()f the proposed alternatives will be sarewhat nore difficult to
ilri>1erta1t than sane of the cawirq q:>tions not chosen, such as the no actioo
-------
19
alternatives (except for the "1963" site), bJt the proposed alten1atives
offer greater reduction in leachate generation ard attain ARARS. '!he
portions of the proposed alteniatives regard.:in:; lardfill gas ard groJI"dwater
extraction ard treatment may require m::>re studies to aid in design. '!he
technology is available ard proven for the extraction ard treatment of
lardfill gas ard the grourx:r...'ater called for by the proposed alternatives.
'!he groJI"dwater in-situ treatment alternative, Alternative 12, \oJOUld be m::>re
difficult to iJrplement than the proposed alternative, Alternative II, since
in-situ treatment requires the intrcxiuction of nutrients ard oxygen into the
groJI"dwater ani its results \oJOUld not be as definite as those prcxhJoed by
the proposed al ternati ve.
CDST: '!he proposed alternatives are cxrrpare.d to each other with regard to
the criteria listed above ard then when two or m::>re rerre.;lies achieve the
same goal ( ie., achieve ARARS), cost can becare a determi.ni.r¥1 factor.
However, because the remedy ( ies) at the JDF are to satisfy RCRA as well as
CERCIA, cost as an evaluation factor has been given less enp,.asis with
respect to sites which will be addressed usin] RCRA authorities.
Construction costs ard operation ard maintenance (O&M) costs for each
alten1ative are surnrrarized in Table 10 ard within the FS. '!he alten1atives
proposed are believed to be the most cost~ffective remedies to meet the
obj ecti ves of CERCIA ard RrnA.
x.
'THE SEI.EX:Trn REMED'{
Based on the fin:lin;s of the RI/FS ard the documents within the .
Administrative Record arrl the results of the p..1blic ccmnent period, the
selected remedy for each of the JDF c:c:rcp:ments is as follows:
'!HE "1985" SITE: Q:npl:ian:e with the awlicable requ.irements of ~ which
will incltrle the (n'Ia1el1ts of Alternative 2. since the "1985" site is net
an NFL site, c:x::mpliaJx:e with this J:'I"IT¥'rl i '" 1 decisim will be adrieve.d t:hra.ql
RrnA aut:bJrities. Alternative 2 (~.'I ~d:s to be iJIplE!Del1ted inc1trle the
follc::JWinJ:
*
~ re::.LL.icticns which will }:lLUlLJte the use of deed am J.arrj
use l:~LL.icticns to assure that future use of this site does net
in::rease the release or potenti.al release of hazarda1s sul:st.an:es
to the envira1ment or ~ .,IP darY:Jerros to the life or health of
peq>le: a fence will need to be installed a.ra.Ini the ~
used to gather the larxlfill gas, beth for the prctectim of the
peq>le am of the ~. A fence :may need to be inst:a11ed
aram:l the larxlfill gas oollect:.i.m we.lls, bIt this can net be
det.eJ:m:iIm until after the syst:aD is designed.
An IF<; extractim am f.l..arin) syst:aD that rmy later be a:.nverted
into an ere.rgy c:x:.nvertin;J syst:aD will be installed. 'Ihe J.arrjfill
gas extractim am f.l..arin) syst:aD will be designed durinJ the
~i '" 1 Design stage, bIt rmy involve a J"IImn:..r of IF<; extractim
we.lls W'hich will be u.ll1I~-ted by a gas ~r pipe system to a
m.=chanical bl~, W'hich in tmn will create za1eS of low pressure
within the larxlfill ani iIrluce gas flow into the we.lls.
*
-------
.,
"
,
20
*
1JI{>1:"CNt:2a.2Jla to the larrlfill cap in::1ulirg the ~ of ~
cap to !Wet the ~ of WAC NR 504. rn. (The mPs have
sOCM1 that with the w,c NR 504.07 cap, alcn:.J with the bprovanents
of the leac:hate cxlilecticn systaD ard the extracticn am t:reabIa1t
of li"G, the perfODDaJ'r.e st.arrla.1:d; of the tIW: NR 504. rn larrlfill
cap will JEeet ar exceed the perfODl:aI'D:! st.arrla.1:d; far the R:RA
SooliUe ~ NR 181.44 (13) cap.) 'lhe cap far the 1985 site
Eh:uld be tied into the cap far the 1978 site.
Cc:I1t.irJ.x;d m::nitari.nJ ircllrlin3 the Dni~ of the gro.m1water
ard air, acaJrdin:j to ~, ard the l~ Daintenanoe of the
lardfill cap.
*
*
'Ib;! repa.irln:J ard/ar ~ ~ of ~ lead1ate CDllecticn
system, as req..ti.red by ~ to assure that no 100re than a1e
(1) foot of lead1ate exists aboYe the bott.cD liner.
*
-1985- site clean-\Jp goals ar st.arrla.1:d;:
- JOOet the c1.csure perfoz:mance st.arrla.1:d; as stated within
WAC NR 504.rn,
- IIDet R:RA ~ far post-d.ooure arxl CDrrective
acticn,
- eliminate the risk caused by m-si te ard off-site
breathirg of cxrrt:.amiI1ated air C'aUSEd by ~ emissiCJ1S of
lardfill gas, nx:cl.irq the ~ of WAC NR 400
stardardsi am . .
- repair an3Iar ~rove the leachate CDllectim ~-tem to
eliminate mccessive head levels, (head levels will be no
100re than 1 foot above the bot:tcm liner).
Estimated O:sts:
Estimated O:rst:ruct.icn Cast: $2,949,000
Estimated ArnJal O&M Cast: $39,500 - $142,000
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $4,521,000
*
'!HE -1978" SITE: 'I11e selected l~ will in::llrle O]II\~ of Alternative
4, in::l u:lirg the followiIg:
*
~ restricticns wtUd1 will prawte the use of deed am lard
use restrictions to assure that f"Uture lL.se of this site does n:Jt
:in:rcase the release or potential release of hazarda.1s sul:stances
to the envi.rc:r'1m?nt or ~ darqerous to the life ar health of
pc!q)le; a fexr.e will D:!ed to be installed arc:urrl the madUnery
uSEd to gather the lardfill gas, both far the protect.icn of the -
pe(:ple am of the madUnery. A fern! may. need to be installed
arourd the larrl£ill gas CDllectlcn~, tut this can not be
detenni rm until after the systaD is designed or until after the
1?RPs exercise their c.pt:.icn to .test out of the ~ to
extract ard treat the IR; as all~ by. w..c NR 506.08 (6) an::l
-------
21
*
1\n I.R; ext:ract.im am flarlrq syst.ea that 8!rf later be cxrtYerted
into an ererqy cx:r1Yert.iI'g systaa. 'n1e lardfill gas ~w.~oo ard
flarlrq system will be designed d.n:in:J the ~i"l Design stage,
b.1t my inYol ve a or- mhP-r of IR; ext::ract:.icn wells ~ will be
~ by a gas ~r pipe system to a JIIeChanical blc:M!r,
..ro.ch in tum will create zmes ~ 1011 pressure within the
lardfill ani in:b:e gas flOIl iJ~t.o the ~ 1 hI.. 'Ibe IJ'IG system far
~ "1978" site may be tied into the systeII bein:J reo I ....~ dad far
~ "1985" site ard JlB'f also evoentually be tied into a system
..ro.ch my be deYelqai for ~ O1.LL€Utly ~ lardfill cs.;L~
Bl.acX Bri.d:Je a:m to the mrth. 'Ibe mPs have the c::p::.ia\ to test
cut of the req..Urem:nt of ilI{>1~ the IJ'IG ext::ract:.icn am .
treatJIett system by da:ocrbuatirg the perfarmarv.:JE! criteria of NR
504 . 04 ( 4) can be adlieved, as allc:wed by WAC NR 506.08 (6), am by
~bu.atirg that ~ migratic:n of ~losive If\-~ bas been
prevented. 'the test cut ~ JTeS, if q.1ted, will be cx:rrllrted
after the new cap is in place.
C'a1t.a.inIe1t of the wastes ard 91b;:urface soils by ~ the
lardfill COoler to CDIPly with the starrlards of ~ NR 504.07. 'the
larrlfill cap far ~ 1978 site sbculd be tied into ~ cap far the
1985 site.
*
*
Ccrrtinx:rl grourrlwater arrl air m:ni torirq.
"1978" clean-up goals ar starrlards:
- meet WAC NR 504.07 cawiIg,lco.ter req.ll.raIe1ts,
- eliminate the risks caused by ~ m-site am off~ite
breathirq of a:rrt:.am.inated air caused by the Ani~iCl1S of
lardfill gas by ilI{>1~ ~ IFG extractic:n am
treatJIrnt systan or ~i ~ with the hazardcus air
cart:.aminant test cut prcxxrlures.
*
Estimated Chsts:
Estimated Cc.nstructic:n Q:st: $3,993,000
E5t.i.matcd Arl:rUal O&M 0:ISt: $52,500 - $135,000
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $5,331,000
(Estimated ccsts are 3~~Imi~ that the IFG extractic:n ani
trcatns1t systan will be iIIple1Ie1ted. '!be a;st of the hazarcXus
air cart:.aminant test art: p~ rrcs has mt been estimated)
'DIE "1963" STIE: 'the selected LU1J3dy will :incltrle ~ of Alternative
5, the no act.im alternative. I~er, the fol1o..rin;J will still med to be
ilI{>1cne.nted: (Since the "1963" site is mt en the NFL, t11CSe requiL~
ani arr:I others ..ro.ch JlBY arise in tl1c future f are ~ to be achie..red
. tl~ ~ aut:.rorities.)
*
*
~ .tc::iuicticns ..ro.ch will prcmote tl1c \ISe of deed am lam
use restricticns to assure that future use 'of this site 00es nJt
irx:::t-ease ~. release or pX.ent.ia1 release of hazardcus ~
-------
v
"
'"
22
*
to the. envi.rcnDent (J[' be< " I~ dan::Jercus to the life (J[' health 'Of
pecple.
(~ grcurrlwater -=nit:.crirq.
.~
*
":1963" clean--q> g:als (J[' ~:
- Ncne
*
J::sti.mated O:st:s:
Estimated a.. E:>~ uct i m 0::ISt:
Estimated ArnJal O&M O:st:
Estimated 30 Year Pre:::Jes.t Net Warth:
will have 9aJE aJSt:s
"-~iated with the .
cxrJt.imerl JID'1i t:arirxJ
'11iE .ThB SrI'E: '!he selected l~ will ircl.u:ie I u'pDeStts of Alternative 8,
.irx:hxtirq the follOllling:
*
~ l~u icticns ...n.id1 will prt:mJte the use of deed am lan:1
use I~U icticns to assure that future use of this site Q:)es rot
.in:::rease the release or potential release of ha.zarcbJs su1:starDes
to the envircnDent or ~".,- dargerQJs to the life or health of
pecple.
'the cx::Ilt.a1nnent of wastes am 51 ~ r~ soils l:7f uainta.ini.rq the
present cap am upJtOdi.rq the p1~ tt cap am site drainage, as
x Je€ded .
*
*
Ccrttin.Je grcurrlwater m:ni t:orin;.
C:lq)ly with all cq::plicable ~ requirements.
*
*
ReIrJve ani prcperly n 1 ~ of the rarn..i.nirq ash pile located to
the scuth of the .J1U3 as per ~ NR 500 - 520. '!he ash is
regulated as a solid 'wo'aSte as defined by wis. Stats. 144.01(15)
.ThB clean-up goals or st:arrlards:
- cx:mply with Rem. pcst-clcsure am corrective actim
requirements,
- assm-e cap is pIq:)erly 1!Bint:airm am assure p~ site
drainage.
*
Estimated Casts:
Esti.uated Onstructicn Cbst: ~S, 000
Estinated Annual O&M Ca5t: $14,100
. Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $292,000
JDF GlUJNlWATffi: '!he sclect.ro rGIV2dy will ioclu:ie the ~lts of
Al temati ve 10 am 0 .'I-:r.ent5 of Al t.emati ve 11, :in::lu:lirq the folla.wi.rg:
*
*
'!he provisicns of Alternative 10 will praIXJte the use of dce1 am
gro..u-dw;Jter use restrictions far the area beb.1een the IN'' arrl the
P.cck River.
-------
*
23
'the ~m of ~ E!kLl.cS..~iCY\ '-Iells to i11tercept the
grourrlwater cx:rttaminatim prlca:' to it ~ the ~ River.
'Ihe ~ p.mp ani treat systaa sba1l be ~ to
alla.l sufficient p~ to int;.ercept groorrlwater frcD as far
scuth as th! Well 2S area and as far RJrth as th! Well 9/9A area.
<)
*
'Ihe deve1~d: of a ~ treatment systa8 that vill treat
the Vt:Cs in the ~ by JDeanS of an air strfwer or other
~ t.ec.!'1oo1CX]Y, U ~. Air emissicn; frcm the treatment
system will need to ueet the stardards of WtC NR 400 - 499. ']he
grourrlwater ext:ractim curl treatJze1t systeD will be designed
an-in;1 the ~i '" 1 D?Sign stage ard will take into aoYAmt the
system that ray be installed jTmY'rliately d:wrgradi.ent of the JIJ!,
at the ~ ~ site. 'Ihe grourrlwater my need to be treated
for inorganics as well, if saq>lirq determines that inorganics
within the pmp:rl ~ ~~ federal or state starrlards.
'the treated water will then be disd1arged into the Reck River.
'the grourrlwater will need to be ~LI.~er1 ani treated as lag as
the grourrlwater wi thin, at, ard d:lwrgradient of the JtF oart:.a.ins
cmtaminants that exceed the W1tC NR 140 starrlards. 'Ihe treated
grourrlwater will be reqllred to 1I£'.E!t the water cpality starrlards
or \tW: NR 102, NR 104, NR 105, NR 106, NR 207, curl the Wf{£)
permit rcqJ~ of NR 200 ard NR 220 prior to d.iscnarge into
the Rcck River.
*
0:t1ti.rued grourrlwater m:nitar:irg.
*
J1::F Gro.Irdwater clean-up cp 1!; or starrlards:
- Provide a grourrlwater extractim systaD that is as
effective or nvI"C effective than the system ~ in
the ~ 1.989 Feasibility St1.dy:
- punp arrl treat the grourrlwater until no f~ K:I.sjW2\C
NR 140 exceedan:eS exist beb..lcen JI:F ard the Rs::x::k River:
- prevent cx:rttaminated grourrlwater frcm reachiIg the Roc.){
River ,
- eliminate the health risks ~~iated with the
cx:rttaminated grourrlwater, ie. cmtaminants c:Ner the
fErleral K:rsjWisa:n5in E)UOL~ Starrlards:
- OCI!ply with ReM pa:;t-closure ard oorrective actim
req.riraDerlts; .
- D?et surface water cpllity starrlards as per \tW: NR 102, NR
104, NR 105, NRi06, NR 200, NR 208, curl NR 220, with
regards to the d.iscnarge of the treated grcurrl.o.rate.r into
the a:x::k Rivex': an:!
- neet air q..1ali ty starrlards as per 1W: NR 400 - 499 with
regards to the emissions associated with the troatirg of
the cx:rttaminatcd .nrJ.1al O&M O:st: $57, 000 - $117,000
EstilIDted 30 Year Present Net Worth: $2,184,000
*
~
-------
24
cO
XI. ~ 1\~
No significant ~ were raised durirq the p.lblic. meetirq to alter the
carp:::ne.nts of the Preferred Al ternati ves. . 01arqes to the preferred
a1 tanati ves as stated in the PL~ Plan presented to the p.lblic, based
00 cx:moents received fran the p.Jblic ani the PRPs durirq the O.'.'-=-ltl period
ani dur irq the 60 day technical negotiatioo are d i !Qn 5-c:Arl in Sectioo VIII of
this &:x::unent. Irrlividual cc::mDeIrt:s ani letters are SlmII'arize.d within
Attachment 1, the Responsiveness SuIIrnary, attached to this dcx:ument.
XII.
!5'TATE Aa:EPI'A~
'I11e letter statirq the WCNR' s acceptance of the u. s. EPA' s Selected Renedi.al
Action Alternatives is fcord as AttachIreJ1t 2 to this dcx:ument.
XIII.
STA1UrORY OCIl:M'ITWUIOOS
'!he selected alternatives for the Janesville D~ Facility, as listed in
Section VIII of this RJO, meet the statutoI)' require:nents in that they are
protective of human health ani the environment, attain ARARs, utilize
perna.nent'solutions arrl alternative treat:JIent tec::hnolc:qies or resaJr'Ce
reo::Nery teChrolc:qies to the maxim.Im extent practicable ani have a
prefererce for treat:JIent as a principal e1errent, as described below:
Protection of Human Health ard the Environment:
.
'!he selected re.roody, a c::x::aminatioo of alternatives ack1ressirq each
iIrlividua1 site within the JDF, will be protective of human health and the
erIVirclnrrent thrcogh the use of lard and ~ter use restrictions,
containrrent of wastes and subsurface soils, and by the extraction ard
treatJrent of contaminata:3 lardfill gas ani the extraction ard treatJrent of
. the ctraction ard treatns'lt of the contaminated ~ter ~ent of
-------
25
JDF, bebleen JDF ard the Rock River. By treatin; the lardfill gas ard the
groun:iwater, the risks associated with the respective CXXltaminatioo will be
greatly reduced, if n:1t eliminated. '!be e.xtractian ard treatment remedies
are reliable zoot:.hcds to assure the protectiveness of h\m'an health arrl the
erwirorment.
'!be ~/larrl use restricticns ani the grc::urlwater use restricticns
ilrplesrented by the selected al ternati ves will aid in adUeving the
protectiveness of tJJman health an3 the envuo.8Id1t. '!be ~uicticns will
reduce the likelibxxS of activities occurring cn-site that may damage the
sites' Q;ipS ani will prc:tUbit the inrtallatioo of water SUWly \o1ells in the
area ocx::upied by the JDF ani beb.Jeen the JtF am the Rock River.
There will be no unacceptable short-tenD risks or cross-media iIrpacts caused
by the iIrpleJTeJ1tatian of the selected raralies.
AttairIIrent of ~:
'!he selected remedies will be designed to meet all the awl icable, or
relevant ard apprcpriate requirements (~) of Federal ani 100re stringent
State e.nvironrrental laws. A list of the prc:.h3ble ~ for the JDF sites
is listed within the FS. '!be primary ~ that will be achieved by ead1
of the selected alternatives for the irdividual sites are as follC7w"S. Ead1
ARM. is designated as either awlicable or relevant ard awrcpriate.
Closure Requil"CI1'erlts:
"1985" Site:
* cawing requirements as stated in W1\C NR 504.07. (U. S. EPA,
in cansultatian with the ~, detenni.ned that the WAC NR
504.07 cap in conjunction with the iJrprovements to the
lead1ate collection system ard the extraction arrl treatJrent of
UG, the ~ of ~ SUbtitle C will be obtained.)
tronitoring, larq-term care ani closure requirelrents as
required urder RCWVWAC NR 181,
are all awlicable to the "1985" site.
*
*
"1978" site:
* cappirq requirelre.nts as stated WAC NR 504.07,
* oonitorim am prc:per cap naint.enance will follow starrlards
stated in WAC NR 508 arrl WAC NR 514,
are awlicable to the "1978" site.
*
"1963" Site;
* there are no capping MARs for the "1963" site, b.It cap
ilrproverncJlts as called for by RCRA corrective action for
solid waste management units as detenni.ned by 40 CFR 264 !MY
be awlicable.
JAB Site:
*
capping requi.ranents with proper cap maintenance as stated in
WAC NR 181 are awlicable.
-------
26
p
,
Corrt:.aminated Air O:::o;:erns:
""1985" site;
* Naticnal Pri.m:lly ard Secarrlary AJrbient Air QJal i ty Stardards
as referra:l to by 40 ern 50, regard.irq the particulate
staroards that awly to dust gene.rat.irg constructia1
activities,
Wl>tC NR 400 series regulati~ CXJVer~ the ~ of Wi5CX:)l1Sin
air cpa1ity requirarents,
Performa.rx:e staroards regard.irq the cxrrtrol of lardfill gas
emissions as stated in vw: NR 504.04 (4) (e) ard (f) ard the
design criteria as cutli.ned in WAC NR 504.05(7) ard (8),
lardfill closure requirelnents as stated in ~ NR 506.08 (6)
requi.rin; lardfil1 gas CXX1tro1/treabrent system in 1ardfil1s
with trOre that 500,000 cu yds of waste, an::i
the gas JOCnitor~ requirements as stated in WAC NR 508.04(2),
requiri.n;Jlardfill gas JOCnitorirg to ~5-~ gas migration ard
the effectiveness of any lardfill gas cxrJtrol system,
are awlicable.
u
*
*
*
*
*
"1978" Site:
* sarre as for the "1985" site.
JDF' G~...ater;
* Q)ntrol of hazardous pollutants as stated in WAC ~ 44?,
establishes hoorly or annual emission rate limits for
sp:!Ci fie substances.
is awlicable
which
*
Contarn ir.:ited Gra.lrrlwater ccnce.rns:
JDF' Grourrl,.,rater;
* MCLs a$ called for by the Safe Drinkin;J Water Act, to 1:e
rrct wi thin ard at the JDF ard between the JDF sites ard the
Rock River,
D1forceable limits for substances in gIU.ll"rlwater released fran
a sol id waste m:mager:ent uni t permitted urrler ~, as stated
in 40 ern. 264.94,
Gra.m.:t..Jater quality starrlards as stated in WAC NR 140, ard
Groorrl..;ater Jt'Onitori.n;J to 1:e corducted at all 'the sites as
per RCRA closure arrl corrective action requiremants, as stated
in 40 CFR 264 requirezrents arrl within WAC NR 140/141 ard NR
508, are awlicable to the ~dter contamination foord at
the JDF.
*
*
*
Surface Wd ter Concerns:
JDF';
*
SUrface water quality stan:3ards set forth in WAC NR 102 for
the discharged treated gIU.ll"rlwater,
-------
27
*
WAC NR 104, 105 ard 106 starrlards rega.rdirg criteria for
acceptable di.sc:harge 1 imi ts as well as the. 1 imi ts set forth in
WAC NR 217/220, arrl -.
Federal NFUS Regulaticn; as stated in 40 CFR 122, 125 arrl
131,
are awl icable to the di.sc:harge of the treated gra.In:iwater
fran the JDF sites.
.
.
.J.
O::st Effectiveness:
. -
Sirx:e the JDF rontains two RCAA regulated facilities, ard the other two sites
'Wi thin the JDF are RrnA sol id waste management units, cx:st effectiveness is
not of major concern in choosirg remedial actic:ns for portic:ns of the JDF
CXNered urder ~ authorities. fb,.Jever, the selected remedies for the .JDF
are considered cost effective when CCITpcll"'ed to alt..en1atives not ~, W'hic:h
may have had a similar or greater degree of protectiveness to the environment
arrl to p..1blic health. For instance, Alternative 12, in-situ gI"OJTdwater
treatJte1t, yields results similar to Alternative 11, gI"OJTdwater extractia'1
arrl treatment, t:ut Alternative 11 was chosen because it is estimated to be
half as cx:st.ly as Alternative 12. Also, the nmd.m.Im cap up;Jrades were not
chosen for any of the JDF units, while the perfonraoc.e stardards will still
be acru.eved, so the selected alternatives are certainly nore cx:st effective
than sane of the cawirg alternatives not selected. '!he total cx:st for the
selected rer.roies at the JDF are estimated for a 30 year present net worth at
nearly $12 million dollars. The casts, hcJw1ever, will Cf:Ner ,the remedies for
a 11 four sites within the JDF arrl will ad::lress the gra.u-rlwater ard air
contamination prcblems caused by the JDF site.
Utilization of Per1ranent Solutions ani Alte.rnative Treatment
Techno1cqies or Rcsa..lrce RetXNery Technolcqies to the Maxi1rum Extent
Practicable:
The al te.rnati ves chosen represent the best balance of al te.rnatives evaluated
to address the cx:>ntamination prcblems faJrd at the JDF. By extractirg arrl
treatin:J the lan:ifill gas at the "1978" arrl the "1985" sites, the potential
health threats to neighborin:J residents will be drastically reduced, if not
totally eli1ni.nated, arrl the extraction ani treatment of the gI"OJTdwater
between JDF arrl the Rock River will offer added protection to public health
am the environment. '!he cappin:J alt.e!n3tives d10sen are not per11'anent
rer.roies, ani will require appropriate aIOCJU11ts of rocnitoring arrl maintenance
to assure the effectiveness of the cap. '!he larrl use arrl gra.u-rlwater use
restrictions iIrplCIOOnted by the selected l"'e1rclies will further assure added
protection to the p..1blic health arrl the environment. '!he selected rt:?IOOdies
represent the rnax.imlm extent to which per11'anent so1utions ani treatment can
be practicably utilized for this action. Dle to the large quantities of
waste within the JDF units, (except for the JAB, in Which JroSt of the wastes
have been renoved), ard the discovery of no "hot spots" within the larrlfills,
al t.ernati ves invol vin:J the u"eat:IrPJ1t or rerroval of the wastes were deemed..
ilipracticable arrl were not carried forward.
-------
28
~ ,
PrefereN:e for Treatment as a Pr~ip'U Element:
The cx::11t.ami.nation of the air by the larrlfill gas ard the oontaminat.ia1 of the
gra.ITd..-ater were identified in the ~;"l Investigation as beirg the"
prin::ipal threats posed by the JDF sitae 'Ihe selected alternatives give
prefererce to treat:rrent in that both the gro..trrlwater ani the lardfill gas
CXX1tam.i.nation problems will be adkessed via treatmant t:.ec:hn:>logies. 'Ihe
~ter will be extracted ani treated by air striwin; (Alternative 11)
ard the! larrlfill gas will be extracted ard treated by flarirq (Alternatives 2
ani 4).
'"
XN. ~
'!he prE~ of ~ter oontaminatioo ard the emission of a::ntami.rents
via larrlfill gas at ard art:Urrl the Ja.nesville Disposal Facilities, requires
that rE~al acticns be iIrplerented to reduce the risk to p..1blic health and
the environrrent. The U.S. EPA believes, based CI1 the RIfFS ard the
l-dministrative Record, that the selected alternatives provide the best
balarxJe of trade~ffs am:::n; alternatives with respect to the criteria used to
evaluate the ~es. Eased on the information available at this time, the
U.S. EPA believes that the selected lemedy will be protective of human health
ard the envi.ronrrent, will attain ~ and will utilize pernanent solutions
ard al ternati ve treatment ted1nolog ies of resa.1roe recovery ted1nologies to
the rraxiln..Im extent practicable.
'Ihe total estimated costs for the Remedial Action at the fcur sites that
c::oq:>r ise the JDF are as follc:ws:
"1985" costs, Alternative 2:
EstiJrated O::nstroction O:st: $2,949,000
Estirrated Anr1Jal O&M c:st: $39,500 - $142,000
Estirrated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $4,521,000
"1978" costs, Alternative 4:
Estim-:lted O::nstroction Cost: $3,993,000
EstiIrated Annual O&M Cost: $52,500 - $135,000
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $5,331,000
1Q1963" costs, Alternative 5:
Estimated O::nstroction Cost:
EstiIrated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth:
will have sare costs
associated with the
continued ~ter
m:ni torirq.
~r AB c::ob t.s , Al ternati ve 8:
Estinated O::nstroction Cost: $75,000
EstiIrated Annual O&M Cost: $14, 100
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $292,000
.mF Grourd..:ater, Alternatives 10 ard 11:
Estiltuted Construction Cost: $504,000
EstiIrutcd Annual O&M Cost: $57,000 - $117,000
Estim:1ted 30 Year Present, Net Worth: $2, 184,000
-------
29
Total Est:i.IIated CXISts of the Sele.c:ta:l AI t.ernati ves:
Total Estimated Cbst for ~ (ncn-<::rnc:L\IN) selected al ternati ves
(I.ocllrles Alternative 2 far the "1985" site, arrl Alternative 5 for the
"1963" site):
Estimated 0:nstructia1 Cbst: $2,949,000
Estwted Annual O&M Cbst: $39,500 - $142,000
Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $4 , 521, 000
Total for ~ selected alternatives
(~100es Alternative 4 for the "1978" site, Alternative 8 for the JAB,
arrl Al ternati ves 10 arrl 11 far the JDF gI'"Qlrrlwate.r a:x-rt:amination) :
Estilrated Construction Cbst: $4 , 572, 000
Estimated Annual O&M Cbst: $124,100 - $266,100
Estilrated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $7,807,000
Total for all JDF selected alternatives (iIx:ltrl.i.n; Alternative 4 for
the "1978" site, Alternative 8 for the JAB, Alten1atives 10 arrl 11 for
the JDF G:rolJrrlwoa ter arrl Al ternati ve 2 for the "1985" site arrl
Alternative 5 for the "1963", site):
Total Estimated Construction Costs: $7, 521,000
Total Estir..atOO Annual O&M Costs: $163,600 - $408,100
Total Estimated 30 Year Present Net Worth: $12,328,000
.~
-------
.,
~1
~ 9H4ARY
JNiESVII.lB DISK6AL F'1CILLTI
(INCI.IJDI}C 'IDE ~ ASH w:s Nm 'IHE OID ~ ~
J1\NESVII1.E, WISCX::NSIN
'!be U. S. DlV irormental Protection h:}ercJ (tt. S. EPA) has gathered Wonratioo
on the types am extent of cx::ntaminatim fo.m:1, evaluated rem=clial measures,
arrl has ~ ~.H~l actia1S to ad1ress the cx::ntamination fc:ord at
arrl near the Ja.IV2:SVille Di.sp::sal Facility. '!be Janesville Di.sp::sal Facil i ty
consists of two sites in:lu:1ed on the Naticna1 Priorities List (NPL), the'
Jarresville Ash Beds am the Old Jarresville Iardfill am two ~
sites, the Ja.IV2:SVille Old I:UIp am the New Janesville Larrlfill. '!he
Janesville Ash Beds site ard the New Janesville I.aOOIill are also regulated
urder the ResaJrce Conservatioo ard Ps:::x:Nery Act (RC&\). As part of the
remedial action selectioo process, a p..Iblic meetirxJ was held 00 A1r:Just 30,
1989 to ~lain the intent of the project, to describe the results of the
Rer.ojial Investigatioo am Feasibility Stujy, am to receive cx:mrents fran
the pililic.
. .
Publ ic participat ion in SUpe.rfurrl proj ects is required by the SUpe.rfurrl
A.~ents am Reauthorizatioo Act of 1986 (SARA). Caments received fran
the pJblic are ~idered in the selection of the reta:lial actioo for the
site. '!he Responsiveness SUlIIrary saves two p..u:poses: to provide the U.S.
EPA wi.th informatim abcut ccmrunity pref~ ard a:n:.erns regardi.rJ; the
rezredial alternatives am to sb:Jw nerbers of the c::cmnunity how their
cx::aTIIreJ1ts were incorporated into the decision~ process. O:mrents
regardirq information specifically cx:rrt:ained in the ReIra:lial Investigation;
Feas ibil i ty Study (RIfFS) are not acXiressed in this Responsiveness Stm1rary
as this inforTT'Ution is containEd in the rep:>rts available in the Jane.sville
Libral:Y ard at the Janesville lwt..1nicipal B..1ildirq. Also, cx:mrents not
direct:ly related to the selection of t.he reroodial alternatives have not been
adJressed wi thin the Responsiveness Stm1rary.
This c}oo..nrent 5U1i1'I\arizes the oral cx::mrents received at the pml ic meetirq
held on August 30, 1989, am the written cx:mre.nts received durirq the p.1blic
ccm"eJ"'It pericrl runnirq fran ~ 21 through Sept.errCer 15, 1989. ~
Steerirq Canmittee, representirq the ~ of the Potentially Responsible
Parties (ffiPs), requested an add! tional 5 days to cx::I1"plete am review its
ccmoonts ard concerns, am the extension was granted. Please refer to
Appe.n:tix A for a complete list of cx::mrentors.
'!he a::mnents have been SUI'lU'l'arized am are as follONS:
Ccmnent 1: 'I11e Rock CaJnty Health Department did a risk assessrrent
reqardirq groorrlwater protection in the county ani this [the Janesville
Sites] is one of t.he higher risks, in the tcp five, but urrlergra.1rrl storage
tanks was the highest risk in the ca.tnty. I believe that if rI:J:)('£!'j is to be
spent, it shoold be spent to el iminate the highest risk, to prevent rore of
these problems fran oocurrirg in the future.
-------
2
Response 1: '!1)e U. S . EPA agrees that prevel'Jt.in;J turt:.her CXX1taminatioo,
su:f1 as that ....rom is caused by leakirg ~ storage tanks, is a
priority and the u.s. EPA and many states, in:ludi.rq the State of Wisconsin,
have set up prcgrams to deal with these isc:1 ~. SlJt::erfUn:l was created to
ad1ress CXX1taminatioo frcD 1!IJd1 larger 5O.1rOeS, sud'l as the JDF, that can
have a greater i.ITpact 00 p..1blic health and the erJVi.raInent than the ~ct
that may result frcD a smaller BC1lrCe sud'l as ~ storage tanks.
SlJt::erfUn:l is set up in such a way that those who are responsible for the
contamination are those that pay for the remedial actioo to acikess the
contamination.. Only W'hen no respcusible parties are available,. are
government furds ~ on the remedial action. '!1)e rrrrey used for
SUperfurd actions is derived frcm a separate taxiIg I'eVe.rJ.Je than the furrls
that are used to ad1ress ncn-SlJt::erfUn:l isc:1 ~ such as leak:i.rg ~
storage tanks.
Ccmnent 2: I wculd like to cx:mnent that given the t.hin;;s that have been
d\.D'r'lP€d into these facilities CNer the years, I think it's a given that we
were goirq to en:1 up with p:>lluted gro.m::lwater and air rcN. We've got to
clean it up. I live up here, and I'm c:::cnc::enm about it. I'm glad I'm not
a responsible party, b.lt mybe I am in JIrf o.m little way. I think we all
are and we sha.1ld clean it up. I st.rorqly ~ the alternatives yoor
office is r~ namely: "1985 site" Alt. 2, "1978 site" Alt. 4,
"1963 site" Alt. 6, "JAB site" Alt. 8 and "JDF Grcord Water" Alt. 10 & 1l.
We cannot pick less than the best tret..hOO when we are t.ry~ to clean up 0Jr
water, soil and air. Alternative 11 of the "JDF Grcord Water' bothers Ire
conce.rnirg the air contamination fran the water treat:Irent process. We don't
need any added CXX1tamination to the air in 0Jr neighOOrl1ood.
Response 2: 'I1w1k yoo for YOJr SUt:P>rt. On the issue of air
contamination, Alt.ernative 11 will involve the extraction and treatJrent of
the conta:m.inat..ed gro.m::lwater between the JDF and the Rock River. By
treatirq the gro.m::lwater, the organic contaminants are transferred fra:a the
grourdwater to the air. 'l11e emissions are expected to be low, b.lt will be
rocmitored. If the levels emitted are causirq a risk to the public health or
the environrrent, adlitional control neasures will be taken such as addirq an
air scrubber or other source of adsorption to the treat:Irent system. As a
note, the alternative chosen for the "1963" site was charged to Alternative
5, the no action alternative for reasons described within the ROD doa.nrent.
Comrent 3: ()')e of the thirqs that 1x>thered me when I was readirq t:hruJgh
all the literature on this is that I didn't see J11.1Ch eJiiX1asis on costs or
risk tenefit analysis. I don't think we sha.1ld squamer 0Jr resources,
\o;hethe.r they be natural resa.lrOe5, hllIT'aI1 re.scAJrCeS or financial resoorces.
We need to II'ak.e the best of these resources and I'm not sure that INhat has
been prq:x:sed is the best use. I'm rot corrlemnirg it. I don't know e.nough
about it yet. 'l11e gro.m::lwater clean-up sha.1ld be done in a CX)St-effective
manner, ard it ooght to be IrOni tored, am not done when it is unnecessary.
I question as to whether the landfill gas flare or recovery is necessary in
orner to zre.et air quality for the ~ area. I believe ITOre air
quality tronitor1n3 be done before any decision is made either to go ahead
with the proposal for recovery/flarin] or to rot go ahead. Arrl with ~ard
to. the proposals to replace substantially and at great expense, the caps at
-------
3
the various sites, I th.irUc it might be JIr:Jre'j better spent 1m nx:nitorirg to
see if, in fact, arrj prc:blem is beirq generated an:! to mly maintain the
existirq caps. If there is a prc:blem, do sanet.h.in; alx:ut it bIt sperrl the
JI'Ol"e'j wisely an:! if there is no prc:blem, den' t fix it.
Respcnse 3:
See Respcnse for O:mnent '4
0:mner1t 4:
A) We believe that the air am \o81i3ter hazards as a result of the sites
have net been proven at this point, ard further investigative worK rerains
to be done before considerirq actions as drastic ani ~ive as those in
the fact sheet ani rlic.n~ at the ~ 30 meetirq. We ~rd gettirq
the m::st effective treabrent of the prd:>lem, wi thaJt investirq JtC:II'1eY on '
m.i.nilral return areas which are not a significant prd:>lem or threat to the
pililic health. ~e it is reco:Jnized that the EPA guidelines for
alte.niative selection does not place ~is at cast, arrj rational analysis
nust ~igh cost versus benefit prior to mkirq final choices. We reu..&illerrl
to mse treatJre11t at actual m::nitorirq of COI"x::el"Itrticn of oontaminants
migratirg off site, while allowin;J natural pr00ess€'5 to degrade the material
on site.
l'
I
B) wi th regards to the treatr.ent of ~ter, decisions shculd be
based on the results of on~irg tests, ani t:.ak.in;J into a~t the actual
arrl 1 i.k.el y uses of the water, the ~ter shculd be treated when arrl if
required, such as when the ccot:.aminatiat is reac.h.i.n;J the Reck River in
suff icient volume. to exceed surface water quality starrlards. If t,he
a:>rx:entration of the contami.nants in the grcurrlwater shows a steady in:rease
with time, then ~ should start with the treatJIent of the ~ter.
Likerwise, when the tbre trerrls shcrw a downward tren:i, treatIrent should
cease, thereby treatirq only when needed. since we are deal irq with natural
processes of decay arrl dissipation of a large volume of rraterial, the ti.Ire
p?ricrls in which ~ can OOse.rve any trerrls or ~es of significance are
lorq. li:n.itorirq shalld be done quarterly, bIt the data needs to be viewed
in terms of 1 to 5 year intervals to OOse.rve trerds, ani to accurately
predict ..nen natural p~ have slawed to a nonral or backgra.urllevel,
ard no further precautions are needed. A panel made up of representatives
fran Wustry, residential, ca.mty ani state gra..q::s can all participate to
v iew the data that is a:>llected.
C) with regard to the air quality issues, rore work needs to be done,
such as det.ermin.ing "what is the vol\.IIre or mass of material beirq emitted
versus tilre'?" ani "what is the a:>ncentration offsite'?" If this further
work sho...'S no significant health hazard is likely to cxx::ur offsite, ani the
access to the site itself is properly restricted, there wcWd appear to be
no imrrcdiate justification for any action beyorrl pericdic 1OOnitoring. If it
is shOooln that a significant health quality issue is at harrl for persons
offsite, arrl that access restrictions will not provide adequate safety
n-easures, then the gas vents shc:uld be evaluated in order of their severity,
ani be flared or burned at a raised vent cap or 1:mner site. If it can be
shown that there is a real ard significant hazard to pcp1lated areas beYOrD
the JDF' siite bourrlaries fran the lardfill gas in the near term, then further
action on gas reo::Nery or flarirg wcW.d be in! tiated. In rev iewirg the
.
-------
4
varicus reports, we were mt able to establish a correlatioo beb.1een the
data an:! any significant health risks trc.m larrlfill gas t:eyorrl the overall
sitel::o.lrrlaries. ClHicosly, it is iJrportant that the act:ual measurarent.s be
taken prior to any decisicns 00 t:x:eatment..
D) Unless the off~ite lanifill gas hazard can be ,proven i~iately,
we strcrqly urge that the rec:x:JIm?1rlaticns within this letter be adcpted,
establi.sh.iJ"g IOCnitor~ statioos prior to arrj actioo 00 f1ar~ of lardfill
gases, an:! provid.in; a groorrlwater JZr.nitorin;~iven awroach to graJ.rrl'water
treatment.
E) Specifically, for each of the 5i tes wi. thin JtF, we h::a..~....auerrl the
following: '
OVERAIL SITE: Restrict access thrcu3h use of a cx:rrbinatioo of p,ysical
barriers an:! I'm trespassing - hazardous area" signs at all points of
convenient entry, as well as enfOrceIT'el1t as required by local law
enforcement. GrcA.Irrlwater-use restrictions sha1ld be oontinued as d i 50 15s00
in the EPA's Preferred Alternative. 'n1ese restrictions shculd remain in
force as Ion; as water quality does not rooet the awlicable stardards.
I
I
1963 site - No action beyord that already pI'q)OSEd urrler "overall site".
this area is already ~ a less active site thrcu3h natural pI"!JCeS.S€S.
Monitoring cxn::Ution, restricti.n3 aa:ess, an:! maintai..n.irq the cap as
required to prevent serioos deterioratioo are 'the main cx:rcponents of this
action.
JAB SITE: - No actioo beycn:i that already pI'q)OSEd urrler "overall 5i te" .
The existing blsiness at this site nust continue to <:XItply with regulaticns
am not take any acticns which walid WO~ the situation. Need to IOCnitor
corrlition am restrict access.
1978 SITE: - No action beycn:i that already proposed inc+uc:ti.n3' IrOI1itoring
corrlition am restrict access.
1985 SITE: - No action beyan:i that already pI'q)OSEd urrler "overall site".
Mailltain e.xisti.n3 devices for controlli.n3 pollution in workirq order, am
m::>n.itor corrlition am restrict access.
RespJnse 4:
A) 'I11e U.S. EPA believes that the ReJredial Investigatioo (RI)
corrluct..ed at the site over the last several years alorq with the other
dc:x:::uIrents carprisin3 the Administrative Record, provides the recessary data
to initiate the remedial actions called for in the Prc:posed Plan am
subsequently in the Record of Decision. Some d~es have been made to the
alternatives as presented within the Prc:posed Plan as a result of the
c::anr.ent perioo. These d1arqes are dc:x::urncnted within the RX).
Cast is an evaluation factor, even though it was given ~t less
~is in this case with respect. to units bein3 a&iressed thrcu3h RCAA .
authorities, t.hrc::u3hoot the Ra!OOi.al Alt.e.mative selection process. Cast is
-------
.,
v
5
a factor cnly when two or xoore alternatives provide similar results, then
the 1Ix:>re cost-effect.i va awroacn is c::nasen. With regards to wei~ cx:sts
cxrrpared to the benefits that are achieved with a certain ~ i,,'
al ternati ve: this is J'X)t cxnsidered an evaluaticn c:ri teria as- to W'hethe.r or
~ to address a CXX1taainaticn prcblem that exceeds state ard/or federal
starrlards. In the case of the Janesville Di~ Facility, state arrl
federal starrlards are ~ with regards to ~ter <::a1taminaticn
ani lardf'ill gas emissicns. 'Iherefore, these prdJlems JDJSt be ad:1ressed, as
they are ad:1ressed at all lan:lfills, regardless of c::cstIbenefit ratios.
CERClA ~resses a prefereooe for remedies that ElIploy treatmant that .
pe.rrranent~y arrl significantly red):Y$ the m::bility, tcxicity, or volume of
hazardcus; subst.arces as a priocipal elemant. ~is is placed a'1
destroct.ion or detoxi ficaticn of hazardous materials rather than a'1
protection strictly thrc:u:1h prevention of ~ or m:ni torin;.
B) Based on the results of the RI Report, the u.s. EPA has cx:n::l\.Ded
that the cont:.am.inatioo in the ~ter DIJSt be ad:1ressed. Even though
the affec;ted ~ter is not currently bein; utilized for drinki.n;J water,
the aquifer is designated as an aquifer potentially available for SUWlyin;
drinki.n;J water, ard therefore, contaminatioo JIUSt be ad:1ressed in order to
neet ARARs (Applicable or Relevant arrl Awrq>riate Regulations). If
several :t:emedial al ternati ves achieve the. stardards set by the ARARs, then
the IIOSt cost-effective awroach, while still achievin; AAARs, will be
selected. With regard to the continued IIOnitor~ of the grcwrlwater, it is
required that if waste naterials remain onsite, with or witha.1t groJJ"dwater
extractiCX1 ard treatIre.nt, m:>nitorirq 1'CJ.1st contirue to keep track of the
contamination ezranatin; fran the site.
,
j
C) Based on the results of the RI Report, the u.s. EPA has concluded
that the contaminaticn caused by the release of contaminated larrlfill gas
fran the "1985" site ani the "1978 " site, needs to be ad:1ressed by rea:Nerj
an::l treat::Irent trethcrls. '!he ErDargerme11t Assessment within the RI Report has
stated that the health risks associated with the release of contaminants
alon:;; with the larrlfill gas are above levels considered safe for humans to
breathe if onsite near the source. '!he PRPs do have the cption available
to them to try to test cut of the larrlfill gas extraction ani treatIre.nt
requi.rem;nts at the "1978" site, after the ~ larrlfill cap is in place, by
foIl CM i.rq Wisconsin's hazardaJs air contamination test-o.rt: proc::edures. As
stated above in part A of this response, CERCIA expresses a preference for
rerocdies which erploy treatIrent that permanently an::l significantly reduces
the IOCbility, toxicity, or vollm!e of hazardcus substances as a priocipal
element. ~is is placed on destroction or detoxification of hazardcus
materials rather than on protectioo strictly thrc:u:1h prevention of exposure.
More work is required prior to the act:ua1 iltt:>lementation of the lan::lfill
gas extraction an::l flarirq system, 1:ut this work will be oorducted durirq
the design x:nase of the system arrl will determine aspects such as the flow
rates of gas an::l contaminants cut of the vents, percentage of methane, an::l
if additional fuel sources will be required. With regard to determinirq the
. actual risk to p:-ople breathlrq the air .imrediately offsite or in the
adjacent neighborhoods, ccntin.)ed JI'OI"litorirq is still required s.irc.e the
,source of the contamination is remai.nirg onsite. Also, by eliminatin;J the
high risks associa~ with the on-site air contamination, any risks offsite
-------
.,
6
will also be el iminated. Sa1rp1 irq the air lNaY traA the scurce area and
determ.i.n.irq an acaJrate health risk is difficult, si.n:e air rever travels in
a straight path, so adlitiooal saIl'p1irq offsite at the present time may not
prcNide any significant acXli tiooal data to ~ or refute the decisioo to
recover ard treat the 1ardfill gas at the sa.lr08.
<>
D)
Refer to ~~ in parts A, B, ani C of this ~~.
E) Overall site: u.s. EPA ~lEJeSthat aoce'$-Sflan:! use ard grcurrlwater
use restrictions are ~ for the protectioo of human health ard welfare.
U. S. EPA also believes that groordwat.er extractioo an:l treatJrent is
warranted for the reasons stated above.
1963 site: U.s. EPA's selected l~edy is similar to the me
mentioned in this ccmrent. After the cx:mrent pericrl, the preferred
alternative for the "1963" site -.ras c:han;Jed fran Alternative 6 to
Alternative 5, the no action alternative, for reasons as stated within the
RJD. OJntiI1ued m:nitorirq ard access/lard use restrictims will still aw1y
. to this site as with the entire JDF site.
JAB site: U.s. EPA's preferred l~~ is similar to the one
trentiona::l in this ccmrent. Carbini.rq site restrictions with the
continuErl CCir1plian::e with the awlicab1e RCF.A requiren'ents. In adlition,
the preferred rer.roy calls for the rezroval of the existirq ash pile located
to the saJth of the JAB alon; with the continued maint.enan::e of the JAB
cap.
/\
1978 site: Based on the results of the RI, the u.s. EPA still
insists that the present cap on the 1978 site needs to be t1p3raded to
meet the relevant and awrcpriate requi.re1rents of wisconsin Administrative
Q:xje (WAC) NR 504.07 (the regulations governi.rq the cawin:J am closirq of
larrlfil1s) .
1985 site: Based on caments received durirq the cx:mre.nt period
arrl the ability of the potentially responsible parties (FRPs) to show that
the WAC NR 504.07 cap, along with the repairs arrl ~roveroents to the
leachate collection systeJU arrl the ~lation of the larrlfill gas
extraction arrl treatJrer1t system, can meet or exceed the starrlards called for
by ~ SUbtitle CfWAC NR 181.44 (13) (the regulaticns governiIq the cawirq
ard clos irq of lardf ills, brt: rore strict than the WAC NR 504.07
regulations), the selected alternative has changed fran the alternative
presented within the Proposed Plan. '!he WAC NR 504.07 cap, h<:1wever, is rore
strirJjent than the RCRA SUbtitle CJWAC NR 181.44 (U) cap for interim status
facilities, in that it prcNides for a frost protection soil layer. Refer to
the roD, Section VIII for an explanation of these c:ha.n]es.
O::m':'ent 5: Many letters (see ~ A) contained. concerns relatiIg to
the ar.amt of rrorey to be spent to either satisfy sare regulation or to be
spe.nt without a pt"q)er costjbenefit ratio. 'lbcy asked 11<:1« can EPA enforce
these regulations, costim up to $17 million, even when the sites were
legally q::crated ani closed urrler the requlations existirq at that tiD!?
Why not m::>nitor the situation arrl int:>larent a rerocrly later if it is sho.m to
-------
-,r
7
be e.rdarqerirq human health or the envira'iDent1
~ 5: Aspects of this o:mrent are COIered within the respcnse
above for Cc:;8m'tP.nt 4, ~ 1 i ~ with the ~ behW the selectia\ of the
preferred t"E5I£rlies inYolvirq treatJnent of wastes' arrl. the acXiress~ of the
c:ost:./be.nefit issue. With ~ to the overall cost am the bJrden that
may be felt by the citizens of Janesville, the u.s. EPA feels that the 0JSt
estimate is just that, an estimate, an:1 ~ liJc.ely the actual cost will be
scrcwhat lower. After the PLq>::600 alternatives '8IeI'e revised ba5l'rl a\
c::x::mrents received arrl. rli c=rn~'?ions with the FRPs, the iqIlE!lIS1tatia\ of the
selected rerralies will cn;t an estiIratOO $12 m.illia\. In cd:li tia\, the
estimated cost is carried over the e:st.imatOO time peri.cxi of 30 years, .
iocl\.rlirq the ~lezrentation arrl operaticn arrl. maint.enan=e of the selected
reJredies., An:Jther point to trake is that this cn;t is COIer~ nX me site,
b.It is aCk:lressirq the carcerns of foor separate sites, W'hile the overall
gra..u-d,.;ater issue c:an fNen be cons idered as a fifth site. \tbil.e it is true
that the City of Jaresville is considered a mP in this matter, (urrler the
CERCI.A statute, owners/~tors alorq with generators arrl. transporters of
hazardoJs subst:a1"ces are held liable for the release or potential release of
hazarda.J:; su}:::&stanOes into the envira'iDent) the total financial burden of the
rerredial action will nX fall solely 00 the citizens of JanesVille. It is
un:;:ertain as to ho.¥ the mPs wi'll plan 00 divi~ the costs, blt as with
the RIIFS, there were 15 parties ~tirq in financirq the investigation.
DJe in part to the l'JUI!'ber of letters with the cooc:erns of CNer spen:iirg with
little benefit arrl. to'a provision in an agreement between the u.s.. EPA, wrnR
arrl. the mPs, these J.s.s11E"S were diSCU5-~ with the mP steerirq o:mu.ittee
dur irq a 60-d3y period prior to the signirg to the roD. '!he remedies as
stated in the 000 have been revised sanewhat to reflect these conoems.
Please refer to Section VIII of the R)[) for further details.
O::mient 6: we agree with the preferred alterna,tives selected for the JDF
except for the al ternati ve presented for the 1985 larrlfill, a RCW\-regulated
unit whid1 is subject to RCW\ corrective action. Specifically, 'We do not
agree tliat a 40 ern Part 264 cap (RCFA SUbtitle C requirer.'ents as roentioned
in the Cede of Federal Regulations) is appropriate or required for this
site. We belifNe that the grourdwater II'Onitorirq arrl. corrective action
requireJre.nts of Part 264 apply to this facility, rot we do not agree that
the Part 264 cawirq requirer.'ents shcu1d be required for this site. Urrler
Part 264 corrective action, ~ belie<-Je that upgrad.in;J the cap to treet WAC NR
504 requirementS, enhanced leachate collection arrl possibly grourdwater
extractioo, vill ~ the prablm of high lead1ate levels in the larrlfill
arrl. mitigate potential grounJwater ilt\JaCts fran this unit.
Response 6: 1\5 a result of the 60-d3y period used to discuss the rerredial
action options between the u.s. EPA, ~ arrl.0 the mP steer~ Q:mnittee,
this issue was addressed. u.s. EPA statOO that the Part 264 cap is rot an
AAAA bJt nay still be required as part of RCW\corrective action. It was
determined that if it can be shONn, by the PRPs, that the WAC NR 504 cap arrl.
the leachate collection system mproveJTeI1ts carbined will achieve similar or
better results than the cap as per Part 264, then the u. S. EPA will agree
wi th yoor cx:mrent. .
-------
8
0::Irm:nt 7: For the rea.scns cited belCM, the EPA' s preferred remedies. for
the 1985 site, the 1963 site, am the grourrlwater ~i"'tia1 ~
~riate, i:apract.ical ard averprotective. In aatitia1, the EPA has
~ly de-e'rtilaSized cost as a factor to be c:x:n:;idered in its selectioo
of preferred al ternati vas. For these reasons, the Ccmni ttee disagrees with
the h:}erCj's se.lectioo of preferred remedies for these sites ard recpests
that the kJercy m:xlity its alternative selectioos in light of the follCMin;;
ccmnents. In c::x::n1eCtioo with ead1 of its ccmnents, the Steerinj O:mni ttee
will prq:ose an alternative remedial actioo whim is awrc:priate, practical,
cost effective ard protective of human health ard the envi.ronment.
A) "1985" SITE: '!he EPA's preferred remerly of a new cap for the 1985
site is inawropriate, i.nt>racticable, not required by law am rot cost
effective. '!he preferred t'a\1E!dy identified in the Prq:os€d Plan for the
1985 site is the installatioo of a new cap cxnfonni.ng to wisconsin WAC NR
181.44 (13). '!his prqa;ed L~ is not required to protect human health
am the environment, is not practicable, is not an awlicable req.1i.rement
urder ~ or CERCIA, and is not cost effective for the site cx:nii tia1S.
For the followinj reascns the EPA's preferred l=~edy is not justified am
should be nxxlified.
1) 'there is ro evidence that the 1985 site is a sa.u:ce of
cont.arn.i.nation sufficient to justify a corrective action a:nsistinj of a
totally new ~ closure cap on the site. 'Ihe.re are three bodies of
evidence in the RIfFS \oIhim irdicate that the 1985 site is not the SCJ..ll"'Ce of
the contaminatia1. First, there is evidence that wastes are mixed with the
soils between the 1978 and the 1985 sites. 'Ihe valley betw'een the' 1978 am
1985 sites received clean fill durinj site q:erations. However, waste may
have blown or eroded fran the sites and mixed with fill. in the valley. Soil
5aIT'p1~ \oIhile install~ \o1el1 1R has irdicated this. Grourdwater quality
at well 1R ca1ld be affected by infiltration of rainfall through the waste
present in the soils or by the unlined 1978 site. 'Ihe.refore, well 1R is
likely not I1'Onitor~ the effectiveness of exist~ en;Jineer~ ca1trols at
the 1985 site. A new NR 181.44(13) cap aver the 1985 site wc:uld not have
any effect on minimizirq contamination fran waste \oIhich is ootside the
limits of the 1985 site. A zrcre awrcpriate reIOOdy for this con:lition \or'CW.d
be to tie the 1978 site cap into the 1985 cap to CXNer the area between the
two sites.
2) A ~ison of vcx:s detected at well lR ard VCCs detect.ed in
leachate fran the 1985 site irdicates the 1985 site is prc:bably rot the
source of the well 1R ca1taminants. Benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, toluene
ard 1,2, -Dichloroethene were detected in well 1R ard in leachate fran the
1978 site. 'l11eY were not detected in leachate fran the 1985 site. '!his is
strong evidence that any rontamination in well 1R is due to the 1978 site
ard not the 1985 site. A new C<"1P on the 1985 site wc:uld rot help to
rezoodiate these contaminants.' .
3) Grourrlwater quality at wells 3 ard 4, located sooth and .
do.m:p:adient of the 1985 site was similar to grourrlwater quality uwradient
of the site at wells Wl4, W29 ard W29A. '!his iIrlicates that grourrlwater
quality problems between the 1978 arrl 1985 sites are localized ard not
related to the 1985 site. '!he extent ard source of any gra.urlwater
contamination between the t'w'O sites should be established before a decision
I
I
I
'\
-------
.,
9
is trade that a re.I cap on the 1985 site is necessinion of
Warzyn Engineerin;J clearly i.n:licates that the 1978 site or the waste mixed
'Wi th the soils between the two sites is the JIOSt liJriate corrective actim for
the 1985 site. 'D1e awrq>riate action for the 1985 site is the inspection
ard 1M int.e.nan:e of the existirq NR 181. 44 ( 12) cap.
4) '!he EPA' s pre f erred t €:Ic.::dy is rtt practicable ard WOlld rtt be
a reliable lorq term l:eliOOy for the 1895 site because of the site
corrli tions. NR 181.44 (13) requires that the vegetated tcp cover have slcpes
00 steeper than 25%. Slopes on the 5O.lthern sides of the site are greater
than 33%. Slcpes 00 the western side of the site are greater than 25% am
~ to greater than 33'. 'As a result, cover soils are likely to slide off
of or erode fran the synthetic liner. Reqrac:tin;J is i:JTpractical. Again, the
ar::propriate ard practical re.iJXJy WOlld be to repair the e.xistirq cap am
e.xterrl the cap to ccver the area between the 1978 ard 1985 sites.
5) The existirg cap Ireets or exceeds State am Federal lanifill
closure regulations as set o..lt in 40 ern 265.10 ard WAC NR 181. 44 (12). '!he
federal regulations for a cap on a ~ facility require that the 'cap have a
pe.rn-eabil i ty equal to or less than the pe.rn-eability of the liner of the
facil i ty . 'D1e e.xistirq cap xreets these requirenents. WAC NR 181. 44 (12)
requires a cap for interim status RCFA facilities to be at least 2 feet of
compact:.OO clay with a vegetative o:::Ner. '!he existirg cap also xreets or
exceeds these requirarents. '!he site was clooed as a waste cli~
facility in 1985 urrler an awroved closure plan, awroved by the WI:NR in
1986. 'n1e.refore, neither the EPA oor the WI:NR can require a re.I cl~ at
this time! in the abserx:e of a sho.Nirg of noI1-riate oor required.
6) '!he EPA brprope.rly failed to consider cx::st in the selE!(...'1:ion of
its prefE~ remedy. 'As EPA states in the Proposed Plan, cx::st will beccme
a det.enninirq factor for RCFA rer.edial actions \or'hen two or trOre alternatives
achieve the same goal. Neither the EPA nor the WI:NR cite arrj evidence that
the existin;J cap after repair WOlld rtt achieve the same goal as an NR
181.44(1:3) cap. '!he EPA's choice of the NR 181.44(13) cap sears to be based
on the ''m:>re is better' theory rather than on any technical justification.
In the absence of a deJrOl1Strated difference in the ability of one cap over
aoother to achieve the required goals, cx::st II11St be cx:nsidered.
7) eaissa1S are rot needed to remediate the leachate collection
~tem. '!he RI sug;ested that m::>re than one foot of lead1ate is present on
the liner at the 1985 site. '!he Prop:sed Plan therefore l~llIl.errls leachate
be reJOCNlOOC:eptual design for the larrlfill gas extraction system ard
.
-------
10
these wells cx:uld be utilized as wells to with:lraw leachate in a::ojunctioo
wi th the already-present leachate collection system. Both leachate ani
larrlf ill gas cx:uld be I"E!IXJVed usirq this system. 'Ih.is '-OUld eftecti vel y
~ the poterrt:.ial for envi..ra'nental degradatien by: 1) reducirq lead1ate
head en t.he liner arrl therefore, the potential tar leakage thrcu:;#1 the
1 iner: 2) redtx:irg the volume of lardtill gas cx:ntaminant.s released to
aJrbient air: am 3) reducirq the cxn=.entratims of ~ in waste am
leachate by wi th:lrawirq ~. alaq with,~ larrlfill gas.
"
B. "1963" SITE: 'the EPA/s preferred l~ for the 1963 site is
ilrpractical arrl inawrcpriate for the site cx:n:litia1S. AI t.hcu3h it is
unclear fran the larquage of the Pi. cposed Plan exactly what type of cap
upJrade the EPA prefers for the site, it '-OUld ~ frc:m the cost
estiIMtes in the Prq:osed Plan that the EPA prefers ~ the o::Ner to
NR 500 larrlfill closure stan::1ards. '!he prqxsed rem::rlies are rXJt
awropriate arrl ilIpractica1 for the f 011"", in:3 rea.5a1S:
1) An up;raded cap at the 1963 site is inawrcpriate because of
the nature of the wastes remaining at the site. Primarily ItI.IDicipal wastes
were d 1 ~ of at the site arrl c::arb.Jstible wastes were 1:urned before
1::urial. 'the wastes have been 1::uried at the site for CNer 25 years. '!here
is no doaJme.ntatian that hazardoos wastes were ever dispooed of at the site,
ard for the reasons stated above, it is c:arx:hrled that the cxn=.entratic:ns of
any c:ont.aminants in the rema ining waste are very low. Leachate was rXJt
present in either leachate well onsite. Soil sanples collected beneath the
si te at both locations did not show detectable TCL (Target 0::.Irpa..1rrl List)
organics. !his dem::nstrates that the {XJtential for grc:un:}water
contamination fran the site is negligible. .
'Ihe ».B occupies awroximately 4 acres of the 1963 site ard is already
cafP€d urrler wam awroved closure plan. '!he available evidence irrlicates
that any contaminatien CX11\irq fran the 1963 site area is due to the
operation of the JAB, which oP<3'51?d in 1985. 1Id:lirq a new cap CNer the 1963
site \ooUJJ.d have no effect en this residual contaminatien. Since a new or
enhanced cap ~ld destroy current site usage, ard since there is no
evidence that the 1963 site is the 5a.l.r'Ce of on~oirg CXX1t:.a:minatien, the
EPA's preferred rem:dy is inawrcpriate for the site ard \ooUJJ.d rXJt be an
effective rem:dy.
2) An upJraded cap on the 1963 site is intJractical due to current
site a:>rditions. JAB occupies awroximately 4 acres of the. 1963 site ard is
already ca~. '!be remaWer of the site is privately owned by a
c:x::mrercial recyclirq facility with approximately 4.5 acres of the facility's
property beirg heavily wcx:rled ard approxiIMtely 6 acres beirq used for
rec:yclirq operations. Another 2 acres of the site is covered with
recyclable asphalt. UWradirg the cap \ooUJJ.d require the destructioo of the
wooded area ard dercolition of the recyclirg facility which \ooUJJ.d inflict
financial. costs on the present o.meI'. '!he nature of the existirq corditions
at the site make construction of an upgraded cap CNer the entire site .
impracticable. .
The apprcpriate re1redial action for the 1963 site tNOlld be careful
evaluation of the exist irq oover arrl ilrprcve.me.nt of drainage cordi tions as
needed. A drainage system for the area cn.tld be designed whid1 ~d
-------
, ,
II
'.I
brprove surface water drai.naqe wi~ de:st.roy~ the existirq lard uses. A
requiraIerrt: that a full new cap be ad;jed to the s1 te is ~ractical ani
inawrcpriate .
,C. ~ ~IATICN: '!he prcpcsOO plIIp ard treat system is
unwarrarrterl given the lack of risk associatOO with the grourrlwater. '!he
1;qercj's prcpcsOO plan for ~~ grourrlwater cx:.ntaminat100 at the JDF
calls fa,r both institutimal c:a1trols at the use of grourrlwater dawn:Jractient
of the JDF am grourrlwater ext:ractioo am treatment. We fim the use of a
plIIp arrl, treat solutioo at this site is \.D1neOeSScUj' gi Yen the ~ of
risk associatOO with the potential use of this grourrlwater ard' the data upcI"1 .
whid1 this prcpcsOO l~ is based. We list the follc:.win:J reasons why the .
J.qercy's prcpcsOO r~ is unwarranted: .
1) QRCIA ani RCPA require that a site l~ be based on the
risk presentOO to huzMn heal th ard the errviHJllme:nt. 'lhis is the prin::i.pal
reason for performi.rg the detailed ~t ~ within the RI~.
By Jcrx:1wirq what risks need to be reduced, a It:l~ can be crafted that
awrc::priately addresses these risks, if any. Failure to tailor the r~
to the risks prese.ntOO at a site can result in ranedies that are either
urrlerprotecti ve or, as in this case, rene:lies that are clearly
overprotective.
The requ.i.rement that the }qercj use a risk-based 1 ~~ selectioo process is
clearly set forth in the 1986 amerdment.s to crncIA. '!he statutory larquage
re~....atedly refers to the selectien of a It:llOOy tnat is based en the "short-
an:! lon;-te.nn potential for adverse health effects frem human exposure" ard
is "protective of human health anj the erwironment." K:>reover, i.h selectirq
a r~edj, the statute again in:x:>rporates a risk-based stardard by
specifically requirirq that the cleanup shall "assure [] protection of human
health ard the environment" am that the remedial actions be "relevant am
ar:prcpriate urrler the ciIo..nnst.arx::." Irrleed, in selectirq applicable or
relevant arrl awrcpriate cleanup requirements, the prcpcsOO NCP (National
Contlrqerqr Plan) rea:xJIu.zes that several criteria rrust be weighed,
includin1 the d1aract.er:istics of the site arrl ci.rc:uIrst.arres of the release.
Finally, EPA' s draft guidance docur.-cnts state that, in selectirq a remedy
that is "protective" of the environment urrler crncIA S€ctioo 121, £PA's
approach involves a "risk assesszre.nt" that "lncl1.x!es consideration of site-
specific factors ~ as ... .p:>tential for exposure..."
with respect to grourrlwater I'eIiediatian, the kjercy, urrler CERCIA, is
speci fically allowed to develop al te.tnate grourrlwater concentration lllni ts
where, im&r al ia , institutional controls prchi.bit the use of grourrlwater
for dri.nki.ng.JWater PJIP05eS, ani the di.scharge of the grourrlwater has an
insignificant effect on a nearby water b:rly. By i.ncorporatirq this cx::n:ept
into the cleanup starrlard sec:tioo of the statute, Con;Jress clearly inten:3ed
grcA.II'dw-ater rerra:lies to be partio.1larly sensitive to risk or lack thereof
associatA:rl with the contamination. '!he prop::sed NCP recognizes this intent
by settiJ'Y:J forth (i) a gra,urlwater classification scheme, (ii) restoraticn
time pericrls am ( ii i) t:.echnolcgies to achieve gra,urlwater clearl.1p based,
inter alia, on the use of the gra,urlwater, the p:>tential', for human ~
arx:l the 4~ffectiveness of ~tutional ccntrols. In adlitiat, in the
Interim Jfi.na1 Q.lidanoe on Remedial Actions for ,Contaminated GI."O..lI'rlwater at
. .
t
j
.
-------
12
SUperfurd Sites, the }qercj ~zes that natural at.teraJaticn "may be the
most practicable respcnse" where the cx:ntaminat:ia1 vill att..eruate to heal th-
based levels within a relatively short distarce.
Similarly, the correcti'le acticn starrlards \..D'rle.r ~ also require a risk-
based taoody. 'l11e statute requires corrective acticn where it is "necessary
to protect huIMn health or the envi.ra1ment." with respect to ~ter
protection, the regulatia1S awlicable to the owners an:i cperators of
hazaI"tb.1S waste treat:Ire.nt, storage an:i di~ facUities allow. EPA to
exclu:ie a hazardcus constituent "is rd capable of pc6}n; a sutstantial
present or potential hazard to 1uJman heal t.h or the enviIa JneI'1t. " '!his
dete.rminaticn is to be based, in part, 00 the praximi ty an:i wi tlrlrawal rates
of users, 0Jrrent an:i fut::ure uses of the gro.mjwater, arxi the potential for
heal t.h risks caused by human exposure.
2) '!he prq:05€d L ~.edy is unnecessazy because the grourdwater
migrat}n; fran the JDF presents 00 risk to human health an:i the envira1ment.
In the present case, the data arrl the errlargenrent a~srrent for the JDF do
not warrant the use of a punt> an:i treat systan for ratrNirq the level of
grourdwater contamination foorrl at the JDF. As described in the RI, the
horizontal ard vertical extent of contaminant migratioo is limited because
grourdwater discharges to the Rock River, located awroxiJnately 1000-1200
feet ~ent of the JDF. 'rhus, the existirq infonnatioo ~ that
there is 00 p:1tential for the contaminated ~ter to flcw urder the
Rock River or deep?r into the aquifer. In acXlitioo, ~ter qJality is
~ to iIrprove with time t:ecause the primary scurce of cx:ntaminatioo,
JAB, 00 l0N3er contaIDs waste. ~iscn of water-qua1ity data collected
durirq May, 1989 by Parker Pen s.q;est.s sane iIrprovements have already
cxx::urred S1.n:e the RI data was collected in July, 1988. '!here also are 00
present or future users of grourdwater, S1.n:e the city provides drinJd..n;
water to all facilities ~ent of the JDF arrl prd1ibits the future
installation of private drink.in;-water wells in this area. 'Iherefore, there
is no present or future risk associated with the ~ter. Not only is
the risk to human health 'arrl the envirorarent negligible, bIt the
contamination which was foorrl will naturally dissipate as it discharges into
the nearby Rock River. '!he adlitional loadin;J to the Rock River will be
minimal, at IIOSt. '!he coo::entrations detected at the river did not exceed
WAC NR 105 (Wisconsin's surface water regulations) HLman 'Ihresho1d criteria
arrl Human ~ criteria for surface water quality. Contaminant
a:>ncentrations in the river were nuch lC1WeI" than aIrbient water quality
cr i teria for fresh water organiSlT'S. wi th the proposed remedial work
UJ"rle.rtaken on the rerra~ portions of the JDF, no rew contamination will
be intrcrluced into the grourdwater. As sud1, the gro..ll"rlw'ater will be
naturally cleaned withoot the need to urrlertake an expensive plID'p arrl treat
system. .
'.'
Finally, i1'I the cx:mnents moo at the p..1b1ic xreet.lnt, refeI"'el're was made to
cornbinin:3 the JDF gro.Jrrlwater plan with tlJat designed for the contaminant
plume associated with Parker Pen. }b..Jever, we have been informed by Parker
Pen that based on its separate l'rjdrcqeo1ogical stOOy, it will rec.c:mnero to'
the Agerq that it urrlertake a grcA.lI'rlwater I"'elrediation program separate ard
distinct fran the SUperfurd prcqram. Given that decision by Parker Pen,
installin:J a p..n11) ard treat system for the ~ter contamination
-------
13
~.
a5SOCiated with the JI:F ~ even lOOre quest.ic:nable. Not a\ly is the
system ~ in order to ~ arrj risk to human health aro the
env~ - 00 ri.sX presently exists - b.It will make what is already a
cost-intensive program even less cost effective.
3) '!he wi.sa:nsin gro..Irrlwater protectioo law dc::e3 rct reqJire .
grom:lwat.er p..nrp am treat. 'Ihe WI:NR adq1ted Wi\C NR 140 (Wisconsin's
grom:lwater quality regul.atia1) to enable the state aqercy to re.spcul in a
fiexible anj awrq:>r1ate manner to ~ter cart:.aminatioo situatioos. In
the p.1IpCSe secticn of the regul.atia1, it specifically states that NR 140 is
to be USEd to develq> a "ran:Je of respcc ~ the Department rrny require if a
grom:lwat.er starrlard is attained or exceeded. Given this intent, NR 140 is
aimed at develq>irq cost~ffecti ve remedies that awrq:>riately minimize the
risk to human health aro the errvircnnent. "i1ile NR 140 establishes ce.rtain
nurrcrical qro..urlwater stardards (kro.om as "enforcement stardards"), it does
not marrlate a partia.1lar response to a qro..urlwater prchlen nor does it
mardate i.mr.ediate cleanup acticn. Rather, the rule establishes a rarge of
responses which traY 1n::llrle a relatively siIrple c:haNJe in c:peratioos, the
closure of a facility or active remedial actiat. In l1lIIreI"aJS cases, WI:NR
has IlQt required imnediate remedial actioo b.It has been williIq to allow
natural attenuation to 0C0J.r a.rrl resolve the oontaminaticn. For this site,
the }qert:.y has prcposed awrq:>riate remedial action t:.hroogh cawirq
activities at the JDF. '!his ~rk will prevent arrj further acXliticn of
c:x::rn:.amina.ts to the qro..urlwater. When this worK is cx:rrt>ined with the
natural attenuaticn of the groordwat.er (which is recognized will 0C0J.r), the
groordwat.er will achieve the awrcpriate groordwat.er levels withalt the need
to urdert.ake an expensive p..IIlt) arrl treat pro:Jram.
4) '!be Pl qxxsed p..mp ard treat system is not cost effective.
CERCIA requires the kJerI=Y to ccnsider the "cost effectiveness" of the
sel~ lESOOdy. '!hus, the prcposed NCP states that EPA is required "to
evaluate closely the cxsts required to iJIpleIOOJ1t arrl Iraintain a l:~ a.rd
to select protective rer.a:Ues whose cx:sts are. pIqX)rtionate to their overall
effectiveness". In the present cira.Imsta.rx::e, if the ~ proceeds with a
~at.er rem:rl.iaticn plan, which is r.x necessary to protect human health
or the errvi..rorurent, arrl is r.x mardated by state law, the h:jercj DUSt select
the nnst cost-effective remedial action. n.e prcposed p..mp am treat system
does r.x take into aa::n.mt the characteristics of the JDF site am,
therefore, does r.x IOOet this starrlard. In contrast, the ROD for the City
of Wausau SUp:rfurrl site allONed for a site-specific analysis of the
appropriate p..nrp am treat system. '!his flexibility allONed a system to be
develcped which did r.x require the use of a striwirq t.c:J.1er in order to
n-eet all awl icable requireJrents, incluc:ling.the appl icable d.i.sd1arge
stardard. A similar awroach a:cld be used "in this case in order to
maximize. the cx:st effectiveness associated with arrj extracticn 'Well system.
In conclusicn, the Steerirq Cam\i.ttee believes that the preferred remedies
for the 1985 site, the 196~ site am the ~at.er reIOOdiaticn as .
published in the EPA's Prq:a5ed Plan are. inawrq:>riate a.rd iJrpractical for
the site.. Alt.e.n\ative rem:rlies exist which are equally protective of h\JIT'aJ1
health arrl the envi.ronrrent, which meet all federal am state I"arediaticn
starrlards, am which are. rore cxst effective. '!he Ccmnittee requests that
the EPA c:arefully evaluate its preferred reIraiies in light of the above .
cx:mrents arrl revise its preferred remedies aCO:>l:dirgly. Pursuant to Section
I
..)
1
-------
"
14
XXVI (Se1ectioo of Raoodial lctioo Alternative) of the O::nsent Order for the
JDF sites, the Cc:mn.ittee is ready to enter into gcxrl. faith neqot.iaticns with
the 1>qercy rega.rdin:J the brplementatioo of ~ i Pi 1, actioo al tel:nati ves for
the sites. The Carmittee will ~ with the kJerci to design oorrecti ve
actims for the site wtUd1 better acl:!ress the acb.Ja1 ccn:litioos of ead1 site
an:! whid'l will xreet all awlicable ~.
~~ 7: In response to this ocmnent an:! p.lI'SUa11t to Sectioo XXVI of
the JDF O:nsent Order, the u.s. EPA held a 6~y (frem Sept..E!!tDer 29, 1989
t.hrcu;Jh ~ 29, 1989) technical negotiation pericrl with the WI:NR arrl
the ffiP Stee.rirg C:mnittee (cx::rrprised of representatives fran the City of
Janesvi.lle, General M:Jtors Corporatioo, Parker Pen Co. an:! Teo..In5eh Co.). .
The points ad:lressed in this letter were ni~)ssed an:! sane charqes were
trade to the u.s. EPA's Pt~ Plan, as noted within this response an:!
within Sectioo VIII of the 000. In regard to your ~J'1t statirg that the
u.s. EPA has UrpI"q)erly ~ized cx:st as a factor to be considered in
its selection of preferred al tetnati ves, the u. S. EPA disagrees. RCRA is a
party to this project an:! ~ does rm. consider cx::st to be an issue in
remediation unless there are tJNo equal processes ard if ooe is less costly
than the other, then cx::st may be considered in the selection of a preferred
al ternati ve. In response to the irrli vidual points of this ccmnent the
follawirq resp:>nses are made: '
A) "1985" SITE: After evaluatioo of pJblic ~nts and acXlit~onal
technical infomation received fran the ffiP Steerirq Cx:::mrlittee, the u.s.
£PA's preferred 1:-en~ as stated in the Ptq.<)5€d Plan has been ~, for
reasons as stated within the 000, fran requirirg a cap CXlTpliant with WAC NR
181.44(13) to a cap cc.rtpliant with WAC NR 504.07. 'Ihe U.S. EPA am the
WI:NR, strorgly believe that this l~.edy is both practical an:! cx::st effective
for reascns as stated 001011.
A-1) ~ u.s. EPA (CERCIA arrl RCRA), in consultation with the WI:NR,
believe that the fin::lin;Js of the RI are not conclusive as to whid1 site, the
1978 or the 1985 site, or both, is responsible for the contamination fourrl
within well lR. As stated within the RI Report, well lR is located
d~dient of the 1985 site, an:! therefore, is capable of detectirg any
contaminants that rray be leaki.rg fratl that site. Also, the RI Report states
that the source of the <:XrIt.am.ination in well lR is not clear: the
contamination may be frem the 1978 site, the 1985 site, or both.
FurthermJre, the ilrpacted well is part of the RCRA nmitorirg system for the
1985 site. While it is entirely ~ible that the ex>ntaminatioo is fran
salrCeS other than the 1985 site, the u.s. EPA arrl WI:NR believe that the
high leachate head levels within the 1985 site and the a:::I1'parison of
contaminants fourrl within the leacbate an:! in the gro.1Trlwater (as noted in
response 7 A-2 bela.'), the 1985 site cannot be ruled out as a 1 ike1y so..u:-ce
of the well lR cont..amination. Urrler the hazardous waste regulations, the
City of Jancsville has the responsibility of derrcnstratirq that a source
other than, the 1985 site is responsible for the cont..amination. 'Ihis has not
been done. '.
A-2) '!he u.s. EPA an:! the WI:NR do not agree with this UAlllent.
1o:x:>rdirq to Table 16 of the RI Rep:>rt (Suntrary of Organic CarpcA.1rrls In
I.eacbate - Rourrl 1) resul t.s of saITples fran the leachate wells at the 1978
site an:! the leachate manhole at tbe 1985 site, were o:rrpared. Both sites
sha..'E'd detections of benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, urrl toluene. In fact,
-------
.)
15
the level of. toluene was fourrl at hi~ cx::n::ent.raticns wi thin the 1985 site
than within the 1978 site. 'Ihi.s fact, alc.n:J with the high lead¥!te ~
levels fO-Irrl within the 1985 site (as meI1tioned later in part 1.-7 of this
~) inp1ies that it is a st.rc:rg possibility that the contaminatioo
tcurrl in well lR 1JJaY be attribJted to the 1985 s1 te. 'Iherefore, it is the
q:>inicn of the u.s. EPA arrl the WCNR that cap brprovements are needed for
the 1985 site.
A_o3) As stated in the RI Rep:>rt, well lR is located dcwrgradient of
the 1985 site. EVen thcu:Jh gro.m::lwater cpality in wells 3 am 4, also
dc::1.on"qrddient of the 1985 8i te, is fOJI'd to be s i mi 1 "r to backgrcurd
grourdolater quality, as ycur cx::mnent. menticns, the contamination 1JJaY be
locali?.ed. Usually, not all wells within a Da'litoring system picJoJp a
releasE! fran a site, 1:ut if a syst.em is W1O~ correctly, at least one well
:in the syst.em will detect a release it a release is c:xx:urrirq. As irxlicated
above in part A-2 of this response, the 1985 s1 te is a 1 ike.1y 5a1rOe of the
cx:ratam.i.nants fO-Irrl within well lR.
A--4 ) '!he issue regard.irg the side slopes arrl the sl idi.rx3 of 1JJaterials
off of the lardfill slc:pes is 00 lorqer a major issue. '!he cawin:J leIlE~.1y
for the 1985 site has been d1a.rqed fran the NR 181.44 (13) cap, as mentioned
within the u.s. EPA's PLqX)SEd Plan am in this c:x::rment, to a WAC NR 504.07
cap as further described within the roc. RC.RA feels that it ~d be
justif i.ed to require an NR 181. 44 (13) cap thrc:u:Jh its CX)rrecti ve action
authorities, 1:ut since the WAC NR 504.07 cap, al~ with the lardfill gas
extraction arrl treat::m211t, ard the brprovements to the leachate CX)llection
system will achieve the perfonrance starrlards, they have c:x:n:mred a1 the
less strin;Jent cap. '}be W1\C NR 504.07 cap of the 1985 site shall. be tied :in
with the NR 504.07 cap selected for the 1978 site.
A--5) '!he existirq cap did JOOet the original closure requirenents set
em in WAC NR 181.44 (12), 1:ut due to the fin:lirqs of the RI (see ~ to
A-2 above) arrl the fact that this lardfill has had maintenance prcb1ems in
the past, the u.s. EPA am the WCNR feel justified in selectirqlrequirirq
cap ilrproverents for the 1985 site. Your citation to 40 CFR 265.10 is
inc:o~ arxi if the correct ci tatiC'l1 is 40 CFR. 265. 310, then RCFA states
that the closure starrlards ard post-closure care starrlards for the
1ardfill's cap have clearly not been met. '!be present cap has settled.
slUIT1p€d am has deep cracks :in the surface. Post-closure care am
ro:intenance have not been performed an the cap.
A-6) '!he U.s. £PA arrl the WCNR bel ieve that the revised selected
cawin;) alternative, JOOetin;) the requ.i.reroents of WAC NR 504.07, is the IrOSt
ccst-ef fecti ve cawirq al ternati ve to address the frost I ine protection,
reduction of the leacnate head levels (:in CXJI'bination with the leaenate
collection system iIrprovenents) arrl the reduction of infiltration of
precipitation thrc:u:Jh the larrlfill CXNer. within Warzyn's letter, dated
NoveJTber 30, 1989, to Dan Cozza of the u.s. £PA, Warzyn states ''Warzyn.
believes the up;Jraded lead1ate collection system in ccrnbination with the WAC
NR 504 cap will Sll1:6tantially reduce the potential for release of
contaminants fran the "1985" site to grourrlwater."
A-7) 'Ibe Prq:osed Plan did not state that caissOOs DUSt be installed
to address the excessive levels of leachate within the 1985 site, bJt Ire.rely
stated that a system such as caisscns may be considered. '!he selected
reIredy within the roc is consistent with the Prq:osed Plan in that it states
that the leachate collection syst.ea will be inproved so that one foot or .
.
c,
-------
.,
16
less of lead1ate 00ad will be present ~ the lardfill liner. The methcd
may be what was ~--ted wi thin this ~Ient, bJt the exact system will be
determined within the ~i.:.' Design stage of the project.
B) DJrirq the 6O-day technical negot.i.atien period with the fRP
Steerirq O:mni ttee, the U. S. EPA an:! the WtNR determined that there are no
ARA:Rs for site closure for the 1963 site. However, if CCIlta1ninatien was
shc1.m to be attrihJted to the 1963 site, ~RC&\ cacrective action may reqUire
cap iDt>rovements siIre the 1963 site is cx:rsidered a . solid waste managarent
unit, beirq ccntiguc:u; with the J1tB, a ~-regulated unit. 'lOO R:>D,
Section VIII, irrlicates the charges to the Pl qx:6ed Plan, statirq that only
access/lard use restrictiens ard cx:ntiraJed grc:urrlwater m:nitorin; will be
the selected l~ for the 1963 site.
C) 'n1e selected 1 ~.edy rega.rdin;J the grc:urrlwater remediatien has rot
d1arged frem the preferred l~ as stated wi thin the u. S. EPA' s P1. qx:6ed
Plan. Responses to the o:mnents are as follows:
C-1) [)je to cx:t1tamination e.xoeedi.rq Federal HaximJm 0:I1tam.inant Levels
(MCIs) ard the State's Enforcement Stardards for several oont:.aminants, the
U. S. EPA (CERCIA ard~) ard the ~ are requirin; grc:urrlwater p..mp ard
treat as their selected laoody for grc:urrlwater remedi.atien. urrler RC:&\,
remediation is based en st:.arrlards, such as lCC.s, which may be based en risk
levels. Alternative O:o:entration Limits (ACI.s) were determined by u.s. EPA
(CERCIA ard RrnA) ard the ~ to be inawrq:>riate in this case sin:::e MCIs
have been exc.erooo for several cx:ntaminants an:i the site border is CNer
1,000 feet .fran the point of discharge, the ~ River, with private
prc::perty located beb,1een the two. '!he aquifer that is cx::ntami.nated by the
JDF may be classified, as per the pI"Cp)SErl NCP, as a Class II-B aquifer -
groundwaters that are potential drirlki.rq water sa.1rOeS. 'n1e pI"Cp)SErl NCP
continues to state "For groundwater that is or may be used for drirlki.rq
water (Class I or II) the JoC.s set un:3er the Safe Drinkirq Water Act or nore
str i.n;Jent prc.m.1lgated State st:.arrlards, are generally the awlicable or
relevant ard awrq:>riate starrlard. II 'Ihe pI"Cp)SErl NCP later states l"Ihese
provisions offer the choice of establ.i.shi.n3 cleanup st:.arrlards at ba~,
MCI.s or alternative cx:n::entration limits (ACI.s). In settin; remediation
levels, the SU{:erfurrl prcqram generally uses the MCL or other health-based
starrlards, criteria, or advisories which are equivalent of a health-based
ACL urrler RrnA." sin:::e there are oontaminants in groundwater that exceed
Federal HCIs am state Enforcarent Stardards, am even t:.hou;Jh there are ro
present. uses of the portions of the aquifer located between the JDF and the
RocJc River, the U.S. EPA ani the WI:NR are requirin;J groundwater p..mp ani
treat to protect the errvironrrent (groundwater discharges to the ~ River
ani vcx:s have been detected in the River) ani to protect hUIran health ani
W1elfare by a
-------
"
0,
17
corcltrled that there is or may be a statistically significant iN::rease (a
det.ectim) of a:x1taminants frt:m the .JI:F am therefore, N::I.s may rtt be used.
'"
C-2) 'Ihis ~ IB'J be answered in part by the respa ~ to C-1. In
acktitim, the JAB still OCI"'Itains wastes, or the residuals thereof, as shown
by the RI ~rt. So, grardwater CCI"ItaIrlnatian may iroeed ccntln.1e CNer
time, eYeI'1 ~ the present cap at the JAB is believed to be sufficient to
prevent or lessen the aDDmt of CXI1tamination reac.h.in] the qro.J1"rlwater
l::eneath the JAB. Also, it is diffiall t to state that the ~isa1 of
water q.Jality data collected by ParKer Pen sug:JeSts that sane iIrprovements
have already cx:nIrred siIre RI data was collected ooe year earlier, sin::e
cliffe.z,ent labs am p:ssibly different field am lab ~ treS were used
than 'With the RI investigatim.
with I'I:ga.rds to cc:rrbWrq the JDF ~ter remediation 'With that to be
design.:d for the cont.aminatim associated with Parker Pen, the U.S. EPA am
wrnR still believe the DXJSt ecx::n:mical a,wroac:h is to CXJrbine the two
~ter p.mp ard treat systems into me. If the systems are rovements (as clic:n,,>c:OO in the respJnSe !or C-2) .
C-4) Of the treatment alternatives presented within the FS, acXlressin;
the gro.Irrlwater contamination, the g:ro..ITrl'~ter p.mp am treat alternative
selected is the D:St cost effective. '!he grourrlwater p..mp ani treat
alt.erncltive selected (Alternative ll), as described within the RJD, is cost
effective when ~ to the other grourrlwater treatIrent cpt ion presented
'Within the FS Report, Alternative 12, Grourrlwater In-situ Treatment. 80th
alt.e.rnatives will ~ieve basically the same cleanup goals. Also, the .
method in whidt Alternative 11 is described in the RJD, the flexibility of
the develcprent of the system is similar j,n nature to that nentioned in the
cx:rment, in that air strippirq or other air ~tJrent t.ed1nologies will be
ilTplenented if needed, as well as any treat:ment that may be ~ to
adiress imrganic parazooters. in the groJrdwater to enable arrj disd1arge to
m2et the Alrbient Surface Water ~ity Starrlards. as set by the state.
-------
18
In ccn:lusioo, the U.S. EPA an:! the WCNR do lX:It believe that the rem:rlies,
as stated within the R:X>, are .!r.awrcpriate or i:apract.ical, but are ccst-
effective ard are ~ry to assure protectioo of human health, welfare
an:1 the env i.rcnnent. As stated previc:usly, d1arqes to the U. S. EPA' s
Prq:n::.ed Plan, due to the p.Jbl ie c:x:mrent period an:1 the 6O-day technical
negotiatioo period with the JDF Stee.rirq O::mnittee, are stated within
Sectioo VIII of the 1m.
"
-------
APmIDIX A
':J,
~FCR)IVrnESS ~
J LIST OF CXHmm::Rs
~ lW-!E AND AFFrT :rATT~ SaJRCE OF ~
-------
.., '----... _. -
\
o:::M1ENr 5 a:NI'IR1ED:
tAW OFFIas OF BR:ENNDi, SIEIL,
BASTIN:; ,~, S.C.
(2). It. STEIL, SR.
c:nmw. Vf1IDnc
R:&m' F. ~
~ C. S'It1ID:LIFFE, RESIt'ENI'
R:>'i ~, RESII:afI'
IRJCE H. HN1II.:ItN, 04A
H. E. R:>BB, RESII»1l'
RIOiARD L. HCNAIL, RESlIDa'
TED WAI1It'.N, RESIma'
fIJFa:R, me. /RESImlI'
FRANJ( R. sa:rrr
J.P. cuum AND SCRS, me.
MAAK A. C1JlUN
SFJX)R & HCAG, S.C.,
ATIaRNE'iS AT I.Ml
GII.BfRr D. SEreR
VIcn:R D. I...ITI'I£, RESlDENl'
cx::t-1MENr 6:
WISO:::tlSIN DEPARIMENr OF
NAIURAL RESa.JRCEs
M.l\RK GIESFEIDI' FOR PAUL DIDIm
a:M1ENr 7:
JANESVIILE DISfQSAL FA~
STEEJUN:; aMmTEE INCliJI)IK;:
CIT'i OF JANrnVIUE, GENERAL MJroRS
ex:>RP., PARKER Pm ex:>. AND
TEX:1IMSm froaJCrS ex:>. wrrn ASSISTANCE
Fro-! WARZ'm EN:;rnEER!NG, me.
9/14/89 I.EI'I'm -
'"
9/16/89 lJ:;1'1~
9/15/89 IEI'I'rn
9/18/89 ~
9/18/89 ~
9/15/89 I..c:l"l~
9/18/89 I.EI'I'm
9/20/89 I.EI'I'm
9/19/89 ~
9/20/89 I.EITm
9/19/89 I.EITm
9/19/89 I.EITm
9/15/89 U::ITl:J<
9/18/89 U::l'l~
-------
~ ~~~==~-~: --5-=
-~ .
:582-;2==
::=:: ~-;, : ==7
: ~ : :: ::=.~
-,t...o.:.
.
State of \Visconsin
\ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOU~CES
' ~rrO/l D. BU'dnt
Scrcretery
b,
&1 7921
M'd/~n, Wi.con,ln 53707
v
DEC 2 7 1989
File Code: 4430
Mr. Valdus Adamkus, Regional Administrator
U.S. (PA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
SUBJECT:
Selected Superfund Remedy
Janesville Disposal Facility
Janesville, Wisconsin
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The Depa,rtment is providing you with this letter to document our position on
the proposed final remedy for the Janesville Disposal Facility (JDF). The
proposal as identified in the draft Record of Decision includes the following:
19B5 Sit!
A landfill gas and flaring system,
upgrading the cap to NR 500 standards, and
repairing and/or improving the leachate collection system.
Estimated Costs
Construction - $2,949,000
Operation and Maintenance. $39,500 to $142,000
30 Year Present Net Worth .'$4,521,000 ,
A landfill gas and flaring system (or to test out of the need to
install the landfill gas system) and
upgrading the cap to NR 500 standards,
] 978 S1t~
Estimated Costs
Construction - $3,993,000
Operation and Maintenance - S52,500 to S135,000
30 Year Present Net Worth - $5,331,000
No action other than groundwater extraction (see JDF Groun~~ater)
and continued monitoring.
1963 Site:
Estimated Costs
Monitoring Costs (not quantified)
-------
~~~-:~~_.~ ,.~= ~
~~c.c(C::::::J
_.~',- ~ 1'. :. -==-=
.:.. <::<::!r-",
r-'.';;~
Mr. .t.damkus
nEC 2 7 1989
2.
~
Cap Maintenance
.
Estimated Costs
Construction - $75)000
Operation and Maintenance - $14)100
30 Year Present Net Worth - $292)000
Groundwater extraction and treatment to address the
contaminated groundwater.
JOF Groundwater
Construction - $504,000
Operation and Maintenance - $57)000 to'S]17)000
30 Year Present Net Worth - $2.184)000
The total 30 year present net worth for the JDF remedial action is
approximately $12)000)000. We understand that if the potentially responsible
parties do not agree to fund the remedy. the State of Wisconsin will
contribute 10% of the remedial action costs.
Estimated Costs
We. also understand that our staff will continue to work in close consultation
with your staff during the predesign. design and construction phases of this
project. .
Thank you for your support and cooperation in addressing the contamination
problem at the JDF. If you have any questions regarding this matter. please
contact Mr. Paul Didier) Director of-the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management at (608) 266.1327.
Sincerely.
e.o.~.
C. D. Besadny. secr~ary
COB:MT ~
cc:
Lyman Wible. AD/5
Linda Wymore. leiS
Paul Didier. SW/3
Mark G1esfeldt/Sue Bangert .'SW/3
Joe Brusca/Mike Schmoller . SOD
Dan Cozza. EPA. Region V .
------- |