United States
Environmental Protedion
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/RODIR05-91/191
November 1990
{or 1 (
P8"f2-'i6~//3
oEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Washington County Landfill, MN
u . ~ . Environmental Protectron A ..
"fi eQJO!t III Hazardous Waste gency
echnrcal 'nformatiOn- Center
Ph8~,1 Ches,tnut Street. 9th Floor
,adelph'3. PA 19107
Haladot.ll Waste CoIIectton
InformO'tio!' Resource Center
US EPA.~3
p~, PA 19107
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION .11. REPORT NO. I ~ :s. A8c:1pienI'a Acce88lon No.
PAGE . EPA/ROD/R05-91/191
11tIe and ~1Ie S. A8port Data
I SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 11/15/90
Washington County Landfill, MN
6.
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(a) 8. Perfonning Organization Rept. NO'
1. Perfonnlng Org8lnlza1lon Name and Add- 10. Projec1/TuklWork UnI1 No.
11. ConIract(C) or Grant{G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ Sponaoring Organlz8llon Name and AddrH8 1:s. Type of Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Notea
16. Ab81ract (Umlt: 200 worda)
The 40-acre Washington County Landfill site is an inactive sanitary landfill in Lake
Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential and agricultural. Lake Jane is located 250 feet north of the landfill.
The site overlies the St. .Peter Sandstone and Prairie du Chien Dolomite aquifers,
both of which are sources of drinking water for an estimated 3,000 residents living
within 3 miles of the site. From 1969 to 1975, Washington and Ramsey counties used
the site as a sanitary landfill. The landfill is located in an old gravel pit, and
was constructed without a liner. An area of approximately 35 acres was filled with
solid waste to an average depth of approximately 30 feet. About 2.57 million cubic
yards of solid waste, excluding cover material, were disposed of in the landfill.
The waste was primarily composed of residential waste with smaller amounts of
demolition and commercial waste. Monitoring by Washington County in 1981 revealed
low leve I VOC contamination, which poses a health risk based on long-term ingestion
of ground water. In 1983, four nearby private wells also were found to contain low
levels of VOCs, and drinking water well advisories were issued. A 1984 Record of
Decision (ROD) provided for the installation and operation of a ground water gradient
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analy.a L De8crlplora
Record of Decision - Washington County Landfill, MN
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, xylenes)
b. Identifier8l0pen-Ended Terma
c. COSA T1 RekIIGroup
18. Availability SIatement 11. SecurIty CI... (Thla Report) 21. No. of Pagea
None 89
20. Secuity Cia.. (Thla Page) 22. Price
. Nnno:>
272 (4-77)
(See ANSl-Z39.18)
See Inatrucfi- on Re-
(Forrnerty NTlS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/ROS-91/191
Washington County Landfill, MN
~econd Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
control and spray-irrigation treatment system at the landfill. It also provided a safe
drinking water supply to residents with drinking water well advisories and initiated
monitoring of the ground water gradient control system. This ROD addresses a final
remedy for drinking water 'supply as part of a second operable unit. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs including benzene, PCE,
TCE, and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for this site includes providing a municipal drinking
water supply system to supply drinking water to 10 homes with private wells that have
been affected by the contaminant plume; and continuing operation of the gradient
control well and spray-irrigation treatment system for the first operable unit, which
consists of four gradient control wells, two onsite spray-irrigation treatment areas,
and onsite discharge to surface water. The estimated present worth cost of this
remedial action is $400,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $2,469.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are
based on Recommended Allowable Limits (RALs) established by the State and include
benzene 7 ug/l, PCE 6.6 ug/l, TCE 31 ug/l, and xylenes 400 ug/l. .
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY
WASHINGroN COUNI'Y lANDFILL
1990
MINNESOI'A POILUI'ION CONl'ROL AGENCY
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
SITE NAME AND I.CCATION
Washington County Landfill
Lake Ebro, Minnesota
STATEMENr OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision dOClIIlEIlt presents the selected remedial action for the Washington
County Landfill Site (Site), in Lake Ebro, Minnesota which was chosen in
accordance with the requi.rarents of the CC!TIprehensive Envirornnental Response,
CC!TIpensation, and Liability Act (CERCIA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amenchrents and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for
selecting the .c€medy for this Site.
The United States Envirornnental Protection Agerry concurs with the selected
Lelllt:uy. The infonnation supporting this remedial action decision is contained
in the administrative record for this Site.
ASSESSMENI' OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances fran this Site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imninent and substantial threat to public health,
welfare, or the environrtent.
DESCRIPI'ION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit is the second unit of two operable units for the Site. The
selected Lt:::medy for this Site is a municipal drinking water supply system to
supply potable drinking water to resident of 10 hcmes in Lake Ebro which have
received. Minnesota Depa.rbtent of Health (MDH) drinking water well advisories to
not use their existing well water for drinking or cooking. The selected raredy
for the first operable unit, a gradient control well and spray-irrigation
system, was installed and has been operational since December 1983. The
municipal drinking water supply system will provide safe drinking water to those
residents whose well water has been deteDnined to be unsafe for drinking by the
MOH. The selected .ceuldlly addresses the principal threat of ingestion of
contaminated water posed by releases of contaminants fran the Site. Operation
of the gradient control well and spray-irrigation treatment system will continue
to prevent further releases into the aquifers downgradient of the landfill and
to treat the contaminated water captured by the pump out system.
The major coop:ments of the selected LeUIdlly are as follows:
- Continued operation of the gradient control well and spray-irrigation
treatnent system which consists of four gradient control wells, t'NO
on-site spray-irrigation treatment areas, and an off-site discharge of
-------
-2-
ground water frcm one pump out well which operates under National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystE!Tl PeDnit MN 0054348, dated
May 4, 1989.
- Connection of 10 homes with MDH drinking water well advisories to the
city of Oakdale municipal water supply systan.
Declaration of Statutory Deter:minations
The selected remedy is protective of htnnan health and the envirornnent, ccmplies
with federal and state requiranents that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost effective. The remedy utilizes
peDnanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maxirnum extent practicable, and it satisfies the statutory
preference for ratEdies that anploy treatment that reduce toxicity, IIDbility,
or volume as their principal elerent.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above
health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
cCl1'ltencerent of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of htnnan health and the environment.
Date //-;S-- J() ~5--L
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
Region V
Cu. ~. Envtrol1l1EJ1tal Protection Age"py-..li- -~')
R A ~ ~~~~<.U~ v~vf.,vr;u"t.) ~
v1jfL 1,1' ~ /~
~~.V'-' -~~
r~~A~~
. rald L. Wil
Camlissioner
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
9- 017- 9D
Date
-------
#~f.O .r..~l'oS'.
:Ai
~~~
~ ~
~ ..,!
+"'''' ~c.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHlCAGO,ILLlNOIS 10804
NOV 1 5 1911.
Mr. Gerald L. Willet
Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution
520 Lafayette Road
st. Paul, Minnesota
REJIL Y TO A1TENTICN CF:
Control Agency
55155
Dear Mr. Willet:
The United states Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
hereby concurs with the remedy selected pursuant to Minnesota law
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for the
Washington County Landfill Site, Operable Unit 2. MPCA signed
and forwarded a Record of Decision (ROD) to U.S. EPA for
concurrence on September 27, 1990. Our concurrence is in
accordance with 40 CFR 300.515(e) (2)(i) and (ii) and is based on
our review of the documents listed on the enclosure to this.
letter.
U.S. EPA's concurrence stems from two conclusions: 1) the
response action selected for this operable unit will reduce risks
to human health and the environment: and 2) the response action
will not be inconsistent with nor preclude implementation of the
expected final remedy.
The ROD calls for providing potable drinking water to ten
residences which have received Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) drinking water well advisories. We note that these
advisories are not based on violations of promulgated drinking
water standards but rather upon MOH's unpromulgated "Multiple
Contaminant Criterion." We therefore agree with MPCA's
assessment on page 29 of the ROD that this criterion is a "To Be
Considered" factor rather than an "Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirement."
In concurring with the ROD for Operable unit 2, U.S. EPA
understands that implementation of the ROD will not affect the
remainder of the remedial action being conducted at the site
under Operable Unit 1. We expect to participate in a
reevaluation of Operable Unit 1 in 1991.
Prmed on Recydfld PlIPf1f
-------
We look forward to our continuing involvement in the Washington
County Landfill Site.
Sincerely yours',
Is L RALPH B. BAUEB
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
00CUMENl'S REVJEm) FOR REXXH> OF DEX::ISI~ CXHDRRENcE:
WASHINGIal CDJNIY IANDFILL
IAIly Plan, Washin;Jt:a1 O:unty Sanitary I.an:ifill No.
1. Prepared for Washirgton and Ramsey Chmties. Wenck Asscx::iates, Inc. June
1990. .
National Fbllutant Discharge Elimination System, Quarterly RepJrt, April -
June 1990. WashiJxjtan Camty Sanitazy Iarx1fill No.1. Wenck Asscx::iates, In::.
July 1990.
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
-------
-10-
Decision Stmmary for the Rec:ord of Decision
1.
Site Name, Location, and Description
The Washington County Landfill Site (Site) is located within the city
limits of Lake ElnD in Washington County (T 29 N, R 21 W, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 of
Section 16), approximately nine miles northeast of downtown St. Paul (Figure 1,
]A, and 1B). .
The area adjacent to the landfill is predominantly residential, with sore
areas used for fanning. There is a city park to the east of the landfill. The
Site does not lie within a flood plain and there are no wetlands or surface
waters on the Site. Lake Jane is located 250 feet north of the northern edge of
the landfill property boundary. There are approximately 3,000 people living
wi thin a three mile radius of the Site.
The landfill is located in a gently sloping area characterized as glacio-fluvial
in origin. The Site is underlain by sand and gravel deposits. These deposits
constitute an unconfined aquifer in the study area. The St. Peter Sandstone and
Prairie du Chien D::>lomite aquifers underlie the glacio-fluvial aquifer at the
Site. Ground water flow in the upper sand and gravel aquifer is generally to
the south away fran Lake Jane. .
Multiple low level volatile organic (VOC) contamination exists in all three
aquifers, the glacio-fluvial, the St. Peter Sandstone, and the Prairie du Chien
D::>lanite.
2.
Site History and Enforcement Activities
In 1968, Washington County purchased a 110 acre site in the Lake ElnD and
designated 40 acres of the Site as a sanitary landfill disposal area. An area
of approximately 35 acres was filled with solid waste to an average depth of
approximately 30 feet. It estimated that 2.57 million cubic yards of solid
waste excluding cover material has been disposed of in the landfill. The solid
waste is estimated to be ccrnprised of 73 percent residential wastes, 26 percent
comnercial wastes and 1 percent darclition wastes. .
Washington County was issued a waste disposal systan pennit by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agerry (MPCA) on May 12, 1969, for the Washington
County East Oakdale Sanitary Landfill, Pexmit Number SW-1. The location of the
landfill was an old gravel pit and was constructed without a liner. The
landfill began operation in September 1969 and closed in May 1975. The landfill
was operated by ooth Washington and Ramsey Counties under a joint p<::Mers
a9L"':~=:ntent .
Following landfill closure, a ground water m:mitoring program was
instituted at the landfill to detect possible leachate generation that is often
associated with the disposal of solid waste. In 1981, the MPCA requested that
Washington County begin I'IDnitoring ground water at the landfill for organic
compounds. This I'IDnitoring shc::Jr...'ed elevated levels of sore organic compounds.
Additional ground water I'IDnitoring wells were subsequently installed. GroW1d
-------
-11-
water below and downgradient fran the landfill. was found to be contaminated with
a variety of volatile organic ccmpounds (VOCs), including 1,1-dichloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, 1, 2-dichloroethane,
1,1,2-trichloroethane, benzene, trans-l,2-dichloroethylene,
1,1, I-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, chlorobenzene, ethyl benzene,
toluene, bis-2-ethyl hexyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate,
1,I-dichloroethane,. and isophorone.
In 1983, four nearby private drinking water .....ells, southwest and
downgradient of the landfill, .....ere found to have levels of one or ~ VOCs above
or near drinking water .....ell guidelines requiring private drinking water .....ell
advisories fran the Minnesota Depart:IDent of Health (MDH). Details concerning
the nature and concentration of these contaminants can be found in MPCA's
Minnesota Enforcanent Decision Document (MEDD), dated July 7, 1886, Rerled.ial
Investigation Section (Attadment 1).
Although several other residential .....ells .....ere known to have low level
contamination fran rnul tiple VOCs, the MDH did not issue drinking water .....ell
advisories to these residents. In June 1986, the MDH notified ~ of the
residents with advisories that contamination had dropped to lower levels
considered acceptable for drinking water. Advisories to these residents .....ere
lifted.
In O:tober 1984, the MPCA and the Counties signed a Response Order by
Consent pursuant to the authority vested in the MPCA by the Minnesota
Envirormental Response and Liability Act (MERIA) of 1983, Minn. Stat. ch. 115B,
and Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116 for the purposes of: ( 1) installing and
operating a ground water gradient control and spray-irrigation treat:rrent systan
at the landfill; (2) providing a safe drinking water supply to residents with
drinking water .....ell advisories; (3) m:>ni toring the ground water gradient control
systan; and (4) reimbursing MPCA expenses. As detailed in the .MEDD referenced
above, those residents with drinking water advisories were provided with
granular activated carbon (GAC) filters for their .....ells.
In May 1989, the MPCA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Systan (NPDES) pennit to Washington County for an off-site discharge fran one of
the gradient control .....ells, GC1, into Eagle Point Lake. During the NPDES peDnit
application process in 1988, the Counties sampled GC1 for a ITDre extensive list
of possible contaminants than was being used to ITDnitor the ground water at this
tine. Based on the contaminants detected in 1988 and 1989 in the ground water,
the MPCA requested that the MDH reassess the health risk to the residents from
drinking the contaminated ground water. After additional residential .....ell
sampling in early 1989 and based upon a different health risk criterion - the
presence of four or ITDre contaminants at any measurable level - 10 new drinking
water .....ell advisories .....ere issued. Contaminants in these .....ells .....ere all below
their respective Reccmnended Allowable Limits (RALs) established by the MDH.
During this period, it at first appeared that elevated levels of lead .....ere also
present in residential drinking water, but elevated levels .....ere subsequently
detennined to be caused fran contaminated bottles used by the Counties'
laboratory.
In March 1990, based upon the updated sampling results fran the sampling
done in 1989 and the early part of 1990 and the new drinking water well
advisories, the MPCA staff, as a part of the MPCA approval of the 1989 Annual
-------
-12-
Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation Rep:>rt, requested that the Counties
re-evaluate the long-teD11 drinking water supply plans of O:tober 1985 and May
1986. The Counties resp:>nded to this request in a document entitled, "I.ong-TeDn
Drinking Water Supply Plan, Washington County Sanitary Landfill No.1," dated
June 30, 1990. This rep:>rt constitutes the Renedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) Report for the purposes of this Record of Decision (ROD).
There is no history of enforcerent actions taken to date at the Site under
any of the following authorities: tERcrA, RCRA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act, or any other federal envirormental statutes.
3.
Hiqhliqhts of Ccmnunity Participation
The RI/FS Report as defined above and the Prop:>sed Plan for the Washington
County Landfill was released to the public for ccmrent on July 27, 1990. These
two docuIn:mts were made available to the public in both the administrative
record and an info:rmation rep:>sitory maintained at the Washington County
Library, Lake E.lrro Branch, 3459 Lake Elm::> Avenue North in Lake E.lrro. The notice
of availability for these two documents was published in the St. Croix Valley
Press on August 1, 1990, and the Stillwater Gazette on July 30, 1990. A public
ccmrent period on the documents was held fran July 31, 1990, to August 31, 1990.
In addition, a public meeting was held on August 14, 1990. At this meeting,
representatives fran the MPCA answered. questions about problems at the Site and
the remedial alternatives under consideration. A resp:>nse to the CcmtEnts .
received during this period is included in the Resp:>nsiveness Sumnary, which is
part of this ROD.
4.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within Site Strateqy
As with many state Superfund sites, the problems at the Washington County
Landfill Site are canplex. As a result, the MPCA staff has organized the
remedial work into two operable units at the Site. This ROD addresses the
drinking water supply .Lemedy previously addressed by the MEDD and the planned
revised remedy at the Site. The municipal drinking water system alternative is
currently being designed by Lake Elm:>. The ratedial action, the municipal
system, addresses the principal threat posed by the conditions at the Site,
Le., the contamination of ground water downgradient of the Site.
5.
S~ of Site Characteristics
The ground water prbnarily in the alluvial aquifer is contaminated with low
levels of VOCs. Figw:e 1 is a map of the residential area studied with the
service area boundary for the prop:>sed municipal drinking water system demarked
by the broken line. Table 1 indicates those residences with drinking water well
advisories, those with confinned contaminant detections, and. those with
non-detections. Table 2 lists the sampling results fran ground water for
individual residences. Table 3 lists the lead data for individual residences.
Tables 1, 2, and. 3, fran the RI/FS Rep:>rt, sumnarize data collected in late 1989
and early 1990.
Table A below stmmarizes Table 2 data showing each contaminant I s highest
concentration, RAL, and whether or not the contaminant is carcinogenic. All of
-------
-13-
these contaminants, with the exception of benzene and xylenes, as noted in the
footnote to Table A, are believed to be releases from the landfill and have been
found in ground water m:mitored from either on-site pump out or nDnitoring
.....ells.
Contaminant
Chloromethane
Methylene chloride
ChlorofoDn
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorodifluorarethane
Trichlorofluorarethane
l,l-Dichloroethylene
Cis-l,2-dichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
l,l-Dichloroethane
1, 1, I-Trichloroethane
Acetone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Xylenes
Table A
Highest Reccmnended Carcinogenic (C)
Concentration Allowable or
(parts per billion) Lilni t (ppb) Non-carcinogenic (OC)
0.27
1.20
0.70
4.20
46.00
3.60
0.71
1.30
11.00
2.20
2.70
3.30
22.00
1.40
0.21 *
0.62 *
None
48.0
57.0
None
1400.0
2100.0
7.0
70.0
31.0
6.6
810.0
200.0
700.0
154 .0
7.0
400.0
UndeteDnined
C
C
Undetermined
OC
UndeteDnined
NC
OC
C
C
OC
OC
OC
NC
C
NC
* Subsequent sampling could not confinn these initial sampling results so these
resul ts could be e.t:roneous.
Table B canpares the levels of contaminants present in the mid-1980s (see
Attachnent 1) with the latest data for the four residents that originally had
drinking water .....ell advisories (concentrations in parts per billion.) This data
indicates that the level of these contaminants have declined in the past four to
five years; however, the contami11ants have persisted at low levels.
Table B
Resident Contami11ant Concentration Concentration
Range Range
Mid-1980s Late 1989/Early 1990
J. Downs Trichloroethylene 4-123 0.020-8.9
Tetrachloroethylene 1-10 0.008-2.2
F. Downs Tetrachloroethylene 0.2-40 0.008-0.13
L. Richert Tetrachloroethylene 0.4-10 0.008-0.32
G. Hueslman Trichloroethylene 1. 3-16 0.020-9.6
-------
-14-
Residential wells were also recently tested for lead because lead was found
in gJ:Ound water under the landfill in the early 1980s. Table 3 sunrrarizes the
lead data. lEad in levels above the RAL of 20 ppb were never confi.med in
residential wells in the study area. High levels initially found were later
deteDnined to be from contaminated sample bottles used by the Counties'
laboratory. The lead data do not indicate a lead release from the landfill.
IDN levels of lead. found in residential drinking water are believed to be due to
naturally occurring lead and/or lead from house plumbing. .
IDN levels of phenolic compounds were found in the 9J:Ound water in the
study area, but these compounds do not appear to be a release from the landfill
and could be naturally occurring and/or from septic tank contamination andf or
from scme other source.
Figures 2,3,4,5, and 6 from the RIfFS Report illustrate the distribution of
contaminants in the 9J:Ound water downgradient of the landfill. Figures 2, 3,
and 4 show the distribution of three contaminants found in highest
concentrations. Figure 5 shows the number of contaminant detections and their
distribution. Figure 6 is a "Additivity Contour Map." Addivity is defined by
the MDH as the sum of the concentration of each contaminant for each well
divided by each contaminant's respective RAL for all contaminants found in each
respective well. Except for dichlorofluo:rc.nethane (Figure 4), these maps show
that the low-level contaminant plUITE is at it highest concentration in the
residential area west of Jamaca Avenue along 36th and 37th Streets North.
Figures 7 and 8 from the RIfFS Report show water level contour maps from
the study area. These figures show capture zone boundaries for the ongoing
on-site .Lt::I1~ which has been effective in preventing the further release of
contaminants from the landfill ~ The pump out system has not, however, been
effective in capturing contaminants in the residential area near 36th and 37th
Streets North as this area is beyond the capture zone of the pump out system.
Reduction in levels of contaminants over the past four or five years in this
residual plUITE is likely due to natural attenuation canbined with scme possible
pump out and treat:nent from operation of individual residential well systans.
Although the horizontal distribution of contaminants in the low level VOC
plUITE is well studied, the vertical distribution of the contaminants is not as
well known. Efforts to better characterize the vertical distribution of
contaminants are presently being undertaken by the Counties. The work involves
downhole geographical logging of residential and m::>nitoring wells, seismic
reflection profiles and installation of additional m::>nitoring wells. This work
will aid in deteDnining in the subsurface stratigraphy in the area, aid in
deteDnini.ng in which aquifers the residential wells are screened, and aid in
deteDnini.ng what levels of contaminants are present in the three aquifers
beneath the Site.
Gener~ly, multiple low level VOC contamination exists in all three
aquifers, the glacio-fluvial aquifer, the St. Peter Sandstone aquifer and the
Prairie du Chien Dolanite aquifer. The chemicals found in the residential wells
that can now be attributed to one of the three aquifers and the highest
concentration of these chemicals are shown in Table C.
-------
TABLE C
MAXIMUM LEVEIS (RESIDENl'IAL WEU..S) 1
CartpJund Glacio-Fluvial Aquifer St. Peter Aquifer
Methylene chloride 1.2 1.0
ChlorofoDn 0.7 ~2
Dichlorofluoramethane 4.1 42
Dichlorodifluoramethane 46 10
Trichlorofluoramethane 3.6 0.7
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.71 0.41
Cis-l,2-dichloroethylene 1.2 1.3
Trichloroethylene 14 11
Tetrachloroethylene 2.2 1.6
l,l-Dichloroethane 2.7 2.6
1, 1, I-Trichloroethane 3.3 2.2
Acetone 7.2 22
Tetrahydrofuran 1.4 ~
Benzene 0.21 ~
Toluene 0.32 NQ
Xylenes 0.62 ~
Total Phenols 15 NQ
Bis-2-ethyl hexyl phthalate ~ NQ
Di-n-butyl phthalate NQ ~
Prairie du Chien Aquifer
0.41
~
~
4.6
~
~
0.6
3.2
0.13
0.8
1.5
2.7
~
0.26
~
0.62
3.5
4
2
1. Total of 96 residential v.ells (for 55 v.ells, aquifer unJmo.-m..)
2. Not quantified.
-------
-15-
6.
StmmarY of Site Risks
Table A lists the contaminants of concern for the ground water in the
residential area downgradient of the landfill. The ground water is the only
medium of concern for this operable w1it. The exposure pathway of concern is
ingestion of contaminated ground water. The potentially exposed populations are
adul ts and children whose hanes ha~ drinking water well advisories frem the .
MDH. The MDH drinking water well advisories issued to the affected residents
have stated that even though the contaminant levels found in a resident' s
drinking water well do not exceed the Recanrended Allowable Limits established
by the MOH, "... the mDnber of contaminants found causes us to be concerned about
the long term ingestion of this water. This departIrent [MDH], therefore,
recanrends you seek an alternate source of water for drinking and fcx:x:i
preparation. At this tirre, we see no reason for you to discontinue the use of
this well for other purposes such as bathing, dishwashing, etc."
The MDH has identified the criterion used to issue drinking water well
advisories at the Washington County Landfill Site as the Multiple Contaminant
Criterion. The advisories were issued to residents who had four or rrore of the
contaminants listed in Table A. The rationale for use of this criterion involve
three considerations: ( 1) if there are four or rrore contaminants at any
measurable level, there may be other unknown contaminants of known or unknown
toxicity to which the residents could be exposed; (2) known contaminants could
mask other contaminants to which the residents could be exposed; and (3) there
may be fluctuations in the levels of contaminants such that it is safer to issue
an advisory rather than to risk exposing affected residents to fluctuating'
contamination.
As of the writing of this ROD, the Multiple Contaminant Criterion and other
criteria used by the MDH for issuing drinking water well advisories to private
drinking water wells have been applied to several sites in Minnesota and are
being fonnally adopted by the MOH, but have not been pranulgated.
7.
Description of Alternatives
The following alternatives have been identified for supplying a source of
safe drinking water in the vicinity of the landfill:
- No Action
- Granular Activated Carl:x:>n Filters
- New Residential Wells
- Residential Cluster wells
- Public Water Supply
An integral part of any of these alternatives is the continued operation of
the gradient control well and spray-irrigation treatment systan. Currently,
this systan consists of four gradient control wells (Gel, Ge2, GC3, and GC4),
bo.u on-site spray irrigation treat:Irent areas and off-site discharge of a portion
of the ground water to manhole 36 of the Valley Branch Watershed District's
-------
-16-
Tri-Lakes Outlet. Gradient control well, GCl (Figure 1), was originally
installed to capture contaminated ground water between the landfill and
residential wells south and southwest of the iandfill. Migration of
contaminants from the landfill was stopPed and SaTE contaminated ground water
was drawn back from downgradient residential wells near Gel. The gradient
control well and spray-irrigation treatment system will continue to operate as
part of any drinking water supply alternative.
This ROD only evaluates the alternatives in teDTIS of supplying a peIJl'laIlent,
potable drinking water supply to the 10 hares with MDH drinking water well
advisories, even though the RIfFS Report also evaluated the alternatives for
hanes that do not have MDH drinking water well advisories. The ROD's scope,
therefore, reflects portions of attached Tables 4 through 12 fran the RIfFS
Report referenced as "MPCA Sites" and "MPCA Cost."
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requiranents
The applicable or relevant and appropriate requiranents for this Site are:
1)
The al ternati ves must meet MDH Reccmnended Allowable Limits (RALs)
and Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. Each al ternati ve must also
eliminate the exposure of residents to four or zrore chanicals since
this criterion is being used by the MDH to issue drinking water
advisories.
2)
The alternatives must cc:mply with design criteria and guidance for
well construction and water supply syst6l1S (i. e., MDH Plumbing
Code (Minn. Rules ch. 4715), MDH Public Water Supply Codes (Minn.
Rules ch. 4720) and MDH Well Construction Codes (Minn. Rules ch.
4725 ) . )
Each alternative must meet all ARARs to be eligible for selection.
A.
No Action
This alternative consists only of long-tenn residential ground water
ITDnitoring. The no action alternative does not meet the objective of providing
a peIInal1ent supply of safe drinking water to affected residents. Evaluation of
this al ternati ve will provide a basis of canparison for the renaining
alternatives and may provide cause for additional ground water rerlDVal and
treatment. This alternative requires long-tenn sampling and assessment of
off-site ground water quality. (wng-tenn sampling and assesSInent of on-site
ground water quality and eventual sealing of ITDnitoring wells would be conducted
under any alternative. Therefore, it will not be considered part of this
evaluation. )
wng-tenn sampling and assesSment of off-site ground water quality
would be required to assure that public health, welfare and enviroranent are
protected in the long tenn for either of the above options. The ITDnitoring
program would consist of quarterly sampling and assesSInent of the ten
residential wells which currently have drinking water advisories and the 21
residential wells which currently have confiDned detections of VOCs or BPQLs.
Semiannual sampling of another 50 residential wells within the service area
would be conducted. The total number of residential wells sampled would be
-------
-17-
approximately 81. Cepending on the results of this sampling, the m:mitoring
plan may be m:xlified. However, for this evaluation it is assumed that this
number of wells ~uld be sampled at this frequency for a period of 20 years.
Estimates of the annual cost of the no action alternative options are
shown in Table 4.
Granular Activated Carron Filters
B.
Under this alternative the present GAC filters would be maintained as
long as necessary in the affected residents' water supplies and additional Wlits
~uld be installed if testing indicated unacceptable contaminant presence in
previously unaffected hares. Quarterly m:mitoring of treated water ~uld be
conducted, analyzing the samples for VOCs and total colifoIJl\ bacteria.
In addition to the three existing GAC filters, GAC filters ~uld be
installed at an additional 7 residential hares, Le., those hares which have
MDH drinking water well advisories. For the purpose of cost canparison, it is
assumed that 10 hares ~uld receive GAC filters for a period of 20 years.
Long-teIJl\ sampling and assessment of off-site ground water quality
~uld be required to assure that public health, welfare and enviroIlItEnt are
protected in the long tenn. The Ironitoring program would consist of quarterly
sampling and assessment of the ten residential hares which currently have .
drinking advisories. In addition, saniannual sampling would be conducted at an
additional 21 residential hates which have sare level of contamination but don't
have MDH drinking water well advisories. Saniannual sampling of the ranaining .
50 residential wells within the service area ~uld also be conducted. The total
number of residential wells sampled would be approximately 81.
The estimated capital cost of this alternative is shown in Table 5 and
the estimated annual costs are shown on Table 6. Costs for providing GAC filter
Wlits to roth 31 hares and 10 hares are included.
C.
New Residential Wells
This alternative consists of drilling new wells for individual houses.
These wells would extend considerably deeper to the uncontaminated
Ironton-Galesville aquifer. New wells would be drilled for the same 10
residential l1anes which have MDH drinking water well advisories. These new
wells would be constructed. with a double casing. The inner 4-inch casing would
be set 15 feet into the Ironton-Galesville aquifer. The outer. 8-inch casing
would be set into the upper ITCst bedrock, sealing off the upper contaminated
fonnation. Well construction specifications will rreet requi.renents of the
Minnesota Depart:mant of Health Water Well Construction Codes.
This alternative assurres no government administration or responsibility
for operation and maintenance of the new wells.
Long-tenn sampling and assessment of off-site grcnmd water quality
would be required to assure that public health, welfare and enviroIlItEnt are
protected in the long tenn. Prior to placing each new well into service, water
samples ~uld be analyzed to assure that the aquifer is uncontaminated. The
ITCnitoring program would consist of annual sampling of the 10 new residential
-------
-18-
wells (plus 21 wells with detectable concentra~ions of VCCs and BPQLs). In
addition, semiannual sampling of another 50 residential wells within the service
area would be conducted. The total number of residential wells sampled 'NOuld be
approximately 81. Depending of the results of this sampling the rronitoring plan
may be m::xiified. However, for this evaluation it is assumed that this mm1ber of
wells would be sampled at this frequency for a period if 20 years.
The capital cost of this alternative is shown in Table 7.
shows the estimated annual cost. of this alternative. .
Table 8
Residential Cluster Wells
D.
The fourth alternative is the installation of two residential cluster
well systems where IIDre than one heme could be seJ:Viced fran one well. The
wells would be ccmpleted in the Ironton-Galesville aquifer which, as mentioned
above, is at considerably greater depth than the present residential wells.
Distribution lines would be installed to connect each heme to cluster wells. An
electrical service would be installed to provide power to the pumps. Each
cluster of hcmes ItUlst agree to well and electrical service location as well as
administrative and maintenance costs. This al ternati ve assumes that there 'NOuld
be no government invol valEnt and that hc:nea,.mers agreements or hc:nea,.mers
associations would have to be formed. These new wells would be constructed with
a double casing. An inner 6-inch casing would extend 15 feet into the
Ironton-Galesville formation. The outer lO-inch casing would be set into the
uppeIJrost bedrock sealing off the upper contaminated formation.
A seperate private well would be installed at the Nippoldt residence.
Due to its long distance fran any of the cluster well systans, it is not
practical to include this hate in any of the cluster systans. Construction of
this well would be as described for new residential wells.
Long-tenn sampling and assessment of off-site ground water quality
would be required to assure that public health, welfare and enviroranent are
protected in the long tenn. Prior to placing each new well in service, water
samples would be analyzed to assure that the aquifer is uncontaminated. The
IIDnitoring program would consist of annual sampling of the 2 residential cluster
wells and additional new private well. In addition, an saniannual sampling of
another 50 residential wells within the service area would be conducted. The
total number of wells sampled would be approximately 58. Depending on the
results of this sanpling the IIDnitoring plan may be IIDdified. However, for this
evaluation it is assuned that this number of wells would be sampled at this
frequency for a period of 20 years.
The capital cost of this system is enclosed in Table 9.
the estimated annual cost of this alternative.
Table 10 shows
E.
Public Water Supply
A fifth alternative is to install a public water supply system to
seJ:Vice the 10 hates with MDH drinking water well advisories.
This alternative would connect the 10 hemes to the existing Oakdale
municipal water supply system. An additional water main would be installed to
bring water to the seJ:Vice area. This would eliminate the need for a new well,
-------
-19-
M3ll house, controls, chlorination/fluoridation and storage facilities of a
stand-alone Lake Elmo system. The operation and maintenance of this system
would be the responsibility of Lake Elmo.
The capital cost of this system is shown in Table 11.
8.
Sumnary of Canparative Analysis of Alternatives
The following is a cc.mparative-analysis the alternatives. The criteria are
grouped into three categories: -threshold criteria; primary balancing criteria;
and mxlifying criteria. The threshold criteria includes the first two criteria
which are overall protection of human health and the environment and ccrnpliance
with ARARs. -
A.
Threshold Criteria
1.
No Action
The no action alternative implies rn:mitoring residential ground
water quality only.
a) Overall Protection of Human Health and Envirorarent The no
action alternative does not rreet the criteria of protecting human
health since none of the hares with drinking water advisories ....uuld
receive safe drinking water.
Continued operation of the gradient control well and -
spray-irrigation treat::nent systan will protect the envirorment near
the landfill.
b) Canpliance with ARARs Water quality ARARs for the residential
area near the landfill are RALs set by the MDH as well as the
criteria that a residential M3ll will be issued. a drinking water
advisory if it has four or ItDre volatile organic ccmpounds in its
drinking water. None of the resident's hanas have water exceeding
. RALs, however, ten residential hanes currently have drinking water
advisories based on four or ItDre chanicals and have been advised
not to use their water for drinking purposes. Since the no action
alternative does not alleviate this condition it does not canply
with ARARs.
2.
Granular Activated. Carbon Filters
This alternative consists of utilizing the current three GAC
filters. In addition, 7 GAC filters ....uuld be installed in residential hares
with MDH drinking water well advisories. Monitoring for volatile organic
ccmpounds and total colifonn bacteria ....uuld be perfoIItEd at each of these
installations.
a) Overall Protection of Human Health and Envirorarent This
alternative ....uuld protect the human health of the residents near
the landfill by ratDVing VCX:s fran their drinking water. Periodic
sampling and analysis of residential ground water would insure a
-------
-20-
source of safe drinking water to these residents by m::mitoring for
VOC breakthrough of the GAC filters and appearance of VCCs in
previously uncontaminated wells.
It may be possible for additional residential wells to become
contaminated in the future. Although unlikely, well construction
on un~eveloped land at mandated deeper depths may show additional
wells with contaminants. Therefore, additional GAC filters may be
necessary in the future.
Continued operation of the gradient control well and
spray-irrigation treatment system will protect the envirornnent near
the landfill. .
b) Compliance with ARARs This alternative does meet the MDH RAL
and the Multiple Contaminant criteria by raroving these chemicals
frcm the source of drinking water. In addition, installation of
filters would rreet all MDH plumbing codes.
3.
New Residential Wells
The third alternative consists of installing a new residential well
for each of the 10 hcmes with MDH drinking water well advisories.
a) Overall Protection of Human Health and EnviroTIItEnt Installation
of new individual residential wells will supply these residents
with a long-tenn source of uncontaminated potable water. This will
be acccmplished by drilling wells to the lronton-Galesville aquifer
which is currently believed to be unaffected by the contaminants
and which is .unlikely to becare contaminated. Sampling prior to
placing each well into service will insure safe drinking fran an
uncontaminated aquifer. This alternative therefore, is considered
to protect the human health of the residents of this area.
Continued operation of the gradient control well and
spray-irrigation treat:Irent system will protect the envirornnent near
the landfill.
b) Compliance with ARARs New residential wells would be ccmpleted
in the Ironton-Galesville aquifer which is believed to be
uncontaminated. These wells would then supply a source of safe
drinking water. Therefore this alternative is considered to be in
canpliance with MDH RAL and the Multiple Contaminant criteria.
Design and construction of new residential wells will follow the
guidelines and requirements specified by the MDH Well Construction
Codes as described earlier. In particular, any well drilled
through the contaminated zone will meet specific requirements of
the MDH within the Well Advisory Area surrounding the landfill.
The new wells will be connected to the existing residential hares
in ccmpliance with MDH Plumbing Codes. This alternative is
therefore, considered to be in ccmpliance with the well design and
well construction ARARs.
-------
-21-
4.
Residential Cluster Wells
Two cluster wells system would be installed to provide water for
the 10 affected homes. (One resident ~uld be drilled a deeper individual well
due to the distance to other clusters. ) The wells ~uld be drilled to the
Ironton-Galesville aquifer. Service lines ~uld be installed from a well to
each resident in a .cluster. Residents in each cluster ~uld need to ~rk
together to operate and maintain the system.
a) Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment Installation
of new cluster wells will supply these residents with a long-term
source of uncontaminated potable water. This will be acccmplished
by drilling new wells to the Ironton-Galesville aquifer which is
cw:rently believed to be unaffected by the contaminants and which
is unlikely to become contaminated. Sampling prior to placing each
well into service will insure safe drinking water from an
uncontaminated aquifer. This alternative, therefore, is considered
to protect the human of the residents of this area.
Continued operation of the gradient control well and
spray-irrigation treat::nent system will protect the environment near
the landfill.
b) Compliance with ARARs Cluster wells ~uld be ccmpleted in the
Ironton-Galesville aquifer which is considered to be
uncontaminated. These wells would supply a source of safe drinking
water. Therefore this alternative is considered to be in the .
ccmpliance with the MDH RAL and the ~tiple Contaminant criteria.
Design and construction of new residential wells will follow the
guidelines and requiremants specified by the MDH Well Construction
Codes as described earlier. In particular, any well drilled
through the contaminated zone will meet specific requiremants of
the MDH within the Well Advisory Area surrounding the landfill.
The new wells and distribution piping will be connected to the
existing residential homes in canpliance with MDH Plumbing Codes.
This alternative is, therefore, considered to be in ccmpliance with
the well design and well construction ARARs.
5.
Public Water Supply
This altemative consists of installation of a water distribution
system to supply public water to 10 l1ates near the landfill.
a) Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment Since water
would be obtained from the city of Oakdale municipal water supply
system, this system ~uld provide a source of safe drinking water
to the residents. In addition future migration of the plUI'le ~uld
not adversely affect neighboring wells as these homes would also be
cormected to the system. Therefore, this alternative would protect
the hurna.n health of the residents in this area.
-------
-22-
Continued operation of the gradient control ~ll and
spray-irrigation treatment system will protect the environment near
the landfill.
b) Compliance with ARARs Since the source of safe drinking water
~uld be from an approved. public system and outside the nnll tiple
conta.n1inant contaminated area, this al ternati ve ~uld meet the MDH
HAL and Multiple Contaminant criteria.
Installation of this public water system ~uld cane under the
review of the MOH and meet the requi.ranents for the installation of
a public water supply as m:mdated by the MOH. This alternative
therefore ~uld meet the ARARs including MOH Public Water Supply
Codes and Plumbing Codes.
6.
SlII1111aIY of Threshold Criteria
The no action alternative does not meet the criteria of overall
protection of human health and environment. Likewise, it is not in cCIt1pliance
with the ARARs. The evaluation of this alternative does provide a basis for
cc:mparison with the remaining alternatives and may also provide a justification
for other remedial action.
The other four alternatives including GAC filters, new residential
~lls, residential cluster wells and public water supply do pass the criteria of
overall protection of human health and environment. In addition, each of these.
alternatives can be constJ:ucted and operated in order to cCIt1ply with ARARs.
B.
Primary Balancing Criteria
The five priInary balancing criteria include long-teDn effectiveness and
pennanence, reduction of toxicity, rrobility or volume thI:ough treatment,
short-tenn effectiveness, implementability and cost. In order to evaluate the
long-tenn drinking water supply alternatives a ranking system was developed for
these five criteria, weighted as a percentage of 100 on the basis of their
relative importance. Table 0 shows a ranking of the altez:natives for each
criteria based on this ranking system.
-------
TABLE D
Granular
Activated New Residential Public
Carbon Residential Cluster Water
Criterion Weiqhting Filters Wells Wells Supply
Long-TeD1\ 40 points 20 20 20 40
Effectiveness
and Pennanence
Reduction of Toxicity 20 points 20 20 20 20
M::>bility, or VolUIre
through Treatment
Short-TeD1\ 10 points 10 5 5 5
Effectiveness
Implementability 20 points 20 20 10 20
Cost 10 points 0 0 5 5
----------- --------- --------- ----------- ---------
Totals 100 points 70 65 60 90
-------
-23-
Long-tenn effectiveness and peunanence was ranked at 40%; reduction of
toxicity, mbility or volume through treatment was ranked at 20%; short-term
effectiveness was ranked at 10%; i.mplementability was ranked at 20%; and cost
was ranked at 10%, for a total of 100%. .
The different alternatives were then compared to the ranking criteria
and determined as either satisfactory meeting, partially meeting, or not meeting
those criteria. Those alternatives which satisfactorily met the criteria
received the maximum percentage points for that criteria. Alternatives which
partially meet criteria requirements received half credit.
Ranking of costs were based on the relative cost of the al ternati ve
compared to the no action alternative. Alternatives which have' a present value
cost of less than $250,000 received full credit. Alternatives ranging in cost
fram $250,000 to $500,000 received partial credit, while alternatives over
$500,000 received no points.
The following infoIJT1ation highlights the reasoning behind the
determination that a given alternative did or did not meet the criteria.
1.
No Action
The no action alternative does not meet the threshold criteria.
order to canpare the various al ternati ves, the costs of the no action
alternative was calculated.
In
The cost of the no action al ternati ve would be substantial due to
the aIIDunt of mnitoring which would be necessary to access the ground water
quality in the residential hares in the vicinity of the landfill. It is
estimated that the annual cost of ground water mnitoring would be approxirrately
$67,200 (Table 4). There are no capital costs with this alternative. The
present value of 20 years of ground water IIDnitoring only would be $572,000.
2.
Granular Activated Carbon Filters
a) Lonq-Tenn Effectiveness and PeIJT1aIlence This alternative has the
advantages that GAC filtration is a proven technology in the
capture of IIDst va:: contaminants and that it may be easily
discontinued if the ground water was to reach acceptable
contaminant levels. The long-tenn peDnaI1ence is reduced by the
continued high maintenance required to change filters and carbon.
Implarentation of this alternative would not change the current
ground water flow pattern, thus keeping the contaminant plume in
its present location. Due to the conflicting attributes, only
partial credit was given.
b) Reduction of 'Ibxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
The gradient control well and spray-irrigation systems provide
ratDVal and treatnent of contaminated ground water frc:m the
landfill. Continued operation of this systan is an integral part
of all evaluated alternatives; therefore, meeting the requirements
of this criterion.
-------
-24-
c) Short-TeDn Effectiveness This alternative nay cause slight
exposure of workers to contaminants during installation of the GAC
filters. This alternative can be imnediately irnplemanted and,
therefore, meets the requirements of the criterion. .
d) Implerrentability This alternative is a proven technology, with
readily available nat~rials and service and, therefore, meets the
requirarents of this criterion. Although there is limited
administration, access to each residential hare on a regular basis
....uuld be required.
e) Cost While this alternative requires a relatively low initial
capital investment, it yields relatively high annual operating
costs due to rraintenance and quarterly IOOnitoring. This high
annual operating cost was deaned unacceptable and, therefore, this
alternative does not meet the requirements of this criterion.
It is assumed that the hcmeowner ....uuld retain responsibility for
power costs; tank, pump and well maintenance; and future
replacerrent.
The capital cost for installing GAC filters in 7 additional hates
....uuld be approximately $23,000. The annual operating cost ....uuld be
$74,6000. The present value ....uuld be $658,000 for 10 hares. This
reflects direct costs and does not include indi.re!ct costs of review
of data, regulatory canpliance and other management tasks by the .
Counties.
3.
New Residential Wells
a) Lonq-TeDn Effectiveness and PeJ:manence This alternative nay
introduce a risk of extending the contamination into a previously
uncontaminated aquifer during well construction or pumping. Proper
installation of these wells should greatly minimize this risk.
Abandoned residential wells may be available for future ground
water IOOnitoring. Because of the potential for aquifer cross
contamination this alternative only partially meets the
~ts of this criterion.
b) Reduction of 'Ibxicity, r-bbility, or Volmre through Treat:nent
'!be gradient control well and spray-irrigation systan provides
rEmJVal. and treat:nent of contaminated ground water fran the
landfill. Continued operation of this systan is an integral part
on any alternative, therefore meeting the requirements of this
criterion.
c) Short-TeDn Effectiveness Installation of these wells ....uuld
:require drilling through a contaminated zone with a slight exposure
to contaminants. This alternative ....uuld :require extensive time for
canpletion of the needed. wells and, therefore, only partially meets
the requirements of this criterion.
-------
-25-
d) Implementability This alternative is a feasible technology,
with readily available materials and se:rvice and, therefore, meets
the criterion requirements. Access MJuld be necessary to each
residential heme for installation of this alternative. .
e) ~ The costs associated with this alternative consist of a
significant initial capital investment and annual m:mitoring. As
with the GAC filters, it is assumed that the horreowner MJuld retain
responsibility for power costs; tank, pump and well maintenance and
future replacement. MJni toring would be conducted at each well.
The capital cost for 10 hemes is $252,000 and the annual cost for
10 hemes is $39,300. The present value of capital investment and
nonitoring for 20 years for the 10 hemes is approximately $587,000.
This reflects direct costs and does not include indirect costs of
review of data, regulatory ccmpliance and other managemant tasks by
the Counties. This alternative does meet the requirements of this
criterion.
4.
Residential Cluster Wells
a) lDnq-Tenn Effectiveness and PeDnaJ1ence This alternative may
introduce a risk of extending the contamination into a previously
uncontaminated aquifer. ProJ;Jer installation of these wells should
greatly minimize this risk. Abandoned residential wells may be
available for future ground water nonitoring. Because of the
higher risk of failure this alternative only partially meets the
requirements of this criterion.
b) Reduction of Toxicity, M:>bility, or Volume Through Treatment
The gradient control well and spray-irrigation systan provides
ran::wal and treatment of contaminated ground water fran the
landfill. Continued operation of this systan is an integral part
of any al ternati ve, therefore meeting the requirements of this
criterion.
c) Short-Tenn Effectiveness Installation of these wells would
require drilling through a contaminated zone with a slight exposure
to contaminants. This al ternati ve would require a haneowners
a9J..c~::l.Ient prior to construction. This could significantly delay
drilling and implementation. Therefore, this alternative only
partially meets the requirements of this criteria.
d) Implementability This alternative is a feasible technology,
however, problans concerning ownership, well location, maintenance,
replacement and operating costs make this alternative less
feasible. This alternative assumes no govermnent involvement in
the administration, therefore a h<:maowners association or similar
agreem:nt would be required for implementation of this al ternati ve.
Therefore, this alternative was given partial credit.
e) Cost The costs associated with this alternative are initial
capital investment, annual operating and nonitoring and well
replacement costs. The capital cost is $122,000 for 10 hc:mes and
-------
-26-
the arulUal cost is $32,400 for 10 homes. The present value of
these costs for the 10 homes over- 20 years is approximately
$398,000. This alternative partially meets the requi.ranents of
this criterion. .
5.
Public Water Supply
a) lDng-Tenn Effectiveness and PeD't1a.I1ence Connection to the city
of Oakdale municipal water system provides a source of safe
drinking water to the residents. Extensive ground water rronitoring
of residential ~lls would be eliminated. This alternative has the
advantage that, once installed, it provides a pennanent solution
and, therefore, meets the requ.irements of this criterion.
b) Reduction of Toxicity, MJbility, or Volune Through Treatment
The gradient control ~ll and spray-irrigation treatment system
provides rern:JVal and treatment of contaminated ground water fran
the landfill. Continued operation of this system is an integral
part of all alternatives, therefore meeting the requirements of
this criterion.
c) Short-Tenn Effectiveness This alternative partially meets
the requ.irement of short-tenn effectiveness. This solution cannot
be .i.nrlEdiately implanented; however, exp:>sure of workers to
contaminants is eliminated. A limited ntm1ber of hc:nes could be
serviced within six rronths but the total project could require up
to 12 m:mths to canplete.
d) Implerentability Ay.Lt:t::nents bet\oJeen the Counties, Lake Elm:> and
Oakdale would need to be secured before this al ternati ve could be
implerented. Easements would be required for a portion of the
distribution line. Ongoing administration of this al ternati ve
would be handled by the city of Lake Elm:>. This alternative is a
proven technology, with readily available materials and service
and, therefore, meets the requ.irements of this criterion.
e) Cost This alternative reduces the relatively high annual
operating costs associated with GAC filter maintenance and
quarterly testing, but requires a significant initial capital
investment. The capital cost for 10 hc:nes is $400,000 and the
annual cost for 10 hares is $2,469. The present value costs for
this alternative are $400,000. Annual operating and replacement
costs of $2,469 per year would be paid by residents through water
billings. Due to this high initial investment by relatively low
annual costs, this alternative received only partial credit.
6.
Sumnary of the Primary Balancing Criteria
The sumna.t:y table of the primary balancing criteria is found in
Table C at the beginning of this section. It can be seen fran these balancing
criteria that the public water supply option receives the greatest munber of
points followed by GAC filters, new residential ~lls and residential cluster
wells. The no action alternative is not an acceptable alternative for supplying
water, but does provide a means of cost canparison.
-------
-27..;,
C.
Modifying Criteria
The m:xti.fying criteria includes corrmunity acceptance and support agency
(u. S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA)) acceptance.
i. Carmunity Acceptance This analysis of ccmnunity acceptance is
based on the Count"ies' long-teDn relationship with the city and hareowners .
within the service area and reflects feedback from various cc:mnunity meetings
discussing ranedial actions at the Site, including feedback on the Proposed
Plan.
1. No Action
The local cc:mnunity is opposed to no action and, in fact, has
been quite insistent that additional steps be taken to supply a source of safe
drinking water.
2.
Granular Activated Carbon Filters
Installation of GAC filters in three hares within the Well
Advisory Area during the past several years has generally not been accepted by
the residents. Other hate owners have also expressed similar negative
viewpoints. SatE residents have indicated that this alternative as implemented
to date has negatively impacted real estate transactions. The city of Lake EJ.mJ
~ld likely continue to restrict developrent in this area due to the ground
water contamination.
3.
New Residential Wells
This alternative is acceptable to a portion of the carmunity
but ~ld not alleviate public concerns of long-temn water quality. Sate
residents may still feel that this alternative would limit real estate
transactions. The city of Lake EJ.mJ would likely continue to restrict
developrent in this area due to the ground water contamination.
4.
Residential Cluster Wells
Due to difficulties of joint ownership, well location and
neighborhood coordination this alternative would be difficult to implement.
This alternative would alleviate concerns about long-te:cn water quality.
Administrative issues would limit real estate transaction. The City of Lake
EJ.mJ would likely continue to restrict developtent in this area due to the
ground water contamination.
5.
Public Water Supply
This al ternati ve is high! y acceptable to the ccmmmi ty .
Implementation of this alternative would lift concerns of a safe drinking water
supply and perceived or real limitations on real estate transactions.
6.
Stm111ary of Ccmmmity Acceptance
The carmunity acceptance of these alternatives ranges from
W'1acceptable for the no action alternative to highly acceptable for the public
-------
-28-
water supply alternative. Both the residents .and the city of Lake Elm:> prefer.
the public water supply alternative. The Counties also prefer the public water
supply alternative.
ii.
Support Agency (U.S. Envirormental Protection Aqency (EPA)
Acceptance
The public water supply alternative is acceptable to the EPA.
9.
Selected Ranedy
The selected .ceme\ly for the second operable unit is a municiPal drinking
water supply system for the remediation goal of supplying potable drinking water
to 10 hanes whose owners have received MDH drinking water well advisories not to
use their existing well water for drinking or cooking. An integral part of this
ranedy is the continued operation of the gradient control well and spray-
irrigation treat::ment system for the first operable unit which consists of four
gradient control wells, tv..u on-site spray-irrigation treat::ment areas and an
off-site discharge to surface waters. The operation of the gradient control
well and ?-~ay-irrigation treatment system is regulated under an NPDES peDnit.
The selected ranedy is a part of a larger project to supply water to an
additional 71 hanes in a service area delineated in Figure 1. This larger
project is outside of the scope of the Minnesota Enviromnental Response and.
Liability Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 115B.
The ranediation goal for the second operable unit of supplying potable
drinking water to the 10 hates as described above rreets the ARARs previously
identified. The estimated capital cost for the 10 hares is $400,000; the
estimated annual costs for the 10 hares is $2,469; and the estimated present
value for the 10 hares is $400,000.
10.
Statutory Detenninations
Protection of Human Health and the Enviromnent
The selected .Lt:la:dy will provide adequate protection to the public health
and the enviromnent by providing potable water fran the city of Oakdale .
rnunipical drinking water supply system. Continued operation of the gradient
control well and spray-irrigation treatnent system will protect the aquifers
downgradient of the landfill £ran further releases fran the landfill.
Canpliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The selected .Lt:ll::IIly will ca11ply with the requirements for safe drinking
water and will canply with design criteria and guidance for well construction
and water supply systans established by the MDH:, i.e., the Plmnbing Code (Minn.
Rules ch. 4715); the Public Water Supply Codes (Minn. Rules ch. 4720); and Well
Construction Codes (Minn. Rules ch. 4725).
-------
-29-
The "To Be Considered" (TBCS) for this remedy is the Multiple Contaminant
Criterion established by the MOH. By eliminating the exposure of the residents
of the 10 hanes with drinking water advisories, the selected remedy meets the
TBCS for this operable unit.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected rimedy is cost-effective, primarily by reducing residential
well rn:>nitor.ing costs.
Utilization of pennanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or Resource
Recovery) Technologies to the Max:ilnum Extent Practicable (MEP)
The selected ranedy utilizes pennanent solutions and treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable. The selected rate:iy was judged to provide
the best long-tenn effectiveness and pennanence by eliminating any possible
contact with the contaminated ground water. The other three alternatives
considered have some probability of exposure to the contaminated ground water
through cross-contamination of aquifers and exposure fran inadequately operating
GAC filters. All four remedies evaluated were judged to equally reduce
toxicity, rn:>bility, or volune through treatment because, for purposes of this
ROD, this criterion applied to the first oPerable unit, the on-site gradient
control well and spray-irrigation treatment systan. All of the remedies were
judged to be equally effective .in the short-tenn except for the GAC filter.
rate:iy which may have exposed filter installers to contaminated water, although
the probably of this is very low. The remedies were judged to be equally
implementable except for the residental cluster wells which likely ~ld present.
administrative difficulties in the operation and maintenance of this L€:IIe:iy.
The selected .L~I..dy and the residential cluster .L€:Iledy were judged to be equally
the rn:>st cost-effective because these remedies significantly reduced the
residental well rn:>nitoring costs. The canbined effect of this ranking was that
the municipal drinking water supply systan was the overall best ranedy.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected .L~ledy satisfies the preference for treatment in that the
on-site gradient control well and spray-irrigation treatm:mt systan will
continue to oPerate to prevent the release of contaminants into the aquifers
downgradient of the landfill.
11.
Docunentation of Siqnificant Chanqes
The selected .L€!IlIedy is the same as the proposed ~ for the 10
residential hates with MDH drinking water well advisories as described in the
Proposed Plan and RIfFS Report so that there are no significant changes.
-------
FIGURES
v-~ -
-------
I
~ 1
P
,1.. !
-L-~-
I
LAKE
c
-
-; 8 ONwa
e
I
,-
8
~
N
I I
O~. U
' v ..
I :EAn.ENT AREA 2 /
SIT[ 8OUHOARIeS
,JOG
"
..
...
TREU"'ENT AREA 1
,,)
1Z
8P2
,...
....
%11O
o
r.8C1C111
'" '8~
eR.
I RI
, ~~
.. llaClti
~
....
~
....
I
I
~ I
C N. I
16 - -=:~r.ru ~.
I
....
l~O
LlH
-
o ,
...
J
....
,b
-1--
,....
....
-'''
- ...: ~ .. Q ..;;;.l ~~......;;;,
CEN.
1
I
---
I
I
1- -
-
WII
':IOa
e
-
,...
---
- - ~wr-...fl STArt
... .
-
..,..
22'.
SITE
PLAN
I~~~;~~~
... .
I........
200 -
I .
SCALL IN FUT
100
,
lOG
,
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
Vicinity Map
. . .. .
.... .
. .,......
Consulting Engineer.
June 1990
Wenck Assoclatea, Inc.
1800 PI«ieer Creek Dr.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Fig. 1
-------
~; 0"11rp 1 ~
. .
..oRA c:Ga
-
-'-1---'"
. . .
....~ ~ I
.
. ~~.
,
~-r-----
ca~., '!... "
I .... I. ,--_.
t -..-: l.....
,~~--
~
I.
"
I
. -.
, .
-, i
I . I' I
I t I I ...-..... I '_._-,
~ -coo.. I -or. --'I 0_' '.JJ-I I!
l.f ~ca. .~ _0 ~ - I. I " I ."
If. ..--..al -, .. t r . I ,
- I -,------- _.!._-_--.L.-_---~_---J
-to . . t :. I I I. : n . -..l I.
- ~ ..-...1., ._,' .~_~.L...- ~.~: L ---J""'" u:i:~' r:r!;.
.., f' .~.~. t:.---....~ ~:I. :. ~." ..r .. . """"". .
. I' . t ~" I..' I -~...._, t. "..
-~_L-__--1~-- ~~::.._--+~--t-~I --t--o-:o:-;- '~~.~.~. ,..
II\!I ...... . .. . . .. .. I ......... .....--' .'. " .."
I .
: I.' :---,.
.: WASfINGIOMA:OUerrY::'SAN:TARr:~.~I«t:: &:',;' ~'.:'
POOR QUAL\TY
OR\G\NAL
- ,
"
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
LANDFILL
SITE
LOCATION
FIGURE lA.
-------
Figure lB..
Site location,
Washington County Landfill.
Scale 1:24,0
-------
CE N.
-
-
-
o / LAKE ANE 1""'<"",
~, LV --
~ /- I II r _I %
if!l~ rffrt5om~:'" Q
- - - ~ .1_: I \ \ L J- Y ~.
- . -- ,-- S--:-L --r~~/+~ ~
~~ Tun//' '"'+ +:p: ..~e+~e C I
b,J=j} "d.> !1 ~";':"),."~~ ': '\ 8 ~
I -. \ /zr--::. --"""\ \ u \ \
.-, U IX' Q..CID+\ . D ~o
I :: lid ...~z .. om . APPRO"". rr . +,~ C' ."'"
~ 'L - ~ I ,'" . ..... 0 e .............., ~l'c"
I r ............... / "I I... +~ ..... .. +... . ............... :./ ~ rSlrr BOUHOAR/(S
~ "j\ ~ \ "~e'" TRE:ENT AREA 1 . p~
I'r~ V \
. l~ I ...+v C~... 1.,..£ ,
-= .y/~~ ;
-, ~~ ~ / "
\""J
\\::.. _/ /
...1 ~.- ~ LEGEND
""'<...... ~~./
- :'" CONCENTRATION UCIl
LAKE JANE
I
~-
- I
=rl
I
,,~ '"
.. J..
...,
37." ST. Jill
I I I J/ ~ Jluil
I . J... +.J :"..11 ., +
,. .
.....
.. "'1
I ...,,:--
...
+ ...
CE N.
'16
-
Cf~'
-
-
-
-
--~ -
... ~
+ .L J...~~J~ ...4=...L.
- -=-::------ -~ ..t"4-p.~ ..~'+...
-..:::.:: ---- -----~ ~
~ 10..... +..
~ _lt~ .
- ~~---~ +~ .0<
- ~ ---
- ---
...
-
---
- - ~1ttu-u
StAft ..... IIll'ii !t
...
...., ..~+.. <
SITE
PLAN
I~~~~o.t
fa."" c... tCLDC)
lCI:I a XDtClDWDKD
. ... , . , ,
$CAU IN f't(T
~ASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
Trichloroethylene Isoconcentration Map
. . -. .
....
. ....-..
Con.ulling Engln..r.
April 19£
Wenck A..ocl.tes, Inc:.
1800 Plpneer Creek Dr.
M.ple fll.ln, MN 55359
Fig. 2
-------
C~N. - -
. 0 / LM( AN( r- \
~ '1- i
1111 r IL-JJ
~~\T:m~::
~ Ig~~ ~\
I~rl I. ~ '"'~~.. wra c 8 A . I
QH A / .. :. ~ -: .-F-' ~ \. -- II
- p~ ~. ~..u \ +H ~uo r:;~o .....
Ix ... z + c.m I O.r7WA rr . 1 K
\.-----;
'r' I .. f..... J . .... "- : c ~SIT£ BOUHDARtCS
+~. ~ t ... \- ~ I
~ . ~yj "= 't...(
.u f~ ~ JR'. ~i '\
I ~ IL 1\
~l I ~ ~UO, I I
"H .. ~ I ,
I +J.. J'7~.sr<'+O~II~- ...9;3_""-/ J
r'"'1 r"""r 1 .... 10lIl +..." I
"L+.J+._Vo~ +T
Jol. .. ."..""'" _o~ _J LEGEND
+.... "F" [ I' - - -
I u :"" CONC(NTR... nON UC:/L
u
~1
Q
Y
-
LAK( JmE
~
-.
+"""
-
= = ~rt ""(I
'f.q ~ .0 )
r-- -
--~l- '-
... ~
+ .1 9~~ ~..,.~..L
~ ~~+~*~~.~~~
~~~~~~ +U.~ I rr-~
\ -~t?~_!1 +..; u, +u.~..~
Cf~'
-
caN.
116_-
.u
-
-
....
,-
SITE PLAN
I
JCD 0 KDtODlCI)lOO
., , t .
I;~;~~
1('-"'" (...rtY.DC)
SCALL IN r([ T
WASI-HNGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
Tetrachloroethylene lsoconcentration Map
. . .. .
....
. .,.......
Con.ulUng Engineer.
April 1990
Wenck Auoclate., Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Dr.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Fig. 3
-------
Cf;.N. ~ /II ~
i, <~ 7 LAK£ fAN£ r:- LAK£ ~ 1. - ~ . Cft'
I ~,' v1~. 1- ~~
.. lUll
~ r--::. ':.----(j \ r -:j. ~ ~ -
~' j -;':7 "N, .040[ ~,""B c
~~P=;1A I .,', ;:. ~.:;~., J. 8 A I
"'j ,. .' --1~-?"rdN'\1 t~ I ~
l 1M 1~1V ~ 0-.
I ~ \..r I . r.~..... APPROXJWA Tf: 1),. I Q ." 040
T .............. ~1 ..~.. 040 .. .. lUll N ~ '\ : C ,SlTf: BOUNOAR,es
I I
I
. lUll
==~rtlU"U
StAtt ....... .~ s
- ~ -!.Q...
£' ')
..J.. u ~~"'I 1,~ l \
I }...," ;; . +¥~ 040 -..:: ~ I
I ..L..".j ........'t... .. ~ I
"lUll ~.r..," ~ "lUll ~ 8 I I
') "'&.00 J / LEGEND
) / /:."" CONCENTRATION UC/L
(\ 10 / CfJ:!.
\.'-- J I~~. I
--p 1 I I
~ :- [ok ., ...LJ --.J
?:::::---: ""'ACA C.
- - - --- --- ,,""+~1.;fo.MIiD..oJz....
- - - -------= =------
~ ~J'.:.: .OII.~ rr I '
- ~~~'-:.ll ....... "lUll .~.L
- - ~-=:
..~ '"
C N.
16
-
--
SITE
PLAN
::~.,~~~D'
~ . ~ 2fiD ~ ~ .:0
DOIII" (wAODlf ,DC)
SCAI.[ 'N rt (T
'/{,ASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
Dichlorodifluoromethane Isoconcentration Map
. . .. .
....
. ........
Conaultlng Engineers
April 19S
W~nck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Cleek Dr.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Fig. 4
-------
- -._-- ---
CE"N. . ~ /\\~
o ~.~' l~" ~Cj~r r +1 "" /l ; ~ -ip
~~\I ;1 \P --:'= -~
~ j;:If::::y~ \E1:s
~~ 'f ~ ~~~OJ ~ c 8 ~ . \
~H t . ~ H I ./ -~ ....,
",1 J"""" /11 '>0... ST." +. ..~. ~ ~ . '\- "!oc ~UO N .
J ir. l:r--::, +.. ,\1 0 -. I
I I. - . ... .""" ~ uo (/
,~ zI + ~~ + a.tICI 1 H APPROJtlIlA. rr . I K+ ZJIG
-1 \. ~-J-. . +, I."" Ow ;X:......-::....... S 2 . J.:""
'r' ............ /""'1 \... .... . ............... L C rJ rr BOIJI& ~R' lR' \
=~
\ --;- 10 \ .\
-
~ 6~
.J~~ ""~+O~ \:uo 4
1 ~~itV""l. ~~~~ /LEJ END
J", + u 'J,. I:j "'\ l'''' ON ENTRA TlON UG/L
'" . "'I - I""'IZID' .... \
.= I -~ (( ~ - Cf~
-~.~~ -7
~ ,k1 ¥..~l..}", ..L
:::- ::: ::: ~ .t!}I¥o\~ ~ .. Ii ~ \
~ ::::;:-~'..u'l \...
~ ~~ ~~~- .A +.. ...~ .~.. 1
- ~-=-:?
-..
I
:
~
li---il
~
~-
:::{J
\ I
\
. ...
...~ ".
7i
-
C8N.
16
-
--
. lUll
f---
- - ~rt""[1
StAft ..... -0 t
-I-
SITE PLAN
JCD 0 - 6CD ICID 8CD
. . . ,. ,
I~~.;~':~
ICID"" (wlillltC'C.DIC)
s.:.A.LL IN r[(1
\yASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
. . .. .
.....
..~.
Consulting engineers
April 1990
Number of Detections Contour Map
W.nck Assoclat.., Inc.
1800 Plon..r Creek Dr.
Y.pl. Plain, YN 55359
Fig. 5
-------
l
~
C -. U
+1$.11 () 1(+ I.ID
. T1IEA1\IENT AREA 2 /
...'
C SITE" BOu"CARICS
C"N.
I
~
I
P2
'Ii
+ ..
~..
C N.
',6
CEN.
1"
- - ~7t
IS l'An:
..... -0 t
I
+l
---
SITE
PLAN
- .
. . .
-
,
-
,
...,
,
l1li
,
1~j;.~~D'
ACD.NIf (-...m.D",
SCALE IN 'E(1
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
. . .. .
.....
..~.
Conaulling Engln..r.
April 19crL
Additivity Contour Map
Wenck Assoc:latea, Inc.
1800 Pion.., Creek Dr.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Fig. 6'
-------
C"N.
._---
I
l
I
~ \
-fl
. I
r~
-J
I
LAKE
JANE
...-
~
1"'.71
I
/8 ~
/ -, j}N
/ ..,.~'
o \ _...
~ t'
TR[ATW('IT/AREA ~
_" ~ ",. / -
C 51 q.<.B£.::
f ,,~(.. 1
...
".'1
-
o
LE:CENO
o
W. IilCNfDIftrIIG .oJ. CIt ~fOr eLL.
D RtSIXJrC'ftAL W(U
.... ~ QI¥A1\OiI
/UIIJ ASRICD (UV..ro.
..- COI1Q.II L.I8(. CoI,-' "00'
-.01
......
...
'--
I. ."'1[1 ~ tI..l'I'AnI::IIfS III:AS\A(O
CIII8 -AIICM ». 1MQ.
NOTE:
.
CEN.
1
C8N.
i-
I
---
- - ~tt..""...u sr61"[
.0
I~~...~~~~
"-
SITE
PLAN
2111
I .
....ft..DC
4/'0110 ~.
.... ....
~ IN ;(CY
....
,
...
,
WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL NO.1
. . .. .
....
. .,.....
1800 Pioneer Creek Or.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Fig. 7
Conlultlng Englneerl
April 1990
Water Level Contour Map - Hand Contoured
Wenck A8Ioclat.., Inc.
-------
./"'.
.........."...-
I
l
<. .
..~
,,,,,
"
"
....,
-
.....
---I
-'-1
-'XD-.'----" I
C N.
--f ~"~:' ,..
I U~
----~
---- I
._=- ~--4fi
'f!"'~ t......." ::J- .~
I _...
!
.....
---
- - 5!.!!1t1U..n 11 aft
1110
SITE
PLAN
I~~./~~~
- .
, . .
- -
, ,
SCALL IN rt£T
C '. . 0.2 rtn
-
.
-
.
wolll'M08O.0WC
--
WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL NO.1
. . .. .
--.... -
..~.
eon.ulUng Engineer.
April"
Wenck "'.aoc:la'e., Inc.
1800 Pioneer ereek Dr.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Fig.!:)
Water Level Contour Map - Modeled
-------
~
I
CA~E
,-
I
~AN(
LME
~
I
I \ 11.o.nJ.
I CI&.U I OtOO I
-! 0"" P
~~..0IIt
- IL
0,,",
.J B ONW8
.
I
'I'"
~
o '000 ,- ~N
.., (/ ~
: TR£AT\I(NT AREA 2 /
: C $If[ BOuNDARIeS.
"
..
I " I
: I
=:\ I
I"r---'
1~. i
-,J 'J I
i<\ I
,0
I
TREA t..(,.,1 ARCA 1
"J
.°2
,.,.,
V2 ,
v
CCJ
"""
2010
, fW:J1C8'O
8j
.~.
~1
~3
'"
~
.....
.....
-
....
z
"H .
-
o ,
...
J
....,
.....,
...,...
- - ~n:"'-cs
srut
BSI
BBJ ...--
IiIIOIft8(IW 1"1(5 ~.
AA
CEN.
15
caN.
'16
cc
...
-~- ....'::" '":]--'-
'''0
BB2
(TltNfll8U01 (AS(8iII(."
-
'J»
.
'810
,-
.....
---
-
--
UIO
;:=
S!TE
PLAN
I nl..(
o. J(
"".SPAO~O.OwG
~-2.-QO A'J'"
~
+ I P~OPoS(o weLLS
""
,
"" -
I ,
SCAL£ IN '1:(T
-
,
-
,
V{.ASH1NGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
. . .. 8
.....
. Wr-a8
Conaultlng Englneera
May 1990
Proposed Monitoring Well Locations
Wenck Assoclilles, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Dr.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Fig. 10
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
NORTHWEST AREA
IVY COURT
1. Richard Selbitschka
2. Douglas Dahlblom
3. Roger Chin
42nd STREET
4. Mark Thompson
5. Roger Goss
6. Arthur Grundhauser
7. David Emerson
8. William Best
9. Richard Fuller
10. Karl Tomek
11. Michael Hansel
12. Neil Hickey
ISLE A VENUE
Address
Drinking Confirm. Con-
Water Detec- firmed
Advis. tions BPOL
Non-De-
tection
4235 Ivy Court
4215 Ivy Court
4220 Ivy Court
x
X
X
8860-42nd St.
8989-42nd St.
8949-42nd St.
8909-42nd St.
8895-42nd St.
8875-42nd St.
8855-42nd St.
8835-42nd St.
8815-42nd St.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13.. Clarence Kiesling 4111 Isle Ave. X
14. Steve Hansen 4077 Isle Ave. X
15. Dennis Mogren 4033 Isle Ave. X
JAMACA AVENUE
16. Ken Omath 4260 Jamaca Ave. X
17. Lake Elmo X
New Maint. Bldg. 4259 Jamaca Ave.
18. Fire Station No.2 X
19. Walter Ahola 4026 Jamaca Ave. X
BPQL = Below Practical Quantitation Limit
-------
TABLE 1 (cont.)
Drinking Confirm. Con-
Water Detec- firmed Non-De-
SOUTHWEST AREA Address Advis. tions BPOL tection
JAMACA A VENUE
20. Mrs. Fred Richert 3870 Jarnaca Ave. X
21. Weldon Richert 3855 Jarnaca Ave. X
22. Lavonne Richert 3812 Jamaca Ave. -X
23. Jeff Downs 3793 J arnaca Ave. X
24. Francis Downs 3759 Jarnaca Ave. X
25. Lynn Halverson 3740 Jamaca Ave. X
26. Clair Huppert 3733 Jarnaca Ave. X
27. Gary Paulson 3669 J arnaca Ave. X
28. Donald Klatke 3663 Jarnaca Ave. X
29. Mervin Nippoldt 3501 Jarnaca Ave. X
37th STREET
30. Michael Ritchie 8938-37th St. X
31. Gary Neuenfeldt 8914-37th St. X
33. J. Ohrt 8894-37th St. X
33. David Neby 8862-37th St. X
34. Ronald Ramirez 8834-37th St. X
35. Gordon Johnson 8804-37th St. X
36. John Taylor 880l-37th St. X
37. Robert Maloney 8831-37th St. X
38. Glen Williamson 8861-37th St. X
39. Todd Kormanik 8891-37th St. X
40. Thomas O'Donnell 8909-37th St. X
41. Gary Huelsman 8939-37th St. X
42. - Michael Hilyar 8961-37th St. X
36th STREET
43. David DuFresne 8968-36th St. X
44. Arlyn Christ 8928-36th St. X
45. Timothy Zilles 8890-36th St. X
46. Mark Waldo 8838-36nd St. X
47. Raymond Strege 8808-36th St. X
48. Robert Winter 8809-36th St. X
49. Richard Ehlers 8839-36th St. X
50. Jeffrey Rondeau 8879-36th St. X
51. Richard Quinn 8929-36th St. X
52. Thomas Jasicki 8969-36th St. X
BPQL = Below Practical Quantitation Limit
-------
TABLE 1 (cont.).
Drinking Confirm. Con-
Health Detec- firmed Non-De-
SOUTH AREA Address Advis. tions BPOL tection
JAMACA AVENUE
53. Michael Woolford 3476 Jamaca Ave. X
54. Daniel Primoli 3440 Jamaca Ave. X
55. Peter Bloomquist 3435 Jamaca Ave. X
56. Jerome Bartel 3415 Jamaca Ave. X
57. Lester VanScyoc 3412 Jamaca Ave. X
58. James Morris 3351 Jamaca Ave. X
JAMACA COURT
59. Richard Sanders 9038 J amaca Court X
60. Ronald Dornfeld 9060 J amaca Court X
61. Brian Hall 9090 J amaca Court X
62. Stanley Hauser 9110 Jamaca Court X
63. Kurt Adamson 9130 Jamaca Court X
64. Quang Phung!
Sandra Groth 9150 Jamaca Court X
65. Michael & Thomas
Hickey 9170 Jamaca Court X
66. Ronald Duke 9186 Jamaca Court X
67. Paul Weber 9179 Jamaca Court X
68. J ames Masterman 9165 Jamaca Court X
69. Daniel Yorga 9115 Jamaca Court X
70. David Price 9089 J amaca Court X
71. Robert Lofgren 9055 J amaca Court X
72. Diane Prince 9033 Jamaca Court X
STILLWATER BLVD.
73. Robert Speltz 9250 Stillwater Blvd. X
74. Robert Schoenecker 9280 Stillwater Blvd. X
75. Larry Weiss 9302 Stillwater Blvd. X
76. Delray Espelien 9340 Stillwater Blvd. X
77. Roger Linell 9402 Stillwater Blvd. X
78. Irvin Friedrich 9434 Stillwater Blvd. X
79. Michael Reuvers 9442 Stillwater Blvd. X
80. Donna Hruska 9492 Stillwater Blvd. X
81. Edmond Nielsen 9498 Stillwater Blvd. X
TOTAL 10 11 10 50
BPQL = Below Practical Quantitation Limit
-------
TABLE:! WASHINGTO,'; COU""''''Y SM'dTARY LA;,\UFILL ;'\U. 1. KE.SIDI:XfL\L WATER QUALITY. ug/t
Dichloro Dichlol'C Trichloro !.I.Di
Mon. Chloro Methylene Cnloro flu oro d if1uoro flu oro Vinyl chloro
WeU Date By Aqu Dis methane chloride form methane methane methane chloride ethylene
.a..._........_--...---..........- ----------- ------....... ---.....---------------..-----...- .-...-..-..------ ------------- -:------.......-..-. --------------- ---------...........--- -------------..-- .....--------.....-
MDHRAL's Nov-88 48 57 1400 2100 0.15 7
36th &: 37th S~el 1
C.Huppen 04-0<:1-89 W AI SHA 1
C.Huppen 16-Nov.89 WAI SHA 1 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 0.93 46 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
C.Huppen 16-Nov-89 MPCA SHA 1 NQ 0.6 0.2 PP PP 3.6 NQ <0.2
C.Huppen 13-Dec-89 W AI SHA I <0.02 <.009 <0.008 3.9 38 3.1 <0.02 <0.01
C.Huppen 13.Dec-89 WAI SHA 1 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 0.55 <0.5 0.66 <0.02 <0.01
C.Huppen 04-May.90 W AI SH.A 1 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 0.55 <0.5 0.66 <0.02 <0.01
1
J.Downs 04-0<:1-89 WAI BAS 1 <1 1.i
I.Downs 16-Nov-89 WAI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
I.Downs 16-Nov.89 MPCA BAS 1 NQ PP PP PP PP 0.5 NQ <0.2
I.Downs 13-Dec-89 WAI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 6.9 <0.02 <0.02 0.17
I.Downs 07.Feb-90 WAI BAS 1
I.Downs 30-May.90 W AI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 2.0 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
1
I.Downs-1 O4-Ocl-89 W AI BAS 1 <1 <1
I.Downs-1 16-Nov-89 WAI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
I.Downs-1 13-Dec-89 WAI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 BPQL <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
I.Downs-1 30-May-90 W AI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 1.0 BPQL<2.0 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
1
I.Downs-2 16-Nov-89 WAI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
I.Downs-2 07.Feb-90 WAI BAS 1
1
F.Richen I6-Nov.89 WAI BAS 1 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
F.Richen 16-Nov-89 MPCA BAS I NQ
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COU~TY SANITARY LANDFlLL :\0.1. RESIDE~TlAL WATER QUALm'. ug/1
Cis. 1.2. Trans.I.2. . TelIa 1.I.Di l.2-Di 1.l.I.Tri l.l.2-Tri
Mon. dichloro diehloro T riehloro chloro Chloro chi oro chloro chi Oro chloro
Well DaLe By elhylene elhylc:ne elhylene elhylen~ elhane elhane elhane elhane e!hane
-------...------ ---..-------- _...-.....---- ------------- --------------- --------..--......_- ----------..----- -.-....---------- .-..------.....----- -.....----------.. ------------...... ------.
MDH RAL's Nov-88 70 70 31 6.6 810 3.8 200 14
36th & 371h Slreel
C.Huppen O4-Oct-89 W AI 2.1
-------
TABLE 2 WASHL"GTON COt:J'\TY SANITARY LANDFlLL NO.1. RESIDEI\TL\L WATER QUALITY. ugll
1,2.Di Methyl Methyl Tetra
Mon. chloro ethvl isobutyl Ethyl hydro Ethyl
WeU Date By propane Acetone ketone ketone ether fu ran Benzene Toluene benzene
a___.......-....----...---- ------.......-----.. -------..-- ----.......--------- ------ --- -...._--- ------ ----......_-- ------ -.. ------------- ------....-- ____a.. -..--... ---- -..-..... ---------- ---..----------- ----------~_..__.
MDH RAL's Nov-88 5.6 700 170 350 154 7 2420 680
36th & 37th Street
C.Huppen 04-0ct.89 WAI
C.Huppen 16-Nov.89 WAI <0.01 3.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03
C.Huppen 16-Nov.89 MPCA <0.2 <20 <10 <2
-------
TABLE 2 WASHL"IGTON COIfl
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDF1LL 1\0.1. RESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY. ugn
DichIoro DichIoro TrichIoro I.I.Di
Mon. Chloro Methvle:ne: ChIoro fiuoro difluoro fiuoro Vinyl chi oro
We:ll Date By Aqu Dis methane: chloride: fonn methane: me:thane: me:thane: chloride: e:thylene:
---.........----...-........- ----------......- ------- -----...-------------.....-------- ..............----........--- -_...-----......------ ---.----------- -------------- -----.----- ----------- -------.....
MDH RAL's Nov.88 48 57 1400 2100 0.15 7
A.Christ 04-0cl-89 WAI STP I ' I Note: l,l,I.2-Tc:trachloroethane = BPQL
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFlLL ~O.l . RESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY. ugll
Cis-1,2- Trans-l,2. Tetra l,)-Di 1.2-Di l.l,)-Tn 1.U.Tri
Mon. dichloro diehloro Trichloro chi oro Chloro chi oro chloro chi oro chloro
Well Date By ethylene ethylene elhylene ethylene elhane elhane ethane elhane elhane
-------......._----- ---------- ..._----..-- ---------..--..-- .._---------..-..- --....------------ -------------....."...._----------- -------------..... ....-------------- ---....----------- ------
MDHRAL's Nov-88 70 70 31 6.6 810 3.8 200 14
A.Christ O4-Oct-89 W AI <1 8.0 <1 1.4 <1
A.Christ 16-Nov-89 WAI 0.33 <0.01 7.2 BPQL <0.02 0.82 <0.01 0.79 <0.009
A.ChriSt 16-Nov-89 MPCA \.1 <0.2 11 PP NQ 2.6 <0.2 2.2 <0.2
A.Christ 13-Dec-89 W AI 1.3 <0.01 10 0.56 <0.02 2.3 <0.01 1.7 <0.009
A.Christ 07-Feb-90 WAI
A.Christ 30-May-90 W AI 0.26 <0.01 5.0 <0.008 <0.02 0.52 <0.01 0.51 <0.009
A.Christ 30-May-90 W AI
A.Christ-1 17-Nov-89 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02
-------
TABLE 2 WASHL'l/GTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDF1LL NO.1. RESlDE!'\TIAL WATER QUALITY. ug/l
1,2.Di Mdhyl Mdhyl Telra
Mon. chloro ethyl isobutyl Elhyl hydro Ethyll
Well Date By propane Acetone ketone ketone. ether f u r.an Ben7J:ne Toluene ben=
-------......- --------- ------ ----..............---- --.-------. ....----_.....- ------- ---------- -..-..----......-.... -......--- -- -----
MDH RAL's Noy.88 5.6 700 170 350 154 7 2420 680
A.ChriSl O4-Oct.89 WAI
A.Christ 16-Noy-89 WAI <0.01 <0.07 <0.2 <0.07
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COU?\TY SANITARY LANDF1LL NO.1. RESIDE:-ilAL WATER QUALITY. ug/l
Bis-2. Tow
Moo. Tow ChIoro elhyl he.xyl Oielhyl Di.n-butyl coliform
Well Date By X ylenes Phenols hen z.ene phthalate phthalate phthalate Isophorone bacteria
-..-..-...-......... ....-.......--- --............ ........--------.....- -.............-----. ---................._--- --......--.....--- .-----...---...--..... ------..-------- ..---.......----- ....----..-..---
MDHRAL's Nov.88 400 300 40
A.Christ 04-OCt-89 W AI
A.Christ 16-Nov-89 WAI <0.03 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
A.Christ 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
A.Christ 13-~-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
A.Christ 07.Feb-90 WAI saIe
A.Christ 30-May-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
A.Christ 30-May-90 W AI
A.Christ-1 17.Nov-89 WAI <0.03 <0.02
A.Christ.1 13-IXc-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 .<0.02
A.Christ.1 30-May-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
A.Christ-2 07-Feb-90 WAI saIe
GJohnson 13.~-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
M.Waldo 13.~.89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
J.Taylor 13.~'89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
J.Taylor 10-Jan-90 WAI <0.03 <0.02
J.Tay1or 30-May.90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
R.S~ge 13-~-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
R. Quinn O4-oct-89 W AI
R.Quinn 16-Nov.89 WAI <0.03 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
R.Quinn 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
R. Quinn 16-Nov.89 WAI <0.03 3.5 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
R.Quinn 16-Nov.89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
R.Quinn 13-~.89 WAI <0.03 <0.02
R.Quinn 30-May.90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
TJasicki 17-Nov.89 WAI <0.03 <3 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
T.Juicki 30-May-90 W AI <0.3 <0.2
D.DuF=ne 16-Nov.89 WAI 0.62 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
D.DuFresne 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
D.DuFresne 13.~-89 W AI <0.3
D.DuFresne 10-Jan-90 WAI <0.03 <0.02
D.DuF=ne 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
R.Ma1oney 13.IXc-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
R.Maloney 10-Jan-90 WAI <0.03 <0.02
R.Ma1oney 30-May.9Q W AI <0.03 <0.2
R. Winter 13-~-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
D.Neby 13.IXc-S9 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
D.Neby 10-Jan.90 WAI <0.03 <0.02
D.Neby 30-May-9Q W AI <0.03 <0.2
T.Zilles 17-Nov-89 WAI <0.03 <3 <0.02 <:0.1 <0.12
W.Richen 30-May-9Q W AI <0.03 <0.2
G.Pauison 16-Nov-89 WAI 0.41 <3 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
G.Pauison 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
G.Pauison 10-Jan-90 WAI <0.03 <0.02
G.Pauison 30-May-9Q W AI <0.03 <0.2
T.O' Donnell 0«)ct-89 W AI
T.O'Donnell 16-Nov-89 WAI 0.5 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
T.O'Donnell 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
T.O'Donneil 13-~-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
T.O'Donneil 10-Jan-90 WAI <0.03 <0.02
T.O'Donnell 30-May-9Q W AI <0.03 <0.2
J .Roodeau O4-oct-89 W AI
J.Rondeau 16-Nov-89 WAI <0.03 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
J.Rondeau 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
J.Roodeau 13-~-89 W AI <0.3
J .Rondeau 30-May-9Q W AI <0.03 <0.2
29.Jun.90
Page 8 orzo
WENCK ASSOClA TES, INC.
-------
TABLE 2 WASHL'IIGTON COUI\TY SANITARY LA1\DF1LL 1\0. 1. RESIDEI\TL\L WATER QUALITY. ug/l
Dichloro Dichloro T ri chloro 1.I.Di
Men. O>loro McLhylene O1loro fluoro diIluoro fluoro Vinvl chiaro
Well Date .By Aqu DU meLhane chloride fo= meLhane meLhane meLhane chloride eLhylcne
----....----..--.. ---...--......- ---........ ------------------.......---- .....-------------- -------..-------- ---.....---------- ----...........------- --..----....------ ......--...------- --------
MDH RAL's Nov.88 48 57 1400 2100 0.15 7
LHalverson 16-Nov.89 WAI tJ1'.'K I <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
LHalverson 16-Nov.89 MPCA UNK 1 NQ
-------
TABLE2 WASHL"IGTON COill\TY SANITARY LANDFlLL r-;O.l. RESIDE!'.TlAL WATER QUALITY. ug/l
Cis-I.2. Trans.I.2. Tetra 1,1-Di l.~.Di 1.I.1-Tri 1.1.2-Tri
Mon. dichIoro dlchloro TrichIoro chI oro Chloro chIoro chloro chIoro chIoro
Well DlLe By ethylene ethylene ethylene ethylene ethane ethane ethane:: ethane ethane
-------------- ---------- -----..-.. -------...-..---.... ...-....-....------..... --------------- ....-------------- ------...----..-- ..---...---- ....--------- ----..--- -----
MDH RAL's Nov-88 70 70 31 6.6 810 3.8 . 200 14
LHaivenon 16-Nov.89 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
LHaivenon 16-Nov.89 MPCA 0.3 <0.2 PP <1 NQ 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
LHaivenon 13-Dec.89 WAI
LHaivenon IO-lan-90 WAI 0.18 <0.01 BPQL <0.008 <0.02 0.20 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
LHaivenon 06-Feb-90 W AI BPQL <0.01 BPQL <0.008 <:0.02 BPQL <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
LHaivenon 27.Feb-90 WAI 0.23 <0.01 BPQL <0.008 <0.02 0.28 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
LHaivenon 30-May.90 W AI <0.01 <:0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
M.Hilyar I6-Nov.89 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
M.Hilyar I6-Nov-89 MPCA PP <:0.2 PP
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFlLL NO.1. RESIDE/'.'TlAL WATER QUALITY. ugll
1,2-Di Me.lhyl Me.lhyl T~tra . ELhYJ~
Mon. chiaro ~thyl isobutyl Ethyl hydro
W~ll DaL~ By propan~ AC~Lonc kela1~ kelon~. ~th~r fu~ B~nzen~ Toluene benzcn~
--....- ----...--- -_eo............ -...-.....--...-- -------------..... -.---..-------- --....................-...---- -----....---- ..----..--...-- --"'''''"'- ----
MDH RAL's Nov.88 5.6 700 170 350 154 7 2420 680
LHa1v~non l6-Nov-89 WAI <0.01 <0.07 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03
LHa1v~non I6-Nov-89 MPCA <0.2 <20 <10 <2 <1 <10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
LHa1v~non 13-Dec.89 WAI
LHaJv~non IO-Ian-90 WAI <0.01 <0,(17 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03
LHaJvenon 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 BPQL <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
LHaJv~non 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 BPQL BPQL <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
LHaJvenon 30-May-90 W Al <0.01 <2.0 <0.2 <0.07 <1.0 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
M.Hilyar I6-Nov-89 WAI <0.01 <0. (J7 <0.2 <0. (J7 <0.1 <0.06 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03
M.Hilyar I6-Nov-89 MPCA <0.2 <2b <10 <2
-------
TABLE 2
WASHINGTON COU/'.TY SANITARY LANDFlLL ~O.l . RESlDE!'\TIAL WATER QUALITY. ugil
Bis-2. Tow
Mon. Tow QUoro elhyl hayl Dielhyl Di-n-burvl coli! onn
Well Date By Xylenes Phenols benz.cne phLhalate phthalate phthala~ Isophorone bacteria
-------...---. -----... --"---"'--------"'''' ---- ---_..._-~- ------------......--...--...-------...----
MDH RAL's Nov-88 400 300 40
LHalvenon 16-Nov-89 WAI BPQL <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
LHalvenon 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <:0.5
LHalvenon 13-Dec-89 WAI <0.3
LHalvenon 10-1an-90 WAI <0.03 <:0.02
LHalvenon 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <:0.2
LHalvenon 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
LHalvenon 30-May-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
M.Hilyar 16-Nov-89 WAI BPQL <:3 . <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
M.Hilyar 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
M.Hilyar 30-May-90 W AI <:0.03 <0.2
G.Neuenfeldt 16-Nov-89 W AI <0.03 <:3 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
G.Neuenfeldt 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
T.Konn.anilc 16-Nov-89 W AI 0.44 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
T.Konn.aniIc 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
T.Konn.aniIc 13-Dec-89 WAI <0.3
T.Konn.aniIc 10-1an-90 WAI <0.03 <0.02
1.0hn 13.Dec-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <0.02
R.Ehlen 13.Dec-89 WAI <:0.03 <:0.3 <0.02
G.Williamson 13-Dec-89 WAI <0.03 <0.3 <:0.02
G.Williamson 10-1an-90 W Al <0.03 <0.02
G.Williamson 30-May-90 W AI <0.03 <:0.2
lamaa Coon
LFriedrich 27.Feb-90 WAI <:0.03 <0.2
D.Primoli 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
D.Primoli 07-Mar-90 WAI <:0.03 <0.2
L vanScyoc 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
LVanScyoc 07-Mar-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
M.Woolford 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
D.Hnuka 27.Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
M.Hickey 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
M.Hickey 20-Mar-90 W AI BPQL <0.2
K.AdamsaI 06-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
K.Adamsoo 27-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
1.Banel 06-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <:0.2
P.Bloomquut 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <:0.2
R.Domfeid 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
R.Domfe1d 27-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
B.HalI 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 . <0.2
B.HalI 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
S.Hawer 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
S.Hawer 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
E.N"iclsen 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
Q.Phung 06-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2.
R.Sandcrs 06-Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
R.Du1ce 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
R.Du1ce 20-Mar-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
D.Espelien 07-Mar-90 WAI BPQL <0.2
D.Eapelien 30-May-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
LFreidrich 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
LFreidrich '20-Mar-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
R.LineU 27.Feb-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
29-Jun-9Q
Page U of 20
WENCK ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COur.TY SANITARY LANDflLL NO.1. RESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY. ug/l
Dichlom Dichlom Trichlom l.l.Di
Mon. Otlom Melhylene Otlom l1uom difluoro fluoro Vinyl chiaro
Well Dale By Aqu Dis methane chloride fonn methane methane methane chloride ethylene
------------ -------..- ---.....- ---..------......---------.....- -------.....- -...--------..--...-.. -...--------..--- ---................----- -.....-...- ------ ------........
MDHRAL's Noy-88 48 57 1400 2100 0.15 7
R.Lofgrcn 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 0.31 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
R.Lofgn:n 20-Mar-90 W AI lJNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 0.27 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
J.Maslerman 27.Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 BPQL <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
J .Maslennan 20-Mar.90 W AI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 BPQL <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
J .Morris 27.Feb-90 WAI tJ1ilK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
D.Price 27.Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
D.Pricc 20-Mar-90 W AI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
D.Prince 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 0.18 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
D.Prince 20-Mar-90 W AI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 0.14 <0.05 - <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
M.Rcuyen 27-Fcb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
R.Schoenccker 27-Fcb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
R.SpcllZ 27.Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
P.Weber 27.Fcb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
P.Weber 20-Mar-90 W AI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
LWciss 07-Mar-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
D.Yorga 27-Fcb-90 WAI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 BPQL <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
D.Yorga 20-Mar-90 W AI UNK 2 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 BPQL <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
2
NW . Inside Well Advisory An:a 3
W.Ahola 16-Noy.89 WAI BAS 3 <0.02 <0.009 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
W.Ahola 16-Noy-89 MPCA BAS 3 NQ
-------
TABLE 2 WASHL~GTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL :-;0.1. RESIDEr.,.lAL WATER QUALITY. ugil
Cis. 1,2. Trans.I,2. Tetra 1,1.Di 1,2.Di I.U-Tri 1,1,2-Tri
Mon. dichloro dichloro Trichloro chi oro ChIaro chloro chiaro chiaro .chlaro
Well Da~ By ethylene ethylene ethylene ethylene. ethane ethane ethane ethane ethane
---------......- -----...--- ------ ------ ...-----......----- .--.....-...--...- --....------- ---......---..... ---------- ----------... ----...---- ----
MDHRAL's Nov-88 70 70 31 6.6 810 3.8 200 14
R.Lofgrcn 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.17 <0.009
R.Lofgrcn 2o.Mar-90 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 BPQL <0.009
J.Mas~rman 27 -Feb-90 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 0.10 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
J.Mas~rman 2o.Mar.90 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
J..'I<1orris 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
D.Pricc 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 0.12 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
D.Priu 2o.Mar-90 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 BPQL <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
D.Princc 27.Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
D.Princc 2o.Mar-90 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
M.Reuven 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
R.Schocnccker 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
R.Spcl~ 27.Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
P.Weber 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 0.088 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
P.Weber 2o.Mar-90 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
L Weiss 07-Mar-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
D.Yorga 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 BPQL BPQL <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
D.Yorga 2o.Mar-90 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 BPQL <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
NW - Inside Well Advisory Area
W.Ahola 16-Nov-89 W AI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
W.Ahola 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COm.TI' SANITARY LANDFlLL NO.1. RESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY. ugil
1,2-Di Methyl Methyl Tctra
Mon. chlaro cll1yl isobutyl Ethyl hydro .Ethyi
WcU Dal<: By propanc AcctOnc k Clmc ketonc. cll1cr [uran Benzenc Toluc:nc benzene
----.......... ---- -....-... ...........-......-...--.....- ........---.....------- ---.....-----... -------------- --.........------ --------- ...----- ----- --...
MDH RAL's Nov-88 5.6 700 170 350 154 7 2420 680
R.Lofgrcn 27-Fcb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
R.Lofgrcn 20-Mar-90 W AI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
IMaslennan 27.Fcb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
IMaslennan 20-Mar.90 W AI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
IMoms 27-Fcb-90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 . <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 . <0.03
D.Pricc 27.Fcb-90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
D.Pricc 20-Mar-90 W AI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
D.Prince 27-Fcb-90 W AI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
D.Prince 20-Mar.90 W AI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
M.Reuven 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
R.Schocnccker 27.Fcb-90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
R.Spclu 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
P.Webcr 27-Fcb-90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
P.Webcr 20-Mar-90 W AI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
I... Weiss 07-Mar.90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
D.Yorga 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.0\ <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 BPQL <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
D.Yorga 20-Mar.90 W AI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 BPQL <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
NW . Inside Wc\l Advisory An:a
W.Ahola 16-Nov-89 WAI <0.01 <0.07 <0.2 <0.07 <0.\ <0.06 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03
W.Ahola \6-Nov-89 MPCA <0.2 <20 <\0 <2
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COlJl',TY SANITARY LANDFILL SO. 1. RESIDEI'TlAL WATER QUALITY. ugll
Bis.2. Tow
Mon. Tow ChJoro ethyl hayl Diethyl Di.n.buryl coli! 0=
Well DaLe By Xylenes Phenols benzene phthalaLe phthalaLe phLlalaLe Isophorone b.acria
.....--...----------- -..-------..... ------ ..-------...---- ------.--------- ----.....------.. -----..-..------- --......---------- -------------- --------- -------..--
MDH RAL's Nov-88 400 300 40
R.Lofgren 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
R.Lofgren 20-Mar-90 W AI BPQL <0.2
I.MasLennan 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
I.MasLennan 20-Mar-90 W AI BPQL <0.2
IMorris 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
D.Price 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
D.Price 20-Mar-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
D.Prince 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
D.Prince 20-Mar.90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
M.Reuven 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
R.Schoenecker 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
R.Speltz 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
P.Weber 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
P.Weber 20-Mar-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
L Wein 01-Mar-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
D.Yorga 27-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
D.Yorga 20-Mar-90 W AI BPQL <0.2
NW - Inside Well AdvUory Area
W.Ahola 16-Nov-89 WAI <0.03 <3 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
W.Ahola 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
M.Hansel Q9-Ian-90 W AI <0.03 <3 <0.02
N.Hickey Q9-Ian-90 W AI <0.03 <3 <0.02
R.Goss 16-Nov-89 WAI BPQL 31.2 <0.02 <0.1 <0.12
R.Goss 16-Nov-89 MPCA <0.5 <0.5
R. Goss Q9-Ian-90 W AI <0.03 6 <0.02
R. Goss O1-Feb-90 WAI BPQL
4
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDF1LL NO.1. RESIDEI\-rL\L WATER QUALITY. ug/l
Dichloro Dichlol'O TrichJol'O I,I-Di
Mon. Chloro Melhylene Chloro fluoro difluoro fluoro Vinyl chJoro
Well Dale By Aqu Dis melhane chloride fonn melhane melhane melhane chloride clhylcne
--.....----.------ ----..------ --------- ----------..------......-..........--... --..------........--- --...---------- .......------.........--.. -----......------ ----....--....----- ------------..-- ........----------.
MDHRAL's Nov.88 48 57 1400 2100 0.15 7
NW . Ouuide Well Advisory Aru 4
J.Bladciord 3o..May-90 W AI STP 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 BPQL<2.0 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
G.Pelenon 07.Feb-90 WAI STP 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
G.Kiuman 07-Feb-90 WAI STP 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
D.LoritZ 07-Feb-90 WAI STP 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
C.Hawkins 07-Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
P.Pallmeyer 07.Feb-90 WAI tlT'.'K 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
T.Bjork ~Feb-90 W AI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
R.Buska 07-Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
E.Capra 07.Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
M.Dahi 07.Fcb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
D.Olinger 01.Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
T.Sandquist 07.Fcb-90 WAr UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
T.Sandquist 07-Feb-90 WAr UNK 4 NOIe: Cwncne = BPQL (<0.4)
T.Sandquist 2o..Mar-90 W Al UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
T.Sandquist 3o..May.90 W AI l.jNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
P.Wandmacher 07-Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
W.Wegwerth 07.Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.02 <0.09 <0.008 <0.05 <0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01
4
29-Jun.90
Pale 17 or 20
WENCK ASSCCIA TES, :NC.
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFlLL NO.1. RESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY. ug/l
Cis-l,2- Trans-I.2. Tetra I.I-Di 1.2.Di I.U.Tri l.l.2.Tri
Mon. d ichloro dichloro Trichloro chloro Chloro chiaro chiaro chiaro . chloro
WeU Date By ethylene ethylene ethylene ethylene ethane ethane ethane ethane ethane
-------------- -------- ...------ -------------..... ----...-----...........-- -------------- ---------------- -----....-_...--.--- ---------- ----------- --..------ ---..---
MDH RAL's Noy-88 70 70 31 6.6 810 3.8 200 14
NW - Ouuide Well Advisory Arc.1
I.Blackford 3D-May.90 W Al <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01. <0.02 <0.009
G.Peterson 07.Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
G.Kil1man 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
D.LorilZ 07.Feb-90 W Al <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
C.Hawkins 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
P .Pallmeyer 07-Feb-90 W Al <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
T.Bjoric 06-Feb-90 W Al <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
R.Buslca 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
E.Capra 07.Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
M.Dahi 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01. <0.02 <0.009
D.Olinger OI-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
T.SandquiSL 07.Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
T.Sandquist 07.Feb-90 W Al
T.Sandquist 20-Mar-90 W Al <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
T.Sandquist 30-May.90 W Al <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
P.Wandmacher 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.009
W.Wegwenh 07-Feb-90 W Al <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.008 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02. <0.009
29-Jun.90
?age 18 or 20
WENCK ASSOClA TES. :NC.
-------
TABLE 2 WASHINGTON COm-TV SANITARY LANDF1LL NO.1. RESIDEl'TIAL WATER QUALITY. ugll
1,2.Di Methyl ~iethyl Tetra
Mon. chloro ethyl isobutyl Ethyl hydro . Ethy~
WeU Date By propane AcelOne ketone ketone ether furan Benzene Toluene benzene
--------.-...... --------------- ...--------- -------...........-- ---....--------. ......-------......- --.....---------........ ---.....------...-..... ---------------- ------------- ....--------......- ------..........--..
MDHRAL's Nov.88 5.6 700 170 350 154 7 2420 680
NW . Ouuide Well Advisory Aru
J.Bbckford 30-May-90 W AI <0.01 <20 <0.2 <0.07 <1.0 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
G.Peterson 07.Fel>-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
G.KilZman 07.Fel>-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0,03
D.LoritZ 07.Fel>-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 . <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0,06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
C.Hawltins 07.Fel>-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0,03'
P.Pal1meycr 07-Fcb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
T.Bjorlc 06-Fcl>-90 W AI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
R.Bwlca 07.Fcb-90 WAI <0,01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
E.u.pra 07.Fcb-90 WAI <0,01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
M.Dahi 07.Feb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0,06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
D.Olingcr OI-Fcl>-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
T.Sandquist 07.Fcb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
T.Sandquist 07.Fcb-90 WAI
T.Sandquist 20-Mar-90 W AI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
T.Sandquist 30-May-90 W AI <0.01 15 <0.2 <0.07 <1.0 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
P. Wandmachcr 07-Fcb-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
W.Wcgwcnh 07-Fcl>-90 WAI <0.01 <0.7 <0.2 <0.07 <0.1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.3 <0.03
29.Jun.90
Page 19 or20
WENCK ASSOClA ITS, INC.
-------
TABLE2
WASHL"GTON COUJ",TY SANITARY LANDF1LL NO.1. RESIDEI'oTIAL WATER QUALITY. ugl1
Well
Mon.
By
8i,-2-
Chloro ethyl hcxyl
bcnune phLhaiaLe
....------------ ----------... ---------- ------------- --------------... ."'------.....--... ..--------......--- ----------- ----------- ----.....--...----- --"".."----a....
I,ophorone
Total
coliform
bacteria
Dale
Xylenes
Total
Phenols
MDH RAL', Nov.gg 400 300 40
NW . Outside Well Advisory A=
I.Blac:ldord 30-May-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
G.PeLerson 07.Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
G.Kil2rnan 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
D.LorilZ 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
C.Hawkins 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
P .Pa1Imeyer 07.Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
T.Bjoric 06-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
R.Buska 07.Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
E.Capra 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
M.Dahl 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
D.Olinger OI-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
T.Sandquist 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
T.Sandquist 07-Feb-90 WAI
T.Sandquist 20-Mar-90 W AI BPQL <0.2
T.Sandquist 30-May-90 W AI <0.03 <0.2
P .Wandmacher 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
W.Wegwerth 07-Feb-90 WAI <0.03 <0.2
29.Jun.9Q
Page 20 o( 20
DieLhyl
phLha.IaLe
Di-n-butyl
phLha.IaLe
WENCK ...sS0C:A 7ES, iNC.
-------
TABLE 3
TOTAL LEAD ANALYSES
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDfiLL NO.1
(Conccnuauon. ugIL)
Mon.
Well Dale By Aqu Dis Lead Lead NOles
---...-----------...-.....
MDHRAL's Noy-88 20
Sile Wells and Truunent Arus 0
0
GC1 16-Noy-89 WAI BAS 0 33 DIGESTED
GC1 13-Dec:-89 WAI BAS 0 42
GC1 13-Dec-89 MPCA BAS 0 13
GC1 13-Fel>-90 WAI BAS 0 20
GC1 20-Fel>-90 W AI ARC BAS 0 42
GC1 20-Fel>-90 W AI ARC BAS 0 20 DIGESTED
GC1 20-FeI>-90 WAIUHL BAS 0 6
GC1 20-Fel>-90 W AI UHL BAS 0 146 DIGESTED
GC1 28-FeI>-90 WAI BAS 0 80 DIGESTED. QUESTIONABLE DATA
GC1 28-Fel>-90 WAI BAS 0 87 QUESTIONABLE DATA
GC1 07-Mar-90 WAI BAS 0 42
GC1 07-Mar-90 WAI BAS 0 24 DIGESTED
GCl 07-Mar-90 WAI BAS 0 46 Fll.TERED
GCl 07-Mar-90 WAI BAS 0 0.6 DIGESTED. Fll.TERED
GC1 24-A pr-90 WAI BAS 0 <0.5
GCl 24-Apr-90 MPCA BAS 0 0.6
GC1 24-Apr-90 WAI BAS 0 <0.5 Fll.TERED
GC1 24-Apr-90 MPCA BAS 0 <0.2 Fll.TERED
o
Hwy 5 Outlet 16-Noy-89 WAI 0 4.6 DIGESTED
Hwy 5 Outlet 13-Fel>-90 WAI 0 <0.8
Hwy 5 Outlet 20-Fel>-90 WAI ARC 0 <0.8
Hwy 5 Outlet 20-Fel>-90 WAI ARC 0 12 DIGESTED
H wy 5 Outlet 20-Fel>-90 W AI UHL 0 3
Hwy 5 Outlet 20-Fel>-90 W AI UHL 0 2 DIGESTED
Hwy 5 Outlet 28-Fel>-90 WAI 0 65 DIGESTED. QUESTIONABLE DATA
H wy 5 Outlet 28-Fel>-90 WAI 0 99 QUESTIONABLE DATA
H wy 5 Outlet 07-Mar-90 WAI 0 37
Hwy 5 Outlet 07-Mar-90 WAI 0 34 DIGESTED
Hwy 5 Outlet 07-Mar-90 WAI 0 2S Fll.TERED
Hwy 5 Outlet 07-Mar-90 WAI 0 50 DIGESTED, FILTERED
Hwy 5 Outlet 14-Mar-90 W AI UHL 0 <1
Hwy 5 Outlet l4-Mar-90 W AI UHL 0 <1 DIGESTED
Hwy 5 Outlet 14-Mar-90 WAIUHL 0 <1 Fll.TERED
Hwy 5 Outlet 14-Mar-90 W AlUHL 0 <1 DIGESTED, FILTERED
H wy 5 Outlet 05-Apr-90 WAI. 0 <0.9
Hwy 5 Outlet 05-Apr-90 WAI 0 <0.9 BROWN PLASTIC
H wy 5 Outlet l2-Apr-90 WAI 0 <0.9
Hwy 5 Outlet 24-Apr-90 WAI 0 <0.5 WHITE PLASTIC
o
TAl 24-Apr-90 WAI 0 <0.5
TAl 24-Apr-90 MPCA 0 0.4
TAl 24-Apr-90 WAI 0 <0.5
TAl 24-Apr-9Q MPCA 0 <0.2 Fll.TERED
o
EAGLE POINT LAKE l3-FeI>-90 WAI 0 1.9
0
36th &.0 37th Street 1
1
C. HUPPERT l6-Nov.89 WAI SHL 1 17 DIGESTED
C. HUPPERT 16-Nov-89 MPCA SHL 1 1.4
C. HUPPERT 13-Dec:-89 WAI SHL 1 1.3
C. HUPPERT 13-Dec-89 MPCA SHL 1 1
1
J. DOWNS 16-Noy.89 WAI BAS 1 4 DIGESTED
J. DOWNS l6-NoY.89 MPCA BAS 1 2.2
1
J. DOWNS Tl l6-NoY-89 WAI BAS 1 15 DIGESTED
1
J.DOWNST2 16-Nov.89 WAI BAS 1 5.7 DIGESTED
1
F. RICHERT l6-Nov.89 WAI BAS 1 7.5 DIGESTED
F. RICHERT 16-Noy-89 MPCA BAS 1 0.6
1
W.AHOLA 16-Noy-89 WAI BAS 1 1.3 DIGESTED
W. AHOLA l6-Nov-89 MPCA BAS 1 0.4
1
F. DOWNS 16-Noy-89 WAI BAS 1 1.4 DIGESTED
F. DOWNS 16-Noy.89 MPCA BAS 1 0.4
1
Page 1 'or 6
-------
TABLE 3
TOTAL LEAD ANALYSES
WASHINGTON COUNTI' SANITARY LANDF1LL NO.1
(Concenlnuon. ug/L)
Moo.
Well DaLe By Aqu Oil wd wd NOLes
.--------
MDH RAL's Nov.88 20
L RICHERT 16-Nov.89 WAI BAS 8.1 DIGES1ED
L RICHERT 16-Nov-89 MPCA BAS 2.8
D. KLATKE 16-Nov.89 WAI BAS 3.0 DIGES1ED
D.KLATKE 16-Nov.89 MPCA BAS 0.5
G. HUELSMAN 16-Nov.89 WAI BAS 8.1 DIGES1ED
G. HUELSMAN 16-Nov-89 MPCA BAS 2.4
G. HUELSMAN T1 16-Nov.89 WAI BAS 19 DIGES1ED
G. HUELSMAN 12 16-Nov-89 WAI BAS 3.8 DIGES1ED
R. RAMIREZ 16-Nov.89 WAI BAS 3.4 DIGES1ED
R. RAMIREZ 13-l)ec.89 MPCA BAS 5.4
M. RITCHIE 16-Nov.89 WAI STP 1.3 DIGES1ED
M. RITCHIE 16-Nov-89 MPCA STP 0.6
A.CHRIST 16-Nov-89 WAI STP 17 DIGES1ED
A.CHRIST 16-Nov.89 MPCA STP 14
A.CHRIST 13.Dec.8~ WAI STP 3.0
G. JOHNSON 13-Dec.89 WAI STP <.0.7
G. JOHNSON 13-Dec.89 MPCA STP 0.5
M. WALDO 13-Dec.89 WAI STP <.0.7
M. WALDO 13-Dec.89 MPCA STP 0.8
J. TAYLOR 13-l)ec.89 WAI STP <.0.7
1. TAYLOR 13.1)ec.89 MPCA STP 0.5
R. STREGE 13-Dec.89 WAI STP <.0.7
R. STREGE 13.Dec.89 MPCA STP 0.6
R. QUINN 16-Nov.89 WAI PDC 4.7 DIGES1ED, 5 MJN.
R. QUINN 16-Nov.89 MPCA PDC 0.8 5MJN.
R. QUINN 16-Nov.89 WAI PDC 13 DIGES1ED, 15 MJN.
R. QUINN 16-Nov.89 MPCA PDC 1.2 15 MIN.
R. QUINN 13-l)ec.89 WAI PDC 1.0
R. QUINN 13.Dec.89 MPCA PDC 1.1
T. JASICKI 17.Nov.89 WAI PDC 10.2 DIGES1ED
T. JASICKI 13.Dec.89 WAI PDC lO
T. JASICKI 13-Dec.89 MPCA PDC 7.2
D. DU FRESNE 16-Nov.89 WAI PDC 1 78 DIGES1ED
D. DU FRESNE 16-Nov.89 MPCA PDC 1 <.0.2
D. DU FRESNE 13-l)ec.89 WAI PDC 1 3.4
D. DU FRESNE 13-Dec.89 MPCA PDC 1 0.2
1
R. MALONEY 13-Dec-89 WAI PDC 1 <.0.7
R. MALONEY 13-1)ec-89 MPCA PDC 1 0.3
1
R. WINTER 13-l)ec-89 WAI PDC 1 <.0.7
R. WINTER 13.Dee.89 MPCA PDC 1 0.2
1
D. NEBY 13-l)ec-89 WAI PDC 1 <.0.7
D. NEBY 13-l)ec-89 MPCA PDC 0.3
T. ZII..LES 16-Nov.89 WAI PDC 5.9 DIGES1ED
G. PAULSON 16-Nov-89 WAI UNK 26 DIGES1ED
G. PAULSON 16-Nov.89 MPCA UNK 0.3
G. PAULSON 13.1)ec.89 WAI UNK <0.3
G. PAULSON 13-1)ec-89 MPCA UNK 0.5
T. O'OONNEU- 16-Noy.89 WAI UNK 7.8 DIGES1ED
T. O'OONNEU- 16-Noy-89 MPCA UNK 4.1
J. RONDEAU 16-Noy-89 WAI UNK 3.9 DIGES1ED
J. RONDEAU 16-Noy-89 MPCA UNK 1.7
Page 2 or6
-------
TABLE 3
TOTAL LEAD ANALYSES
W ASIIDlGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDffi.L NO.1
(Conocntnlion. ug/L)
Mon.
Well DaLe By Aqu Dis Lead Lead NOLes
--------...----..-----..-....
MDHRAL's Noy-88 20
]
L HALVERSON 16-NoY-89 WAI UNK 1 5.9 DIGESTED
L HALVERSON 16-Nov-89 MPCA UN!< 1 0.2
1
M. HIl.. Y AR 16-Noy-89 WAI UN!< 1 6.6 DIGESTED
M. HIl.. Y AR 16-Noy-89 MPCA UN!< 1 0.3
1
G. NEUENFELDT 16-Noy-89 WAI UNK 1 4.1 DIGESTED
G.NEUENFELDT 16-Noy-89 MPCA UN!< 1 0.7
1
T. KORMANIK 16-Nov-89 WAI UN!< 1 4.7 DIGESTED
T. KORMANIK 16-Noy-89 MPCA UN!< 1 0.5
1
I. OHRT 13-Dec-89 WAI UN!< 1 <.0.7
I. OHRT 13-Dec-89 MPCA UN!< 1 0.6
1
R. EHLERS 13-Dec-89 WAI UN!< 1 <.0.7
R. EHLERS 13-Dec-89 MPCA UN!< 1 0.4
1
G. wn.UAMSON 13-Dec-89 WAI UN!< 1 <.0.7
G. wn.UAMSON 13-Dec-89 MPCA UN!< 1 0.7
1
lamaca COlIn 2
2
L FREIDRICH 27-Feb-90 WAI SHL 2 108 QUESTIONABLE DATA
L FREIDRlCH 20-Mar-90 WAI SHL 2 2.5
L FREIDRlCH 03-May-90 WASH SHL 2 1.2
2
D. PRIMOU 06-Feb-90 WAI BAS 2 1.5
2
L V AN SCYOC 06-Feb-90 WAI PDC 2 <.0.8
2
M. WOLLFORD 06-Feb-90 WAI UN!< 2 <.0.8
2
D.HRUSKA 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 126 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D.HRUSKA 20-Mar-90 WAI UNK 2 5.6
D.HRUSKA 03-May-90 WASH UNK 2 1.1
2
M. HICKEY 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 79 QUESTIONABLE DATA
M. HICKEY 20-Mar-90 WAI UNK 2 140 QUESTIONABLE DATA
M. HICKEY 03.May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
M. HICKEY 03-May.90 MDH UNK 2 <5
2
K. ADAMSON 06-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <.0.8 QUESTIONABLE DATA
K. ADAMSON 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 126 QUESTIONABLE DATA
K. ADAMSON 03"May-90 WASH UN!< 2 3.0
2
I. BARTEL 06-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 7.5
2
P. BLOOMQUIST 06-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 1.9
2
R. DORNFELD 06-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 200 QUESTIONABLE DATA
R. DORNFELD 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 3.1 QUESTIONABLE DATA
R. DORNFELD 03-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
2
B. HALL 06-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <.0.8 QUESTIONABLE DATA
B. HALL 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 128 QUESTIONABLE DATA
B. HALL 04-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
2
S. HAUSER 06-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 <.0.8 QUESTIONABLE DATA
S. HAUSER 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 108 QUESTIONABLE DATA
S. HAUSER 03.May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
2
E. NIELSON 06-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 810 QUESTIONABLE DATA
E. NIELSON 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 280 QUESTIONABLE DATA
E. NIELSON 04-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
E. NIELSON 04-May.90 MDH UNK 2
-------
TABLE 3
TOTAL lEAD ANALYSES
WASHINGTON COUNIY SANITARY I.:A.'IDFll.L NO.1
(ConccnU2uon,ug/L)
Mon.
Wdl Dale By Aqu Ois Lc.ad Lc.ad NOles
....------.----
MDH RAL's Noy-88 20
R. DUKE 27 -Feb-90 WAI UN}( 2 102 QUESTIONABLE DATA
R. DUKE 20-Mar-90 WAI UN}( 2 7.4
R. DUKE 20-Mar.90 WAI UNK 2 5.7 BlIND DUP
R. DUKE 05-May-90 WASH UN}( 2 <1.0
2
D.ESPELIEN 07.Mar-90 WAI UN}( 2 49 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D.ESPELIEN 04-May-90 WASH UN}( 2 1.0
2
1. FREIDRICH 27-Feb-90 WAI UN}( 2 118 QUESTIONABLE DATA
1. FREIDRICH 20-Mar-90 WAY UN}( 2 2.4
L FREIDRICH 04-May-90 WASH UN}( 2 <1.0
2
R. LINELL 27.Feb-90 WAI UN}( 2 229 QUESTIONABLE DATA
R. LINELL 20-Mar-90 WAY UN}( 2 <0.7
R. LINELL 20-Mar-90 W AI MDH UNK 2 <5
R. LINELL 03-May-90 WASH UNK 2 1.1
2
R.LOFGREN 27-Feb-90 WAY UNK 2 116 QUESTIONABLE DATA
R. LOFGREN 20-Mar.90 WAY UN}( 2 2.6
R. LOFGREN 20-Mar-90 W AI MDH UN}( 2 <5
R. LOFGREN 04-May-90 WASH UNK 2 9.2
R. LOFGREN 30-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <2
2
I. MASTERMAN 27.Feb-90 WAY UNK 2 131 QUESTIONABLE DATA
1. MASTERMAN 20-Mar-90 WAI UNK 2 128 QUESTIONABLE DATA
I. MASTERMAN 20-Mar-90 W AI MDH UN}( 2 <5
I. MASTERMAN 04-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
I. MASTERMAN 04-May-90 MDH UNK 2 <5
2
I. MORRIS 27.Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 73 QUESTIONABLE DATA
I. MORRIS 20-Mar-90 WAI UN}( 2 3.7
I. MORRIS 03-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
2
D. PRICE 27.Feb-90 WAY UN}( 2 112 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D. PRICE 20-Mar-90 WAY UNK 2 5.4
D. PRICE 2O-Mar-90 W AI MDH UNK 2 <5
D. PRICE 03-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0 .
2
D. PRINCE 27.Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 97 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D. PRINCE 20-Mar-90 WAY UNK 2 170 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D. PRINCE 04-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
D. PRINCE 04-May-90 MDH UN}( 2 <5
2
M. REUVERS 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 125 QUESTIONABLE DATA
M.REUVERS 20-Mar-90 WAY UN}( 2 8.7
M. REUVERS 20-Mar-90 WAIMDH UNK 1. <5
M. REUVERS OS-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
27.Feb-90 2
R. SCHOENECKER WAI UN}( 2 91 QUESTIONABLE DATA
R. SCHOENECKER 20-Mar-90 WAI UN}( 2 2.S
R. SCHOENECKER 07-May.90 WASH UN}( 2 <1.0
2
R. SPELTZ 27-Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 1.3
2
P. WEBER 27.Feb-90 WAY UN}( 2 92 . QUESTIONABLE DATA
P. WEBER 2O-Mar-90 WAY UNK 2 2.8
P. WEBER 04-May.90 WASH UNK 2 1.8
2
L. WEISS 07-Mar-90 WAX UNK 2 61 QUESTIONABLE DATA
L. WEISS 03-May-90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
L. WEISS 03-May.90 MDH UN}( 2 <5
2
D. YORCiA 27.Feb-90 WAI UNK 2 72 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D.YORGA 20-Mar-9Q WAI UNK 2 130 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D.YORGA 03-May.90 WASH UNK 2 <1.0
D.YORCiA 03-May.90 MDH UNK 2 <5
2
NW - Inside Well Advisory Aru 3
3
M. HANSEL 09-Jan-90 WAI STP 3 1.7
3
N. HICKEY 09-1an.9Q WAI PDC 3 <0.3
Pace 4 of 6
-------
TABLE 3
TOTAL LEAD ANALYSES
WASHINGTON COUNTY SA..'llT ARY LA..''DFILL NO.1
«(:Qno:nlnltioo. ug/L)
Moo.
Well Dale By Aqu Dis Lead Lead NOles
-------....................---------..............----.
MDHRAL's Noy-SS 20
3
R. GOSS I&-Noy-89 WAI PDC 3 9.4 DIGESTED
R. GOSS 1 &-Noy-89 MPCA PDC 3 1.6
R. GOSS 09-Jan-90 WAI PDC 3 33
R. GOSS 07 -Feb-90 WAI PDC 3 86 0M1N.
R. GOSS 07 -Feb-90 WAI PDC 3 300 5 MIN.
R. GOSS 07-Feb-90 WAI PDC 3 24 15M1N.
R. GOSS 03-May-90 WASH PDC 3 <1.0
R. GOSS 03-May-90 MDH PDC 3 <5
3
S. HANSEN 09-Jan-90 WAI PDC 3 <0.3
3
R. SELBITSHKA 1 &-Noy-89 WAI PDC 3 3.0 DIGESTED
3
K. TOMEK 09-Jan-9Q WAI PDC 3 12
K. TOMEK 07-Feb-90 WAI PDC 3 130 0M1N.
K. TOMEK 07-Feb-90 WAI PDC 3 24 5M1N.
K. TOMEK 07-Feb-90 WAI PDC 3 1.2 15 Mm.
K. TOMEK 04-May-90 WASH PDC 3 <1.0
3
M. THOMPSON 09-Jan-90 WAI PDC 3 37
M. THOMPSON 07-Feb-90 WAI PDC 3 2.6
M. THOMPSON 05-May-90 WASH PDC 3 <1.0
3
D. DAHLBLOM I&-Noy-89 WAI UN}( 3 2.5 DIGESTED. 5 MIN.
D. DAHLBLOM I&-Noy-89 MPCA UNK 3 0.3 5 MIN.
D. DAHLBLOM I &-Noy-89 WAI UN]( 3 6.5 DIGESTED, 15 MIN.
D. DAHLBLOM I&-Noy-89 MPCA UNK 3 0.4 15 Mm.
D. DAHLBLOM 09-Jan-90 WAI UNK 3 <0.3
3
R.CHIN 09-Jan-90 WAI UN}( 3 1.7
3
W. BEST 09-Jan-90 WAI UN}( 3 1.4
3
D. EMERSON 09-Jan-90 WAI UN}( 3 25 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D. EMERSON 07-Feb-90 WAI UN}( 3 410 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D. EMERSON Q3-May-90 WASH UN}( 3 <1.0
D. EMERSON 03-May-90 MDH UN}( 3 <5
3
R. FULLER 09-Jan-90 WAI UN}( 3 <0.3
3
A. GRUNDHAUER 09-Jan-9Q WAI UN}( 3 <0.3
3
C. KIESLING 09-Jan-90 WAI UN}( 3 <0.3
3
D. MOGREN 09-Jan-9Q WAI UN}( 3 <0.3
3
NW - Outside Well Advisory Area 4
4
G. PETERSON 07-Feb-90 WAI STP 4 1.0
4
G. KITZMAN 07-Feb-90 WAI STP 4 3.4
4
D. LORITZ 07-Feb-90 WAI STP 4 160 QUESTIONABLE DATA
D. LORITZ 2O-Mar-9Q WAI STP 4 SI QUESTIONABLE DATA
D. LORITZ Q3-May-90 WASH STP 4 24.2
D. LORITZ Q3-May-90 MDH STP 4 <.5
D. LORITZ 30-May-90 WASH STP 4 <2
4
P. PAU.MEYER 07-Feb-90 WAI UN}( 4 <0.8
4
T. BJORK O&-Feb-90 WAI UN}( 4 4S QUESTIONABLE DATA
T. BJORK 20-Mar-90 W AI ARC UN}( 4 3700 QUESTIONABLE DATA
T. BJORK 20-Mar-9Q WAI ARC UN}( 4 110 BLIND DUP, QUESTIONABLE DATA
T. BJORK Q3-May-90 WASH UN}( 4 1.5
T. BJORK 03-May-90 MDH UN}( 4 <5
4
R. BUSKA 07-Feb-90 WAI UN}( 4 1.5
4
E. CAPRA 07-Feb-90 WAI UN}( 4 8.8
4
M.DAHL 07-Feb-90 WAI UN}( 4 <0.8
Page 5 or 6
-------
TABU: 3
TOTAL u:AD ANALYSES
W AS~GTON COUNn" SANIT AR Y LANDFILL NO.1
(Conc:cntr.ltioo. ug/L)
Moo.
Well Dale By Aqu Dis Lead Lead NOles
.-.--..-----------
MDH RAL's Noy-88 20
4
C. HAWKINS 07.Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 45 QUESTIONABU: DATA
C. HAWKINS 20-Mar-90 WAI" UNK 4 4.9
C. HAWKINS 04-May-90 WASH UNK 4 <\.0
4
D. OLINGER OI.Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 6.0
4
T. SANDQUIST 07.Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 35 QUESTIONABU: DATA
T. SANDQUIST 20-Mar-90 WAI UNK 4 4.6
T. SANDQUIST 03-May-90 WASH UNK 4 <\.0
4
P. W ANDMACHER 07.Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 <0.8
4
W. WEGWERTH 07 .Feb-90 WAI UNK 4 3.4
4
Page 6 0( 6
-------
2 100 Ea $180 $18,000
2 200 Hr $60 $12,000
------------
$67,200 $67,200
$572,0(,
TABLE 4
ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATNE A: NO ACTION
WASI-I.mGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFTI...L NO.1
Item
. Frequency
Sites #/yr
Unit Cost
Annual
Cost
Amount Unit
-----------------------
------- ---------
------- ---------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Quanerly Sampling
VOC's
31
124
248
Ea
$180
$60
.-+
$22,320
$14,880
Sample Collection,
Data Review & Reponing
4
Hr
Semi-Annual Sampling
VOC's
50
S ample Collection,
Data Review & Reponing
ANNUAL COST
OPTION 1 PRESENT VALUE
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON FTI...1ERS
VOCs
Colifonn Bacteria
Coord, Reporting
Supplies
$180
$20
$120
$50
--------------
Ea $370 $4,440
Ea $550 $1,650
------------
$6,090
$170 $14,280
$87,600
$746,000
Carbon replacement
3
3
12
3
4
1
BOTTI..ED W A 1ER
7
12
84 Month
ANNUAL COST
OPTION 2 PRESENT VALUE
Note: Present value cost is based on a 10% discount rate and a 20 year
projccrlife.
. Option 1 includes only groundwater monitoring.
Option 2 includes groundwater monitoring, GACs and bottled water.
MPCA
Cost
-------
TABLE 5
CAP IT AL COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE B: GRANULAR AcrIVATED CARBON FD...TERS
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFll..L NO.1
I MPCA MPCA
Item Sites Unit Unit Cost Cost I Sites Cost
------------------- ------- ------- I
I
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON FD... TERS I
I
Tanks 28 Ea $1,825 $51,100 I 7 $12,775
I
Carbon 28 Ea $225 $6,300 I 7 $1,575
I
Installation 28 Ea $775 $21,700 I 7 $5,425
I
Coordination 40 Hr $76 $3,040 I 10 $760
I
Design 40 Hr $53 $2,120 I 10 $530
I
Expenses $600 $600 I $140
I
Field Inspection 28 Ea $212 $5,936 I 10 $2,120
------------- I -------------
I
CAPITAL COST $91,000 I $23,000
Note: Three GAC filters are currently operating. Total of 31 filters
would be operated.
-------
TABLE 6
ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE
ALTERN A TIYE B: GRANULAR ACnV A TED CARBON FIT.. TERS
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFil..L NO.1
Frequency Unit Annual MPCA
Item Sites #/yr Amount Unit Cost Cost Cost
------------------- ------- -------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Quanerly Sampling
VOC's 10 4 40 Ea $180 $7,200
Sample Collection, 4 80 Hr $60 $4,800
Data Review & Reporting
Semi-Annual Sampling
VOC's 71 2 142 Ea $180 $25,560
Sample Collection, 2 284 Hr $60 $17,040
Data Review & Reporting ------------------
$54,600 $54,600
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON Fll.. TERS
VOCs $180
ColifoIm Bacteria $20
Coord, Reporting $120
Supplies $50
---------.
10 4 40 Ea $370 $14,800 $14,800
VOCs, semi-annual($180/2) $90
ColifoIm Bacteria $20
Coord, Reporting $120
Supplies $50
----------
21 4 84 Ea $280 $23,520
Carbon replacement 31 1 31 Ea $550 $17 ,050 $5,167
---------------------------------
$55,370 $19,967
ANNUAL COST $110,000 $74,600
CAPITAL COST (TABLE 5) $91,000 $23,000
PRESENT VALUE $1,027,000 $658,000
..
Note: Present value cost is based on a 10% disccunt rate and a 20 year
project life.
-------
TABLE 7
CAPITAL COST ESTTh1A TE
ALTERNATIVE C: NEW RESIDENTIAL WELLS
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFll...L NO.1
I MPCA MPCA
Item Sites Unit Unit Cost Cost I Sites Cost
------------------- -------- I
I
NEW WELLS I
I
Installation 31 Ea $21,000 $651,000 I 10 $210,000
I
Abandonment 31 Ea $500 $15.500 I 10 $5,000
I
Coordination 80 Hr $76 $6,080 I 25 $1,900
I
Design 80 Hr $53 $4,240 I 25 $1,325
I
Expenses 1 $1,650 $1,650 I $516
I
VOC's 31 Ea $180 $5,580 I 10 $1,800
I
Field Inspection 31 Ea $848 $26,288 I 10 $8,480
----- ------------ I ------------------
I
SUBTOTAL $710,000 I $229,000
I
CONTINGENCIES $71,000 I $22,900
----------- I ------------------
I
CAPITAL COST $781,000 I $252,000
Note: Total of 31 new wells would be installed.
-------
TABLE 8
ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE C: NEW RESIDENTIAL WELLS
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
Item
Frequency'
Sites#/yr
Amount
Unit
Unit
Cost
Annual
Cost
MPCA
Cost
---------------------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Semi-Annual Sampling
VOC's
50
2 100 Ea $180 $18.000
2 200 Hr $60 $12.000
1 31 Ea $180 $5.580
62 Hr $60 $3,720
------------------
$39,300
$39,300 $39.300
$781.000 $252.000
$1,116,000 $587.000
Sample Collection,
Data Review & Reponing
Annual Sampling
VOC's
31
Sample Collection,
Data Review & Reponing
ANNUAL COST
CAPITAL COST (TABLE 7)
PRESENT VALUE
Note:' Homeowner retains responsibility for power cost, tank, pump and well
maintenance and future replacement.
Present value cost is based on a 10% discount rate and a 20 year
project life.
-------
TABLE 9.
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
AL TERNA TIVE D: RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER WELLS
WASHINGTON COUNTI' SANITARY LANDFTI..L NO.1
I MPCA MPCA
Item Sites Unit Unit Cost Cost I Sites Cost
------------------- ------- ------- I
I
NEW WELLS I
I
Installation 7 Ea $28,000 $196,000 I 2 $56,000
I
Installation 1 Ea $21,000 $21,000 I 1 $21,000
I
Pipe 6400 Ft $12 $76,800 I 1900 $22,800
I
Abandonment 31 Ea $500 $15,500 I 10 $5,000
I
Coordination 40 Hr $76 $3,040 I 15 $1,140
I
Design 40 Hr $53 $2,120 I 15 $795
I
E~penses 1 $600 $600 I $225
I
VOC's 8 Ea $180 $1,440 I 3 $540
I
Field Inspection 8 Ea $1,272 $10,176 I 3 $3,816
------------------ I
I
SUBTOTAL $327,000 I $111,000
I
CONTINGENCIES $32,700 I $11,100
------------------ I ------------------
I
CAPITAL COST $360,000 I $122,000
Note: Total of 31 residential wells would be replaced.
-------
TABLE1G
ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE D: RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER WELLS
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARYLANDFUNO. 1
Frequency Unit Annual MPCA
Item Sites #/yr Amount Unit Cost Cost Cost
------------------- ------- ------- -------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Semi-Annual Sampling 50 2 100 Ea $180 $18,000
YOC's
Sample Collection, 2 200 Hr $60 $12,000
Data Review & Reporting
Annual Sampling 8 1 8 Ea $180 $1,440
YOC's
Sample Collection, 1 16 Hr $60 $960
Data Review & Reponing ------------------
$32,400
ANNUAL COST
CAPITAL COST (TABLE 9)
$32,400
$360,000
PRESENT VALUE
$636,000
Note: Homeowner retains responsibility for power cost, tank, pump and well
maintenance. and future replacement.
Present value cost is based on a 10% discount rate and a 20 year
project life.
$32,400
$122,000
$398,000
-------
TABLE 11
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
AL TERNA TIVE E: PUBLIC WATER SUPPL Y
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
Unit I MPCA MPCA
Item Sites . Unit Cost Cost I Sites Cost
-------------------- ------- ------- I
I
WATER SUPPLY I
I
Water Access Charge 81 Ea $500 $40,500 I 10 $5,000
I
WATER MAIN I
I
4"DIP 10400 Ft $12 $124,800 I 8900 $106,800
6" DIP 10500 Ft $13 $136,500
12" DIP(Oakdale) 1850 Ft $28 $52,000 $52,000
Valves and Fittings $19,000 I $19,000
(Oakdale) ------------------ I ------------------
$332,300 I $177,800
Subtotal I
I
OTIffiR I
I
Service Lines 81 Ea $1,150 $93,000 I 10(2) $30,000
Street Restoration $80,000 $60,000
Valves and Fittings $16,000 $7,000
Contingencies $52,000 $25,000
Indirect Cost(l) $150,000 $80,000
Start-up Fund $25,000 . $5,000
Well Abandonment 81 Ea $1,000 $81,000 I 10 $10,000
------------------ I ------------------
Subtotal $497,000 I $217,000
I
I
CAPITAL COST $870,000 I $400,000
I
PRESENT VALUE $870,000 I $400,000
(1) Includes casements, legal, administration and engineering costs.
(2) Includes 2" copper line to stop box, 1.5" service line, water
meter, stop box, connection to existing line at house and restoration.
-------
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF WATER SupPLY COSTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANIT AR Y LANDFll..L NO.1
Service Area (81 homes)
New Residential Public
No GAC Residential Cluster Water
Action Filters Wells Wells Supply
CAPITAL COST $0 $91,000 $781,000 $360,000 $870,000
ANNUAL COST $87,600 $110,000 $39,300 $32,400 $0
PRESENT VALUE $746,000 $1,027,000 $1,116,000 $636,000 $870,000
MPCA Costs (10 homes)
New Residential Public
No GAC Residential Cluster Water
Action Filters Wells Wells Supply
CAPITAL COST $0 $23,000 $252,000 $122,000 $400,000
ANNUAL COST $67,200 $74,600 $39,300 $32,400 $0
PRESENT VALUE $572,000 $658,000 $587,000 $398,000 $400,000
Note; Present value cost is based on a 10% discount rate and a
20 year project life.
Annual costs for Public Water Supply would be paid by residents.
-------
l"\.i..i..~~ru'~l'U: ..L
Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document
Name:
Washington County Landfill
Locat ion:
Lake Elmo
Washington County, Minnesota
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the
analysis of the cost and effectiveness of the long-term water supply response
action alternatives for the Washington County Landfill:
Washington County Landfill Response Order by Consent, October 24, 1984.
Ramsey/Washington County Sanitary Landfill Advisory Committee Report,
December, 1984.
Long Term Drinking Water Supply Plan, October, 1985.
Gradient Control System Evaluation Report, December, 1985.
Long Term Drinking Water Supply Plan, May, 1986.
Minnesota Department of Health Memorandum, July, 1986.
DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED RESPONSE ACTION(S)
The approved Long-Term Water Supply Response Actions (RA) are:
Long-term operation and maintenance of point of entry carbon treatment
units for all residential wells which have been or in the future are
issued drinking advisories by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
to reduce concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to levels
less than recommended allowable limits (RAL).
Long-term residential well monitoring to verify treatment of VOCs.
Long-term monitoring to verify that VOCs are the only contaminants
requiring treatment.
DECLARATIONS
The approved Response Actions are consistent with the Minnesota Environmental
Response and Liability Act of 1983 (ERLA), the Federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and
the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). I have determined that the
approved long-term water supply response action at the Washington County
Landfill is a cost effective response action that provides adequate protection of
public health, welfare, and the environment.
-------
-2-
In accordance with Part 3.2 of Exhibit A to the Response Order by Consent
between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Washington County and Ramsey
County (the Counties) dated October 24, 1984, the Counties shall implement the
approved response action at and in the area of the Washington County Landfill.,
. .~~ \\2~~ -
~.Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
. L 111 1; £::,
Date
Attachments:
Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document
.
-------
MINNESOTA ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT
determinations made by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff in
This Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document (MEDD) summarizes the facts and
approving the recommended long-term water supply alternative for providing a
permanent safe drinking water supply for residences with drinking advisories
issued by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) as a result of releases and-
threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Washington County Landfill
( Landfi 11) .
Detailed information regarding these facts and determinations is
located in the MPCA files.
LANDFILL LOCATION
The Landfill is located in Lake Elmo, Washington County (see Figure 1).
The Landfill is owned and operated by Washington County and Ramsey County (the
Count ies) .
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The Landfill was operated and is owned by the Counties through a joint power
. .
agreement.
The Landfill was operated from 1969 to 1975 for the disposal of
approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of waste.
Following Landfill closure a
In 1981 volatile organic com-
ground water monitoring program was instituted.
pounds were detected through the monitoring program.
Subsequent monitoring
water.
revealed that several nearby residential wells contained contaminated ground
ENFORCEMENT
Consent (Order).
On October 24, 1984 the Counties and the MPCA executed a Response Order by
dient control system to capture and treat contaminated ground water, monitor
The Order requires the Counties to operate a ground water gra-
ground water, provide applicable residents with an interim supply of bottled
water, and propose and implement a long-term drinking water supply for appli-
cable residents.
The Landfill is included on the Minnesota Permanent List of
Prioritie~ and the National Priorities List with a score of 42.
-------
-2 -
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Remedial Investigation (RI) conducted by the Counties and the MPCA have
determined the following:
1. The Landfi 11 has re leased hazardous substances to ground water beneath
the Landfill property.
The released hazardous substances are:
l,l-dichloroethylene; tetrachloroethylene; trichloroethylene; 1,2-dichloroethane;
1,1,2-trichloroethane; benzene; 1,2-dichloroethylene; l,l,l-trichloroetha~e;
1,2-dichloropropane; chlorobenzene; ethyl benzene; toluene; bis-2-ethyl r.exyl
phthalate; diethyl phthalate; di-n-butyl phthalate; l,l-dichloroethane; and
isophorone.
2.
The extent of release is generally limited to the alluvial aquifer with
traces of hazardous substances in the St. Peter and Prairie du Chien aqcifers.
3.
The Landfill has released hazardous substances beyond the Landfill pro-
perty boundary.
The hazardous substances released beyond the property bcundary
are:
l,l-dichloroethane; l,l-dichloroethylene; trichloroethylene;
l,l,l-trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene.
4.
The concentrations of hazardous substances in three residential hells has
exceeded recommended allowable limits (RAL) for drinking water set by the MDH and
approached RAL for another well.
5.
The ground water gradient control system has reduced migration of con-
taminated ground water and has contributed to a reduction in the concentr~tion of
hazardous substances in ground water at and in the area of the Landfill.
-------
-3-
6.
The following chart lists residential wells which have had drinking advi-
sories and shows the range of concentrations (in parts per billion) of the hazar-
dous substances which have approached or exceeded RAL.
Residential Well
Hazardous Substance
RAL
Concentration
Ranqe
Latest Concen-
tration (May,1986)
21
2
J. Downs
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
31.2 4-123
6.9 1-10
F. Downs
Tetrachloroethylene 6.~
Tetrachloroethylene 6.9
<0.2 -40
0.4 -10
<0.2
L. Richert
<1.0
G. Hueslman
Trichloroethylene
31.2
1.3-16
16
7 .
The latest residential well monitoring data from May, 1986 indicated
that all residential wells were below RAL.
FEASIBILITY STUDY FINDINGS
Based upon the RI, and in accordance with Part 3.2 of Exhibit A to the Order
the MPCA staff has determined that response actions are necessary to provide
residences that have been issued drinking advisories with a long-term permanent
safe drinking water supply.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND DETAILED ANALYSIS
The Ramsey/Washington County Sanitary Landfill Advisory Committee Report
dated December, 1984 evaluated the following alternative response actions:
bottled water, carbon treatment, cluster wells, central water supply and hook-up
to the Oakdale water supply.
Based upon this report, the MPCA staff determined that all of these alter-
natives would be effective remedies to provide permanent safe drinking water
except bottled water.
Bottled water is a temporary rather than permanent
measure.
-------
-4- .
The Counties proposed to implement the carbon treatment alternative.
Of the
effective alternatives, this alternative had the least associated cost.
A
comparison of cost~ which was presented in the report is attached to this ME6D.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPROVED ALTERNATIVE
By letter dated May 14, 1986 the Counties proposed the following long-term
water supply Response Action:
1.
Installation of individual point of entry granular activated carbon
treatment units in all residences which presently or in the future have drinking
water advisories for the purposes of removing volatile organic compounds and
providing a permanent safe drinking water supply.
2.
Routine carbon change outs to ensure adequate treatment and reduce bac-
terial growth.
3.
Quarterly sampling and analysis for l,l-Dichloroethylene;
Trichloroethylene; l,l,l-Trichloroethane; and Tetrachloroethylene to determine
the effectiveness of treatment.
4.
Biological monitoring to verify the biological safety- of the dr~nking
water system.
The MPCA staff have determined that the proposed alternative would be effec-
tive in providing a permanent safe water supply with modifications whic~ provide
for a more detailed monitoring program.
The modifications are specified in the
MPCA's approval letter.
DETAILED ANALYSIS REPORT
The recommended alternative is proposed for implementation in accordance
with applicable environmental laws including:
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act
(MERLA), the Rules and Regulations of the MPCA and the Minnesota Depart~2nt of
Health.
-------
-5-
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Prior to executing the Order the MPCA notified interested and affected par-
ties of the propo~ed actions and held a MPCA Board meeting which was open fo~
pub 1 ic comment.
No public comments were received.
Furthermore, following
receipt of the Long-Term Water Supply proposal the MPCA staff held a public
meeting in Lake Elmo and solicited public comment.
The public requested increased monitoring and expressed concerns about pro-
perty values.
The MPCA staff has considered the comments and has required
increased monitoring.
Public concern regarding property values were considered
but have been determined to fall outside the scope of the Order and ERLA.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The approved response actions will be implemented in accordance with the
Consent Order and the approved implementation schedule.
-------
11ltl1- ~~ -,
~ol
,
,
.
..
~_..
I.,~
. I """
'. ~ . --a. ....
--
'"U ....,
a .
00
::IJ::D
(50
--c
. "Z''''?
» t':
r- -,
I- --.
'" -::
..+
.
_t
'~II..
..-,
..
--
><)olIn.
~
FIGURE'..l
....~.:~.y:~:.
-
".
i'.I.... .
.
.
.
~~
.
.'
.
.'
c>
I
....
",
I
I
I
I
1
I
, .
..-. "
~'
. r Y
I
I
I 8
I
I
. ,
- - ---...~..
....
. ......
..
...
'-...~ PUMPOUT
WELL
...
,~..
';;l
I
'"~,.1
-..,
.
.
,
'f------- ~-
i ..
I
....
....
a-
.'~
.
.~. ...~~ -...
.
I
f
7 T' ':-~-'T" T
"
..
.
I i
I
I
I
I :
-
"'-''-'-'.-r-".......
....- --
-
o
....
- LCGl"'O
. -.- -c...
.. --'e ocu.
,..
N
)
. 01
~.;.
.,~
A
loe
~
/~
I. \
I. '~f;
I . . I
\. a
""",.\
'.
..
"f--....-
.-
'It
.
-------
--
-
~--
L I . .''''-''''_'_---~-'':o""-,,,.,...
-
-
-
Water,Supply Options
TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
ESTIMATED EXPENSE - WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
------------Estimated Expense----~------------------
Operation Tota 1
Maintenance Monitoring Annual
Capital*
A. Bottled Water - 4 homes' $ -- $ 3,200 $ $' 3,200
B. Granular Activated Carbon Units
1) Exceedi.ng Criteri,a (4 homes) 6,000 500 280 1,485
2} Detectable (13 homes) 19 ,500 1,675 910 4,825
3} Service Area A (52 homes'} 78,000 6,500 910 16,570
C. Cluster Well Systems
1} Exceeding Criteria (1 system, 4 homes) 30.,000 2,000 70 5,595
2} Detectable (3 systems, 13 homes) 90,000 6,000 210 16,780
3} Service Area A (10 systems, 52 homes) 300,000 20,000 700 55,940
D. lake Elmo Water Supply (see Table 4).:
Service Area A-52 homes 355,000 5,500 70 41,375
Service Area A - 130 hom~s ." 696,000 11,000 70 81 ,270
Service Area B - 325 homes 1,678,000 28,000 70 197,310
E. Oakdale Water Supply (see Table 5)
Service Area A-52 homes 339,000-390,000 5,700 39,890-45,035
- Service Area A - 130 homes 672 ,000-723 ,000 11 , 1 00 78,880-84,020
Service Area B - 325 homes 1,695,000-1,746,000 27,800 -- 198,760-203,900.
.
.
..,
..
Iii
Annual
Cost per
Household
$
800
370
370
320
1,400
1,290
1 ,080
800
630
610
770-870
610-650
610-630
*Annual capital cost for GAC units and Cluster Well System amortized for 20 years at 10 percent annual interest.
Annual capital cost for Lake Elmo and Oakdale Water Supply amortized for 50 years at 10 percent annual interest.
------- |