United SlIit88
Environmental Protec1ion
Agency
Office 01
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAtROO/ROS-90/1 41
June 1990
c~ Pf' I
oEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
')
I
. v
"
University of Minnesota, MN
',' HazordOuS waste c~
, .&nformotton.. ResOUtcecenter
, USEPA -Region 3
'PhftOdelphlO. PA 19107
~~A ~rtDp@J'~ ~cil~ction
I~f@fmatlcn Resource Ceffi1teli'
US IEPA RegIon 3
PhU;delptt~. PA 19101
-------
.
REPORT DOCUMENTA TlOH I 1. REPORT NO. I ~ ~ A8cip18nr. ACCI888ion Mo.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-90/141
.. TI1I8 end 8ubIIII8 5. A8par1 D...
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 06/11/90
University of Minnesota, MN
First Remedial Action - Final L
7. AutIor(.) L Performing Or;enlzallon A8pt. NO.
8. PwformIng Org8lnlz8llon NIIm8 ..... AdIhu 10. ProledlTulllWorII UnIt Mo.
1t. ConIr8Ct(C) or Glant(O) Mo.
'. (C)
(0)
t~ Spon8OMg OrplUdon NIIm8 ..... Add- 1~ Type of A8par1. P8riocI CoWNCI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 '"
15. Iluppl8m8ntery No88
18. Abetract (Umlt: 2IXI w~)
The University of Minnesota site, composed of four subsites, is in Rosemount, Dakota
County, Minnesota, approximately 20 miles southeast of the Minneapolis/St. Paul
metropolitan area. Surrounding land use is agricultural and rural residential. The
site is underlain by a shallow sand and gravel aquifer and a deeper fractured dolomite
and sandstone aquifer, both hydraulically connected and current sources of drinking
water. Three of the subsites were occupied by tenants between approximately 1968 and
1985. All three subsites were involved with the storage and/or reconditioning of
electrical equipment and contain PCB-contaminated soil and debris from spills or
disposal of PCB oil. One subsite was also involved with reclamation of copper wire.
The fourth subsite was used by the University as a burn pit for waste chemicals. From
1968 to 1974, it is estimated that 90,000 gallons of laboratory chemicals, solvents,
corrosives, salts, heavy metals, organics, and inorganics were disposed of in the burn
pit, which was ultimately capped in 1980. In 1984, ground water sampling identified the
burn pit as a source of contamination. In 1986, the University submitted plans for an
alternate water supply for affected residents. This action has been updated and is
addressed in this Record of Decision (ROD). This ROD also addresses ground water
(See Attached Page)
17. DoamwnI An8IpI8 L o.atpt-
Record of Decisio~ - University of Minnesota, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs, other organics (PCBs), metals (lead)
b. Idantlllera/OpenoEnd8d t-
c. COSA T1 FI8IdIQroup
18. AvailabiUty s18aement 18. Security caua (Thi. Report) 21. No. 01 Pall"
None 129
2D. Security ca... (Thi. Page) 22. PrlC8
None .
.77)
50272 101
- ANSI-Z38.18)
SH IM/ruCU- on Rn.-
(Formet1y NTls.35)
Dep8I1m8nt 01 c-nerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-~0/141
University of Minnesota, MN
'irst Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (continued)
treatment
debris in
the soil,
including
in the burn pit area and treatment and consolidation of contaminated soil and
the remaining three subsites. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
debris, and ground water include VOCs, including chloroform; other organics
PCBs: and metals such as lead.
v
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating 2,620 cubic yards of soil
containing greater than 1,000 mg/kg of lead and transporting the soil to an off site RCRA
landfill for disposal: excavating 160 cubic yards of concrete debris and 6,309 cubic
yards of soil with greater than 25 mg/kg of PCBS, followed by onsite thermal desorption
and fume incineration: consolidating 14,809 cubic yards of soil with 10-25 mg/kg of PCBs
and limiting access with man-made barriers: backfilling excavations with treated soil and
grading and revegetating the area; pumping and treating contaminated ground water using a
packed.tower air stripper, followed by onsite discharge to an infiltration supply pond;
and ground water monitoring. Outside of the selected remedy, the University of Minnesota
is constructing two supply wells upgradient of the contaminant plume and supplying 27
affected residents with this alternate water supply.
The combined estimated capital cost for both remedies is $8,308,686. There are no O&M
costs associated with the soil remedy. The estimated annual O&M cost for the ground
water remedy is $8,695 for 20 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Cleanup levels for carcinogenic compounds are meant to
reduce the excess lifetime cancer risk to 10-4 to 10-7. specific soil cleanup goals
include PCBs 25 mg/kg (TSCA PCB "Spill Cleanup policy") and lead 1,000 mg/kg (EP Toxicity
. Leach Testing). Specific ground water cleanup goals for VOCs were also provided.
-------
-- ..-.. .~. . -
I8::OI.'d of Decision
University of M].nnesota RJseIIDW1t legeTCh ~
1990
M].nnesota Pollution QJnt.1:01 IqeI'CY
-------
--- .-.. ----
Table of 0:Jntents
Declaration
-
1dni.nistrati ve Record lmex
St.mniuy of Rsnedial Al ternative Select~on.
1.
Site Narte, Location and Description
Site History and Enforcarent Activities
II.
III.
Camunity Participation
Scope and Role of (p:!rable Units in the Res{X>nse Action
IV.
v.
Site Characteristics
VI.
Sumnary of Site Risks
Selection of Irxlicator Chelnicals
Exposure AssesSltEl'lt
Risk AssesSltEl'lt
Enviromeut Risks
VII.
Catparision to ARARs
IkIcumentation of Significant Changes
VIII. Description of Alternatives
IX.
Sumnary of Catparative Analysis
Overall Protection of Human Health
Calplian:e with ARARs
Soort-'IeDn Effectiveness
lDng-'IeDn Effectiveness
Reductions of Mobility, '1bxicity, or Volume
-------
. ... - - - .
Inplenentability
Cost Criteria
eamunity~
Support AqerCy (U.S. Envirou,ental Protection AqerCy Acceptan:e
Selected . Altemative
x.
'v
QJE/PE/UST Sites
Target Cleanup leVels
Rationale for Decision
Points of Calpliance
Bum Pit Site
Target Cleanup leVels
Rationale for Decision
Points of Calpliance
XI.
Statuto:ry DeteDninations
Protection of Human Health and the Env.i;r:oment
Att.aintent ofARARs
Cost Effectiveness
Utilization of PeI:manent Solutions arxi Alternative Treatment
Preferen=e for Treatment as a Prinicpal ElEJ1el1t
Schedule
-------
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
AttactJnent 1
Attacment 2
. -'.-.- .-.. . ._._.
Li8t of Figur8
Regional Looation of the ~t Research Center
Site location Map
location of Bedrock Valley
location of Water Wells
I.ocation of George's Used Equiprent arx:i Porter Electric Sites
location of U.S. TransfoDler Site
Inferred Extent of Shallow and Deep PCB Contamination For George's
Used Equiprent and Porter Electric Sites
Inferred Extent of Shallow PCB Contamination For U. S. TransfoD11er
Site
Inferred Extent of lead Contamination For George's Used Equiprent
Site
Extent of Chlorofc:iDn Contamination
List of Tables
Chemical Specific ARARs am other Criteria to be Considered
SlI1mary of Ra1edial Alternatives: QJE/PE/tm Sites
SlI1mary of REmedial Alternatives:
Burn Pit Site
Catparison of Remedial Alten1atives:
M:>bility and Volume
CaTparison of Remedial Alternatives: Cost Analysis
Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
Nine Criteria Evaluation:
QJE/PE/tm Sites
Nine Criteria Evaluation: Burn Pit Site
Calparison Am::mg Renedial Alternatives: QJE/PE/tm Sites
Carparison AnDng Remedial Alternatives: Burn Pit Site
Attachnents
Final Detailed Analysis Report arx:i Corx:epLual Design
Responsiveness SlI1mary
"
Minnesota Enfo:rt:EIlient Decision I:bcument For Bum Pit Site
-------
. . _.. ... . ...
. "" -- ----..-
m::LMATI~
Site Mane anj IJx:at..i.m
University of Minnesota Rosatuunt Research Center, Rosatuunt,
Dakota County, Minnesota . .
StatEllBlt of Basis anj Purpose
'lbis decision ck:x:unent presents the selected remedial actions for the
University of Minnesota Rosa1Dunt Research Center Site in Rosatuunt, Dakota
County, Minnesota. '!be docunent was developed in accordance with CaTprehensi ve
Envirormental Response, Catp!nsation, and Liability Act (CEJCA), as anended by
Superfum 1vnen
-------
- _._- -- - - -_.
'!be major \.OU1~aent of the ~al~ is:
Ground water P\mp:JUt
o Lnstall a p.IIp in a nonitoring well dJwngradient of the
&.1rn Pit Site;
o Treat p.IIp out water ina packed tower aeratia1 system;
am .
o Discharge treated water to an infiltraticm pend.
. '!his ~.::aledy represents the secord of two operable units within the
overall site strategy an:! a
-------
StMmRr CR RBte>IAL AL'n!'.RNM'IVE SELB:TIaf
UUvetBity of Minnesota ~ ~ Center
~10\JI1t, Minnesota
I.
Site NaIIB, IDeation, am Description
'Im University of Minnesota's AosEI'IOunt F!es9arch Center (RIC) is located
within the city limits of AosEI'IOunt in Dakota. County, approxiJMtely 20 miles
southeast of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area (Figure 1). '!he RR:
covers approximately 12 square miles and is used primarily as an agricultural
research station, altbJugh sane light manufacturing and service catpanies are
present. Within the confines of the RIC, the RR: Site (Site), consisting of
several disposal sites, has been investigated. 'Ibis Recoro of Decision
addresses the remadiation of the following disposal Sites: the George's Used
Equiptent (GUt) Site, the Porter Electric and Machine Catpany (PE) Site, the
u.S. 'l'ransfoIner (UST) Site and the Bum Pit Site (Figure 2).
'!he topography of the RIC is the result of glacial and glaciofluvial
deposition. 'D1e RRC is DDlded by glacial deposition and the RRC is gerEI'ally
level, except the southeast corner which is boun:ied by a oorthwest-southeast
trending ridge of Iowan age till (Figure 2). 'D1e RfC is uOOerlain by 75 to 150
feet of Pleistocene age outwash sand and gravel. '1hese deposits constitute the
upper aquifer and are recharged by precipitation. '!be sarxi and gravel is
uOOerlain by fractured ci:>lanite of the Ord:wician Prairie du Chien Group,
altbJugh in places these two units are separated by clays of the Superior Wbe
till. '!be ci:>lanite is hydraulically connected to the uOOerlying Cstt>rian Jordan
Sarxistone and foDIIS the second aquifer of COB::em. '!he Jordan Sandstone is
urderlain by the St. Lawrerr=e Fozmation, a ci:>lanitic siltstone that ,acts as a
,
regional aquitacl. A third water-bearing unit, the Frcm=onia Fonnation,
.~
-------
. -_._--- -.--
-2-
un:ierlies the St. Lawrence Fol1'Mtion, but is not widely used as a water source
in the area and is ngt presently at risk.
A major erosional bedrock valley is present in the oorthem portion of the
RR: (Figure 3) ai'rl is filled with sand arXi gravel deposits. '1his valley fill
m:x1ifies the regional ground water flow direction which is generally to the
east-oortheast. '!be valley divides into two bran=hes, one to the oorth and one
to the east, both of which ultimately discharge to the Mississippi River. '!he
water table is present at a depth of 60 to 70 feet, within the outwash sand and
gravel.
N::> significant surface water :resources are present on the RRC. '!be
Mississippi River is located ~roximately 5 miles east and oortheast of the RRC
and acts as a regional discharge point for ground water. '!be RRC Site described
by this dDclment is oot part of the 100 year flood plain, according to the
National Flood Plain Program map for the city of RDsaIDunt.
Land adjacent to the RRC is used for agriculture and rural resi~.
According to 1980 census data, awroximately 7,000 people live within a 4-mile
radius of the Site; less than 75 people live within a l-mile radius of the Site.
Eleven water wells are located on RRC property and ~ximately 50 residential
and small business wells are present oorth and east of the RRC (Figure 4).
II. Site History and Bnforoeu-.t Activities
Site History
'.ft)e RRC was originally developed as a federal smunition manufacturing
plant during the early 1940s. ~ation ceased in 1945, am the facility was
deeded over to the University of Minnesota (University). Si.r¥:e that tine, the
RAe has been used by the University for research. '!be University has also
leased various sites and facilities to individuals and snal.;t businesses.
-------
. .. -.-
-3-
Activities am disposal practices of the University am sate of its lessees
resulted in the subj~ soil an::l grourd water contamination.
'!be QJE Site (Figure 5) was used as an electrical equiptent storage am
salvage facility; as -well as a general salvage facility between 1968 an::l 1985.
"
'!be activities conducted at the QJE Site irv:luded reclsnation of cower wire by
b1rning off insulation, the salvage of electrical equiptent, batteries, an::l
drums; irv:ineration of liquids, irv:luding polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
contaminated oils; and unidentified drum handling/storage and transfer
activities. M::>st of the PCB oils were apparently cii.spJsed of in a depressional
area, altOOugh low-level contamination is wi~pread at the GUE Site (Figure 7).
ScIre solvents were also released at the QJE Site. '!be contamination of soil by
lead is believed to be associated with lead acid battery an:i wire reclamation
activities at the QJE Site.
'!be Porter Electric and Machine Catpany leased property irrmediately south
of the QJE Site fran 1968 to 1971 (Figure 5). '!his property was used for
storage and recorditioning of used irrlustrial electrical equiptent. PCB
contaminated waste oils generated fran ttese activities reportedly were spread
on roads in the area. An area of soil contaminated by PCBs exists at the PE
Site (Figure 7).
u. S. 'l'ransfonner leased property awrox:iJnately 2000 feet mrtheast of the
QJE Site fran 1973 to 1978 (Figure 6). '!be property was used for diSlMntling
am salvaging electrical tranSfOImerS. Waste oils fran ttese activities were
xeportedly washed off a con:::rete slab onto the soil at the tSl' Site. An
extensive area of PCB cont5ninated soil exists at the tSl' Site (Figure 8).
'!be a.trn Pit Site, located just mrth of 160th street, mid-wsy between
Akron am Blaine AveJU1eS, was used by the University as a disposal ~ for
waste chemical~ (Figure 2). Urx::onfiJ:med reports suggest disposal of. chEmicals
-r
-------
-4-
began in this area in the early 1960s. University records indicate that,
between 1968 am 197J, approximately 90,000 gallons of laboratmy chemicals,
solvents, corrosives, salts, heavy metals, organics am inorganics were
infiltrated and/or bumed in the pit. '!be pit was lined with liJIE, backfilled
with clean sand and capped with clay in 1980.
'111e investigation of the RRC Site began on January 31, 1984, when, during
routine m:>nitoring of the Pine Berrl Landfill, the Minnesota Departnent of Health
(Mm) detected 1.3 parts per billion (~) chlorofoIm in a residential water
well upgradient of the larrlfill. Following additional sanpling, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Aqerry (MPCA) staff met with Dakota County (County) officials
on March 14, 1984, to discuss the direction of the investigation. On June 12,
1984, further sarrpling of wells on and off of the RRC occw:red, followed by a
report subnitted by the County to the MPCA staff on Jw1e 18, 1984.
In July 1984, aci:iitional sanpling occw:red, as well as a site inspection
made by MPCA, County am University officials. As a result of these
investigations, the Mm issued well advisories to 27 families wOOse wells were
contaminated with chlorofoml above the Rec."\Alllerded Allowable Limit (RAL). In
1984, the RAL for chlorofoIm was 1.9 ~, was raised to 5 ~, and then to 57
Ri> in early 1988.
On August 2, 1984, a fozmal Request for Infomation (RFI) was sent by the
MPCA staff to the University and cw:rent RRC tenants. ~ University hired a
consultant to corrluct the Ra1Edi.al Investigation (RI) to respon:.t to the RFI: a
xesponse to the RFI was received on Sept:E.InJer 4, 1984. On Ck:tcber 4, 1984, the
MPCA issued a Request for Response Action (RFRA) to the University. Sanpling of
residential and rrDnitoring wells continued. FoImal negotiations betueen the
MPCA staff am University began on January 9, 1985 am msulted in ~ RespoJlse
.
Action ~e.ea.ent dated May 30, 1985. During this time, Phase I of the RI was
-------
-5-
cart'leted.; .the Phase I RI Report was subnitted on March 13, 1985. This report
identified the ann Pit Site as the source of the ground water contamination.
An epidemiology study was initiated by the MPCA am MJ:Ii staff on July 9,
1985. Phase II of ~ RI continued, with quarterly rep:>rts being sutmitted to
the MPCA staff. '!be RI Final Report was subnitted in tbvember 1985.
In late 1985, the GUE/PE/US'r soil investigation becamE! a separate
investigation £ran the grouOO water solvent contamination. Because of the
iJmediate threat to the p.1blic, the grourxi water contamination was given
'V
priority, and on February 25, 1986, the Detailed Analysis Report, Alternatives
For A PeDnanent Drinking Water Supply - Rosem:IW'1t Research Center .Area,
RDsem::ront, Mi11nesOta (DAR) for an alternative water supply was sutmitted.. The
DAR ~ installation of new deeper wells to replace the' private wells
which had. contaminated water. Following MPCA staff am. p.1blic approval of the
DM., the Response Action Plan, Ground Water Contamination Project, RDsem::ront
Research Center, was su1:mitted on May 12, 1986, am a prototype replacatent well
was catt>l~ted on July 17, 1986.
Work on rstediation of the solvent plune and water supply plans continued
through late 1986 with suhnission of the Grourd Water Interim Response Action
Plan, University of Minnesota, RosenDunt Research Center Site ~rt, dated
N:M:mber 11, 1986, and the Evaluation of Waste Disposal ann Pit, Alternate
Water Supply Sites and Existing Well Abarrlorment Procedures, university of
MinneSota, Rosa1DUnt ResearCh Center, RDSE!'IOUI\t, Minnesota Report sutmi tted on
February 10, 1987.
The soil investigation for the GUE/PE/UST Site was also unde1:way during
1986. On O::tober 26, 1986, the Enjanqement Assessrrent, RDsencunt Research
Center, Uni versi ty of Minnesota (Errlangement Assessrrent) for the GUE, PE and.
US'!' Sites was sutmitted to the MPCA staff. The Alternatives Report, RDsem:ront
Research Center, Rosem::JUnt, Minnesota for remadiation of the PCB col)taminated
.
soil was sul:mitted on N:M:mber 10, 1986, foll~ by the Final Detailed Analysis
,
-------
-6-
Report And Cooceptual Design, Rosencunt Research Center, Rosarount, Minnesota on
May 12, 1987. On July 21, 1987 the MPCA staff approved the selection of
Altemative 7D (on-site theI:mal desorption and fumein::ineration) and
Alternative 7F (on-site theIma1 desorption with condensation and scru}::X)ing of
vapors followed by off-site camercial iocineration) as the reJ'IE!Ciial actions.
fDwever, after ~ analysis, .7Uternative 7F was elim.inated because of
pra.,1E1t6 with handling am d.i.spJsal/destroction associated with furre
condensation. A groun:i water investigation at the GOE Site, began in early 1987
am advan:ed to Phase II in early 1988.
In DeceItber 1987, the entire RR: Site
was placed on the National Priority List with a score of 46.
In 1988 the following reports were subnitted to the MPCA staff:
Final Report Phase II Ground Water Investigation, George'S UsedEqUi~t Site,
RosenDunt Research Center on April 21, 1988; Final Report, Soil Contamination
Investiqation, George'S Used EQui~t Site, RosenDunt Research Center on
June 7, 1988; Soil Contamination Investiqation, RosEJrDUnt Research Center;
Volunes ram 2 on July 28, 1988; Air Quality Review am Project Schedule on
July 28, 1988; am Pilot 'l\:!st Rep:)rt in Decerrber 1988.
Early in 1988, the chlomfom RAL was raised to 57 pP:>. RJne of the
residential \Ells exceeded this corx:entration; however, the University decided
to install a :rural water system installation anyway.
Enfo.a::~.L Activities
Enforcenent actions relating to the RRC Site included Requests For
Info:cnation to the Potential Responsible Parties (PRPS) issuances of a Request
For Response Action to the University, .and negotiations and execution of a
Respollse Action Ag.l.==a.ellt with the University as described above. '.Ihe
cooperative J:eSp:>nse by the University made noratoriurn unnecessaxy.
Negotiations resulted in a Response Action ~==alll=nt dated May 30, 1985, between
-------
-7-
the University and the MPCA. The only lawsuit that. arose fran the RI was
brought before the United State Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota, In Re:
U.S. Transfonner, Ire., Debtor (Case tb. 3-84-1136). Technical discussions with
PRPs are sumnarized In the 1dninistrative Record.
III. O::Imuni.ty Partieipation
Public interest in the RIC Site has focused on the growxi water
contamination and the water supply remedial action alternatives for the affected
residents .
PCB and lead contamination in the soil on the Site received II'Cderate
~lic attention during the RI, rot ~lic interest in the recarmended
al ternati ves has been low to date.
Public meetings regarding the ground water contamination Utvestigation were
held on July 25, 1984; March 26, 1985; May 23, 1985; August 28, 1985; and March
10, 1986.
These meetings resulted in consent anong the MPCA staff, the
University, the County, RosenDunt officials and RosatDUnt residents that
constroc:t':i.on of rEM residential wells was the preferred drinking water remedial
action.
In accordarr=e with this decision, a prototype well was installed in
July 1986, oot was found to be susceptible to iron bacterial grcMth. Because of
this, in December 1986, RosenDunt residents requested. that the MPCA staff and
the University rEHNaluate the water supply renedi.al action alternatives.
In
response to this request, the Uni versi ty held ~lic meetings to discuss rural
water supply systems on August 3, and O=tober 21, 1987.
On April 25, 1988, the MPCA staff received draft revisions of the MDH RALs.
The chlorofoDn RAL was raised £ran 5 to 57 ppb.
Because this increase in the
RAL meant the water fran affected drinking water wells in Rosarount no longer
exceeded the chlorofoDn's RAL, and because trend analyses of groun:1 water data
stoEd 00 significant risk of contaminants over RALs reaching water supplies
-------
.. "'. .
- ...-.--. - ~-. -
-8-
fran the RR: Site, the MPCA staff detenn.ined that the University 00 longer had a
legal obligation to install a water supply systatl. On May 16, 1988, this
infoDnation was presented to the residents at a plblic neeting an:! discussion
ensued regarding the_University's legal obligations. On June 13, 1988, the
University' s Board of Trustees net and approved carpletion of the iOOepeOOent
water distri..b.itlon systatl provided that a"majority of residents sign a property
damage waiver. A majority of residents agreed by Septati:)er 1988, arx:i work on
the system proceeded.
'!he soil contamination investigation proceeded concurrently with the ground
water investigation. Public neetings, held in RosatDUnt on March 26, 1985,
August 28, 1985, and April 14, 1986, presented the results of the soil
investigations conducted by the MPc:A staff am the University. . On"
August 27, 1987, a public ootice was mailed to affected residents and interested
parties and a news release was mailed to all County newspapers and the St. Paul
and Minneapolis daily papers. 'n1e notice am news release briefly described the
soil rem:rliation alternatives at the GUE/PE/UST Sites and the water distribution
and air stripping treatnent process at the Bum Pit Site being considered and
those being rec:amerxied by the University. The oot.i.ce am news release also
indicated that copies of the Final Detailed Anal vsis Report and Conceptual
Desiqn Report were available for public review in the Rosarount City Hall, and
announced the public neeting to discuss the al ternati ves report. The news
release was published in four County newspapers between September 7 and
September 10, 1987. A paid public notice was plblished in the St. Paul Pioneer
Press daily paper on Septati:)er 18, 1987.
The plblic neeting was held on September 16, 1987, and 11 area residents
atterx::led. Many questions were asked about specific details of theJ:ma1
deso~ion, incineration, soil excavation, ground water p.mp out, and ground
-------
-9-
water rrovement; ~, there were ro p.1blic caments on the recunueIlljed
alternative. County officials had previously provided written camentS which
are described in the attached responsiveness 8\J11'1MIY. The cament pericxi en::ied
on September 23, 1987_.
Except for County officials, ro further camunications
fran the p1blic have been received arout the recamended alternatives. At the
camunity's ~t, subseqUent cXcunentS"on the site have been IMde available
at the RDsatDW1t City Hall for review.
As indicated previously, in early 1988, the need to inplenent the water
supply l."€fledy was reevaluated and it was deteIJnined that due to the change in
the MinneSota eepart:mant of Health's RecCJTI1Ended Allawable Limit for chlorofoDn,
the University of Minnesota had ro legal obligation to inplenent this l.€!Iedy;
rowever, the University intends to inplarent the water supply l.~edy anyway.
The ground water punp out .I.i:uedy has been ~lenented. 'nUs Ja) discusses the
decision JMking process which led to the selection of the water supply .I.erretion followed by furre
incineration), backfilling of clean soil, and off-site landfilling of soil
contaminated with netals. The total volurre of contaminated soil to be excavated
and treated, disposed of off-site, and consolidated on the GUE Site .is estim3.ted
at 23,898 cubic yards.
Soil (sare of which will be contariiinated with PCBs) with
','
-------
.-. .-- --
-10-
lead concentrations greater than 1,000 parts per million (ppn) will be shipped
off site for disp)sal at a RCRA-peDnitted facility.
Soil with concentrations of
PCBs greater than 25 ppn will be treated by theJ::mal destruction
(desorption-incinera1":Jon). Also, 14,809 cubic yards of soil fran the tiu:ee
sites with fran 10 to 25 ppn PCBs will be consolidated on the GUE Site.
Thus ,
the first operabl-e unit addresses the principal threats of direct contact with
PCB arxiI or metal contaminated soil or ingestion of PCB and! or metal contaminated
ground water by ranJ\Ting and destroying the sources of contamination.
The IIDst
current estimates of soil to be treated or consolidated are found in the
document entitled, letter Rep;:>rt For Excavation and Backfill of Soil With 10-25
PCBs, Rosarount Research Center, dated Decanber 14, 1989.
The second operable unit, . addressing the ground water contamination fran
the Bw:n Pit Site, consists of a pomp out well and air stripper systan and a
rural water supply systan is described in the Minnesota Enforcarent Decision
I:b:urrent, University of Minnesota Rosarount Research Center (MEDD) (see
Attacmen't 2) dated Decanber 4, 1986, and a Proposed ~siqn and Schedule for an
Alternative 'l'rea1:nent Method of Contaminated Water, dated July 8, 1987. '!his
operable unit addresses the principal threat of ingestion of ground water
contaminated with VtX:s by volatilizing the va::s and by providing an alternative,
clean water supply to potential receptors.
Site Characteristics
v.
GUE/PE/u;or Sites
The GUE, PE, and UST Sites were all used as electrical equi:ptent storage
arxiIor reconditioning facilities. All three sites have soil contaminated with
PCBs and, in the case of the GUE Site, copper and lead fran the recycling and
incineration process used to salvage metal wire and lead fran lead acid
batteries.
Other contaminants have been identified in the soil at the sites,
but do not represent a threat to public heaJ th or the envf!:onrrent at the
-------
- - -.---. - .'
-11-
con:::entrations observed on site.
'tt1ese other contami.nants are:
acetone ,
pharol, 1, 4~chlorobenzene, 1, 2~chlorobenzene, 1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene,
naphthalene, diethyl phthalate, c:lib.1tyl phthalate, am a variety of p:>lynuclear
aranatic hydrocatto~ (PAHs) at lOtI ppn levels; ant.iJtony, arsenic, beryllium,
cacknium, chranium, nickel, and zin:; and 2,3,7, 8-tetrachlorodi.bnZO-p-dioxim
('lOX» an:i furan 2,317 ,8-tetrachlorodiMnzofuran ('la:>F). Pesticides were
analyzed for, but oot detected. Of the ~ present in the soil, only
chranium was detected in ground water in a I1Dnitoring well (0.16 ppn - sarrple
collected January 1986) above the maximJm contaminant level (M:L) (0.05 ppn),
although subsequent sarrpling showed it to be below the M:L (0.020 ppn - sarrple
collected July 1986). The other ~ were belOtl the detection limits in
grouOO water. AltbJugh m:my of these ~, particularly List 1 PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, are koown or suspected carcinogens, the lOtI levels at which
they occur in the soil and their absen:e in grouOO water was the basis for the
dete:cnination that they do rot represent a threat to public health or the
enviroment.
PCBs have been detected in the soil at the three sites. At the GUE Site,
surface soil semple corcentrations range Uan 1. 7 to 42,000 ppn. Over I1Dst of
the site, PCBs are con:::entrated in the ~ 2 to 9 feet of the soil. ~r,
an area approximately 50 by 100 feet with high concentrations of PCBs to a depth
of at least 36 feet is present in a natural depression (Figure 7). There is
evidence that the PCBs may have migrated in this area to a depth of 61 feet,
although the levels detected below 36 feet range fran belOtl the detection limit
to 7.7 ppn and may be ~ result of contamination during drilling. The PCBs
were identified as Aroclor 1260, with the exception of one surface s~le
identified as Aroclor 1254.
The situation at the PE Site is similar to the GUE Site.
Surface sarrpling
revealed an area approximately 250 by 150 feet where PCB concentrations range
fran 3.8 to 63, 000 ppn (Figure 7). The types of PCBs ide!ltif ied are Aroelor
-------
. . ..., --. ....
-12-
. .
1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260. Samples fram a boring drilled in the meet
contaminated zone -indicated contamination by Aroc1or 1242 PCBs to depth of 74.5
feet. '!be ~trations decrease dramatically with depth am are generally
below 10 ppn at dePths greater than 43 feet.
At the UST Site, PCB contamination is widespread rot shallow, being
. confined to the UA?E!r 3 feet of soil over an area awroximate1y 300 by 400 feet
.:
(Figure 8). '!be PCBs were identified as Arcx:lor 1260.
Heavy metal contamination occurs precbninant1y at the ~ Site, a1 trough
slightly elevated levels of copper were detected at the UST Site. At the WE
Site, analysis of surface soil sanp1es revealed a range of lead coramtrations
fram 9.5 to 40,000 ppn and copper corw::entrations fram 84 to 310,000 ppn. '!be
metal contamination is largely restricted to shallow soil; soil contaminated at
or above the cleanup criterion of 1,000 ppn lead is present only to a depth of
two feet (Figure 9). At the UST Site, copper am lead corcentrations exceed the
background cOJ'¥:ehtrations of the soil at the RR:, but the lead cOJ'¥:ehtrations of
40 ppn fall within the camon range of lead in U.S. soil (2-200 ppn) as
identified by the u.S. EPA (1983) and also within the range of Midwest native
soil (up to 2,500 ppn). '!be copper cor~eJltration of 172 ppn slightly exceeds
the C1..81110n range of copper in u.S. soil (2-100 ppn), rot d:Jes not require
res~e action.
lead is relatively bmDbile in soil because of lead's strong sorption to
soil particles and organic CCII'{XJl1rxIs. '!he low solubility of PCBs in water makes
PCBs DDbi1ity relatively low. 'BUs is consistent with the widespread rot shallow
PCB and lead contamination observed. at the WE, PE and UST Sites. '!be deep PCB
contamination at the ~ am PE sites may have occurred as a msult of dlm'ping
large velunes of PCB oil in a small area or co-disposal of vcx:s with the PCB
oils. PCBs are highly soluble in organic solvents, sue&. as tri- and
-------
-13-
dichlorobenzene am acetone, am these may have enharad the PCBs' ability to
migrate. 1iJweVer'- the oon-polar organic solvents detected at the sites are also
readily adsorbed onto organic carpounds and may rot readily migrate through
8Oil. A secon:::t theo%}' is that the sheer vol\.lne of PCB oil disposed at the sites
saturated the soil with oil am caused the PCB oil to migrate.
'!he types of media affected at the sites are predc:minantly sarrly soil and
outwash sands, with sane clayey organic soil am fill material present at the
surface at the GUE Site and sane PCB contaminated con=rete at the UST Site. '!he
estimated volumes of contaminated materials (> 1 ~ PCB, > 50 ~ lead) are
2,500 cubic yards of lead soil, 160 cubic yards of con=rete, and 57,000 cubic
yards of PCB soil. Lead and PCBs were detected in the grourrl water on only ore
occasion in different m:mitoring wells, but sub;equent scmpling did rot confiJ:m
the preseoce of PCBs or lead which indicates that tl1e grourrl water has not yet
been inpacted by these contaminants.
81m Pit Site
'!be burn pit was constructed in the late 19605 by filling in an existing
east-west drainage ditch at two locations awroximately 80 feet apart. '!he
surface dirlensions of the pit were 35 feet by 80 feet by 12 feet deep.. '!he
walls of the pit were sloped am blast shields am chutes were located on two
sides of tl1e pit to protect tl1e srployees during the disposal am b.1m.ing of the
waste .
'n1e burn pit was used during the late 1960s am early 19705 for disJ:OSal of
waste laboratory chemicals , solvents , corrosives, sa! ts, heavy netals, organics
am inx'ganics by intil tration am b.1m.ing. During closure, lime was ewlied to
a depth of six irr:hes over the entire surface of the pit. After liming, the pit
was filled with clean dirt am capped with clay. '!be pit was cl~ in 1980.
Analysi~ of soil fran borings in a.nd aroun:! the ~,pit indicate low RX>
-------
--..... - -.-
-14-
concentrations of toluene, 1,1,1 trich1roethane, carbon tetrachloride,
tetracoolorethane,-am methylene chloride.. '!be maxinun COB:eJ1tration of these
contaninants was 11 Ri' toluene. I..J..OOane am PCBs were detected at low Ri'
. .
levels at depths of 14.5 to 16.5 am 22 to 24 feet in one borilvl. Ii:> chlorofoDn
was detected in the soil sarrples. '!be level of soil contami.nation at the b.1rn
pit c.bes not necessitate any rEllBCiial action.
Gramd water contamination associated with the bum pit occurs as a plurre
approximately four miles long that trends to the east am then oortheast (Figure
10) . '!be highest con=entrations of chlorofoDn (72 ppb) were detected in
nDnitoring well 1+1-21D, awroximately one mile east of the bum pit.
Coocentrations range £ran mn-detect to 39 Ri' in the other nDnitoring wells,
and fran oon-detect to 16 ppb in the residential wells.
VI. &mniny of Site Risks
Selecticm of Irdicator Chemicals
In accordarw=e with the Qridan=e on Remecli.al Investigations under CERClA,
dated May 1985 and the Superfum Public Health Evaluation Manual Draft, dated
January 5, 1986, indicator chemicals were selected to facilitate the PJblic
health evaluation am deteDnination of the cleanup criteria. lead am PCB
(Aroclor 1260 arx1 1242) were selected for the soil nmediation based on their
greater con::entration, toxicity and areal distriJJution catpared to the other
carp:JU1Xis detected at the GUE, PE and UST Sites. ChlorofoDn was selected for
the grourd water rarediation because it occun:ed in the greatest rnmDer of
residential wells and was the only caIpOW'd fcum in the residential wells that
occun:ed in significant coocentration (based upon the chlorofom RAL of 1.9 at
that tine). '!be other carp:>unds have never been detected above 2. ppb.
-------
. ..... ~~.
. ...-.. _.. .._~ - -" -
-15-
~ AssesSllElnt
'!be ErdangeIJllEmC Assessrrent, analyzes the potential transport pathways an:i
receptors for contamination at the GUE, PE and UST Sites. Surface water run-off
. - .
is J:eCharged directly to grourrl water and cDes rot represent a potential
pathway. Likewise, analysis of air transport m:xieling has eliminated air as a
potential pathway. According to the m:xiels, a hypothetical L'eC-eptor 1,000 feet
~in:I would receive a PCB OOse between 10 to 1,000 times less than the nDSt
restrictive occupational exposure guideline of one microgram per cubic neter.
read would be awroximately 1,000 times less than the occupational exposw:e
limit of 0.15 milligram per cubic neter.
Due to the high infi! tration rates of the ft)sa1DUnt outwash (17 ir¥;hes per
year), migration of contaminants to the grouOO water L~resents a potentially
significant transport pathway. '!be nearest existing ground water receptors are
12 private water SUWly wells located 5,000 to 7,000 feet oortheast of the GUE
and UST Sites. Groun:1 water mxieling predicts an arrival tiJ'Ie of 50,000 years
for PCBs at the RJC property bouOOary and 100,000 years for the nearest
receptor. Solvents which may ir¥;rease the solubility of PCBs have rot been
fourd in significant quantity during testing; therefore, solvents are oot
expected to playa role in long-t.eJ:m PCB ItDbility. '!be Erx:IangeD1ent Assessment
predicted that lead w:cl.d migrate nore rapidly if rot intercepted by the p.mp
out systan, arriving at the property bouOOary in awreximately 41 years. '!be
construction of a rural water supply, already in ~V\jL~s, as part of the second
operable unit at the RJC Site (acXlressing the VOC problEm) will rem:Ne the
receptors fran the contaminated aquifer.
Direct demal contact and/or ingestion of contaminated soil axe thus the
only rsnaining exposure pathways to seriously consider at the PCB si17B. '!be
.~
nDSt likely receptors for these pathways are workers at the-,sites. Public
-------
-16-
access to the sites is restricted and there are fewer than 75 people living
within a OJ'lIHI\ile radius of the sites. Proper training arrl protective equiprent
shJuld be adequate to ensure worker safety during cleanup of the sites.
'n1e potential for direct contact with bum pit solvents was eliminated as
an exposure pathway when the pit was closed in 1980. 'n1e only .inp)rtant pathway
remaining for sol vent exposure is ingestion of contaminated grouOO water. At
present, 20 wells, serving 27 fmnilies, have detectable quantities of chlorofoD1l
and 16 other wells in the study area could potentially beca'lIe contaminated.
Iic:Mever, aquifer remadiation is underway and the construction of a rural water
supply system, begun in Q:tober 1988, will eliminate this pathway.
Risk AsBeSSllE!l1t
PCBs
Infonnation provided here is extracted fran the 'Ibxicological Profile for
PCBs (JW1e, 1989) p.1blished by the Aqercy for 'Ibxic Subs~ and Disease
Registry (AS'lDR).
PCBs exist at backg%Ol1nd levels in nuch of our air, water and
soil.
It:> adequate studies have been COB:Iucted to c::Iet.eD1Iine if long-tel:m exposure
to PCBs causes cancer in humans. PCB exposure has resulted in an in:reased
in:idence of hepatocellular carcinana in several animal studies. Data £ran the
JlDSt recent study on animals were used by the U.S. !FA Carcimgen Assessnent
Group as the basis for carcin:>genic risk assessnent. 'n1e EPA classifies PCBs as
a Group B2 carc.i.oogen (Probable Human Carcimgen). 'n1e criteria for this
classification is sufficient evidence of carcimgenicity fran arUma.l studies and
inadequate evidence of carcin:>genicity fran tunan studies. EPA has estimated
that lifetime ingestion of 0.175 ug/day would present an in:reased cancer risk
of 1 excess cancer per population of 100,000.
An appliccmle health guideline is the u. S. EPA' s PCB ''Spill Cleanup Policy,
/ "
-------
- ., .. ,.-.
,..,. - .- --
-17-
dated July 1, 1987, at 40 CFR S 761 Subpart G of the .U.S. EPA's Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSeA), which establishes cleanup levels based on the potential for
h\mW\ contact with the PCBs. The codified policy for new spills requires the
following cleanup l~ls:
Type of Area
M:>nrestricted Access Area .
(residential/ carmercial and.
rural areas)
PCB Decontamination Corx::entration (ppt\)
D8c0ntaminate to 10
"
Restricted .Access Area (.1 krn
fran residential/camercial area,
limited by man-made barriers)
Restricted .Access (Electrical
Substation)
Decontaminate to 25
Decontaminate to 25 or 50
According to the TSCA catego.ries, the area with residual PCBs may be
classified as a restricted access area if the contaminated soil were cleaned up
to 25 ppn PCB and limited by a man-made barrier. The Office of Health and
Enviromental Assessnent (CIiEA) has concluded. that a PCB level of 25 ppn in soil
would present less than a lxlO-7 level of oncogenic inhalation risk to people on
.
site wh::> work nore than 0.1 kilaneterS fran the actual spill area (assuming that
the spill area is less than 0.5 acres). The CHEA has also calculated the risk
associated with ingestion of 10 ppn PCBs in soil to be 1.54 x 10-4.
'!he OOEA has p..tblished a report which indicates that a lO-inch cover of
clean soil reduces the risk of PCB contaminated soil by approx.iJnately an order
of magnitude.
The planned Lt::lledy will have a 16-inch cover over the 10-25 ppn
PCB-contaminated soil. The reraining unconsolidated soil, which could have up
to 10 ppm PCBs, would have an ingestion risk of 1.54 x 10-4.
Iead
Data concerning carcin:>genicity of high levels of lead in humans are
in:cm:lusive, but there is evidence that several lead salts are carcinogenic in
laboratory animals, causing turrors of the kidneys.
The available evidence
indicates that high levels of lead exposure exerts toxic etfects on pregnant
-------
-18-
waren am the fetus. lead also causes a variety of toxic effects in the brain
and nervous system, ~ kidneys and the blood fOJ:lnation system of humans and has
a significant effect on developrental process in young children.
IJX:reased
blood pressure is alSo associated with lead, which awears to be significant for
ndd1le-aged white males.
'n1e state interim staJx:lard for lead in soil is 1,000 RJIt. Currently, a
waste is classified as hazarcbus un::ier fCRA only if an EP toxicity leach test
for lead yields a con=entration of greater than 5 ~ in the leachate. Under
ICRA, the total allowable corr=entration of lead in soil may vary, deperrling on
the chemical fonn am bJw well the lead is bouOO to the soil particles.
OUorofcmn
'!be Toxicological Profile for Chlorofonn, plblished by the AS'IDR (January,
1989) provides the basis for this risk assessnent. Exposure to high levels of
chlorofonn by ingestion can affect the central nervous system, liver and
kidneys .
Chronic exposure to low levels of chlorofonn has resulted in tuners in
animals. H:Jwever, because there is insufficient eviderv:e of carcimgen.icity in
humans, chlorofonn is classified as a Group B2 carcioogen (Probable Human
Carcioogen) . 'n1e EPA originally estimated that lifetiJle ingestion of only 1. 9
ug/l of water would present an in:reased carx:er risk of 1 excess cancer per
PJPUlation of 100,000. MJre:ra::ent am mre awropriate research has deteDnined
that chlorofonn is mt as potent a carcimgen when acininistered in drinking
water. 'n1e Carcimgen Assessnent Group has IDW estimated that 1ifetiJle exposure
t:o 57 ug/l of water would present an excess cancer risk of 1 excess can::er per
population of 100,000.
-------
-19-
Envho.8I1Cllital Risks
As described above, the only significant contaminant transport pathways for
PCBs and lead are groun:i 'A"ater ingestion and direct dennal contact and/or soil
'.
J.niIestion. '!he eriviro~.,ental iIrpact of these potential pathways is oot clear.
'D1e potential of significant contaminant migration to the Mississi~i River,
IJ
nore than four miles fran the GUE, PE and UST Sites, is negligible and would
take an eroD'lOUS arrcunt of tine. '!be m:xiels indicate it will take approximately
100,000 years for PCBs and 41 years for lead to travel one mile. Fen:es may
help to deter animals fran entering the Site, but the potential remains for
direct contact and uptake through the food chain by wildlife. RstDval of the
contaminated soil and backfill with clean soil srould greatly restrict these
pathways .
'!he potential risk associated with chlorofoIm and other va::s fI:an the &Jrn
Pit Site is that of ingestion of contaminated grounj water. 'n1e potential
enviromental iJrpact of this contaminated grounj water is, therefore, very
limited. Ultimately, the contaminated grounj water, without treatment, would
discharge to the Mississi~i River. Ground water noni toring iMicates that the
contaminant corcentrations decrease with distan::e fran the burn pit, and are
belCM nethod detection limits of 1 pP:> before the grounj water reaches the
river.
'D1e use of a packed tower aeration system to trea~ the ground water
presents an additional pot.entia.l enviromental exposure pathway. IiJweYer ,
according to air quality dispersion calculations for the treatment system in
place at the RR: Site, all air quality criteria are expected. to be met.
-------
-20-
O:IIparison to MARs
'!he federal an:1 J;tate chemical-specific awlicable or relevant an:1
appropriate requiratents (ARARs) or criteria that are to be considered ('lB:s)
are stom in Table 1. - As described above', PCBs an:1 lead have not been
ccn::lusively detected. in the grouOO water, but 00 exceed, by as nuch as five
orders of magnitude, the ARARs anj 'lB:s in the soil at the GUE, PE arx:t UST
Sites.
When this investigation began in 1984, chlorofoDn was detected. in 25 wells,
of which only 14 exceeded the original RAL of 1.9~. '!he present RAL of 57
PI*' is oot exceeded in any residential well, anj is exceeded in only one
m:mitoring well (Ki-21) on the ROC.
VII. n:nnentation of Significant 0wu¥1es
QJE/PE/tm' Sites
'!he preferred alternative for remediation of the UST, GUE arx:t PE Sites
(with or without PCB soil contamination) is excavation of soil with greater than
25 ppn PCBs and 1,000 ppn lead. Soil contaminated with lead greater than 1,000
ppn will be disposed of at an off-site R:RA-pmnitted. landfill witintt being
treated. for PCBs. Soil with greater than 25 ppn PCBs (with lead levels below
1,000 ppn) will urxiergo on-site t.he1:mal desorption-incineration to :rem::rve PCBs.
Soil fran the GUE, PE anj US'I' Sites with PCB con::entrations between 10 an:1 25
RD PCBs would be consolidated on the GUE Site anj covered.
'!be bid specifications will be based on perfoDl1lUX:e criteria deteDnined
£ran the iIR>.roved altemative, rather that being netb:xi specific as originally
f>.I.~. This change was made to iocrease the range of available techn::>logies
so that a significant ll\JI1t)er of bids would be fortlx=aning to en=ourage
catpetitive costs.
-------
. _..., ..
-21-
ann Pit Site
'n1e preferred alternative for ratediation of contaminated groun:1 water fran
the Ek1m Pit Site is a pmp out and treatmant systan located 00 the University
property .
'!his alternative was inplem:mted as described in the MEID, previously
lIS1tioned. Treatmant of the water consists of packed tower aeration and
discharge to an infiltration pon::I. '!his action represents a significant change
fx:an the initial spray irrigation treatnent systan, but provides JIDre effective
treatrrent netbxl than the original design. Spray irrigation would oot have
consistently satisfied the discharge requiranent of 5 ~ chlorofoDII (or va:s)
60 the packed tower aeration al tm:native was inplEl1EJ1ted.
The second phase of the ratedial action for the Bum Pit Site is the
const:ruction of a rural water SUWly systan to provide clean long-teDII drinking
water to residents with wells that are rJ)W or could p:>tentially be affected.
The rural water system alternative is a change £ran the original selected
altemative which was approved for this operable unit. ft:Iwever, is rural water
supply systan provides an equivalent of protection of p.1blic health am provides
water with JIDre pleasing aesthetic qualities.
Initially, the University am the
MPCA staff approved the construction of new irDividual residential wells
screened in the Fran:onia aquifer, as described in the MElD. '!his solution was
initially accepted by the residents am RcsemJunt and County officials. '!be
prototype Fran:onia well proved to be susceptible to taste and ocX>r problems
fran bacterial growth due to high iron corcentrations in the water. 'n1erefore,
the residents asked the University to n!COI1Sider a rural water supply systan.
Further negotiations ancng the residents, RDseI1rJunt officials, University
officials and the MPCA staff resulted in the selection of a rural water SUWly
systan as the appropriate al temative.
-------
.. . ._--_...._...-~..
-22-
VIII. Descriptim of Alternatives
QE/PEItSr Sites
'Dle Al ternati ves Report, Rcsem:Junt Res9arch Center, Roserrount, Minnesota,
dated M:M:I'rter 1986, identified. 42 potentially relevant techoologies for the
remediation of the RR: Site. 'Dle accept.able techoologies were then catt>ined to
create 20 al temati ve remedial actions (SUI'II1V!rized. in Table 2).
Each
alternative remedial action was analyzed. for effectiveness in meeting the
evaluation criteria (see Section IX.: Sunmarv of eatparative Analysis).
Alternatives 1 through 5 require at least 30 years of operation arrl maintenan=e
(O&M) .
Soil significantly contaminated with copper am lead which is identified.
for treatment will be referred. to as "soil contaminated. with netals." 'D1e teDn
"RCRA landfill or vault" means a RCRA approved lardfill or vault. 'D1e teDn
"TSCA landfill or vault" means a TSCA approved larrlfill or vault.
Al ternative 1: No Action
Alternative 1 involves only long-teDn ground water IIDI1itoring for at least
30 years. 'Dle potential for di%ect deJ:mal contact with arxi/or ingestion of lead
and PCBs would remain, as ~d the potential threat to ground water due to
leaching of neta1s am PCBs.
InplEJ'leJ'1tation of this option woold Dean that
certain areas would remain restricted for residenti~ and camercial use for an
irdefinite period of tine. '!his alternative is considered a base line scenario
to which other alternatives can be ccmpared.
Altemative 2: Limited Site Control
Altemative ~ catbines site access and use restrictions and soil venting.
.Access to the sites would be restricted by the construction of fera:s arouOO all
-,'
areas where FCBs exceed 25 ppn and/or lead exceeds 1,000 ppn.
In addition, the
-------
-23-
University would revise the Carprehensive Developnent Plan for the RR: to ensure
continued restricteQ site access. A ootice would be filed with the Dakota
County Registrar of teeds, recording the change in status of the property.
'1bese actions would reduce the risk of direct deDMl contact with the
oontaminated soil.
<:>
Soil venting is an accepted technology for rem:wing va:s fran W'\Saturated
soil aOOve the water table. At the RRC Site, it would be used to volatilize the
va:s at the GUE am PE Sites, eliminating the potential for vo:s to ncbilize
PCBs. '!he effectiveness of this action would be verified by 10ng-teDn ground
water IIDnitoring (at least 30 years). Solvent venting would have 00 effect on
reducing the potential migration of lead to grourrl water.
AI. ternati ve 3: PeI:neable Cover
Alternative 3 involves tM excavation am off-site di.sp:>sal of
approximately 2,620 cubic yards of soil contaminated with netals at a R:RA
landf ill. A penneable soil cover of 1.5 feet in thickness would then be spread
over areas in excess of 25 ppn PCB to reduce the risk of direct dennal contact.
'DIe cover would be graded am then seeded with grass to minimize erosion. A
soil venting systan would be installed to volatilize the va:s to reduce the
potential for PCB migration to ground water. 'lb:! effectiveness of the
rB1edi.ation would be verified by long-teDn grourxi water IIDni toring (at least 30
years) . Because the PCB contaminated soil are rot excavated or ncved, this
alternative would minimize exposure of workers during the rEI1Sdial action.
AI. temati ve 4: 1rrpeImeable Cap
AI. ternative 4 is similar to AI. ternative 3, except the cover on the RRC Site
would be .inpeJ:maable (therefore a cap) thus restricting surface water
infiltration. Without the infiltration of water acting as a driving force to
.
dislcxige PCBs. presently adsomed onto the W'\Saturated soil~ there is 00 need for
-------
-24-
a venting systan. '!be cap would consist of a clay layer overlain by sooded
topsoil, the total 1::hickness being either 2.5 or 4 feet. Excavation of 2,620
cubic yards of soil contaminated with metals for off-site dislX'S4l at a R:RA
"
lardfill would elimiiiate the potential for lead contamination of ground water.
'1'his al ternati ve also would require long-teDn ground water noni toring an1
cap maint.enaoce.
Alternative SA: On-Site TSCA Vault
Alternative SA involves the excavation of 6,469 cubic yards of soil and
concrete contaminated with PCBs exceeding 25 ppn and 2,620 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with metals exceeding 1,000 ppn lead. '!be soil contaminated with
metals would be disposed of off-site at a R:RA landfill. '!be PCB-contaminated
material would be enclosed in a TSCA vault that would be located in an
uncontaminated area iJmediately west of the GJE Site.
'!his al ternati ve would require long-teDn ground water and leachate
nonitoring, as well as maintenance of the vault.
Alternative 5B: On-Site RCRA Vault
Alternative 5B is essentially the same as Alternative SA, except the
on-site vault would be R:RA peDnitted (instead of a TSCA vault), allowing the
soil contaminated with metals to be c:o-d.isposed. with the PCB contaminated soil
in the vault.
Alternative 6A: On-Site Extraction and Bi~adation
Alternative 6A involves excavation and solvent (methane and petroleum
.either extraction (PET)) extraction of 6,469 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated
80il and corx::rete followed by ultraviolet (tN) dechlorination of the liquid
extract and biological trea17lent (Aroclor 1242 only) prior to discharge to
letropolitan waste Control Ccmnission (!K:C) sewer systan. '!be treated soil
would then be backfilled in the excavation at the GUE Site:. Two tlDusand six
-------
-25-
hun:1red am blenty cubic yards of soil contaminated with netals would also be
excavated and dis~ of at an off-site R:RA landfill.
Al ternati ve: 68 On-Site Extraction
Alternative- 68 is essentially the same as Alternative GA, except in
Alternative 68 the soil fran the PE Site, which contains Aroclor 1242, cb!s oot
c..
receive direct biodegradation.
Instead, all of the excavated PCB-contaminated
soil would W1dergo nethaool an:i PE:I' extraction separation, drying, an:i
backfilling. '!be liquid phase fran the solvent extraction stage would undergo
W light dechlorination, distillation, and activated sludge biological
treat.ltent. '!be resulting clear liquid would then be discharged to the !KX:
sewer system. '!be soil contaminated with netals would be sent to an off-site
R:RA landfill, as in Alternative GA.
, Alternative 6C: Q1-Site Extraction and Biodegradation/Off-Site
Incineration
Alternative 6C is similar to Alternative GA in that the Aroclor 1260
PCB-contaminated soil fran the GUE an:i US'!' Sites would undergo methaool-PE:I'
extraction and the Aroc:lor 1242 PCB-contaminated soil £ran the PE site would
undergo direct biodegradation. '!be treated soil would then be backfilled on the
GUE Site. Ibwever, the liquid phases separated £ran these processes would the
pass through activated carbon filters prior to discharge to the !KX: sewer
system. '!be carbon filters and the coramtrate foxmad during the distillation
pm;e of solvent extraction would be transported to an off-site TSCA
iD:inerator. Tankers with a 4,000 gallon capacity would be used to transport
the waste, requiring the construction of on-site facilities for storage of the
waste until that velune is generated. '!be soil contmn.inated with Detals
exceeding 1,000 RD lead would be sent to an off-site RCRA landfill.,
-------
_.. -.. ~_. -
-26-
Alternative 6D: ()t-Site Extraction/Off-Site In::ineration
Alternative 6D is es~ti.ally the sane as Alternative 6C, except the
Aroclor 1242 PCB-contarninated soil fran the PE Site would oot wdergo direct
biodegradation. . All 'of the PClk:ontaminated soil wdergo nethaml-PET
extraction, separation, dIying, ani backfilling. '1b3 distilled liquid phase
would pass tJu:ough activated cartx:m filters ani then be discharged to the 1+CC
sewer system. '!he carlxm filters am distillation corcentrate would be
transported to an off-site TSCA irx:inerator. '1b3 soil contaminated with netals
would be sent to an off-site ICRA landfill.
Alternative 7A: On-Site In::ineration and Biodegradation
Alternative 7A involves excavation of 6,469 cubic yards of soil and
con::rete contaminated with JtDre than 25 RJD PCBs and 2,620 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with netals exc:eeding 1,000 RJD lead. '1b3 soil contaminated with
.""
, '
lead greater than 1,000 RJD and PCBs greater than 49 RJD would be sent to an
off-site RCRAITSCA landfill. Shallow soil contaminated with between 10 and 2S
RJD PCBs will be consolidated am covered (peD1S8ble caver) with soil am
vegetated so that surface PCB caD!Jltration does oot exceed 10 RJD. Each of the
three disposal sites will have 10-25 ppn PCB soil covered under this
alternative .
Soil am ccn:rete £Ian the GJE am tBl' Sites contaninated with Aroclor 1260
would be croshed and fed into a continuous-feed rotary kiln or circulating
fluidized bed cattustion irx:inerator to theJ:mally destroy the PCBs at 1,800oF.
An afterl::Jurner attaining terlp!riStures of 2,200oF ani/or scrutt>ing and filtering
. .
systems may be necessary to ~letely destroy the PCBs in the off-gases prior
. . .
to release to the emri1::OI.I~lt. . ~ destJ:uction rates achieved would awroach
100 percent, with residual PCB concentration in the soil of less than 2 RJD.
-------
-27-
'!be Aroclor 1242 PCB soil fran the PE Site would ~ direct biodegradation
as described in Alt&n1ative 6A, prior to ircineration.
Alternative 7B: On-Site In:::ineration
"
Alternative 7B is essentially the sam3 as Alternative 7A except the Aroclor
1242 PCB-<:ontaminated soil fran the PE Site would be incinerated witb:>ut first
~ing biodegradation.
Alternative 7C: On-Site '!bemal Desorption, Biodegradation and Fune
In::: ineration
Alternative 7C involves the excavation of 6,469 cubic yards of soil and
con:::rete contaminated with 25 ppn or ncre PCBs, and 2,620 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with metals. '!be soil contaminated with lead greater than 1,000
ppn and PCBs greater than 49 ppn would be sent to an off-site ICRA/TSCA
lamfill. Surface soil with between 10 am 25 ppn PCBs would be consolidated
am covered.
Each of the three disp:>sal sites will have soil with between 10
am 25 ppn PCBs covered un:jer this alternative.
Soil am crushed con:::rete fran the Q.JE and u;rr Sites would be crushed and
fed into a theIma1 desorber. '!be Aroclor 1242 PCB soil £ran the PE Site would
~ biodegradation as described in Alternative 6A, prior to theIma1
deso~ion. '1bere the soil would be heated indirectly through a gas fired,
electric or infrared light systsn to volatilize the PCBs. '!be f\mes fran the
desorber would pass into a fume ircineration chanber where the PCBs will be
oxidized at tarperatures of 2200~. '!be off~ would then be scrot:bed in a
wet alkaline scru1:iJer prior to release to the atJrDSphere. '1bese emissions would
be JlDnitored to ensure catpliarK::e with air quality rules. '!be scru1:iJer brine
would be disposed to the HCC sewer systsn. '!be rem:wal rates would awroach
100 percent, with residual PCB corcentrations of less than 2 ppn.
-------
- - .. - ..- --
-28-
'\
'!he soil would exit the theJ:mal desorl:Jer am enter a bJwer for cooling am
backfilling.
Alternative 7D: Q1-Site 'Ihennal Desorption am Fune Incineration
Altemative- 7D 1s essentially the same as Alternative 7C, except that the
Aroclor 1242 PCB soil fran the PE Site would \ID:iergo direct theDnal desorption
and tune incineration and oot \ID:iergo biodegradation. 'Ibis results in residual
soil PCB corw=entrations of less than 2 RJTI after treat:rrent.
Alternative 7E: Ck1-Site '!heDnal Desorption, Biodegradation, and Fune
Corxiensation
Alternative 7E involves the excavation of 6,469 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with greater than 25 RJTI PCBs, am 2,620 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with lletals with greater than 1,000 RJTIlead. '!he soil
contaminated with lead greater than 1,000 RJTI and PCBs greater than 49 ppn would
be sent to an off-site R:RA/TSCA landfill. Surface soil with PCB concentrations
between 10 am 25 ppn will be consolidated and covered. Each of the three
disposal sites will have 10-25 ppn PCB soil covered umer this alternative.
'!be Aroclor 1242 PCB soil fran the PE Site would first \ID:iergo
biodegradation, as described in Alternative 6A, prior to thez:mal desorption.
'!be Aroclor 1260 PCB soil £ran the WE and UST Sites would be cart>ined with
contaninated corr=Iete, crushed am fed into a theImal desortJer. 'Dere the soil
will be heated to volatilize the PCBs. '!he soil would then exit to a bJwer for
cooling am backfilling. '!he PCB destJ:uction rate would approach 100\, with
1'98idual concentrations of less than 2 ppn.
'1he off-gases £ran the theJ:mal desortJer then pass through a CXDienser
systan where the gases would be cooled and corxiensed, producing essentially four
major products: mn-cordensable gases, water, organics (PCBs), am dust. '!be
gases . would pass through an emissions control systan such ~ carlJon absorption
-------
......-- -'-' ~-
-29-
before release to the aUI06phere.
'D1ese anissions WJUld be DDni tored for
carpliarr:e with air quality rules. 'n1e water WJUld pass through activated
carlJon filters am then be disposed on-site by spray irrigation. '!be organics
and dust w:JUld be COJitainerized and transported, with the spent carbon filters,
to an off-site TSCA incinerator.
Al ternati ve 7F: On-Site 'n1ennal Desorption and Fune Condensation
Alternative 7F is essentially the same as Alternative 7E except that the
Aroclor 1242 PCB soil would undergo cli.rect thennal desorption witinlt first
undergoing biodegradation.
'n1e residual PCB corx:entrations WJUld be less than
2 R11\.
Alternative 7G: On-Site 'n1ennal Desorption ard Fune Iocineration, Consolidation
of Soil with 10 to 25 ppn PCBs and 50 to 1,000 ppn lead in QJE Depression
Al ternati ve 7G is the same as Alternative 7D except at the surface soil
contaminated with between 10 am 25 ppn PCBs am soil contaminated with between
50 am 1,000 RJI1 lead w:JUld be consolidated am covered at the WE Site.
Approximately 22,793 additional cubic yard of soil would hBve to be excavated
am consolidated at the QJE Site. Cost estimates for this .uslcJy were described
in a letter report entitled Subnittal of Cost Estimates 'lb Ioclude Excavation to
lOppn PCB, dated Dec::'E:lrb!r 13, 1988.
Alternative 1M: On-Site '1beImal Desorption and Fune Iocineration, Consolidation
of 1 to 25 ppn PCBs am 50 to 1,000 ppn lead in GUE Depression
Al temative 7H is the same as Al temati ve 7D except that PCB contaminated
BOil betL~eJl 1 am 25 ppn w:JUld be consolidated am covemd at the QJE Site.
Approximately 60,458 additional cubic yards of soil would have to be excavated
and consolidated at the GUE Site. Cost estimates for this .l.anedy were described
in a letter report entitled Subnittal of Cost Estimates to Ioclude Excavation to
I.Dwer Levels, dated December 13, 1988.
-------
-30-
Alte:rnative 71:
On-Site Thennal Desorption an::! Fume Ire ineration an::!
Consolidation of Soil With 10 to 25 ppn PCBs in GUE Depression
Alternative 7I is the sarre as Alte:rnative 7D except that soils contaminated
with between 10 ~ 2? ppn PCBs would be excavated arx! consolidated at the GUE
Site.
Estimates of excavation volumes and costs ~ detailed in a docunent
entitled letter Report for Excavation and Backfill of Soil with 10-25 ppn PCBs,
Rosarount Research Center, dated Decanber 14, 1989.
The ltDSt current excavation
volume estimates are found in this report.
Alte:rnative 7I leaves on the site soils contaminated with up to 25 ppn PCBs
arx! up to 640 ppn lead. Access to this consolidation area will be restricted by
man-made barriers as required by TSCA.
Because additional remediation for lead
and PCBs nay be required if cleanup criteria bec.-c.le m::>:re restrictive in the
future, and because rem3Ctial actions at all NPL sites are required to undergo
periodic review "... no less often than each 5 years after the initialization of
such remadi.al action to assure that human health and the enviroment are being
protected by the rem3Ctial action being inplEl1ented... II
(Section 121 (C) of
SARA), Alte:rnative 71 iocludes a Section 121(c) review of this renedial action,
due within three years of the effective date of the RX> to address changes in
mandatory cleanup levels.
In addition the review shall evaluate other raredial
action alte:rnatives not previously reviewed which would further ranediate the
lead and PCBs in the contaminated soil.
PCBs
The University may satisfy the PCB review by funding original research
(possibly a masters thesis) consisting of a literature search and a pilot study
evaluating one or m::>:re PCB renedial alternatives for the treat:1tent of the
contaminated soil.
The literature search and pilot study shall be CC?nducted by
-------
'.. _. ..,
-- _. .. . ..'~
- --..--..--... - --
-31-
University of Minnesota staff in one or IIOre of the University's academic
departmants .
If expertise cbes oot exist in any University academic departmant to ccn:iuct
a literature search Md a pilot study, the University shall in:ticate the
unsvailabili ty of such expertise and pm;ue such expertise elsewhere. For each
evaluated PCB (ard for each evaluated lead renECtial action alternative - see
next paragraph) rerredi.al action alternative, the following shall be ~sed
and presented in the review:
1. Cost. A preliminary estimate of the capital, operation and lMint:.enaoce
costs associated with installing or iJrplEl1E!J1ting each evaluated
alternative .
2. Enviromental Effects. A general discussion of the expected adverse
3.
effects which each evaluated alternative may have on the envi.rorment.
Effectiveness. A preliminary analysis as to whether each evaluated
alternative is likely to effectively abate or minimize the release
arrlIor minimize the release or threatened release arrlIor minimize the
threat of haDn to the p1blic health, welfare, and the envi.rorment.
lead
'n1e review shall also report on the results of original rest'arch being
corducted at the University into inrxwative netb:ds to reIIDVe lead fran soils
8UCh as the research presently being con::tucted by Rodrey L. Bleifuss, Program
Dil:ec:tor of the Matallurgy Minerals Division of the National Resources Res9al"Ch
Institute or any other similar University research projects.
Carpli.arr=e with Lan::! Disp:)sal Restrictions
'DIe Hazardous and Solid Waste Amerdtents (HSWA) to the Resource Consenration
and RecoveJ:y Act (ICRA) - P.L. 98-616, signed on ~ 8, 1984 - in::lude
specific provisions restricting the land cti.sp)sal of R:RA hazarc:b1s wastes (lard
-------
-32-
disIX'Sal restrictions (IDRs)). '!be puI1X)Se of these HSWA provisions is to
minimize the potential of futw:e risk to human health an:i the enviroment by
requiring the trea~t of hazarOOus wastes prior to their 1arx1 disposal.
HSWA d.ixected EPA to establish treatment standards for each of seven groups
of ICRA hazardoUs wastes by spec~fic dateS. These dates are refened to as
statutoJ:Y deadlines. The effective date for IDRs for "third third wastes"
(which includes the lead fourxi on site) has been extended fran May 8, 1990 to
August 8, 1990 under present EPA regulations.
Even tlnlgh the alternatives cited in this ROD were studied prior to the EPA
regulations for "third third wastes," IDRs nust f'Otl be considered as ARARs for
this Site. This means that Alteri1ative 71 DUSt canp1y with the IDRs for lead.
This ROO, b:7wever, allows the university to landfill the lead contaminated
soil (as described in Alternative 7C) if the landfilling occurs before the
statutoJ:Y deadline for "third third wastes" (Le. August 8, 1990, or any
subsequent extension deadline). Sb:W.d 1and.fi11ing of these soils cccur before
the statutory deadline, LDRs will not be considered ARARs: b:Jwever, for soil
contaminated by lead disposed of in a lan::ifill after August 8, 1990 (or arry
subsequent extension deadline), I.DRs shall be considered as ARARs.
Alternative SA: Off-Site Landfill
Al ternati ve SA would involve excavation of contam.inated soil (soil greater
than 25 ppn PCBs and greater than 1,000 ppn lead) and disposal in an existing
RCRA and TSCA approved facility licensed to accept. both the lead and PCBs. The
landfill alte:cnative is capable of accepting the materials at the sane rate as
excavation arx1 transport with no time delay. This alternative involves sane
potential hazards to the p.1blic health and enviroment during transport. Cost
estimates for this al terna.tive were detailed in a letter report entitled
Addendum to the Alternatives Report, dated FebruaJ:Y 18, 1987.
-------
-33-
Alternative 88: Off-Site Incineration
Alternative 88 is similar to Alternative SA except that the PCB contaminated
soil would be incinerated at an off-site facility rather than disposed of
off-site in a R:RA and TSCA approved facility. lead contaminated soil would rot
be incinerated. Cost est.im3tes for this alternative were detailed in a letter
reJX>rt entitled Addendum to the Alternatives Report, dated February 18, 1987.
'!be ann Pit Area Site
Five basic alte%:native remedial actions were proposed in the Detailed
Analysis Report Alternatives For A Pennanent Drinking Water Supply - RDsE!l11:)Unt
Research Center, RosEl1Dl1nt, Minnesota dated February 25, 1986 am the Ground
Water Interim Response Action Plan, University of Minnesota, Rosarount ~h
Center Site dated R::M:ItDer 11, 1986. 'n1ese alternatives are sumnarized in Table
3. Each alternative was analyzed for effectiveness in llBet.ing tM nine
evaluation criteria (see Section IX: SlII'IIIa!:Y of Carparative AnalYSis). All of
the alternatives, except the N:>-Action Alternative, require at least 30 years of
05&M .
Alternative 1: fib Action
Alternative 1 would neither reduce the exposure to vcx::s via ingestion of
contaminated groun:i water oor prevent further migration of the contaminant plume
and was oot considered further.
Alternative 2: Activated Carlxm Filtration System
AI ternati ve 2 would involve the installation of two activated camon
filters in series at the point of entIy of each b:Juse with a contaminated well
having MOO drinking water well advisory. '!be filters would rEIIDVe the VOCe frcJ11
the water prior to its entering the distrihrt.ion lines within the muse.
In carbination with the camon filtration system, this alternat~ve calls for
a gJ:'t)\m:i water punp out system to prevent further migration of the contaminated
-------
-34-
pl\nB. 'nUs systEln would consist of a well SCI:eeJ1ed in the Prairie du Chien
aquifer hydraulically c:bwngradient of the Bum Pit Site. 'nUs well DUSt be
capable of creating a capture zone at least as wide as the conUlninant pl\nB.
'De well DUSt also m capable of in:iuciJ1q flow upward fran the Jordan Fonnation
toward the Prairie du Chien Aquifer, as pmp test data indicate these aquifers
are hydraulically connected by fractures. '!he well is located where the pl\nB
is 2,000 feet wide. Purrp test :results indicate that m:>nitoring well, ~-28, is
capable of capturing the pl\mE if it is punp:!d at 155 to 200 gallons per minute.
'!he treatment systen would provide va: reduction approaching 100 percent.
Regular m:>nitoring of the water would be necessary to ensure CCIIpliance with the
cleanup goal of 57 pP:> chlorofoDn.
Alternative 3: New Residential Wells
Al ternati ve 3 involves the construction of 20 wells finished in the
Fraoconia FODnation to serve the 27 families receiving bottled water. '!he
Fran:onia FODnation, at a depth of approximately 500 feet below the surface, is
separated fran the contaminated upper aquifers by the St. I.aw:r:eoc'e Fonnation
which fun=tions as a regional aquitard. '!he original residential wells would be
abanOOned according to HE codes.
'nUs alternative in:ludes a ground water purrp out systEln as described in
Alternative 2.
Al ternati ve 4: ExteOOing the RRC Water DistriJ:Jution Systen
Altmnative 4 involves the extension of the existing University water
distribJtion systEln at the RRC to SUR>ly water to the 27 families receiving
bottled water. 'De existing distribJtion systEln would have to be ~4ded with
acktitional chemical treatment facilities and. inpraved supply and. storage
facilities .
-------
-35-
In addition to a water supply system, this alternative in::ludes a pmp out
system as describecLin Al ternati ve 2.
Alternative 5: Extending Rosa1Dunt Water Distr.ib1tion System
Alternative -5 is- essentially the same as Alternative 4, except it would
involve the extension of the city of It)sem)unt's existing water system located
2.8 miles to the west, rather than that of the RRC. 'lbree subal ternati ves would
be for a carplete city system, a partial system sized for future developrent, or
a system sized for only the 27 families receiving bottled water.
In addition to a water supply system, this alternative includes a ~ out
system as described in Alternative 2.
Al ternati ve 6: Irdepe:! dent Water Distr.ib1tion System
Alternative 6 involves construction of a carpletely independent water
distr.ib1tion systen. 'Dris systen would have two wells am two IUIP tnIses with
hydro-pneumatic tanks to maintain pressure. One well will act as back up if the
other is shut c:bm for maint.enan:e. Because the wells would be constructed
oorth and upgradient of the contaminated plune, they can be finished in the
.Jordan Sardstone Aquifer.
'D1e subalternatives for this systan are a ca1plete systan, a partial system
sized for future developrent, or a system sized for only the 27 families
receiving bottled water.
In ac:kiition to the water sUR>ly systan, Alternative 6
includes a ~ out system as described in Alternative 2.
u. &mnary of Crmprative Analysis
'!be alternative actions ~ for the WE/PE/UST Sites am Bum Pit Site
remediations were evaluated according to the rules outlined in the National
Cont.inge1cy Plan am Section 121 of the Superfw1d. Arrerdtent am ReautiDrization
Act (SARA). Section 121 (b) (1) states that:
"Remedial actions in which
-,
-------
-36-
treatment which pennanently am significantly reduces the volume, toxicity or
nd:>ility of the hazardous substaoceS, pollutants, and contaminants is a
prircipal elanent, are to be preferred over rem:di.al actions oot involving such
treatJ1ent. 'rite.off -site transport am disposal of hazartbus substarx:es or
conuminated materials witb:JUt such treatnent stD1ld be the least favored
renectial action where practicable treatnent technologies are available."
Section 121 (b) (1) also states the following be addressed during the
L\:Iledy selection prcx::ess:
- the long-teD1\ uncertainties associated with land disposal;
- the goals , objectives and requirerlents of the Solid Waste Disposal Act;
- the persisten=e, toxicity, DDbility, am propensity to bioaccunulate of
the contaminants and their constituents;
- the short and long-teD1\ p:>tential adverse health effects £ran human
exposure ;
- the long-teDtl maintenarv=e costs;
- the potential for future renectial action costs if the renectial action in
question were to fail; and
- the potential tiu:eat to tuJman health and the enviroment associated with
excavation, transportation, and redisposal or contaiment.
'!be selected L&ledy also ItLISt be protective of human health an:! the
envi.roment, cost~ffective, am use permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recxNerj to the maxinun extent possible.
In addition to the factors detailed in SARA, nine other criteria were
considered during the L\:Iledy selection. 'DIese nine criteria, established by the
U. S. EPA and detailed in the Interim G.1idance on Superfund Selection of Relledy,
dated DecenDer 24, 1986, and Ad::li tional Interim G.1idance for FY 198' Records of
Decision, dated July 24, 1987, are as follows:
-------
-37-
1. Overall Protection of Human Health am the EnviloulleJit acX1resses
whether or.n:>t a L~ledy provides adequate protection, and describes bJw
risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled.
2. Carplian=e With ARARs addresses 'whether or rot a L~lady will satisfy
3.
all of the ARARs and TOCs, or provide growds for invoking a waiver.
lDng-te:cn effectiveness and pe~ refers to the ability of a
L&ledy to continue to provide protection of human health and the
, envirormant over time after the action is catpleted.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, J1Dbility an:i/or volurre is the anticipated level
5.
of perfo:cnance of the technologies erployed.
Short-te:cn effectiveness refers to the protection of human health am
the envirormant during constIuction and inplanentation of the .L~I-.ty,
6.
and the length of tine until the cleanup goals are achieved.
IJrplenentability is the technical and aaninistrative feasibility of a
Laledy, in:::luding the availability of goods and services.
7.
Cost Criteria refers to capital, acininistrative, and operation and
maintenan=e 0 & M costs.
8.
State acceptarx::e indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS
and Proposed Plan, the MPCA staff corrurs on the preferred alternative.
9.
Camunity acceptarx::e indicates the ~lic ~rt of a given LCiledy.
'n1e carparative evaluation of the renedial action alternatives for the
GJE/PE/tm' and Bum Pit Sites is surrmarized in this section. Tables 6 and 7 at
the en:! of this section provide a surrmarized carparison of the al ternati ves and
the evaluation criteria.
-------
-38-
Overall ProteCticm of IbnIm HBalth
aE/PE/tm Sites
'!'he R:>-Action am Limited Site Control Alternatives are oot protective of
tuNm health or 'the erwiLOJlOeht because 'soil with high corr=entrations of PCBs
am lead would continue to be exposed at the g:rourd surface. Even if access
were restricted the potential would remain for direct deDna1 contact.
potential for growxi water contamination would persist.
Also, the
'l'he alternatives involving a pemeable cover or an .iJ1penteable cover (cap),
in conjunction with soil venting and rem:wal of soil contaminated by netals
exceeding 1,000 wn lead, would eliminate the potential for direct deDna1
contact with the contaminated soil am slow or halt the migration of
contaminants to the g:rourd water. 'l'hese alternatives also involve the least
handling of the contaminated soil during the raredial action, thus posing the
least exposure risk to site workers. 1iJweVer, the potential remains for the
cover or cap to be breached, ~ing the cont.aminants.
Vaulting of the contaminated soil further isolates soil £ran tunan contact
am the envirol.,ent, urner a DDre controlled setting than a pemneab1e cover or
an brpmneab1e cover (cap). 'n1is option, however, involves excavation and
J1DVeI'IIBnt of the soil, creating a higher potential for site worker exp:>sure.
'n1e on-site solvent extraction alternatives are less protective than the
vaul ting options. All of the variations of the solvent extraction px-ocess
resul t in residual values of between 10 am SO ~ PCBs, so that in sate cases
the cleanup goal of 25 ppn would oot be net. '!his soil would then be backfilled
in the excavation pits, xesulting in J1DVeI'IIBnt during two phases of cantaninated
soil t%eatnent (before am after treatnent). Despite significant reductions in
PCB coocentration, these alteJ:natives are rot as protective of ~ health am
the enviroment as others available.
-------
.-.. -.---.. . .
-39-
'n1eImal treatment, by either irx::ineration or thennal deso~ion, provides
the greatest long-tam protection of human health and the envL::0I8.taut. 'n1e
residual ccm:entrations follewing treatnent. are expectA:!d to be less than 2 RJtI
. -
PCB, and the surficial ccm:entrations of unexcavated soil will be less than 25
ppn. '!his soil can be backfilled witlxnlt representing a further threat to the
envirorment or the site workers. 1iJweVer, during the rerredial action, worker
exposure may occur during the excavation and stockpiling phase.
Potential for
the fOImation and release of dioxins and furans during theDnal treatment can be
minimized by careful m:>nitoring and appropriate operation of system controls.
M::>nitoring of air Emissions and sanpling of the treated soil for these and other
undesirable CCI1p)\1OOs will help to reduce this risk.
All of the alternatives, except Ib-Action and Limited Site Control, provide
varying ~.L,==s of protection. '!be protection afforded by the p:mneable cover,
inpeD1eable cover and vault alternatives is dependent on the quality of
long-teDn 0 & M and ncnitoring. The soil treatment rerredies result in
significant reductions of PCBs. The potential for short-teDn exposure is higher
with these alternatives, but the potential exposure over the long teIm for
tunans and the envirorment are significantly reduced.
Bum Pit Site
The Ib-Action Alternative is mt protective of human health or the
envirorJnent sirx::e the contaminant plume would be allowed to continue to migrate
toward the river.
'!his would cause ad:1itional residential wells to bec.'CI.e
conUlminated .
Point-of-entry carl:on filters have been ciem:>nstrated to p.1I'ify water to
drinking water staJ:K:iards. '111ere is, b:::7-Iever, a potential for tunan health risks
-------
- ....-...- -- - .. . - .
-40-
if the carbon filters are mt properly maintained and periodically replaced am
chemical breakthrougfi occurs. 'n1e plI1p out well am air striwer systan would
control contaminant migration.
'111e alternative water SUWly am new residential well options are both
highly protective of htnan health as they provide residents with clean water
fran outside the contaminant plume. 'n1e plI1p out well and air striwer systan
will control plume migration am provide an acttitional measure of protection.
Air m:rleHng has sOOwn that air stripping treatJrent of plI1p out water will mt
represent a human health or enviromental threat.
'D1e plI1p out systan is oow in operation. Air emissions £ran the air
stripper system will be evaluated by the MPCA staff. 'n1e Division of Air
()lality of the MPCA is currently developing criteria to be used to evaluate air
emissions fran air strippers.
All of the alternatives, except for lb-Action, are protective of human
health. No threat to the enviroment is anticipated by either the contmninants
in the growxi water or the remedial actions. '111e IIDSt protective options are
the alternate water supply systems.
IJdepeJdent carl:x:m treatJrent Wlits are
depement on proper 0 , M am may result in chemical break through if mt
properly maintained.
OJIplian::e with MARs
'111e chemical-specific ARARs and '19::s are identified on Table 1.
Location-specific MARs or '19::s are relevant to the RIC Site in that a
-J:8Stricted access area It JlUSt be 0.1 kila'leters £ran residential/camercial
areas, limited by a man~ barrier. Action-specific mquiJ:ements, which
Wicate tDw the selected alternatives DUSt be achieved, are described in Part
XI, Statutory DeteJ]ninations.
-------
-41-
QE/PE/tm Sites
All protective alternatives are designed to attain the applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirerTents (ARARs) of federal and state envirounE:ntal
"
laws. '!be folloWing -al ternati ves or portions of al ternati ves will oot neet the
ARARs :
'!be M>Action and Limited 5i te Control Al ternati ves will rot neet the ARARs
as high coocentrations of PCBs and lead will continue to be exposed at the
groun:i surface. Also, these alternatives eX> oot satisfy the requirements of the
state's ground water protection strategy as the contaminants may potentially
migrate toward the water table.
'n1e sol vent extraction a1 ternati ves may oot achieve the proposed TSCA
clean up goal of 25 RJn.
1.54 x 10-4 cancer risk.
'n1ese alternatives, at best, will attain only a
'!be final criteria to be considered is that of the prefererw:::e for peDnanent
treatnent as praJl11gated in section 121 of the SARA. Wy the solvent
extraction and thermal treat::nent alternatives satisfy this requiranent.
am, Pit Site
All the protective alternatives are designed to attain the .ARARs of federal
and state enviroll1ehtal laws with the exception of the M>Act.ion Alternative.
All of the other alternatives proposed for the ground water rarediation neet the
ARARs .
Inplenentation of the M>Action Alternative would permit contaminated
ground water to continue to migrate, in conflict with the state's ground water
, protection strategy.
-------
.-..---..- .--
-42-
SOOrt-'nmn EffectiwnBB8
GE/PE/UST Sites
'!be No-Action am Limited Site Control Alternatives, while not creating
ackiitional sh:>rt~teD1\ threats, are insufficient to prevent direct contact with
PCBs am lead.
'n1e penneable cover am i.npmteable cap a! ternati ves provide the greatest
short-teDn effectiveness because the PCB-contaminated soil is not disturbed.
All of the other rEltSdi.es involve sh:>rt-teDn risks to worker human health
and the enviroment inherent in the excavation and transport of contaminated
soil. The threats could be minimized with deImal and respiratory protection.
In the case of the vaulting options, the teJ:m of potentia! exposure would be
approximately three m::mths. '!be solvent extraction and theDnal treat:nent
alternatives would span a longer tiDe period, probably two to three years, and
would have adcti tional exposure risks associated with stockpiling of contaminated
soil. Again, these risks woold be primarily lbnited to, and be greatest for,
site workers.
~l treatJ1ent poses the greatest potential sh:>rt-teDn threat to site
workers. !b:ieling of estimated emissions am dispersal patterns, described in
the Final Detailed Analysis Report And Cooc-&ptual Design, RosenDunt Research
Center, RDsencunt Jesearch Center, RDsencunt, Minnesota, dated May 12, 1987,
indicates the primary ~tors of coooenl are the site workers.
In a worst
case scenario of theDnal treat:nent with emission control failure, RR: tenants
an:! University staff to the mrth an:! southeast of the GJE, PE, an:! tm Sites
might receive 00ses of PCBs between 1,700 and 10,000 t.iJles less than the NICSi
st.an:iard of 1 ug/m3 over an eight b:Jur exposure. 'D1ese estimates 00 mt take
into account the air pollution control systsn that will reduce the emission
coramtration to 1 x 10-4 ug/m3. F1:equent m::mitoring of ~ quali~ fran soil
-------
. -.- - -. .
-43-
handling am the stack emissions, am the use of respiratory protection during
excavation stolId address the threat to site workers.
Alternatives 7E ard 7F p:>se the additional risk of exposure to highly
CX)IceJatrated contaminants in the condensate. 'l11.is material would require
particularly careful handling am transport by site workers. H:Jwever,
Alternatives 7E am 7F would produce 90 percent fellIleI' gas emissions than would
Al temati ve 7C ard 7D.
amt Pit Site
With the exception of the No-Action Alternative, none of the ranedial
actions for this operable unit present smrt-teDn threats to the pop.1lation.
'!he No-Action AI ternati ve exposes residents to contaminated grouOO water in both
the soort am long teDn.
Inplem:mtation of the other alternatives will take one
IIDnth for carbon filters, six m.:>nths for new residential1lllells, or two to three
years for water supply systerrs. D.1ring this tine, IeSidents will continue to
receive bottled water am ground water IIDnitoring will continue to deteDnine if
additional wells bec.-Que contaminated.
'D1e purrp out 1IIIell am air stripper system, whether packed tower aeration or
spray irrigation, will oot significantly iJ1pact air quality at the RIC. 'ttlis
.uauedy will oot pose a threat to residents or site workers.
Ia1g-tmm Effectiveness
QJE/PE/tS'l' Si tee
'D1e 1t>-Action Alternative provides 00 ~ec of long-teDn effectiveness.
Surface concentrations of PCBs am lead would remain dangerously high am the
potential for ground water contamination would persist.
Although site access would be restricted for the Limited Site Centrol
Al temative, the potential for direct deImal contact remains. Soil. venting may
.
rem::we a potential vehicle for PCB migration, wt lead could continue the have
-------
.-... - --.--. ..
-44-
the potential to migrate to the ground water. 'n1ere are 00 guarantees that over
a very long period of tine the PCBs would oot migrate.
'n1e PeDtSable Cover anj the InpeI:ll1B8ble Cap Al temati ves provide a m:x:ierate
. -
~-= of long-teIm effectiveness.
In both renedies the nete! contaminated soil
is physically rerrcved £ran the site, eliminating it as a source. PCB migration
to ground water would be slowed or halted by the :rarcval of the driving force.
If the driving force was solvents, the driving force would be rencved by soil
venting; if the driving force was infiltration, it would be rem::wed by an
inpeDtSable cap. As ooted above, there is 00 guarantee that the PCBs will oot
ultimately migrate to the ground water. Additionally, any breach of the cover
or cap would re-expose the contaminated soil.
Vaulting, by fully encapsulating the contaminated soil, provides an extra
de
-------
-45-
'l11e highest ~'="= of long-teDn protection is provided by the water supply
systan alternatives. 'l11e New Residential Well Alternative offers long-teDn
effectiveness depen:ient on proper siting anj construction of the wells.
'l11e purI'P. out- well and air stripper systan provides adiitional long-tem
effectiveness to each of the alternatives because it will control contaminant
migration. Ultimately it will prevent any contamination fran migrating away
fran the RRC Site, al tOOugh th:>se vo:s already OOwngradient of the well will
continue to migrate toward the river.
Aeduct..ion of HX>ility, 'nJxicity or Vol\ne
QJE/PEItBr Sites
'!be effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the J1Dbility, toxicity or
velurre (MIV) of hazardous material on the RRC Site is sumnarized in Table 4.
'n1e ~Action AI temati ve 00es oothing to Ieduce the HIV of the contaminants.
'n1e Limited Site Control Alternative cbes little better to reduce the MIV, bJt
attaTpts to address J1Dbility by rEllDVing VOCs.
'!be Penneable Cover and InpeDneable Cap Al ternati vas 00 mt alter the
toxicity of the contaminants. 'l11ese alternatives may reduce PCB !!Dbility. 'l11e
velurre of soil contaminated with netals will be reduced by excavation and
off-site disposal. Ii:Jwever, there is 00 reduction in PCB velurre in these soils.
Vaulting, like covering, will rot change the toxicity of the contaminated
soil. 1i:Jwever, both vault types will reduce !!Dbili ty by isolating the soil £ran
the enviroment. 'l11e ICRA vault will rot result in a velurre reduction, as all
materials will be vaulted on site. 'l11e TSCA vault optioo will MSult in a
slight velurre reduction because of off-site disposal of the soil contaminated
with netal; 00wever the velurre of PCB soil will rot be reduced.
-------
- .- -. -- - -
-46-
\
'!be solvent extraction am themal treatment options are the only
alternatives that ~ toxicity, as well as nobility, am vohlne.
Solvent
extraction will reduce PCB con:entrations to between 10 and SO ppn; themal
treatment will reduce PCBs to less than.2 ppn.
ann Pit Site
'!be No-Action Al temative does oothing to reduce contaminant MIV.
In all
of the other alternatives, it is the punp out an:i air stripper systan that
affects the contaminant MIV by dispersing the vo:s in the atJrosphere. '!he
Actuated Carbon Filtration Systan Alternative would result in further reduction
of toxicity at each residerx:e. 1t:Jwever, rr::me of the p.Lvrveed alternatives
actually destroy the contaminants.
IaplEl'lEll1tability
QJE/PEItm Sites
The inplementability of each alternative is based on technical feasibility,
aaninistrative feasibility, and the availability of services an:i materials for
the al ternati ve.
All of the alternatives are technically feasible, involving proven
treatmant technologies. 1t:Jwever, alternatives such as 6A, 6C, 7A, 7C and 7E,
which utilize different technologies based on Aroclor type, are IIDre carplicated
than is re::essary.
In particular, for Alternatives 7A, 7C and 7E tte
biodegradation phase of these alternatives is redundant because all the Aroclor
types are destroyed during theDnal treatment.
~ aaninistrative inplementability, Alternative SB, the en-Site ICRA
vaul t, is slightly less favorable carpa.red to Alternative SA, the ()')-Site TSCA
vault, due to the additional engineering and regulatory restrictions involved in
R:RA vault constmction. 'Ibis may be sanewhat off set by eliminatipg the need
to transport ~ dispose of the soil contaminated with net;:als.
-------
-47-
'!he sol vent extraction al teJ:nati vas also include acXti tional achinistrati ve
costs due to extra design requirenents am the time involved in obtaining
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systan (NPDES) arxf Mro:q:olitan Waste
Control Ca1miss~on (JKX:) peDni ts to discharge treated waters into the nunicipal
sewer Bystan' Also, pilot tests will be necessary for these alteJ:natives.
'IheDnal treatnent is the IIDSt acmi.nistratively difficult alternative, as
state and federal regulation of this techoology is the IIDSt stringent. A test
involved .
b1rn may be requiIed. Also I the bid process for these al ternati vas can be quite
time consuming to obtain awroval.
'!he services and materials for all of the options, except solvent
Incineration (AlteJ:natives 7A and 7B) would be the IIDst costly and
extraction and t.heJ::ma1 treatnent, are locally available. '!he Cly and fabrication. Jlbbile t.heJ::ma1 treatJtent systems are available, but
rot ab.mdant and DUSt be carefully screened to ensure suitability to the
destruction of the particular wastes on the Site.
Ik1m Pit Site
All of the alternatives proposed for the Bum Pit Site ratediation are
technically feasible. '!he water SUWly al teJ:nati vas (4, 5, and 6) carpare
unfavorably with the other al teJ:nati vas in teIms of actninistrative costs, due to
the nuch greater engineering and peDni.tting dsnan::is. '!he services and materials
for all of the alteJ:natives are readily available locally.
e:.t Criteria
QE/PE/tm' Sites
'!he estimated present worth values of the rEI1Edial al tematives are
carpiled in Table 5. '!he lb-Action and Limited Site Control Al temat~ ves are
-------
-48-
the least expensive. 1iJwever, these options are mt cost effective as they will
mt satisfy the cl8a£1up criteria.
'!be cost range for Al temati ve 4 reflects the cost differerx:e bebileen a 2.5
ard four-foot thick aap. '!be aci:litional'protection afforded by the four foot
thick cap is debatable, am mt likely to nerit $250,000 in extra expenses.
'n1e on-site vault alternatives (SA ard 58) provide greater protection than
~
the PeJ::meable Cover and InpmIeable Cap Altemati ves (3 ard 4), but are less
expensive. 'n1e on-site vault altematives represent cost effective solutions.
'n1e solvent extraction altematives are sane of the nDSt expensive raneclies
proposed. Given the uocertainty that these altematives can even satisfy the
ranecliation objectives, solvent extraction is the least cost effective solution.
'n1etmal trea.tnent is slightly less expensive than solvent extraction an::!
does satisfy the ranecliation objectives. '!be alternatives that iR::orporate
biodegradation pA, 7C ard 7E) are mt cost effective because the biodegradation
is unnecessaxy to achieve the cleanup ~s, yet biodegradation costs an
acktitional $100,000 to $200,000. 'n1e nDSt cost effective thetmal trea.tnent is
Alternative 70, On-Site 'n1etmal Desorption ard Fume Irx::ineration.
ann Pit Site
'n1e In:iepenjent Water Distribution System Altemative is slightlY!IDre
costly than other available alternatives. fbever, it was IIDre desirable for a
rD.I1tJer of political an:i scx::ioecoronic reasons.
'!he reasons have been covered in
previous sections.
o--ndty~
Camunity response to the alternatives is presented in the Responsiveness
S\mnary (See Attacbnent 1.)
-------
- .. -.
......._._---_..,~ - -. -
-49-
State Acc:eptaD::e
'n1e MPCA is tl1e lead aqercy for tl1e RIC Site. 'n1e MPCA staff has selected
tl1e remeclies presented in Section X of this c.k:cument.
x.
Selected Alternative
GE/PEItm Sites
Based on current infoIIMtion, the MPCA staff has selected Alternative 71,
On-Site TheIIMl Desorption am Furre Iocineration, Consolidation of Soil with 10
to 25 ~ PCBs in tl1e GUE Depression, as the J1Dst appropriate final .Lt:2I-.ly for
the GUE, PE and UST Sites.
follOoolS :
The significant features of this .Lt:2ledy are as
o ~avate 2,620 cubic yards of soil contaminated with netals exceeding
1,000 ~ lead (of which 1,896 cubic yards are also contaminated with
PCBs) am transport to an off-site R:RA landfill for ciisp:>sal (soil
exceeding 49 ppn PCBs transported. to an off-site R:RA-/TSCA-landfill);
o Excavate 6,469 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil and coocrete with
C01'¥::eI'1trations greater than 25 ppn;
o Consolidate 14,809 cubic yards of soil with 10 to 25 ppn PCBs and in the
GUE depression and limit access by man-made barriers;
o TheDna11y desorb the PCBs £ran the excavated soil containing greater than
25 ppn PCBs and in:inerate the tunes on-site; and
o Backfill excavations with the treated soil, gr~de, and vegetate.
Target Cleanup levels
For carcimgens, the U.S. EPA generally considers risks of 10-4 to 10-7
w'lit cancer risk as acceptable and generally protective of human health and the
emriroment.
Since the RIC Site is considered. a "restricted access location" as
-------
_.- - .-..- . - .
-50-
defined by the U.S. EPA's TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy, dated July 1, 1987, the
cleanup criteria of 2'S ppn PCBs has been applied. onus will achieve the risk
level as stated in 40 CFR 761.
- -
'lbere are 00 clearly defired cleanup criteria for lead in soil. Currently,
a lead waste is classified as hazardous un:ier R:RA only if it leaches lead at a
caamtration of greater than 5 ppn in the leachate using the EP 'lbxicity IBach
Test. A leach test on the contaminated soil at the GUE Site indicated that a
cleanup criteria of 1,000 ppn lead satisfies the R:RA requirements.
(A lead
contaminated soil sanple measuring 1,420 ppn lead had an EP 'lbxicity IBach 'lest
corx::entration of 3 ppn lead).
Rationale for Decision
Altemative 71 was selected as the prefen:ed Lalledy because it £ePreBents a
penna.nent solution to the PCB contamination at the GUE, PE, am US'!' Sites.
Solvent extraction also Lepresents a penna.nent solution, but it is mt clear
that it could satisfy the! cleanup criteria.
AltlnJ.gh Altemative 70, On-Site 'n1eDnal Desorption and F\me 1n:ineration,
and Alternative 7F, On-Site 'D1eI:ma1 Desorption with Ccm:iensation Scruti;)ing
Vapors with Off-Site CcIme1'cial 1n:ineration, were approved by the MPCA staff on
July 27, 1987, after further analysis, Altemative 7F was eliminated because of
problens with hardling am disposal/destruction associated with fune
caldensation. Altematives 70 am 7G Lep.cesented less of a soort-teI:m threat to
potential rec-eptors during han1ling and transport. Al tematives 70, 7G, am 71
are tmee of the least expensive of the penna.nent solution alternatives, in
ClCllpn'ison to solvent extraction am biudegradation.
In xesponse to con=eI:nS fran officials of Da.kDta County am the city of
RDsatDunt regarding Alternative 70, which leaves in place soils whic~ contain up
-,-
to 2S ppn PCBs, the MPCA staff ctose Altemative 71 to further reduce health
risks and risks to the envuOJl1eJlt.
-------
_. . .. ao_-
. ~..""o .a"'---
-51-
Points of Ca'rpliarx::e
Alternative 7I -is consistent with the oojectives of Section 121 of SARA,
which establishes a prefererx:e for pennanent solutions that significantly reduce
the vol\me, toxicity, or JlDbility of hazarcbus substaoces. '!be xalledy deviates
fJ:an SARA by Ellploying the off-site transport of soil contaminated with netals.
ft:Jwever, this was deteDni.ned to be nore protective of human health and the
enviroJ"l'lef1t than other alternatives available for lead contaminated soil.
Alternative 7I exceeds the requiratents of the cleanup criteria and ARARs.
It is expected that the treated soil will contain less than 2 ppn PCBs, the
surface soil after backfilling will contain less than 10 ppn PCBs, and the
unexcavated soil and treated soil at the GUE Site will be less than the EP
Toxicity criterion of 5 ppn lead.
au:n Pit Site
Based on current infoJ:l'nation, Alternative 6, Irdeperdent Water Distribution
SYstan, is the nost appropriate final .Le.ledy for the &1m Pit Site grouOO water
contamination problem.
'!be significant features of this .Le.lcdy are as follows:
1. Water S1g>ly
o Construct 'bIO s1g>ly wells carpleted in the Jordan Samstone Fomationi
and
o Construct 'bIO punp bJuses and distribltion lines to the 27 %eSiden::es
with contaminated drinking water.
2 . Groun:1 Water Punp ()Jt
o I\m'p and t.I:eat contaminated grourxI water by packed ~ aeration; and
o Continued m:mitoring of grouOO water quality in the study U9a.
-------
-52-
TarQet Cleanup IsYels
'De cleanup criteria establiaheid for chIorofom is 57 pP>. 'l'hia value
was derived fraD the IDi RAL. 'De RAL was officially mriaed to 57 ppb for a
10-5 unit cancer risk in Dec.-Ealber 1988, after the u.s. BPA Carci.rogen Asses~
Group deteDnined chIorofoIm to be a less pX.EIint carcin;)gen than W8 previously
. ...
be1.J.eovecl. AlthJugh the RAL chlo;ofoIm have not been eACe9~ in !88identi.al
ama, the University has agreed to inplEl'l&1t the independe:ilt water distrihJt.icn
eystEID. '!be grourxl water p:I'Ip out system will ccntJ.nue until the grourxl water
ueets the RAL for chlorofom. In acktition, the IDi has fn.~ a residential
drinking water well advisoJ:Y criterion such that four or Jll)J:e contam.i.nants, at
any measw:eable level, is sufficient for a residential drinking water well
advisory. '!'his criterion will aIso be considemd in evalua~' whether the pmp
out system is protective of 1uMn health and the enviJ:aIIent.
Rationale for Decision
With the exception of the R>-1ction Alt:eI:native and the Actuated Clu:bon
Filtration System Alt:eI:native, the PL~ remedies for the contaminated g:roun:1
water provided essentially the sane level of protection. '!be IrdepeJdea1t Water
Distrib1tion System Alt:eI:native with pmp cut well and packed tower aeraticn
tteatmimt was the alternative 1II:I6t ~le to the pmlic.
'nUs alt:eI:native is JlDJ:e expensive than Alt:eI:native 3, New Residential
Wells: however, the prototype Frarx:onia well was susceptible to iron-bacteria
growth. As a result, the residents foum this option unacceptable. 'De cost of
the selected L'CZledy is ~le to that of the other water distrihltion '
al tematives.
Points of CarpIiarK::e
tzhe p:I'Ip out well and packed tower aeration part of this Io~~ is, in
.j .~
piz:t, consistent with the cbjectives of Section 121 of SARA, 81fJh establishes a
-.
preference for pennanent solutions that significantly X'EICb::e th8 401\IE,
.
toxicity, or m:::bility of hazarcbu; 8Ubst:anc:eS. 'ftU.s Ioaledy, cert.ainly -reduces
the vol\K1e, tox.1.city, and lII:bility of ch1orofom in the con~ted ground
water, but AC;u.a1l-llishes this by transferring the contaminants to the aLn~.
-
-------
-53-
'!he emission levels fra1\ the tower are well below air quality st.an:iards.
The Independent Water Distribltion System Alternative is also consistent
with Section 121 of~. 'Ibis part of the .L&ledy addresses the soort- arx1
long-teDn potential adverse health effects of human exposure by providing clean
drinking water. .
XI. Statutory DeteIminatians
Protection of Ibnan Health an:! the EmrL.vuucuL
QJE/PE/tSI' Sites
The selected Lt::medy provides protection of human health and the environrrent
by rerlD\Ting and/or destroying the contaminated media.
Elimination of the
contaminant source alleviates t.tte risk frem direct soil contact and ground water
contamination. 'Ibis will be accatq?lished without creating unacceptable
short-tem risks or cross-nedia iI1Facts.
By consolidating and covering soil contaminated with between 10 ppn to
25 pp11 PCBs into an excavation at the GUE Site, the GUE/PE/UST Sites will have a
cancer risk of approxinately 1.54 x 10-4. '!he risk of 1.54 x 10-4 is based on
the ingestion of 10 pp11 PCBs per day for 70 years. Given the rem:>teness of the
Sites, it is unlikely that this level of exposure would occur and thus the
L=It::Jy will be adequately protective of hUITarl health.
Burn Pit Site
The selected L=uedy provides protection of human health and the environrrent
by extracting and treating the contaminated ground water using an air stripper.
'Ihis will prevent the continued migration of contamination and the treated water
will represent a unit cancer risk of less than 1 x 10-6. The Independent Water
Distribution Systen Alternative will provide clean water to residents with
irrpacted wells, eliminating any risk associated with ingestion of contaminated
water.
-------
.. - - ---.. ..
-54-
Atta.innent of Applicable or Relevant am ~,-¥.dllte Requh1:lll_M
QE/PEItST Sites
Irrplenentation of Alternative 7I will J1E!et the chemical, location, an:1
action-specific ARMs - of the following federal am state laws, regulations, an::1
guidelines :
1. '1bxic Substaoces Control .Act (TSCA), 40 em Part 761:
2. Minnesota Statutes 115, 116 am Mirmesota Rules Chapters 7001, 7045,
which reflect the ARARs of ResourCe ConseI:Vation am Recovery .Act
(RCRA), 40 em Parts 260-264:
3. Safe Drinking Water Act (srMA), 40 em Parts 141-143:
4 . Minnesota Depart:rrent of Health Rec.-Uilierded Allowable Limits (RALs):
5. Minnesota Envirorrnental Resp:mse and Liability.Act (MERIA):
6. Superfund Arterdlent an::1 Reauthorization Act (SARA), Section 121, and
National Oil and HaZartDus Substarr=es Pollution ContingeIq Plan (N:P):
and
7. Minnesota Statutes 116 am Minnesota Rules Chapters 7001, 7005 which
reflect the ARARs of Clean Air .Act (eM):
a.u:n Pit Site
Irrplenentation of Alternative 6 will meet the chemical am action-specific
ARARs of the following federal and state laws, regulations, am guideline:
1. Minnesota Statutes 115, 116 and Minnesota Rules Chapters 7001, 7045
which reflect the ARARs of JCRA, 40 CFR Parts 260-264;
2. srMA; 40 em Parts 141-143:
3. MERIA, CERCIA, SARA, Section 121, ard K:P:
4 . Minnesota Depart:rrent of Health RALs;
-------
. . . -. ... ~ -
-55-
5. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050; am
6. Minnesota Statutes 116 am Minnesota Rules Chapters 7001, 7005 which
reflect the ARARs of eM.
Cost Effectiveness
aE/PE1tm Sites
'!he selected l.t:illedy will effectively renediate the contaminated soil at the
GUE, PE, and UST Sites. '!he high cost of this al ternati ve is justified because
it represents a peunanent solution. Alternative 71 ~ deteIrnined to be cost
ef fecti ve because it is the IIDSt protective, pennanent solution.
am-. Pit Site
'!he selected U::lledy will effectively renediate the ground water at the RRC
Site am provide clean drinking water to residents. 'nUs alternative is equally
as protective as the other water distrib.1tion alternatives (4 arxI 5) is ncre
protective than the No-Action Alternative and the Activated Carbon Filtration
Alternative, and is m:>re acceptable to the residents than the New Residential
Well Alternative. '1he l.aledy is judged to be cost effective because it is a
protective, pemanent solution that is catparable in price to the other
al ternati ves which achieve the same level of protection.
Utilization of PemIanent Solutions am Alternative TreatJlEnt (or R......~.se
RBcoveIy) '19::hoologies to the MaxiJIuD Extent Pr8cticable
QE/PE/US'l' Sites
'1he selected .Ll:::lledy, Alternative 71, was deteImined to best meet the nine
evaluation criteria. Of particular inportance was that the .Lauedy be a
pmnanent solution which is protective of hurren health and the enviroment in
both the soort and long teDn, and that the .LalcJy be cost effective.
Alternative 71 meets these criteria and also utilizes alternative treat:rlEmt
-------
-0. . ._. .'
-56-
"
techoologies (theI:mal deso%ption, in=ineration) to the maxiJIum extent
practicable.
Alternative techoologies could oot be used to address the lead
contanination in" soil. lead is oot "treatable" in the practical sense am is
best rEIIIJVed to a secure larrlfill.
amt Pit Site
'!he selected L&lIedy, Alternative 6, was deteImined to best meet nine
evaluation criteria.
In this case, the particularly inp:>rtant criteria were
that the L~ledy be a pemanent solution which is protective of human health and
the enviroJ"l1eJ1t, be cost effective, and be acceptable to the plblic. '!he
IOOependent Water Distribution System, Alternative 6, coupled with a p.mp out
well and packed tower aeration system, meets these criteria and utilizes
alternative technologies (air striWing) to the maxiJIum extent practicable.
Pref'=l.l._~ for Treatment as It Principal ElerlEl1t
QJE/PE/tBl' Sites
'!he statutoxy prefereoce for remedies that erploy pemanent solutions and
which significantly reduce the toxicity, JlDbility or volurre of hazarcb1s
substarr=es is satisfied by the selected L~I.ed.y. AlteI:native 71, L~resents a
pmnanent treat:rlent of the soil, lowering its PCB corx:entration and so reducing
the toxicity, lIDbility am vol\lle of the contaminants.
"Landfilling of the soil contaminated with neta1.s cDes oot pemanently treat
the contaminants, but it cDes reduce their DDbility. 'lhis is consistent with
Section 121 of SARA because m practical treat:rlent techoologies exist for lead.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 115B.02 subd. 16, the off-site transport of
soil contaminated with rretals (lead and copper) is detenni1ei to be It remedial
action because the action is necessary to protect the plblic health,. welf~,
-------
.. ,. . -..- .".""--".'--.--.
-57-
am envirorlnent fran a present am potential risk which may be created by
further exposure to the continued preseoce of the hazarOOus subetarx:e (lead).
ann Pit Site
,.
'n1e In:tepen:ient water Distrib.1tion System, Altemative 6, satisfies the
statutory prefererx:e for renedies that Ellploy pennanent solutions am which
significantly reduce the toxicity, nobility or volume of hazarOOus suhst:arx:es.
'n1e packed t.cr.r.Ier aeration systan will effect pennanent restoration of the ground
water quality at the RR: Site, and will significantly reduce the toxicity,
nobility and volurre of the contaminated ground water to the maximJm extent
practical.
Sch:d1le
QE/PE/tBl' Sites
'n1e following are key milestones for inplemantation of the rsredial action:
Contract Bick1ing
Initiation of Renedia1 Action
May 1990
July 1990
Carpletion of Rsnedial Action
ann Pit Sites
July 1991
'n1e pmp out well and packed tower aeration system is in place and
fwrtioning at the tirrE of this writing. Consttuction of the iJdependent water
distrib.1tion systan was begun in 1988 am should be carpleted during 1990.
-------
Aef&~.oes
Allen, J.R. and ~roack, D.H. (1976) Pathological responses of primates to
. polychlorinated biphenyl exposure; In: pl.oceedings of the National Confererre
on Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Chicaratory Investigation, v.40, p.
373-383.
Jorgenson, T.A.; MaiI'ehenry, E.F., Rushbrook, G.J., et al (1985) Carcinogeocity of
ChlorofoD1l in drinking water to male Osborne - Mandel rats and female B6c3Fl
mice; Fund. App!. Toxico!., V.5, ~. 4, p. 760-769.
I<..iJrbrough, D., et al (1975) Irduction of liver tUI'IDrs in Sherman Strain femal rats
by polychlorinated biphenyl aroclor 1260; Joumal of the National Caocer
Institute, V. 55, no. 6, [)ec.-a,ber 1975.
Hiklashevskii, V.E.; 'l\.1garinova, V.N.; RaJd'maninina, N.L.; YakcNleva, G.P. (1966)
Toxicity of ChlorofoD1l aaninistered perorally; Hyg. Sanit., V.31, 'p. 320-322.
\roeder, H.G. (1965) .Acute am delayed chlorofoIm p:>isoning- a case report; Br.
Jour. Anaesth. V.37, p. 972-975.
'n1c:I1p;on, D.J.; Wamet, S.D.; Robinson, V.V. (1974) Teratology studies on orally
acininistered chlorofoD1l in the rat arxi rali>it, Toxico!. Appl, PhaI:maco!., V.29,
p. 348-357.
Wallace, C.J. (1950) Hepatitis arxi nephrosis due to cough syrup containing
chlorofoD1l; Calif. Meet., V.73, p.442.
U. S. EPA (1980) Health Effects Assessment for Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
Envi.rormental Criteria Assessrrent Office; C.iIx:innati, Ohio, PX:AO-CIN-H004 (Final
Draft)
u. S. EPA (1980) .Arrbient Water ()lality Criteria for ChlorofoD1l. Office of Water
Regulations and StaOOards. Washington, D.C.: Envi.romental Protection JIqarCy.
EPA 440/5-80-033. NTIS PBS1-117442.
U.S. EPA (1983) Hazartbus waste LiID:i Treat:J1ent, Office of Solid Waste and ~
~~, SW-874 (April 1983) p. 273, Table 6.46.
U.S. EPA (1980) .Arrbient Water c.ua,lity Criteria for lead. Office of Water
Regulations arr.:1 Standards Washington, D.C.: Envi.romental Protection Aqercy.
EPA 440/5-80-057.
-------
..~... --- -- - _. - .-
-2-
U.S. EPA (1985) Health Assessnent D:x:\m!nt for Chloroform. Final ~.
washington D.C.: Office of Health an:1 Enviromental Assessnent. EPA-
600/8-84-004F. NTIS-PB86-105004/XAB.
u. S. Public Health Service T>qerry for 'lbxic Suhstar¥:eS am Disease Registry (Jan.
. 1989) 'lbxicological Profile for Chlorofo;m, . ATSDRITP-88/09 .
. - .
u. S. Public Health Service T>qerry for 'Ibxic Substar¥:eS am Disease Registry (Jan.
1989) 'Ibxicological Profile for lead, ATSDR/TP-88/09.
U.S. Public Health Service AqerCy for 'Ibxic Substaoces an:1 Disease Registry (Jan.
1989) 'Ibxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls, ATSDRITP-88/09.
'--
5i te Specific Refererv:::es
Phase I Report, University of Minnesota, ~€ItCUl1t Research Center Remadial
Investigation, RcseItDW1t, Minnesota; February 1985; prepared by Soil Exploration
Carpany .
Final Report, Groun:i water Contamination, Remedial Investigation, Rcsem:Junt Research
Center, University of Minnesota; It:MriJer 27, 1985; '!Win Cities '!\!!Sting
Corporation.
le'nedial Investigation Final Report, George's Used Equiptent Site, U.S. Transfonner
Site, Coates D.I1p Site, Oxidation Pond, ~€ItCUl1t Research Center, University of
Minnesota; February 25, 1986; '!Win Cities Testing Corporation.
Detailed Analysis Report, Alternatives For A Pennanent Drinking water Supply -
~t Research Center Area, RoseI1DUnt, Minnesota; Feb1:uary 25, 1986;
University of Minnesota.
Response Action Plan, Grourxi water Contamination Project, Ib;Em)unt Res9!m:h Center;
May 12, 1986; Twin City '!\!!Sting Corporation.
Final SUpplemental RI Report; R:>senr::Jw1t Research Center, Rcsem:Junt, Minnesota;
August 15, 1986; International Techr¥:>logy Corporation.
letter Report, Investigation of the Porter Electric Area, Ro6EI1DUnt Research Center;
SeptBlb:!r 5, 1986; International 'n!C}n:)!ogy COtp)ration.
EndangeI:J1ent Assessnent, ~t Research Center, University of Minnesota
(in:luding Executive Sunnary); Septarber 26; 1986, International Techr¥:>logy
Corporation.
Grourd Water Interim ~fOIu;e Action Plan, University of Minnesota, ~t
Aes~!lTCh Center Site; !t:M!Irber 11, 1986; Delta Envi.romental Ccnsultants, Ioc.
EnvhuaatleJtta1 Consultants, Ioc.
Alternatives ftaport, RD6eI1DUnt Research Center, It:»SEI1DW1.t, Minnesota; It:MriJer 1986;
(in:luding ackieJlda dated February 18, 1987 am July 22, 1988 am Executive
&mnary dated It:MriJer 10, 1986) International Techr¥:>logy Corporation.
Evaluation of Waste Disposal amt Pit, Alternative Water S\1W!y Sites AOO Existing
Well Abard:>ment Procedures, University of Minnesota, It:»SEI1DW1.t Research Center,
~t, Minnesota; Septarber 29, 1986; Twin Cities '!\!!Sting Corporation am
Delta Enviromental Consultants, Ioc.
-------
. .. -~ - ~ - -
-3-
Site Specific Referen=es cant:
Final Detailed Analysis Report AR:l Corceptual Design, RosemJunt Research Center,
~t, Minnesota; May 12, 1987; International Techoology CoI:pOration.
PLOfceed Design am Schedule For An Al tema~ Treatnent MetJxxi of Contaminated.
Water; July 8, 1987; Delta Enviromental Consultants, In:.
Final Report Phase II Ground Water Investigation, George's Used. Equipn:mt Site,
Ib;em:Junt Research Center; April 21, 1988; International Techoology CoI:pOration.
Final Report, Soil Contamination Investigation, George's Used Equiptent Site,
Rosem:Junt Research Center; June 7, 1988; International Technology CoI:pOration.
Soil Contamination Investigation, ~t Research Center, Volunes 1 ani 2;
July 28, 1988; International Technology CoI:pOration.
Air ~lity Review and Project Schedule, July 28, 1988, International Techoology
CoI:pOration.
letter Rep:>rt: Subnittal of Cost Estinates to IR:lude Excavation to 10 ~ PCB;
Deca1ber 13, 1988; International Techoology CoI:pOration.
letter Report: Subnittal of Cost Estinates to IR:lude Excavation to I.Dwer levels;
DecElttJer 13, 1988; International Technology CoI:pOration.
letter Rep:>rt For Excavation AR:l Backfill Of Soil With 10-25 ~ PCBs, RosanJunt
Research Center; Dec:eI1Der 14, 1989; International Techoology CoI:pOration.
-------
. . .. .' ~ - -.
. -..-'-"
~
~.
,
I
~
...
~1
ttST~.:
~.
'!'
}
"
1
~
:/
,
\ 0
J-
~w MAR.O 1
Eu EKA
1<1 I I
I ~ L_'
1 I .
I . CASTLE ROCK I i
I
1
l
-
"'-;j
.
L:1
6
N
o
l
.
8
1
FIGURE 1
REGIONAL. LOCA T10N OF THE
ROSEMOUNT RESEARCH CENTER
SCALE IN MTLES
",E~ARED FOA
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESO~ A
MINNEAPOLIS. MtNNESOT A
. ,.....T COAPORATIOH
ALL COPYAIGHTS AESawED
"De - k- 1- Dr......-
rn
. . . o.at1nC7 a Sa1.r Tomorrow
-------
. .. - .. ,
----"'---."'--
',-~.
~~JJ~~L~l_- .. ~~~b:.T:'-t~~1:I~':
' ,I ","....:-;.;,. ~r' ''''/ : ~-;'i ~\./:' " .._~" ...,. : .'.'d' . ..
, '; "'C, ~,~ ' " Z.l-- -;.r" , ' ....-~ . ", ,
..' ,',:.:.._~>~~ co ,-: . : I,~' " '~
',',~ ' ',,' r~ ',,/ " , :""'''' I'; " : Al"- -,!", ':" '~)' ~,:.. -~'~".~
''V . - .,'. ..... ..', ' . '4. . . ~ . .. ,...' V.
I ' , , 1.7 I - " 2".t. ".. ... "\'" ,..'. :' \I ,
~.. ...' ',', ," ~,.....:.. c~'.:"'" ~,'80PEAT\:aOUNDAA,,"i.QIE-\:r:".", "'25,' '" .-
_.~ . ., - ~.t......~ ( ir....-"~.T...c:RT\"~ -j (., ,"' G. -v-,.
"'~k'.~-=--=--r~-:- :..:::.c--=~:>~ . .~.~ It)!)?"~'" "
I ': .~ :' , "~ ..~::' , , .... "-~- ",,()
. -...., ',","-.. .". III. :a..."""-~".'i/t
'I t ... ~.:J :. ~ : ~ I'. r ~ .;.~..T ~
-i'~~~';~~)~~'~'~~'~~.;:::... .. t~:-;~;~.~~~~:.E. .~;E. ~
I ,-.:F'u ,,' , . 't;;.'~"'=; C;.; 'j'"';'" ~ 'I~\ :
~:..,,! .. , '13EOAQE'S'" ~ ':: ,I,~---t- - i... ',:', \ io~, ..- ;
: .'h~, ~"-=--'..- I EQUIPwENT SITE ,~' \ :, '., ~::, ", ~" ._o~_....,-- ..
r !: {-';.., 1'3. '" :- I \..: :-' j~.~1 ," ~ ,: I" ~I ,,~EW'¥AISYS't;EW STU .. ,-" "
1/ P(ORT~B,:E~EITR c S-'Tf;';'~ , T "'1"";" r6 \ " ----.
" I :.,.,: , '~,":~ -.t., , -';' : OXIDATION,
,1 -: ' ~ , . ,- '.:" ~; ,.'., , ' , I ,"" "" I' PONC""--:- ~
/ I . . ".. - ~.. . . .
/~ i 8~A..N ':!!.~~.~ b N~ '" E S 1 T ~i~F'~NJJU~,t~.9.1AJ.: ; . .. ~~\\, ", ~ :
~~~(;;Ov~;:~~I~~~~ ~:~~AT) ! ; f' ,..! ' ~ 1:;,. ~ I '~-: \\" ': ':Coales
......-..: ,:.!"r,... ~___M.~I0~'~ tr""',!~_, ." ,~.
..ur{~~li''':.',:::-~~'i-.. 1/,",,: i: ,-- t'i ',---::\,;;"'::-..,
r!~ ',::',,'--~ ! ; r:! ,; '",0 I ::;\~': .-.
,.,. .,1,. . I.
t ..................... ....'."'" ' I .
~~ i ! U}'-i !... ).-:: ' ". 1\" "'-.
'::..~, -I --,1 ROSUIOUl'T RESE:A~CH gEi\r~R':~: ! ~L____..c'; \,
\, !, i 'I I . !; I,' i
"" --'" ;"" '-:-, , , . i , .' i . -", "i ..;:~i(: ',: " ., I \,
~"\""";' :1 I ~11 '1 j,~ 1 i 11 ,''''CO'ATES DU~P SrtE { , ! I --, 'J- :'~-
:":....,... . .: ~ !: .: : : : : ""':'- -. ..' I . -.-'. ; . - II "'.
. .. .' ..' I'....... . . - ., .
.. ... '. ': :,: '~.':.':: :."! !! ... '-':11 i' c:: ::"~I..',' '\
j-'~:""~' ""~I,;;' i : : '",'., . I-~:- -;.-::, . ''''-,'', ,I' , ..;.':
' I.' .".. - ..., .. .. ".,..' If . . . I
-"'::'-~'---:I''''': i:: :!:, :::"~-:I ('f: I -', I
NQTE;: 1, ,;-; ;7~ ,,, .....~.,;: L: :-.~ I "'y,~ ,u, ,,..'-. I -
PAop'h~y '80UN~~A'lJ~';i>..- "j"AJ::7" r:; rT -: ,>'i~ - " :t[- ~ I ~,,"
lO~=~~~~;:EE':~f°)J?"":"-' ''''',.;,.t._LL:llj ':':i ,~~~" (:2, '.. }t\.-i... ,", ,~
U.v"'-J"-::;/" \..' ,.,~' ' ~. OC!,SS WATER LA~OOH -', -~~ ~\ f ~~~I~-;"i!:
.. '." I ",-~" :' " - - r "STUD'I'-AREA" ,~. '''') '.. ,"1, " '/
('~o'l~~~=(~1 :0:"~~ -~f?S~~/7,~i I"'l-"-:-" ~ '-~' '~',~/-'-'
~J \ '-~ ~':~'\~~e" c ~~,u:~-,"!: ~' :," ,~~, , -'-'~.. " ~. ~> ,; ~I :':;~
- '~;:~ :.~'~~:-~.. .' -;;'f ~-,~ :~'~~"- :~,':: ~\;U- :'~ ~-~'~", -:: '~.~~' ',: ,-::,~
" j '-:',~';.f'" \"'.JA~I ,.., -~:,,", c.,,,'!!:~
....,~ :' " '~-""'=,.' ", "'h'''-'''' --,," ~". ,,- ~ ,\o,r..r, ...'':'
.,~ .~.' i.i.j~-~::~:C"~:':~~. '.' ~I"~" '~.'~t7D--~.'i:~!~~, ":-~ ~:-"i,n', - ~:~.:"
~'- -.:~, ,po.- .,"": ,~" r' '-. J, ;';;.:.,r .' ~ ':-1 ./' : -,~ \" ~"~
~;.,: ",~ :....;:;:::::::-' -,- "..-' . ,t-;..- ',"":_~, '-.;" ;'" ,0.. ?;.;.S\ ,.~ r':. -- , ,;.-:,::!. '
~~. "~~':~- '~~'-"" ," 1,,~\~~;..~t9~:J:;:~'i-~~13-~2\!t:it~ "::""~
~. -' - - - - .., -'. ':.: - (~-;>:~ - -."., - .'" .', iT'i''t, .~..':',; -I' ~
), ." ,::'~ ~ ::~:~.~ ': ~: , ," ,"~: ~::, - ,; . -' ~,'::~,,~ 1:::' '"-~' -: '-j , ~~/:'- ...' \.,'-
. - . .:. ".-~."'--':~ '" '.' ' '--~,,':f., '~-\'
.:''':--. '.' ~,.,.-::". :.:. f"';'~ '"..'
E )J P I R '., IE,- .' /'_: ~~. 1\ -.:i,_'_',~..
...rr. '" 1....:.:....
,-: ," , ",.,' '''~~' .~~
. ~.. : '\ ~ i ('"
-':.-' 1, ," "~ """" . '>
.~, " ' '.. ' 1 ,,' ..' FIGURE 2
~-- '--',
. ---...... ~---
, ,--_s:-------" ,ITE LOCATION MAP . 0 '000
.=:!""~!---- . t' ~~ !.. , U OF W AOSEWQUNT AESUACtl CENTEA ~'IU FlIT
'" - . I AOSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
((
.:
.
r"
,-
-.
r~
G
"""'44 ,.....
'~. c;'
-------
:~-~;;,):.!.-;j,~;...:~~""'-.:;~:..::....;.:~.."\::~"t~;~,, '''';''~''~;:~m''' "'1'- ....;:\.~..- , "
2,.~. ~:.7"r-~ -":::, o!>=~....,., '''' ~,12 $">-~: .~. . - .. - - ... .- '. .... --"''''....,.-::: - - - - c "'- -' "
.':'tt-....~., ", "---",,~,~"'~-'.,,'",,,...... ;,~'\.. ,'" ,-- '-':-, !..' ',,- ':a' \....." - ~
:':".;.iC";;:' -.8iI(',!.""...:"\t----. .....~........~:._.~......,' ....--...' "...,.. ~._~.:::~ ~ ~:...-.. . \ .......
-- ,.' ".., --- ,-"~' ..~ ')',' ... ," ,-, ~:..... .." -', ,\ ... -' ..,., ;~rO. ....~.:,..;..-- -- -~ .... ...
'- ,...--;.:.,,":,'-..' -:"..,~.....~/.:P ~=;', ,-':':'=' '\.. I '-'~'-""!...' \-' ,'.-:--.-~...: ............~ -. .'. '
.-:::;.t" - .. . .. - . '..-....... .. ."'~ - ~. -.. .. . ... . .. I' ( \ .. ....... .-.- """. - ." .
.;"'--""',,,"~' ,:i~"', ....~»~ ~-~ ," ~.~ " . ',-' --~., ,--~"",-' -...~II~' -' r
-. .," - -.I eo. . ~--..... ,.,..,: . _. w' .--:-:_, .' ,.,..~. "-,,,. !.~-,~ t''''- ..
,~.,-. e',' ~,':,.C'~, ',S., _ao--' C-~-=-"'-- ....' .oJ..- -, :- ""; .,.," -" -,"""'-"'-= '. l . J. -...~ =.
~-~~::C~~~;;~"~,i::.~'';' l-..'f":",'i", ! 0, ',,..'~\ '~.:-. ~~" .~~. ", I\~~~ '. ~~..~,,--.,..:--~--: _.~.
-'-"""", '..", .....~, 0' .... -,.. -, """ . "\0' " - ,~-""",- ,-_v" ,"'"
~" -- ~ ",-" ,', --.' ~ 'U- ,', -4:_''''' 0- ''':''',~,..---~ -....~,--:,-,,-......~-
....~ ,'" -, "I~ -'\'~ ,.r.,':": J-..'\~,~"~ ~;(/'. ,',~:. ',:', ~ '~..,.. I ' :,~~,~~7/~\:' --.,;:;y-........:' ...~,~L--:":
-~,':"'.:-t~1\.'~' :..'. ~ ~::"'~'_I; '-':::. ~:....j '':'':.' \:1 ~ .\--'- '-,;', , , ':' i ...., .' '.. '~ _....-,~: "~:...r\....',: -:-.
;:~ --":~'-~~ '-J ~~":""'-II:: '::.-. ,;;,:._(,~--.,.;.,...,\, ~-___~-'\..I,~' ,-.. -':,c,~';' ","'J \~~- ...-" -';001'~.~~~'
----"""''1.~~~., \, :::.....)..~~-.... ~~,~,," ,'",'.: "'...~~ .'" "I",..~,:,'r' ~'~~'" r-"","~":..I'"':'It,~
-...~,;~.;..~~',> CT,' ..f=:::::""""" ~~:~,..:, ,....r ~'~~;''\--;'I=- Y~'-~.-l "~~\.:~_-:.r....." ':..~"
~.-\' ",' -..-",...." ,~~ ...-..,,, .,- '.,"''S~''- ',".."- -,~'::- -".
..".-' ,'...- --- ," ...." ,'-", .-: ''''''. ' , ,'" . .- '. .... - .- "...,;;,J l'
,'~" ". . -:. ,.; ,,', X'. I "'~. -:-',-, ':':' - 'J - '\~"'\, -- -, "-..;. '''-..:;' ~"'",-' '';' ,-; ':< . .'- ' :',
~-~-":L~....., .-:,~- . ~ - I. -. -. ".- ---' ...:-:. : .,.-.--- '--:;~.. .. . 8- .'..,...~. ,. ~.)~.'\' \.,...~. -;,,... -"
.' -" ,~'''-''- - - '. .~. _.- _. ,..:\.~,~~"'_.~...~' \h. < ';-"..~~.r:\.. W'O ",~- 1 '
~ .. >--' ' ."- ""';'::l ~-'~-. --..- '~'_... ~ -.._u..:; , :C~-2;:'..=-'I':', ': ...;' ,
,~,,\ 1- ,.,(..n=-=- "~ ,- -' -:;.a::.' '-L.., -,\-~,.::::::-"..:,- ~!s'~\:....'>o-~\.~"/~' ...- r.'-.
'i;;,=.-\ \:.- - -If,.< -1 ,£~ >:::.;,;?,~:, -'. ,', r- '-~ I'. '. --..::,..i::Y (=- ~J ," ~: ,
. !'\''' "',,' ,'W. -::. - - -' .,~:-'-- ,-. -:--,-- ,~~. ..' .' -- ,- .. -- - - -'
"".' .4' - ro..........., ...".."" ' .... to, .. """" --- ',..J'''''''''' ....... :0:::...1"" . ~7 ,- ::.~... ~: I
-'" ,,?'V'\.::. ''":,''k - ~-,,-,- -~...:~~:) ~--'i""-,,, "" f";" c, ; ~...-,-, <""-.:-- .,":"', ,',
,'":",,..- ':'::-"";.~':-"~-::::::"-' .:-=::-=-~~.. .~:.;...,-~;..,~ . ( - ~'\':v '.'" '''''.......
~".' ;:::"':;.:--,~-.:--~-~..:-.-:-' . ..' ...:::.=-, '-':, , : ::.'-;''''~ ,', ., "'.. I' -:::::=:.~ \ 1 ...~;...-- ~... '" -
'.'\."" .,,,,,,.-,,'----':..p!!'_"'\=-..:~,' . "..........,...' ,.,..~', ~,~r"'~;"~-~_. "'=.' U:,..;'~,L:' 'c::...:--...,' ----- " .-:-:",,- .... .
'I -, :'f.'~".:-; ,:'" --~ -:--!:.--.. 'J\L"-''''''''' \-(0':,/.7"'"': \'~- ,J~=,,- -:-',...." "-
~'C~;:,.-.::.....;,..-; -:": ",,-",,-, .~- "~:: .!""f"'''~ _:',.,"I:..-::::-~...)o,~. "\-~" ..- '-_::~'.'....,.,v: ~~.."-,,.., --,..
.. " ...;--,'.' ,-.-. ,'.. . '" -...-- ,.:~:.:. r e .- ,- -,~-.
...-....,..,..,'" -' '-"!:'i .., ,- ~~..... " ;.- . "
~. . ~ :" -: -, ,,'.. -;'1- - -. -' '",.' ',. -,*,~' ";~...... ,~ ." :....., -
/ \ ,.', -~~" "'-" '-,. '." -..-'::;:- - .,';1'.'" -- ... .'..,~.' .
... ..,.:' ~':...:~, - ,~.: - ..;..--:- 'i~ --.'....- '~, ~ ,:"':' .~' .-
-~~-=-.:.::::::-:-- ..~-:~.,-:::: ~.' :=---:::_~ ~. :-' L ',':- ' ':~: .
, - . '''';' V ,-. ,-~ ~ ~ . --...... ,""", ~
, - ' 'oC.' ~'--:'~ - "', -" i_-=- .;:;:-:;';:'-- - - .-
. - -.~.. -~ ....-- '\...-. .--' .;..--~-
- - ,'!!' - ,'" ." .' " - - --- ....
, ... ,e ' - - -:'~... ' .' . .,.., - '- .. ",-' ", ~-:'-- - '
~ ~ " "'-~'-~-';;"- .;.- ., ',", -,' \' -._~.- :
~ "~~I =..~~.:/\--;:.. - - - ':--......".' . \.0;, " :1 ".' ";'.--':-j ,"'\''':: r"'~
'. -\' '--~, ~ ~" - \' ~' ,- ~. :': -'''~' ~ \ ..lc:..~OI.lMU"'!' ~,:r-- -- : -':..-.~, - /- -:
...... ......: -~- ,- -,;;:' .,:, ,:::'" : .:,-' "--'~ .'l:':"'-''' .:....; .--- ~:,..
""..-: ,I ~/'-= '.. . .-!~ -, '...... '.. ,,.. - '., --':" --_.,--~._-"--'<
.: -'* ---.. . - .- .. ~ 1 ,:,.. .,,'
- - - ~' , -. . .--:- \ -., '
, ,~,,,....: , :,,~v - -, ' ...,:-:., , " ,"'.-"". ., \ .-;"'-'I~ '-'" - -~:
~...-:/, I: h..V '-,-' ' - .',:; -".. '..- ",::,:""" :\: -_.._----~ - .. .-----..-:0::
..... ' -' ~....r.'= u::- :":iol.:l'o!' ~~;.1.$~ ,-.t, -"'"..:-::--, ~ ~ " ~:c .,,",:
'. . ......"",--,: : '" .. 1'" \ -:- -"1.. - . .....:. .... ... -- " ~ .. .. - .. ;...
: -- ...~-:-..D",,~-~IO" _e.. - i~.. ':.':' ': -,,:,:', -, -..,.:\... .~:,_'. .~, ' :' ~,,'
; I." ,...:' , ,; , ~..- '" '0 --' --"~ .. --~--' '-' ,-,. ... ,--,-
,_:.---~ ---, ,- - _.\. -~. -,---' ~.. --- . ,,,~-, .
.:: ' ;:;;:-=-',- I~' :. '..~:: - , '.. \ J' ,',".' '. ~?- -- ;,.~i r': .::;......:,\ -.::.~... ,....":"~~\ Ii ~~ - ' ~-;:-..
~; .\ ''''--f'''''v~' - -~'Nrl".TI",". ":' "~, , ,,-:;:.... ~--~~ I'~ . ,"':., ',-".-. ..-..~...,,,-,,..~,....._'-
....r~'I-. ~"..' ':~ ,~::" ~,:=,~ '. . - --'''''';'
-, , ,--" -.. -. - ,.' ~ -,....., " ,,,,,....,~- ~::\o..l~\:' _1 ~- ~.~. ~t.. ~ '-,,"e" "''''''7''''''''''''''' .
I-~~~' ~~~:~-::::-: ~~ \ \ =. r ~-"-!":..'--::" ';£d j,I \' " \~ ;.~. -If ; ....:.,;="'~':""
~J' 11 \;:;.I'\''''''''~';~ ~' ~..~~ L; !; ;',:.:'~ Ie::. ~,I" ' :.,:£". '-1/,., r: :,' :'~-~~.',';':"~
--01.' .-t'~:;/:I'("~ _:~, .z,l- ---of' ,'\' I. k--.......' _..."""\: /. .-. ~ ~, .' '
(,.-, -""", - ~ ,,00':' "'--...... .. -... . ~ ----.....~ ' ~.I... -,.., .' ..., l ' ....
-::-:,..'~.!!//,jt:4~~~~' "'r~~ 0 :.:: fI" --:..-,~- .II" . ,~.-:- I ::;. , ,,' - '.
,-~..t:'':-'~~ ~,.~ ~."l~' ~,:",~.", .'.::':' ,. -. \,-~ . \... -.- ~"'- .' ,.,l', _.~ .:.-
~". '\.~~ ...-'! ..."'.~..'. ".,.,' . "" ,.,,' . .:-~...-._. -, &._...~~._._I.,... .------ '....
-~,;~-""-"" ,. ;';;: ,~..., ~ ~ '(f" '..~ ~,..' , . ,,, ,; I" \-.;.... ,.,.. - --....-'-....-'I&? '--, -,-'-
.A~:- :~ ....:"",;'...J :V:-.-... .. ¥...~' ,I, "',', "':'c..~ :'.J ~--=-' ~-,.. \" ~ ...,"=, .:,.";':-,1; " ~ - ;".- ....; - '
,....' ~ - - =- .~, , ,:''':':' t ""~-.' ..: -...~- ,~- :-...", :',!. ,-,.. '-.... "- ' ..,
,,' ,"~,'... ...-,. -'., :/. . ,~, \....: I ,I ~ ,'" . -.:...., '. , '-' ...c'
, ; ~-,. - .~. ..'. ,,,, :if: - ,-~- .,~:./ />.' . .;' ~,~ \ ~..:-... ';",/ - '-'- '. --':..,' ,
;:, " -.;.;,,- ~",.. -~ :;.~~' -, -'- ,~..~~~~~ t",'-. '~\".F"":-~'~ ';:'- '" '~...=.-' .,', ~ ,-, _-:::..,
~ ~.". ~ Ii-\~~~' -\~~~~i'-i--':' ,. . ;;,....if~- :;,('i;,W.;~~~~-i~-~l::-_'- . .
~r;.ft.~.:.::.:~..:.~';:;' "-..,,.."J ~'fi-,::-,:;,'.j.-;J;;--.JIfv.,;,-,;'(" j.: ...;~~, - '.,;~"" :: 1":"'1:: -' ' -
..:~,~.. . . ,,-, '.~..~~"~'" ".,.,.-:'( ,-=-. - -;./'~.,\',..", "'\" .,-.:.w."'.":".!-' ~ _-:.~'
,"'~'r -'~...~~..~ ~~:r~~"':I~~ ""'~~;~~,\*~~~"""':~.1i~ ~:-::\..\ \.~lli;~\ "',.:ic.i, -
;,\-- 'I.,!\),~~~~:~-,~,~,,~~~'1~'~~'1 :'';''~~Nr;:'i:'::::''''~!~''''ji!. 4.i~~~,,- -\"~~~~';:;C~":J': ~) ;I~~\, '\...i-' '=
',\ " ~~ ~.;~ -~ '\..~ ~" "-'W"" -~,~ "-.::::7:.ic ~ '\... ,~~:t.~, -.... C'\'- ._.~' " oJ I" l'
"'0; -It' ~~ . F""',....~',o:..., ,,' -t.'1I, ~'D'i':"~'~<~' ;- ~..:::-~ - '- ';L..-~" .....1;"'\ :)0, -!-\,I,::~~. '_1.:~-"'
-'..,-:~~'l~:."\o.~-- ~' ::-' ~ c..1-: ~'::I'"''':':,'w:''F~.-~,~ - ""I ".' ..; ~ "":
...;.-~.~..':~~''''~' .., ~-"',~j~.!,;c-::~' :"-:l"";~~:~4"; FIGURE 3 .:\ Vi;: J' -~,
'. . - '\') " - . ' "- .... ... -i:. "~ -, C ... \ (",;""""" /,:,';
-.""",,,,." -..;;::: , -.-,,,. .-,~ \....-- .."', -.: -.J~(c;.~1 7\"'"
. .,.,.; '''' J . " - . - - ,A-; ':.: " .,~ \ '''',....'-, .:~: .. - .. <...., ",:;0;;' .
\~,~ : "t'd ~ ~?.:.... ~ .\ .,'!: ~'....~"'~~ Location of bedrocK vaney \:-.....~, -.J';\\::'i::'
~,.~..... 1 I --;:r~"::' - ' ,: ,'. ......., . , - ~~t"'';;c.. , -
",--' -.. -.. .....,,.' ~ '-- -~ - ........~ -~-" ",),,$:' I ,.._;" 'v,
;,;i-r-! ; \-, [::-:.,y,:,'.,': ~~.'iL':-~ ~!~~ti;.:-.1ti;; T -~~\~~~~f'\J ~:f;~\'~~':t::' . :~
,~ -.:- -- ,i::7 ~. ".; "."-" "--....~...."..>':"" .c-.- ~~3 \1"; )'1-' ~ /~ ,,-
~-_.- -- - ~" " I' ...:r' -;"~;"~~--"1-~' -....~ --, -- ! l ~\,., c::: ~'-' -~j-
,'._J. -''': ,.-~-- ,-'; '.. ",~,,,,~ ;»)r,-";;;:- -="'i: ", --' ; ~.._....;.'7...,-- '. (\.. , C
", ., J,7,....... -... - - 8.", '~~.~.:.
-------
,...-...,-..---~ .; ,..;-., . - ,.... -,,' . - " ' '
, - ~..,~/:"::~~--,"" ~,.;;......_,.,. ~ '=-, "~'" .- " -
- . ... ,,- _. ' '- - "",,' - -.. ',' ,~.: -' I' -,-- ',.-
, oJ'":::W\.:",\ 'y" "C.l!:' ,-" -':) ,..-..'-"... ' so ._"}i!....~ .' " J, ..~\", ....\ .,:;-!f .~\.",-:~.."" - - . - '- '
'- ",,'::""'~~~t'-;::O<~.;' .....~~_..."~.,_.";.""",.,,.::::::"'<";'~ '- ,.'" '''''-::,r'~ ,..,01'\,- ,--..:t:-" II '~ ' ~
,':J:::'1'~~--- ..:."::$, ..S". t,-.. cor :,.,.1(', " o\:~'~', :-,~, ~', ' ~\,\. \1.-?":' ". ,~"""""-~'~ ....":'.' ~- !-" "."':'
.;,-~;--=-, :"-'C.:..'."" --:'''' ~ ,~.. ~ ..., ," "";: - ~ .~~'~I""'~-'''' "~--~~£-l'~__' ~
: . - ,'" ' ',' " ~....-:;",. - "', -, :"'="''- ':"'~,;, ,~~" " -,~-
;. ....~~,. . ..\' J ) .".-....<"")' ,,'" "... '~""" '.""". ,; ...., B,~..,. ';~xr&~'", ,~:........~.,..-~;-,-,
-..., . ~" - ... ;'~'~'_f' -...." --','- '--' 1'\ ~ \'1 --.... .5; - ' ." I .,. . l "..,--" ,'. -,' -
. ,rr--'- '''','' ---- ..".- ,-..., \ - - I:....~-,"Y .....,-, , ,. J - '..ii" ,. ., -, \",,".\ -" ....,' '--,' '" -,
...~ . -, " '- ,"-"'" ...-' --- ---~, ',::----~' ,'~, -, .-,' '.- . ".,-.1"- - ,. ~' ,
,"'--- ""'~~7" ' \. I ":""""''W ,~~. -. 't.,..- ",,,,,,,,, " ,'~"""::- -I "I:"W(:=':"~: """J~,\\..,' "., - ._---~.
-- --- (\oJ, ~- '.". ~., -,' '-" "".. ""'-f'.c- r_'" ':'-.;_.:\. '" f::"" .,.,.,.... . -:.
:: "1:-:::i.::;" -i;' ,?. ~ t' "f ...., ~.... .."i ' ~..'~:.:' -"~~. ,..;-i. >, ~:.-. .~..-.~.- !;-:;':) 'f-..., ""~. <"~ '. ,,'
,!...,., ,',:"" -....,- ~~!......-,.,::-~~"';'" "':""" , -~-:"....,:" ..;'f~."~ ,,,',',,.,.-' It, "~ -~.:~-. ' "-'
-" , , ' ' -, " .. ',. / ' -" .' ' , :, '_....I '). ,.,': ,- '~x.
.- .... ~,.",. -. I a/~'''''-~_.:'... - J - \'''' '-. ''''''::.''''.-:n "'('~' ""'..' -','
~-~-: ~~" -" .,:,-,..- , '-,... I' .-~:.., ,..,.,' ..-:. " '" ",", '., . ,..-:" ~~ ~ i ',-' ,- ~~- ' .
:. a .. ....,,-.' '.-~- -- , . , ,'" , ,,. ,- _. -..:' '\.~.,...-:: ....,~ ",-- "j. f.,' \1;,' ~' , ,d J;;:<', f, I"~ -:.. ....-
o ' , " :a- -- ,'- ~.:~ J ~ ',. - -:--' '~..- ~ ~~.._...~-:.~.".; "wi ,. a'~ .. ...~., .'
.,;, ......-...."" I - ...,..(,..u.=~:-, \,-' ~ -'~.,.a:., ,I:' '\, -~I ,:::::.-~~&~'4.'>-~~~~ I':' I: ..,~ '
....~' ~.\, ' 'V,. ~ ':"',w':-:::~-; ''''';':'''''7=..::-) ~~~~ ~,-~ ,~,""". '-' " I,"'~'~:-:(::' t', ~ 0(;' :r.-.........
" .... -\' '~l" '''''- ," '.'.-'..' ~..:~, I .. " -..- _&= ... - .....---:----~,......,I-'~' I
" ~'\..' . ',...,", - - - -' ,-"':':-" - '-M _..-- ;~..': -.' ,- -: '"
,'" . ...'\." '~'.:"",.a . - ~'--~\. ~~ ~ ~ r.',IC or '- - ::.:..:!-. '" .../'-," -...: '0::::;..'\', --: ,,:;;:' ;'~'"............,,;.~ ~
;, -I ; , ." ~......::........ ,-:::.::::..,.,.. ~ =-=--~.;~-~'''' ~ .,.-, ,( <.,'. ,_--::::--:-,: 'to' .-
~ ,"'-,_:~=- .,_::-', ~~-... _..-,,-,-;~,,:,:;#,<-....."'-:-,~:,\~. (---....: :......,/. "::,J '\ - -""''''!''-t
'~' ..-----.--.--"."":" .-'\ - _.".' ,... ".~,!--... '-~ --.. -- ".'
""'.":~ ~"::"'-. ."..j..' ",_...,.-:".,::'.-:..;ji'--..".. '.',,~\. : ---:=:", ,~-'.;- ,;-.. \
" ;;,1'. . 'f.'!:-' .; :.':. -..7,. ~"""'=- -_....-:..' ,r,,-,_.-, ~ ;0'-' ..~\J,I.;>I-=:' -...-- : <-;- .
..' ..._,,,........-.~ ..;."~ .:::.--::;... ~.. .;;J"""",~~:"'1o: r:..".\".a.J,...:I\\,::::"'."/:-:--;\';';V:, - :-
~C""~"'....:':" ,.-" . ""._,-: &-_: ,''''''',~ --.; ..' --,', -:.'9 ~--......... --_.; ~', '\ ' ._,~,.~ --:::.
,I." '..~' ,:, --..;~= - -;'I~~~"":~".&:..~' ...,,:=t:.+ ('"':' ~~\i=:,:=::...--~,~,,7 ",'i:.....-- .' ',7'
"/' .-.., -~.-,..: \-'.' -'.l ..- - =-11"\-'-.'" . ,,-.,,,.\l --......... ',J ,t'~~ ' ,
, '. ,'.' "" ...-" ,_.,:>--..::-...,.-, ' "''''~ ',: ' ,':':' ,', l ,,,", ' , ,
--------- ------.. .. .' - '.. .. . - ,- -
---- -, '.......""-'''''''''' - - ., '-. - ". " - - - - -
-..-,,' "~,' 8. .' -.. .~.:..:::.~:-=---': '... ",' .;.:.
-.. ' . ::':- '" -.:- - ,- - ", ...:-.;-:, , ,- . ''''''-,~...... ~
- '- ::- .~ _"-::~ -.,::<,,-t "'. "::'~ --' ~ _:_,-- " ~" - - :_- .... --~:-,~.;~':"-' ....... - ,-
-. -.. . - - ---=---, --"- .r-" ~ .. -... '. .. ~. - I.. - - --1"--....... .........
~ ~' -,' ,....,;.......::'" ~ - " .-- -,,', ,:;., I - '---," _._-,--~-
- . ",..,' '...' ... - - . ' " .' ' -
, --.- 1 - ~-,' _.r,- . .. '-' \... .1 - '----', ',.;' .--.-
'.- --'''~ .' --=.' ',~'~, ,::j ,~, ..' '~'-' \, ' .-" ,,- -:-, ,"~-;'- ,-::::=:...
., ,) '..;;:,~ ~,1 ,,~~;.:- ~ ;: -::::; ,,:= '--'" \.u.;;n-~:II~:I"--., 1.1.:r:- '.. .- '-: " ~ I' .
:;. .! \" ":/ -f"', :r: ..:' ~,' ';; ~:::' i '--..- "'" 0' -:,,:.:.;-. '.,"V' - \''-.. ~i - . ~ "uI-~'''"" "..'
, ,""" I - - ,'- ',-, , '.. '. - ,'-- ' \ .-~1. -. .
-- (, ," -- - ", ' -,. - .,", : ," - -
....." " -, '''''S' '". ",',,-,..- ..,1 -' ~__-~.1: _.'-----\ 7 ' -----,."",=
~"..- ,...' .",..r.- ..~:':'~:~ - :.. -'" ;);.;.._r,z~-'.."" ' '" - I ' .. C ' ':
': ' ~ ...,-._- ,':., -- 1 -' 'I--~-':':"" ,;-:,J:' . -' ".',
.', ..... ,__'-:--.,D""c:'.,:IO.."IIL..,. r", ,;':' -:...-:, -,~_'\',Ir..-:' - -,:::', ,:-c' - , .......:!"
,~' .-.-' ~'",:"":~,-':~.--=-~'- - '. .. :",:-.; :.. - -~ -: --~~~'- !:;:~-- ' , ,'=-~ ,."..'-=:-::'.. .
-...; - ..... ,-_';; ...'~ ~ ' .... I ' .".; . :?" ~..r' I'': ........~\ ~ ,-- ...~~~/\ 'I -- - --=::. .-,~
"I.:;), ,I ,,,,,_..~,,...;,,..--",-,r--'nr",~,f\,~. '''I'-~' , ',0:" =,,--' --~ -'- ,.f.-,..,',/ '0, ~~\... ..., ~~"-
-....~ --r'" \ ">,>,,," ,: ~ ,"~I ~",......-.....-'i"".' ...,... -""'-~"""'-"""
-- "", I ~q',t(~&.., ' ~ ,;, '~;j ~..._~,-"......;.;,~,r~r.: .~'l' :.':"~' ,:'~:,!, :,:';;' ' ----- '-\' /~: -
."~--.,~ ':'-~"-I --- M',~~'" -'. ::~ ..' .:. I ~,~-- ... --- ' ' ,~..~~ .- .-, -;.~,':'
, : -~ -- , I ! I L:-'. ",,'-:; ~_.:,,;)i,' .,....,_..~-'- ,--"","--"'!"'o'''''~~ - ..-'
-.~ ,~,:.- '.. ' "... ,- --< ,,~,- -' ,~-,,: . ,!~..."",.,.:...,--~".-,- ,,',. ,....,:-
- ~--. I II ~~~():~" ,J-.:..t~..~~..et.:::~-:,:-~ ~ 1,--,-,~;",,,, ;"", ~--~----'----;;:;::;:::..-'--'-..:-:-
- ..'" -.,..... 'I.';', ., r "'- \ " (- ~ :'i,: 1 ,.J. ,"" - \ '... . \~. "" r'-' c ' ~.~ ' , f' ' ' . '
"- ~ ". "--""'.....::o.~ ~ ".' \-- \r.:=::1'-'C-""'.: ~,r _.~ "",,-..'(i..:~~..';':'~~:.'----'~"_;;:--
. . ~l ........ '" \ ' ' ,(. ' , , ' ," 4--:--'''- -~...-- _.- ,-." ~ - ~ - - "I
.' ,'"'' ,,,,-, ...-' ' " . -'. - -'
- :-.. - -...,--,~v')'-.'''i'.''';;'''''''' "'...1."""" 0::: I.'" f', "'- ...-... --- -' '-'... -...'"
"'-.)' -, . - : \""'~....::' : : ~: : : : : ,-- ""-. p . : ~" . - ' ....' : .... -,
, I '\ ' : ' : ~ ;: ~ : : ::' ,,: -' ..-' - ' -' ,~-' . ' ..
. .':--': :::'::::~ ___0', :""'-:i' . _!.' \ ".:. ...-::::- ~- -
-~ ~.:..,:'. ~ ,_:\ ~ ~::::: ~ :,,: : '. ....,,:~- :.=-=";';:.~,: '."':_.:: >""',. ":... :~='::"';::-'- ',.-.'
r ".,~---- -"'~:':::!-I. J: I;: \.: 0-. ';';;-'''-.:A' ,\; .....\~' ...\-}":......' ..:',' '7- -'-
- ,- r -- ---~=. - . -'" "", ..-r_''''''' _. . ' '. \ . ~
. ''''''''/ -,;. "",,- -' '1_" ';:~ - - .. .."" ..' \ ,', ,.F ' ~;....-,-...
, ~-"'t::,,- .......'" ':;:~,~ ~ ~ ~;, '" i: ;,:: '-",.," ;' 'I ..."', .. .,' V' - '. ,,,'-
~:_t?,,~~'~l~~(;(~~~~~~ ji1 t~~." "5 J I!:~i' .. <,\->!:,J.,,~ ,', :,.,,-"":~"~
-,.~"~, ......Ir....:!P;.I\""~...-=:::; ",,,,~~ " ,,:'~. - 3.' , . ,., , -. .
--'~\~"--~'..:v -j"~ ~~;,.....-~::8',_" i,: .:::: ~,--=-'-,~- . , :. ~: .-... '. ,_..
,~.' ~ _.....",:-', ",-""...,,;..,."-":',, .,:; _.:' '", -'" , ;:. -' ",-" ' --,,; ,--.. ...":
-.-..~'~ . . 'r-"~.t" ...,' ",. "" -'-~""~-'I" -'-','" ....;,-.,." -----.' ,.
~ . ,-' ., I ' 'i'" ' .. ...: -: " , ":' .. '" ," ,- -' ..... - . "'-.-.. -.....,~ ' . - - ,..:;:-
~ "\- -" .... V'- i ,'.. T' ."(,,,."':.. ., ,". --=. -=--- " , "-- "",-,' , ..--::- - .,' ~-. ""',.:,
'...." ',-- ,--";':"\. '~--'" ,,_s..~. :'- .. - _,.\a,. --'~~' , -.."'" -.
,'-.....,:" i'-7'. "~r- ~~'- -- I""", ~". ': I ,~.~ ''.~ :..,~, :': '8/ . ~ -'; ". -..
,<'~"'''''~''.'''.I'''r.;/."~r(' .'~t;~\':- ,""s.,,\ '. -:",--"-,,.~ ro-
'.... --.. i ,. ,."'''', '....,( '-~-. ,- ,r-.' C,',' '~', -~,} ,_..-. ,..-/ -. - ~. -,
-'-r.. "\..' r: ,c..'.~1 iI'~~ -"- .~' ,.,.....,~ ~ ~~.. """''''' '~'\C,l~:-.. \:::.1 -- ~~'~ 0:', .
-..' "J., '')0/":,,,,;::-: .~~ ~ 'I' :-'''', '" '4',"- ",' """,(,- ,:"" ~ ' -.,...... .: .. ~ ,--,
~ ~~'.'" \~, ~,...::.;o. -. ~,. ~:::- ~ '-irt!'."..--" J """'" .~- ;...~ ,,w,,, :?~'.$.~ .7:"-"" ,.-"
. ~,...~~....," ... ",,-. <;I .;:.,,":"'~'- - .,'0.~ ... '
, ._~,~ -; ; ~,",' '~~, - ,-... .;'Jt.,~ "'a..-, , - - ' -
- ..-- 'r ~.' '~ .~ ':'!S'.:":"....... ""'~~',;.:~~:- ,-- . FIG U R E 4
, '----~~-.s.:.:'~ ~.. ,~ ""'W",':I~.... (-;;.I ~I,.:J~,.~~~~ -=
11\ '\.""IIIII!!IC:~", " -~~'~"~~"'1 ,,~. ~~'~=::;'~~'l~''''',~'' '
~\\ . ~' ...:.-'" ' , ,1,2\ " " --
-::~I .!r \)~... ~ ~~~~" ". "').,~I£~~:~..:t'~~.;!.I~"~~ Location of water wells., -.' .,:- 7
-..,-..,alJ:;~-)!~" ,,_. ~j~~~'~"'--":-_~ ' ;'~' ",.,-----~_.
\",,;'::~'fifr.;' ':"'~~' ~-..,:~;::.~-:-.?-;., )ar-' ~\",,':~~' . ;+~=~~~~",:~*~~It::.'o...~~~-c. 'I~; '\i"'I, \'~.:, ~ t"'-~
I """,,-,. -"I"" ' , , . ..' '.", ~ '.' ~.;.. .. --- ~- 1-',--, ,,,,";' ~ -'. -,' ~ \ ,,~ ~ -,
'-, "', _, ... ~' ,~. ,.' , ~ "...,c "-=- '~----~'_........, ~ ~." ~~ J I "....... -'
~ ,''',' ~ ' ..,:._,.~,!,,'::': ';~...;. ,,;.,,--..::; ..., ~', .:'.;.~~.. , \~ -;-:" ,.'. ',,,;('(."'~ ,o.:..'
.!~!;J ~~ ~ ~~".J ":'~;'::::--1:' ~\ I't ~.f\ ?(~ ~r\~-" ;~~'...'J:::~~r~~:~ ~,:z:~~:fV2,'~!.
,I'~ I ,- -..1'" 1\, ,\" ~.....)f' ...-: - ;,,-,,~ .......:::')... -"~"""-'-'
/I'" ' , ---;r---":' -- I',: .', --, .' ..... C..:- ". ,-'- - ,,,,,,-,,' ',.-~ --
.......-.....-... . -, - ,..,,'.' . -- . ~.. ' :~-- -'~ ''; , ~-~-' '~" \ -
_J'~ ' ' 1,:- ',' ~,,-:, '~ """"'-:";.'! ~I:::'~:"'J&~ -, ~,»:,-:-,\'\,I \.~ J:,I:;"c' .,-~("..:..... ,,=-
~~ ,.. , ,-. ,~: , ',,- \,-",-,,: '-1"" '\,'..- ),.. ~- _......- ,,,
. ? - ' \ .;;_:,:~) c..;. '. ,'. ... '.' 'N'e.,,"-:,.' \':'? ~' -"';::'~\'-'" f \ '... ,t, ... - ~'-
-- \ ,- --' . ~ -~..,' , ':: " ,~'.:",~~-'" \.' -""""'~'", \.. \I!'~' ,.i..., -, -:::::-----
-A--_": .,.-,., ~' ' :.' ,-t'>-I..;..;p--...--:';iIj--~ -"" '-:.i::'-!':"',' 1 1\:""""'-- ;;-' .... ::;...---'"
: '. ,I, -,c:' . '~- - : -'; .~,. ",:.. ""':\1~"',.)'r~ -": -;!","~, . ~-~~!.. -- -./.
- '1./'... .:- - ',: i~~~:':-' ' . r--.. ,. ~',' ...~~' ~-~ - "(' ",,-::;;. ,-- '. h.-", t:
.I , ,.. -" -=----- .;- : I" ':"\;---~-'" .'", .'....... ~ <'- ;j ....-" ,~' '. , ~-::::;. - - ,
i" ,J'C:" :..-::".J--':,.. ".r:i,,,:;-,: \ ..i~-,_-""-n ,.:;...:;h.-',;::, ... ~ .L - "'-,,~ \ ..~,;~, h ":. --'/"-<=='
, - ---', - "~,~"..:,,:,,,: ,: ,--:,' , ~. ~'...~ :'::-~j:-:' I "'- ,\=:=I~'- '; -,=,,-:,=,,--...
.,--.--.--..,-...
-------
(:
...
~
a:
""
Ie
5 RRC
:z OFFICE
>-
,Ie
,0
,,,,,
,>
iO
,e:
'Q.
'Co
, «
r
r
I t
[
GEORGE'S USED
EQUIPMENT
I
EXISTING
STOR AGE
BUILDING
o
,
: . ''''IT CORPORATION
: ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVEO
-00 NO! Sca.. T'". D,a-n,,-
CONCRETE II
SLAB L---J
SHALLOW
DEPRESSION
-'. ~ RUNOFF
........... "'.......... DRAINAGE ROUTES
DEPRESSION
PORTER
( ELECTRIC
~
200
I
FIGURE 5
LOCATION OF GEORGE'S USED
EQUIPMENT AND PORTER a.ECTRIC SITES
PREPAREO fOR
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
MINNEAPOLIS. MIN~ESOTA
rn ... cr;'atino a Sa~~r Tomonow
-------
. ,-" COAf'OllA'1ON
AU conllloHtS 11111""'0
0."" Ie... ,....0.-..,..
CUlVERT~
}={
DITCH
CUlVERT---J:
II
"
BUILe»INO
uw.,
a
ROAD
S!:AB
, ~:
SWAlE
lEGEND
..
A
MON'TORING WELL
6
N
° '00
I ~
'0
SCALE IN FfET
FIGURE 6
U.s. TRANSFORMER SITE
_~A"IO '011
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
m .,. c,.allDO a Sal., TOlDorrow
-------
- . . -. -... - .--.-.-
~
...
t 1 I
to
oJ
.
.
~
c: r ]
....
CD
~ RRC'
.~ OFFICE
CONCRETE
SLAB
~ I
..
:Q
)0
~:;:
j ~
J -
.",
) ~
GEORGE'S USED
EOUIPMENT
I
EXISTING
STORAGE
BUILDING
DEPRESSION
~ E~~~~~
~
o
I
200
I
FIGURE 7
INFERRED EXTENT OF SHALLOW
AND DEEP PCS CONTAMINATION
E1J
-
SHALLOW CONTAMINATION
~REPARED FOR
DEEP CONTAMINATION
UNIV ERSITY OF MINNESOTA
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
~ . '''IT CORPORATION
i ALL COP'fRIGI-ITS RESERVED
-00 NO' Sea.. ,,,.. 0'..'''9''
rn ° 0 . Cr~ting a Safo.r Tomorrow
-------
i '
.1~"COR~AfM)N
on c:o.."'GH,,"UI-O
,
I.EGEtlO
..
BUILDING
IfU-I'4
C1
. IfU-UO
..fU' 110. II I
4'
.
IfU-.J4
.
IfU-140
.lfU-142
.
IAONHOn!tlO WEll,
SOIL SAMPlINO POINT
PCB COHTAMINA TION
6-
N
10.
]
o
~
iO
SCALE" nu
fiGURE 8
INFERRED EXTENT OF
SIiAllOW PCB CONTAMINATION
U.S. TRANSFORMER SITE
.......".0 'CIA
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
m
. . . c,oalloer II Salo' TOlDono'"
-------
----
-0
...
~
J
I
,
r:
'"
1:1
5 RRC.
Z OFFICE
[
SHALLOW
DEPRESSION
I I
~
,1:1
:8
.:>
10
,C::
c..
j ~
GEORGE'S USED
EQUIPMENT
EXISTING
STORAGE
BUILDING
... ~ RUNOFF
........... ............... DRAINAGE ROUTES
DEPRESSION
PORTER
I ELECTRIC
~
o
,
200
I
FIGURE 9
INFERRED EXTENT OF LEAD
CONT AMINA TION
~ LEAD CONTAMINATION
PREPARED FOR
: II ,.' IT CORPORATION
= ALL COPVRIGHTS RESERVED
.00 HOC Sg18 T- 0...."9'
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
rn ... Cre~ting a ~~r Tomorrow
-------
p
... ~.-
Iz
::I
o
. ------..---
.. I
I ,
~ I
"'-" \' 11"
t: .
I ' I....
I
I
I
I
~..,.:...
15
....
.m"
.,
L,""DS
APPIIOIIIIH"1 ..,..., OP
-- CO..IAII.IIAtlOII DUIII... 'H' .'.10' ....-....,
"IA'U"'"'''' .0111'
PO""OIl OP COII'AIIIIIA'" AII,A
WHICH.IC.IOI 'H' .'001111'''''' OHLO.O.O...
C"II..IA O' . .A." ... '''LIO...
. "
-------
."'8 .
~,........ c_.... --.e,. 81.......
.......... .. ....... ... ...,........ ....u_.. ,...... ... ...... call..a. .. .. Ceu'.... ,...t
.......
........
...1....1. .. ----a ... ~..... --._u
-
-..-
-
...... .....
~
...... ......
e.a.......
...--......
-
..u
-
..II
....
... tC8
I
... ....
... C.,......
-
_.
.. ..,&
-... ..
......-......
... .."
tl";
I.'" ..,.'
....
I. ..,.'
....
.... ...
..,.'
C888&M.1"""",.
~
lac...
- 8.1.. "11
....
t. .."
............
.. ....
..."..,..
II -
,....u....
'.8" ...
....-co . ...
-
... .1.
I.." ..,.
,.......
.....
I.'" .."
UA
IL...hUI
,....
...........,...
'.10. 'U"
II ..,.
'...
.........."..
,....
.........,...
'U8,
...........,...
....... ....
I.". ...
_.
... ..,.'
....... '.1""'" ... .. C_I68a..
... 111&
.... ,..,....
. 'I .." .1...
....
" .."
....,
II ..,.
_.
" ..,.
....
U" "'I
IIW
...
... ..,.'
-
...
. ...,..
IiM
..'" .....
... ..,.
U-. .....
.- ..',
M.
..~. .....
.. ..,.
..., .,...
. .."
M'
.. -, .....
...... ..,.'
.." .....
...... ..,.'
8&
... ...' ....
._11 .."
....
.11 ..,.
.... . ..',
...
It "'I
....
I" ..,.
-..
... ..,.
Mil. I ...
leAf. II...
U'.II
... ..
-------
M:L
S~
TSCA
ICRA
EP'R:
See
PEL
a;HA
eM
~
MN
HNDH
RAL
NIOSH
Std
CAG
EPA
~
TEL
10-5,
ALIP
ALI.1
PCAP
ACGIH
AW;1:,
~
Table 1 continued
Maxinum Contaminant level
Safe Drinking Water Act
Toxic Substan:::es Control Act Cleanup Policy
Resource Conservation and RecoveJ:y Act
Extr~ction Procedure Toxicity
Sec:orda1:y
PeI:missible ~ level
O::cupational Safety and Health Act
Clean Air Act
National Primary and 5ecoOOary Air C\1ality Standard
Minnesota
Minnesota DepartJTent of Health
Recannended Allowable Limit
National Institute for O::cupational Safety and Health
Standard
Carcinogen Assessment Group
U. S. Environrrental Protection Aqercy
Ambient Water ~ity Criterion, drinking water plus fish
Toxicity Exposure Level
10-6 risk Concentratign corre~ponding to a lifetine incremental cancer
risk of 10- or 10-
Advisory level upper ~ for direct inhalation and ingestion by
children with pica, 10- risk at 0.175 ug/day dose
AdvisoIj' level l~ l::xJuOO for inhalation .1 Ian fran site, 10-5 risk
at 0.175 ug/day dose
ALIP with 10 inches of clean soil
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
.Ant>ient Water c.uality Criterion in navigable waters
Drinking Water Criteria
-------
'rable 2
R::IsemJunt ":-rrch Center, R::IsemJunt, Mi.nneBcJta
&mnaI:y of JBsdia1 Alternatives: WE/PE/tET Sites
AI. tel:native
1: It:> Action
2: Limited Site
Controls
3: PeDtea.ble Cover
4: lJrFeD1l3able Cap
SA: On-Site TSCA
Vaul t
5B: On-Site R:RA
Vault
6A: On-Site
Extraction an::i
Biodegradation
6B: Q1-Si te
Extraction
Features
Long-teDn nDni toring
Fen=e areas where
PCBs > 25ppn, lead
> 1000 ppn; adjust deed
to reflect contamination;
soil venting
1.5 foot thick soil cover
over areas where PCBs >
25 ppn; soil venting to
rEI'IDYe solvents; soil with
netals disposed off-site.
2.5 or 4 foot thick clay
and topsoil cap; soil with
netals disposed off-site
On-site disposal of PCB
soil in vault lined with
clay, narbran=e, and
geotextile; soil with
netals disposal off-site
On-si te disposal of both
PCB an::i netal contaminated
soil
Excavation; direct bio-
degradation or solvent
extraction followed by tN
light dechlorination am
biodegradation; back-
filling; soil with netals
disposed off-site
Excavation; all soil
uncierq:)es solvent
extraction tN light
dechlorination and
biodegradation; backfilling;
soil with metals disposed
of off-site
Goals
It:> action
Restrict access
to contaminated
soil; inhibit
PCB migration
Prevent direct
contact with
contaminated soil;
reduce PCB JlDbility
Prevent direct
contact and reduce
PCB JlDbility;
rEI'IDYe soil >1,000
ppn lead
Isolate PCBs fran
enviroment; rEI'IDYe
soil> 1,000 ppn
lead
Isolate PCBs an::i
lead fran
enviroment; rEI'IDYe
soil > 1,000 ppn lead
Treat soils
> 25 ppn PCBs;
D!IIDVe soil
> 1,000 ppn lead
T.reat soil
> 25 ppn PCBs;
rEI1DVe soil
> 1,000 ppm lead
Present
~rth Cost
$24,000
$130,650
$600,000
$570,300 for
2.5 ft. cap
$897,000 for'-
4.0 ft. cap
$3,006,550
$3,128,050
$13,112,650
$12,974,950
-------
. -'....--- .-
Present
Al ternati ve Features Q:)als W:>rth Cost
-
6C: Q1-5ite Excavation; direct bio- Treat soil > $11,287,450
Extraction and degradation or solvent 25 RJI' PCBs;
Biodegradation; extraction; backfilling; J:EI1OVe soil > 1,000
Off-5ite fluid phase in:inerated RJI' lead
In=ineration off-site; soil with netals
disposed off-site
6D: Q1-Site Excavation; solvent Treat soil > $11,086,300
Extraction; extraction; backfilling; 25 ppn PCBs;
Off-Site fluid phase i~inerated rencvesoil> 1,000
I~ineration off-site; soil with netals ppn lead
disposed off-site.
7A: On-Site Excavation; direct bio- Treat soil > $12,686,250
I~ineration degradation or in:ineration; 25 ppn PCBs;
and backfilling; soil with rem::M! soil > 1,000
Biodegradation netals disposed off-site ppn lead
7B: On-Site Excavation; in:ineration; Treat soil > $12,578,250
I~ineration backfilling; soil with 25 ppn PCBs;
netals disposed off-site J:'E!I1DVe soil > 1,000
ppn lead
7C: On-Site 'n1emal Excavation; direct bio- Treat soil > $ 7,581,900
Desorption, Bio- degradation or themal 25 ppn PCBs;
degradation and desorption; backfilling; rencve soil > 1,000
Fume Irr=ineration funes in:inerated; soil ppn lead
with rretals disposed
off-site
7D : On-Site 'lbeDnal Excavation; theDna1 Treat soil > $ 7,372,650
Desorption and desorption with £mes 25 ppn PCBs;
Fume In:ineration in:inerated; backfilling; rencve soil > 1,000
soil with metals disposed ppn lead
off-site
7E : On-Site 'n1eI:mal Excavation; direct bio- Treat soil > $ 8,083,900
Desorption, Bio- degradation or theDnal 25 ppn PCBs;
degradation and desorption with f\.I'Ies con- ran:JVe soil > 1,000
f\:IIe Condensation densed and in:inerated; ppn lead
backf illing; soil
JEtals dic,~ off-site
7F: Q1-Si te '1beI:mal Excavation; t.heImal desorp- Treat soil > $ 7,934,050
Desorption and tion f\mes condensed, in- 25 RJI' PCBs;
P\ne cinerated off-site; back- ratDVe soil > 1,000
Condensation . filling; 80il with netals ppn lead
disposed off-site
-------
- -. - .. - --.- - .
AI temative
Features
Goals
7G: Q\-Site 'n1ennal Sane as 70 except excavation Treat soil >
Desorption anj and consolidation of soil 25 ppn PCBs:
fUIe In:ineration with 10 to 25 ppn PCBs~. rEI1DVe soil >
. 50 "to 1,000 ppn lead ppn lead
and covered at GUE
7H: Q\-Site 'n1ennal
Desorption and
F\.I'Ie
Incineration
7I: Q1-Site 'n1ennal
Desorption and
Furre
Iocineration
SA: Off-Site
LaOOfill
8B: Off-Site
Iocineration
Sane as 70 except
excavation and
consolidation of soil
with 1 to 25 ppn PCBs and
50 to 1,000 ppn lead
and covered at GUE
Sane as 70 except
excavation and
consolidation of soil
with 10-25 ppn PCBs and
covered at GUE
Off-site disposal of PCB
and lead contam.i..nated
soil in ICRA and TSCA
facility
Off-site iJrineration of
PCB contaminated soil;
soil with netals disposed
off-site: requires staged
excavation
1,000
Treat soil to >
25 ppn PCBs:
rEI1DVe soil> 1,000
ppn lead
Treat soil>
25 ppn PCBs:
rEI1DVesoil>
ppn lead
1,000
RsrDve soil >
25 ppn PCBs:
rEI1DVe soil >
1,000 ppn lead
Treat soil >
25 ppn PCBs;
rEI1DVe soil 1,000
ppn lead
*Iocludes 70'8 present worth value ($7,372,650) + $138,798.
Present
~rth Cost
$ 8,075,200
$ 9,527,200
$ 7,511,448*
$16,744,050
$54,234,900
-------
Table 3
Ib:IEmJunt Ree=-mch Center, 1b:IEmJunt, Mi.nneeata
~ of ~i1l1 Alternatiwsl aIm Pit Sits
AI ternati ve
1: Ib action
2: Carbon Filters
P\mp Out Systan
3: New Residential
Wells; Purrp Out
Systan
4 : Exterx1i.ng RK: Water
Supply; Purrp Out
System
~: Extending Rcsa1Dunt' s
Water Supply; P\.ITp
Out Systan
6: New Water Supply;
Purrp Out System
- Features
tb1e
Point-of entry activated
carbon filters in tales
with contaminated wells;
purtp out well am air stripper
New wells screened in the
Fraoconia for residents with
contaminated wells; purrp out
well am air stripper
Exterrl existing RK: water
distribltion lines to residents
withlwitiDut option for further
expansion; purtp out well am
air stripper
Exterd existing RoSEJrDUnt
water distribltion lines to
residents with contaminated
wells withlwitiDut option
for further expansion; purtp
out well am air stripper
Construct an iJldepeldant water
distribltion system to residents
with contaminated wells with/
witiDut option for further
expansion; purtp out well am
air stripper
Goals
Ib action
Treat growrl water
to 57 ppn chlorofoIm*;
provide clean drinking
water to residents
Treat grourd water to
57 ppn chlorofoIm;
provide clean drinking
water to residents
Treat groun:i water to
57 ppn chlorofoIm;
provide clean drinking
Treat groum water to
57 ppn chlorofoIm;
provide clean drinking
water to residents
Treat ground water
to 57 ppn chlorofoIm:
provide clean drinking
water to residents
*Carb:m filters are capable of treating to belaw chlorofoD1\'s detection limit.
-------
Table 4
a-.~ Aaesl5lrch Canter, a:-.. -.mt, JIi.nne8Ota
Qmparison of R3nBdia1 Alternativesl ~ of '1bxicity, M:bility, am Vbluae
A1 ternative
GJE/PE/tBI' Sites
1: It) k:tion
2: LiJfti.ted Site Control
3: PeI:meable Cover
4 : IJTpmtBable Cap
SA: TSCA Vault
5B: R:RA Vault
6A: Extraction/Bicxiegradation
6B: ExtraCtion
6C: Extraction/Bicxiegradation/
1n:ineration
6D: Extraction/1n:::ineration
7A: 1n:ineration/Bicxiegradation
7B: Incineration
7C: 'n1emal Desorption/
Biodegradation/Fume
Incineration
7D: 'n1emal Desorption/Fume
Incineration
7E: 'l'heI:mal DesoIption/
Biodegradation/Condensation
7F: 'l'heI:mal DesoIption/
Condensation
7G: 'l'heI:mal Desorption/F\Ire
In::ineration
7H: 'lb!J:mal Desorption/F\Ire
1n:ineration
71: 'l'heDnal Desorption/F\Ire
:tn=ineration
SA: Off-Site LaOOfill
8B: Off-Site In:ineration
Toxicity (T)
1£
!tX>ilitv (M)
1£
Overall
Vbl\Kle (V) ~
1£
1£
L
1£
1£
~M
NE
1£
lr-M
NE
1£
M-H
NE
1£
M-H
NE
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
M-H
M-H
M
+
1£
M-H
1£
M-H
M-H
M
+
-------
...'.'-.-"--- .
Table 4 (ocnt.inJad)
PoeEA::Iunt nee:f':I%Ch Center, ~, Mi.nneeota
CaIpari.eon of AEm3dial ~tematives: Reduction of 'JUJdcity, lti>llity, and Vbl\8E
Al ternative Overall
&1m Pit Sites Toxicity (T) . !obbility (M) Volllle (V) MIV
--
1: It> Action NE NE NE
2: Cart:on Filters; H H M-H +
P\.Jrp ~t Systan
3: New Residential wells; H H M-H +
P\mp ~t Systan
4: Extend RR:: Water Supply; H H M-H +
P\.Jrp ~t Systan
5: Extend RosenDunt Water H H M-H +
Supply; P\.Jrp ~t Systan
6: New Water Supply; P\.Jrp CAlt H H M-H +
Systan
"NE" neans oot effective
"L" neans little effect
10M" neans nDderatelyeffective
"H" means highly effective
"+" neans generally favorable in catparison to other alternatives
"-" neans generally unfavorable in catparison to other alternatives
-------
/ "
'1'8ble 5
~ Rase ~rch Center, R:IBEmJunt, Minna80ta
Catparison -of ~h,1 Alternatives: 0Jst Analysisa
Al ternative
GUE/PE/UST Sites:
. Cap! tal Cost
1: No Action
2: Limited Site Control
3: PeIneable Cover
$
-0-
106,650
486,000
4: ~DmBable Cap: 2.5ft. 456,300
4.0ft. 783,000
SA: TSCA Vault
5B: RCRA Vault
6A: Extraction am
Biodegradation
6B: Extraction
6C: Extraction,
Biodegradation, and
Off-Site Iocineration
2,873,560
2,995,060
13,112,650
12,974,950
11,287,450
6D: Extraction, Off-Site 11,086,300
In:ineration
7A: In:ineration an:i
Biodegradation
7B: Iocineration
7C: 'lbaDnal Desorption,
Biodegradation, an:i
F\Ine Iocineration
12,686,250
12,578,250
7,581,900
Annual Total
o " M Cost Period Present ~rth
$ 800 30 yrs. $ 24,000
800 30 yrs. 130,650
3,800 30 yrs. 600,000
3,800 30 yrs. 570,300
3,800 30 yrs. 897,000
4,433 30 yrs. 3,006,550
4,433 30 yrs. 3,128,050
-0- 1 yr. 13,112,650
-0- 1 yr. 12,974,950
-0- 1 yr. 11,287,450
-0- 1 yr. 11,086,300
-0- 1 yr. 12,686,250
-0- 1 yr. 12,578,250
-0- 1 yr. 7,581,900
~t analysis fran Alternatives Report, N:::M!1iJer 1986
-------
. . - -- - .
Table 5 (oont.imed)
RJsennmt Ras~!trCh Center, ~, M.inne8ota
-
Catparison of AeInedial Alternatives I Cost Analysis
Annual 'lbtal
AI ternati ve . Cap! tal Cost 0 " M Cost Period Present ~rth
SA: Off-Site 16,744,050 -0- 1 yr. 16,744,050
l.aR1fill
8B: Off-Site 54,234,900 -0- 1 yr. 54,234,900
IB:ineration
Bw:n Pit Sitea:
1: t
-------
Table 5 (oontiJuad)
RJeenDunt Research Center, 1tJeEmJunt, Minneeota
- .
0;Irp\risc:m of IBBdia1 Alternatives: 0Jst Analysis
7E: 'lbmnal Desorption,
Biodegradation,
Condensation
8,083,900
Annual Total
o , M Cost Period Present ~rt.h
-0- 1 yr. 7,372,650
-0- 1 yr. 8,083,900
AI ternative
. Cap! tal Cost
7D: 'lbmnal Desorption,
PUle IR::ineration
7,372,650
7F: 'lbmnal Desorption,
Condensation
7G: ~IJIa1 Desorption,
F\ne IR::inerator
(Excavation,
consolidation of
soil with 10-25 ppn
PCBs and 50-1,000 ppm
lead)
7,934,050
-0-
1 yr.
7,934,050
8,075,200
-0-
1 yr.
8,075,200
.,
7H: ~IJIal Desorption,
Fune IR::ineration,
(Excavation,
consolidation of soil
with 1-25 ~ PCBs and
50-1,000 ppm lead)
7I: 'tt1ennal Desorption, 7,511,448
Fume IR::ineration,
( Excavation,
consolidation of soil
with 10-25 ppm PCBs)
bAdditional vol\me to be consolidated is estimated to be 22,793 cubic yards (See
InteI:national Techn:>1ogy CoJ:POration (IT) letter dated Decsllber 13, 1988).
Cldlitional volume to be consolidated is estimated to be 60,458 cubic yards (See IT letter
dated Dece.at.er 13, 1988). :
9,527,200
-0-
1 yr.
9,527,200
-0-
1 yr.
7,511,448
-------
Tl!lble 6
RJsEmJunt Res"'''Y''Ch Canter, RJsEmJunt, Mi.nneeota
N1ne Criteria Evaluatiau WE/PE/tS'!' Sites
Alternative 1 Evaluation
Deecriptim:
No Action
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TemI Ef fecti veness
Not effective. No reduction of threat to
ground water or direct contact.
Not effective. Lead and PCBs may
potentially enter ground water
and will persist at hazardous levels in
soil; 30 year JlDnitoring period.
2. Long-'Iez:m Effectiveness
and Pennanerce
3. Reduction of 'lbxicity,
M::>bility and Volune ('lMV)
Not effective.
4.
Dmplernentability
Inplernentable.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital: 0
Annual ~ Cost: $800 per year for
30 years
Present Worth value: $24,000
6. Cari>liarx=e with ARMs
NorcU11i-'1iant with soil and ground
water ARMs.
7. Overall Protection of Human
Heal th and the Enviroment
Not protective. Persistence of
contaminants pose threat to human
health and the enviroment.
8.
Suwort Aqercy Accept.a.rX:e
Not acceptable.
art. acceptable.
9 . Camunity Accept.a.rX:e
-------
T8ble 6
R::IBenIJunt Aest>~TCh Oenter, ftJeEmJWIt, M.i.nnesota
N!J1e Criteria BvaluatiOIU QE/PEIUST Sites
Alternative 2 Bvaluat.i.a1
De8Criptioo: Limited Site Control - feocing of areas where PCBs exr:eed 25 RJ1I
and lead exceeds 1,000 RJ1I; soil venting; adjustnent of deed.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TeDn Effectivness
Ji:)t effective. Potential for direct
contact wi. th PCBs and lead persists;
lead may migrate to ground water.
3.
Reduction of 'lbxicity,
fobbility and Volune ('IMV)
Not effective. Contaminants remain at
hazardous levels at surface and lead and
PCB will continue to have the potential
to enter grouOO water; ,30 year
nonitoring period.
ION - soil venting may inhibit
lIDbility of PCBs; toxicity and velune
\n:hanged .
2. IDng-Tem\ Effectiveness
and PeDnanence
4.
Inplarentability
Technically and aaninistratively
feasible.
6. Carpliarx:e with ARARs
Capital: $106,650
Annual O&M Cost: $800 per year for 30
years
Present Worth Value: $130,650
Norratpliant with soil and groum
water ARARs.
5. Cost Criteria
7. Overall Protection of Ibnan
Health and the EnvL.V18lcut
Not protective. Persist.en:e of
c:cntami.nants pose threat to human
heal th and the envirorlnant.
8. Suwort Aqercy Acceptar¥::e
9. Camunity Acceptar¥::e
Ji:)t accq.,Lable.
Not acceptable.
-------
Table 6
~ I&Jearch Center, R:JeeiIInmt, Minnesota
Nine Criteria Evaluatiexu QJE/PE!\m Sit8
Alternative 3 Bvaluat.ia1
Deecript:.ion: PeJ:m3able Cover - excavation and off-site disposal of soil
contaminated with matals; E!I1'placatent of peDTeable cover over
areas where PCBs exceed 25 ~; soil venting.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TeI:m Effectiveness
Effective - requires only minimal
handling an:! IIDVaTEnt of contaminated
soil.
2. IDng-Tenn Effectiveness
and PeDIanerx:e
M:x:Ierately effective - the catt>ination
of a cover and soil venting sOOuld
reduce the threat of direct contact
and ground water contamination;
deperdent on long-teDn maintenance;
30 year I1DI1itoring period.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
M:Jbility and volune ('IMV)
IDw - renoval of soil contaminated with
maWs reduces its on-site 'IMV; PCB
ncbility may be inhibited, volune and
toxicity unchanged.
4.
Inplem:mtability
Technically and aaninistratively
feasible.
5. Cost
Capital Cost: $486,000
Annual O&M Cost: $3,800 per year for 30
years
Present Worth Value: $600,000
6. Catpliarw:::e with ARARs
K:>r~;\JII~liant with U.S. EPA
PCB cleanup goals and Section 121 of
SARA.
7. Overall Protection of Health
Health an:! the EnvUoJ811&11t
M:xierately protective - threat of
groun::t water cont.amination and direct
contact reduced. PCBs remain on site at
hazarcDus levels.
8. Supp:>rt Aqercy Acceptan:e
9. Camunity kceptarr=e
R:>t ~t.able.
Not acceptable.
-------
. - .._.-.-..~_.- --.-- .
'l'IIble 6
R::Isem::Junt Res~eu:d1 Oentar, ~, Mi..nnesota
Kine Criteria Evaluatioru GE/PE/lST Sites
Alternative 4 Evaluation
DB8criptioo:
IJrpenteable Cap - excavation arx:i off-site disposal of soil
contaminated with netals; El'lplacarent of inpmteable clay cap
over areas where PCBs exceed 25 ppn.
Criteria
Evaluatioo
1. Soort-TeIm Effectiveness
Effective - requires minimal
handling and J1DVe!'Ient of contaminated
soil.
3. Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
flbbility and Volune ('lMV)
Mxlerately effective - the cap should
both inhibit PCB migration and rstDVe
threat of direct contact; dependent on
long-teJ:m maintenaoce; 30 year
JlDnitoring pericx:i.
IDw - cap may inhibit PCB JlDbili ty ,
mt reduce toxicity or velune.
2. IDng-TeIm Effectiveness
and PeDna.r1eoce
4.
IJrplementability
Technically and achinistratively
feasible.
6. Catplian:e with ARARs
Capital Cost: $456,000 - $783,000
Annual O&M Cost: $3,800 per year for 30
years
Present W::>rth Value: $570,400-
$897,000
~1\Jliant with u. S. EPA proposed
PCB cleanup goals am Section 121 of
SARA.
5. Cost Criteria
7. OYerall Protection of Human
Health and the Envirollueut
M:derately protective - threat of
direct contact and grouOO water
contamination reduced; PCBs remain on
site at hazartbus levels.
8. SUpport Aqerry AcceptarX:e
9. Camunity AcceptarX:e
~t acc.~t.able.
t
-------
Table 6
R;:)ee.~ Res e In'Ch Center, RJsEm:utt, Minnaeata
lj.ine Criteria Evaluation: GE/PE/tBl' Sit8
Alternative SA Evaluatia1
Deecript.ion: On-Site TSCA Vault - excavation am off-site disposal of soil
contaminated with netals; excavation of soil with 25 ppn or mre
PCBs aOO disposal in TSCA - pemnitted vault constructed on site.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-'I'eI:m Effectiveness
Effective - involves only a short
period of handling and m::M!ITeI1t of
contaminated soil.
2. IDng-Term Effectiveness
and PeDnaneJx:e
Effective - isolates contaminants
fran the enviroulent; depen:ient
on long-teDn maint.enan::e; 30 year
mnitoring period.
3. Reduction of 'lbxicity,
M:>bility and Volune ('IMV)
1DW - isolation of PCBs reduces their
mbility; toxicity and volune urx:hanged.
4.
Inplatentability
'lec:hnically am aaninistratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $2,873,560
Annual O&M: $4,433 per year for 30
years
Present \lbrth Value: $3, 006 , 550
6. Calpliarx:e with ARARs
~rx::arpliant with Section 121 of
SARA.
7. Overall Protection of Human
Health and the EnvL.OI.I~lt
!txierately protective -
significantly reduces threat of
direct contact aOO grouOO water
contamination; PCBs remain on site at
hazarcb1s levels.
8. Support Aqercy Acceptance .
9. Camunity Acceptance
~t ~Lable.
~ ~Lable.
-------
Table 6
It:IeEmJunt Res1-rch Center, RJeEmJunt, MinneBOta
Nine Criteria Evaluation: GE/PE/tm Sites
AlteJ:native 58 Evaluation
Description:
On-Site ICRA Vault - excavation of soil am ash containing greater
than 25 RJ1' PCBs ardIor greater than 1000 RJ1' lead; disposal in a
ICRA - pemnitted vault constructed on site.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TeDn Effectiveness
Effective - requires only a short
period of handling and J'IDVarellt of
contaminted soil.
2. Long-TeDn Effectivenss
and Pennanen=e
Effective - isolates contaminated
soil fran enviroUleJlt; deperxient on
long-teI:m maintenan::e; 30 year
nonitoring period.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
fobbility and Volune ('IMV)
~ - upgrac:tinq to ICRA pemni t
adds extra safeguards against
nobility; velure anj toxicity unchanged.
4.
Inplem:mtability
Technically and achinistratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $2,996,060
Annual O&M Cost: $4,433 per year for 30
years
Present M:>rth Value: $3,128,050
6. . Carpliance with ARARs
7. Overall Protection of Human
Health an:i the EnviromeJlt
M:n:.-u,¥liant with Section 121 of SARA.
!t:Iderately protective - threat
of direct contact and ground water
contamination significantly reduced.
PCBs remain on site at hazartDus levels.
8. Support Aqercy AcceptarX:e
9. Camuni ty AcceptarX:e
Not acceptable.
~t acceptable.
-------
Table 6
RJsenDunt Aesg iU'Ch Center, RJeErrDunt, Minnesota
Nine Criteria Evaluation: WE/PE/tBl' Sites
Altemative 6A Evaluatioo
Daecription: Solvent Extraction am Biodegradation - excavation am off-site
disposal of soil contaminated with netals; solvent extraction, W
light dechlorwtion, an:i activated sludge treat:nent of Aroclor
1260 soil: d.i.Iect. biodegradation of Aroclor 1242 soil;
backfilling of soil; sewering of wastewater.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TeDn Effectiveness
Low - requires long periods of
handling, JIDVa1ent and stockpiling
of contaminated soil.
2. lDng-TeDn Effectiveness
am PeDnanen::e
M:xierately effective - represents a
pennanent reduction in C?J1taminant
levels, but may oot neet ARARs.
3. Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
fot:>bility and Volume ('lMV)
Mxierately to highly effective -
'lMV reduced by biological destruction
of PCBs: lIDbili ty of netals in soil
reduced .
4.
Inplem:mtabili ty
Technically feasible, acininistratively
ca1plex.
Capital Cost: $13,112,650
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present Worth Value: $13,112,650
5. Cost Criteria
6. Carplian=e with ARARs
May not attain u.s. EPA proposed PCB
cleanup goal.
M:xierately to highly protective -
significantly reduces contaminant
levels, decreasing threat of direct
contact an:! groun:i water contamination.
7 . Overall Protection of Human
Heal th an:! the Emriroment
8. Support}qercy Acceptarx:e
9. Camunity kceptarY:e
Not acceptable.
Not acceptable.
-------
Table 6
~e~t 1Ias:- !l%Ch Center, Jt)eejelCAlnt, Minneeota
Nine Criteria EvaluatiOIU QE/PE/tBl' Sites
Alternative 6B Evaluation
DBecripticx1:
Solvent Extraction - excavation arr:1 off-site disposal of
soil contaminated with netals; excavation, solvent extraction; W
light dechlorination, and activated sludge treat:nent of all soil
greater than 25 ppn PCBs; sewering of wastewater; backfilling of
soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Soort-'I'eIJn Effectiveness
lDw - requires long periods of
haOOling, nDVing arr:1 stockpiling
contaminated soil
2. lDng-TeDn Effectivness
and PeDt'IarIen:e
Mxlerately effective - .pennanently
reduces contaminant levels, but may
not neat ARMs.
r
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
Jobbility and Volurre ('IMV)
M:xierately to highly effective - 'DtV
reduced. by biological destruction of
PCBs; nobility of netals in soil
reduced.
4.
IJrplE!'ler1tabili ty
'n!chnically and acininistratively
feasible.
S. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $12,974,950
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present WDrth Value: $12,974,950
May mt attain U.S. EPA proposed
PCB cleamp goal.
6. Calpliarx::e with ARMs
7. Overall Protection of H\m\an
Health arr:1 the Envirorment
Mxlerately to highly protecti~ -
significantly reduces contaminant
levels, decreasing threat of direct
contact and groum water contamination.
8. SuJ;p:>rt kJercY Accept.arr:e
9. Camuni ty Accept.arr:e
M:>t acceptable.
M:>t acceptable.
-------
'!'able 6
It:JserrDmtt Rest»MCh Center, 1t:JserrDmtt, MinrE80ta
RiDe Criteria Evaluation: QE/PE/u;'1' Sites
Alternative 6C Evaluation
DBscription :
Solvent Extraction and Biodegradation, Off-Site In:::ineration -
excavation and solvent extraction of Aroclor 1260 soil; direct
biodegradation of Aroclor 1242 soil; carbon filtration and
off-site in:::ineration of liquid phase; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1.
Soort-TeDn Effectiveness
1DW - requires long periods of
handling, l1O\Ting and stockpiling
contaminated soil.
2. IDng-'I'enn Effectiveness
and Pe1:manen:::e
H:xierately effective -
pennanently reduces contaminant
levels, but may oot neet ARARs.
3.
Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
M:)bility and Volume ('IMV)
M:xierately to highly effective -
'lMV reduced by biological and/or
theImal destroction of PCBs;
lIDbility of netals in soil
reduced .
4.
1Jrplsrentability
Technically feasible;
acininistratively ~lex.
Capital Cost: $11,287,450
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present W:>rth Value: $11,287,450
5. Cost Criteria
6. Carpliarr=e with ARARs
May rot attain U. S. EPA PCB
cleanup policy.
M:xierately to highly protective
- significantly reduces
contaminant levels, decreasing
threat of direct contact and
grouOO water contamination.
7. Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Enviroment
8.
Suwort Aqercy Accept.aIY=e
~t acceptable.
9. Camuni ty Accept.aIY=e
~t acc.1::1-'Lable.
-------
T8ble 6
RJeEmJunt Raea!II:'Ch Center, A;)eemJunt, Ki.nneeota
JUne Criteria Evaluatiolu Wf'./w./tBr Sites
Alternative 6D Evaluation
Deecription:
Solvent Extraction am Off-Site In=ineration - excavation am
off-site disposal of soil contaminated with netals; excavation am
solvent extraction of all soil with greater than 25 ppn or I1Dre
PCBs; carlxm filtration am off-site in=ineration of liquid phase;
backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Soort-TEmn Effectiveness
low - requires long periods of
harrlling, lIDVing am stockpiling
contaminated soil.
2. lDng-TEmn Effectiveness
and Pennanerce
M:xierately effective -
pennanently reduces contaminant
levels, but may oot neat ARARs.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
M:>bility am Volune ('lMV)
M:>derately to highly effective -
'D1V reduced by theI:mal
destruction of PCBs; lIDbility of
metals in soils reduced.
4.
IIrplE!ll'entabili ty
Technically am acininistratively
feasible.
Capital Cost: $11,086,300
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present Worth Value: $11,086,300
5. Cost Criteria
6. Carplian=e with ARARs
May oot attain u. S. EPA
PCB cleanup policy
7. Overall Protection of Ibnan
Health am the EnviroJnent
M:>derately to highly protective
- significantly reduces
contaminant levels, decreasing
threat of direct contact and
groun:i water contamination.
8. Support Aqerry AcceptlmCe
9. Camuni ty AcceptlmCe
M:>t ~le.
M:>t acceptable.
-------
Table 6
IbJenDunt Res~"~ Center, RJeenDunt, Minnesota
Nine Criteria Evaluation: QE/PE/tSI' SitE
Alte:mative 7A Evaluation
Deecriptiona
On-Site In:i.neration and Biodegradation - excavation and off-site
disposal of soil contaminated with netalsi excavation and
iocineration of Aroclor 1260 soil; excavation, biodegradation and
iocineration of Aroclor 1242 soil; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluati.on
1. Short-Tem Effectiveness
ra,.r - requires long periods of
handling, ncving and stockpiling
of contaminated soil; potential
for Emission of air pollutants.
2. LDng-Tem Ef fecti veness
and Pennanen::e
Highly effective - pennanent1y
reduces contaminants to below
ARARs .
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
MJbility and Volume ('lMV)
M:rlerately to highly effective -
'IMV reduced by thenral
destruction of PCBs; nobility of
netals in soil reduced.
4.
Inp1enentability
Technically feasible,
actninistratively catplex.
Capital Cost: $12,686,250
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present Worth Value: $12,686,250
5. Cost Criteria
6 . Catplian:e with ARARs
7. Overall Protection of Human
Heal th and the EnviroJlueht
Catplies with all ARARs.
Highly protective - significantly
reduces contaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact and groun:1 water
contamination.
8. Supp:>rt Aqerry Acceptan::e
9. Camunity Acceptan::e
tbt acceptable.
tbt acceptable.
-------
Table 6
a..-:-.1AUlt Resg!lrCh Center, R::JsEm:Junt, Minneeata
Njne Criteria EvaluatiOlU GE/PE!\m Sites
Alte:mative 7BEvaluatiOl1
DescriptiOl1:
On-Site Iocineration - excavation and off-site disposal of
lead-bearing ash; excavation and iocineration of all soil with
greater than 25 ppn PCBs; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Soort-Tenn Effectiveness
1Dw - requires long periods of
handling, J1DVing and stockpiling
contaminated soil; p:>tential for
emission of air p:>llutants.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
M:>bility and Volume ('lMV)
Highly effective - pemanently
reduces contaminant levels to
below ARARs.
M:xierately to highly effective - ,/"
'JMV reduced by the1:mal
destruction of PCBs; nobility of
metals in soils reduced.
2. Long-'l'eDn Effectiveness
and Penna.nen=e
4.
Inplenentability
Technically and aaninistrative1y
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $12,578,250
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present M;)rth Value: $12,578,250
6. Carpliarx;e with ARARs
7. CNerall Protection of HurIBn
Health and the Enviroll'l1eJ at
Carplies with all MARs.
Highly protective - significantly
reduces contaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact and grauOO water
contamination.
8. Support Aqercy ~
9. Camunity ~
Not acceptable.
M:>t acceptable.
-------
Table 6
R::JeEmJunt Ras = ~rch Center, R::JeEmJunt, Minnesota
Nine Criteria Evaluation: WE/PE/\ST Sites
Alternative 7C Evaluation
Description:
On-Site 'lhez:mal Desorption Biodegradation and Fune Iocineration,
- excavation am off-site disposal of soil contaminated with
netals; excavation am thermal desorption of Aroclor 1260 soil;
excavation, biodegradation and thermal desorption of Aroclor 1242
soil; in::ineration of off-gases; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Soort-TeD1\ Effectiveness
IDw - requires long periods of
handling, m:::rving and stockpiling
contaminated soil; potential for
em.i.ssion of air pollutants.
2. Long-Tenn Effectiveness
and Pemanence
Highly effective - peD'Ml'lently
reduces contaminant levels to
below ARARs.
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
!t:>bility am Volune ('lMV)
M:xierately to highly effective -
'lMV reduced by theD'nal
destruction of PCBs ; nobility of
Detals in soil reduced.
4.
InplEllentabili ty
Technically feas.ible,
acininistratively
catplex.
Capital Cost: $7,581,000
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present W:>rth Value: $7,581,000
5. Cost Criteria
6. Carpliarx:e with ARARs
Carplies with all ARARs.
7 . Overall Protection of Ibnan
Health and the EnvL-vJaieht
Highly protective - significantly
reduces contaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact am ground water
contamination .
8.
5q:p)rt Aqeocy kceptar¥:.'e
M:>t acceptable.
9. Camuni ty AcceptarX:e
M:>t ~t.able.
-------
Table 6
RJsEIIDunt Resoarch Center, 1tJeenDunt, Mi.nneeota
Ni!.e Criteria Evaluatiexu WE/PE/tm Sites
Altemative 7D Evaluation
DB8cription:
On-Site '!'henna! Desorption with PU1e Irx:ineration - excavation and
off-site disp:>sal of soil contaminated with netals; excavation and
theDnal desorption of all soil with greater than 25 J:P1' FCBs;
incineration of off-qases; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-'IeDtl Effectiveness
low - requires long periods of
ltD\Ting, handling am stockpiling
contaminated soil; potential for
air pollutant emissions.
2. lDng-'IeDtI Effectiveness
Highly effecti~ - peDnanently
reduces contaminant and
PeIJnaneoce levels to below ARARs .
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
}t)bility and Volume ('lMV)
M:xierately to highly effective -
'lMV reduced by theJ::mal
destruction of PCBs; lIDbili ty of
netals in soil reduced.
4.
Inplarentabili ty
Technically and achinistratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $7,372,650
Annual O&M Cost: 0 .
Present ~rth Value: $7,372,650
Carplies with all ARARs.
6 . Carpli.arx:e with ARARs
7. Overall Protection of Human
Highly protective - significantly
reduces contaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact and grourx1 water
contamination.
8. Support Aqarcy Accept.arv=e
9. Camunity Accept.arv=e
Rrt. acceptable.
Acceptable.
-------
'1'able 6
a..-a0\U1t 1&J9~h Center, ~, Minnesota
HUe Criteria Evaluation: QJE/PB/\S'l' Sites
Alternative 7E Bvaluation
Description:
On-Site 'n1eIJna1 Desorption arrl Biodegradation, FUne Condensation -
excavation and off-site disposal of soil contaminated with metals;
excavation and theI:mal desorption of Aroc10r 1260 soil,
excavation, biodegradation arrl theIJnal desorption of Aroc10r 1242
soil; fume condensation; backfilling of soil; off-site
incineration of condensate.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-Tenn Effectiveness
1Dw - requires long periods of
m::wing, harrlling, and stockpiling
contaminated soil; sate handling
of condensate; potential for air
pollutants emissions.
2. lDng-TeDn Effectiveness
and PeIJ1\aI1eI1Ce
Highly effective - permanently
reduces contaminant levels to
belON ARARs.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
!t:>bility and Volume ('mV)
Mxierately to highly effective -
'mV reduced by the1:mal
destroction of PCBs; lIDbilityof
metals in soil reduced.
4.
Inp1enentabili ty
Technically feasible,
acininistratively ~lex.
Capital Cost: $8,083,900
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present Worth Value: $8,083,900
5. Cost Criteria
6. Carpliaoce with ARARs
7. Overall ProteCtion of Human
Health and the Envi.roment
Carplies with all ARARs.
Highly protective - significantly
reduces contaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact and grourd water
contamination .
8.
Support Aqercy Acceptan=e
l«Jt acceptable.
tbt acceptable.
9. Camuni ty kcept.a1'¥:e
-------
'l'able 6
IbsatOUDt Rasearch Center, 1bsatOUDt, Minnesota
Nine Criteria Evaluation: aE/pg/tBr SitM
Alt.ernative 7F Evaluation
Description:
On-5i te '1bmnal Desorption aOO Fume Cordensation - excavation arxi
off-site disposal of soil contaminated with rretals; excavation and
theDMl desorption of all soil with greater than 25 ppn PCBs; fune
coroensation aOO off-site in:ineration; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. 5hort-TeDl\ Effectiveness
1Dw - requires long pericxis of
m::wing, handling aM stockpiling
contaminated soil; sate handling
of cordensate; p:>tential for air
p:>llutant emissions.
2. IDng-TeDl\ Effectiveness
aM PeImane1'lCe
Highly effective - pennanently
reduceS contaminant levels to
belChl ARARs.
3.
leiuction of Toxicity,
M:>bility and volume ('lMV)
M:xierately to highly effective -
'lMV reduced by theDMl
destruction of PCBs; nobility of
Retals in soil reduced.
4.
InplEl1eI1tabil ty
Technically aM aQninistratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $7,934,050
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present W:)rth value: $7,934,050
6. Carplian:e with ARARs
Carplies with all ARARs.
7. Overall Protection of Human
Health an:! the Envi1:0UleJlt
Highly effective - significantly
reduces cont.aminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact aOO ground water
conUlmination .
8. Support AqerCy Acceptan:e
9. Camuni ty Acceptan:e
Not acceptable.
Not acceptable.
-------
_. -. - -_...#
Table 6
R...-::..LkJIIt Res9~ Center, 1bM:I1Dunt, Ki.nneeota
Nine Criteria Evaluation: GJE/PE/\BI' Sites
Altemative 7G Evaluation
Da8cription:
On-Site 'lbmnal Desorption and FUte Condensation - excavation
and off-site disposal of soil contaminated with netals; excavation
and consolidation of soil with fran 10 to 25 RJTI PCBs am 50 to
1,000 RJTI lead on GUE Site; and theIJnal deso~ion of all soil
with greater than 25 RJTI PCBs; f1.Ite condensation and off-site
iocineration; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1.
Soort-Tem Effectiveness
UM - requires long periods of
l1DVing, handling and stockpiling
contaminated soil; sane handling
of corxiensate; potential for air
pollutant emissions.
2. lDng-'IeI11l Effectiveness
and Pennanence
Highly effective - pennanently
reduces contaminant levels to
belCM ARARs.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
M::>bility and Volume ('1MV)
Mxterately to highly effective -
'1MV reduced by thexmal
destruction of PCBs; nobility of
netals in soil reduced.
4.
InplElTeJ1tabil ty
Technically and aaninistratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $8,075,200
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present W:>rth Value: $8,075,200
6. Carpliance with ARARs
7. Overall Protection of Human
Heal th and the Enviroment
Carplies wi. th all ARARs.
Highly effective - significantly
reduces contaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact and grourrl water
contamination .
8. Support Aqercy .Acceptance
9. Camunity Acc:eptM1Ce
M:>t acceptable.
M:>t acceptable.
-------
Teble 6
RJeEI1Dunt Aeeo-TCh Center, 1bIEI1DUnt, Minneeata
Ni.ae Criteria Evaluatioru QJE/PE/tST Si1:8
AI ternative 7H Evaluation
Descripticn:
O'1-Site 'n1e:rrnal Desorption am F\I'Ie Cordensation - excavation
and off-site disposal of soil contaminated with netals; excavation
and consolidation of soil with fran 1 to 25 pn PCBs and fran 50 to
1,000 ppn lead on GUE Site; excavation and theDna1 deso:cption of
all soil with greater than 25 ppn PCBs; f\.l'le condensation and
off-site i.ocineration; backfilling of soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1.
Short-Tenn Effectiveness
1DW - requires long periods of
lI'O\Ting, handling and stockpiling
contaminated soil; SCJ'Ie harrlling
of c::oOOensate; potential for air
pollutant emissions.
2. Long-Tenn Effectiveness
and Pennanence
Highly effective - pennanently
reduces contaminant levels to
bel~ ARARs.
3. Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
M:>bility and Vol\.l'le('lMV)
Mxierately to highly effective -
'lMV reduced by thermal
destruction of PCBs; RDbili ty of
netals in soil reduced.
4.
Inplementabil ty
'Iechnically difficult but
aaninistratively feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost: $9,527,200
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present Worth Value: $9,527,200
6. Catpliance with ARARs
7. Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Envirol8leJkt
Carplies with all ARARs.
Highly effective - significantly
reduces cantaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact and grouOO water
contamination.
8. Support Aqercy Acceptarx:e
9. Camunity Acceptance
N::>t ac:cq.,Lable.
~t acceptable.
-------
Table 6
~I(ADIt I8:Ic~TCh Center, RJeEI1DUnt, MinnesOta
Nine Criteria Evaluatiau GE/PE/tS'l'Sit8
Alternative 71 Bvaluaticn
Deecription:
On-Site 'lbmnal Desorption with Fune locineration - excavation am
off-site dispJSal of soil contaminated with netals; excavation am
thennal desorption of all soil with greater than 25 ppn PCBs;
incineration of off-gases; backfilling of soil; excavation am
consolidation of soil with fran 10 to 2S ~ PCBs.
Criteria
Evaluation
1.
Short-'I'eDn Effectiveness
ION - requires long periods of
noving, handling arxi stockpiling
contaminated soil; potential for
air pollutant emissions.
2. Long-'I'eDn Effectiveness
Highly effective ~ pemnanently
reduces contaminant an:i
PeI:rnanem:e levels to below ARARs.
3.
Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
M:>bility arxi Volune ('IMV)
M::xierately to highly effective -
'IMV reduced by thennal
destruction of PCBs; nrbility of
netals in soil reduced.
4.
InplElTeJ'1tabili ty
'l9:hnically an:i aaninistratively
feasible.
6. Catpliaoce with ARARs
7. Overall Protection of Hunan
Capital COst: $7,511,448
Annual O&M COst: 0
Present ~rth Value: $7,551,448
Catplies with all ARARs.
5. Cost Criteria
Highly protective - significantly
reduces contaminant levels,
decreasing threat of direct
contact am grourd water
contamination.
8. Suwort Aqercy Acc:ept:aR:e
9. Camuni ty Acc:ept:aR:e
Acceptable.
Acceptable.
-------
Table 6
~1iAU1t Rae: -~ Center, 1tJsEm::Jlmt, Minneeota
Nine Criteria Evaluatiolu GE/PE/tm Sites
Altemative SA Evaluation
Deecription: Off-Site Larxifill - excavation of soil contaminated with metals
with lead in excess of 1,000 wn arxi/or soil in excess of 25 wn
PCBs; off-site disp:>sal of these soils in a R:RA and TSCA approved
landfill licensed to accept both PCBs and lead; backfilling of
soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TeDn Effectiveness
Effective - requires only a short
period of harrlling and J1DVaIent
of contaminated soil.
2. lDng-TeDn Effectiveness
and PeDnanence
li:>t effective - merely IIDVeS
fran one site tQ aoother.
3. Reduction and 'Ibxicity,
M::>bility am Volurre ('lMV)
Low - PCB nobility may be
reduced; toxicity or volurre
wrhanged .
4., Inplatentability
Technically and achin.istratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capitol Cost: $16,744,050
Armual O&M: 0
Present WJrth Value: $16,744,050
6. Carpliance with ARMs
tbrCUII\1liant with U.S. EPA
proposed PCB cleanup goals and.
Section 121 of SARA.
7. Overall Protection of H\.Jnan
M:xierately protective - threat of
direct contact and groond water
contamination reduced.
8. Support Aqercy ~
9. Camunity Acceptance
li:>t ~Lable.
tbt acceptable.
-------
Table 6
~ Reet>~"("Ch Center, ~, M.i.nnesata
Nine Criteria Evaluatioru QE/PE/\Sl' Sites
Altm:native 8B Evaluation
Description: Off-Site Iocineration - excavation of soil contaminated with netals
with lead in excess of 1,000 ppn arxi/or soil in excess of 25 ppn
PCBs; off-site incineration of soil in a ICRA and TSCA awroved
facility liscensed to accept Ix>th PCBs and lead; backfilling of
soil.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TeDn Effectiveness
Low - requires staged excavation
arxi/or stoage of soiL
2. IDng-'I'eDn Effectiveness
arxi PeDnaneoce
Highly effective - permanently
reduces contaminant levels to
belOtl ARARs.
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
!ot>bility and Volurre ('IMV)
M:xierately to highly - 'IMV
reduced by themal destIUction of
netals and PCBs; nobility of
metals in soil reduced.
4.
Int>lementability
Technically and a
-------
Table 7
ft:)ee.,o.mt ftaerrrch Canter, RJsa1Dunt, MinneBata
Nine Criteria Evaluation: a.u:n Pit Site
Alternative 1 Evaluat.icn
Daecriptioo: M:> Action
Criteria
Evaluation
1.
Short-Te:cn Effectiveness
Not effective - contaminated growx1
water will continue to migrate.
2 . IJ:mg-Te:cn Ef fecti veness
and PeDnanence
M:>t effective - contaminated growx1
water will migrate to additional
residential wells.
3. Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
M::>bility and Volune ('IMV)
M:>t effective.
4.
Inplertentability
Inplertentable.
Capital Cost: 0
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present W::>rth Value:
o
5. Cost Criteria
6. Carplianc:e with ARARs
NoJx.'U1l-'liant with grouOO water ARARs.
7. Overall Protection of Hur'ran
Health and the Enviromeht
tbt protective of human health or the
enviromel1t as contaminants will persist
mx1 migrate.
8. Suwort Aqerry Acceptance
9. Camunity Acceptance
M:>t acceptable.
~ accq..Lable.
-------
.. ... .-. .
Table 7
Ib:IeI1Dunt J8!9'arch Center, ~1'O\JJ1t, Minnesota
..Nine Criteria Evaluation: ~ Pit Site
Altemative 2 Evaluation
Description: Activated Carlx>n Filtration - installation of two p:>int-of~tI:y
cartx:>n filters in series in h:Juses with contaminated wells;
punt> out well with air stri~r systan.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Soort-'Ienn Effectiveness
Effective - filters will J:'EI'IDVe
volatiles to belOW' detection limits;
purti> out well will inhibit further
migration of contaminants.
2. IDng-'Ienn Effectiveness
and Pennanence
Effective - filters, if properly
maintained, will continue to ratCVe
contaminants f~ residential water,
pmp out well and air stri~ will
control contaminant migration.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
!tX>ility an:i volume ('lMV)
M:xierate1y to highly effective - the
'lMV of contaminants in the grouOO water
will be significantly reduced, but the
contaminants are siJlt>ly shifted to
another nedi.a.
4.
Inplsrentabili ty
Technically feasible: aaninistratively
c:aII>lex .
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Present Worth Value:
$ 37,800
$486,000
$523,800
6. Catplian::e with ARARs
7 . Overall Protection of H\.Jnan
Heal th am the Emriroment
Catplies with all ARARs.
M:xierately protective - rem:wal of
contaminants f~ the grourrl water by
the filters am air striwer reduces
threat to human health am the
envi.roment, blt xequi%es 0 , M to avoid
chemical break through am tunan
exposure .
8.
Support AqerCy AcceptanCe
}t)t acceptable.
}t)t accept.able.
9. Ca1m.mity~
-------
Table 7
~ Jesearch Center, ~, Mi..nneeata
Jtine Criteria Evaluatiau ann Pit Site
Alternative 3 Evaluatim
Deecription:
New Residential Wells - construction of 20 new wells serving
27 families finished in the Fran::onia Fonnation; purtp out well arx:i
air stripper systan.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-TeDn Effectiveness
Effective - provides a potable water
supply to residents while controlling
contaminant migration.
3 . Reduction of '!bxici ty ,
M:>bility and Volume ('IMV)
Effective - provides a pmnanent potable
water supply am the air stripper will
ultimately rEI'ID'Je the contaminants fran
the grourrl water.
}obderately to highly effective - 'lMV
will be :reduced in the ground water, rot
contaminants are sirrply shifted to
amther madia.
2. IDng-'1'enn Effectiveness
am Pennanerv:e
4.
Inplenentability
Technically am aaninistratively
feasible.
Capital Cost: $220,000
Annual O&M Cost: 0
Present N:>rth Value $220,000
5. Cost Criteria
6. Catplian::e with ARARs
Catplies with all ARARs.
7. Overall Protection of H\Jnan
Heal th am the Erwin>dl16ut
Highly protective - clean water SUW1y
protects human health, PJIt1? out well and
air stripper control contaminant
migration.
8. Support Aqercy Acceptarx:e
9. Camunity Acceptarx:e
Acceptable.
R?t acceptable.
-------
Table 7
RJsEI1DUnt Res?!'rch Center, RJsEI1DUnt, Mi.nneeata
Mine Criteria Evaluation: amt Pit Site
Altemative 4 Evaluation
Deecription: Extension of roc Water Distril:ution Systan - existing roc water
supply systan expanded to service all or part of study area;
pmp out well and air stripper system.
Criteria
Evaluation
L
Srort-TeDn Effectiveness
Effective - provides a clean potable
supply while controlling contaminant
migration.
3. Reduction of 'lbxicity,
Mobility and Volume ('mV)
Effective - provides a pennanent potable
water sUR>ly and the air stri~ will
ultimately rem::JVe the contaminants fran
the groun:l water.
M:xierately to highly effective - the
air stri~ will reduce the '1MV of the
ground water, rot the contaminants are
siJrply shifted to awther nedia.
2. IDng-TeDn Effectiveness
and Pez:maneoce
4.
1J1Flem:mtability
Technically and actninistratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Present Worth Values:
$469,000 or more
6. Carplian=e with MARs
7. Overall Protection of Human
Health and the EnvL.vulIIl~l1t
Carplies with all MARs.
Highly protective - clean water supply
protects human health, PJI1t> out well and
air stripper controls contaminant
migration .
8. S\Jpp:)rt Aqercy ~
9. Camuni ty AcceptanCe
Acceptable.
tbt acceptable.
-------
Table 7 .
a.-I~ Res:rrch Center, ~, Mi.nnesata
.JUne Criteria Evaluatiolu a.mt Pit Site
Altemative 5 Evaluation
DBecrJ.ptian ExterXting RcsertDmt Water Distrihution System - existing
RcsertDmt water supply system exparx::Ied to service all or
part of study area; punp out well and air striwer system.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Soort-TeDn Effectiveness
Effective - provides potable water
supply to residents while controlling
contaminant migration.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
fobbility and Volune ('IMV)
Effective - prt'Nides a permanent potable
water supply an::! the air striwer will
ultimately rerrcve the contaminants fran
the grourx1 water.
Mxlerately to highly effective - TMV
will be reduced in the ground water,
but contaminants are sinply shifted to
an::n:her media.
2. lDng-TeDn Effectiveness
an::! PeJ:manerx;e
4 . IrrplE'l'le1'1tabili ty
Technically an:I acininistratively
feasible.
5. Cost Criteria
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Present WJrth Value:
$569,000 or more
6. Carplia.oce with ARARs
7. Overall Protection of HuIMn
Health and the Enviroment
Carplies with all ARARs.
Highly protective - clean water SUWly
protects human health; plItp out well and
air striwer controls contaminant
migration .
8. Support Aqercy Acceptar¥:e
9. Camunity kc:eptarY=e
Acceptable.
It:)t acceptable.
-------
Table 7
R:J6eIIDunt RaseaI:ch Center, R::IsemJunt, Minnesota
Nine Criteria Evaluation: Burn Pit Site
Alternative 6 Evaluation
Daecription:
In::Ieperx:lent Water Distribution Systan - construction of bIo wells
finished in the Fraoconia Fonnation, construction of bIo
pmp b::Juses an::i distribution lines to all or part of the study
area; pmp out well and air stripper systan.
Criteria
Evaluation
1. Short-'Ienn Effectiveness
Effective - provides a p:>table water
sUR>ly to residents while controlling
contaminant migration.
2. Long-'IeDn Effectiveness
and Pennanence
Effective - provides a pennanent potable
water supply and the air stripper will
ul tiJnately reJ1DVe the contaminants fran
the grourd water.
3. Reduction of Toxicity,
M:>bility and Volune ('001)
M:rlerately to highly effective - 'lMV
will be reduced in the grouOO water,
b..1t contaminants are siJrply shifted
to aoother media.
4.
IJrplenentability
Technically an::i aaninistratively
feasible.
5. Cost criteria
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Present ~rth Value:
$560,000 or more
7. CNerall ProteCtion of Human
Heal th and the Envirorl1ent
Carplies with all ARARs.
Highly protective - clean water SUWly
protects human health, air stri~r and
pmp out well controls contaminant
migration .
6. Carpliarv=e with ARARs
8 . Support Aqercy A/::eeptaJ'X=e
9 . Camuni ty A/::eeptaJ'X=e
Acceptable.
Acceptable.
-------
Table 8
QE/PE/t5T 5i1:8
CDJPARI~ .AKXH; Rm£DIAL ~
QE/PE/t5T 8i1:8
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 SA 5B,6A 6B 6C 6D 7A 7B 7C 7D 7E 7F 7G 7H 7I SA 8B
1.
SOOrt-TeI:m Effectiveness - -
- + -
+ + + +
- - -
- - -
- - - - - -
2 . Long-'n!nn Ef fecti veness
am Pennaneoce
+ + + + +
+ + + + - +
- + + -
- - -
- - -
3.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Jlbbility and volurre ('lMV')
- - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + - +
4.
+ + + + + + + + - + - + - + - + + - + + +
Inplanentability
'n!chnical Feasibility
Idninistrati ve Feasibility
Availability of Services
am Materials
5.
Costa
- - - - -
+ + +
- + - + - -
+ + -
+ + + +
6. Carpliance with ARARs
- + +
+ + +
+ + + + - +
- - - - -
- - + -
7.
Overall Protection of
Human Health am the
EnvirorJrent
+ + + + + + - ~
- - - -
- - - - -
- + + +
8.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - -
Suwort liqerCy
Acceptaoce
Camunity Acceptance
- - - - - - + -
- - -
+ - -
9.
- _. - - - - -
'!UrAL
-5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -7 -3 -7 -5 -1 +1 +1 +5 +1 +1 +3 -1 +7 -5 +1
MJtes: "+" means generally favorable in carparison to other alternatives
It_It neans generally unfavorable in carparison to other alternatives
a It_" neans cost greater than
AI. temati ve 7G (awroximately $8.1 million);
"+" oposite of "-"
-------
Table 9
1mn Pit Site
a:J'IPARI~ AK:XH; REHDIAL AL'1'ERNM'IVES
1mn Pit Site
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6
1.
Srort-TeDn Effectiveness
- + + + + +
2. Long-'fimn Effectiveness
and PeD'l\aJ'1eOCe
- + + + + +
3.
Reduction of 'Ibxicity,
M:>bility and Volume ('JMV)
InplaTentability
'Iechnical Feasibility
Mninistrati ve Feasibility
Availability of Services
and Materials
- + + + + +
4.
+ + + + + +
5.
Costa
NA~ NA NA NA NA
6.
7.
~liance with ARARs
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Enviroment
- + + + + +
8.
Support Aqerry Accept.an:e
- - + + + +
9. Camuni tv AcceptanCe
'!UrAL
- - - - - +
-5 +3 +5 +5 +6 +7
R:>tes: "+" means generally favorable in ~ison to other alternatives
"_" means generally unfavorable in carparison to other altematives
a Total Present ~rth calculations were oot required at the time this
.l.E!a.edy was evaluated am are oot in=luded.
-------
ATrACHMENl' 11
tlUVERSITY OF MINNESOrA Ja)ElOJNI' RESEAR:H CENIER
- Ja)EHXJNI', MINNESOrA
FINAL rerAILED ANALYSIS REPCRl' AND CCtCEPI' DESI~
RESPOOSIVENESS SUMMARY
'1hi.s camunity responsiveness sunmary has been developed to cb:urtent
responses to camunity ~llIeuts received during the ccmnent period on the
proposed L~IEdy for soil and ground water contamination at the University of
Minnesota RosatDUnt Research Center.
Descriptions of the recCI1IIeJ'ded alternative and the camunity involvatent
during the Rerredial Investigation and the Detailed Analysis Report discussions
are included in the Camunity Relations se<;JnEmt of the Record of Decision.
SUMMARY OF CCJtiJNITY senDunt area;
2. Disposal Det.b:xis for treated soils be determined based on soil
lead testing after treatment;
3. Cleanup criteria be established for PCIDs, PCDFs. chlm:obenzenes,
and heavy JEtal;
4. 'n!sting and nDnitoring be 00ne to ensure the efficien::y o~ the
-------
thennal desorption process for PCB soils;
S. Land dis~al sites be identified for all appropriate wastes fran
cleanup activities;
"
6. County ard-city of Jb;enDunt licenses ard penni.ts be 00tained
when needed for cleanup efforts;
7.
Growd water m:>nitoring plan be i.n=luded for all contaminants
that might be released fran the site;
8. The construction site be investigated prior to any construction
site plan developtent for cleanup activities;
9. A Health and Safety Plan provide are
infonted decision. 'D1e MPCA addressed each of the County's caments
as follows:
1. 'D1e lead criteria selected is sufficient to protect the public
health, welfare, and emriruUleJlt. To clean up to m:>re
restrictive criteria '
-------
proposed details for MPCA staff awroval. Treated soils
ranaining gn the site JIIlSt meet the selected criteria of 1,000
RJ1' total lead am 5 RJ1' lead by the E. P. Toxicity Test. 'lbese
tests will -provide sufficient ihfonnation for decision making.
3. Available am planned data correlations will allow for the
selection of irrlicator parameters.
If soil is cleaned up to PCB
am lead criteria, other contaminants will also have been
addressed .
4. Si.oce the site is listed on the National Priority List, the
proposed treatment facility is
-------
--.. .... _. - - ..
that groum water sOOuld be m:mitored for filtered lead in the
m:mitoring. plan.
8. '!he MPCA agrees that the proposed site sOOuld be tested prior to
f inalizinrt was awroved.
tm'ing the discussions, the County agreed with the MPCA that the PCB
criteria selected was adequate to protect the public health wder
current security arrangemmts, altbJugh they preferred a lower
criteria to enable future wu:estricted develop1E!l1t planning. A
letter to County EnmIVlrized the DEeting am asked for the County to
ootify the MPCA if they had questions about the MPCA' s smmary. tb
:cesponse was received; h:w:!ver, about six DDnths later the County
sent a letter to the MPCA that reiterated all of the County's
original \';u'II.eats.
-------
Attachment 2
Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document
Name:
University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center
Locati on:
The Site is located in all or part of Sections 25-28 and 33-36
T115N, R19W,-and Sections 1-4 and 10-14, T114N, R19W, Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota '
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the
analysis of the cost and effectiveness of the response action alternatives for
the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center.
Remedial Investigation Final Report dated November 26, 1985.
Feasibility Study Detailed Analysis Report dated February 25, 1986.
Response Action Agreement dated May 30, 1985.
DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED RESPONSE ACTION(S)
The Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document is limited to remedies which address'
only the ground water contamination by chloroform. Any additional response
actions that may be necessary as a result of on-going investigations, will be
the subject of a separate Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document when
appropriate.
The major components of the remedy for the ground water contamination problems
are: (1) new individual residential wells drilled into the Franconia aquifer
and (2) a ground water pump-out system to be located on the University property.
Wells will be sampled on a yearly basis for a minimum of five years by mutual
agreement between the University and the MPCA. Operation and maintenance of the
wells will be the responsibility of the owner of the individual wells. .
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Environmental Response and Liability Act of 1983 (ERLA), the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined
that the response action(s) at the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research
Center are cost-effective response actions that provides adequate protection of
public health, welfare, and the environment. In addition, the approved response
actions will require future operation and maintenance (0 & M) activities to
ensure the continued effectiveness of the response actions. These 0 & M
activities will be considered part of the approved response actions.
I have also determined that the approved response actions are cost-effective
alternatives when compared to the other response actions alternatives reviewed.
,.
.' .
-------
-2-
In accordance with Task H of Exhibit C to the Response Action Agreement between
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and University of Minnesota dated May 29,
1985, University of Minneso~a shall implement the approved response actions at
. univ:rsitY of Minnesota Rosemount Res~~: :e~_e~.:-Q.D~-
~~~~e Directo~
[r ~Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
v Attachments:
Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document
Response Order by Consent
-------
MINNESOTA ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT
This Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document (MEDD) summarizes the facts and
determjnations made by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff in
approving the recommended ground water response action alternative for
protecting the public "ealt~, welfare or the environment from the releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances from the University of Minnesota
Rosemount Research Center (UMRRC) Hazardous Waste Site (Site). Detailed
information regarding these facts and determinations is located in the MPCA
files.
SITE LOCATION
The Site is located in all or part of Sections 25-28 and 33-36, Tl15N, R19W,
and Section 1-4 and 10-14, Tl14N, R19W, Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota (see
attachment 1).
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
From 1967 to about 1974 the University of Minnesota (University) operated a
waste disposal/burn pit at the UMRRC. According to University records,
approximately 90,000 9allons or more of liquid hazardous wastes were disposed of
in the waste disposal/burn pit.
Some of this pooled liquid has infiltrated into
the underlying soil and has migrated to the ground water.
In June 1984, MPCA staff sampled numerous residential wells in the area of
the site and found 16 residential wells to the northeast of the Site to be
contaminated with chloroform above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) recommended level of 1.9 parts per billion. As a result of the levels of
chloroform found in the residential wells, the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) issued a Health Risk Advisory to twenty-seven families in July of 1984.
The University is providing bottled drinking water to those families affected by
the advisory.
A remedial investigation of the ground water contamination
confirms that the former University waste disposal/burn pit is.. the source'of the
.
-------
-2-
ground.water contamination.- This MEDD covers only the on-site and off-site
ground water contamination by chloroform.
It does not cover other necessary
on-site response actions which are the subject ..ofa feasibility study, which is
due in November 1986.
~
In October 1984, MPCA staff submitted a recommendation to the EPA that the
Site be included on the National Priority List (NPL). The Site has a Hazardous
Ranking System Score of 46.
ENFORCEMENT
In October, 1984, a Request for Response Action (RFRA) was issued by the
MPCA Board to the University with respect to the Site.
In May, 1985, a Response Action Agreement (Agreement) between the University
the MPCA was executed. The Agreement required the University to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), submit a Response Action Plan
(RAP), and Implement Response Actions at the Site.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The University began sampling on-site monitoring wells and off-site
residential wells in June of 1984 under direction of the MPCA staff. In August,
1984, the University submitted to the MPCA a RI Work Plan which outlined the
procedures which the University proposed for investigation of the Site.
In November, 1985, the University transmitted to the MPCA a Remedial
Investigation Final Report, for the ground water contamination portion of the
Site, verifying that the waste disposal/burn pit located on the UMRRC was the
source of the chloroform ground water contamination to the northeast of the
UMRRC.
The MPCA approved the Rl Final Report on December 26, 1985.
..~
-------
-3-
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Based upon the RI. -the MPCA staff has determined that response actions are
necessary at and around the Site to reasonably protect the public health.
welfare or the environment from the continuing release or threatened release of
~
hazardous substances from the Site.
The release and threatened releases
(releases) from the Site threaten the public health. welfare or the environment
as described below:
1)
The releases from the Site have caused an exceedence of the drinking
water guidelines in the ground water beneath and in the area of the Site.
These
releases generally preclude use of these public ground water resources as a
drinking water supply and thereby threaten the public health and welfare.
-.,
2)
The releases from the Site pose a present and potential contamination
threat to private wells in the vicinity of the Site. These releases present a
health risk to the users of private wells and thereby threaten the public health
and welfare.
RESPONSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The response objective for this portion of the Site is to:
Adequately protect the public against exposure to chloroform and other
volatile organic compounds through direct contact or ingestion of ground water
from private water supply system.
RESPONSE ALTERNATIVES
Only applicable and feasible technologies were evaluated for specific
engineering, cost, environmental, and institutional criteria consistent with the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). The following are brief description of each
alternative considered.
-------
-4-
ALTERNATIVE 1:
ACTIVATED CARBON FILTER SYSTEM
This purposed treatment system would be installed in each home and would
consist of installing acti~ated carbon filters,. capable of removing volatile
organic chemicals including chloroform, in a series with the incoming water
line.
.J
There are some disadvantages to this type of systems.
First, replacement of
the filters may be required every six months depending upon the amount of water
usage by each individual family.
Second, activated carbon filters have no
disinfectant capability, as such, bacterial contamination could be added to the
water. Third, the Minnesota Health Department does not have any rules or
regulations concerning these systems, and has indicated that approval for such a
s..-tem could be difficult to obtain.
Fourth, under this scenario continued
ground water monitoring and possibly increased monitoring of individual wells to
determine filter failure, would be necessary.
Lastly, the lateral and vertical
extent of the contaminated plume would continue to expand.
The estimated cost
per house is S1,400.00 with additional annual maintenance and monitoring cost of
$900.00 per house. Based on the 27 families affected the estimated cost is
$37,800 with replacement and monitoring costs of S24,300 per year.
AL TERNATI VE 2:
NEW INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL WELLS
Alternative 2 proposes the construction of new wells to replace existing
contaminated wells serving the families receiving bottled water. These wells
would be finished in the Franconia Sandstone Formation which is below, but which
is not hydraulically connected to the contaminated Prairie du Chien Formation.
This proposed alternative would provide a water supply that is nearly the'
same as what existed before the contamination problem occurred.
The only concern is that of proper construction of the wells.
Little.
information is known about the Franconia Formation in this area and there are no
..
-------
-5~
existing wells in the Franconia at present.
Therefore, a test well has been
completed to insure that tQe proposed well design and construction is adequate
to:
(1) prevent downward migration of contaminants and (2) to insure that the
Formation will not collapse- as it is being penetrated by the drill.
Original estimated costs for 20 wells to serve the 27 families affected was
$220,000.00.
Revised costs, which include iron filtration and water softening
~
units are $500,000.
ALTERNATIVE 3:
RURAL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM
Under this alternative, three systems, and for each system three designs,
were considered.
The three designs within each system are:
1.
Construction of a complete water system to cover present and future
needs for the entire water study area.
2.
Construction of only that portion of the system that is necessary to
/ ~
serve the 27 families receiving bottled water with proper sizing to allow for
expansion to meet future needs within the study area.
3.
Construction of a system adequate for only the needs of the 27 families
now on bottled water.
The three major systems considered are:
1.
Extension of the UMRRC water distribution system.
2.
Extension of the City of Rosemount's water distribution system.
3.
An independent water distribution system.
Estimated costs for each of the systems range from; $1,069,000 to $1,283,000
for design a; $627,000 to $813,000 for design b; and $469,000 to $569,000 for
design c respectively.
..
-------
-6-
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED ACTIONS
In.addition, the Univ~sity has elected to install a ground water gradient
control system, in conjunction with Alternative 2, on-site as a secondary
measure to prevent further-off-site migration of contaminants. This system will
~
also serve to expedite aquifer restoration.
The gradient control system is
~
scheduled to be implemented during the Fall of 1986.
SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 - the activated carbon filter system has a high maintenance
and monitoring cost.
If those systems were installed, they would have to be
monitored and maintained until the contaminated water has migrated from the
area. There is potentially a health risk from bacteria growing on the filters
and approval from the Minnesota Department of Health is uncertain.
These
tems could be installed this year and added to easily if additional wells
become contaminated.
Alternative 2 - a prototype well is necessary before additional replacement
wells are constructed. The new wells could be constructed during this
construction season and new wells could be installed easily if necessary. Once
new wells are in operation, the maintenance and operation costs should be the
same as it was for the existing wells. This alternative has the least
environmental impact on the study area.
Alternative 3 - it is unlikely that any of the systems could be constructed
during this construction season.
Construction costs for any of the systems ;s
high.
Operation and maintenance costs would be extremely high. The systems are
not designed to provide fire protection.
-------
-7-
ALTERNATIVE MONITORING
GrQund water and water _supply systems must be monitored as part of all
alternatives considered for the Site.
Monitoring would serve to document the
. .
performance of the implemented response, direct' corrective actions as
contingencies in case of response failure, and confirm the quality of drinking
water supplies.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Technical aspects of the response action alternatives implemented at the
Site will be consistent with other applicable environmental laws.
Other
environmental laws which appear to be applicable to the response action
alternatives evaluated in the Feasibility Study are the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), the Rules and
Regulations of the MPCA, the MDH and Department of Natural Resources, and the
Statutes of the State of Minnesota.
The ground water protection standards under
RCRA Part 264 may apply to the level of ground water cleanup achieved by the
proposed ground water gradient control system. An alternate concentration limit
(ACL) may be established at the waste management unit boundary, and may consider
the factors outlined under 40 CFR 264.94, including impacts on nearby surface
water bodies.
It is recommended. however. that the ACL demonstration at the
Site be deferred until the conclusion of the response action program outlined in
the Consent Order. Deferring the ACL demonstration will allow the State and the
University to collect additional information during the course of response
actions. and define fate and transport models which may be used to determine the
effects on potential receptors of any remaining contamination within the plume
at the conclusion of the response &ction program.
-------
-8-
COST ANALYSIS
Estimated costs for each alternative are presented in Table 1.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE
This presents the rationale used to approve a single recommended alternative
\,
for the Site.
The NCP [Section 300.68(i)J requires the U.S. EPA to select the
'J'
ULowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable, and
which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage and provides adequate
protection of the public health, welfare, or the environment."
MPCA staff chose to parallel the NCP requirements in its selection.
Similarly, the Agreement requires that the MPCA use environmental effects,
effectiveness, technical feasibility and implementability and cost as criteria
for approving a recommended alternative for the Site.
(
-.
~TED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 2 in the Detailed Analysis Report was recommended by the
University as the response action alternative for the Site. The discussion
below summarizes the reasons for MPCA approval of Alternative 2 as the selected
response alternative to be implemented pursuant to Exhibit C of the Agreement
for the Site.
Alternative 2, New Residential Wells, when completed, would provide a very
high quality water supply and eliminates the health risk to area residents now
under a Health Risk Advisory.
Alternative 2 has the lowest estimated cost for system installation and in
terms of operation and maintenance.
Alternative 2 can also be completed during the 1986/1987 construction
season.
-------
-~
In summary. Alternative 2 is the lowest cost alternative which is
techn~logically feasible and reliable. and which effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of public health. welfare
and the environment and complies with applicable and relevant environmental
laws. guidances and standards.
In addition. the University has proposed installation of a ground water
gradient control system on-site as a secondary measure to prevent off-site
migration of contaminants and expedite aquifer clean-up.
The gradient control
system is scheduled to be implemented during the Fall of 1986. The gradient
control system is hereby approved as proposed.
A State disposal system permit
is not required for the gradient control system because all water pumped out and
spray irrigated will infiltrate back into the soil within the pump-out system
capture zone.
In addition. monitoring of the system will not be required as.
off site well analysis will be an indicator of system performance.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The Ground Water Remedial Investigation (RI) Final Report was submitted to
the MPCA on November 26. 1985.
Copies of this report were provided to the
Cities of Rosemount and Coates and to Dakota County officials.
In addition. a
copy of the report was placed at the UMRRC for public viewing. The residents
affected by the off-site contamination received a letter in December 1985
summarizing the RI findings and identifying the location of documents available
for their review.
On January 30. 1986 a letter was sent to each of the affected residents.
This letter outlined each of the alternatives under consideration by the
University and requested public comment and input.
No comments were received by
the University.
-------
-10-
The Alternative Report was received by the MPCA on February 25, 1986. A
letter.,outlining the repor~ and recommended alternative was sent to area
residents on February 27, 1986.
A public meeting regarding the proposed alternative was held on March 10,
1986 at the Rosemount City Hall. At that meeting, approximately one hundred
people, including local officials, members of the press and officials from the
University were present. The RI/FS, as well as the alternative response
actions, including the selected alternative were also discussed at that meeting.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
This Site response action will be implemented in the Fall/Winter of 1986.
FUTURE ACTIONS
The additional actions required to complete ground water response actions
:iated with the Site include a Response Action Plan (RAP) and response
action implementation.
Other hazardous waste sites within the UMRRC are the subject of future
reports.
-------
V. TA8ULATION OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALTERNATE WATER SYSTEM
ALTERNATES DESCR IPTION TOTAL
-
1 Activated Carbon Filters and Installation S 37,800
(Sl.400/House x 21 Bottled Water - Families
Maintenance, Replacement and Monitoring S 486,000
(S900/ltouse/Year x 20 years at present rate x 27 houses)
S 523,800
. .
,
2 Hew Residential Wells . S. 2~O,OOO
(S11,000/Wellx 20 wells)
3
Extend Rosemount Research Center Water Distribution System
A.
8.
Complete system for all future growth
Partial system to serve 20 wells but sized for future
$ 1,069,000
$ 627,000
c.
Small system sized for 20 wells only (no future growth)
s
469,000
Extend City of Rosemount Water Distrtbutton System
A. Complete system for all future growth
4
8.
Part tal system to serve 20 wells bu~ sized for future
Small system sized for 20 wells only (no future growth)
S 1,283,000
$ 813,000
$ 569,000
c.
5
Independent Water Dtstributton System
A. Complete system for all future growth
8.
Parttal system to serve 20 wells but stzed for future
Small system stzed for 20 wells only (hO future growth)
S 1,198,000
$ 734,000
S 560,000
C.
"16-
/
-------
--~---
"
\".ru::.~) ""Io,f;rlcon
DLF
~
I"~H' SI
u:~ ,,, ~.
\
U. M. Rosemoun'
\
\
~
It~ "', ~.
Resecrch Cen1er
r
. C.
$ oJ"
~ ~
..:
~~
~
~
I
I
..
.,
c
...
o
..,
..
is
.,
c
C
S
o
J
.
.,
.
cr
ei
.
c:
~ -====
... oIt ~
River \i
\
I
J
,
.' t
.
-------
t'" ~
. c:. .~
~\J'
~ '1- I
~ I
'!..~ 0 J
- --
-
. ... .It ~
.,
. .
., c:
. .,
c c
"0
., -
c It)
~
.. 0
CI
..
iE
River
. --- ---_. -
',~
~r US::»' ~li"le r Ican
DLF
~
\
U. M. Rosemoun t
Research Center
.'
/"
r
,
I~:>'" Sf
I~~ '''' S.
,
\
~
I£~''', ~.
",
,"
------- |