United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/ROS-90/12S
August 1990
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Onalaska Municipal Landfill, Wl
-------
50212-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. 12-
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROS-90/125
3. RecIpient. Ac-.Ion No.
4. TIlle end Sub1II1e
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Qnalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AuthOtj.)
s. R8pon De18
08/14/90
L
.. Pwformlng OrgMIDtion R8pL No.
,
8. Perfonnlne Org8ln1z8t1on Name end AddIHe
10. PtojKtIT.8luWortI UnIt No.
u
11. Contrut(C) 01' ~G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponeoring Organludon Name end AdIhM
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
,3. Type of Report . PerIod Covered
Agency
800/000
,...
,5. Supplementaly No...
, II. AbeIr8Ct (Unlit: 200 _Id.)
The 11-acre Onalaska Municipal Landfill site includes a 7-acre landfill owned by the'
Township of Onalaska, which is located in central-western Wisconsin. The Black River ~
and its associated wetlands are 400 feet west of the site and lie within a wildlife an6 ij
fish refuge. The site was operated as a sand and gravel quarry until the late 1960s, 1'1'
when it was converted and used as a municipal landfill until 1980. Although the site
was primarily used to dispose of municipal wastes, solvent wastes were also disposeo ~ ~,;,
onsite until 1976. Approximately 320,000 gallons of liquid solvent waste and
approximately 1,000 drums of solvent waste were either burned with other trash onsite I
or poured directly into holes for burial in the southwestern portion of the landfill.
The Township capped the landfill in 1982, but subsequent onsite investigations reveal~d
ground water contamination within and around the site. Ground water flows beneath the
landfill, where it comes into contact with solvents leaking from the solvent disposal Ii
area. The ground water flows in a southwesterly direction and a ground water
contaminant plume has migrated from the southwestern edge of the landfill and appears
to be discharging into the wetlands. This Record of Decision addresses two operable
(See Attached Sheet)
, '
'.' "
" ;~\
,I., '. ~ !. ..' .\,
"'
1 \
".i
'7. 0-. AnIIyeI8 .. D88c:rtptDrl
Record of Decision - On alaska Municipal Landfill, WI: "
First Remedial Action - Final ; ~~. "
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes, TCE'), "other organics (PAHs),
metals (arsenic, lead)
b. Id8ntl~T-
.> ,~'I
. " .
..
. . "
, .
. '..
:'" : . :.
. , .
; '. .' ~ ~... b",
Co cOlAn R8IdIQrIql
,.. Avlil8bllty St*'-'I
1.. 8IcurttJ a- (TIII8 ~
None
.. I8cutty a- (TIII8 P8ge)
NnnA
21. No. of .....
107
\
-
22.~
See ANS-Z3a.18
,........- M lit-.
:(4-11)
IF....., NT1~)
Ihp............ of eo.....,i:e
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-90/125
Onalaska Municipal Landfill, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
)stract (Continued)
'J
units, the ground water plume and the contaminated soil adjacent to the southwestern
portion of the landfill, which is a major source of ground water contamination. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, including
benzene, toluene, xylenes, and TCE; other organics including PAHs; and metals including
arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes in-situ bioremediation of the
solvent-contaminated soil and, if feasible, a portion of the landfill debris; pumping
and treatment of the ground water plume using aeration, clarification, and filtration,
followed by discharge of the treated ground water into the Black River and onsite
disposal of the sludge generated during the treatment process; reconstruction of the
landfill cap and installation of a passive methane gas venting system to control the gas
buildup under the cap; ground water monitoring; and implementation of institutional
controls including deed restrictions limiting ground water and surface water use. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $8,000,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $164,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific soil cleanup standards were not
provided but will be established once the reduction rate for bioremediaiton has been
determined during the pilot-scale test. Currently, the estimated cleanup goal is an
80-95 percent reduction of the organic contaminant mass in the soil. Ground water at
the landfill waste boundary will meet SDWA MCLs or non-zero MCLGs. Chemical-specific
cleanup standards for the ground water beyond the site boundary are based on State
\eanup levels and include benzene O~ 067 ug/1, toluene 68.6 ug/1, xylenes 124 ug/1, TCE
.18 ug/1, arsenic 5 ug/1, and lead 5 ug/1. The reconstructed cap is projected to
reduce the rate of precipitation infiltration by 80 percent, thereby minimizing
contaminant migration toward the ground water.
,
-------
mrcRD OF DEX:ISI~
~ REMDIAL AIlI'ERNATIVE
FOR '!HE
~ KJNICIPAL IANDFIIL SI'IE
IACX'SSE CXXJNlY, ~m
Statement of ~~is ani PUrDose
'Ibis decisia1 doCI~ presents the selected ~; "1 actia1 for the
Onalaska MJn.icipal Iandfill Site, Lacrosse cnmty, wisaJnsin, whidl was
d1csen in acxxn'dance with the Q:mprehensive Envi.ra1menta1 Response,
O"''l-ensatia1, ani Liability Act of 1980, as amenjed by the SUperfund
Amerdneuts ani Reaut.hcrizatia1 Act of 1986 (CERCIA), ani, to the extent
practicable, the Natiaal ~ Plan (NCP). 'Ibis decisia1 is based
a1 the administrative reoot\l for this site. ('!he attacbed imex
identifies the itea& that ~ise the administrative rean'd upa1 whidl
the selectia1 of the ~;"1 actia1 is based.)
As--=--~ of the Site
Actual or threatened rel~g~ of hazardous substances fraD this site, if
net add1;~~ by ~lementinq the respa1Se actiat in this Record of
Decisia1, may present an inminent ani substantial endan;ement to public
health, welfare, or the envircnDent. .
Descrictiat of the Selected Remedv
'!he selected leu.-ly is a final leiia:aly, ani it uses treatme11t to ackh'ess
the principal threats at the site - the grc:J.JBi-water CCI1taminant plume
ani a major sc:urce of groun:1-water oa1taminatia1 (the 11aP1tha-
CXI1taminateci soils). '1he selected reu.sly also aaD:P$SeS the lCD;J-tem,
low-level threat posed by the landfill cxmtents ani ocnsists of the
tollowiD;J c- .'\-a1e1&ts:
-Ext:rac:tiat ani treatment ot the gramd-water CCI1taminant plume to meet .
Federal drinJdD;J-water stamards ani State groun:1-water quality
stamards. '!he tmated water shall be ~ into the adjacent
Black River In ~liance with the substantive requirements of the
Wisccnrln Pollutant Disc:!w:ge El.iminaticn System (WPmS);
-Recxmst:ructia ot the landfill CXM!r (cap) in ~liance with 01apter
NR 504.07, WJ.sc.x.Din Administrative Qxie (WAC) 1andtill closure
nquirement:s;
-IDplementat.iat ot enhanced, J.D ntY biorA.-~i~ In the naphtha-
-------
2
o
c::antam.inated soils ani, if feasible, within a portia\ of the larxifill
debris. '!he estimated target cleanup goal for bio~i~tia\ is 80-95
percent reducti.a\ of the mass of organic oart:am:inants. A treatability
study ani a pilot-scale test will be perfomed to deteJ:mine the Soil
Cleanup St.arDard for bio~;."tia\: .
-Periodic DD'1itorin:;J of the gro.n:i-water ccntaminant plume:
-DIp:Jsitia\ of deed I~LLictia1S limitin;J surface ani gramd-water use at
the site: ani,
~ reliance at State institutia1al ~.lut.ols govemin;J groorrl-
water use within the proximity of larxifills ani the developDent of
larxifills.
Statutoz:v Determinations
'!he selected ten.edy is protective of 1mman health ani the env:ira1ment,
oc:uplies with Federal ani State requirements that are legally ~licable
or relevant ani ~~iate to the ~i::.l actia1, ani is oost,-
effective. 'Ibis 1::emedy utilizes pmuanent solutia1S ani alternative
trea1JDent t:.ed'1r„:)la:n, to the maxim.m1 extent practicable, am satisfies
the statutmy preferezx:e for remedies that euploy treat:ment that rOOJ~
toxicity, JOObility, or volume as a principal element.
Because this ~~ will result in ha..zardaJS substances remai.nin:1 CI1-Site
abave health-based levels, a review will be ocn:mct:ed within five years
after o.,.,~ of the ~;::.1 actia1 to ensure that the ~~
c:x:I'1times to provide adequate protectia1 of 1mman health ani the
envh\A~.
state conc:uae ~
'lhe state of wiscxn;in cxn::urs with the selected temedy. '!he Ietter of
Q:n::urreIX:8 is at:tad1ed to this IQ;,oQrd of eecisia1.
-------
90.
(90
ADHINISrRArIVI RBCORD INDII
ONALASKA HUNICIF!' LANDfILL
ONALASKA,' .I~~O'SI'
(FRANI PAGIS OArl rrru AurHOR RKCIPlnr DOCUHBlf frPI DOCNDKBIR
u
Z 00/00/00 Letter reque!tiDg B.CoD!taDtelo!,USBPA P.Didi!r,fDNR Corre!poDdeDce
tbe ,tate ot fi,cOD5iD \1
to provide ,ite
,pecitic ARAR' br
JUDe 15, 1989
3 75/07/23 Letter reI 'ote J.Nill!r,fOJR C.Pierce,ODala,ka CorrupoDdeDce Z
'tatiDg acceptaDce Cbai riD
ot iDdutrial
cbe.ical, aDd acid,
trot a .aDutacturiDg
plaDt Dearb, ritb
laDdtill applicatioa
attacbed
3 75/09/ JZ Ia re5poa'e to letter R.Berrr,Outer' Lab.,IDc. J.Killer,fOIR Corrupoaduce 3
dated 8/J4/75 re,
ra'te ritb "'a,te
Rerier for." attacbed
3 79/0510J Letter re,iotor.atioo R. Cooler, far:ra G. Hitcbell, fO.R Corre.pooduce 4
regardiog tbe .oil logiouriog
aoal,.e. pertor.ed
00 potenti,l ,ource.
ot tiD,l corer .aterial
tor Ooal,.t, Laodtill
80lU/H Letter re/approral ot J.Boettcber,fOIR C. Pedretti, fora CorrupoDduce 5
tro teet ot clar ,oil Cbainao
a. tiDal corer tor tbe
laodtill, ratber thao
ooe toot ot clar plus
ooe toot ot ,aDd ,oil
14 87103130 Letter reI Reque.t B.Coo.taatelo',aSIPA rOrD ot Cuphll Corrupoadnce ,
tor Ioton,tion
Parsalat to Seetioa
J04tel ot CIICU .
lad Seetioa 3007 ot
RCBA, tor Oaal,.tl
laaieip.l L,adtill
ia ODlluh, II
8 87104128 Letter re, Reqaest ',forrito,Coatiaeatll J..,tt,asIIA Corrupoadeaee 7
tor Iatonatioa CII Co.plI"Iae,
Oall,.t, laaieipal
Lladtill
21 .7107110 '..poa.e. ot I.tlllie., 1,16r".,lofa,S6eeala, I,""USIPa Corrupoadeac. ' .
-------
No. 2
/90
AD~I'IsrRArIVI RICORD I.Dll
O'ALASKA ~O'ICIPAL LAJDIILL
OJALASKA, rISCO'SI'
/lRA~1 PAGIS DArl rzru AorHOR RlCIPIllf DOCOllllf rYPI DOCIDIIBlR
lac. to tbe R~qaut et.al.
tor iatorlatioa ot
IPA ritb co'~r l~tt~r
attacb~d
17 88/07/2J Salpliag Sallary Sb~~t' latioaal la,iroal~atal Roy 1. f~.toa/USIPA Corrupoadeace ,
(Aaalytical R~port.} rutiag, lac.
12 88/09/ 2( Letter relSite S.Spriager,re.toa-Sper S.laryaa,USIPA Corrt.poadeac~ JO
A!I~ultat, ritb
pbotograpb. attacbtd
J 88/J0/J0 Letter rt: USIPA P.Aadrtn,OSBPA P.Slitb Corrt.poad~ac~ 11
Acct" to .8582 CrH I
Property, ritb Coa.~at
tor Acc~" to Property
10rl Attachd
J 88/10/17 Letter wOSIPA P. ADdrt", OSIPA B.P.Coa.erratioa Correspoadeace 12
Acce.. to r8582 erB r Club
Propertr, ritb CoaseDt
tor Acce" to Property
lor. Attacbed
J 88110120 Letter re,aS"A P. Aadrt", aSIPA I. Bable, Correspoadeace 13
Acee.. to fBH2
CrB f Property, rjtb
Coa,eat tor Acce.,
to 'ropert, lorl
Attacbed
J 88110120 Letter re,aS'PA P.Aadru"aS'PA I.Actenaa Corrupoadeace 14
Acee" to f8&4 7
Sportllaa Club,
rjU Coueat tor
Acce.. to Propert,
lor. Utacbed
J 88110/20 Letter re,as". ,. Aadrers, aSI'A C.lonel Correspoadeace U
Ace,n to raf25
Sports... Club,
.itt COUtlt tor
Aeee.. to 'ropert,
lor. .ctacbed
4 "/03113 ,.cClr CI,as". l,Aadrer.,"S". ',ledretti Corrupoadeace Jf
Ace,.. to properc,
,'lac'lc co Oa.la.ta
1J "113/2' fr"'litt,l. llct,r I.Slitt,C'2' .ill f..,ler,IIS"A Correspoad'DCI 17
-------
o. 3
90
ADKI'ISfRAfIVI RICORD 11011
O.ALASIA KUNICIPAL LANDfILL
O'ALASIA, 'ISCOlSI'
fRAK! PAGIS DAfl frrU AUrHOR RICIPIBJr DOCUlIlJf ffPI DOCIUIIBII
vitb Draft Geopbysical
Surrey fecbnical lIe.o
2 89/04/07 104fe} Reque't for II. Gade,USIPA Correspoadeace 18
Iaforlatioa
36 89/04/07 Letter. re, Reque't K.Gade,US!PA Ourk Indu'triu Correspondeace 19
for lafonatioa
Pur,uaat to Sectioa
104fe} of CIRCLA
and Section 3007 of
RCRA, for Onala,ka
lIunicipal Landfill,
Onaluh,II
89/04/28 Letter confirliag 1.luclide,Atty. for P.Andren,USIPA Correspoadeace 20
elten.ioa graated b1 Ouck Iadu'tries
BPA to re'pond to
reque't for inforlatioa
J8 89/06107 fraa'iittal letter, I. Adler, US!PA I.Schidt,fDII Corrupoadeace 2J
ritb rariou, letter,
to ruident. re,
ruidetltial rell
,alplinf, .tatiag
that rater i. ,afe
to c048Ule
24 81101/3J Letters to PIP' P. Aadre.., USBPA Various PRP, Corrupoadetlce 22
(frelpealeaa !lectric,
Coatiaeatal Caa Co.,
6eilelaa'. Bre'iag Co.,
L.B.fbite Co.} Ie,
Reque.t for Iafollatioa
Parsu'Dt to SectioD
J04 ot CIRCLA
3 "110103 Letter Ie.poad1af '.QDiali,t,L.'.'bit' Co. ',Aadrefl,USI'. Corrupoaletlce 23
to f/'/8f l'tt,r
reqDflUa,
iaflllaat10a
2 "IJOI12 Letter to re,ideat r. Adler, liS". Acter.aa ."il,ac, CorrupOaletlCf 2.
r"f,ll ...pl,.,
.1,1.1Df tb.t r,ll
aot be lied tor
Iriatiaf f.t,r pDrpo.'.
I' '''10113 ',a,r.l 'otic, L,ttlr '..i,I,rf.af,IISI'A Cb.1ra.a,fofD ot Corrupoaduci 15
(rteA .tt.cb.,atl Oaaluta
-------
! No. 4
16/90
ADNI.IsrRArIVI RICORD INDBI
O'ALASKA NURTCIPAL LANDfILL
ORALASKA, rISCO'SI'
iE/FRANB PAGBS DArB rrru AureOR RECIPIBU DOCUN'" rrPB DOCIUIISBR
"
89/10/19 Letter lIotHring K.Adler,USBPA S.Hutt,US 001 Corre,pollduce 26
US 001 of USBPA',
iatellt to ellter illto
aegotiatioa, 'itb
PRP, cOllcerllillg ,ite
re.ediatioa; ,tatillg
tbat RI/lS begall ill
April, J988; preli.iaarT
.eetiag vitb PRP, is
scbeduled for J2/7189
89/10/25 Letter giriag aotict D.Duaa, Atty. K.Adltr/P.Aadrtr,-US Corrtspoadtact 27
tAat rora ot Oaalaska IPA
risbes to lIegotiate
a rt,olatioa ot its
pottatial rtspoasibi-
lit1; raat. to bt
iarolrtd ritA rt,poast
acti rHi tJ
89/J2I1l Lttttr .tatiag tbat J.S.itb,US 001 r. Adler, USBP! . Corrupoadtllce 28
coadactiag a
preliliaar, aataral
re.oarce, 'arre1 'oald
be appropriate tor
.olicitia, rerie, ot
tAe ,ite: rtcol.eadiag
re.ediatioa iaclade
,roaad,.ter trtat.eat
'0/02/ 12 Letter relrarZ1a I.rat.oa-Gardaer, P.Aadrn.,U5IPA Corrupoaduce H
Ba,iaeeria,'. rerie, Cartoa , Doaglas
ot tAe '1/15, statia,
tb.t aatil rtrier
i. co.pleu, cbe
'o,a ,ill aot be i.
. po,itioa to deter-
.iae te.,ibilit, ot
ptrtorlia, tAe cAosea
ruedl
f 78/Of/21 'e.o reI5t.ad.rd D. roi,At, rDI. '.'lds,rD" 'uoraadal 30
B,dro,eologic 'eri"
tor Oa.l.,t. Saaitar,
£ladtill
831Of/08 fraallittd IUO f.1.doricz, lile/US',. 'e,ioa , "Ioraadal 3J
ritb 1relilia.r, fcolo" aad fariroalfat
.",,"eat
-------
No. 5
5190
AoNI'ISrRArIVB RBCORo I,oBI
ORALASKA NUNICIPAL LAND1ILL
O'ALASKA, rISCOISII
sIIRA!B PAGBS DArB rzrLB AureOR RBCIPIBJr DOCU!lJr rYPB DOCIUltBBR
2 8'102/22 Actioa !eloraadul: B.Coa.taatelo',USBPA V. Adalkus, USBPA Nuoraadol 32
Aatborizatioa to lully
load tbe RIlfS at tbe \1
,ite
20 8910312]. Actioa Neioraadul B.Coo.taatelo',USBPA V.Adaikus, USBP! NuoraadUi 33
re,Aatborizatioa tor
Iaitial faadiag tor
tbe RIllS, .itb
RIllS Stateleat ot
rork aad COlluaity
Relatioas Stateleat
ot rork Attacbed
8~ 'H/JD Nelo re,J12T18' site R.Scblidt,fDIR D. Luadberg, 'DIR lIuoraadUi J4
risit, ,tatiag quality
ot Jork at site i.
good, a, .ell al iater-
pretatioal ot data
collectioa
89104118 lelo re,Rerier (aad II.Veadl,USBPA f. Adler, USBP! lIuoraadal' 35
COlleat,} oa Oaala,ka
Dratt Geopb,sical
Sarr,y recbaical lIelo
2 89ID4I27 le,o re,Aodit ot C.Rou,USBP! 1.liedergaag,USBPA ltuoraadal J&
CB21 Bill'. Clo.e
Sapport Laboratory, to
eralaate letbodology
ased tor Oaalalka
2 89105105 lIelo re,Relideatial P.SlitA,CB211 Bill aSBPA lIuoraadal J7
'ell Salple Relalt,
1 89/05/30 luo re, Oaaluka D.Jordaa-Izagairre, f. Adle r, US'PA lIuoraadal 38
Jutdeacial .ell ArSDJ
Salple., .tatiag tbat
aoae of tbe coata-
liaaat. efceed tAe
prilary driakiag rater
.taadard., bat tro do
elceed .ecoadary lerel.
(troa aad laagaaese}
Z "lUlU Acttol leloraadal I.Adler,USIPA OffIcial lile Inonada. 3f
re,Sappleleat.l laadia,
tor JI/1S
-------
No. 6
;/90
AO~IIISrRArIVB RBCORO IIOBI
O.ALASIA ~UIICIPAL £AIOrILL
O'ALASIA, fISCO.SI'
:/FRA~B PAGBS DArB rzru . AUTHOR RBCIPIllf OOCU!"f rlU DOC'U!BB.
J 89/l2/26 rraas.ittal .elo P.Slitb,CB2~ Bill I.Adler,OSBPA KuoraadDl 40
'itb utiuted
c.pital co.ts tor
tbl proposed
alterutirt
90/0J/JO lIuo re: Oaaluh I. Brner, Cbiet ~. r,soa, USBPA ~uoraadDl 4J
L.adtill,fiscoasia RCRA Per.ittiag Br.acb
RCRA rioal Corer
Requirneats
2 90/02/08 lIe.o re:Oaalast. S. Pastor, USBPA rile Knor.ada. 42
J/Jl/90 upd.te .eetiag Co..uait, Relatioas
trip report
4 90/02/2J Ke.o re:Org.aiz.tioa.l P.Aadrn',OSBPA rile ~uor.ada. U
lIeetia, rjtb Oa.l.,t.
PIP' oa J2/7/8' ia
L.Cro88e, II
"/05/16 Article: .ror.er Tribaae Bariroa.eat lerspaper Article 44
Da.p Site Sbould Be Reporter
rucd ott, 'eport.
16 00/00/00 Oa.l.st. lIaaicip.l Dater. Lab.,Iac. US,,! Otber U
Laadtill,Oaalast.
'I, lator..tioa
Request. Oae'tioa,
ot Daters L.b.,Iac.
ritb Attid.rit
attacbd
, 00/00/00 Oaala,t. lIuaieip.l I. Jasta" US"A Dater, Lab.,Iac. Otblr U
L.adtill Iator..tioa
'eqae,t. Ia.tructioa,
U U/U/U lator.,ti08 leque.t. US,,! Dater. Otber H
Qae.ti08'(lad 4a.,er.' . ~.bor.torie.,I.c.
ot O.ter. L.borltories,
'itb !ttidlrits .tt.cb,d
44 00/00/00 Ia-lield C08ditioa. '.rzra ra,iaeeria, 'DII/USr,! 'eportl/Stadln C8
",art; fora at
Da.l..t. S.altlr,
~..dtlU
77/,7/ZJ le,ort. ot tb, ".te 1.'"el,Clert tor fo,a J.liUer,rDll 'e,ortl/Stadi" U
..t,rill b,il' du.ped at ~allidl
l.to tb, rO'8 llldtlll
-------
No, 7
6/90
AD!IIISrRArIVB RBCORD I'DBI
ORALASIA NUJICIPAL LA.DIILL
O'ALASIA, 'ISCO.SI.
K/lRANE PAGBS DArB rrru AurHOR RBCIPIIJr DOCUI/BIr rrpr DOCJUI/BIR
by Bill', Pu.ping
Serrice rith carer
Ittter attachtd .I
39 87/0&110 Report aa the rara at C.Ptdretti,rara at I.Justu"aSrPA Report,/Studiu 50
Oaalaska laadtill Oaalaska,Chair.aa
site area rith carer
letter attached
149 88/09102 RI/IS liaal rark Plaa CH2N Hill aSrPA Repart,/Studiu 51
23 88/JO/14 Ca..uaity Relatiaas Plaa CH211 Hill aSrPA Rtpart,/Studiu 52
9 88/J2/29 Preli.iaary Htalth ArSDR aSBPA Rtport,/Studiu 53
Assulleat
357 81/0J/12 Quality As,uraace CH2! Bill USBPA Repart,/Studiu 54
ProJtct Plia tar
the RIllS
. 81/04112 Preli.iaarT Bealth 'iscaa,ia D1risiaa USDR ReportllStadiu 55
A"e".eat (J2/29/881 at Hul th
242 81112/00 Public COllnt CB21t B111 usrPA Report,lStudiu 5i
lea.ibilitT StadT
Itport
13J 81112122 RI Report Volu.e I CB211 B111 asr,. Report.IStadiu 57
'DB 81/J2/22 RI Report Volu.t II CB211 Bill USrPA RtportllStadiu 58
-------
Page '0.
02125190
. rIrU
Sup~(fund Public
~ealtb Bvaluation
/tanual
.Supertund federal-Lead
Reledial Project
Itanagelent Handbook
Interil GuUance
on Supertund Selection
ot Reltdy
Data Quality Objectire.
tor Reledial Response
Actiritie'rDereloplent
Proceu
Qualicy Criteria
tor fatu 1986
Guia 'I and Speci-
fica~._~' tor Prepariog
Qualic, A"uraoce
progra. Docu.encatioo
RIllS I.proreleac,
Ruedial Actioa
Costiag Procedures
NaDual
Guidaace tor Coaductiag
Re.edial Iave,cigatioa,
aad lea,ibilit, Scudie,
uader CBRCLA
(iaceri. tia.l guid.ace
tor tbe rork plao]
Supertuad B,po,ure
A"e".eac Nanu.l
RIllS I.prore.eac,
10110,-up
Co..aoit, Rel.tioo,
io S ~aod, A
810411--..
GUIDARCB DOCUItB.rs IRDBI
ORALASIA, 'ISCORSI.
GuidaDce Doculent' are ~railable tfr rerier at
USEPA Region V-Cbicago IL
AuriOR
DArB
OSlfBR 19285.4-J
86/l0/01
OSIER U355.l-l
86/l2l01
OSiBR 1~355.0-19
86/l2/24
OSiER 19355.0-78
8710310J
USBPA-Ottice ot iater
RegulatiotlS
87/05101
USBPA-OA Naaagelenc Statt
8710610J
OSflR ~U55. 0-20
87107/Z3
USBPA
87/JOIOJ
OS"R 19355.3-0J
88/04100
aS". "Z85.5-J
la/UIOJ
as". 'USS. J-OJ
"/U/Z!
0511. "ZJO.0-038
"10610J
-------
pagt '0.
02125/90
2
GUIDANCB DOCUHB'fS I'DBI
ORALASKA, 'ISCONSI'
Guidanct Docultnt, art arailablt tor rtritr at
US8PA Rtgion V-Cbicago It
rIfLB
AUNlOR
DArB
CBRCtA COlplianct
~itb Otbtr La~' Nanual
osnR 19234.1-01
88/08/08
,I
-------
Page No.
02/25190
DArI
rIrLB
89100100 Ra, Data Package tor
, Sa.pling at tbe Site
trot April-August,198~
{Rerier ot Region V
CLP Data;Cbt.ical
Analysis Data Sbeets;
Inorganic Analysis
Data Sbeets;Analytical
Rtport;Ptlticide
Organic. Analysis
Da ta Sbttts J '
8910.112 Various Volatile
Organics Analysis
Data Sbeets and
Sa.ple Reports tor
lIarcb, 1989
8'10'/21 fraDslittal lelo ritb
rarious orgaaic
co.poaad aaaly.e, tor
ruideDtial rell
,.Ipliag
'-VT'IsrRAfIVI RICORD SAKPLINGIDAfA 1.011
ONALASKA NU'ICIPAL LANDfILL, .1
DOCUNBlrS 10f COPIBD, KAY SI RBVIlflD Af rHI
USEPA RIGIO. V 011ICIS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
. AUfHOR
RICIPI'"
CB2H Bill
USIPA
aSIPA-Central Regional Laboratory Data Users
CI21! Bill
USIPA
DOCUlf'" fYU
SaaplinglData
SaaplinglData
salpl1aglData
-------
. _.. oa. - _a -- _...-- _.- - ... -- ---.
~ 110.
10190
as'p! AD'I'ISf.AfI" RICaRD I.DII - ,PDAfr IJ
OIA£ASIA ,a.1CI1A£ £&.011££
O'A£A5IA, 'ISCOl5II
:E/IRAIfI PAGBS DArB rrf£l Aauo. JlCIPIllf Docal"f fYPI DOClOIfBBR
90103107 Letter re, Coaceraed J.l1t%patrlck S.Putor-aS"A Corrupoadeace
resid~at disagree, ,)
'itA tAe propo,ed
cleaaup plaa tor
Oaaluka lite
90103117 Letter re, fAe fora ot J...t,oa-'ardaer,Cartoa P. Aadre,,-USIPA Corrupoadeace 2
Oaalaska 00 bebalt ot , Douglu
tbe PRP coalitioa
request' tbat tAe publlc
cOlleat period tor tAe
feasibility Study be
elteaded to Ifa, 4, 19'0
'0103127 Letter re, Dae to I. Adler-USII! S.Putor-aS"A Corrupoaduce 3
request' ot th
cOllualt" a.S.IPA
is uteadiag it,
cOllit period tAroagA
Ifay ., 19'0
1 90103130 ""-- Letter re, fritia, to B.lad,-St.te Sea. tor S. Putor-aS". Corrupollduce .
,tate .ole ,erloa,
coocero. ,ertaloiag to
IPA', feasibillty Stad,
aad Propo.ed Plaa
addre..iag coata.ill.tloa
at tAe Oo.la,ka, .1
'OIOf/OJ Letter rer rAe 'oard I.Sprea,r-Iol.ea Are. S. p..tor-USIIA Corrupooduce 5
ot Director. of tAr CJrJc , Co..rrer 4"1.,
Bol.r. Ar'l CJrJe I.d lac.
COI.erce ...oci,e10'
dl.ca..ed tA' ,roble..
.ad .olotloa. ,re"at,d
br tA, 0.11..t. S1t.
J 90lOf/OZ £eee,r 10rr.rdllg i.I'rrard-Stat, ot S.'uUr-a511. Corru,oadeac, ,
co,J" of letter. .1\D"t. 01 ',alcA
recd red 1a tb. aid Soc1al '.rrJc,.
,ublic co..ut
,erJod lor tb,
Ouluta lulU
AIIUllut
1" 90104/24 £ect.r re, Co.c.tI.. S.'lIr I.'utor-'S". Corru,olld'ice 7
\ re.1.,.t rl.6,. to
-
-------
No. 2
190
as"A ADK1.1SfIAfl" R'COID l'D'1 - a'DAf' '1
O.ALASIA la.ICIIAL LA.DIILL
0'AlA5IA, 115CO.51.
11RAI' PAG!S OAf! fIf£! AaflOI IICIlllJf DOCal"f frPl DOC.aItBiR
elpress bit op1aioa
oa tbe BPA .01ut1oa
to tbe Oaa1a,t, ,1te:
a,rees tbat buria,
aad re,tr1ccia, tbe
1aad,ice i. , ,ood
dcera,tire
6 9010UZ8 Letter re, Public S.leidd Coaceraed Putr Corrupoadeace 8
COlleot Stateleat
coocHoio, tbe
Ooa1a,t, luaicip,l
Laadtill Supertuad
Site, ritb cooc1u.ioa.
. re,.rdlo9 tbe IPA
Propo.ed 11,a tor
Ruediat10a
90104128 LeCter re, Coacerae. C.I1erce S.1I1tor-USI1A Corrupoadeace 9
re,ideac elpr,..,.
b1. coacero. .boot
tbe fora ot Oa,l.,t.
Laadti11
1 90/04130 Leccer re, L.Cro... ....i.t10,-L.Cra... 5.llIcor-'SI11 carrup04d,oCl JO
Coaocr Coo..r,.c10. Coa.c, Co...r,.c10.
111110c. co..eoc. 00 AlHllc.
tbe propo.ed pl,o tor
r,.edial .ccio. tor
cbe Oo.l..t. .a01c1p.l
L'Ddf111 Sup.rfuod S1t.
Z 90/04/30 Letter r., Coacera.. $.'ood.r.o.-Coa,r... S.,"cor-aSI1A Corrupoadeace 11
tb'C tb. reco..e..ed ot tb. a.5.,'oa., at
.cc1on tor tbe J.p..
Oa.l,.t. .1c. .r.
elceed10, t.rcb.r cb..
1. a,c""r, co ,roc.cc
bo.,o b.,lc. .Id tb.
.0,1roo...c, ,Jc. tb.
ru.oo. U.td
: .'
2 '0/05101 Lett.r r.. ,..1d.ot. 1.lllt-Ir...r1ct I. '.It I.II.cor-'S"1 corrupoaduc. 12
cOlc.ro.d ,1t. ,0..161.
ca.C.lialc101 ot tb.
.arroaad1o, ,ro..'
,.t.r. .1. tb. ,.cllod.
4 '0/05/02 L.tt.r r.. COII.Ot. D.DIJ.,lr...-.,c.1J1c., AdJ,r-aSII1,lcb.1dt- corr..,oad,ac. 13
01 Iropo... cl.,.., I.e. n'l
-------
Tt '0, 3
/10/ '0
USIPA ADII.ISfJAfIrI RlCO.D IIDII - UPDUI IJ
OIA£ASIA .U'ICIIAL LAIDIILL
. OIA£ASlA, flSCO.SI.
:HII1RANI PAGIS DArI fULl AUfIO. IIC111'" Doca."r rrPl . DOC'UIfBlR
of Oaala,k. L.adfill
! '0/05/01 Letter re, Coaceraed J.Doaor.a-Coaceraed S. Putor-US"A CorrupolJdelJce 14
re,ideac ,ritia, .boaC JuUue
tbe tora of Oa.l.,k,
dUl'
2 '0/05/03 Leccer re, COlleat, '.Sbeldoa-Iloaae,Iae. Uhr-US"A, Corrupoadeace 15
b, 'loaat, Iac./O..rk ScbJUt-fDIJ
re,ardia, tbe II/IS
for Oaaluh, II
Naaicip.l L.adt111
2 '0/05/03 Letter re, Coaceraed '.'1ebl i '.'ie61 S.lutor-US"A CorrupolJdeace 16
re,ideat, trprt"
tbt1r aa1eqa1roc.l
di,.p,ror.l ot t6,
a.S.'PA', ,ropo"d
,l.a 5" tor r,.td1,1
,ct10a .t tbe Oa.l.,k,
'aaici,.l L,ad1111
7 '0/05/03 Letter re, fora ot C.I,dr,ttl-C6.1r.,., Sc6.Ut-'DIJ, Corru,oaduce 17
Oall"k. - COlleat oa fo,. ot Oad,lt. Adlu-aUIA
Iro,o,ed 11.a tor
'e.,di.l Actio. .e cb.
Oa,l.,k, 'aa1ei,,1
SII,er/aad Slu
28 9010510' Letter re, '.r:1a '.A,barl-',r:ra la,t. Adler-aS"A, Corru,oaduce 18
la,laurla, lac. SdlJdt-nIJ
re,1",d tb, dr,ft
RIllS .ad ,ro,o"l
,l.a .ad Ire ,ab.ltt1a,
tbe toJJo'1l' eOllelC.
tor t6, Oa.1.,t, 'aale1-
,.1 L,adt111 ,1e.
2 90/0ZlU 'e.o re, Oa,l"k. '.'"cor-"". 111. tbll '.I".,r 'flotllda. U
1131/'0 a,d,t. ",t1.,
tr1, If,ort
,. '0112123 ",0 re, Or"al:,t10a,1 '...dr",-"". IU. 'flOt'lda. 20
r"tia, ,ltb O..l.,t.
,," oa D,e,.b,r 7,JI'I,
11 £,Cro"e, II
1 00/00/00 Coac,ra,d r,,1d,ltI' '.'J,tb.r-Co.e,t.., I.'''tor-D''IA Otbtr 21
eOI.eJU 01 ti. r,,14,.c
el".., .1t,rl,t1".
-------
! No. 4
:0/90
US,P! ADII'ISr.AfI" R'CORD I'D', - UPDAr, 11
O'A£!SI! IU'ICIPA£ £A.D1I££
O'A£!SIA, rISCO'51.
IB/IRANI PAG'S DAf' frrU AUrIO. "CllIllf DOCUltllf rrPl DOCRU/fBBR
aad Propo.ed '110 tor
a tiaJl cleaaap reledr
tor tbe Oaala.kl .Jte
6 00100100 Coaceraed re.ideat.' Coaclla.d 'e.ideat. S. 'utor-US"! Otbet 22
COIIUt. oa tb.
cllaaap alt.raltire,
aad 'ropo,ed 'laa tor
a tlaal cleaaap reledr
tor tbe OaJla,1a .ite
14 90/03/04 Coaceraed re.ldeat,' CODclrDed Re.JdeDt' S. Putor-USIPA Otbtr 23
COlleat. oa tbt
cleaaap alteraJtJre.
aad Propo,ed ,laa tor
a tJaal cleaaap reled,
tor tbe Oaala.ka .Jte
3 90103114 Coaceraed re,ideat.' CODcela.d 'e,ldeat, 5. 'utor-US"! Otbet 24
COIIUt. OD tbe
clelaap Ilteraltire.
aad 'ropo.ed 'liD tor
I tlall clelaa, rel.d,
tOI Oalll.kl .it.
133 90/03/14 rraa,cript ot tb. f.loba.o.-Coart '.,ort,r US',! Otbel 25
Pablic leiria, tOI
Oalla,tl laaicipll
'Jadtill Sapertaad
Site re,aredia, tb.
'ropo.ed 'liD tor
Ruedill Actioa
90/Of/U Coaceraed rl,ideat', f.Carrar S.'utor-US,,! Otbet 2&
COlleDt. OD tbe
clelaa, Ilt.raltire.
lad lro,o"d Ill. tOI
I tiall clllaa, r...d,
tor tb. Oalll.11 ,1e.
-------
o.
90
!RAIlI PAGIS DArI
'0106106
'0106108
rULI
Letttr coafirliag .
rtqut't to dtl., Record
of DtcisioD OD Oaal.!k.
fiscoa!iD Laadfill uatil
Juae 21U.
Coartr!.tioa rtcord,
Re!poast to ORAC .
154 rtqutstiag VVA
pOltpoat ROD Dtcisioa
oa Oaal.!k. uatil
JUDt 21, 1"0
ADIIIISrRArIVI RlCORD 11011
OIA£ASIA JUIICIIA£ £AID1I££ - UIDArl 12
OIA£ASIA, fISCOISII
Aureo.
"CIIlIJr
GaadusOD, S.
AdukGl, V.
J.C.a.r.a-CODfrr"ioD.l
£i.i,o.
luud" D.
DOCUJlJr rr1l
corrupoaduct
pbODt ltcord,
DOC'UItBlR
2
-------
.
State of Wisconsin
\ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Ca"oll O. 8eudny
Secretary
8o" 7921
Madlaon. Wlacona/n 53707
May 31, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO:
4440
Mr. Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Ch i cago, I L 60604
0: WMD--
CC: RF
FREEMAN
SUBJECT:
Selected Superfund Remedy
Onalaska Landfill Superfund Site
Onalaska, Wisconsin
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that our Agency concurs with the
proposed final remedy for the Onalaska Landfill Superfund site. The proposed
final remedy, identified as Alternatives 3LF and SGW, as described in the
Record of Decision includes:
1) Bioremediation of naptha contaminated vadose zone soils in the
southwest portion of the site;
2) Groundwater remediation via pump and treat for the purposes of
groundwater restoration and discharge of the treated groundwater to the
Black River; and
3) Capping the landfill site with a multimedia cap and gas venting
system, in accordance with current State specifications.
The costs of the selected remedy are estimated to be
Capitol Costs - 1) and 2): $3,600,000
3): $1,500,000
Operation Costs - 1) and 2): $150,000
3): $14,000
We understand that your staff and contractors, or the potentially responsible
parties will develop the major design elements of the bioremediation and
RECEIVED
\
JUN 0 6 1990
u. S. EPA REGION 5
OmCE Of REGiOi.;;.&. ADMiNI:~.RATOR
-------
.
groundwater pump and treat system in close consultation with my staff during
the predesign and design phases of the project. We also understand that if
the potentially responsible parties do not agree to fund the remedy, the State
of Wisconsin will contribute 50% of the remedial action costs. In addition to
cost sharing on the remedy, we acknowledge our responsibility for operation
and maintenance of this system after the initial 10 year operation and
maintenance period, as required by the Superfund law. We note that at the
conclusion of the bioremediation, the State wishes to enter into a cooperative
agreement with your Agency to implement the cap design and construction for
this site as a State-lead action.
As always, thank you for your support and cooperation in addressing the
contamination problem at this site. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. Paul P. Didier, Director of the Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management at (608) 266-1327.
Sincerely,
~cnQ
C.~~adnY 1
sec~
CDB:RS
cc: Lyman Wible - AD/5
Paul Didier - SW/3
Mark Giesfeldt - SW/3
Sue Bangert - SW/3
Don Winter - WD
Dave Lundberg - WD
Rene Sanford - FN/l
Norm Niedergang - EPA Region V
Kevin Adler - EPA Region V
Mary Pat Tyson - EPA Region V
Jon Dikinis - EPA Region V
. ~'-
\,
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
ONALASKA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITE
LACROSSE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
AUGUST
1990
o ~
. I
SCALa.. FEET
.
L._.-._.-._.~
~
. -- ~OII'''-'''
..... - ""-..,
...... ......,
---
(;;)
/'
....
-"--
--
-a- II8CI
,:..,...--
.~,~.... ~ ~
~,,':"~.' _,:':;:-I.:!X1.,=-';';~;t~_. .,~-,-::t"""';J2:._-'i~",,-_. ,",;"",.'„;,,:.,;~'(;o'.:5~,,~<,~;...:;,;~'-~f'.'--,"~;:~"~""'~;;,i'~'~~~:\:~,!'2>~~-~:~,~:~,~-~.,.,,.~'tJ_':1#i-"'~t""">":~
~
"'"-",, "";;".. /,.e-
-------
Section
I.
II.
III.
IV.
v.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
x.
XI.
XII.
XIII .
la.
lb. Well
2a.
TAmE OF CDNI'ENIS
Site Location arx:i
'pti
~1 on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81 te HistoJ:Y'....................................... . . . . . . . . .
E:r1f'0l~ HistoJ:Y'.........................................
~D1ity Participation.....................................
SOcpe of the Selected Remedy................................
SlmInary
of Site Characteristics.............................
SlmInary
of Site Risks............ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ratiooale for
Act.i0l1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of Alternatives................................
'D1e Nir1e ~'te!:".ia..........................................
Selected ~............................................
Sta~ Determinations...................................
~iveJ1leSS SlmInary........................... (foll~)
Figures
site
lc::x::=a.tiat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lc::x::=a.tia']S,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extent of grourx:l-wa'te!:" arx:i subsurface soil ccntam:ination.......
2b. M:Dl of ccntam:ination,
2c.
NE to sw cress
sec:::t.ia1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~c grourx:l-water ccntaminant plume.......................
2d. Chlorinated hydrccarban ~ume.................................
2e.
3.
4.
n~ ~ume..................................................
Cap classific::atiavareas of visible damage.....................
Landfill cap location (Alternative 3Il1........................
5. H.1ltilayer cap,
6.
HE to sw cress section.........................
(Alternative ~..............................................
Bm
1
3
3
4
4
5
12
19
23
32
40
43
54
1
2
7
8
9
10
10
11
40
41
42
-------
Tables
1.
O1emicals of
c::::rJr1c::::e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
SlmIDary of G:rourx:l-Water Risks
(Selected wells).................
3A.
Preli.mi.J\aJ:y G:rourx:l~ter Clearn.Jp St:arx:3ards....................
3B.
G:rourx:l~ter Clearn.Jp St:arx:3ards................................
4.
Estimated Costs of Alternatives................................
13
16
21
23
39
-------
S"U!.JMARY OF m-tEDIAL AI1I'ERNATIVE SEIECI'ION
ONAIASKA MLJNICIPAL IANDFILL SITE
IAamsE a:xJNl'Y, WISCDNSm
I. Site IDeation am Description
'!he Onalaska Mmicipal I.an::lfill ("Onalaska") site is located in the
Township of Onalaska (''Tc7.m"), apprax:i.mate1y 10 miles north of the City
of IaCrosse, Wisconsin. '!he 11-acre site, which :irx::ludes the 7-acre
lan:ifill, is situated 400 feet east of the Black River, near the
canfluence of the Mississippi an:} Black Rivers (see Figure la). '!he
Black River is located within the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife an:}
Fish Refuge, a wetlands area which SURX>rts numercQS migratin;J species of
birds arr:i is also used for hik.i.n;, fisb.iIg, hunt.in;J, arr:i other
-".. ~ - ~~'.dJrr~.;~~'''',:~\~.........~-'~"')~"~-~:;,_,,,,,,;,~~,,,,;;~,,,,.',,"_,eo,
-------
2
r-.oLcatia1al. ~ by area residents am visitors.
AI thcu3h the sur:rc:un::lirg area is generally rural, several residences are
lcx:ated to the north and to the south within 500 feet of the lan:ifill. A
subdi visia1 of abaIt 50 hcmes is located abaIt 1. 25 miles sc:utheast of
the site. '!he sam and gravel aquifer is the scurce of dri.nkin;J water
far the lcx:al residences. several private wells were sanpled as a part
of the ~;al Investigatia1 (Figure lb). Agri01.ltural lams are
lcx:ated scuth of the landfill, and i:nte1:mittent weeds and grasslams
border the site to the east.
'Ihe landfill was ccvered ("~~") with a 2-foot, clayey soil layer and
was revegetated after it was closed in 1980. Althcu;h evidence of frost
damage has been fomd, no wastes have yet been exposed. .As a part of the
closure requirements, fcur IIa'li tor wells were installed in the san:! and
gravel aquifer beneath the landfill (Figure lb). '!be monitor wells have
~
Figure lb. Well locaticms
1'1U'~~ Residential wll
en McI1itar wll
been S2IIIpled pericdically since 1982. A storage shed maintained by the
Town near the enb:ance of the landfill is the cmly structure prasMIt.
\
-------
3
II. site Historv
'!he Onalaska site was mined as a sam and gravel quarry in the early
1960's. After quarry c:.:.erations c"p;:t~ in the mid-1960's, the Town began
to use the site as a lamfill. Once the wisconsin Department of Natural
Resa1roes (WJ:NR) received authority to regulate landfills in 1969, the
Town was granted a license to use the fODDer quarry as a m.m.icipal
lamfill. Hc1w'ever, both mmicipal and chemical wastes ~ disposed of
in the lamfill. In 1978, after det:e.t:minin; that the lamfill operation
did not meet State solid waste tYrl~, the WJ:NR ordered the Town to close
the lamfill by September 1979. Subsequently, the closure order was
mxlified to exterd the deadline to September 1980, at whidl time disposal
operations nA;:t~. '!be final lamfill cap was placed on the lamfill in
June 1982.
In September 1982, the WJ:NR sempled the four lamfill mnitor \„ells, and
nearby residential \„ells, for oc:Itplianc:e with drinkin:J-water standards.
'!he investigation documented that groorxi-water cxmtamination had ocx::urred
within arxl aroun:i the site. one residential \„ell, located southwest of
the lamfill, was fCA.1n:l to ~ the Federal drinJc:in; water standard for
barium (1.0 Dg/L). '!be water semple also ccnta.ined five organic
~ at (X)l~lt.c:ations above backgraJn:i levels. A lamfill mnitor-
\„ell sanple was fCA.1n:l to be cxmtaminated with toluene at a concentration
of 14.7 Dg/L, which is \„ell above the State graI1'Xi-water quality
enforcement standard (0.343 Dg/L) and the Federal drinJdn;-water (2.0
m:JIL) standard. '!he Town replaced the cxmtaminated residential well with
a deep, uncart:.aminated well in Jcumary 1983.
Pursuant to the Carprehensive Environmental Response, a....~jSCition, arxl
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), the united States Environmental
Protectiat k}ercy (U.S. EPA) inspected the site in 1983. SUbsequent to
the SI,hft;ttal of the Site Inspection report in May 1983, the U.S. EPA
placed the site at the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1984.
"
III. Enforcement Hist.my
In 1987, the U.S. EPA am the WI:NR p~~ with negotiations with
several potentially respaI~ible parties (PRPs) regardirg the cxnmct of
the FAnPn; ~ 1 Investigatiat arxl Feasibility Stu:iy (RIf'S). Negotiatioos
~ UI'1S'--'~ful, arxl the U.S. EPA, in consultatiat with the Wt'NR,
O.I.,~-'1CEd the RI/FS in April 1988. In Oc:t:cber 1989, the U.S. EPA sent .
General Notice Letters regardirg potential liability to the first fcm-
FRPs listed below. In August 1990, Special Notice Letters regardirg
negotiat.ia'1S for the corxluct: of the ~~ rea-1y were sent to all five
of the PRPs:
.JIbe 'l'own of Onalaska (Otmerjoperator)
-Metallics, Inc. (Solvent waste qenerator)
-outers Laboratories, Inc. (Solvent waste generator)
.-Qaark Industries, the suooessor CCl}X)ratiat to 0Uters Laboratories, Inc.
-state ot Wisca1Sin: Department of Agria1lture \\
-------
4
IV. Camunitv Particication
~
Pursuant to Sectiaw 113 (k) (2) (b) (i-v) and 117 of CERCIA, the onalaska
I'TI'm'U1Uty has participated in the Leroedy selectiat process, in that:
-Prior to arrj p.1blic meetin;J, a press release was sent out to the local
~1::t and an advertisement annamcin:J the meetin;J was placed in the
racrosse Tribme, a local paper of general circu1atiat;
-A p.1blic meetin;J ("kick~ff") was held in 0Ctcber 1988, annamc:in;J the
~ of the RIfFS;
-A letter was sent QIt; to the p.1blic and press, updat:in;J them an the
pl~t:::::iS of the project as of 0ctCIber 1989;
-A p.1blic meetin;J was held in January 1990, annamc:in;J the fin:1in1s of
the RIfFS;
-'!be bIc site infcmuatiat repositories have been kept up to date with
site doct~. An administrative record cc.nt:aining the RI and rn
Lqxn:ts and other doct-rrts was placed in a site repository. Several
site doCI1I'nP1'1ts were also kept at the Q1a1aska Town Hall, pm;uant to
citizen requests;
-A Pk.~ Plan for r--1b1 actiat was rel-~ for p.1blic ~11t"and
p1~ into the Administrative Record at MaJ:d1 5, 1990, with the 3..\.ass!nJ all areas of oaann at the lamfill.
'Ibe principal thJ:eats at the site are CXI1Sidered to be the gramd-water
cx:nt:am.inant plume and a a::I'1taminated soil za1B adjacent to the
-------
5
sc:uthwestern portia1.of the larxifill, which is a major SOJrCe of gra.nxl-
water oontaminatia1. '!he larxifill itself is ca'1Sidered to be a low-
level, 1c:::n;J-tem threat to 1mman health and the envira1ment, primarily
as a further saIrCe of gra.nxl-water oontaminatia1.
VI. SUmnarv of site O1aracteristics
A. Backcra.1n:l
'!he Onalaska site was primarily used for rJ;~l of DJ.mi.cipal waste.
Accord.in:; to larxifill records kept by the Town, several :industrial
generators used the larxifill to rJ;~ of waste solvents consistirq of
resirn~ 1 ~ iran the clean.irg of paint spray equipDent, guns and metal, and
machine shop equipoent. t:~ser quantities of waste products ccntainin;J
ha.zardcus substances, inc1udin;J chlorinated hydrocartx:a1s, TNere also
rJi ~ of. Other waste types brcu;ht to the site inc100e can was1'1in;s
(ca'1Sistirq of water and an amine soap believed to be biodegradable)
derived iran alumirAm1 can man..tfact:urirq, small anomts of pesticides,
solid wastes, and paint and ink resi rn-.
A major partial of the solvent wastes brcu;ht to the site were naphtha-
based, consistizg primarily of a h:igh-flasb (point) naphtha and
"Strrlrblrd" solvent, a naphtha-based solvent with a lower flash point.
.'lbese solvents terd to CXI1Sist of aranatic and "straight-d1ain"
~~1Ta1s plus a ~11 percentage of the "BEXT" O.'I-ounds (benzene,
ethylbenzene, xylene, and toluene). '!he naphtha (;o.'Ia.nm are less dense
than water and are slightly soluble, therefore they terd to float al top
of the ground-water table, rather than s:ink.inq, and terd to rJi-=-~lve in
water fairly slowly. .
Solvent wastes were tmned alcn;J with other trash cn-site for a short
perlcx1 of time. After the ~ banned cp!I1 bumin;J in 1971, the Town was
directed to pour the liquid wastes into pre-excavated holes for
i1m'lArl; ;!Ite bJrial. Generally, waste solvents were pl ;!I~ in the south-
~ partial of the lan:ifill.
Initially, the in:mst:ria1 generatom transpart:ed the solvent wastes in
55-gallal dnJms ~ were either euptied for reuse, or buried if tbmRged
or leak:iD;J. later, the solvents wen! haulecl in 5OO-gallal tank t:tucks.
By April 1976, hcweYer, naphtha-msed solvents were no lcnjer bein:)
rJi~ ot at the landtill as the generatars had beg\m ~l;!l;mhr:.J the .
solvent far reuse. By this time, thcugh, an estimated 320,000 galla'1S of
waste solvent had been taken to the site f~ rJi~.
B. ~i;lt1 Investiaatial
~~ upcn.previcus invest:igaticms by the wam and the u.s. £fA an:! upon
avAilable site r6OOl.Js, the ~i;!l1 IJ1vestigat.icm (RI) was directed at
the fallc::JWi.rq:
-------
6
-Delineatin;J the ~ extent, direction arxl rate of flCM, arxl the
d1emical ~~ition of the ground-water contaminant pltnne e:mana.tin;J
fraD the landfill:
-Detemin:in;J the location(s), J"lI.1mher, and condition of att:'ied drums:
-Detem.inin; levels of soil contamination within arxl aroorn the
landfill :
-Detem.inin; the cxnii.tion of the current cap: arxl,
-Detemin:in;J the i.upact of the ground water arxl soil contamination on
1nDnan health arxl the Black River envi.rormlent.
'Ihe RI goals were mat thrc::u3h a program of mcnitor-well installations
am sanplirg, soil boril'gs arxl sanplirg, geqi1ysical investigations
(el~t.YU..llductivity am magnetaDeter sur.reys), trench excavatiat in the
landfill (test pits), cap investigations, arxl surface water am ~i1nP1"Jt
scmplirg in the wetlan:is environment.
'!be follaiin:; cxn:iitions were obseIVed at the onalaska site:
1. !at of the tiJDe"durirr;J the year the groun::l water at the site is
m::win:;J in a saIth-scuthwestly direction, ta.r.rcu:ds the wtlan:is am the
Black River, at an average rate of flCM of 69 feet per year, with a ran;e
of 55 feet per year to no feet per year. For a few months durirr;J the
year, durin; high grani-water table conditions, the groun::l-water flCM is
" towards the saJth-scutheast.
2. '1he landfill has been, am cxmtinues to be, a source of grourn-water
contaminatiat. A grani-water contaminant plume oonsistin;J of both
organic am inorganic 0 Jl1I.oon:m has migrated at least 800 feet £ran the
southwest:em Ed:1e of the landfill. '!be leadirg ed:Je of the contaminant
plume apparently is d.isc:hargirg into the wtlan:is (see Figure 2a). '1he
highest ocr...cutlc!ltiat of CXI1taminants is located in the southwest:em
partiat of the site, Wlch oorrelates with the imust:rial solvent
r)i~l area in the landfill. '1he ~ 10 feet to 20 feet of the
aquifer CDJtains the highest levels of CXI1taminants, with lower
oaa.c&It."t!cnI f~ at depths of 50 feet to 70 feet (see Figure 2b).
a. Inarganic Ca1t:aminants
'D18 primaxy inorganic U< ..\ -:uxJs of ccrw::em, in re1atiat to bJman health
am envira1mental ccncems, are barium ani arsenic. Ira1 my also be a
prtiUem in tha~ i~ my ~ discharqe criteria in the extracted water
2Unless treabueilt is tailored to i.ra1 rE!I1X:MU. Barium ocra.c<.cstia1S
raD;IB1 traD U u;VL to 2760 u;VL in site DD1itcr wells. Arsenic
CCI~lt.Qtia1S ran:JSd £ran ncn-detection to 68 uq/L. A~ the onalaska
site, naturally cxx::urrin;J levels of barium ani arsenic ~ fourxl to be
-------
7
cq:proximately 340 uc;VL an:i 10 ug/L, respectively. Figure 2c displays the
extent of the inorganic groorxi-water contaminant plmne.
~~~.
~ \
\..
~----~-~----~
,- - - _.~
~
- I.MT'CIJ~U'
--...-.-.
~ IINCIJ_----
. -
. I
IC&U .,ar
- ~_TIO---"
Figure 2a.
Extent of groon::l-water and sub-
surface soil contami.nation.
b. Organic CD1taminants
'!he predaninant organic ~ of ccn::em incltD! toluene, xylene,
1,1 ~chloroethane (l,l-ocA), am trichloroethene ('It:E), based upon
pat:ential ;~ to human health and the envira1ment. Ccncentrations of
these d1emicals are noted in Figures 2d and 2e.
3. Site soils located above the water table and adjacent to the
SCA.1thweste1'n edge of the landfill are contami.nated with napttha solvents
(hereinafter referred to as "napttha-ccntaminated soils" or "contami.nated
soils" ). '!he contami.nated soil zone occurs frail 11 feet to 15 feet
below grourxl surface am up to 150 feet frail the landfill (Figures 2a ani
2b). '1he CD1taminants, c:a1Sistin:J of (in part) the BEXr Q .,\-oonds,
originate in the landfill and are floatin;J en the groon::l water. GraJrd
. water flows beneath the landfill, where it
-------
co
(' == H[
-..- Count,
~
-'
..
'nnltntlon
~ NOfUQUlOUS PICA"
CONT_11C»I I
1„oc...,... ....
WI1'I.AIID8
nlMA~D9OSrrI
,.. ro-UIID
IInH TIW~ GlUm
~
:>
NOT TO SCALE
lIGDIO
= :> -'-TUlfUMDNCTDI
- _.."'''-'-TlII
- -1IOUI--IIfICJlMl.~TDI
~ 'IIUIIOP)WICo..._"'''~TUI
~ 'IIUIIOP) WICo._"'''-ATIII
~ '''''OP)WICo.''''''-..TlII
~
8TIII TAIlI
Figure 2b.
M:xIel of CXI1taminatiCX1,
HE to Sf cross sect.ia1.
-------
9
site in a ~ly direction. '!he gram:l water carries the floatirg
hydrocart:xm layer with it as it m:JVes off-site.
'-/"" ~-.-:a-
.----::: '" : ~ " ,
'" ':. ",.' ~ .
"0 ...... ~CJIII'~u'" t""""\ 1 s'::, ~ ..... ~"'":,,,,"~,-..: ..
-0"'" °0 OI""""""'08YGI~~ v... tI. 'h..': :-\~. :"...,,,,\t'..\~~
. "Ii' :. ' .
"~ / - I ,..:,5:;., 0 '"'-
. '''Ii'1' '. . L....J
"::. 'C::"..'. D
.. ':::~;:" ~
.::!~~~~
/+ ..,...."" \....
1:''''''/' """'\
I( .:~~ t",
~. \ * }
:: \. !
o. "0 :
<:> .e. ''''''''' f
... 0.>., i
".,:.. .... I
.. ":::: -:.................
. . .
,-.,,-...........-x-
..,," 0.
~~ IU\{ *
..:. . - ~".. :~
\-~~~..,,>~~~:.;" i";~~-=i::
>\
"
\
,
L
-. ,
"
.
-.
UGVIO
,-,-, =~
. =:.o~--
.~-
. I
KMA....,.
Figure 2c.
Inorganic groond-water cxmtaminant
plume.
Natural ~~ fluctuatiCl'1S of the gromd-water table are reflected by
the ll-foat to 15-foat ZCD!. Normal gromd-water depth is 15 feet belCN
the surface, duri.n;J the sprin;J the water table rises to 11 feet belCN the
surface. As the water table rises am falls, the oily contaminants
floatin;J a'1 Up of the water table also rise am fall am ten:i to sorb
art:.o the soU ard remain beh.irxi as a cont.inua1 gromd-water cxmtaminant
source. soU semples ci:rt:ained fran soil borin;Js plac:e:i close to the
landfill in:licated that naphtha-oontaminant' levels of up to 550,000 ug/Jcg
are pre3El1t in the soil. 'l11e highest level of BE)Q' cx:rcpounds detected in
the soU in this area was 41,000 ug/Jcg.
. 4. '!he lardfill cap has deteriorated an:! does oot meet the lan:lfill
closure regu1.atiCl'1S in effect at the time the site closed. '!he cap was ,
\,
-------
--------- --------
.:~
--- --- - -
--------
o
r-t
"'~. ~.':~~~ ~:"~() ..'\;';: ~,
'.'" >, ".: .. -....;~~ '-./ \. ....." ,tJL."
~- ~r/'~':. 0' " ~.... '\'-..--.. ; s.. 't~'" ~ ~
~;,.~~.;..; / '7'..... .,~ I.... ~".
'.f;~~::rir:;. . / ...........,.....~. , . :: - , ' . ~ ~ ~ ~'~:.
,::'b;{::~,' ~~.......... -., ~r-..-:::'----'",
" .,..-....-,-..-.,. .' ....... 'T.A -...... ..
}:':;{jrf~~ ~. 'vi. - : ! ~:. . :---..
:1.J~/-}' (J- ~~::::::.:-----~-_}_,I'.~~''''", ,:::~~~
_o~.,. .. - .. ~ ,.
~ ---.' .y
.~ " . + .... C
:':- / ,,""'<,:--.\-; 0,,-""';:::,
.~ " . " vA.. '1--.........
1'.;1 tit"" ... . o~ ~I''"J,. -.......:
'; or ",,,,. ... I' ~
l: C1 / ,.' <'0 :rQ
~ ~,~
J 4- ..: 8IWSS .t~ "~).
I .,' I.'.DCA 1711 ]: "
"to t.J.OC£" .
I .... t.t,I-TCA' :
.~. . 'IIWJS
/ l ~ ,.,.,.f~ u}
,:"'05 ;" f\ .: ~~ ~ j""')
~ . i
.'. ,. g
a-..,.', :
I <::> -u\ <'0"" :
,/ [",~WU '.. ~.. "'::::<:.~:~.......A
, t.,.ocA 1. .. .."..' ."," x
f I.2-OCI! ,-, . '<-~~)(-)(-
~7.. ", .'.
f I.I.'.rcA ItO .. 8J,. ~
f fCE" ..', "
, ",.. '.~ -..
, - ,... ~~ I.I.I.TI:" ul
,. "', "
~. "
", , ,----___....P~I___,,_'_......----.._......~,!------_..
If, -. ,,-. "~:--"~;;;;'''\~x-=,_u.'''=,,~n
" . I.'-DCA ..., AbIIt8Yla.1on K.,.
~ ~ IS t.l~ -u-oc.a
1.I~.'.f-.OCI
I~ . "oct
1,1.1'-"""""". "..,.teA
,~ .f'CI
NOIE. NO D"f" IV WElLIIIOIC"fES NO
CHlOAlNAIED \lOCI DE fEC lED
~ -. . I > 0 :":' ~ ,
''"'------...,'---...- --~
;:.J C.
.
_.
LEGEND
. '<,...."'''''' ~n::NE~~CAl SURVEY
'-./'"'
CONCENmAl1OH CONl0UR5
Figure 2d. Chlorinated
h}'drocartx:n plume.
" - ' -" INfERRED CONfOURS
.
'IO'<1T(OIIIO/O WEll
::A:.lPlItiG lOC"IION
.~_.__._-----------~
J
.~
[-:m I~]
- _J
1"'- ,..
....... ,. J
.
-n
....
(..... ..11
1'. to 1"- ..
.- ~.\-, .,
. . . D .... ',', .
e ~~ ~_. --- _O!,'_::'~.. -- - -- .~I!_---- -- -."
11- "-",,,"":"="X-;' - -~ .:..:..~ - - -;':":':",' - - .~- -- "-..&.LZ ~ -.
LEOENO
'........",....
LNTS 01' t,VIOf'lI.LAS
DElE-ED IV. GEOPIMIICAI. SURYEV
CONCENmAl1OH CON1CURS
o~-
, I
SCALE It FEET
'-../'"
" - .. -... NEAREO CON1CURS
Figure 2e.
"BEXT" pl\1118.
.
UOHItORINO WEll
SAMPUNO LOCATIONS
1;'~
I.-
J
'{
;1
'I
'I
i_'ii
F'
~;-?">
~
f-~
......;I...'.~..... .
't!, --
~,
:~~...
I
;'~
-------
I I \
I ' ,
f
\'
~
u
originally to be 0 "'\.c6ed of 2 feet of c:x:mpacted clay to CD1fcmD with
01apt:er NR 180, wisconsln Administrative COde (WAC). 'Ihe cap
investigaticns have shewn that the cap is ~~ of san:!y soils in
certain p'rtias and that it is a1ly 1-foot thick in other pcrticms. '!he
area of the landfill c:x:mtainin;J the floatirg naphtha layer is overlain by
the most penneable layer of cap soils, thereJ:Iy allowin; water to
infiltrate thrc:u;Jh the ocnt:aminant mass and leadl ccntaminants into the
graJI'd water. As mentia1ed above, evidence of frost damage has been
detected by the cap investigaticns. Animal burrows and erosia1 due to
surface water run-off have damaged the cap perimeter (see Figure 3).
,;
,
I
,
::::::::::::::::::: ::..-::.."'"
~==~
. ~-
ICAL&.. fUT .
MO.2 .
~~~ :'&18-''''
'----
...... . IIIIWIIf1III' N'LCICoIIaI
........ 1IIft1MlPlDc.-
1rrN6~ ""N'LCICoIIaI ~~~...
WCRLAMA ,*,AIIIIGr
...,.,.,. -...... =::"--
Fi.gIm! 3. General cap. cl~,"ificaticlt aid areas of visible ~. .
I>
-------
'12
5. several crushed an::l enpty 55-qallon drums wre fomd in the lan::lfill
d.urin; the test pit task. Magnetaneter ancmalies, as wll as site
Ll:'OOJ:ds, suggest that up to 1000 drums are likely to be in the lan::lfill.
As mentioned above, the solvent wastes wre transported in 55-qa.llon
drums whid1 wre either emptied for reuse, or buried if damaged or
leaki.n;. However, this RI c:cW.d net ascertain that the drums are
~ILLated in arrj one area, . an::l it may be likely that many of the drums
are in the same carditial as the drums whid1 wre fomd in the test pits.
6. '!be average depth to the water table an::l the depth of waste ni ~
is 15 feet. As a result, it is likely that refuse is periodically in
diIect CXJntact with grcurxi water. Soil below the water table does net
~r to be greatly affected 'ay lan::lfill contaminants, in that the
hazardaJs substanceS fc:A.IOO in the grc::AJn:i water are soluble. '!be soluble
contaminants wculd ten:l to remain dissolved in the grcurxi water rather
than serbin; onto the sanjy soil deposits.
7. Iandfill refuse ccntains pesticide residuals, ba~ on sanplin; data
and site reoaJ:ds. While pesticides are net expected to be very Dd:>ile,
they are CXJnSidered to be a lon;J-teJ:m threat given that they are readily
biQaOCl11l'l11ated 'ay aquatic life, and that the groun:i-..Jater oontam:i.nant
plume is d.ischm:gin; into the 'Netlan::ls.
VII. surmm:v of site 'Ri !=;lcg
Pursuant to the NCP, a baseline risk asses~nt was perf~ ~ al
unaltered cx:n::litia1S at the site, 'as ccnt.erplated by the no-action
alternative (see Section 4 of the RI report). '!be no-actiat alternative
~C3:I~ that no \,;ud.~'"tive action will take place ani that no site use
I'c::tLLictioos, such as fencin;, zcn.in;J, ani drinkin:) water ~LLictia1S,
will be i~. '!be risk as.~<;lnP.I'1t then determines actual or potential
risks or toxic effects the chemical contaminants at the site pose urDer
CLr.I.Le1tt ani feasible future lard-use asSI'Ul'{ltiOOS. As detailed in the RI
report, the followin;J a.ssmrptioos wre made:
-No ~i~l actions will be taken:
~-..Jater use n=LLlctia1S off-site provided for in 01. NR 112, ~
will net be effective CNer the lm)-teJ:m (since variances provided for
in sectiat NR 112.04, ~ have been granted in the past, ani my be
granted in the future, to the exi.stin;J state I'bb:lctiat (sectiat NR
112.07(2)(q» at the :installatiat of ~ water SJR)ly wells within
1200 feet of a J,andfill, ani at least a1S \iIell exists within the 1200-
feet zae):
-No deve1~tt of the landfill itself will occur due to State
~LLlctioos (sectiat NR 506.08(5), ~) and qeotedmicallimitaticns:
-Adjacent off-site deve1q.aucnt may occur in the future; and,
-GI:a1n:i-Wat.er oontam:i.nant ocr...-tUaticns will net decrease CNer time, due
-------
13
to the presence of the contaminants in the v;:.dose zone.
A. O1emi.cals of Concern am Toxici tv Assessment
Forty-nine d1emi.cals on the u. S. EPA Target CaIpJurxi List ('la,) \ro1ere
detected in water or soil sanples at the site. In addition, 29
tentatively identified ~ (TIC's) \ro1ere also detected. As
n; !::t'~I1Ssed in the RI report, the risk ~~J'1t p~s allows for this
massive list of ~ to be pared da.m to a mere manageable list of
Qw3m;~1~ of Corx::em (see Table 1). 'n1e :in::1usion of each in:licator
chemical in Table 1 was based on its relative concentration, frequency of
detectia1, an:! toxic effects, as ~l as whether an env:ircrnnenta1
stan:3ard or criteria (such as a Federal drinking-water stan:3ard) exists
for the d1emi.cal. Inclusion of a CCIt1pOl.11'Xi on the list of O1enU.cals of
Corx::em in:licates that remedial controls that may be applied to a site
should mitigate exposure. to the CCIt1pOl.11'Xi in ground water, soils, surface
water, or in the wetlan:ls.
Six of the chemicals of a:mcem are non-carcinogens, an:! the remainder
are potential or known human carcinogens (cancer-causi.n;J agents). Acute
(shcrt-tem at high 00IIOelllL-4tions) or chronic (lcn;-tem at low
ooncentratioos) exposure to each of the d1emi.cals of OOI~ leads to
varioos toxic effects (documented in Table 4-5 of the RI l:~t).
Table 1
O1emicals of Qmcern
. Or1alaska M.micipal Iamfill
~~:inoaens
Toluene
Xylene
Bari\DD
Ethylbenzene
Lead
1,l,l.JI'richloroethane
Carci.noaens
Benzene
Arsenic
Trichloroethane ('la:)
1,1-Did1l0r0ethane (1, 1-IrA)
1,1-Did1l0r0ethane (1, 1-DCE)
(1,1, 1~)
B. Ibnan ~lth ExI:x&Jre Pathwavs
'!be followin;J exposure pathways have been identified as bein;J pctent.ial
ar actual exposure pathways of primiRy ca~ for pl:Ctectiat of human
health at the Q1aJ.aska site:
-Pct:.entia1 a.n1..:ut an:! future use of ccnt:aminated ground water far
c:lrink:in;J, bathi.n;J, and other ha1sehold uses:
-Potential tuture J.ngestia1 of and/or deJ:mal CXX'Itact with cm-site soils
-------
14
ccnt:a..i.nin; chemicals of c:::c:n=em; arxi,
.
-Potential fut:ure direct CCI1tact with ccntaminated surface waters or
c:M;1nP1'1ts due to rec:reaticral use of the Black River wetlams area.
'!he a1ly exposure pathway determined to be of significance to the
envira1mental risk analysis was the grc:un:i-water c1iscbarge of
oant:aminants to the Black River wetlan:1s. Both aquatic life, arxi ~
cxnsumers of the affected aquatic life includ:in:;J humans, cculd be
exposed to site d1emi.cals.
1. GraJn:l-Water Use
'!he only well ~ ccntaminated water iran the sarxi an:i gravel aquifer
at this time is a garden well (Ktl 21-5) lcxated to the sa.ttmIest of the
landfill. 'Ibis well is used ocx:asia1a1.ly by the haDe-owners to water the
garden, an:i inteJ:mittently by hikers as a drinJcin; water source. No well
used primarily as a drinJcin;-water source is currently ccntaminated by
site d1emi.cals.
'!he Town has replaced the ccntaminated residential well with a well
installed in the sarost:me aquifer to a depth of 207 feet. '!he samstone
aquifer, e.nc:Q.1I1tered at an average depth of 140 feet, lies beneath, am
is most likely. in direct l"YTm1InUcaticn with, the sarxi an:i gravel aquifer.
It is unlikely that it wcul.d be adversely affected by 1.amfill
oant:aminants (Figure 2b); very slight to no ~~le dcwmJard vertical
gradients in the sam arxi gravel aquifer were seen ~ the RI,
CICI'1SeqUeI'1ty, as seen in Figure 2b, the majority of site oant:aminants
have t.emed to migrate hcriza1tally rather than vertically.
Hcwever, the sam an1 gravel aquifer, includin:; the portiat that lies
beneath the lamfill, is a Class IIA water source, as defined in U.s.
EPA's Guidelines for Grc:Ami-Wat'"" Classificatioo un:ler the EPA GraJn:l-
Water Prctection Strateav (~1'" 1986). A Cl~~c: IIA aquifer is an
aquifer that is CUl."1:ently in use, but does not meet the criteria to
categcrize it as a Cl.ac:g I aquifer (e.g., an irrepl~},\le source). '!he
sam an1 gravel aquifer is cw.l~Y bein;J utilized as a drinJcin; water
scm'CB ~calient of the landfill an1 cculd be used as a drinkin;-water
source dcwn;Jradient of the landfill.
2. tamfill waste Ma~
'!be cap has been subjected to m:adat an1 cxrrt:ains l"IJDIerCIUS animal
barehcles~, alCDJ with the nature of the cap materials (as
cxnstn1cted), aids in grani-water CD1taminatia1 by pravidi.r„l cx:n:h1its
far precipitatiat infiltratiat. '!be cx:n:h1its allOfli a large amc:mIt of
water to infiltrate ttm:u;Ih the landfill waste materials and leach
oant:aminants cut of the waste towards the gramd water. '!he potential
far animal pcp1latiat exposure to waste materials and/ar oant:aminants
exists, as evidenced by the bareholes in the cap.
No Ai ~}8 migratiat of oant:aminants due to cap deteriarat.ia1 has been
-------
15
detected. State regulatia1S (01. NR 506, WAC) W'hid1limit develcplS1t of
fcxmer larxifills am Practical ; ~c::n~c:, such as lam subsidence am
methane gas migratiCX'1, rednce the potential for the cap or the site to be
c1i.sb.n:b:d. While there is evidence that the current cap has un3ergone
significant erosion since its const:roct.ia1, there are no detectable
levels of ccntam.inants bein;J exposed at this time. However, given the
CUlLstt ~te of erosicm am ~in] the limitatia1S to sanplin] all
surface areas of the site, it is possible that waste materials CUXVor
ccntam.inants CD1ld be exposed in the future. In partia1l.ar, inorganic
ccntam.inants (heavy metals) am pesticides walld be of potential ccncem
given the direct CXI'1tact possibilities to 1mman am animal p::pUations in
the future.
3. SUrface o:n:titions
tJrrjer future c:xn:titions, arrj surface water runoff carryin:J ccntam.inants
fran the larxifill walld oot be eJq)eCted. to reach the Black River
'Wetlands. Alt:hcu#1 the surrcundin:;J areas are lower in elevation than the
larxifill, the general lOii slope of the samy and ~-veqetated soils
adjacent to the larxifill Sl„.1:JeS't that runoff fran the larxifill walld oot
carry ccntam.inants very far frcm the site nor to the Black River.
c. R;~k Pathwavs and CAla1l.ations for Human Health ExDosure
Usin:J data generated duri.nq the RI,. the U.S. EPA an:1uct:s a site specific
baseline risk ~e~-~ to charact:eri.ze the a.u.L~ and potential
threats to human health and the envircnDent posed by site ccntam.inants.
'Ihe imividual and ~1I'I'ul ative threats posed by cx:I1tami.nant migratia1 into
ground water, air, soils, surface water, or bioaoonft'ul atin3 in the food
chain are evaluated in the risk ~S'J-~. '!be results of the risk
~!I;AIII,le, a 1 x 10-6 risk due to a lifetime of drinJc:iJq
water with a Q„IIIIical ot a..a.c.m in it means that the a perscn's chance
ot CXI1t:ract.in) cal'D!r due to drinJc:iJq the water aver hisjher lifetime is
increased by 1 in 1 millia1. '!be U.S. EPA a~ to ~~ risks at
SUperfund sites to a rarqe ot 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10~ (1 in 10 000 to
1 in 1 mi 11 1C1'1), with an ~ en the lower en! (1 x 10~) of the .
scale.
'!be Hazam Imex, an e:xpressien ot nat-eaJ:Cincgen t.axic effects,
1DeaCNreS ~ a persCI'1 is be:inJ exposed to adverse levels of 1'D1-
~. Arr:i hazard imex value greater than 1.0 ~ that a
nc.n-carcinogen pctenti.ally pt:.sents an ~Lable t.axic effect.
-------
/ i \
I
16
1. Gra.1rX:l Water
Ead1 C1emi.cal of QJncem exceeOQ either State gram:!-water quality
st:andams ar Federal driJ'1kin;J-water st:andams, except far 1, 1-did11oro-
ethane (l,l-DCA), which has lX) Federal driJ'1kin;J-water standard. Table 2
lists selected site marl.tor wells ani the associated risks due to the
potential irgesticn of ccnt:aminated gram:! water fran these wells. '!he
standard risk as"'~~ ac:.c:nnt1tiat that an in:iividual, weighin;J 70
kil~awS (154 p:gm) ani in;Jestin;J ccnt:aminated water (in that 'Nell) at
the rate of 2 liters per day far his or her 7~ lifet.ima, was used to.
detemine the potential risks. 'D'1e risk calculatiat results fran
in:iividual m::nitor wells Lef)r~ a ran;Je of potential risks due to
:in;estim am dermal absorptim of 0CI1taminants in the gram:! water. '!be
highest d1emical CCI~lLLCltia1S in in:iividual wells Lqn:e:sent a ''worst-
case" scenario risk due to potential gram:!-water use.
Table 2
S\.mI11a%y of Ground-water Use Risks: Selected Mcnitor wells
Q1alas)ca M.mieipal Lamfill
M:Jnitor well Exces.CI r-;.YT!inoaeJ de Ri !=:k Hazard Imex
* 02-5* 6 x 10-6 0.8
* 02-M* 1.1
!I'f 03-5 8 x 10-4 2.5
MW 03-M 3 x 10-3 1.8
"" 04-5 3 x 10-6 0.7
"" 05-5 1 x 10-3 3.8
MW 06-M 9 x 10-5 1.5
MW 21-5 1 X 10-3 2.1
*Lm:ifill wells
As shewn in Table 2, at: the
-------
-/ ! \
,
17
2. Soils am Larrlfil! waste Materials
'!he risks pa;ed by aposure to the 11aP1tha-cxxrt:amina:ted soils or the
lanifill waste materials ~ calculated based at starmrd in;estion
rates for soils: aver a 5-year time pericxi a 7o-}(q in:1ividual may visit
the site are per week arxl accidentally in;Jest 0.1 grams of soil per
visit. DeDal abso1:ption of ccntaminants iran soils was ;:t~nned to
present a JIIJd1 lawer risk in CXIIpari.sa1 to in;Jestiat arxl, therefore, no
quantitative calculatia1S ~ made.
Since no cart:aminated soils or lanifill waste materials are exposed at
this time, they do not pose a direct-cx:ll'rt:act threat at present.
Moreover, if the cart:aminated soils ~ to be exposed in the future, due
to site develV(Allt::.ut or to cap erosia1, the ;:t~iated potenti.al risks are
very slight. tJrx1er the ercsiat scenario, pericxiic trespass an-site was
~~1'mI:Iti, whidl resulted in a negligible carcinogeni.c risk of 7 x 10-10
am a hazard Wex of less than 1. Residential develqment of the site,
al thou::Jb iIrplausible, 'NOlld yield an estimated carcinogenic risk of
7 x 10-8 arxl a hazard inEx of less than 1.
However, the naprt:ha-c:x:l1t:aminated soil is cxnsidered to be a priD::ipal
tmeat at the site. '!he naprt:ha is DCbile arxl is not easily contained,
plus it is a CD'1tinual source of cart:aminatia1 for the grcund water.
t1noertainties ~t:t«::()("iated with the lanifill investigatiat have dete.mined
that the landfill is a lcr.r-level, 1.a„J-"t:em threat. '!he RI cannot
pcssibly investigate the entire lanifill with test pits or surface
saq:»liDJ points. Also, future cap erosia1 ocW.d eJCpaJe waste materials
whi.c:h ~d pose ~oc,„t.ab1e hazards to human health or the envira1ment.
3. SUrface Water and ~i~!IIt
'!he gran:l-water cxnt:aminant plume is apparently di.sd1argiDJ into the
Black River \IIetlands, alt.hc:u1h no site-derived organic chemicals had been
detected in the limited 1'1J~..r of surface water and ~;1I'Iffit saDples
taken durinq the RI. '!be present human health risks ~t:t~iated with this
pathway apparently are at prat:ective levels. F\1ture cxnt:aminant
discharge levels my increase, bIt the volume of flow in the Black River
is such that dilut.ia1 is projected to greatly decrease probable
-------
18
Black River and the ~anjs at this time.
Inorganic c:x:mp:u'rls (e.g., heavy metals such as barium), however, ~d
ten:i to a,cx, 111"1 11 ate in ~ iww:arrt:s a1Ce they have rea.d1ed surface waters.
01arqes in pH and oxidation potential ~d ten:i to precipitate metals as
insoluble hydroxides or carlJonates, makiJ'q them ~; 1 able for
bioa0C'1II"Il1ation by plant or aquatic species. Inorganic o.'\«U'Xls are
apparently d.isc::barqinq to the wet.J.ams at this time. over the lag-tEmn,
adverse 1u1man exposure may be a likely scenario due to c:cn.sunption of
affected species.
D. Envirorunerrt"~l Analvsis
1. ~ MississiR'i River Wildlife and Fish Ref\xJe
'!he Onalaska site is adjacent to the ~ MississiR'i River wildlife and
Fish RefU3e (Figure la). '!he refU;Je, designated by the Fish and Wildlife
service (U.S. Department of the Interior), ccntains a wide variety of
wildlife, inc:ludirg numerous species of migrating birds. '!he area is
used for fishin;, hikinq, and other recreational p.u:poses by local
residents and visitors.
2. Natural Areas
'!he wam has identified five critical habitat, or "natural areas," near
the site (see Figure 4-6 of the RI). Each area ccntains significant
natural tYW'IIftnUties inc1ud.irq .:wexqeut aquatics, flood plain forest, and
cattail-bulrush, to name a few. one area to the north of the site is
kncwn as the Black River BottaDs Natural Area. '1his area ccntains two
fish species (the ~ minnow and the ~ shiner) listed as special
ocn::em species, for .which saDB prc::blem of ab.1rxIaJx:e or distril:utioo is
suspected bIt net yet proven. '!be aulet Qmte of the Black River is
haDe to the pirate perch, DU1 darter, and the pugncse minnow, all of
which are special (D~ species, and the st:amead tcpninncw, a state-
en:ian:;Jered fish species. 'Ihese species ocx:ur dcwnstream or near the area
affected by site activity. '!be Black River BottaDs Natural Area 5URX)rts
a wide variety of native and migratory species. In aaiition, the Black
River, Mississippi River, and Lake Q1a1asJca all ~ abn:1ant
pcpnlatia1s of game fish.
3. surface Water and Wet.1.aIm
Imrganic O.'\~, '-Ihich tend to migrate in the grcurd-water
ccnt:aminant plume D:Jr8 rapidly than arqanic C* .'\ ~, are ccntainecl in
the leadin;J edge of the plume. 'lbese 0.'1 -ounds are of principal oa~
in relation to the surface water and wtlams. ~1II"Il1 ation of .
csrt:ain ~i~'A ag~iated with the lan:ifill, sucb as IJJl' ard/or heavy
mtals, my pt:~et&t a
-------
19
metals. In ad:litia1J humans
-------
20
grourxi-water ~ plume W'ere averaga:l, one may derive the "mst-
prcbable" risk due to in:Jestion of contaminated grcun:i water. '!he mean
carc~enic risk for contaminated grourd-water use was calculated to be
3 x 10 (exclu:tin;J arsenic) based primarily on benzene ani 1,1-D:A
CXI'1Ce.t1trations. ~ potential risk posErl by in:Jestion of the groord-
water ocntaminarr~, un:Ier both the worst-case ani mst-probable
scenarios, exoeed the target acceptable risk ran;e of 1 x 10-4 to
1 x 10-6, ani tlms present unacceptable potential risks to human health.
Additive hazard intices exoeed 1.0 in six mcnitori.n;J wells, althcu:;Jh few
iniivi.dual chemicals I hazard intices exoeed 1.0. 'Ihe mst notable
~nces are in MW-OSS ani in MW-215, in which the acX1:itive hazard
intices W'ere calculated to be 3.8 ani 2.1, respectively (primarily due to
1,1-1rA). Hazard in:tices above 1.0 are unacceptable.
B. Envil.Odh,p~.i'!ll ~.i'!lM.i'!lm~ Not Met at the site
In ackiitia1 to tX)Sin:; unacceptable risks to rec:eptors, the onalaska site
does net meet certain awlicable or relevant ani awL~iate Federal or
State envhYlJWental starnards at this time.
1. ~
'!he ex:1st.in;J landfill cap does not meet section NR 504.07, WAC, the
cw'lent State lan:lfill closure requirements, which have been detemined
to be relevant an:! ~~iate for this site. In part, sectia1 NR
504.07, WAC requires that the cap be o.'\.JSed of a 2-foot layer of
CX'IIpICted clay overlain by a frcst-protective soil layer (see sectia1
XII (b)(3) - ARARs).
2. GrCAm:i Water
Table 3A lists the O1emicals of a:mcem ani their CDLL=:O~ federal
drinkin:;J-water starnards (MaJiiTrum Contaminant revels (K:Is) or Ma>r;mnm
Contaminant Level (;N81 ~ (K::I.Gs» ani the State groord-water quality
starnards, both enforcement starnards (EC3) and preventive actial limits
(PAIs), Wich are it;c:nJSsed in section XII(b) (1). 'Ihese values entail
the Prelimina1'y GrCAm:i-water Cleanup Stardards for the onalaska site.
c. GraJn:i-wat-~... Protection Goals
1. '!he Natiooal Q:I'1tirJ:JeucY' Plan
'lbe U .5. EPA's grcund-water protecticm goal has been set forth in the
NCP:
"'!be natia1al goal of the l&u&Jy selectia1 ~9 is to select
roPll,lA.'ies that are protective of human health and the envira1ment,
that maintain protecticm over time, and that minimize untreated
waste" (Secti.a1 300.430(a) (1) (i» .
-------
21
Table 3A
Preliminary Ground-Water Cleanup Starx:1ards
Onalaska z.tmicipal Ian:ifill
MaY; 11'1. 1m State State Federal
0:IrI:x:U'xi concentration ~.ruY1;:,.m.1 ~ni2 ~m.3
Benzene 13~ 0.67 ppb 0.067 ppb 5~
Toluene 20,000 ~ 343 ppb 68.6 ppb 2,000 ~
Xylene 2,300 ~ 620 ppb 124 ppb 10,000 ~4
'la: 14~ 1. 8 ppb 0.18 ppb 5 ppb
1,1-IX::A 800 ~ 850 ppb 85 ppb 0.04 ~
lead 207 ~ 50 ppb 5 ppb 50~
Arsenic 68~ 50 ppb 5 ppb 50 ppb
Barium 2,760 ppb 1000 ppb 200 ppb 1000 ppb
Ethylbenzene 230 ~ 1360 ppb 272 ~ 680 ~4
1,1,1"""lQ. 450 ~ 200 ppb 40~ 200 ~
1,1-rx:E 15~ 0.24 ppb 0.024 ~ 7~
Notes: ~: ''parts per billion" or uyL
1: ErUOJ::oesoent starx:lards (ESs) umer 01. NR 140, WAC
2: Preventive acticn limits (PAIs) umer 01. NR 140, WAC
3: MaYi1l'l.1m CD'1tam.inant Isvels (K:Is) umer the Safe DrinJd.n;J Water Act
4: MaYi1l'l.1m CD'1tam.inant Isvel r~'!I:: (M::IGs) (PL~)
5: Health-based Clearmp Stamard consistent with clearmp objectives
'!he NCP details that the U.S. EPA
"expects to retum usable groun:l waters to their beneficial uses
wherever practicable, within a time frame that is reasonable given
the partio.tlar circumstances of the site. Whenever restaraticn of
gram waters is net practicable, (the U.S.) EPA expects to prevent
fUrther migraticn of the plume, prevent expcsure to the OCI1taminated
ground water, anr::l evaluate further risk reduction" (secticn
300.430 (a) (1) (iii) (P).
Also, the NCP CXI1Siders the use of institutional
-------
/ i \
I
I
22
are determined ~ to be practicable... n (Section
300.430(a) (1) (iii) (D».
2. State of wisconsin
'!he State's groom-water protection goals are set forth in Chapter 160,
wisconsin Statutes (Wis. Stats.), which ~lies to all groon::l waters in
the State. ('!he State's groon::l-water quality standards are set forth in
01. NR 140, WAC.) Chapter 160, wis. Stats., and 01. NR 140, WAC, are
utilized by all State agencies which regulate facilities, practices, or
activities that may affect groon::l-water quality. QJnsistent with these
statutes, the ~;;.1 alternatives evaluated in the FS III.1St achieve
adequate protection of human health and the environment (wnen
iIrplemented), an:! protect the grooni-water resources of the State.
3. Clearnm ~1"dc::
Table 3A presents the PrelWnary Grcurn-water Cleanup St:.a1"dards for the
onalaska Mmicipal Iarxifill, ba~ on the oonsi.deration of the potenti.a1
risks to CXII'1SUmBI'S of CD1taminated grcun:i water and en the consideration
of Federal and State groon::l-water protectien rp 1 A and groon::l-water
quality standards. Table 3B, GrcuI'X:l-water Cleanup St:.a1"dards, lists the
most strin;Jent grcurxl-water cleanup levels fraD Table 3A and ccntains the
~ i atiat goals to be met 'tw'hen iJrplementin;J the grcurxl-water I'elDedy at
the onala.ska site. Except for 1,1-DCA, as tH~1S~ below, Table 3B
ccntains the preventive actien limits (PAIs) for the O1emicals of Q:ancern
at the site. .
As previously natecl, 1,1-DC'A has no Federal c:J:rinkin:]-water stamard.
In:.Jesticn of c;rcmd water with a oa~.t..ultien of 1,1-IX:A at the State
gramd-water preventive actiat limit (PAL) wculd presmtt a potenti.a1
excesA lifetime carcincgenic risk of 2 x 10-4, wdt is an unacx:eptable
risk accordin; to the NCP. Siroe most of the PAIs (for carcinogens) in
Ol. NR 140, WAC, wculd present an excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of
1 x 10-7, a GrcuI'X:l-water Cleanup Starmrd for 1,1-DC'A has been derived
to present the same risk to gramd-water ccnsumers. 'lbus, aD! the
GrcuI'X:l-water Cleanup St:.a1"dards have been met (~~c:nmhY:J that it is
t:ectm.ically or eccn:mi.cal1y feasible to achieve ~, the amulative
risk due to ~ wculd be ~tely 1 x 10 , whidt is an
~table risk accordin; to the NCP.
(If it beo~ ~ that it is net tec:bnically or eoa.nn~~11y
feasible to achieve a (State) PAL, then a (Wisc:xn;in) alteJ:native
OCI~It..Cltien limit (WACL) may be
-------
. I \
I
23
Table 38
Grcuni-water Cleanup Starx:1ards
Onalaska M.micipal Iarxifill
CcIrI:x:un:.i
Stan:lard
0.067 ~
68.6 ~
124 ~
272 ~
5~
200 ~
5~
0.18 ~
0.04 ~
40 RJb
0.024 RJb
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Arsenic!
Barium!
Lead
Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1, 1, 1-Tr1.chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 .. Naturally c:xxurrin;J levels for these carpamds fam at
the Onalaska site may be higher than these st:ardards.
sectien NR 140.28, tD\C, provides for establishin; a (WiscxJnsin)
alternative couomttratien limit (WACL) if (1) backgrcund cc:n:::&Jtrations
exoeeoj preventive actien limits (PAIs) an:JIor enf~ st:ardards
(ESs) or (2) if it is detemined that it is net technically or .
ecmanically feasible to achieve PAIs (see sectien XII (b) (1) (8) (ii) ) .
Notes:
D. SUn1narf
Actual or threatened rele:=-~ of hazardcus subst.an:&I fran this site, if
not addressed by iJ!plementatia1 of the respcn;e actia1 select:sd by this
Rean"d of Decisien, may pl.lsmtt an imninent and substantial ~
to pmlic health, welfare, or the envira1ment. 'lberefore, based en the
findin;)s in the RI l:~:t and the dh:n1SSicn above, a Feasibility Stmy
(FS) was perfOllDed to focus the devel"„UCI1t alternatives to address the.
principal and la.r-level threats at the site. 'Jhe FS l~'t docl1~'1ts the
evaluatien of the magnitude of site risks, site specific ~licable or
relevant and 24„l~iate requirements (ARARs), and the requirements of
CERCIA and the NCP, espeoi ally the groun:1-water pratectiat policy, in the
derivaticn of .L....A'Hal alternatives for the Onalaska site.
IX. DescriDtim of Alternatives
'Jhe Q1a1aska site"was divided into two parts, or "cimable units," to
-------
..
24
effectively evalua~ the site prcblems in the FS. '!he first ~le
unit deals with the lan:ifill, and the second operable unit n~'~ with the
ground-water contaminant plume an:i the ccntaminated soil. 'n1e two
~le units are addressed separately t:ut are i.n1:emed to be addressed
in cx:njunction with each other. Different ~Ha1 alternatives ~
evaluated to address the prin::ipal and la«-level threats posed by ea~
~le unit. 'lhe alternatives passin; initial screen:in:J and ccnsidered
for detailed analysis in the FS are presented belCN.
A. L:ux!fill Ocerable unit
Alt:hc:u;h the NCP reaffirms u.s. EPA's preference for penoanent solutions
to SUperfun:i site prcblems t.hrc:u;h the use of treatment t:.ec::hoologies, the
preaniJle to the NCP oorrt:eItt'lates that many ~j"'l alternatives may be
iIIpractical for certain sites due to severe i.Itplementability problems or
prcbibitive costs (e.g., treatment of the content of an entire large
nmicipal lan:ifill). '!he Feasibility Study (FS) was thus directed at
containment rather than treatment of the lan:ifill contents, due to the
size of the landfill and because no ''hot spots" within the lanifill ccW.d
be discerned durin:J the RI. '!he alternatives analyzed ~ as folla«s:
lIE: No-Actian
2IF: cap ~i r am Upgrade
3LF: Multilayer Cap (Larx1fill Only)
4IP: Multilayer Cap (L:ux!fill and COntaminated soil Zone)
1. A'h»~tive 1TF: No-Action
U1'x1er the No-Actia\ alternative, no active response 'Nalld occur, other
than inspectia'1 and grass cuttin:J. '!he current ,rate of precipitation
infiltration, t.hrc:u;h the cap and lanifill waste 'tc7.„cu'ds the ground
water, is projected to increase in the future as frost damage, animal
burrcwin;J, am erosia\ ccntinues. No reduction of the rate of leac:h:in;l
of CXI1taminants to the ground water 'Nalld be provided by this
alternative, thus no risk reductia'1 'Nalld result iran this actia'1. An
institutional \JUIiL.ul, wen regulates the develqment of lardfills,
under sectia\ NR 506.08, WAC 'Nalld be relied upon to augment cap
effectiveness. wmR a;praval11L1St be given to art{ activities wen
WD.1ld distu1b the lardflll.
'!be grass cuttin:J and cap inspection p1:~~CWl under Alternative lI.F 'Nalld
cxst. $1000 per year.
2. Alt~tive 2IP: ~n ~h" am Ulxrrade
tb:Jer Alternative 2U', the areas at the exi.st:irq cap that am rbt-:Jed
and/or do net cxmply with the origihal closure specificatia1s under
01. NR 180, WAC (a mini.DIJm of 2 feet of CXIIpCted clay) WD.1ld be repaired
and ~adt:d to meet the original design plans. '!be Qu.~ently minimal
-------
25
risks a-=-~iated with exposure to landfill contaminants TNCUld be further
~~ as the cap is repaired arx:l~. '!he ~ cap is
projected to reduce the rate of precipitation infiltration by 30 per-
cent, reducirg the rate of gram-water contamination as c:x:mpm:d to
Alternative lIP.
site operatia1 and maintenan::e TNCUld c:xmsist of periodic inspections arx:l
repair of the cap as wUl as grass c:uttin;J. A drawback to this
alternative, and to the current cap s:irx::e neither contains a frost
protectia1 layer, is that damage due to freezejthaw cycles TNCUld not terxl
to be ~ d1Jrin; the visual inspections and, therefore, TNCUld
probably not be repaired. 'Ihus, precipitation TNCUld continue to degrade
the cap as W1ell as continue the migration of contaminants to the gram
water. '!be institutional control described un::ier Alternative lIP TNCUld
also awly.
Alternative 2IF walld take 2 IOOnths to cxmstruct. '!he capital cost is
$390,000 (to repair and up;rade the cap) and the Operation and
Maintenance cost is $3,200 per year. '!he present \IIOrth* is projected at
$440,000.
3. Alt~'I"'n;IItive 3IP: ftbltilayer Cap (Larxifill only)
. under Alternative 3IF, a new m.1l.ti1ayer cap which meets the requi.re.ment:s
ot secticn NR 504.07, WAC walld be oonst:J:ucted aver the 7-acre landfill.
'Ihe m.1l.ti1ayer cap would CXI'1Sist of (iran bcttan to top) a gradinq layer,
a m:iniDaJm 2-foct
-------
26
.
4. Alten'\ative 41F: l'1.1ltilaver caP (landfill an:! Contaminated Soil)
umer Alternative 41F, a rew m.1ltilayer cap meet.in;J section NR 504.07,
WAC requirements, would be oonstrocted aver the lan:lfill an:! the adjacent
cart:aminated soil. '!he cap, cxmstructed of the same c::arponents as in
JU, would also cover ~tely 4 acres adjacent to the southwest
portia1 of the site. As above, the rate of precipitation infiltration
would be ~~ in the lan:lfill by 80 percent, in c::axparisan to
Alternative lIP, minimizirq the migration of contaminants cut of the
landfill ta.iards the ground water. 'n1e rate of intil tration t.hrt:u3h the
naphtha-ccntaminated soil wculd be ~1~ by 40 percent, which would
help to rOOJlOe the rate of contaminant loadi.rq into the ground water, bIt
'o«:W.d also ten:! to increase the len;th of time for contaminant loadin;J
into the ground water by a principal threat.
Alternative 41F would take up to 9 IOOnths to construct. Usirq the same
maintenance PI\'yLC2oW as in Alten'\ative 31F, the capital cnst is $2,300,000
(to ocnstn1ct the cap) and the Operation and Mai.ntenance cnst is $23,000
per year. '!be PI£.3a1t werth is projected to be $2,600,000. '!be
.institutional \,;YI1L.ul described unjer Alten'\ative lIP would also apply.
B. GraJn:i-Water ~le unit
'!be cj:)ject1ve of the ground-water operable mrit is to achieve Federal
cJrinkin;-water staniards unjer the safe Drinki.rq Water Act and state
grouncl-water quality staniards unjer 01. NR 140, WAC ("Grcun:l-water
Cleanup Standards"). Grcun:l-water operable mrlt alternatives analyzed to
aa1h:ess the pr.incipal threats at the site rarged fraD tb-Actia1 to ground
water extractiat and treatment with treatment of the naprt:ha-ccntaminated
soil. '!be alternatives analyzed 'Nere as follC1w'S:
1GW: tb-Actia1
2GW: Slurry Wall and cap
3GW: GraJn::1 Water Extraction{Passive Treatment
4GW: GraJn::1 Water Extraction/Active Treatment
5GW: Alternative 4GW Plus BiorphlAdiation of Soils
6GW: Alternative 4GW Plus 'lbermal Treatment of Soils
--
1. Al~tive 1GW: tb-Action
umer Alternative lGW, no actia1 ~d be taken to CXl1t.ul the grcurxl-
water cxmtaminant plume emanating fraD the site nor would the
cart:aminated soils be CII.lho:=sed. '!be institutional ~1l.~ prcm.1lgated
umer 01. NR 112, WAC (see ARARs - Section XII) would be relied upa1 for
preventia1 of in;Jestiat of cart:aminated ground water, even thcAJgh
variances cxW.d be granted Wich wa.1ld a11ai the installatia1 of a well
within 1200 feet of the landfill. 1Url.~ of the graDi-water
cxmtaminant plume woold be bplemented to guam against pctentially
significant discharges of ccntaminants to the surface water and tlZMi1N:n'Jts
of the Black River. ]"npK!ts to the Black River'and the \IetJ.anjs wa.1ld \:
-------
27
not be ca1tJ:vlled oJ;: mitigated with this alternative am future ~ial
actioo may be ~ry if adverse levels of ccntaminants are detected in
the surface water or ~i1'l"lPrrt:.s.
Risks due to the potential in;;estion of contaminated water are not
projected to decrease as continual contaminant loadin; to the gro.ni
water 'MaUd occur. Gramd-water Cleanup Standards are not e:xpected to be
met within 100 years or JOOre. '!be gramd-water contaminant plume 'MaUd
also be e:xpected to spread further ta.Ncm:1s the sc:utheast aver time, due
to the ~~ sa.rt:heasterly gramd-water flCM CCI'Ip:)I1ent.
'n1ree rsI monitor wells would be added to the current mnitor well
network requirin;; a capital cost of $100,000. Installation would take 3
nxmths, am the gramd-water contaminant plume would be mnitored for 30
years with an Operation am Maintenarx:e cost of $63,000 Per year. '!be
present 'NOrth is projected at $1,100,000.
2. Alternative 2GW: Slurry Wall am CaD
tJn:1er Alternative 2GW, the contaminant sources oontrib.1tirg to the
gramd-water plume 'MaUd be contained by a slurry wall am a DLllti1ayer
cap. '!be slurry wall would encircle the larxifill am the nati'1tha-
contaminated soil. Contaminated gramd water outside of ~ slurry wall,
which is ~y c:1i.schargin:.J to the W'etlarx:ls at present, 'MaUd be
allcwed to cx:ntimJe to c:1i.scharge at acx:eptable levels (i.e., belCM Water
()Jality Criteria (W:JC) - see Section XII (b) (1) (C) ). As in Alternative
lGW, if adverse levels of site c:xmt:.am:inant are found to be c:1i.scharginJ
to the 'Wet.1.aros, aatiticnU l......A-ii"l work may need to be perfomed. '!be
cap would be CXI1Sb:ucted as described in Alternative 4U'. GraJrd-water
JD::nitori.rr;J'MaUd be performed to as~'OO5 the ~ee to which contaminatim
at:tenJatiat is pt'OL~. 'lbe institutional controls c:utlined for
Alternative 1GW would also be ~lied.
After the c:cnt:ami.nant source is ocntained, the gramd-water quality is
projected to inprove aver time, by natural attenuation (c:1i.scharge of
contaminants at adequately protective levels to the TNetlan:ls ani dilution
by gra.nU water), to eventually meet Federal drink:in1'-water st:.armrds.
'Ihis 'MaUd result in an estimated ten-fold reductioo in potential risks
(fraD 1 x 10-3 to 1 x 10-4). ~, even ~ it my take about
30 years to meet Federal drink:inJ-water st:.armrds, it is \mlike1y that
State grcurU-water quality stanm'ds cnUd be achieved durin;J this time .
fiaua.
'lbe capital cost for Alternative 2GW is $3,900,000. '!be Operatiat am
Maintenance ccst is $80,000 per year (to maintain the slurry wall am cap
as wll as to JD::nitcr the grcurx:l-water c:cnt:ami.nant plume for 30 years).
'lbe pre.seut wcz:th is projected at $5,100,000. '!be slurry wall am cap
wculd take 1 year to
-------
, i \
I '
I
2.<3
3. Alternative 3GW: Gram:! Water Extraction/Passive Treatment
under Alternative 3GW, a series of extraction 'Nells ~d be ccnstruct:ed
to remove ocntaminated groJni water fran the lead:in:1 edge of the plume.
'Ihe extraction 'Nell network \toOll.d be designed to be construct:ed near the
point where the gro.n:i water apparently discharges into the ~ands, in
order to capture the ccnt:aminant plume prior to its discharge into the
wet.J.ams.
'1he extractiat 'Nells walld extract approx:iJnate.ly 170 gallons per miruIte
(GRot). '1he ocntaminated water ~d be treated by ca5Cad.1.rg it aver a
series of small rock or conc::rete apron waterfalls (a fODn of "passive"
air striRJin3) to pra1XJte volatilization of organic c::arpoun:1s prior to
discharge to the Black River. Discharge of the treated water shall meet
the substantive requirements of a WPDES pezm:i.t. It is possible to use
this type of treatment system at this time, Sln::e the conc::sItrations of
cantaminants in the lead.irg edge of the gramd-water contaminant plume
are less than the gro.n:i water closer to the lan:lfill.
It may be possible that a DJre "active" method of treatment walld be
needed in the future. Higher conc::sItrations of cantaminants will migrate
towards the extractiat well nebIork, perl1aps causin3 d.i.sd1arge criteria
to be exoeeded. C1apter NR 140, WAC requirements of preventin; a
CXI'1tirA.1in;J release of cantaminants above stan:lards at the point of
standards applicatiat would thus not be met by this alternative.
'1he gram-water extractiav'treatment network walld be c:p!I'ated until
Grc:AJnj-water CleanJp Standards are met in 30 years or DJre. '1he
institutia'1al CQ;1L...uls described un:ter Alternative lGW would be applied
as well. 'Ihis would result in a risk reduction iran the CW;l;-=:htly .
~table level of 1 x 10-3 to an acx:eptable level of ~QYi1Mltely
1 x 10~ in 30 years or DJre.
Alternative 3GW walld take mJCh lon;er to reach Grc:AJnj-water Cleanup
. Standards than Alternative 2GW, if at all, since the soil oantaminants
will rxrt: be addressed (either ocntained as in Alternative 2GW, or treated
as in Alternatives 5GW am 6GW, below) am c:ontaminants would oontiJme to
leacb into the gram water.
GrcIun:i-water 1DCIrl.tcrin;J wculd be perfomed to ~C3S9 the (~:qu~e to which
contaminant clearDJp is oocurri.n;J. Alternative 3GW walld take 6 JrD1ths to
CQ;at..L\JCt and wculd be ~ted for 30 years or mere. '1he capital cxst.
is $520,000 (to ca~L...\JCt the .extracticm well network am treatmeut
system) am the c:pn-atiat am ~ aJSt is $80,000 per year. '1he
present. ~ is projected at $1,700,000.
4. Ali-~tive 4GW: Gram! Wat~,.. Extraction/Active Treatment.
thSer Alternative 4GW, a series of extractiat wells would be ccnstruct:ed
to 1'BDCV8 ccntaminated gram water at an apprax:im.te rate of 170 GFM
tJ:aD beneath the cr:mtaminated soil near the scut:hwest porticn of the
-------
I I \
I .
I
\
29
lan:ifill. Treatment of the contaminated water wculd consist of
aeratia'l, clarification, an:i filtration prior to d:ischarqe to the Black
. River in oc:IIpliance with the substantive requirements of a WPCES permit.
'!he extractia'l ~l network would intercept the grcun:i-water contaminant
plume near the major sa.u:ce of contamination, but the leadin;J Ed;Je of the
gramd-water contaminant plume wculd contim.1e to apparently discharge
aooeptable levels of contaminants into the ~an:is. If the discharge
levels exceed ~, then additional grcun:i-water extraction may need to be
perfcmDed in the area targeted for gra.md-water extraction in Alternative
3GW. Sl\D;Je prniI~ (primarily iron) fran the treatment proceso:; ~d
be Iii ~ of in an ClwLqJLiate facility.
'!he extraction an:i treatment system would be operated until Groorxl-water
Cleanup Stan:1ards are met in an e:st.il'!Ia.ted 5 years to 30 years or more.
'Ibis ~d provide a risk reduction fran the 0JrreJ1t una~le level
of 1 x 10-3 to the aooeptable level of approximately 1 x 10=-6. Groorxl-
water DD1i.torin;J ~d be perfonned to assess the degree of contaminant
cleanup an:i to ensure that contaminant levels ~y dischargin;J fran
the leaclin; edge of the plume to the ~an:is remain bela.i unacceptable
levels. '!he institutia1al. ccuu'-11s described urx)er Alternative 1GW ~d
be ~ied.
Alternative 4GW ~d take 6 months to construct. '!he capital ~ is
$1,800,000 an:i the Operation an:i Maint:.enan::e ~ is $150,000 per year.
'!he ~lsent ~ is projected at $4,.200,000.
5. Al+-~'I"'n:'IItive sew: Al+-~'I"'n:'IItive 4GW Plus Bin1""Pl'nPrliation of Soils
under Alternative SGW, the gramd-water extraction an:i treatmeJtt system
described in Alternative 4GW would be iJrplemented an:i the institutia1al
,--il.~ outlined urx)er Alternative 1GW would be applied. An innovative
tedmology, in 1Utg, enhanced biological I"E'mediation, ~d be applied to
the naphtha-cart:am:ina.ted soils. Bi~iation is iJrplemented by
inject.irg oxygen into the ccntaminated soil Za1e arxl applyin:;J water arxl
nutrients to the surface soil. '!he treatment accelerates the natural
bicxiegradatia1 of the organic 0 ~Ii .:JJn:)s in the contaminant mass ani wcW.d
be perfomed primarily to reduce the principal threat pcsed by organic
ca1taminants Wich are leac:hi.r„J into the gramd water.
'!he H; estimated that bi
-------
30
.:) JI'I aII"rls. Ora! the..BrA reduction rate is established, it shall bee- ilIA
the Cleanup Standard for the soil contam:inants in lieu of the estimated
Cleanup Goal of 80-95 percent reduction.
'!he rem:::MU of the prin::ipal threat posed by the contaminated soils ~d
help the grourxl-water extraction ani treatment system adlieve Federal
drinkin:;-water stan:iards in less time than Alternative 4GW. As in
Alternative 4GW, are Grc:AJnj-water Cleanup Stardards are met, the
potential risk of grourxl-water c::onsunption ~d fall iran the 0JrreI1t
unaccept;able level of 1 x 10-3 to an acceptable level of ~O)t;m::.tely
1 x 10=-6 in 5 years to 30 years.
It is anticipated that, after five years of operation of the grourrl-water
ext:racticn an:! treatment system, 95 percent of the ground-water
contam:inants will have been rezooved fran the grourrl-water ccntaminant
plume intercepted by the extraction wells. It is also anticipated that
bi\,l.-"I.~,,'H;:ttion ani oontairunent will prevent the spread of unacceptable
levels of oantaminants off-site. 'lb.e grourrl-water quality will be
evaluated in iIu.cwr::nts of 5 years to deteDnine if the ~;;:tl actia1
objectives have been met. Grc:AJnj-water quality will be evaluated to
detmmine 'Nhether or net it is technically or ecoucmically feasible to
ad1ieve (State) PAIs. In addition, the grourrl-water quality will be
evaluated to deteImine if the anticipated reduction in oantaminants has
been sufficient to m:dify the "active" aeration treatment system (e.q.,
air stri~) to a ttpassive" aeration treatment system (e~q., a ca~
system) . SUCh a deteJ:minatian will be based upon WPIm cli.sc:harge
requirements ani the chemical d1aracteristics of the ground water to be
treated.
F'ollowin1 up to 6 DD'1t:hs of treatability an:i pilot-scale t.estirI3, the
bi01.A.Aii;:ttiat UAlIAAe1t of Alternative 5GW 'NCUld be constructed in
6 JDCI1ths an:i is expected to be inplemented for two 20o-day treatment
~~. '!he capital cost for the entire l~61y is $3,600,000 ani the
~tia\ ani Ma:intenarx:e cost is $150,000 per year. 'lb.e present worth
is projected at $6,000,000.
since the naphtha layer is within the lardfill as well, the treatability
stu:!y 'NCUld be ;:t i1Md at deteminin; if bioremediatiat cx:W.d be
bplemented within a portia1 of the lardfill at the same time. If
iDplement.ed, the capital cost for entire lewe..ly is $4,200,000 ani the
~tiat ani Ma.intenance cost is $164,000 per year. '!be present worth
is projected at $6,800,000.
6. Alternative 6GW: Alternative 4GW Plus 'lherma1 TreatJnent of Soi1~
mmr Alternative 6GW, the ground-water extraction ani treatment system
of Alternative 4Gf ~ be bplemented ani the institut.iatal \A,A.t.uls
desc:ribed umer Alternative 1GW 'NCUld be awlied. An estimated 17,000
aJbic yards ot the naphtha-ocntaminated soils 'NCUld be exravated ani
~""",,,lly tJ:eated off-site. No contaminated refuse within the lan:ifill
wculd be excavated ani treated. Two themal trea'bJ.eht alternatives wm .
-------
31
CXI'ISidered - asphal~ irx:orporation ani ~. In either case, the
~ted soils are excavated ani transported to a loc:al asphalt plant
for treatment.
'!he soil ccW.d be irx:x:u:porated into a hot asphalt mixture ani used for
pavin:J, or the soil ccW.d be placed into asphalt production ovens ani
roasted. If :inoo1.}X)rated into asphalt, sane organic CCIIpCQ'rls nay
evaporate Wile the less volatile organic CCIIpCQ'rls are solidified or
inexnpul4ted into the asphalt mixture. Incorporation of the ccntam:inated
soil into aspw,t constitutes rec.yclin:J ani therefore Iand Disposal
Rt:.lLlctians (see section XII (b) (3) (i» ~d not apply.
'!he ~ process ~d heat the soils to separate the volatile
organic CCIIpCQ'rls (VCCs) fran the soils ani discharge them to the
ahno 6Ji1ere. 'n1e less volatile hydrocarbons ~d not be entirely
rem::wed. '!he Target Cleanup Goal. for ~ ~d be 99 percent
remcval of VCCS, ani a reduction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarlxms (Tm) to
10 Dq/Jeg. 'Ihe treated soils ~d be replaced an-site. However,
~ nay not constitute Best Dem:mstrated Available Technolcgy
("BOra'") un:3er the Iand Disposal Restriction rules. Repla~1"1t of the
soils aHlite WICUld not be allC7.1leCl \.D1ti1 BDM' is C!l=Plied or a waiver is
granted.
As with Alte.J:native SGW, the iJrplementation of either t:hemal soil
treatment is i.nten:3ed to reduce the anomt of contaminants leac:hirg into
the gramd water. '!his WICUld help the gr'Ol1ni-water extractial am
treaa~ht system to reach Grcund-water Cleanup standards in less time
than Alte.J:native 4GW (in an estimated 5 years to 30 years). Once Gramd-
Water Cleanup standards are met, the current unaoceptable risk level of
1 x 10-3 \IICUld be nd~ to an aoceptable level of ~tely
1 x 10-6.
Once local demand for asphalt is identified, Alte.J:native 6GW WICUld take
2 Da1ths to 3 Da1ths to excavate ani treat the soils. As in Alte.J:natives
4GW am SGW, gramd-water extraction ani treatment WICUld be iDplemented
for 5 years to 30 years. 'Ihe capital cost for Alte.J:native 6GW is
$3,700,000 and the Operatia'1 and Maintena.n=e ocst is $150,000 per year.
'!be present wrth is ~ected to be $6,100,000.
c. ~al of Alte.J:natives
Althcu3h the ~:I~l alte.J:natives are rli~1Ssed separately for each
c:p!r8ble unit, in scme instances the iDplementatiat of artf ate l~ for
the grcun:i-water c:p!r8ble unit nay directly influence the selectiat of a
.L~ for the landfill operable unit. Far ex;!Ikl'{,le, Alte.J:native 2Glil,
~ CXI1tains the landfill ard ccntam:inated soils with a slurry wall,.-
WOlld require a cap which cavers the entire area erx:losed by the slurry
wall. rn. atly landfillleweJy which provides this optial wculd be
Altemative 4IF. Simi 1 ~rly, Altemative 4IF \IICUld tend. net to be
hplEmeut:ed with either Altemative .SGW or Altemative 6GW, as the latter
altematives cdha:aS the principal threat posed by the napttha-
-------
32
ccntami.nated soils. It may not be ~ to cap the I'1aIi1tha-
ccntami.nated soils area once the soils have been treated.
x. CcmDarative Analvsis of Alterrlatives: '!he Nine Criteria
. In acccrdance with the NCP, the relative performance of each alternative
is evaluated usin:; the nine criteria (section 300.430(e) (9) (iii) as a
basis for ~ison. An alternative providin:;J the "best balarx:e" of
tradeoffs with respect to the nine criteria is dete.nni.ned fran this
evaluation.
A. 'Ihreshold Criteria
1. OVerall Protection of Human Health am the Envirorarent
OVerall protection of human health arxi the envirorunent addresses whether
a l~ eliminates, ~~, or controls threats to l'n.mIan health arxi to
the environment. '!he major exposure pathways of concem at the onalaska
site are the potential in;Jestion of contaminated ground water, arxi the
~ to or in;Jestion of contaminated surface water an:1,Ior ~i1N='TIts
in the Black River arxi the wetlarXis adjacent to the site. ~~ upon
these pathways of ccncem, the larxifill alternatives were evaluated en
their ability to ~~ precipitation infiltration thJ:'c:u;h the lan:ifill,
which r-"~ the levels of contaminants lea~ into the grcun:l water.
'!be grcun:i-water alternatives were evaluated on the basis of their
ability to rem:Ne ocrrt:aminants fran the aquifer to reach acx:ept:able risk
levels am to ~~ the levels of hazardaJs substances di..scharqi.rxJ into
the wetlands. Increased rates of precipitation infiltration thJ:'c:u;h the
landfill do mt cant:ribIte to ret:umi.rg the aquifer to its beneficial
uses within a reasonable time frame.
a. I.ardfill Alternatives
over the lcn;-tem, Alternatives lI.F (No Action) ani 2IP (cap Upgrade)
do mt provide adequate protection of l'n.mIan health and the environment
since freeze/thaw, erosion, and animal burrcwin;J TNIOOld continue to damage
the cap. '!be cxn.:litiat of the present cap c:1eI1a"~lI.Cltes that a frost
protectiat layer is ~o=o.ry to maintain cap integrity rNer time. '!be
maintenance of cap integrity rNer time is critical with respect to both
direct CDJtact ~ of wastes by human and envL.\oII1WCI1tal receptors,
as well as protectiat of the grcun:i water thJ:'c:u;h minimizatien of
precipitatiat infiltratien thJ:'c:u;h the lan:ifill. With ctiminished cap
integrity, organic, metallic, ani pesticide oart:aminants detected in the
landfill wastes wculd continue to be carried to the grcund water at
unacceptab1e rates. In addition, DIm! toxic or
-------
33
decrease aver time. '!be upgraded cap tNalld be subject to the same
degradational forces" the current cap is subjected to am precipitatiat
infiltration tNalld be expected to increase in the future. Inpacts at
surface water am the wetlarx:1s due to grourrl-water degradation tNalld be
expected to ccntinue.
since AlteJ:natives. 3LF am 4LF (sectia1 NR 504.07, WAC cap) provide far a
cap with a frost protection layer, not a1ly would they terxl to provide a
superiar barrier to direct contact, J:ut they tNalld decrease the rate of
precipitatiat infiltration thrcAJgh the lardfill wastes by ~tely
80 percent. Frost, erosional, am animal burrow damage to the clay
barrier layer would be minimized, dec:reasin;J the direct cx:n:luits for
precipitation infiltration thrcAJgh the lardfill am dec:reasin;J the rate
of contaminant leadtin; fran the waste mass into the grourrl water. 'Ihus,
Alternatives 3LF am 4LF are protective of human health am the
environment aver the lorq tenn.
'!be differellce between Alternative 3LF am Alternative 4LF is that
AlteJ:native 3LF would not reduce the aIID.D'1t of precipitatia1 infiltratia1
thrcAJgh the n.a.P1tha-contaminated soils. Alternative 4I.F tNalld reduce
precipitatiat infiltratiat thrcAJgh the contaminated soils by
~a>";~tely 40 percent, reducin;J the rate of loaciirg of oontaminants
into the grourrl water.
b. Groond-Water Alternatives
Altematives lGW (No Actiat) am 2GW (o:mtainment) are not protective of
1nmBn health and the environment aver the Ion:; ter.1n. Alternatives 3GW
thrcAJgh 6GW prcvide adequate protectia1 of human health am the
envira1ment am use treatment to renDVe hazardcus substances fran the
groun:i water an;Var naprt:ha-contaminated soils. '!he use of treatment
l~I."':.Hes wi1ere practicable is anticipated by the NCP (Sectiat
300.430(a) (1) (iii) (A».
Altemative 1GW is not protective of the environment, since it does not
limit the release of oontaminants at levels exceed:i.n:;J water quality
criteria in the surface. water or ~an:1s. In additiCl1 Alternative 1GW
is net protective of human health, for it 'NCUld rely solely upc:n
potentially ineffective institutional C(;)aJu<>ls to prevent the ifx3estiat
of oontaminated grouB1 water. '!be NCP (Sectiat 300.510(c) (1) reccgnizes
that the u.s. EPA my not have the authority to inplement institutional
u...1uuls am requires that the State assure that artf institutional
u...1uuls inplemented as part of a 1::AllAdial actiat are reliable and in
place after cperatiat am maintenance has begun. '!he State does not have
the aut:hcrity to prevent the installatiat of drinkin;r-water wells, as a
variance prooem1T'8 a.u.~ently exists umer 01. NR 112, WAC. '!his is
eviderad by the existence of two wells within 1200 feet of the 1.an:lfill
that have received such a variance am by the garden wll whicb is
located within the grcund-water contaminant plume.
AlteJ:native 2GW waUd also rely at inStitutional cuutJx>ls to prevent the
izI3estia't ot ccntaminatecl grcuncl water, am waUd act to cart:ain the
-------
I : \
,
34
c
scm:'Oe of ~ am allow the gramj-water quality to iJrprcve via
natural att:eJU]ation. Alternative 2GW is net protective at this site in
that the CD'1taiJ1ment will likely be bread1ed aver the lorg term. since
natural att:eJU]ation, instead of treatment, is errployed to cleanup the
aquifer, Gramd-water Cleanup Standards would net be met within a
reasmable time frame.
Alternative 3GW prcvi.des for treatment to address the gramj water at the
perimeter of the ccntaminant plume, but it does net address the I'1aIi1tha-
oa'1t:aminated soils adjacent to the soothwest portion of the landfill.
'Ibis alternative would be protective in that gramj-water cont:ami.nant
discharge to the surface water am \lletlarrls would be miniJni.zed due to
extractioo am treatment of the gramj water. However, it would also
tend to draw III:)re highly contaminated grcurxl water fran the site towards
the extractioo wells, increasirq the likelihood that a mre active
gramj-water treatment system may be ~sary to replace the passive
gramj-water treatment system in the future.
Alternatives 4GW t:hr'cD3h 6GW provide for the lorg term protection of
tuman health am the environment, while meetin::1 the goals am
expectatioos of the SUpert\.1rd program. As detailed abave, the stated
~auauatic goal of the u.s. EPA, as expressed in the NCP, is to select
remedies that are protective aver time ani ''minimize untreated waste"
(Sect:.iat 300.430(a) (1) (i) . '!he NCP cont:eIrplates that the u.s. EPA will
use "treatment to address the principal threats at a site, wherever
practicable" (5ect1a1 300.430(a) (1) (ill) (A) . Altematives 3GW arx:l 4GW,
while pravidjn;J treatJDeJtt to address the gramj water, de net C&Jr.h.~ the
ccntaminant mass in the soils adjacent to the soothwest porticm of the
landfill.
2. CcmJlianoe with ADDlicable or Relevant am AwLvuL'iate
Reat1; 1"'PI'nP~-q (ARARs}
'Ibis criterioo evaluates whether an alternative meets awlicable or
relevant arx:l C!wL"„Llate requirements set forth in Federal, or more
stril'~ent State, enviranmental staniards pertai.nin;J to the site or
lM-' pJSed actioos. ('!be selected :temedy sectiCl1 (SectiCl1 XI) rH!lU"'J1Sf1es
ARARs for the site.) 'Ibis sectioo a1ly notes those ARARs net addressed
(if any) by an alternative.
a. Iamfi1l 11t-~tives
AlteJ:natives UP an:) 2lF do net meet the current sect.ia1 NR 504.07, WAC
landfill requirements for landfill closure, which has been detemined to
be relevant an:) GHA"„Llate for this site. Alternatives 3IP an:) 4IP
~ meet sectiCI'1 NR 504.07, WAC requirements an:) ~d also meet the
requirements of 40 COde of Federal Regulations (em) Part 264.310(a) (1-5),
wbich are ~ ~tle C ~fi 11. closure regulatia'JS.
.
-------
1/\
35
b. Groun::i-Water Al te:Q1atives
Alternatives 1GW through 3GW would not c:::c:.rrply with 01. NR 140, WAC, in
that they do not prevent the continued release of contaminants at. levels
~ staroards at ~ point of staroards application. In acXlition,
it is unlikely that these alternatives would result in CClI'pliance with
acute water quality criteria in surface water or the ~arDs, or chronic
water quality criteria in the ~arDs. Alternatives 4GW through 6GW
'-ICUld CX'Itply with GraJrxl-water Cleanup Stan:lards within a reasonable
time frame, as well as with water quality criteria in surface water an:i
the TNetlands.
umer Alternative 6GW, the roastirg method of theJ:mal treatment of the
napttha-ocntaminated soils would not meet the RCRA criterion for the
permanent destruction of contaminants, known as the destruction rem::wal
efficiency (rm:). A rm: of 99.99 percent is required for treatment
t:edmologies (incinerators) if the waste is I"E!IOCNed an:i treated (40 em
264.343). Inanporation of the soil into a5Ii1alt is considered to be
recyclin:1 an:i rm: requirements would not apply.
B. Priltm:v ~ 1 anc:im criteria
3. I.on:r-Term EffectivenesslPeITnanence
'1his criteria'1 evaluates the ability of an alternative to maintain
prctect.iat of human health an:i the environment alorg with the ~e.e of
certainty that the alternative will prove SJOOe>S9ful.
a. Lanifill Alternatives
Alternatives lIP an:i 2I.F do not provide lag-term effectiveness or
peIma1'1e1'D! since no frost protecti.on layer is provided for the cap.
Rapid cap deterioration, whidl leads to an i.nc:::reased rate of
precipitatiat infiltration, will oc:x:ur without such a barrier, as seen in
the aJITent cap. Alternatives 3U' am 4U' provide the best lcnJ-tem
effectiveness of the lamfill alternatives as they relate to the cleanup,
since the cap design includes a frost-prctective layer 'Nhich prevents
f1:eezejthaw cap damage am ~~ the likelihccx1 of animal bn1:cwin;
through the clay barrier liner. '1his ~d allow the grani-water
treatment system to suooessfully meet Groun:l-water Cleanup Stan:lards due
to the reductia1 of precipitation infiltratia'1 through the larxlfill
waste.
b. GJ:'t:Jlni-water Al i"~1"T\;:1Itives
Alternatives 1GW am 2GW do net provide adequate protecti.a1 traD
in;Iestiat of ccntaminated grani water aver the laq-tem. In additiat,
Alternatives 1GW am 2GW do net ~ protecti.a\ aver the 1m; tem of
the surface water am TNetlands enViJ:cnment. Alternatives 3GW through 6GW .
-------
36
WOlld provide adequa1;e lon;-term effectiveness as each WOlld continue to
extract contamina~ ground water until Grcun:i-water Cleanup Stan:!ards
are met.
'n1e FS projected that the grcun;i-water extraction an.:l treatment system
umer Alternative 5GW may attain the Gran'xl-water Cleanup Stan:!ards in
the groun:i water within 5 years to 30 years. However, ground-water.
quality will be evaluated in increments of 5 years to detez:mine if the
~i::.l actia'l ci>jectives have been met. If, after the ground-water
operable unit has been operatirg for a minimJm of 5 years, it becxmes
apparent that it is oot technically or EJC.X)ucmically feasible to achieve
a preventive action limit (PAL), then a (Wisc:cnsin) alternative
concentration limit (WACL) may be established. (A WACL may be
established for a cx::rrp::urn prior to the 5-year review where the
bad
-------
37
Alternative 5GW is ~ only alternative that will result in the reduction
in the toxicity, nmility, or volmne o~ a contaminant thra.1gh treatJnent.
BiULMlI~"i;"'tion wa1ld destroy organic ~ in the na~tha-
ccrrt:aminated soils adjacent to the lan:ifill. Treatment of the groun:l
water only transfers corrt:aminants to the atIrosphere 'Nhere they can be
{i1ct:o-axidized. soil roasti.n;J (Alternative 6GW) also emits chemicals to.
the arm. ~ without destroction.
5. Short-Tenn Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness ccnsic1ers the time to readl cleanup dJjectives,
and the risks an alternative may pose to site workers, the ~ty, and
the environment durin; l:en.es.ly in1;>lementation. '!his criterion also
ccnsic1ers the reliability and effectiveness of MrI mitigative ~!::I.1reS
taken durin:;J ten.eJy in1;>lementation to control those short-term risks.
a. Iandfill Alternatives
Alternatives 3U' and 4U' provide the IOOSt significant short-term effects
to the lymrllnrdty durirg cap ccnstroction, due to the projected level of
ccnstructiC8'1 activity. Alternative 2I.F wa1ld provide a less significant
iJIpact in ~isC8'1, due to the reducEn level of cap :recon.sb:uctiC8'1.
Noise, dust, VCC-emission, and oonstJ:uction and vehicular accident rates
may pose short-term threats to site workers and/or the cx::rtmJnity durin:;J
cap ccnstructiC8'1. ~in:;J is a stamard ergineerin:;J process and stamard
safety precauticms wculd be undertaken to I'Adn~ the likelihood of
accidents. D1st and VCC-emission controls wa1ld reduce short-term
i1l"{»'cts to site \1ICrXers and local residents. 'n1e use of erosia1 COIiUuls
will mitigate artf short-term effects posed by potential siltation
prc:i)lems to the Black River durin:;J cap ccnstroction.
b. Grcun:i-Wat~,.. Alternatives
Alternative 2GW may provide the greatest iltpact on the rrmm.n'1ity due to
the greatly increased truck traffic projected durin:;J ccnstruction of the
cap ani sluny wall. Alternative 5GW rray b~ari1y expose the
t'n'IIftnUty to low levels of ccnt:aminants cIurin} inplementatian of the
bi01:~IAi; "'tia1 UAlpAJe1'1t, in that the air injection blavers may cause
VOCs to be exhausted to the atnx:sp1ere. Altelmtives 3GW thra.1gh 6GW
W01ld c1isc:harge ccnt:aminants to the a~ via aeratia1 durirg the
water trea'bDeJtt ~~~. No alternative wculd be allowed to pt'OCMd if .
air AIIi!l:9icms exoeed State or Federal air quality starxlards. ~i!l3lia1
-------
38
ClearUJP Staroards witJ'lin 30 years, Altez:natives 4GW t.hro..1gh 6GW are
projected to rem::we the majority (approximately 95 percent) of
contaminants in 5 years. Alternative 3GW would take 15 years to :renrJVe
the majority of the contaminants.
'!be estimated rat/~ of grourd-'.„c!ter extraction for Altez:natives 3GW
t.hro..1gh 6GW walld net be expected to adversely affect the Black River
wetlams. Q:mp1ter 1'OOO'llirg of the grourd-water regime inticates that,
duri.I'q low river flow ccn:titions, the grourd-'.„c!ter table may be expected
to be lowered by 1.2 inches to 3.6 inches at most, with no ~
expected durirg flc:xxi ccrditions. 'nle natural water table fluctuation at
the site is 4 feet, which is very high in relation to the projected
~ due to grourd-water extraction.
6. ImDl~nr~hilitv
'n1is criterion considers the technical an:i administrative feasibility of
inplementin:1 an altez:native.
a. Iarrlfill Altez:natives
No significant iJrplement:a.tion problems are projected for Alternatives lIE
t.hro..1gh 4U'. cap materials are expected to be obtainable fran 1'1ea%by
sources and CXI'1StJ:uction methods are rather straightfonrcu:d.
b. Grcurxi-water Alternatives
IDplementatia1 of the sluny wall (Alternative 2GW) is depement upa1 the
~tibi1ity of CXI'1StJ:uction materials with the naphtha. IIrplementatim
of Alternative 6GW (aspalt incorporation) depenis upon local demard for
aspw,t. Grcurxi-water disc:harge after treatment walld need to meet the
substantive requirements of a WPDES pennit (see section XII (b) (3) (ii».
Bi()t~IIAH~tiat, an innovative technology, is expected to be practicable
in the ~ Za1e soil, b.1t treatability testin;J walld be ~M to
evaluate its effectiveness in the lan:ifill portion. '!be NCP an:i CERCI.A
0XItain an expect:atia1 that :inmvative technologies be used at site
cleanups when such technology offers the potential for o::uparable or
superior treatment or i1rplementability, less adverse inpact:s than other
~, or lower ocsts for similar levels of perfcmnanoe for
deaaDLLCIted technologies. At this site, .in ~ bi
-------
39
7.~
Table 4 carpares the capital, Operation am Maintenance, am present
TNCrth costs of iIrplementin:J the various alternatives at the site.
Table 4
Fstimated COsts of pPm:rl; ~ 1 Action
Onalaska Mmicipal Ianifill
Alternative Capital O&M Present Worth
1LF (No Action) $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 16,000
2IP (Upgrade Cap) $ 390,000 $ 3,200 $ 440,000
3IP (M.l1 tilayer) $1,500,000 $ 14,000 $1,700,000
4IP (M.l1tilayer) $2,300,000 $ 23,000 $2,600,000
1GW (No Action) $ 100,000 $ 63,000 $1,100,000
2GW (Sluny Wall) $3,900,000 $ 80,000 $5,100,000
3GW (Perimeter) $ 520,000 $ 80,000 $1,700,000
4GW (Q1-Site) $1,800,000 $150,000 $4,200,000
5GW (BiOlo:>,,~H~te) $3,600,000 $150,000 $6,000,000
5GW* (I..arx:lfill) $3,900,000 $150,000 $6,300,000
6GW ('Ihemal) $3,700,000 $150,000 $6,100,000
Note: O&M =- Operation am Maintenance
5GW* - Bi01.-..-:liatial in I..arx:lfill
c. Modifyim criteria
8. State AcceDt:ance
'!be State of Wi.sa:r1sin is in agreauent with the u.s. EPA's analyses and
~ ........-"1datia1S presentecl in the RIfFS and the Pt:~ Plan. '!be State
cxn::urs with the selected alternative (presentecl in Sectial XI, below). .
9. o:mrunity Accept:ance
thrmD1ity reactiat to the P.t.~ Plan is 1I'I;vad. since the Town is a .
pctentially responsible party, DJSt of the dissent:in) CxJl'.'~ regard
CXJSt as a higher priority than actual or potential protecticn of human
health or the envira1ment. Generally, those who think that saue fom of
rA.oAdial act.ial shculd be iJrplemented believe that. either lesser .
alternatives (e.g., 3GW rather than 5GW) shculd be iJrplemented or that
-------
(I \
. 40
the proposed plan be i1tplemented solely under the sponsorship of the WrnR
and the u.s. EPA. 'ihese concerns are addressed in the Responsiveness
SUrmnary (Section XIII).
XI. ~ Fcl'.1:JJ REMEDY
As provided in CE1aA and the NCP, and based upon the evaluation of the
RI/FS and the nine criteria, the u.s. EPA has selected Alternatives JIP
and 5Qi as the method pravi.din; overall effectiveness proportional to its
costs to adequately protect human health and the environment against
exposures at the site.
umer Alternative 3U, the cap shall be placed on the landfill (see
Figure 4) in cx:rrplian=e with the current requirements of section NR
504.07, \tW: for closure of solid waste ni~ facilities. '!he cap
shall consist of a gradin::J l~er, a mi.nim.Im 2-foot clay layer (cx:rrpacted
to a permeability of 1 x 10- etVs or less), a gravel drainage layer, a
~
~
- _C-"-.....
-..----
- _C-"_-
---- -
@ AlllAC-"_--
'-"
. ..
. I
IC.IU. PUT
...- ----
igure 4: Iardfill cap locatiOO (Aitemative 3LF).
-------
~
" i \
!
41
frost protective soil layer, and a minimJm 6-:ind1 tcp;oil layer. A
passive, methane gas venting system shall be cr.nstructed within the cap
as well (see Figure 5). It is projected that the cap 1IICUld be
cr.nstructed after the bioremediatia1 O"'I.~s1t of the l~ has been
exmpleted, unless bio~;;.tia1 within the sa.rt:l'1W1eSte portia1 of the
landfill is iJrpracticable. If:;o, the cap may be installed ccnc:urrentJ.y
with bia;...,-"H"tia1.
-
-
..
..
"
.
1-
!
1-
-
-
:>-
....,.. 8CIII.8
--.-
--~--
- I""~.~~.
~ ,-_._~.
~,-_.-
:; --
Figure 5. JtJltilayer cap sd1ematic, NE to sw cross sect.icm.
th:Jer Altemat.ive 5GW, ground water shall be extracted (see Figure 6 far
locatiaB ot ext:ract:i.a1 wells) until (1) Federal )Ja.vi1l'l1lft CD1taminant
Levels (K::Is) ar ncn-zero MaYl1I'I1Ift CD1taminant Level r~1!11 (M::LGs),
praIUlgated under the Safe DrinJdnJ Water Act are met in the ground-water
CCI1t:aminant plUIIB at the landfill waste boundaty and (2) the mere
sb:.f..r9!nt state st:armrds praIUlgated in 01. NR 140, WAC, are met at artf .
p:dnt beyad the prcperty boundaty ar beyad the 3-dimensiaW. ~ign
~.A1t zeme, 1IIhichever is closer to the waste boundaty.
'1b8 extracted gramd wab!r shall be treated cm-site and disc:hazged to the
Blat"k River in ~, i~ with the 8Ubstant:ive zequirements at a WHES
pn-i:t.
It 18 projected that the ground-water ext:ract:i.a1 and trea1:me1&t systeQt JIBY
attain the Gl:aJrxHlater ClearIJP StarI:1ams in the ground water within 5
years to 30 years. Hcwever, ground-water ",.1 ity win be evaluated in
-------
42
fr
I ~.
I .:.; I
I ~
„(
t
I
I DlSCHARCE
TO RIVER
/"1'" ........-
\,1" '...-
....
.' ~.(',~-
;. (J""'I'~':""'"
r-", --...' -.....!:ft."" ~'"
-. .__.........~~.,
/' ..,.,~... \ ... ............~~~
':'/'~"" " ' '.:,
//' "
. I '
If' '
....
"'."."'" ....,.C/#~
10_-
o -".m--....
- CQ.&.fCTDlI1'ITC".-..o
.~..
~ ~':'.:,tO
. I
ICAU II '(1[1'
Figure 6.
Grooni water extraction am treat-
ment system location, area of
!':::I1hs1Jrfaoe soil and landfill debris
to be bio~i ;:tted.
increments of 5 years to detem.ine if the I'PftIPrii~l acticn objectives have
been met. If, after the grcun1-water cp!rable unit has been qJeratin:J
for a mi.nim.1m of 5 years, it beo)l.~ ~ that it is lXJt tedmically
or ecouanically feasible to achieve a preventive action limit (PAL), then
a (Wisconsin) alternative ccnoentraticn limit (WACL) may be established.
(A WACL may be established for a L1-Jl'i-:ux:l prior to the 5-year review
where the backgrouni ccnoentration of that o..\-:urj ~ the PAL
and/or enforcement staniard (ES) for that ~.) Except where the
backgrouni ccnoentraticn of a (>.JI'i-ound ~c; the ES, the WACL
established may lXJt ~ the ES for that O~I\-oon:i (see section
XII (b) (1) (B) (ll».
If, durin) the inplementaticn of the l~Y, it beo ..~ ~ that it
is technically iJrpracticable to achieve the Grcun:l-water Cleanup
Standards, inc1\.1di.rq artf WACL established as r)i ~1SSed above, then the
U.S. EPA, in CCI'1SUltaticn with the State, may then CCI1Sider the use of
alternate methods of o::lub.ullin) the grcun1-water ocmtam.inant plume or
sa.tree to adUeve the stardards. If these alternate methods are fa.n:i
net to attain Grcud-water Cleanup Standards (inc1\.1di.rq any WACL
established), ~ a
-------
43
carcinogenic risk of.2 x 10-4, which is an unacceptable risk acx::ord.in; to
the NCP. Since JI„JSt of the PAIs (for carcinogens) in 01. NR 140, . WAC,
TNO.lld present an ~c:; lifetime carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10-7, a
Gl"aIn:l-water Cleanup Stan::1ard for 1,1-IrA has been derived to present the
same risk to grourxl-water consumers. 'nlus, orx::e the Gl"aIn:l-water Clearn.1p
Stan:Jards have been met (assnmi~ that it is technically or ecauanica11y
feasible to achieve them), the residual potential carc:inogen:i.c risk due
to ground-water in;Jesticn is estimated to be ~te1y 1 x 10-6
(excludinq the naturally cxx:urri.rq arsenic levels), and the ~1ITI1'ative
Hazard In::Jex is estimated to be less than 1.0.
Bio:t:.....,Ai;::.tiat, an :innovative technology, shall be iJIplemented in the
napttha-cart:aminated soils (and in the scuthwestem portion of the
landfill, if viable) for a m:in:iIm..nn of two 20Cklay treatment ~~ \D'1t:il
the Cleanup Stan::1ard is met (see Figure 6). OJrrently, the estimated
Cleanup Goal is 80-95 percent reduction of the organic ccntam:inant mass
in the soils. 'n1e treatability study shall determine the maximJm
degradaticn rate expected for the technology and the pilot-scal.e test
shall detem:ine the Cleanup Stan::1ard which shall be met by this
technology. CERCI.A and the NCP both favor the use of inncvative
technoloqies if they are potentially able to provide for c:x:uparable risk
reductiat, at a lower eDit, and at less adverse i1rp'\ct than proven
technoloqies in treatirg the wastes. Acx::ordirgly, bi01:~IAibtiat is
favored aver theJ:mal roastin; (Alternative 6GW) due to the potential
benefits of bi~iatia1 (no excavation ~, pemanent destructiat
of waste) versus roastin; or aspw.t incoIpOratiat (excavatiat with air
an;Qia1S, transportaticn of wastes, no pemanent destructicn). .
'Ibe cap is be:in;J bplemented in ccnjun:tion with the ground-water 1em&Jy.
A DBin ~ of the cap is to reduce the rate ot precipitaticn
infiltraticn through the landfilled-wastes t:cwams the ground water,
r-:wil1c:in;J the amamt of CXJntaminants leachin::1 fraD the landfill. '!he
ground-water l~ will aairess the both the present ground water and
soil cx:rrt:aminaticn, plus afrI future cx:rrt:aminatiat estimated to emanate
fraD the landfill.
Institutia1aJ.
-------
44
e. Satisfy a pref~ for treatment as a prin::iple element of the
:t~.
'!he inplementation of Alternatives 3LF arx:i 5GW at the onalaska site
satisfies the requirements of CERCIA as detailed below:
a. Protect:ia1 of Human H~lth am the Environment
Dlplementatia'l of the selected alternatives will rr:rlIY'"JP arx:i \..uuLL-ul
potential risks to human health POSed by exposure to contaminated grourxi
water. .Ext:rac:tiCl'1 arx:i treatment of contaminated gro.Inj water to meet
Grourx:l-water Cleanup Starrlards will reduce the potential ~ can::er
risk to CiRJrcx:imate1y 1 x 10-6 arx:i reduce the Hazard Imex to less than
1.0. Institutional \,;UIltLuls will provide short-term effectiveness for
the prevention of drinkin:J contaminated grourxi water until Grourx:l-water
Cleanup Starrlards are met. '!be selected :teu.eJy also protects the
envi.ra1ment by reduciIg the potential risks POSed by site chemicals
disc:hargiIg to surface water (the Black River) arx:i the wetlarx:is.
~iIg the landfill, in additiCl'1 to rr:rlIrin1 the artf potential further
risk posed by ~ to larxifill ccntami.nants, will rr:rlIY'"JP
precipitatia'l infiltration thrcu3h the cap by an estimated 80 percent,
am maintain that rate of reduction aver time. GraIrxi-water CXI1tami.nant
loadin:J will thus be ~~.' Bio~i ~tion of the naphtha-ccnta:minated
soils will also ~1Ce grourxi-water contaminant l0adin:3.
No unacceptable shcrt-tem risks will be caused by inlUementatia1 of the
:t~. 'lbe tYTIIftnUty, and site workers, may be exposed to noise ani
dust J'I.1i..sarD!S c:lurirq ocnsttuction of the cap. Vehic:ular aoci&mt
cx:x::uJ."1:en0e9 may rise due to the projected increase in volume of t:mck
traffic in hauliIg ~in;J materials to the landfill. Bkn."",_ii~tia'l am
air stri~iIg shculd net present short-term risks due to VCC air
~i !!::RialS if net ~~ly designed and monitored. Starxlard safety
p.l~cwa shculd manage artf short-term risks. DJst \,;UIILL-ul ~~ and
vcc~i!C:Sia1 ~lLL-u1s would mitigate those risks as well.
'lhe pexmanent solutia1S to the prin::ipal threats to human health and the
envUOIlwcht at the site aJtweigh the mi.nima1 short-tem inpacts of the
~j;tl OJl'\-:ments. '!he risks due to in;Jestia1 of cart:aminated gran!
water would be ~1Oed to acceptable levels cn:e the principal thJ:eats
have been calh=:rsed. once the cap is installed there would be no need to
replace or ~caJe it as Altemative 2U wculd likely require. .
b. Q:m,liance with ARARs
'D1e selected lEmel!y will azply with the Federal an;Vor State, tmeJ:e 1IJ01'e
~, applicable or Mlevant and apprqn;iate requirements (ARARs)
listed below:
1. ~i~l-scecific ARARs
~ical~ific ARARs regulate the Mlease to the envira1ment ot
-------
45
specific subst:an::es pavin;J certain d1emi.cal c::haracteristics. O1emi.cal-
specific ARARs typically detennine the extent of cleanup at a site.
A. Soils/Sediments
No d1emi.cal-specific starrlards exist for soils arxl ~i11„=>-nts. Hc1.„eVer,
the State may calculate organic contaminant ~tions for soils
based at surface water quality criteria (urx3er 01. NR 105, WAC) to ensure
protectiveness of the environment. 'n1e results of the calculations \„CU1d
yield c:hemical-specific cleanup goals for the soils arxl ~i11„=>.nts that
are factors "to be considered" in design:in:J a protective Leu.erJy at this
site.
B. Grcun:l Water
i. Federal ARARs
Ma)ri1Tll1l'ft 0Jntaminant Levels (K:Is), arxl to a certain extent, Max.inum
COntaminant Level Goals (H:IGs), the Federal drink:iJ'g water starrlards
prcm.Ugated un:3er the safe Drink.in; Water Act (SIJolA), are C!R>licable to
mmicipal water SlJR)lies servicin;J 25 or IOOre pecple. At the Onalaska
site, M:I.s arxl K:I.Gs are net C!R>licable, I::ut are relevant arxl
~VJ:IL'iate, s:in=e the sarxl arxl gravel aquifer is a Class IIA source
. W'hid1 could potentially be used for drink:iJ'g (see Table JA) in the area
of (D~ (the contaminant plume). K:tGs are relevant arxl awropriate
when the st:an:mrd is set at a level greater than zero (for non-
carci.ncgens), otheJ:wise, M:I.s are relevant and C1W1-~-iate. '!be point of
c:x::upliance for Federal drink:iJ'g water stan:Ja.rds is at the bcundaJ:y of the
1.arnfilled-wastes.
ii. state ARARs
'!he state of Wiscxndn is aut:hcri.zed to administer the inplementatiat of
the Federal SIJolA. '!be State has also prcml1gated gram-water quality
stan:Ja.rds in 01. NR 140, WAC, W'hid1 the Wt'NR is CIa1Si.stent1y C!R>lyin:) to
all facilities, practices, am activities which are regulated by the wam
am which may affect grcurn-water quality in the state. 01apter 160,
Wis. stats., directs the Wt'NR to take actiat to prevent the c:::cnt.imlin;J
release of cxrrt:am:inants at levels ~ stan:Ja.rds at the point of
stan:Ja.rds appli.catia1. Grourn-water quality stan:Ja.rds established
pu:suant to 01. NR 140, WAC, may be preventive act.ia1limits (PAIs),
enforcement stan:Ja.rds (ESs), and/or (Wi.scD1sin) altemative ~tiat
l:imits (WAas). Preventive actiat limits (PAIs) ard enfOJ:cement
stan:Ja.rds (ESs) CXI'1tained in sectiat NR 140.10, WAC, "far the Q'lPrni~1A of
O:mem are listed in Table JA. PAIs (ard ESs) are generally more
strin;Jent than ~.L~din; Federal stan:Ja.rds ard, therefore, are
relevant ard a.w&-"„Liate to the onalaska site.
CA:I1sistent with the ex.nltJtia1 criteria of sectiat NR 140.28, WAC, a
(W.i.scx:msin) altemative OCXICe&1t,bitiat l:imit (WACL) may be established to
mnrlj ty the preventive actiat limit (PAL) if it is detemined that it is
-------
; : \
I
46
not tec:hni.cally am ec:onc:mically** feasible to adrl.eve the PAL for a
specific substarx::e. . Except where the backgramd concentration of a
C'''''l-ami ~s the enforcement standard (ES) am consistent with the
criteria in section NR 140.28(4) (B), the WACL that is established may not
emeed the ES for that cx:up::u1d.
'!he point of st:.amards ~lication for PAIs am ESs (or WACIs) consistent
with section NR 140.22, WAC, is arfoJ point beyorx:l the prcp3rty bc::AIrmry
or arfoJ point beyaxI the design management zone, whichever is closer to
the waste bc::AIrmry, or arfoJ point of present gran:l water use.
'!he iJrplementation of the selected It:1ll~ at the Onalaska site will be in
c:arpliance with 01. NR 140, WAC, in that preventive action limits (PAIs)
will be met unless (Wisconsin) alternative concentration limits (WACIs)
are established pm;uant to the criteria in section NR 140.28, WAC, in
whidl case the WACIs will be met.
c. surface W~T~r
i. Federal ARARs
SUrface water quality st:.amards for human health and aquatic life
protection were deve1cp:d under the Clean Water Act (0'lA) Section 304.
'!he Federal AniJient Water Quality Criteria (~) are non-enforceable
guidelines that set pollutant conoeutration limits to protect surface
waters that are ~licable to point source disc:harqes, such as £ran
industrial or lllmicipal wastewater streams. At a S\.Jperf\.1n:t site, the
Federal N;IiIC wculd not be ~licable ~t for PJ:cu~tment requirements
for discharge of treated water to a Publicly ~ted Treatment Works
(R7IW). cm:::IA (Section 121(d) (1» requi1:es the U.S. EPA to consider
whether AW;/:. wculd be relevant am C!AJL~iate under the ci.rcumstarx:es of
a release or threatened release, dependin;J on the designated or potential
use of grcmd water or surface water, the envil\"llIlUl:ld:al1N=lrli~ affected by
the rel~~ or potential releases, and upon the latest infomation
~ilable. since the aquifer is a an-rent (upgradient of the lanifill)
am potential (dcwn:Jradient of the laMfill) source of drinki.n; water,
and treated water will be disc:harged to the Black River, N;1iIC adopted for
drinki.n; water am AW;/:. for protection of f%eshwater aquatic organisms
are relevant am GK'L"'„Liate to the point source discharge of the treated
water.into the Black River.
**A deteminatiat of technical or ecxxgnic infeasibility may be made
after five years of q:mation of the grcmd water extractiat system if it
beo l,oAA ~ that the CXI'1tam.inant level has ~~ to decline aver
time am is remaiJU.n) CXI1Stant at a statistically significant level above
the PAL (or alrf WACL established due to high background cancentrations)
in a discrete portion of the area of attainment, as verified by nultiple
mr:mitar wells.
o
-------
47
li. State ARARs
Section 303 of the alA requires the State. to prarulgate state water
quality standards for surface water bodies, based on the designated uses
of the surface water bodies. CERCIA remedial actions invol vin:J surface
water bodies III.1St ensure that applicable or relevant an:l appropriate
state water quality standards are met. 'n1e State has
praIIllgatedWiscxnsin Water Quality Criteria ~) un:3er Ch. NR 105, WAC,
based at the Federal »K:1= develcp:d by U.5. EPA. '!he Black River is
designated as a wam water sport fish t'rmlTlnUty un::1er Ch. NR 105, WAC.
'!he wam water sport fish ~ are therefore applicable to the
maintenance of surface water quality i.IIpacted by the disc:harge of treated
ground water !ran the site.
In acktitioo, Ch. NR 102, WAC establishes an antidegradation policy for
all waters of the State an:l it establishes water quality standards for
use classifications. C1apter NR 102, WAC would be applicable to actions
that involve discharges to the Black River in that discharges III.1St meet
water ~ity standards.
2. I.ocation-scecific ARARs
I.ocatia1-SpeCific ARARs are those requiIements that relate to the
qecgraphical pcsitiat of a site. rrbese inc1u:3e: .
i. Federal ARARs
Beth RCRA (40 CFR 264. 18 (b) - hazartlcA1s waste storage - flocxl plain) an:l
~ve omer 11988 - Protection of Flocxl Plains, are applicable to the
site due to its locatiat within the 1M~ 10o-year flocxl plain (648.5
feet above mean sea level) of the Black River. 'lhese regulatia1S would
require that the ground-water treatment system be located above this
elevatiat and be protected !ran erosional damage.
Executive omer 11990 - Protection of Wet.l.arm is an applicable
requirement to protect against the loss or degradatioo of wetlan::1s. As
presented above, graJI'd-water mMA 1 ] in) has shewn that the estimated
extractiat rate for Alternative sew will net be expected to have an
adverse effect at the Black River wetlan::1s.
'lhe SCenic Rivers Act (16 use 1271, Sect::i.at 7(a» is applicable to the
site. since the Black River is designated for rec::z:eatiatal use, this
pravisiat requires that the selected 1:~. sbcW.d avoid t.ak.in) or
assi.stin:J in artf actia1 that will have an adverse effect at the scenic
river.
ii. state ARARs
C1apter NR 112, WAC, whid1 requires that no drin1d..n;J water wlls be
located within 1200 feet of a landfill, unless a variance is cbtained
traD the wmR, is applicable to the site.. Cbapt:ers NR 506 and NR 540,
WAC, which regulate the devel~.t of landfills also are ~licable to
-------
48
this site.
01apt:er NR 27, WAC, the State Ermn;Jered ani 'n1reatened Species h:t, ani
01. NR 29, WAC, the State Fish ani Game Act, are State en::lan;Jered
rescuroe laws which protect against the "takin;t' or harmin:J of en::lan;Jered
or threatened wildlife resc:m"CE!S in the area. 'Ihese W01ld be ~licable
to the ~; ~ 1 actia1, in that the poi.sonirxJ of en::lan;Jered or threatened
species by site 0CI'1taminants oalld be ccnsidered by the WtNR to be a
"taki.rq. "
3. Action-scecific ARARs
h:tioo-spec:ific ARARs are requirements that define aooeptable treatment
ani n; ~ prooedures for hazaJ:'do..1s subst:.an::es.
i. Federal ARARs
since the onalaska Iamfill was closed prior to NcJve!ItIer 1980 (in
Sept.eJIi:)er 1980), lOA requirements are net ~licable unless lOA-listed
or cbaracteristic hazaJ:tb.1s wastes are excavated ani manaqed (treated,
ni~, or stored), as defined by lOA, duri.rg the cleanup. In its
pn:e fom, waste napttha is a characteristic waste (ignitibility) ani
therefore cm1:ain RCRA SUbtitle C requirements ~d be relevant an:1
~cpriate if the naphtha waste was excavated and manaqed. In its
~~ fom (m;irM with soil ani debris), the waste napttha '-'CUld net be
expected to exhibit this characteristic. lOA I.an:l Disposal ~b:ictions
("Im" or "I.an:l Ban") wa1ld, therefore, net be ~icable since no
"Pl~" \ICUld be oc:x::urrin:J at this site. Althc:u1h Im \ICUld be
xelevant, they WOIud net be ~~iate since the waste does net
W1.1ently exhibit the d1aracteristic of ignitibility.
'!be a1ly manner in which the selected remedy nay store or n;~ of
hazaJ:tb.1s waste is W'hen, or if, the graD'Xi-water treatment system
requires ~; ~c::iat \.uuu<:il units to capture or contain volatile organics
derived fraD aeratiat of the contaminated graD'Xi water. '!be lOA waste
generatiat ani teqJoraJ:y storage regulations umer 40 em Part 262 W01ld
then be ~licable to that action. For exanple, activated cartxn
canisters utilized as emissia1 controls 'NOlld be managed, W'hen spent, as
a listed (FOOS) waste.
For landfill closm:e, ~ SUbtitle C requirements are net ~icable
since the hazardcus wastes of cxn:::em were di ~ of prior to NcJve!ItIer
1980, b1t wa1ld be xelevant am C1HA~iate as 0CI'1S.idered by the NCP
(5ectiat 300.400(9) (2). At the onalaska site, the hazardcus substances
in the landfill are sufficiently similar to listed and/or c:haracteristic
~ wastes am therefom SUbtitle C is xelevant. A SUbtitle C COYer is
\Iell suited to the site since this type of cap wa1ld aid in the reducti.an
of precipitatiat intiltratiat thrcA.J#1 the landfill cart:ents, Web wa1ld
be protective of the grcun:1 water. 'l1n1s, a SUbtitle C COYer is
CM&"+'I-iate.
-------
49
'!he lanjfill cl~ requirements are listed in 40 CFR 264.310(a) (l-S).
In part, (40 CFR) 264.310(a) (1) requires the final CCNer 1IIJSt be designed
am cxnstructed to minimize the migration of liquids thrc:u:Jh the
laMfill. Also, 264.310(a) (S) requires that the CCNer nust have a
pemeability less than or equal to the pemeability of any bottan liner
system or natural subsoils present. ~er, in satisfy:in;J
264.310(a) (S), a CCNer as required by the regulations might net be
sufficiently bpemeable to minimize the migration of liquids as required
in 264.310(a) (1). 'n1erefore, the policy of the Office of RCRA is to
follow, whenever possible, the design stan:3ards in Final Covers on
Hazardous Waste I..an:ifills am surface InI:xJurdment:s, EPAlS3o-SW-89-047,
July 1989, a RCRA ted1nical guidance doct~nt for the design of laMfill
caps. A flexible membrane liner (FML) is an integral ca:rponent of such a
RCRA SUbtitle C cap. ~, this guidarx:e is net an ARAR: rather a
factor "to be considered" in design:in;J a protective l~l-=dy.
'Ihe cap ~~ for the Onalaska site consists of a gradin:J layer, a
minim.Dn 2-foot cx:upa.ct:ed clay layer, a gravel drainage layer, a frost
protective soil layer, am a minim.Dn 6-inc:h topsoil layer. 'nlese
u..titA-IIstts satisfy the requirements of RCRA SUbtitle C am also
sectiat NR S04. 07, WAC (see below) . In design:in;J the onalaska cap, the
Hydrologic Evaluatiat of Iardfill Performance (HEIP) n-r.n~ 1 was J:'\m to
deteI:mine the estimated reduction of precipitaticn infiltratiat thrc:u:Jh
the lan:ifill. 'Ihe estimated reduction of water infiltratiat with the
Altemative 3U (sectiat NR 504.07, WAC) cap is 80 percent: the RCRA
SUbtitle C guidance cap is esthated to shew a 99.9 percent reductiat of
infiltrat.i.at. Each cap design, therefore, satisfies 264.310(a) (1).
since the lan:ifill waste is periodically in cantact with the gra.D'd water
at the site, am, since ground water is to be extracted !ran an area
adjacent to the landfill am treated, the u.s. EPA has debmnined that it
is net technicallyadvantaqeous am, therefore, net app1:q>Liate to
install a FML at this site.
1d1iticnal Federal actia1-SpEcific ARARs are fCAJR:! in the FS.
li. State ARARs
'!he state of W~in is authorized to bplement the requirements of
RCRA. Q1apter NR 504, WAC is applicable to the closure of (oIneutly)
~""t tted solid waste lanjfills in the State. Since the at. NR 504, WAC
closure requirements are sufficiently similar to the requirements far
closure of cm:J::~1t landfills in the State, at. NR S04, WAC requirements .
are relevant far the Onalaska site. Q1apter NR 504, WAC requirements
are \I8ll-suited far the Onalaska site due to the reductiat of
precipitatiat infiltrat.i.at am the lm;-tem effectiveness offered by the
frost protectiat layer. 'Dms, at. NR S04, WAC, the ~.Lent so'id waste
1arr::ltill clCSUl:e requirements, are also ~'-„.Liate far this site.
sectiat NR 504.07, WAC l'!JIIllg far the lardfill caver to be o.'I..)68C} of a
gradin;J. layer, a miniJIIJm 2-foot clay layer with a ~ility of
1 x 10-7 aajs, a trost-pratective soil layer, am a miniDIJm 6-1nc:h
tcp;oil layer.
-------
50
In additiat to the ~ design requirements of 01. NR 504, VU\C, the State
is authorized to iJrplement the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatiat
system (NPDES) p1:\.AjLCWl. For disc:harge of treated water, the awlicable
or relevant am awropriate requirements are depe.rrlent an the point of
discharge. 'n1e substantive requirements of a wiscansin Pollutant
Discharge Eliminatiat System ~) permit, urxler 01. NR 220, VU\C, WOlld
be awlied to the discharge of the treated water into the Black River,
sirD! the discharge point is oonsidered to be an-site. SUbject to the
~ of the u.s. EPA, effluent limits for surface water discharge
will be established by the WtNR. 01. NR 220, VU\C requires that the
effluent limits be based at the awlication of best available treatment
technology (BAT) prior to disc:harge.
01apt:er 147, wiscansin Statutes, is also applicable to treated water to
be disc:harged to the Black River. 'lbese regulations state that no
discharge shall contain quantities of listed pollutants greater than that
WOlld remain after subjectirr;J the water to best available technology
~grUcally achievable (BA'I'EA).
01apt:er NR 445, VU\C regulates air emissions fran treatment technologies
am is awlicable to point source emissions fran :in:hJstrial facilities.
sirD! air stri~ may emit hazardcus ~ in the fcmn of VOCs,
sectiat NR 445.04, WAC is relevant am applq>riate for the remedy. '!he
need for ~i~c::ian ~tl.Lul technology shall be evaluated based at
requirements of 01. NR 445, VU\C. If air stri~ emissicns are projected
to exoeed stan:lards at the lardfill property boun::1ary, the point of
CCIIpliance, then vapor ~tb.ol technology such as vapor phase activated
~1'trAo1 will be incl\.D!d in the treatment system to brin; air ~; ~ia1S
into cx::IIpl1ance.
01apt:er NR 102, WAC, m:y also be oonsidered an acticn-specific ARAR (see
ili~1s-Ctim above). h:ktitia1al State action-spec:ific ARARs are faJl'd in
the FS.
c. COSt-effectiveness
COSt-effectiveness ~res the effectiveness of an altemative in
~~tim to its cost of provi.dirxJ its envira1mental benefits. Table 4
lists the costs
-------
51
oostly repairs are nq,re likely. Ad:litionaliy, Alternative 2IP does net
meet a.Jrrent lan:ifill closure requ.irement.s.
2. Groorrl-Water AI ternati ves
Alternative 1GW is the least expensive: of the gramd-water remedies, bIt
it does net provide adequate protection of human health am the
envUre cost-
effective.
'Ihus, the selected l:~ is the most cost-effective It::Ualy, in that the
pemanent treatment offered by Altemative SGW (bi~i ~tion), alag
with ground-water treatment, costs nearly the same as the containment
~ offered by Altemative 2GW. Since pemanent treatment of the
naphtha-cx:l'1taminatecl soils is bein:J iIrplementecl Ul'X3er Altemative SGW,
Altemative 3IP is the only cost-effective option that c:x::mplies with
Federal am State lanifill-closure ARARs. '!he extra cap area afforded by
Altemative 4IP is net needed since the naphtha-contaminants will" be
cU.h:~~ by bi01:~,~"iiation.
IDplement:aticn of Altemative SGW wcu1.d be cost-effective, in cc:.apariscn
to inplementaticn of Altemative 4GW, since Altemative 5GW attacks bath
principal threats at the site (the ground-water ocntaminant plume am a
DBin source of cx:ntaminatioo, the naphtha-contaminatecl soils).
AlteJ:native 4GW cnly addresses the ground water, consequently, it walld
be eJqJeCted to take 11JJCh lager to reach Groorrl-water Cleanup St:anda.rds
than AlteJ:native SGW. And, the less expensive ''Passive'' aeratioo
treatment met:hcd may be enployed IIL1Ch sooner durin; iIrplement:ation of the
grcurd-water 0C'I1'p)ne1'1t of AlteJ:native SGW than in AlteJ:native 4GW.
IDplementatiat of Alternatives 3GW am 4IP, instead of Alternatives 5GW
and 3IP, while beilg less expensive in terms of p1:~ '-ICrth, does net
provide for the stat:l.1t:cxy preference of treatment as a principal elemel.t
nor the same level of protectiat of human health and the envira1ment as
Alternatives 5GW and 3IP. Alternatives SGW an:i 3IP wcu1cl restore the
beneficial uses of the aquifer 1II.1d1 sooner than Alternatives 3GW an:i 4IP.
'Dn.1s, the inplement:atiat of Altematives 3GW am 4IF walld net be cost
effective.
d. t~i 1 izaticn of Pen'nanent Solutions am Alternative Treat1ne1.t
Tedmoloc;Jies or Resa1roe RecxNerv Technoloc;Jies to the MaximJm Ext:ent
Practil'!J'tble
'lbe selected ra-ly utilizes pemanent solutions am altemative
treatJDent technologies to the maxim.1m extent practicable (''MEP"). '!his
fmiin) was made after evaluatiat of the protective and ARAR-caIpliant
-------
52
n
alternatives for the.Onalaska site ~;i'tl action ani ~ison of the
"trade-offs" (advantages vs. disadvantages) amon:J the ~ji'tl
alternatives with respect to the five balancirq criteria (see above) .
once the threshold criteria of protection of human health ani the
envira1ment ani ARARs-cx:lIpliance 'Nere satisfied, the key criteria used in
l:emedy select:ia\ for the onaJ.aska site 'Nere larq-tem effectiveness;
reducticm of taxicity, mbi1ity, ani volume ("'1MV") thrc:u;h treatment;
shcrt-term effectiveness; ani ccst). 'n1e priority given to lOl'XJ-tem
effectiveness an:! to reduction of 'IMV at the site is consistent with
u.s. EPA policy established in the NCP. 'Ibis policy states that larq-
tem effectiveness ani reduction of 'IMV thrc:u;h treatment are generally
the key decision factors to be considered at SUperfun:i sites.
'V
'!he selected renedy's larq-tem effectiveness ani its ability to r'A1t~
the 'IMV of hazarc:lo.1s substances was weighed against its short-tem
effectiveness aspects in relation to the remainin; alternatives. In
general, the selected l.eweJy does involve a small degree of risk to site
wcrk.ers an:! to the tY'lm'lnU,ty in that there walld be mcvement ani
treatmeut of hazarda.1s substances durin:; iJrplementation in order to
minimize the laq-tem effects these substances walld have at human
health ani the envh{AlWl::dt.
'Ibere nay be minimal risks a'3S<)Ciated with the haulirq of materials for
cap OC'I1Structicm. Any risks posed by such action will be mitigated by
at:t:.eIIpt.in;J to secure local materials to COIE:tLL\.1Ct the cap ani to erpJ.oy
starIiard dust ~1b.()]' .-~ durin:; oanstn1cti.cm. With respect to voc-
~i~ia1s c:Jurin) treatment of the grcun:l water ani soils, effective air
mcni~ would ensure that air st.arx:!ams established to protect human
health an:! the envira1ment are met. Th\i~ion ~1U-01s my be utilized,
it nec-'"~, to DEet these st.arx:!ams. Short-term risks due to the
disc:haxge of treated grcun:l water to the Black River would be minimized
by ensurin:.J that the treated water meets disc:haxge criteria, whidl are
established to protect human health an:! the envira1ment as well.
1. Lanifill AI ternatives
'!he FS lepart indicates that it is net practicable to utilize a pmnanent
treatment technology cm the low-level, larq-tem threat posed by the
lan:lfill ccntents. AlthaJ;Jh a cap is net a pmnanent soluticm to the
low-level tmeat, it does pravideadequate prot:ect.ia1 frcm exposure to
the wastes. Hem iDp:Jrtantly it provides adequate prot:ect.ia1 to the
ground water by usinJ a barrier to precipitatian infiltraticm thrc:u;h the
landfill, \iIhid1 ~V"JDCI the rate of contaminant loadir„) into the ground
water.
'!he State has cx:n:1Jrred with the selection of Alternative 3IF as the
prefen:ed c:art:airJment remedy for the lan:lfill cp!r8b1.e unit.
2. GraJnd wat-~ A1t-~~
Altel:m.tive 5CJf provides a CJteater ~~ of lcn)-tem effectiveness an:! .
-------
53
permanen::e than the Qther grourrl-water alternatives considered for the
site. Gramd-water extraction an:! treatment and bi~i~tia1 will
utilize treatment to permanently address the principal threats pased by
the gramd-water contaminant plume an:! the organic wastes in the
ccntaminated soils. By c:xn:.iuct.in;J bio~iatia1 on the 11aIi1tha-
ccntaminated soils, a major grourrl-water contaminant source will be
si uficantly ~~. It is estimated that bior~:~mPtH~tia1 treatment
will ~t.roy an estimated 80-95 percent of the organic contaminants in
the soils, thus ~1Cin;J the cmomt of contaminant load:i.n;J to the gramd
water an:! to surface water an:! the ~anjs. 'n1e lCD;J-te.nn goal of the
gramd-water treatment system will be to redt~ the levels of
contaminants in the gramd water to meet Gramd-water CleaIU.1p st:ardards.
'!he short-te.nn goal of the treatment system is to cCl1t.tul the source of
ccntaminatia1 in order to mitigate the actual or potential iJIpacts of the
gramd-water contaminants on the surface waters an:! ~anjs.
'!he rema..i.nin;J gramd-water alternatives either do net permanently address
the principal threats or do provide the same relative perfomance as
AlteJ:native 5GW (AlteJ:native 6GW) but without reductia1 of 'lMV t:hrc:u3h
treatment: .
-AlteJ:native lGW does net provide adequate protection to 1nnnan health an:!
the environment, as exnsi.dered by the NCP. AlteJ:native lGW does net
treat the principal threats.
-AlteJ:native 2GW does net treat the principal threats. It merely
CXI1tains the ccntaminated soils an:! allows the gramd-water contaminant
plume to naturally atten.1ate, for the same ocst as the treatmeut
qn:ia1S offerecl by AlteJ:native 5GW or 6GW.
-AlteJ:natives 3GW an:! 4GW address only the gramd-water contaminant plume
withcAIt permanently ar.l.h~in; or treatin; the principal threat posed by
the naphtha-oart:.am:inated soils. 'lhus, risin; gramd-water levels an:!
precipitatiat infiltration t:hrc:u3h the soils would CXI'1tinue to leach
contaminants into the gramd water.
. -Alternative 6GW aan-esses the priIclpal threats to the same decp;ee as
Alt:el:native SGW, but the treatment does net d=:.t..uj' the organic wastes
in the soils, it merely transfers them to the ann.~. Excavatlat
an1 transpartatiat of the ccntaminated soils my also present
1.1I1aIO..~'Lable shcrt-te!:m effects to site ~ and/or the tYWmllnUty.
'!be State has cxn:mred with selection of Alt:el:native SGW as the
preferred gmurxl-water cprable unit alt:el:native.
3. SUImmy
'!be CXIIi)inatiat of treatment an1 en;ineerin;J am .iJ1Stit:utia1a1 UAllI.uls
will minimize the residual threats rema..i.nin;J a'l-Site as well as minimize
the reliance at lcn.;r-tem OQub.
-------
54
l:~ will be minimize:i by health and safety ~. 'Ihe State has
CCI'1CUr.t'8d with the seJ.ection of the preferred r~y. CQmI.nrl.ty
~ is ad:iressed in the responsiveness ~~ry.
e. Preferenoe for Treatment as a Pri.ncical Element
'D1e prin::ipal threats at the Onalaska site are the gramd-water
oantami.nant plume, due to the p:Jtential use of the contaminated water as
a drink:irg water saJrCe, and the naphtha-a:mtaminated soils, since the
napttha-a::ntaminants are highly ccncentrated and ndJile wastes whid1
cannot be reliably ccntained. Alternative 5GW is the only alternative to
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of
the remedy - ~ bio~; ~tion of the groon.:i-water contaminant
source (pennanent treatment) and ~ extraction (and treatment) of
the groon.:i-water contaminant plume to achieve Grourd-Water Clearn.1p
Standards. Sin::e the landfill does not awear to contain ''hot spots",
satisfactia1 of the preference for treatment as a prin:ipal element of
the landfill portia1 of the l~ is not awlicable.
-------
1
XIII. Resconsi veness Sumnarv
'Ibis Responsiveness SUIImary has been prepared to meet the requirements of
Sectims 113 (k) (2) (B) (iv) an:! 117 (b) of the CclIprehensive Enviranment:al
Respcnse, Carpensatioo, an:! Liability Act of 1980, as ameI'D:!d by the
SUperf'urxi Amendments an:! Reautborizatia1 Act of 1986 (c::mcIA), Widl
requires the United States Envira1menta1 Protectia1 k}ercy (U.S. EPA) to
respcn1 "...to each of the significant e'rm'InP'1ts, critic;~, and new data
!::I1hfti tted in written or oral presentatims" a1 a lM-'~ plan for .
tPo.-1i al actia1. '!he Responsiveness SUIImary addresses CC'I1CernS apressed
by the p1blic, potentially respoosible parties (PRPs), an:! govemment:al
bodies in the written an:! oral O.,.,_llts received by the u.s. EPA an:! the
State regardirq the p1.~ l~ for the Onalaska site.
A. OveJ:view
1. ~ Plan
'!he Onalaska site is located in the Township of Onalaska (''Town''),
~tely 10 miles north of the City of IaCrosse, Wi.sc:x::r1sin. 'Ihe 11-
acre site, whidl inc1u:ks the 7-acre lan:ifill, is situated 400 feet east
of the Black River, near the CXI'1f1\Jel'D! of the MississiR'i iUd Black
Rivers. '!he Black River is located within the tJ1:per MississiR:>i River
Wildlife and Fish Ref\qe, a ~ area whidl suworts J'1L1IDerOUS
migratin;J species of birds and is also used for hiJdn;J, fishin;J, hLmtin;J,
and other recreatia1al pJZpcses by area residents and visitors.
'!he ~;;!Il Investiqatia1 (RI) icJent.Uied several areas of cx:uoem at
the site: two principal. threats1 whidl are the gra.u'd water cart:aminant
plume and the naphtha-ocntaminated soils, a major cart:aminant source and
the lan:ifill whidl is cx:nsidered to be a low-level, lag-tem threat~ to
human health and the envUOUU8:ut. '!he Feasibility Stuiy (FE) evaluated
ten cleamJp alternatives in oMer to a..l.h.-s the areas of (D~. '!he
pxq,osed plan for 1;.A..-1;;!Il actia1 inc1\Xied:
-~a1 and treatment of the gra.u'd water cart:aminant plume, with
d:isd1arge of the treated water to the adjacent Rl"Ck River in accordanca
with the substantive requirements of the wi.sca1sin Pollutant Di.sc:ha%qe
Eliminatia1 System (WPr.ES) px~QIII;
lPrincipal threats are d1aract:erized by waste that c:amot be reliably
~tl.ulled in plaoe, such as liql1iM, highly mcbile materiaJ.sa (e.q.,
solvents), and high OQu.--=aib.cstia1S of taxic CU'I.:JUnds (e.q., several
orders of magnitude abcve levels that allow for unrestricted use and
unlimited expc8.1r8) (55 Fed. Reg. 8703).
2Jhe site cx:ntains laJ:ge volumes of low (D~ul.cstia1s of mat.eriiu (55
Fed. Reg. 8703).
-------
2
-Reccnst.nx:tien of tb! lanifill cap to meet CU1..u:nt State lanifill
closure requirements (un:Jer 01apter NR 504, Wiscx:r1sin 1dministrative
QJde (WAC»; am,
-Bio-,-~..A..~j~tien of the naprtha-ccntaminated soils adjacent to the
lamfill.
0:I1tinued reliance en institutia1al UAtUuls (e.q., deed I"e;:,Ll.lctia1S am
State regul.aticns), in CXI1junctien with en:;Jineerin; ~lt:.uls (e.q.,
fencin;J), w:W.d aid in the preventien of the irx.Jestien of cart:aminated
qraD'd water am the oart:act with lanifill cx:.ntents.
2. Public ~1'1t Period
A plblic ex....._ltt, period was held fran March 5, 1990 to May 4, 1990 to
allow interested parties to o.....~ttt en the ~q.I06ed Plan, in ao::ordance
with Sectien 117 of aa::::tA. On March 19, 1990 a plblic hearinq was held
in Holmen, Wi.scxmsin, at Widl the u.s. EPA am the wisca1sin Department
ot Natural Resa1%oes (W[NR) presented the P1.< ~ Plan, answered
questicns, am aocepted o.....~ fran the plblic. D1rin; the ~J'1t
period, the U.S. EPA received ~tely 35 written am several vmbal
o .......rrt:s CD1CeI1"1in) the Pl.- ~ Plan.
B. CC:IrIIImi tv InvoI'Vemr:;.a It
Public interest regarc:lin; the site has intensified since March 5, 1990,
when local offici~lf:1 and residents leamed ot the &~ of the preferred
-'-~. Several key areas at lY'Im'InUty (D)OeJ:11 are as fallows:
T~IIS '1: ~e most local ofticbl!=1 am residents believe that the
grcun:l-water aquifer in the prax:imity of the lamfill is cart:aminated,
they do net believe that a o.u.-,-~at health risk exists, since no a1e is
c1ri.nkiJ'q the cart:aminated water at this time. Many I'eSidents have.
expressed the belief that instituticnal UAlt:.uls ala1e wcW.d be adequate
to protect human health at this site.
~ '2: ~~ at grcurxl-water 1ID1it.arin) results, the grcun:l water
ccntaminant plume is apparently disc:him;Jin;J into the ~ adjacent to
the Rl--~ River, wbicb flows alcn; the westem and nart:heI:n ~ of the
site. 04.L-,-~atly, no levels ot arganic ccntam:i.nants have been 1J'AaI!IZIJred in
the ~ and the elat'"~. River. Many local residents am offici"lf:1
believe that grcun:l-water 1ID1i~ is sufficient to maintain adequate
prctectiveness.
~ lIS '3: '!be projected ccst ot the ~i~l actia1 is seen to be too
higb .in light ot the perceived low risks the site my OJ.L-,-ently pose.
'Ibe Town is a FRP (owner-qm'atar) and dces mt maintain a sufficient tax
base to fUnd the cleanJp.
~us 14: ~1
ottiCh.lf:1 are ~~ued aJ::Icut the effect. the ccst ot the
-------
3
~~ cleamJp of the onalaska site might have at the eccuaDic we.ll-
beinq of bath the ToWn and several local bJs~E'es whidl were identified
as PRPs. Specifically, the 0CI'1CBrnS are that the Town tax base is
shrinJc.:in; partially due to recent anne:xatia1S by adjacent m.micipalities.
'n1e cost of the cleamp may be too great to be borne by the affected
bus~<;es, whidl cx:W.d iJIpact local euployment ~rtunities in the
area.
~~ at tJi~1~c:ia1S with local offici~h& and residents durin; the pmlic
~ at March 19, 1990, questia1S regardi.rg T~~ #1 and #3 S~~ to
receive the greatest eq:i1asis, followed by t~ #4 and then Issue #2.
In additiat, there is a c:::aom1 regardi.rg the Town's role as a ~, whidl
stems fraD its owner/operator status of the landfill. ('n1e Town owns the
landfill and operated it fraD 1969 until 1980 when the State detennined
that use of the landfill shculd be cii.scx:I1t.iru.) '!he landfill was
operated in aooord.arre with a license granted by the WtNR, and the Town
feels that the WtNR shculd be liable for the cleamJp, rather than its
citizens.
'!he abaYe CXI'1OeJ:nS have been cUh ~~ in the follC7tIIin;J sectiat:
c. SU1m1arv of Significant Cu'8'.e1 tts
'!he PJblic o.....-ttts regardi.rg the Q1a1aska site are organized into the
follcWin;J categories:
1. SI1I1WNIII"Y ot (""...-a traD the local t'YW1r11I1ity, including o.......o=>rrt;s
cx::I'1CeD'1in: the FS and ~. „~ Plan, and u ......o=>-'1ts that address the
SUperfund ptU:fJ;CIIII in ~;
2. SUIDDaJ:y ot <.'* .....-nts frail PRPs; and,
3. ~:::I1I1WNIII"Y of o.....-a frail gcvemmental bodies, includinq a u.S.
a...80:f4~~'1, a State senator, the LaCrosse CCUnty Health
Department, the LaCrosse 01mty Board, and the U.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Many of the v.....-its below have been parapmased in arder to effectively
SUIIIIBrlze them in this doct-tt:. '!he reader is ref~u.al to the PJblic
meeting transcript and written ...':k.....-rt:s \Ihid1 are ayJ!IilMle at the two
p.1blic infcmuatia1 l~itories at the p.1bl1C libraries in Holmen and the
City of O1alaska.
1. I.ooal ~
a. l\--..llCItbi favarira the ULU-~ plan
'l\Io local resJdents sl1hnit;ted written ~.....-tts in ~t of the clearmp
alternatives p:efeue.1 by the u.s. EPA and the wam. cme indicated that
the clearmp alternatives "are neo-o"'"ary so CAD: clean water or wtJ.arrjs
-------
v.
4
de net get ~" ani the other expressed a cxncem for the
potentially hamful effects that bioaocn"'I1'~tia1 may pose to wildlife ani
humans. Bcth 0CIIIDeI'1ters felt that the SUperfund ani the WDm, rather
than residents of the Tam, sha.1ld have to pay for the cleanup.
Resca1se
1he ~t for the ~.~ plan is ackncwl-7". However, it sha1ld
also be nated that 0A-.p:e£aS (c:naA, Sect:ia'1107(a» has detemined that
these entities who owned amjor operated a SUperfund site, as in the
case of the Tam, are potentially liable for ~ of site respa1Se
costs the u. s. EPA has i1'x:m:red or will incur in the future. '!be Tam
ani other PRPs at this site will be given the ~Umity to vo11,mtarily
oc:n:h1ct the ~i"1 actia1(s) selected.
In light of this, the Tam may potentially be held respasible for the
cleanJp costs, as wculd arty persa1 or b.1siness \iIhich generated the
hazardcus substances that were bra.1ght to the lan.:lfill. It was the
intent of oo...p.caa that the SUperfund would pay for cleanJp costs of
sites at ~ch PRPs are unable to pay or no lager exist. At the
Q1a1aska site, if there is no ~-=wcatt with the PRPs to perfoxm the
teu-Jy, the u.s. EPA and the State have the cpt:.ia1 of fL1ndiJ'q the l~
up tra1t, at an equal CDit-sharin) basis, or im:uirxJ an Administrative
Order under c:naA (sectia1106(2» to the FRPs to oc:n:h1ct the cleanup.
'!he Agencies ~ then have the cpt:.ia1 of recoverinq the costs ~
lit:igatia1 in the tuture.
b. ~.lCIits in favor of a D:ldified ~lan
Two written o.....--its were sutmitted in ~t of a mnrlif'ied ~~
plan. 1he Ca .....-nters independeI~y reo ....-- dad that Alternatives 4IF
(DUltilayer cap aver the lamfill and naprtha- ....--dad that the landfill be
~, etely fenced as well.
ResIxrIse
'lbe ~ far a landfill cap WW:h greatly r-:d~ precipitatiat
infiltraticn ~ the laIdfill and WW:h meets State and Federal
laIdfill clcsure n:q.W:ement.s is nated. Bcwever, un:ier the authcrity of
cmaA ard in accordance with the Natia1a1 ~ Plan (NCP), the
u.s. EPA is charged with the task of bplementin;J a cleanJp ~~y \tbich,
in additiat to prot:ectin) buman health and the enviJ:aDent and meetin:J.
awli~e or relevant and ~~'iate ~ (ARARs), uses
tz:8atment of CXII1taminati.a as a priD:ipal element of the ~a&Dly ~
~act:1cable, and is ccst effective (aa:::IA, SecticI1121(d». '!he u.s.
EPA and wam ~ieve that the preferred teu-1y satisfies these criteria,
in that:
-------
5
1. eappin) the ~-<:xm.aminated soils does net penanently treat
the principal threat of CXI'1t:i.raJal grani-water OCI1tam:inatia1. eappin;
merely ~1Oe'S the rate of precipitatia1 infiltratia1 t:hrcu;Jh the
OCI1tam:inated soils, which slows down the rate of grani-water
OCI1tam:inatia1, but does net st.q) it. Accordin:;J to the FS report, the
grouncl-water flow beneath the landfill is projected to CXI1tinue to
leach c:x:ntaminant:s frcm the OCI1tam:inated soils tcwards the grcurd water
for a laq period of time (greater than 30 years) if the c:x:ntaminant:s
are net J:'E!IIDVed.
2. '!he use of bi01"",.:;.iIi~tia1 in the OCI1tam:inated soils provides for
permanent clearJJP, t:hrcu;Jh treatment, of a large SOJrCe of grcurd-water
OCI1tam:inatia1. In additia1, cperatia1 of the a1-Site grcurd-water
extractia1 an:i treatment system is expected to address a major portion
of the secxn:l principal threat, the OCI1tam:inatia1 in the ground water,
within a relatively short period of time (less than 5 years when
CXIIi:)ined with biOl....._"H ~ti(1) . cn:e the major cart:aminant sa.m:::e is
ar.1.h""""-~, it may be possible to meet Federal c:lrink.in; water starx)ards
an:i pethaps most state gnJUnd-water quality starx)ards nu:::h scxner in
cxmpu:iscn to the use of the perimeter grouncl-water extractia'1, an:i
trea'bDel~ system of Alternative 3GW. It WOlld be mere cast effective
to run the a1-Site extractia1 an:i treatJDel~ system for a short period
of time versus runnin;J the perimeter system aver a laq period of time.
3. 'lbe use of the perimeter ext:ractia1 wll net:wcrk may teni to pull
the mare highly OCI1tam:inated grouncl-water plume towards the~. '!he
higher oa...-tl.atia1s of c:x:ntaminant:s may then require a more expensive
trea~\t system to nm:we the ct-i~lA to reacb c:li.sd1arge criteria.
'!he u.s. EPA an:i the wam ca'1Si.der the use ot a fence (to prevent further
dLmpin; at the famer landfill an:i to also prevent vehia1lar traffic
upa1 the cap surface) to be a practical ~a1. '!he }.gencies will
evaluate the use of a18 ot several types of fences to deter these hazmful
uses of the site, but net prevent beneficial uses (e.q., hikin;J, wildlife
grazin;J) of the lard.
c. a~...~~.ts Wich smn:n:t a cortia1 of the ~.~ nlan
Q1e written O....Ait. was zece1ved ~ S!~ to tcM:Ir a "new cap."
otherwise, the o....-«:er believes that while Alter:native SGW may "take 5
to 30 years to clean the OCI1tam:inated aquifer.... It has been said that
nature can do the SiIII8 thin;J in the SiIII8 aDrU1t at the." 'lbe 0....-. rt;or,
therefore, favars the use at instit:ut.i.a1a1 --tt-.~, statin;J that ~-
water treatme.~ is net "nec'essary and practical."
ResDa1se
~e the Agencies can net e-- that the ".'.'-Iter's "new cap" is meant .
-------
6
to be SURXJrt for the DIllti-layer cap presented in Alternatives 3IF or
4IF, we 1IIJSt cH ~ with the \.~ .,..-rttar" s a&"--~ of the need for
grcurxl-water treatment at the site. '!he goal of the SUperfun:i pruft,aw is
detailed in the NCP:
'''!he natia1al goal of the 1::e&OOdy selectia1 proc-x:.a is to select
remedies that are protective of 1mman health and the envira1ment,
that maintain protectia1 CNer time, and that mird",; 7,e untreated
waste" (Sectia1 300.430(a) (1) (i».
In additia1, the U.S. EPA' s grcurxl-water protectia1 goal has been set
forth in the NCP, in which the }qercf has deteJ:m:ined that it
"expects to return usable gJ:a.D"Id waters to their beneficial uses
wherever practicable, within a time frame that is reasa1able given
the partia1lar ciramstances of the site. Whenever restoratiat of
grcurxl waters is oot practicable, (the U.S.) EPA expects to prevent
further migratiat of the plume, prevent expcsure to the ca'1tam:i.nated
grcurxl water, and evaluate further risk reducti.a1" (Sectiat
300.430(a) (1) (iii) (F».
'!he NCP also exnsiders the use of institutia1al UoII1L.uls to limit
exposures to hazardcus suCst:ance(s in the graJJ'd water:
"('!he U.S.) EPA expects to use instit:ut:.iaBl UoIIltLuls such as water .
use and deed restrictia1S to succlement en;ineerin;J UoIIILL-uls as
GH4~iate for shart- and laq-teJ:m ~.~&t to prevent or limit
exposure to ha.za.rda.1s substances, pollutants, or CXI'1taminants....
'!be use of instit:ut:.iaBl UoIIlt.uls shall net sutstitute far active
respcI1S8 ~~ as the sole .L--.ly unless such respcI1S8 ~SJJres
am deteminecl not to be practicable... II (Sectiat
300.430(a) (1) (iii) (D».
Finally, State grcurxl-water protectia1 regulatia1S, umer 01. NR 140,
trP.C, require that actia1S be taken to prevent the CXI'1t:im.1al relea~ of
CXI'1taminants above ~icable st:arx:Jards to the gJ:a.D"Id water at the point
of st:arx:Jards ~icatia1.
'D1erefore, the follcwinJ points DIJSt be made in respcI1S8 to the o..,.,-'1t:
1. As stated in the RI l~t, the ~ lifetime carcincgenic risk
of grcurxl-water use at the site is as high as 3 in 1 000 (3 X 10-3). 1be
risk ran;JB of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 (1 x 10::.\ to 1 x 10-6) has
been set farth in the NCP to be ~y protective of 1mman health;
2. As detailed above, the U.S. EPA is expected to resters drinJd.n;J water
aquifers to their beneficial uses 1D!re practicable:
3. State laws are ARARs at this site as well as Fedeml laws; and,
4. Institut.ic:nU and ~ ~It&.uls am to be used in CX'I1junct:icn
with active respcI1S8 _mJreS 1D!re practicable (Sucb as grcurxl-water
-------
7
treat:meJtt) to ~ adequate protectiveness of human health.
'Dn1s, since there is a potential risk to cx:nsumers of the grourd water,
grourd-water st.arr3ards have been ~, am grourd-water treatment is
practicable in this area, grourd-water treatment is ~ am
practical for this site. It cannot be said that natural attenuatial
will adrleve clearaJP ~] A in the same aDD.D1t of time as the grourd-water
rew.:rJy. If the sc:m:oe of grcun::l-water CXI1taminaticn is eliminated, the
U.5. EPA estimates that the present oart:aminant plume may be eJqJeCted to
attenJate in about 50 years. Otherwise, it is estimated that grcun::l-
water st.arr3ards \Ia1ld be ~ for well aver 50 years if ncthin;J is
dcI'1e at this site. '!he Agencies believe that 50 years or DKJre is an
unac:ceptably lag time to pose potential risks to receptors, when the NCP
provides an e>epectatia1 tha~ usable grcun::l waters will be returned to
their ''beneficial uses wherever practicable, within a time frame that is
reasa'\able given the particular ciraImstances of the site" (55 Fed. Reg.
8702).
d. c...1~e1tts Wich favor limited or no acticn
i. written 0. ....~
Many written o....-1'1ts were received \thich suwort Alternatives 2LF (cap
upgrade) am lGW (no acticn), a18 ~ that the Agencies CXI1tinue
to atly DDrl.tcr rather than d:i.stm:b the site. '!he ';:U'.'-'ltcrB'
re.~ ....-Dad alternative to g:.ramd-water extracticn ard treatJDent is for
the TOwn to obtain the water rights to the affected pk.~es ard hold
the rights in papeb.1ity. several diffm:ent reasa1S were given by saDe
of the o....-d:ers, rargin;;J fraD no peroelved tumIan health threat to an
eoa~ threat to the PRPs it the Pl.~ Plan is iDp].ement:ed. Sale
of the DrJre detailed 0< ....~.1ts are excerpted below.
A. "As I un:)erstand it, the EPA soluticn to the prti)lem is to dig up or
pmp the tainted water cut ard clean it. '!be pl:0C~fJ is to last 30
years. I also un:)erstand that by natural clean:in;J the ptOC'eSEf will take
care of itself in 50 years. I also un:)erstand that the clean:in;J of the
site by EPA OOIlld be DrJre hazaz:daJs to the envircnoent ard clean up
watXers than to leave the site clean itself. II
. ResIxI~
Q1e part of the U.5. :EPA,IWt'tm solutiat to the Q1aJ.aska site p:cb1E!IDS is
to pmp cut CXI1taminated grcund water ard treat it in order to xeacb the
'P'!IZ set forth in aa::rA, the NCP, ard State law. '!be gt'CUI'd-water
ext:ract.ia1 ard trea1:mel£t pt~QIII is estimted to IUI1 for 5 years to 30.
years. As detailed abave, in respcnse to a previcus O::u...~it, the
nat:ia1al CJOiU of the SUpert\mcl pt~QIII is to acbieve ptat:ecticn of human
health ard the envircnoent. As expl~sed in the NCP, treatment is the
preferred methcc:l of at:tai.ni.n) protectiveness, wherever practic:able (55
Fed. Reg. 8703). 'Ibe NCP, 01. NR 140, WAC, an:! 01. 160, wisccnsin
\
-------
8
Statutes, are very clear. in their respecti.ve gram:1-wa.ter protectia1
strategies and goalS. As above, the NCP provides the expectatim that
cart:.aminated grcmxi waters would be returned to their beneficial uses
wherever practicable, within a time frame that is reasmable given the
particular ciroJmstances of a site.
''Natural c1eanint' is net expected to ocx:ur in a1ly 50 years. If there
were no further sources of grcmxi-water cart:.aminatim, natural
at:terL1at:ia1 may be expected to reduce the level of ccntaminants in the
~ S at It plume to protective levels (in terms of Federal dri.nJci.rr;-water
stamards) within that time period, 1:ut State gram:1-wa.ter quality
stamards still would net be met. Hcwever, there are several saJrCeS of
further grcmxi-water ccntaminants (e.g., the nap'1tha-ocl'1t:aminated soil,
the lan:ifill oantents), and natural at:t:.enuaticn walld nct be ~ to
~~ grcund-\iater CCI1tam:inant levels to adequately protect human health
and the envira1ment for JJI.Jd1 greater than 50 years. 'lhus, "natural .
cleanin;t' does nct meet the intent of State and Federal grcund-\iater
protectim policies and law; nor does it meet SUperfund ~~aw
requirements.
Althcugh the deteminatim as to whether a rE!SL6ly is protective of human
health and the envha1ment requires CXI'1Sideratim of the acceptability of
any short-term or crcss-mPrlb iDpacts that may be posed durin;J
!Dplementatiat of a ~bl actim (55 FEd. Rsq. 8701), the }qencies
1II..1St di ~ with the JIt...--~ that this c1earJJP wculd be more ha%:mful
to the envu,.uur;:alt am clear&Jp wrkers. ~ the d1emicals of
oa~ fraD the grcmxi water and soils enhances the wetlands rather
than ~ca& them. 0:IIparin; risk calallaticnJ for a:nrt:nJctiat
activities to grcun;i-water c:D1SUIIptia1 risks cannot be dcne.
CD1structim werle entails vclunt.ary risks of cn-the-jcj) injuries ~
warJd.rq with heavy «l1ipr-1xt. Even so, st:andam safety precautia1S will
be taken, both as a matter of ~~....afl sense and as a matter of law, to
protect workers and the tTm'ltllnUty durin;J a:nrt:nJctiat. 0:rIslmpti.at of
cart:.aminated grcmxi water is an involunt.ary risk ,,~~ by tmmans and
wildlife, as is the potential destructim of wetland habitats.
D. Q1e group of 0 ....~ cited the Health Ass-~ (FebnJary 1990)
prepared by the wi.sccnsin Department of Health, whicb stated "'!be site
does net pJ68 a ~~ent significant risk to PUblic Health," and "'!be
Divisim of Health cxn:lu:BI that this site is net ot PUblic Health
oa~, since under c:u:n:e.it cx:n1itia1S tmmans are net bein:J e:xposed to
significant levels ot bazardcus sut&tances." '1he gtCup is ~ with
the "enoknalJS tmden" whicb may be rl~ at the Town's taxpayers and
;cx:al PRPs it the PL.~ Plan is carried cut.
Rescc::r'se
'lbe pD:pCIS8 ot the Health Ass -~xt (HA) is to evaluate ~ S_it health
tmeats to 911JJ]e the need tor i1mWli"te act.ia1 at SUperfund sites (such
as .~ rE!IIICVal of CXI1taminat.i.c, evacuaticn ot residents, etc.).
'1ba HA is a separate ~. 00-8 traD the SUperfund Risk AssO("---1t:, wbic:h
-------
9
~i 1'1eS o.trrent ~ potential health effects and future potential health
effects at SUperfund sites. 'Ihe Q1aJ.asJca HA also states (see HA, page 7)
that the site "cxW.d be of potential c:x:ro!m" due to the existence of
ocnt:aminated grtJl1IU water and blried c:b:'\m&. FUture ~ \Walld in
fact be a c:x:ro!m if "remedies for the site 'Were not carried out." 'nms,
while no a1e is Cl.i.U.~y usirg the ocnt:aminated water, the potential use
of the water is a (D~, whien u.s. EPA, the WWR, and the wi.scxnsin
Divisiat of Health believe warrants clean-up actiat.
'Ihe U.S. EPA and the WIJm umerstan1 the problEmS the Town and other
lcx:al PRPs face in regam to the clearJJP cxst burden. Envi.ra1menta1
cleanups can be cxstly, bIt if the clearJJP ocx::urs today rather than in
the future, both envL.\A1Wt::l1tal and cxst benefits \iCUld be realized.
~. Q1e 0 ...._rtter' a..lh~sed many different CX'I"ICeI:nS and ocn::l\„ied that:
1. 'Ihe upg:radin;J of the landfill cap (NR504) "is not warranted and is
not mandated by the wi.scxnsin tIm...," since greater CQILLul of leachate
productia1 \iCUld be adUeved with the cap 1JP:j1.caJe (AlteJ:native 2IF) for a
lower cost than a NR504 cap. Also, since the landfill was previously
closed urxIer NRl80, there is no statute requirin;;J NRS04 to be met at the
site as well.
2. Bi01:~..Aii ::.tiat shculd not be iaplemented since it is an emerqirg
t:.ec::hr„:)J.ogy and it shculd be mre thorc:u3hly tested before beirg used at
the cnuasJca site. .
3. 'Ihs Health AsE'-~it shews the site not to be a Public Health
~-=u.II, ani grcun:1-water trea'buea.t as ~.~ is not warranted.
Volatilizat.:iat ot cx:nt:aminant:s into the air durin) treat:mellt my pose a
risk.
4. '!be CXI1taminants shculd be allcwed to remain in the landfill site
and naturally ~~ aver time unless they bee> 'IWI! a significant risk.
At that time, a suitable, thorc:u3hly tested tec11nology CD1ld be Employed
at the Q\a1aska site.
Another o.....:o-ftt was received ~ ~ the above o.....-.tar's
pcsit.:iat.
ResDaLge
1. '!be FS does state that Alternative 2U' ---lId acbieve geed leachate
",,-ttLul rates at a lower cost than Altemative 3U'. Hcwever, the FS
turther states that Altemative 2U' \Ia11d still be subject to
tmezelthaw ~ an:! animal blrrowin), 1IIhich ---lId remer the up;raded
cap as parous as the Qk",e1«' cap. 'Iheretore, Alternative 3IP, ~
.pmvides 80 peroea«. water infilt:ratiat mductiat aver the lite of the
cap versus an initial high of 30 peroeart;. far Altemative 2U' after
c:xnst:nJct.icm, is the ccst-etfective alternative. Freezelthaw an:! animal
blrrowin) wonld not be expected to MIIIAI)8 the clay barrier layer in
-------
10
Altemative 3I.F due tp the presence of the frost protectim layer.
Alt.l1cu;h the cap was to have met 01. NR 180, WAC landfill closure
standards, it clearly does not meet these requirements.
2. 5ectim 121(b) (1) of CERc:LA mardates the u.s. EPA to use "alternative
treaWel.t technologies... to the mavi1lnn extent practicable." 'D1e u.s.
EPA expects bi
-------
u
am that the site ~d have never been placed em the SUperfun:i list.
Resconse
A site fence will be CXI1Sidered in the final design of the L~, but it
will not protect the grani water !ran the CD1taminants that are lead'Un;J
alt of the lan:ifill nor will a fence protect the wetlan:ls or surface
water where CD'Itaminated grani water is c:li.sd1arqi.n:. Clearly, the
gran1-water protectiem ~1 ~ stated in the NCP am in State law require
actiem to alleviate the potential pra,lEIIB presented by the site. As
stated earlier, the cleanJP will enhance the envira1ment rather than
degrade it.
~. Q1e o....-l'Jt was received which in:ticated that little DXJYeme1'1t of
CD1taminants has occurred, that a1ly a1e well was faJrXl to be
CD'Itaminated, am that no CD1taminants were faJrXl in the \1Ietlan::1s.
'1herefore, the OI'.''':-rrt:eI' felt that a1ly grani-water mcnitorinI is
warranted at the site. Also, biUL.....-"'ti"tiem was iDplied to be
"experimental," am q:positiem was expl ~sed to the iDplementatiem of
both gran1-water extractiem am treatmeJat am biUL-.~ibtiem.
Resconse
'Ihe U.s. EPA agl-=:l that little migratiem of BaDe of the organic .
ocntaminants has yet occurred; hcwever, the naprt:ha CD1taminants have
migrated as tar in the san:l am gravel aquifer as they walld be expected
to migrate in the amamt of time .since the lan:ifill closed. '!his is a1e
mascm why natural at:ter&Jatiem is not favared at this site. Inarganic
ocntaminants, such as c:hlaride arx:l barium, tern to mr::we 1II.1Ch faster than
arganic ocntaminants. 'Ihe limited extent of ~liDJ in the wetlan:ls. did
net reveal arrt site-related arganic CXI1taminatiem, an:l incrganic data
~ umsable due to labcratory pra,lems. HcweYer, the rate of migratia1
of BaDe in::Jrganic <> .,\.ounds is such that wetlan:ls CD'Itaminatiem remains a
pl~n$ible CXI1Siderat!at. Bicn;~._ii"tiem was diAn1Ssed abave (C.2). '!be
U.S. EPA believes that gran1-water treabDent an:l biOt-.Aibtiem of the
naprt:ha-cD1taminated soils are both ~~vy an:l practicable at this
site.
\
F. Q1e o....-it was received fraD the IaCrcsse Q:Junty Q:n;enat!at
Alliance in ~t of an "~te cap," instit:utia1a1 CiGIa.t.uls, an:l
gran1-water DadtarinJ. 'lbe Alliance sees the ~. px9d bL:n._.Aii"tia1
an:l gran1-water pmpiDJ projects...as pctential1y ~ the .
p.1blic's c:xmfi.derD! in federal an:l state envi.rcDDent:a1 ~UjLGIID."
ResI:a1se
'lbe U.S. EPA an:l the wam believe. that the ~. tJOSEd l.--ly is the ccst-
effective methcd to protect human health an:l the envira1ment at the
QVIIl aaq site. 'n) igrme the R:P, c:::E3::IA, an:l State law in inplementin;J
a clearJ.Jp 1:~ walld tend to umemine the p'h1ic's ccnfidence in
Federal ard State ~ p1.UjLGIID.
-------
12
li. oral O....,ptd:s
'Ibe a1l.y oral (u....o:>ltts qiven at the pmlic hea.riJ'g were in suwort of
Alternatives 2IP (cap ~caJe) an:1 lGW (gram:l-water DD1itorin;,
institutiaaJ. c.uut.uls), also known as the "Town IJt~." '!he Town
prepared a technical n;tCZn1ssiat of the cx:n:::lusia1S of the FS. 1hese
cx::n::erns are c..1.h.~~ in the PRP 0 ....~tt sectiat. Again, the foc:us was
at high cxst to the Town an:1 ather ~, rather than protectiat of
gram:l-water an:1 surface-water quality an:1 the wetlands. 1hese CD'1CernS
have been previously calli ,=""ed.
e. Miscellaneous o..8,.,-="I«S.
i. Written CA:mDents
b. '1\10 0 ....-J'1t:ors indicated that they believe the WDm. shculd pay for the
clean.Jp since the ~ licensed the lan:1fill. CD! indicated that the
u.s. EPA an:1 "these who put the waste there" sha1ld help pay as ~.
While ate of the ().JI...~lrt:.ors did net offer an alternate cleanup
~, the ather did reo....-Iid that the site be fenced an:1 that the
Town p.zrd1ase the ~ acreage am, prest1l'lRnly, the a
-------
13
a1e is dri.nkin;J the ..water, and that the Agencies shculd take actial in
the future if need be.
RescalISe
'n1e Aqerx:ies urderstand the situatial the Town rssidents fin:i ~~ves
in. 'n1e Town is a ~ sirD! aa:IA ccnsi.ders the owner/c.perator of a
site to be a~. As diAl"'!l''''~ abaYe, there is a significant pctential
risk posed by site cxn:U.tialS, and madtcrin;J of the situatial will not
be adequately protective.
~. one C..,.,_.tter thcu;ht that the cx:st of the clearJJp was high in
relatial to the size of the landfill and its short c.perati.ng lifetime.
'n1e 0 .,.,~rrt:.er cited other area landfills 'Mhidl WJ:e used aver a lager
pericx1 of time by in:lustria1 waste generators. If these other landfills,
ale of whidl apparently dt~ trash into ''the river," do not pose a
problem, the 0 .,.,~ ~ hew this ale c:xW.d.
RespcrISe
'!be WI:NR mt:es that there are l'I.DDerCUS 1IID'licipally owned landfills aqoss
the State that acx:epted in:lustria1 waste (e.g., Algaua, Janesvi11e,
TaDah). 'lbese landfills are beJn;J a&:hAf5900 th1:cu;h ale of three
plU:JLGIIa: the Federal SUperfurd, the State Envi.ra1menta1 Respa1se and
~i,.. &U:JLdW, or the State solid waste authcrities. several other
lamtills in the Q\a.1aska area are 1:Ieirg investigated as pctential
SUperfurd sites. ""---
'!be cost of a clearJJp does not geneRlly ~~alate to the size or
c.peratin; life of a facility. Typically, ccsts are derived fraD the
oc::n.:::.::a.Udtial and types of a:rrt:aminants 14 sent at a site, and fran the
risks posed to actual or pctential recept:crs by the ocrrt:aminatial.
I). Q1e 0 .,.,~,.ter questicned "hew can the WI:NR enforce laws withcut any
liability or guarantee to the pmlic? '!hey can make a cxutract bIt do
not have to ha'x% it." Also, the o....~ater feels that under
b~jMi~tia1, art{ "air-bcnue pollut.ia1" caused by qm-atia1 ot the
tec:hnology wcWd caJ15e acid rain.
ResIxI'1se
..
'!be questiCl'l of wam liability has been prev!amly addr~""'ed. '!be
limited amcunt of volatile ~in!l1A rel~~ under the biol~.A.ii~tial
alteJ:native ~ not ten:1 to caJJSe acid rain. Rather, acid rain is
suspected to be caused by sul~ and ni~~1
-------
14
'n1e c" ...,_'1ter menticn!d that alternate lJ1~ 1 R exist, b.tt did net
~]~hn1-ate. 'n1e secxix1 \.~.'.'-It reiterated previous O....-11ts regcmiin;J no
perceived health risks at the site am questicn!d whether the }qerr::y was
"ttyinq to make the Town an ~le" or whether the }qercy was "really
-------
15
Resconse
'!be O,u,LeHt list of PRPs inclu:1es all entities that, to the best of the
u.s. EPA's kncwlE:d:Je, are respcnsible for the hazarda1s subst:arx:es Wich
were titmp=rl at the site. '!he u.s. EPA will 0CI'Jt.:imJe to :investigate to
detem.ine if other PRPs exist. Both the Town, as owner/~tor of the
lan:ifill, and a few private firms, as generators of the hazarda1s
subst:arx:es, are :tepr M.ented.
Air strippin:J rel~'!"es wcs into the a"",~, where they are subject
to pv,to-degradatiem.HcweYer, the u.s. EPA and the Wt'NR will mc:nitor
the AIIi~iem levels to ensure that m stan:Jards are ~. ~L~ttly,
levels of pollutants in the ground water are higher than surfaoe-water
c::lisc.haz'ge stan:Jards, Wich is a1e reasa1 wtJy treatJDe1tt of the
CXI1taminated ground water is needed prior to c::lisc.haz'ge.
B. CD! o...,--rttor, in additiem to the o....~ iticn1!C::-~ in sectiem (c) (i)
abave, exp:tessed a desire to ~re the problem or risks at Q1a1aska to
problems posed by failin:J septic systems or rumff fran area fam lands.
'!be 0' .....-1 Iter t:hcu;ht area residents shculd focus clearJJP efforts in
these areas instead it they are as potentially c:Jan;Jeram as the "taxins
that are escapin:;J fraD the lanclfill."
Rescc:.nse
As the VJI..._tJter ac:kncwl~ in the letter, the SUperfund pt\.AjLCIIII has m
jurisdictiem to &1h.- the other two categcries listed abave. However,
the Agencies are actively invc1ved in envira'IDental prct:.ecticn fraD all
scm:ces of pollutiem,. not just fraD SUperfund sites. 'l11e risks posed by
the CXI1taminatiat at the ~l~qka landfill warrant the actia1 ~~ by
the Agencies urx)er the jurisdict.iat of c:zaA.
];. CD! {".t .....-. d.er exp1..o..c.cuwo1 oa~ with the high CX&t of the iA'~
clearJJP, as it ~~ld be a financial bJrden em the pq:IU1atiem of the Town.
'l11e V JI'.'- &'ter also ~~e-1 oa~ with the health risks posed by the
pl.~ vcc-emissicms fraD the air stripper and bior~!..A~i~tiem, in
respect to bp1~ Altematives 2U' am 1Gf. Iastly, the (;xJl...,I:o-nte.r
expr~~ an :inteJ:est in havin:;J the "Pezpetratam" a_- the major
financial b1rden b.1t did not wish to see them go C11t of bJsiness,
~ as to the time ACIIIIII far payment of the ccsts.
Rescc:.nse
'l11e u.s. EPA and the state are awam of the potential b1rden the ccst of
the cleara.1p may pose em "the Town residents an:! the other PRPs. 'Ibe
Agencies will be evaluat:in;J the fiscal viability of the Town and the mPs
in relatiat to potential respcmse ccsts, and the u.s. EPA will take the
evalua.t.iat into aanmt durin) iti-1SEJia1s with the PRPB regarding :taac:.Jy
iDplemehtatiat. If the Town an:! PRPB are unable to i1l'lNlllii Ately f\DI:l the
p'IAiha' act.ia1 at this site, u.s. EPA JlUl'dcipU settlement policy
provides far a CD1S1~ of repayment of f8cIexal ccsts aver time.
-------
16
<.>
As previously n;~':'~, possible VOC emissi~ frcm the air striRJer
and/or biUL....--ii;!ltiat W1CUld be DDrl.tored duri.n:J the clearop. ~;~iat
u.IIlt.uls W1CUld be pl<:toed at the equipDent if a prci)lem was detected am.
-------
17
gram-water ~ plume is spreadin:J. '!be potential risk due to
in:]estiat of the most-oa1taminated water is 3 in 1,000 (3 X 10-3), .an
unaccEptable risk. Additiatally, the CD1taminant plume threatens the .
quality of the Black River wet.1.ams. Treatment can ~v..:a the risks to
a prot:ective level.
~ CD! v.....-.tter exp:-~ the belief that bath Altematives lIP ani 1GW
shculd be adcpted, writ.in;J that "there is probably more CXI1taminatiat
cxminr;J down the Black River fJ::aD upstream than will ever qet into the
river fraD the lan:lfill."
Resca !Se
As di",,~ earlier, Altemative 1GW is net prot:ective of human health
or the envL.\AIU'clit. '!be NCP ~ that institutiatal C\A1t.uls
shculd be bplemented in CDtjunct.iat with active respcnse ~!C:IJreS where
practicable, as at Q1a1aska. Altemative lIP does little to prevent the
leachin;J of oc:ntaminant:s £ran the lan:lfill into the grcurxi water, which
has been shewn to be a principal threat.
Altematives lIP ani 1GW also do net meet ARARs, as di ~lSsed in the FS
ani the P1.' p»ed Plan.
K. CD! (~....--tt:er did net agree with the bplementatiat of Altemative
5GW siIx:8 ~ p:Iblic health risk is net that significant to warrant the
cleaJ'q) pr;~~ recw ....--ded" by the 1tgencies. o..-...:m was EIXp&.-=~ for
the risks posed by the cleaJ'q) pl~"" to the site warkers, necu:by
residents, and users of the bike trail. Also, the o.....~d:er felt that no
guarantee of effectiveness was given by the 1tgencies for Altemative 5GW
and that the U.S. EPA \ICUld free the Town fraD future liability if 5GW
was net effective. '!be ~ ....--d:er ~.~ that Alternatives 2IP ani 1GW,
the Town's ~.~, be bplElDE!l1ted.
/ .,~
ResDa1se
'!be NCP details that the SUpertun::l ~up.GIII shall adrleve an adequate
level of prot:ectiveness at SUpertun::l sites. 'Ihis adequate level has been
defined as a lifetime ~ risk I81'IJB of 1 in 10,000 to
1 in 1,000,000 (1 X 10-4 to 1 X 10-6). '!be potential risk af3:l'Y'"iated
with the in;Jesticn of ccnt:aminated water fraD the CD1taminant plume is
estimated to be 3 in 1000 (3 X 10-3), whicb is an ~.lable risk. In
additia1, the u.s. EPA IIIJSt protect the enviJ:aIDent, whicb the <> .....--"d:er
has net ~~. '!be 1tgencies am u..~18l with the laq-tem effects
of oc:ntaminant:s at enviraDent:a1 ~ies in the eJ ~k River ani the
WBt:lands.
'1he 1tgencies feel that the altematives ~. t..osecl am the best to a;ply to
adrleve protect.:I.at of human health and the eI'I'Iira'JDenC. '1he 1tgencies
baY8 evaluated the potential effectiveness of biAM,....._Hatia1 m1 believe
that benefits of c:xntaminant destructiat \ICUld be gained traD its
b:p1E1be1i«:atiat. '1he c::w&rall effectiveness of bi.a1......~iatia1 will be
evaluated em a 11Z1ft11111 scale first and then at the site it SUJ=- e S'sfUl em a .
-------
18
small scale. J.gain, air emissia1S will be DDrl.tared; ""-iLLuls will be
used if ~; !C:Ri.a\g are a prcblem.
"
H. 'lhree 0 ..,.,~ asked that "the taxpayers' 1ID1eY" net be wasted by
cleanil'q up the site. one su»=-ted that the Agencies "keep an eye em
the site and if it starts causirq a prcblem then do saDet:hinq."
Resca1se
Althaq1 the SUperfunj is generally net fun:Bi by the pJblic, as
rli cn,ti'~ above, the Agencies rli ~ that inplementatiem of
Alternatives ~ and 3IP'Ma1ld be a waste of the taxpayers' 1DCI1eY. In
addit.ia1 to the potential risks identified at the site, the Agencies DUSt
point Glt that it 'Ma1ld be a good inv~l~lIt:ut to harxile the prcblem rDII,
rather than in the future. It'Ma1ld be DXJre expensive to mitigate the
prd)lem a1Ce left to cause wi.der-spread or DXJre substantial harm to the
area than if the CXI1taminatiem was a..lh.~'r'd at this time. We note the
c:ALL~y high cost of wetland restoratiem shculd CXI1taminatiem CDItimJe
to be rel-~.
li. oral V _....-w,ts
Q1e 0 ",.,~rrt:er requested that the "Politician who wrote the law" be
~ s ~ltt to answer to the p.1blic in regard to the cost of clearlJP.
Hcw8Yer, the o.....~ did net ~ SS1at an altemative to the ~~
plan.
- '.---.
ResDonse
'lbe 1Igen:ies note that cm::IA was develc:pc1 and debated by I1JIDE!raJS
politicians, \iIho beam fnD many i.n:mstries, envi.ra1menta1 groups, and
citizens. 'Ihe SUperfunj law is intended to make these respa1Sible for
envi.ra1menta1 prciUE!II& pay for envi.ra1menta1 ~i~tiat. We also
ackncwled3e the high cost of ~;~tiat and that preventiem of pollutiC31
is always 1IIJre cost effective.
2. Potentj~llv ResDasible ~
a. l\.I.I~tts ~ or 'no actJJ:o.
1. written ~'_..I~tts
A. Mst";III11 ics, Inan~4ted ("Metallics-), ~~~ its be1jPf that:
a. 'lbe cost ot the iK-"~ cleanJp is ~~ive and would be a bD:'den
to the ~;
b. Other 81tities, such as the wisccnsin Department of ).griculture,
eID\ld be liable as well:
\..
-------
....
19
c. '!he cleanup W1Q}ld be less prctective of h1mBn health than the
Town's ~,~ (to plrChase the affected ptq)erty and upy.c:aJe the
cap); and,
d. '!he ~ shalld waive ARARs if it is goin:J to be oa1Sistent with
its landfill grcurxi-water standards policy.
RescalSe
'!he h;Jencies urxierstand the b.1%den that Metallics faces in regards to its
potential liability at the site. '!he u.s. EPA and the ~ also
ackncwleci;Je the steps Metallics has taken to mitigate its own
envira1menta1 prcblEIIB, especi;!l11y when Metallics began recyc:lin:J its
spent solvents at a voluntary basis. CDaA, however, has detezmi.ned
that generators of ha.za:rda1s suJ::st:an=es at a SUperfund site are
potentially liable for respcnse costs at the site. 'Duls, the w:iscx::n;in
Department of }qriculture is bein:J :investigated in regards to its
potential liability at the Q1a1aska site. Other entities, such as neart:Jy
Tams, have ~ a1ly ncn-hazardcus suJ::st:an=es (i.e., 'Dlmicipal trash)
to the landfill and therefore are net FRPs.
'!he wam has oa1Sistent1y afPlied 01. NR 140, WAC, 'Mhidl requires that
the Department take actiat to prevent the CCI'1t.ira.1am rel~g~ of
CXI1ta:minants that ~ standards at the point of standards afPlicatim.
As di fi:t"!,...~ above, the act:.ia1 ~sary at the Q1a1aska site includes
gxaD'd-water ext:ractiat and treat:mel.t and c::cverin;J the landfill with a
DUltilayer cap. In additia1, the u.s. EPA has the final autharity to
deteJ:mine ARARs at a site. . '-
». 0DaJ:X Imustries ("QImX") expl-~ a cn~ that the potential
CXISts of cleanJp do net yield ~te benefits in light of the "limited
risk the site poses." 0DaJ:X reo ....~ded that the Town's pr~ be
bp!emented instead, sir„:8 it wculd protect h1mBn health and the
enviza'Jment at a mere reasa1able CXISt than the prefeu;~ leu-Jy.
Resca 1Se
As di!l:n'SSed above, the site poses a risk ot 3 in 1,000 (3 x 10-3) to
potential c::xnsumers of the c:x:ntaminated gram water, which is net a
"limited risk, II tut an UI'1ZIiCD!ptable risk. SiDply JlD'dtarin; the gxaD'd-
water plume '«'IUd net be prctectiw of hL1mim health am the enviza1ment
nor 1IiaJrd it tYMply with FedeRl and State ARARs or the SUperfund
Jlli!UxJates ani expectatia1s. Altematiw 3IF provides better precipitatiat
intiltratia1 prot:ec:t:ia1 with a cap net subject to tWna.}9 frcm frost and
meets landfi11 closuxe regulatia1s. 'D1us, the 1IUltilayer cap provides
better lCD)-teJ:m effectiveness than the cap \JI„.caJt, ~~ by the Town.
,. '1h8 Town of ~l~Ctlca CtIIthfti:tted bio sets of ~ ........Its. Q1e set,
Ct111hIIi:tted c:1irectly by the Town, SUIIIIIISrized the points DIi!Ide by Warzyn
Eh;1neerin;J Inc. ("Warzyn"), its CCI1SUltant, ani ~ _._.~ded that the
Town's ~'„Cs9d l~ be bp!ementect instead. '!be seccud set, which
was tedmica1 in nature~ 'was Sl1hIIi:tted c:1irectly by Warzyn \' behalf of
-------
20
L-
the Town, Metallics ~ and 0Darlt.
Town of onalaska
'!he Town rlic:rl1S-c:M the history of the landfill, eqi1asizin;J that the Town
has oc:.uplied with all WtNR d.irecti.ves as to the cp!ratia1 of the
landfill. Specific o....oAttt8 in suwort of its belief that the PL1~
Plan is too ccstlyand is ~~ to protect human health and the
envu.\A8I&:Itt include:
1. '!be DUlti.1ayer cap is tectmically ~o;J""~ and may prolcmq clearnJp
efforts at the site. '!be repair and maintenaB:s of the existin; cap will
prevent direct CXI1tact at less cxst. '!be cw..u:.at cap aids in the natural
flushin;J and degradatia1 of wastes.
2. Grcurxl-water treabDeut and bi\.U.....Aii~tia1 is inappropriate,
unreasa1able, and technically deficient. Natural attenuatioo and
biological degradatia1 is ~ at the site. No threat of p.1blic
expcsJr8 to existin:.J ccntaminatia1 in the grcund water or soils exists.
BiQtA.lAii~tia1 is net a proven tectmology.
3. Instit::utia1a1 '-'-It.&.uls CDJpled with gr:c111'Xl-water mcnitori.n:1 are DX:D:e
reascnsble am ocst effective.
4. '1be '1Qm ~~S~ to develop a gr:c111'Xl-water marlt:crin; ~uJl~ to
ensure the safety of human health am the envira'm:!nt am to allow the
U.S. EPA and WtNR to institute turther acti.a1, if warranted.
5. '!be '1Qm's ~,~l is cxmsi.st.ent with the NCP, and is tailored to
site cxmsideraticnJ and sha1ld be adqJted. No ~table risks are
posed by natural attenJat.iat. No PJblic/prlvate wells are iDpacted by
the site. F\1ture iDpacts WOIud be prevented by the p1rd1ase of the
affected properties scuth of the lamfill.
6. '!be ccntaminatiat has been pr ast!l'lt in the landfill for 20 years and
is net adversely iDpact.in;J the Black River, CCI1fim.in;J that no lcmq-teDn
threat exists.
7. '!be Town's pL'~ is in cx:qUiance with ARARs in that 01. NR 140,
WAC sha1ld not be awlied to abanda1ecllandfills. '!be lOint of
standards for _uU::!I.u.~ of ccntaminatim would be the entire area if
the Town pm::tvIsed the property.
8. It is t.eamically iDp:actical to meet NR 140 ~, am the
U.S. EPA shculd grant a waiver. . '1\Ienty years of natural attematim has
prc:M!I'1 suooee~ful in t:J:eati.n;J wastes. Grcurd-water treabue:ait teICUld
~1pl ieate this at great expense.
9. U the pL' vJSed plan is bplemented, thet'e 11101ld be an ina:udstent
~ of ARARs at this landfill in CXIIp1risa1 with the zest of the
state.
-------
\
21
10. 'D'1e L~ cost ani n'MIftnUty aoceptanoe ~ net fullyocnside.red.
EcaDnic realities haVe been ignored by the u.s. EPA ani the ~ in
p.IrSUit of a cleanup l~.
11. 'D'1e Town has run the lanifill acx:ording to the directives fran wnm.
'D'1e wnm is at fault for the deficier„:ies identified with the cap.
12. 'D'1e u.s. EPA ani wnm agree that an approved RCW\ cap is unnecessary
at this site, bIt they insist at a1e arrfWay. 1b'a.he.Js of lanifills exist
in the State, ani ncI1e is subjected to the same level of ~; ;1Itiat as
at Q'B1asJca.
ResQonses
(Note: Many of the above <> ",.,~rrt:s have been previously a.lhessed in
greater detail. Please refer to these respa15eS as well as to what is
prcvidecl belCN.)
1. Direct CCI1tact with the lanifill waste is net the major issue drivirg
the need far the DUlti1ayer cap. 'D'1e DUl~ cap has been detem.ined
by the u.s. EPA to be relevant ani CawL~iate3 in that it is ~ to
~1t'"JA the rate of infiltratiat 1:hrcu:]h the waste to ~1t'"JA the rate of
leac::hirq of 0CI1t:aminants .into the gramd water. In additiat, the
preferred cap provides better lm;r-tem effectiveness. Freezelthaw
cycles ~ caps net prcvidecl with frost prot:.ecticn, as evidenced in
the cap installed at Q'B1asJca. 'D1e reasa1 far usin:;J lanifills far waste
di~ is net to let nature "flush awaT' 0CI1t:aminants bIt to cxmtain .
them.
2. since bi~.....Aii;1ltiat is an ~9in;J technology, a labaratc%y-scale
ani possibly a pilot-scale test to assure its effectiveness will be
perf~ priar to full-scale bplementatiat at the site. SUperfurd law
does net precl\.D! the use of inncvative tedmology at SUperfurd sites,
rather it enccurages the use of inncvative tedmo1oqies where
practicable. 'D1e NCP specifically c..1.h.~"'- this (55 Federal Register
8702, Mard1 8, 1990) by favaring the use of innavative t.ec:hB)lcgies where
they may provide ~le ar superior treatwut ar bplementability,
less adverse i~ than ather~, ar lower costs far simi1;11r
levels of perfcmlliU1CB than far ~t.Clted t-J:nwoqies, as di~'e~
alxNe.
3.u. relevancy an:! ~ of RCW\ ~ is ba~ em the
c:i.rc::uIIBtan of the release, inc1uiin:;J prcperties ~f the waste, its
0.'\
-------
22
"
Nrlle the soil cc.ntaD1i.nants pose little direct CXI'1tact threat to human
health ani the envi1:a IIla::Itt, they do pose a lag-teJ:m threat to the
gramd-water quality, W'hich in turn poses a risk of 3 in 1,000 (3 X 10-3)
to potential c:x:nsumers. 'Ihi.s is evidence that insufficient natural
atterl.1atiat is ocx:urrin;J at the site.
3. As previaJsly t'HQn""~, the to anticipates that the u.s. EPA will
bplement institut.ia1al '--ILLuls in CD1junct:ia'l with active respcnse
1IIA:IIIaI.treS 'Where practicable. Gramd-water treatJDent ani bi~....Mbtia'l
am practicable at the cnu~Ma site.
4. Grourn-water extractia'l ani treatment is a proven method to reduce
unaccept:able risks to consumers ani is warranted at this site to restore .
the aquifer to its beneficial uses. A mari.tcrinq p:t~CWI 'Mill be
develcp:d to ensure that grcurn-water
-------
23
CXl!ply with 01. NR 1:.40,~. '!here are many other lardfill sites in
Wi.sca1sin .m.ch are SUperfurx1 sites where similar actiat is t:ak.in:J place
or will take place to CXIIply with this regulatiat (e.q., Janesvi11e,
TaDah, Algaua.).
10. '!he expense of the l~ am t'YTl'lnlnUty ~ has been
CXI1Sidered by the Agencies. '!he U .5. EPA am the State believe that the
preferred l~ is protective of 1mman health am the emrircrment, is
cost effective, meets ARARa, am uses pemanent treatJDent remedies to the
1!AY'hrl1'" extent practic::able. '!he Town's pl.'~ does net meet all the
r--.gary criteria for ~c::aur:aly select.ia1 at SUperfurx1 sites.
u. '!he ).gencies ackncwledge am ~te the ~tive efforts of
the Town in the ~tiat of the lardfill. However, as di!C:O,~sed
previously, the WI:tm is net liable for clearmp costs at this site, as
neither Federal nor State law i~ liability at regulatozy agencies
that license lardfills.
12. Alt:hax#l the 01. NR 504, ~ cap meets all the statutoJ:y requirements
of a ~ SUbtitle C cap, it is preferred ~\Se the DUltilayer cap is
sufficiently simi l,,~ to these placed at a.I1.latt State solid-waste
lardfills under a.Ina~t State landfill closure requirements, am it is
well suited to ~Dt precipitatiat infiltratiat t:hrcu:Jh the lardfill.
As di ~,~ previously, there are many other lardfills in the State
bein;J add1:.6....~ in a similar tashiat to the ~laska site, or are bein;J
evaluated for inc1usiat at the SUperfuncl list for futm:e invest.igatiat
and ~A.."""i "t.iat.
Warzvn nm~. Inc. ("Warzvn")
Warzyn t:B1hnitted <:' .'.'-Jlt:.s \/hich reiterated the Town's positiat but in
qreater detail. ~ifica11y:
a. Ianitill ~
1. '!he RI/FS percalat.iat estimates my be CXI1SerYatively low.
2. '!he ran;JB of percalat.iat estimates for ead1 cawin:J altemative will
not sutJstant:1aJ.ly affect the overall water bUame of the site, sima
the grcund-wa1:er flow t:hrcu:Jh the retuse my be 9000 gallcms/day.
3. '!he NRS04 cap ~ aI.'8 net xelevant ani ~~late to
ex:I.stirq closed lardfills.
4. To ~ ~~ risk potential, the site shcW.d be fel1CE!d to
mstrlct p1blic fK\~9.
5. 'lbe use of an NRS04 cap ~lld limit: infiltrat:iat, 1IIbicb t.r111ld slow
dawn the flushiDJ of the waste ani exten:l the duratiat of a ground
water t:reatment pt~CUII.
-------
24
6. '!he adiitia1al. costs of upgradin:J or replacin:J the cap are not
justified given that increased protectiCD has not been quantified.
b. GrcAmd Water
7. '!he Ackerman W1ell is an illegal ca1Structi.cm. New TNell ca1Structi.on
is ~ible due to existin; wiscxnsin regu1.aticms which prohibit
ca1Structi.cm of a W1ell within 1,200 feet of a landfill.
8. A ~!C:IJrable i1tpact CD surface-water quality is unlikely to emerge in
the future. Given the rate of ~ter flow am the l~ period
of time that the waste has been in place, a detrimental iJIpact sha1ld
have bee> .,oA evident by new. 'Ihis suworts Alternative IGW.
9. Natural attenuatiCD is a more ccst-effective method of gramd-water
clearuJP am shcW.d be the preferred alternative.
10. Bi01:~,_ibtiCD has not been sufficiently evaluated to detEmnine
effectiveness.
u. By p1.acin; the title of the affected prcparty in public harx!s, the
institutia1al u.luLLuls will be penanent.
12. 'D1e pt(p06Ed 1ID1i.t.orin;J pt'Ogrcma is ~ive.
c. RPmFrlv selectia1
13. 'Ihe direct ccntact with waste pathway is the a1ly dccumented risk at
the site.
14. PuDp and treat system de not reach health-based levels. It makes no
sense to experd large SUDS of JIrn!!'f to treat CXI'1taminated qrcurd
water mechanically, when the same ptlXWS has been oc:x:urrin:.J
naturally.
15. '!he l.~ selectiCD seems to be based merely CD the fact that
CXI'1taminatia1 is pt~. '!he laucrJy selectia1 shcW.d be based a1
the mitigatiat of unacceptable risks in a ccst~fective manner.
16. '!he risks pt 3S mted by cap ca1Structi.a1 are greater than the risks
the leu-Jy is mitigat.in;J.
17. '!he selectia1 of the cap am grcurd-water ~es are mainly driven
by State ARARa, for 1IIhic:h the U.S. EPA can and sha.1ld grant a waiver.
In S111ImI="yY, the P1~ Plan is less protective of human health,
needlessly protective of the envircnDent, and ~9ively ccstly. 'lba
'!Um's lA~ is the lA~- altetnative.
Riescc:nses
1. '1b8 ~ ani- method of' analysis of the cap pnQQ],atiat rates
\
-------
:.5
are rH~.JSsed in the RI/FS (see ~ C of the RI). '!he u.s. EPA ani
the wrNR stand by the TNCrlt.
2. '!he ~yirl'l1m groII'D-water flow t:hrc:u3h refuse is calculated to be 9500
galla1S per day, based at ~,.,;mnm water table cx:n:titias (durin) sPrin:J
nm off) . '!he average flow ~d be DIJd1 lower, estimated to be 4800
qalla1S per day. However, the gra,ni water flows t:hrc:u3h a ~"';Tnl1Ift of 2
feet of refuse, whereas the infiltratiat (pertX)latia'1) rate of the
exi.stin; cap (860 galla1S per day) flows t:hrc:u3h the entire thickness of
the refuse (15 to 20 feet). 'lhi.s effectively r;li-es the am::u1t of
CDItaminant:s the infiltratiat reaches to nearly equal that of the groII'D-
water flow, which means that reductiat of infiltratiat is an inpJrtant
ca1Sideratiat at this site.
3. '!he exi.stin; cap was to have met 01. NR 180, ~ lan:lfill closure
requirements. '!he RI has sham that the cap does net meet these
requirements ani, therefore, was either net closed J:U.~ly or nct
ptcperly maintained. As stated previously, DI.1ltilayer caps are typically
required at closed larx:lfills with 01. NR 140, ~ ~nces. lolmicipal
larx:lfills are ~ by a low pemeability cover provided with frost
protectiat. 'lhus, the 01. NR 504, ~ cap is relevant. '!he 01. NR 504,
~ cap is tedmically justified sirre it ~d ~~ the rate of
infiltratiat t:hrc:u3h the larx:lfill debris, which 'oIIalJ.d enable the grourxi
water to be cleanecl-up to protective levels. 'lhus, the 01. NR 504, WAC
cap is ~'-„I-iate for this site.
4. Risks due to potential ccntact with surface CDItaminant:s by site users
~ calculated to be below actia1 levels, thus a site fence is nct
nec:-"'''''axy' to further r-1I~ risks. A fence "I1Ji!J.Y be net-...uy to protect
site users fraD r~..Adi,.1 et1'1i~tt and also to prevent further chmpin),
vehicular traftic at the cap, or vandalism at the site.
5. '!he minimizatiat ot infiltratiat is an iDpcrtant cbjective, sirre
reductiat ot infiltratiat rates :nd~ CCI1taminant loadin;J to the grourxi
water. Relatin;1 the rate ot infiltratiat reductiat to gra,ni-water
treatJDent time is net entirely possible sirre the am::u1t of CCI1taminant
mass in the lardfill is unkncwn. Generally, the less CCI1taminant mass
loadinJ into the grcurd water, the shorter the time ftCW8S fer grcurd-
water clear&.1p to reach protective levels.
6. 'lbe increased protecticn to buman health and the envira1Dent due to
cap CXI\St:ruct:iat cannot be cpntitied as alluded to aIxJYe (respc:I1S8 5).
en a qualitative basis, the lower the intiltratiat rate, the less
CCI1taminant mass loadin;J into the grourxi water.
7. 'lbe fact that the Ac'kemans' garden wll exists is a gcoct argument.
that institutimal OGIItt.&.wls can net be the sole -am:e ot protectiat at
this site. '1be ~...' ~ wll was installed in
accardance with 01. NR 112, WAC under a WJ:Jm variance (0Ctcber 12, 1980).
8. 'lbe $l~ sid t:bI8 since t1i ~ of the hazardaJs sUbstances is aIxut
\
-------
" ; \
26
20 years. Given grp,ni-water velocity (70 feet;year) ani retardaticn
coefficients (1.12 to 5.54) for saDe of the principal organic
pollutants, these pollutants shcW.d have migrated fraD 1,250 feet to 250
feet fraD the lanifill. 'Ihese distances oo.d.~d well to c::b;exved
cx:n1itia1S at the site. Since the [)oQ)e Qurt:.e of the Black River is
alJcut 1000 feet fraD the lanifill, many of the organic cxntaminants W1CUld
net be expected to have reached the river in 20 years. It is possible
that the CXI'1timed CD1taminant migraticn CD1ld result in increased
CD1taminant levels ~ to the river.
9. '!he existence ot 1,1~oroethane (1,1-JX:A) in the Ackermans' garden
well, 20 years after di~, at a 00I~1U-Clticn present.in; a potential
risk of 3 in 1,000 (3 X 10-3) StqJeSts that natural attenuatia1 alcna has
net met grcund-water protectia1 f:Jf't:Ia' A.
10. ~....Mi;.tia1 has been evaluated by the U.S. EPA and is ccnsiderec1
to be effective for certain ~licatia1S. Its specific ~licability to
cx:n1itia1S at the site will require treatability test:in:J prior to Mrf
full-scale iDplElDel"ltatia1.
11. As previc:uUy di ~,~~, the NCP anticipates that the U.s. EPA will
restore usable ~ers to their beneficial uses within the shortest time
perla1 practicable ani also bplement institutiaal cn.t.uls in
CXI1junctiat with active respcnse ~9IJleS ~ technically practicable.
Instit:uticnU ~Il.uls (e.C)., deed rbl.lct.ia1S) are net enforceable am,
thus, are net protective. .
12. Aevisia1s to the grcund-water marltarin;J pl.~CIIU, dependin;J at
earlier results, will be CX'I1Sidered after the initial 5-year marltarin;J
peria1. It fcuU to be _aive or ~te, it is likely that the
I'II~ ot analytes and/ar the trecp:n:y ot marltarin;J
-------
1/\
I
\'
27
to the involuntary risks presented by CCI'Itaminated gram:l-water
CX8'1SUIIptiat. Air ~i~ia1S may be mitigated by Ani~iat ~.LLuls, if
~"'ary. 'n1us, the lcua:aly is protective CNer the 1m;r-teDD.
17. Selectiat of the cap 1:~ was influenced by the need to I"AdJ1OE!'
infiltratiat t:hrcu.:Jh the landfill in a cost-effective manner ani to meet
Federal ani State MARs. Beth Federal drinJd.n;J-water standards ani State
gram:l-water quality standards are ~ at this site. State grcurxl-
water quality law requires that actiat be taken to prevent the CX%It.imJal
release of CXI1taminants abave standards into the grcurxl water at the
point of standards ~icatiat. '!he DIlltilayer cap ani grcurxl-water
extracti.at ani treatJae1tt are ~"'~IY to brin;J the site into OCIIpliance
with net ally State law bJt Federal law.
18. '!he Town's ~,~~1 does nct meet all the criteria called for by
c:::DaA, the NCP, ani State law. It ~lies no treatment alternative.
Institutia1al \.UIlLLuls are nct protective. Restoratiat of the beneficial
uses of the aquifer is nct provided for in the shcrtest time practicable.
'Ihus, the Pl,~ Plan is the preferred A.~y for this site.
11. Oral o"..._.lts.
(Representatives of the Town, in:1ud.in:) Warzyn,
orally at the p.1blic ~ as \Iell.)
gave the abave .:> ....-'1ts
3.
a. CL.'aI-=:Itts in favor ot a cort:iat ot the LU.,...vsed Dlan.
i. Written o-...-lts
A. '!he U.S. Fish ani wildlife Service
'!he U.S. F;ish ani Wildlife Service o..,...4.ted at behalt of the U.S.
Department ot the Interior (U.S. OOI). '!he U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, up:m ~ipt ot the RI l~t, reo ........dec1 that, at a minbun,
gxan1-water ext:ractiat an:! treatmeld: be iDp!emented at the site.
Resca1se
Alt.eJ:native SQtl inc1u:!es grcurd-water ~~'tiCI'1 and tmatment as a
priJx:ipa.l part ot the Ao--dy. .
b. t\ .....A1ts favcrina 1 im!+-Ar1 or no acttm.
i. Written (~_._.-«.s
A. IaCrcsse o:amty Health DeparbDent/IaQ: o:amty Board
I> '1be Directar of the IaCtcsse o:amty Health Department inti.cated that,
-------
u'
. 28
based em the Health Ass~~ prepared by the wisamsin Department of
Health, he thcu;ht'"mre CCI1tami.natiem or health problEIIB \Ia1ld ocaIr if
the ex:istin;J site was di.st:1.Irl:si" and J:'e() ....-tDad that "the site be left
as a sleepin;J dog." '!he CDmty Board Q\;ti1'TM'1 ~-l.
Resca1se
PresuIDing that "a sleepin;J dcct' means No Actiem, the Agencies DUSt
rli ~ with the ~:ini.a1 that nct:hinq shcW.d be da1e at this site. In
fact, the Health AsG-~ (ItA) cxnflmed the find.in.:Js of the RIfFS Risk
AsG-~, in that the ItA recognized that a potential health threat
exists if the CCI1tami.nated grcuxi water were used for dri.nk:in;. '!he
Agencies' grcuxi-.ater pratect.iem strateqies, which have been rl; ~,c:.~
above, clearly anticipate that active respcI1Se measures are ~$ary ard
practicable at this site.
.D. state Senator Brian Rude
Senator Rude e:xpr~~ CD10em aver the SOGp! of the P1~ Plan in
light of bIO of the nine criteria - cost and tY'mWl'luUty aooeptanoe. He
requestec1 that the Pl. pCsed Plan be altered after tak:in;J into aocnmt the
"financial and envira1menta1 CXI1CemS of the Town."
Resca ISe
thmI1I1ity aooeptanoe of the l:~ ST .l1li. to be based em the cost, since
the Town (thus its residents) is a FRP. 'D1e N:P directs the u.s. EPA to
evaluate cost a1ly ~ decidirJ) bebieen different ~ which
provide the same level of pratect.iem or risk reductiem (55 Fed. Reg.
8728).
~. U.S. a:.~~~" Steve ~
Cl..~~'1 Qmdersa1 exptessed his cxn:mn with the ~ of the
Pl. t..osed Plan, in that it gees "Du::h further than ~csary to protect
huIIBn health and the enviraIDent." ~ifica11y:
1. 'D1e RI/FS l~t clearly shews that an experJditure of $6 mil1iem does
JXJt inpmve the grc&Jr„1 water to the point \Ihem it is usable far human
CXI1SUIIpt.iat.
2. 'lhe extent of gmund-water CD1t.aminatiat is small in cxmparisat to
the gmund-water prcb1EIIB (~y) bein:J experienced by the City of
I.aCrcsse.
3. 'lhe possibility of exp:sure increases due to air .-nillUlicns and
surfaoe water disc:.baxge of treated water, and the grc&Jr„1 water will still
be un:!rinkable.
4. An NRS04 cap is expensive and carries a gmater ~ee ot risk to
-------
29
wcrkers and to the ~nU.ty, based al the RI/FS rqJUL"t.
5. SUperfund allows for m act:i.a1. O:n.~-..""tive acticrs are net ~sary
~ the following ocn:iiticrs ocx::ur (Sectial 121(d) (2) (B) (ll»:
a. 'n1ere are known and projected points of entty of gramd water .into
surface water: .
b. 'n1ere is or will be no statistically significant irk:rease in
CXI1taminant CD...-aLLdticrs measurable or predicted to be
~le in the reoeivin:;J surface water: and,
c. '!he ~bl actia1 inclu:ies enforceable 1"eaSUreS that preclude
human exposure.
'!he above cxn:iiticrs ~ to be met at the Q1a1aska site, tln.1s,
Altemative 1GW may meet federal d1emical-specific ARARs acx:ordin;J to the
RIfFS LqAlLt.
6. In tr::II_ry', the Town's P1~ S~-II:I to be the best altemative.
Presently the c:x:ntaminants are isolated fraD human CD1tact, and, with the
abaYe plecauticrs, they ~d remain isolated and keep the level of risk
laW. '!he RIfFS ~t shews that little or no actial is justified in
this case.
Resccr1se
In keepin;J with aa::tA, the NCP, and State statutes, the u.s. EPA and
wam P:L.~ Plan protects human health and the enviza1ment, meets
ARARa, is a:&t effective, am uses treatmeltt to the 1Mvill'lllll'l extent
pract:icable. '!he Town's pt.~ does net meet the Aqencies'
envira1menta1 mandate:
1. Acccrdin:J to the RI/FS IEPQ). t, treatJDent of the gramd water and
naphtha-cx:l'1taminated soils may enable the site to meet Federal drinJd.n:;J-
water st.an:Jards and State gramd-water tJ1:IIIl ity st.an:Jards in the shortest
perial of time practicable, Wile no act:iat WOIud not.
2. '!he size of the CXI1taminant plume is net the i~. '!he iseue is
whstber the Pl..~ Plan meets the intent at aa::tA, the NCP, and
Federal and State law. CDpari.sat at the gramd-water situatiat at the
City of IaCrcIsse to that at the Q\a1aska site is, themfare, not direct1.y
possible. Hcwever, if addit.ia1a1 amas in the City of IaCrcIsse warrant
actiat thraJgh the SUperfund iA"„o4ua, artf r-.-iiA' actiat DplE!lDelrt:ed in
these areas will have to meet the same criteria as the cntlaeka site.
3. As stat:ed earlier, air ..iAfilicns will be DDtitaJ:ed, and ~Itrolled if
nec-C!!!!~. .
4. Q:I1st:I:uct:ia ris1cs to \iIOt.k.a1J aJ:.'8 of a valunt:axy nat:m:e and cannot be
<> .'\ «J:8d to the invalunt:axy z:is1cs of ~ at CXI1t:aminated gramd
water. Q:I1st:I:uct:ia of the 1II1ltilayer cap is to prII- Wilt:ratiat and
-------
30
"
u
to meet State MARs. If the risk was unacceptable, no State larxlfill
wculd be ~['Ped in t:his marmer.
5. As mentia1ed previously, the fact that a dri.nkirq-water'Mell was
placed within the exclusicn Za1e is an indicaticn that institutiatal
'--It..uls can not be relied upa1 aver the lcn;J teJ:m. With re5iJeCt to the
sect.iat 121(d) (2) (8) (ii) criteria, it 1IIJSt be mted that:
a. 'Ihe Agencies do not have CXIIplete assurance as to W'here gra.n:l water
is c1i.sc:hcn'qin:J:
b. 'Ihe Agencies cannot prove that no statistically significant increase
of oart:aminant CXI~It..i:ltia1S will cxx:ur due to natural attenuaticn;
and,
c. 'Ihe institutiatal CUlIUuls PL,t..osed above are not sufficiently
protective, as d;!C:r'I ,.,.~ above.
ACW.tiatally, Sectiat 121 does not call far "No Actiat" if these criteria
were met. Instead, the u.s. EPA rray ~op Altexnate Ca1o.::aILl;catiat
limits (ACts) far grcun:I-water clear11p. Moreover, the NCP also ~
that U the sect.iat 121 criteria were met, the U.S. EPA 1IIJSt also
detemine .nether grouB1 water treabDeltt is practicable (55 Fed. Reg.
8754) to reach H:[s or other protective levels. 'Ibe Agencies have
deteJ:mined that. grcun:I water trea'bDe1,;t is practicable at this site.
Both Federal dri.nkirq-water stamams and State grcund-water quality
stamams, havinJ been deteJ:mined to be ARARs, DIJSt be met upa1
'""'Tletiat ot the ~i~l acticn. aB:IA cx:ndders DJCI'e strinjent State
standards to be ARARs in additia1 to Federal stamams.
6. 'Ihe RI/FS, in fact, shews that little or no acticn is not justified in
light ot the clra.1mstances. EmircnDenta1 receptors have been igncn~ by
the Town's ~'~l, as 'Mell as potential human receptors.
SUImaxy
Althcu;#1 several written ~.,.,-t«S were received in SURJCd't of the
~.~ plan, the majority of ~ .'.'-its have been in ~'t of limited
or I1D actiat. 'lbese c'* ....~ «:.s seem to be based at ecca~ reasaUnq
rather than at envircnDenta11y protective reasaUnq. Many V.'.'_it.arB did
net tully c:x:ndder the patential risk of ingestic:m ot ccntaminated gramd.
water or ot CCI'1taIDinatiat 1DpIctin:J the Rl ~ River wt1.ands, bIt rather
t
-------
31
envira1menta1 law, regulatia1S, policies, am ~lA, it is prudent to
meet the challen;JeS head at rather than wait.in; for the situatiat to
worsen before actin:).
'1he U.S. EPA am the State will need to CCI'1tinJe to \1ierk closely with the
Tcwn duriIY:J l~ iJIpleuentatiat.
/
. '. \ ~'
;,..
. - --~ -'. t~ ~
"
.. .
. , . .
.' / .J , ;; :.' ~. "
I"
. ..',~':':\ ~ .~. ~'
------- |