SEPA
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
Superfund
Record of Decision:
EPA/ROD/R05-90/138
August 1990
National Presto Industries, Wl
-------
50272-101
I REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-90/138
3. Recipient'a Acceaaion No.
4. Tldt and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
National Presto Industries, WI
First Remedial Action
i. Report Date
08/01/90
7. Author(i)
6. Performing Organisation Kept. No.
(. Performing Organization Name and Addreaa
10. Pto|ecVTeak/Work Unit No.
11. Contr.cUC) or Grant(C) No.
(C)
(G)
11 Sponaorlng Organization Nam* and Addreea
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
II. Type ol Report t Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Notea
It. Abstract (Limit: 200 word*)
The 325-acre National Presto Industries site is a former munitions and metal-working
facility in Eau Claire, Chippewa County, Wisconsin, adjacent to the town of Hallie.
From 1942 until 1945, the site was government-owned, contractor-operated, and produced
gunpowder and small arms. From 1945 to 1980, the site was owned by National Presto
Industries (NPI). Initial operations were for the manufacture of cookware and consumer
products, which generated waste streams consisting of metals, oils, grease, and spent
solvents. Also, beginning in 1951, artillery shell fuses, aircraft parts, and metal
projectiles were produced by NPI under a military contract. Early waste-handling
practices included the use of dry wells and seepage pits with overflow from the pits
pumped to a series of lagoons, used as settling and percolation ponds. A major waste
steam generated from the defense-related activities was a spent forge compound,
comprised of mineral oil, graphite, VOCs, and asphalt, which accounts for much of the
sludge in the bottom of one of the settling ponds. From 1966 to 1969, the spent forge
compound was also landfilled onsite. Subsequently, the spent forge compound was
recycled as part of the manufacturing process. Based on their investigations, EPA
required National Presto Industries to provide bottled water to an area in Hallie,
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyela a. Oeacrlptora
Record of Decision - National Presto Industries, WI
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE)
b. Identifiera/Open-Ended Torma
e. COSATI Reid/Group
' Availability Statement
It. Security Cliaa (Trtie Report)
None
20. Security Clisa (Thit Page)
None
21. No. olPagea
85
22. Price
(Se« ANSt-ZM.IB)
Set Instruction* on Rtvtrtt
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-90/138
National Presto Industries, Wl
First Remedial Action
Abstract (continued)
where private wells are contaminated or threatened by contamination from confirmed
onsite sources. This Record of Decision (ROD) provides for a permanent alternate
water supply to address the principal threat posed by the ground water contamination
at the site. Future operable units will address source control and ground water
remediation. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including PCE and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes constructing a well field,
storage facilities and distribution system to supply water to the businesses and
residences within the affected area of the Hallie Sanitary District; extending
municipal water service from the City of Eau Claire to businesses and residences
within the affected area that have annexed to Eau Claire; closing and abandoning all
existing private wells within the affected area that draw from the contaminated
aquifer; and annual monitoring of the designated private wells immediately outside
the affected area that are still used as drinking water supply to ensure continued
quality of drinking water. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action
is between $3,000,000 and 53,200,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of
between $48,200 and $120,000, depending on the size and extent of 'remediation
required. The most likely annual O&M cost is $90,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The primary goal of the EPA and the State is to
provide a permanent and safe alternate drinking water supply to the affected area.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE: August 17, 1990
SUBJECT: Errata Sheet for the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable
Unit #1, National Presto Industries, Inc. (NPI), Eau Claire,
Wisconsin
FKH: Mike Gifford
Remedial Project Manager
TO: File
The original ROD, signed August 1, 1990, inadvertently contained several
clerical errors and omissions. The attached revised ROD corrects these
errors and omissions. For your reference, this Errata Sheet identifies the
errors and omissions that have now been corrected. All page and paragraph
references are from the previously distributed ROD. The appropriate
reference in the revised ROD is indicated by " ( )."
Record of Decision
Page 4, 2nd paragraph, 6th line.
The duplicative sentence "The Order became effective on May 5, 1989." was
deleted following "(Figure 3)". (Page 4, 1st paragraph)
Page 5, 5th paragraph.
The paragraph was corrected to correctly reflect that the public comment
period ran from January 4, 1990 through March 5, 1990, and not
January 5, 1990 through March 4, 1990. (Page 5, 4th paragraph)
Page 10, last paragraph.
The duplicate phrase "However, it is noted that by entirely excluding
1,1,1-TCA and 1,2-DCE, the" was deleted. (Page 10, 5th paragraph)
Page 11, last paragraph.
The phrase "alternatives were retained for the detailed analysis based on
their" was inserted following "five" at the end of the 5th line. (Page 11,
last paragraph, following 5th line)
Page 12, last line.
The duplicative phrase "All existing wells would be closed and abandoned in
accordance with WCNR" was deleted. (Page 12 last paragraph)
Page 15, 1st line.
"Wisconsin" was deleted following "WCNR's". (Page 14, next to last
paragraph)
Page 18, last paragraph.
Following "Alternative 2," in the last line, insert "3 and 6 will require
approval from WCNR's Bureau of Water Supply to make sure that the proposed
-------
system meets the State's minimum design standards." (Page 18, next to last
paragraph, following 4th line)
Page 20, top of page.
Delete the duplicative phrase "PSC Order may affect the implementation
schedule for portions of the selected remedy." (Page 19, end of next to
last paragraph)
Page 20, last paragraph.
Following "For this" in the last lire, insert "reason, the present worth
costs are not an accurate basis for comparing these alternatives.
Operation and maintenance costs for Alternatives 4 and". (Page 20, next to
last paragraph, following 4th line)
Page 22, 1st paragraph.
Delete the duplicate lines "present worth value $1.9 million. High
operation and maintenance costs are necessary for required maintenance of
the GAC treatment units and the necessary monitoring to ensure
effectiveness of treatment. This". (Page 21 last paragraph)
Page 22, 3rd paragraph.
Modified to reflect the correct public comment period, January 4, 1990
through March 5, 1990. (Page 22, 2nd paragraph)
Summar
Page 17, 1st paragraph, 2nd line.
Insert "recent" following "most". (Page 17, 2nd line)
Page 24, 1st paragraph.
Preceding "preferred alternative", insert "U.S. EPA acknowledges that some
comments expressed opposition to the". (Page 24, 1st line)
Page 24, last paragraph, last line
Delete the duplicate phrase "that authority to the District. The ffr*?l
service alternative, which". (Page 24, last paragraph)
Page 30, last response.
Following "municipal water*1 in the next to last line, insert "system".
(Page 31, 1st paragraph, last line)
Typographical errors that were corrected in the revised ROD are not
identified in this errata sheet.
-------
GF
SETHJIH) BBfEDOL ACOCK
FCR THE
NATIONAL PRESTO DEDSTKEES, INC. SHE
EAU C3AIRE, WISCONSIN
Site Kane and
The National Presto Industries, Inc. (NPI) Superfund Site, is located on
approximately 325 acres in the City of Eau Claire, Chippewa County,
Wisconsin.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for a
replacement water supply for an area of private well contamination in the
Town of Hallie adjacent to the NPI site in Chippewa County, Wisconsin,
which was chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) . This decision is based on the administrative
record for this site.
The State of Wisconsin has concurred with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record
of Decision (POD) , may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of Selected Pjanedy
The selected remedy is an operable unit for an alternate water supply which
addresses the principal threat posed by the site. Future operable units
will address source control and groundwater remediation. The major
components of the selected remedy are:
* construction of a well field, storage facilities and
distribution system to service businesses and residences within the
affected area that are part of the Hallie Sanitary District, formed
by Public Service Commission Order 2428-CW-100 dated June 14, 1990;
* extension of municipal water service from the City of Eau
Claire to businesses and residences within the affected area that
have annexed to Eau Claire;
* closure and abandonment of all existing private wells
within the affected area that are finished in the contaminated
aquifer; and
-------
* annual monitoring of designated private wells immediately
outside the affected area that are still used as a drinking water
supply to ensure continued quality of drinking water.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the operable unit remedial action, and is cost effective.
This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or
resource recovery) to the mav^mm extent practicable for this site. Within
the limited scope of this remedial action, this operable unit remedy does
not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate for this remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element and utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
Administrator
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES, INC., EAU CLAIRE/ WISCONSIN
The National Presto Industries, Inc. (NPI) Super-fund Site, hereinafter
referred to as the Site, is located at 3925 North Hastings Way in Eau
Claire, Wisconsin (Figure 1). The Site occupies approximately 325 acres in
the northern one-half of Sections 34 and 35, Township 28 North, Range 9
West, Chippewa County, Wisconsin. The Town of Hal lie is located north and
east of the Site and the immediate vicinity is characterized by light
residential and ocrroercial development. The population of the Town of
Hallie is approximately 4,425.
The Site is relatively flat and abuts a sandstone ridge to the south. The
areas north and west are also relatively level generally sloping gradually
toward the Chippewa River which is located approximately two miles north
and west of the Site. Lake Hal lie lies about one mile north of the Site
and is an impounded remnant of a former channel of the Chippewa River.
Notable surface features at the Site include the main building, a number of
smaller buildings, and Lagoons 1, 2, 3 and 4. Lagoon 1 is approximately
1.5 acres. Lagoon 2 was constructed with surrounding dikes approximately
10 feet above its bottom grade and occupies approximately 14 acres.
lagoons 3 and 4 dikes are about 20 feet higher than their bottom grade and
are approximately 3.1 and 3.4 acres in size, respectively.
A six-foot, chain link fence surrounds the western one third of the Site,
including the main building and Lagoon 1. Access to this area is
restricted and entry is monitored by security guards. Access to the
remainder of the Site is not restricted, although much of the Site is
surrounded by a four-foot wire fence. Security guards periodically patrol
the roads on the Site.
H. SITE HISTCBY AND ENKHCTMSNT ACTIVnTRS
The Site was originally owned by the United States Government (War Assets
Administration) and operated by government contractors between 1942 and
1945. Two contractors known to have operated at the Site were U.S. Rubber
Company (now Uniroyal, Inc.) and Western Electric (now a part of AT&T
Technologies, Inc.). U.S. Rubber operated a gunpowder and small arms
loading plant at the Site during the period 1942-1943 under contract with
the Array Corps of Engineers. The operation consisted of facilities for
powder and chemical storage and mixing, primer manufacturing and storage,
and firing test ranges. Materials used in the production processes
included lacquers and solvents. During this period there were several
sewer and drainage systems for waste disposal consisting of storm water
-------
National Presto Site
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Figure 1
Hagen Road
Chippewa
Early Dr.
EAU CLAIRE
COUNTY AIRPORT
NATIONAL PRESTO
Hallie Lane
\ EAU CLAIRE
\ MUNICIPAL
\ WELL FIELD
I
-------
drainage ditches, a sanitary sewer and a dry well or seepage pit system.
The seepage pits were generally 18 to 20 feet in diameter and'.8 to 10 feet
deep. They were reinforced with wood or dry-laid concrete block walls.
The pits were designed to accept wastewater which then "seeped" into the
surrounding soils. The volume and content of wastewater discharges by U.S.
Robber is not known.
In 1944, the Site was leased to Western Electric for the production of
radar tubes for Navy night fighters which continued until 1945. Production
processes reportedly included cutting, washing, plating and painting, gfroia
of which utilized solvents. There are no records available on waste
handling and disposal during Western Electric's tenure at the Site.
NPI purchased the Site from the federal government in 1947, and between
1948 and 1954, manufactured cookware and consumer products. Production
processes included metal fabrication, stamping, casting, washing, grinding,
metal plating, painting and various other machining and manufacturing
operations. Waste streams during this period consisted primarily of
metals, oil and grease, and spent solvents. NPI also manufactured
artillery shell fuses for the U.S. Department of the Army (OCA) between
1951 and 1953, and parts for military aircraft between 1951 and 1959.
Beginning in 1954, the Site was totally dedicated to defense work for the
United States Government at which time no further commercial production
occurred. In 1953, CCA awarded NPI a contract to install 105 mm lines for
the manufacture of projectile metal parts which were completed during 1954-
1955. In 1955, NPI was awarded a second contract by DCA for installation
of an eight-inch projectile metal parts line. Since 1954, with the
exception of aircraft parts production from 1954 to 1959, the Site has been
used only for the production of 105 mm and eight-inch projectile T^taJ
parts under contracts with the DCA.
Between 1959 and 1965, there was little or no active production at the
Site. In 1966, the Site was activated for the production of 105 mm and
eight-inch metal parts and multi-shift production continued until the mid-
1970s. Active production ceased in February 1980.
Since October 1, 1981, National Defense Corporation (a wholly owned
subsidiary of NPI) has entered into annual standby contracts with the DCA
to maintain the Site in a high state of readiness. These contracts provide
for the storage and maintenance of the government-owned machinery and
equipment which is in place and fully operational. The Site is the DCA's
mobilization base producer for the 105 mm and eight-inch projectiles.
During government ownership of the Site and the early years of NPI's
operation, seven seepage pits, or dry wells, were used for the disposal of
liquid wastes. Four seepage pits were in existence when the government
owned the Site and three additional seepage pits were installed when NPI
purchased the Site.
The seepage pits were equipped with overflow pipes to the Eau Claire
sanitary sewer system. Sane wastes were discharged to the sanitary sewer
either directly or through the overflow pipes. In 1952, following serious
-------
overflow problems in the Eau Claire sewer system, NEE began pumping wastes
from the seepage pits to a former sand and gravel pit located south of the
main plant. This is the present location of Lagoon No. l (See Figure 2-
Site Map for location of Lagoon No. 1 and other Site features). It is
believed that the former sand and gravel pit may have been used as a
disposal area prior to 1948.
By 1966, when manufacturing operations at the Site were reactivated, the
efficiency of Lagoon No. 1 was greatly reduced by the accumulation of
sludges in the lagoon bottom. As a result, Lagoon Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were
constructed between 1966 and 1967 for use as percolation ponds. Under this
system, plant waste water and manufacturing cooling water were discharged
into Lagoon No. 1 which served as a settling pond. As solids settled cut,
the effluent was pumped to Lagoon No. 2. Depending on capacity
requirements, water from Lagoon No. 2 was discharged to Lagoon Nos. 3 and 4
via gravity flow. There were periods during the 1970s when wastewater
from Lagoon Nos. 2 and 3 was discharged directly to the Eau Claire sanitary
sewer system. During peak production, up to 2.5 million gallons of
wastewater per day were generated and discharged to the lagoon system.
A major waste stream generated from defense-related activities was a spent
forge compound, consisting of approximately equal parts mineral oil,
graphite and asphalt. The spent forge compound also contained volatile
organic compounds (TOCs), primarily 1,1,1-trichloroethane which was a
degreasing agent used for cleaning the manufacturing equipment. Other
solvents used by NPI between 1966 and 1980 included toluene, mineral
spirits, methyl ethyl ketone, vinyl chloride, xylene, trichloroethene and
methylene chloride. Spent forge compound was in the cooling water
discharged to lagoon No. 1 and accounts for the large volume of sludge
present in the lagoon bottom. Additionally, between 1966 or 1967 and 1969,
spent forge compound was landfilled on NPI property in an area northeast of
the plant that has been identified as the Melby Road Site. Beginning in
1969, NPI developed a reclamation process whereby spent forge compound
could be reclaimed and recycled in the manufacturing process.
In April 1986, following a complaint to the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WCNR), an additional disposal area was discovered near the east
property line of the Site. This is known as the East Disposal Area. An
investigation revealed a number of exposed drums containing varying amounts
of unknown wastes. NPI removed the drums from the area and they are being
temporarily stored on an unused loading dock at the plant for disposition
as part of the final remedy for the Site.
On December 2, 1985, U.S. EPA issued a general notice letter to NPI
informing the company of its potential liability with respect to response
actions, past or planned, taken at the Site, and asking them to undertake a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Negotiations
concluded in May 1986, when NPI entered into an agreement with U.S. EPA and
the WCNR to conduct the RI/FS at the Site. An Administrative Order by
Consent became effective on July 8, 1986.
-------
MelbyRoady/
Melby Road Disposal Area
East Disposal Area
National Presto
Main Plant
Lagoon #4
Lagoon #3
Lagoon #2
Lagoon #1
LEGEND
Waste Disposal Areas
Dry Well (Approximate Locations)
Figure 2
Site Map
National Presto Industries
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
-------
Based on data generated during the RI and reccrmendations fmn the
Wisconsin Division of Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. EPA issued NPI a Unilateral Order on April
25, 1989, that was effective on May 5, 1989. Ihe order required NPI to
provide bottled water to a portion of the Town of Hallie defined as the
affected area (Figure 3). The affected area is an area in which private
wells are contaminated or threatened by contamination from confirmed on-
site sources at NPI, and is the focal point of this operable unit remedial
action. The affected area contains approximately 350 acres (excluding the
property owned by NPI) and has 174 residences with a total population of
approximately 425. There are also about 40 ccranercial businesses located
in the affected area. The order also required NPI to undertake a Phased
Feasibility Study (PFS) that identified and evaluated remedial alternatives
for a permanent alternate and safe drinking water supply for the affected
area.
Four additional potentially responsible parties (PRPs) have been identified
for this Site. They are National Defense Corporation, a wholly owned
subsidiary of NPI; AT&T Technologies, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; and the United
States Department of the Army. General notice letters were issued to each
of the PRPs on July 24, 1990.
HI. OGMCNITY PETAITCN5 ACi.'lVl'1'Jl*?»
During the RI/FS process, many community relations activities have been
performed by U.S. EPA with considerable support provided by WCNR. In
October 1987, U.S. EPA established information repositories at the Hallie
Town Hall and the Chippewa Falls Public Library. In June 1986, U.S. EPA
issued a press release announcing the finalization of the RI/FS Consent
Order signed by U.S. EPA, WDNR and NPI; and held a 30-day public Garment
period on the Consent Order.
In October 1987, U.S. EPA conducted carraunity interviews with local
officials and interested residents to learn of local concerns and issues
for inclusion in the Agency's Commity Relations Plan. An RI "kickoff"
meeting was held (approximately 75 people attended) with press releases and
advertisements issued to announce the event. A fact sheet was also
prepared and distributed in conjunction with the meeting.
The Coranunity Relations Plan was finalized in June 1988. An advertisement
also ran in the Chippewa Falls Herald-Telegram and Eau Claire leader-
Telegrara announcing the availability of Technical Assistance Grants.
A public meeting (approximately 90 people attended) was held in April 1989
to provide an update of the RI, and include a discussion by the Wisconsin
Division of Health on private well sampling results and potential health
issues. A fact sheet sumrarized private well sampling results, the
proposed distribution of bottled water to affected residents and a proposed
study to evaluate alternatives for a permanent and safe drinking water
supply for the affected area. The meeting was advertised in the two local
newspapers and press releases were sent to all local media.
-------
Figure 3
Final Affected Area
National Presto Site
KEY
Affected Area
Eau Claire Annexations
-------
iuli-.-i Lonsiflfmg engine* s. j
FIGURE 4
i
r>
iN
^
i
Appro*. Edge Ot
Buried Volley
Appro* Groundwater
Basin boundary
D UK! K!L_vA[j,K.Y.. M A P
NA1IONAI PRES10 INDUSIRIFS, INC
(All ClAlRt. WISCONSIN
-------
U.S. EPA prepared and distributed letters in June 1989 to businesses and
residences whose wells ware sampled in April 1989. Those who lived in the
affected area were encouraged to participate in the bottled water program
which was outlined in the unilateral order issued to NPI in April 1989.
U.S. EPA and WDNR held an informal availability session (approximately 20
people attended) in August 1989 to update residents on the RI/FS and the
PFS. The meeting was advertised in both local newspapers and press
releases were sent to all local media.
In December 1989, a press release was issued announcing the release of the
PFS report and the Proposed Plan for public review and comment.
Advertisements were placed in both newspapers announcing the availability
of the PFS and Proposed Plan, summarizing remedial alternatives discussed
in detail in the PFS, and announcing a public meeting to answer questions
and accept public comments on the Proposed Plan. A fact sheet summarizing
the PFS report, remedial alternatives and U.S. EPA's preferred alternative
was also distributed in December. An administrative record, containing
site-related documents relevant to the Proposed Plan, the RI/FS and this
ROD, was established at the Chippewa Falls Public Library in conjunction
with the information repository.
The public meeting was held on January 18, 1990 and attended by
approximately 130 people. U.S. EPA and WDNR explained the PFS and Proposed
Plan, answered questions, and accepted public comments on the remedial
alternatives discussed in the PFS and Proposed Plan. The public comment
period originally was scheduled to run for 45 days, January 4 through
February 19, 1990; however, at the request of many residents, the City of
Eau Claire and NPI, it was extended until March 5, 1990. This 15-day
extension was advertised in both local newspapers. The community relations
coordinator telephoned NPI, local officials and reporters from all local
media to inform then of the extension. A transcript of the public meeting
was placed in the information repositories.
Interest in the Site has been high since 1985 on the part of Hallie
residents, the media, City of Eau Claire and Town of Hallie officials, and
Congressman David Obey's Wausau office. One of the primary issues has been
the formation of the Hallie Sanitary District No. 1 (District). The
District was created in September 1989 in response to the need for a
replacement water supply for the affected area and Kallie's desire to
construct and operate a water distribution system independent of outside
governments. Other significant concerns and issues include the City of Eau
Claire's continued annexation efforts, declining property values, the
"Hallie Triangle" label, how and when the selected alternative will be
implemented, how it will be funded, and the progress of the on-going RI/FS
concerning on-site sources of contamination. U.S. EPA, WDNR and Wisconsin
Division of Health representatives have had numerous personal visits and
telephone conversations with members of the media, residents, local
officials and NPI since the beginning of the RI/FS. The mailing list and
information repositories have been continuously updated to ensure that the
community receives accurate information in a timely fashion. The two
repositories were inventoried in December 1989.
-------
This response action is limited to an operable unit that addresses
contamination in private drinking water wells in the Town of Hallie. The
affected area (Figure 3) is an area in which private drinking water wells
are contaminated or threatened with contamination by hazardous substances
originating from confirmed on-site sources at NPI. The affected area has
been designated as an area requiring a replacement water supply that
protects public health by eliminating potential exposure to contaminated
groundwater supplies. As an operable unit, comparative analysis against
the nine criteria will be limited to criteria relevant to this remedial
action.
A draft RI report discussing the nature and extent of contamination
attributable to on-site source areas was submitted by NPI in March 1989.
U.S. EPA and the WEKR submitted review comments to NPI and following
additional field work, a revised RI was submitted to U.S. EPA on July 23,
1990. Future operable unit(s) will address remediation of source areas and
contaminated groundwater, and is expected to result in a second ROD in
Spring 1990.
V. SOMftRY OF SHE CHARACTERISTICS
RI field activities were initiated at the Site in October 1986, and both
on- and off-site field work presently continues. The major findings of the
RI relative to this operable unit remedial action are summarized below.
1) Geologic units at the Site consist of unoonsolidated outwash (sand
and gravel) overlying Mount Simon Sandstone (Cambrian) which in turn
overlies precambrian igneous and metamorphic rock. Exceptions to this
sequence are as follows: 1) In the southeast portion of the Site, a
sandstone ridge rises above the glacial outwash terrace. That ridge
may be capped by the Eau Claire Formation, a Cambrian sandstone that
is younger than the Mount Simon Sandstone; and 2) Glacial outwash sand
and gravel directly overlies precambrian rock in a buried preglacial
valley beneath the northwestern portion of the site. Depth to bedrock
varies but generally increases from near the surface in the
southeastern portion of the Site to greater than 100 feet in the
buried valley. Figure 4 illustrates the approximate location and
trend of the buried valley.
2) In the southeast portion of the site where outwash sard and gravel
is absent and in areas where outwash is above the water table,
groundwater occurs in sandstone. In a large portion of the Site,
groundwater occurs in both sandstone and sand and gravel aquifers. In
the buried valley, groundwater occurs only in the sand and gravel due
to the fact that a preglacial river removed the sandstone overlying
the precambrian igneous and metamorphic rock. Depth to groundwater
varies from approximately 40-50 feet in the southeastern portion of
the Site (water table is in sandstone) to 70-80 feet in the affected
area where the water table is generally in the sand and gravel. The
-------
majority of private wells in the affected area are finished in the
sand and gravel aquifer.
3) Groundwater generally flows from the southeastern portion of the
Site towards the northwest. The preglacial buried valley is a major
influence on groundwater flow. Groundwater in the area flows into the
buried valley from southeasterly and northwesterly directions. A
groundwater divide exists in the buried valley in the vicinity of the
junction of Highway 53, Melby Road and County Highway "J." Water
north of the divide flows into Lake Hallie. South of the divide, it
flows westerly toward the Eau Claire well field. The location of the
divide has probably varied over time due to periods of high and low
precipitation and pumping of wells near the divide.
4) Organic and inorganic contaminants have been detected in soils,
soil vapor and wastes at the Site. Organic contaminants include the
VOCs 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethene and tetrachloroethene. On-site sources include, but
are not necessarily limited to, the Melby Road Site, East Disposal
Area, dry wells, lagoon No. 1 and Ditch Ho. 3 (See Figure 2-Site Map).
5} Groundwater contamination by organic and inorganic compounds is
the result of past waste disposal practices at the Melby Road Site,
East Disposal Area, Lagoon No. 1, Ditch No. 3 and several of the dry
wells. The primary contaminants of concern in groundwater are VOCs
which include 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene and
1,2-dichloroethene.
6) Analysis of groundwater samples collected from on-site monitoring
wells downgradient of the Melby Road Site indicate the presence of
1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene and 1,1-dichloroethene at
concentrations above the Wisconsin groundwater enforcement standards
of 200 parts per billion (ppb), 1.0 ppb and 0.24 ppb, respectively.
Wisconsin groundwater preventive action limits are also exceeded for
1,1,1-trichloroethane (40 ppb), tetrachloroethene (.1 ppb),
trichloroethene (.18 ppb) and 1,1-dichloroethene (.024 ppb). 1,1,1-
trichloroethane was detected at concentrations above the Federal
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 200 ppb.
7) Analysis of groundwater samples collected from on-site monitoring
wells downgradient of the East Disposal Area indicate the presence of
trichloroethene at concentrations above the Wisconsin groundwater
enforcement standard of 1.8 ppb and the groundwater preventive action
limit of .18 ppb.
8) At a minimum, three distinct groundwater contamination plumes are
present at the Site; two of which are known to have moved off site and
contaminated private drinking water wells in different portions of the
affected area. Figure 5 illustrates the approximate distribution of
contamination in the affected area and west of the Site. Plume 3
extends from the Melby Road Site and Plume 5 originates at the East
-------
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES. INC
EAU CLAIRE. WISCONSIN
FINGERPRINT VOCs
PLUME No. YQCj
2 TCAJCE. 1,1 DCE
3 TCA. DCE
ICE
TCE
-------
8
Disposed Area. Both plumes move through the affected area and
discharge to lake Hallie, where VDCs have also been detected. The
origin of a third area of contamination, identified as Plume 4 on
Figure 5, is uncertain and may be attributed to past release(s) at
NPI, localized off-site source (s), or a combination of the two.
(Plume 2 does not impact the affected area but is of significance
because it extends from sources at the Site toward the Eau Claire well
field).
9) Analysis of samples collected from private drinking water wells in
the Town of Hallie, which is hydraulically downgradient of the Melby
Road Site and East Disposal Area, indicate the presence of
trichloroethene and 1,1-dichloroethene at concentrations above
Wisconsin grourdwater enforcement standards. Wisconsin groundwater
preventive action limits are exceeded for 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene and 1,1-dichloroethene. Trichloroethene was detected
above the Federal MCL of 5 ppb.
VI. SCMMftRy OF SITE
CERCtA requires that U.S. EPA protect human health and environment from
current and potential exposure to hazardous substances found at the Site.
The basis for this response action is the presence of VOCs exceeding
Wisconsin NR 140 groundwater standards, Federal MCLs and health-based risk
levels in groundwater which serves as the sole source of drinking water for
the affected area. This response action is further supported by
recommendations from the Wisconsin Division of Health that residents whose
wells are contaminated above State standards seek an alternate supply of
drinking water. The remedial action objective of this operable unit is the
implementation of a permanent replacement water supply for the affected
area that protects human health by eliminating exposure via ingestion,
dermal contact and inhalation, to contaminated groundwater.
The bottled water program undertaken by NPI as required by the unilateral
order issued to NPI by U.S. EPA in April 1989, eliminated potential
exposure through ingestion for those who participate in this voluntary
program. Most business and residences are using bottled water; however
sane private wells in the affected area are still used for drinking. The
potential exposure pathways of dermal contact with VOCs in groundwater and
inhalation of VOCs during normal household use are not reduced by using
bottled water. Using bottled water for cooking, and especially washing and
showering, is not practical for a homeowner and potential exposure to VOCs
from these pathways continues.
As part of the ongoing RI/FS for the Site, U.S. EPA will prepare a baseline
risk assessment. The baseline risk assessment is based on unaltered
conditions at the Site as oonteirplated by the No Action Alternative. The
baseline risk assessment determines actual or potential risks or toxic
effects the contaminants of concern at the Site pose under current
conditions. The No Action Alternative for this operable unit assumes the
bottled water program would be discontinued and the affected area would
-------
resume using private wells for drinking water. At the tijne of this Record
of Decision (POD) , the baseline risk assessment has not been completed.
Therefore, U.S. EPA determined site-related risks for the groundwater
ingestion pathway as related to this operable unit remedial action. This
assessment estimates exposure from contaminants to the population, which
was then compared to chemical toxicity to arrive at an estimate of health
risks.
A. OQNIftMlNWrS OF
Analytical results of samples collected during the RI from private wells
and monitoring wells in and adjacent to the affected area are presented in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Figure 6 shows the locations of these wells.
The primary contaminants detected are VOCs, including 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(TCA), trichloroethene (TOE) , 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), 1,1-dichloro-
ethene (1,1-DCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and 1,1-dichloroethane
(1,1-DCA). Of these VOCs, TCE, 1,1-DCE, PCE and 1,1-DCA are classified as
probable human carcinogens. Based on which compounds pose the greatest
health risks, the concentrations and frequency of detection, the physical
properties relating to mobility and persistence, and whether an
environmental standard or criteria (such as Federal or State drinking water
standard) exists for a contaminant, the following indicator chemicals were
considered to be representative of groundwater contamination in the
affected area and to pose the greatest potential health risk.
tetrachloroethene (PCE)
trichloroethene (TCE)
1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)
1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)
1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE)
These compounds have been used to evaluate toxicity, exposure pathways and
potential health risks for individuals in the affected area.
B. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The contaminated sand and gravel aquifer is the current source of drinking
water for the affected area. The aquifer of concern is a Class I aquifer
(sole-source aquifer without a viable alternative source of supply) . NPI
is providing bottled water to the affected area under the terms of a
unilateral order; however, because of the voluntary nature of the program,
some residences are not participating and continue to use their private
wells for drinking water.
Potential health risks were evaluated for the groundwater ingestion pathway
for each individual private well and monitoring well in the affected area
exhibiting contamination and within the groundwater flow path from the
source area through the affected area. This results in a range of
estimated risks for contaminated private and monitoring wells within the
affected area.
-------
Ifeble 1
SUHKAKT OF VOC ANALYSES (UC
PRIVATE WEILS
WELL »
PU-4
PW-5
PW-7
PU-20
PU-21
PW-24
PW-25
PW-26
PW-30
PW-33
PU-47
PW-48
PW-49
PU-53
PU-54
PW-55
PW-56
PU-57
PW-59
PW-60
PU-61
PU-62
py-63
PW-64
PW-65
PW-66
PW-67
PU-69
PW-70
PU-70A
PW-71
PW-72
U-98
PW-99
PW-105
PU-106
PW-115
PU-116
PW-117
PW-118
PW-119
PW-120
PW-121
PW-122
PV-123
PW-124
PW-125
py-128
py-203
PW-207
PW-208
PW-211
PW-212
PW-214
PW-215
PW-217
PW-218
PW-219
PW-223
PVI-224
PW-225
py-AUl
PW-AU2
PU-H6
DATE
4/B9
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
7/89
8/89
7/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
8/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
8/89
4/89
4/89
7/89
8/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
4/89
4/89
4/89
TCE
2.0
0.8
..
..
4.0
..
11.0
..
0.6
0.5
9.0
o!i
o!s
0.3
. .
3.0
3.0
4.0
0.4
0.4
4.0
..
..
..
5.0
1.0
2.0
0.6
0.7
0.2 J
..
14.0
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
*
0.7
0.8
3.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.2*J
0.09 J
0.2 J
0.2 J
..
3.0
..
5.0
4.0
..
..
0.9
2.0
..
0.6
PCE
..
--
..
.-
-.
0.7
..
0.2 J
0.2 J
0.2 J
--
-
-
--
-
--
..
..
-.
0.05 J
-.
..
-
..
0.5
..
0.5
0.5
..
0.08 J
o!s
..
..
..
0.1 J
*
0.2 J
..
0.1 J
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
..
»
..
0.07 J
0.1 J
0.1 J
0.4
1,1,1-TCA
0.2 J
0.3
--
0.2 J
0.3
0.2 J
0.3
-
0.3
0.1 J
»-
--
-
0.2 J
0.2 J
0.2 J
0.1 J
0.2 J
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.2 J
-
2.0
46.0
37.0
7.0
-
0.4
110
21.0
3.0
0.3
0.5
0.2 J
0.4
»
0.05 J
-
0.2 J
o.i'j
»
-
-
-
"
0.2 J
0.2 J
o.i J
..
0.09 J
0.3
*
25.0
1,1-OCA
0 4
13 0
10 0
2 0
-
25 0
s!o
1,1-DCE
3
3
7
0
2^0
1,2-DCE
0.6
.*
..
..
..
0.8
2.0
..
..
1.0
..
..
«,
..
0.6
1.0
1.0
..
0.5
..
..
..
1.0
..
..
..
..
..
..
3.0
..
..
0.2
0.3
..
0.1 J
0.1 J
0.8
0.2
..
0.5
..
..
..
..
..
»
0.2
».
0.9
0.7
..
»
*
0.4
..
»
CHLOROFORM
0. J
TCFM
.'
.34 FB
.32 J FB
.33 J FB
.33 J FB
.46 FB
.49 FB
0. J
.63 J
DC*
.
TOLUENE
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.3
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
1TES: TCEtrichloroethene 1,1-DCE
PCEtetrachloroethene 1,2-OCE
1,1,1-TCA1,1.1-tHchloroetht TCFM
1,1-OCA1,1-dichloroethene DW
1,1-dlchloroethene
1,2-dichloroethene (total)
trichlorofluoromethane
dichloromethane
not detected
J estimated value
F8 also detected in associated
field blank
-------
Table 2
SUMMARY OF VOC ANALYSES (UG/L)
MONITORING WELLS
0
N
S
I
T
E
M
0
N
I
T
0
R
I
N
G
W
E
L
L
S
4
0
F
F
S
1
T
E
W
E
L
L
WELL MUMBEI
MU-1
MU-2B
MU-3A
KU-38
MW-3C
MW-4
MW-5A
MW-5B
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9A
MW-9B
MW-10A
MW-10B
MU-11A
MW-11B
KU-12A
MW-12B
MU-13A
MU-1 38
MW-14
MW-15
MW-16A
MW-16B
MW-17B
KW-17C
MU-1 8
MU-1 9
MW-20A
MU-20B
MU-21A
MU-218
MU-22A
MW-22B
MU-23A
MW-23B
MW-24A
MW-24B
MW-25
RU-2A
RU-28
RU-2C
RU-15
WW-3
UU-15
MU-3P
MU-26A
MW-26B
KU-27A
MU-27B
MW-28A
MW-28B
MW-29A
MU-298
MU-30A
KU-308
MW-31
MU-32A
KW-32B
MW-33A
MW-33B
DATE
1/88
10/88
1/88
1/88
1/88
1/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/87
1/88
1 f OO
10/AA
1 W/ OO
10/87
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
1/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
10/88
7/89
7/89
7/89
9/89
7/89
8/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
TCE
m f
f
_
.
f
.
0 8
-
0.2 J
»
. »
. .
0*87
0.18 J
6!s
0.75
0.44
» »
2.6
1.7
» .
4.3
1.1
1.1
m f
0.25
0.62
0.97
1.5
..
3.0
5.0
6.0
9.0
3.0
0.7
0.7
2.0
0.1 J
3.0
0.4
0.8
0.6
1.0
*
»
..
0.5
0.7
1.0
F-CE
»*»
6^2
9.6
0.4
--
2*4
0.14 J
*"
*
"
0 43
-
1.9
4.0
0.25 J
0.30 J
*
0 21 J
V fc 1 tf
0 54 J
W ?*i tl
°-??5J
3.0
0.18 J
0*29
*^
0.08 J
0.2 J
0.2 J
0.8
6^9
0*1 J
0.8
0.2 J
0.9
m
0.4
1.0
0*2 J
1,1,1-TW
19
,-f
3.4
**
0.4
*
* *
* "
300 R
400 FB
16.0
19.0
14.0
24.0
1«
.1
1.3 J
0.65 J
55.0
7.5 FB
3.9 J
3.0
4.7 FB
""
* *
29.0 R
91.0 R
0.27 J
0.44 J
0.22 J
OT
J
0.43 J
0.18 J
83.0
130
18.0
8.1
24
1
0.77
Oc
.5
**
*"
0.69 J
83.0 J
130.0 J
* *
21
. %
7.8
2.3
9.5
6.2
*
1.0
1.0
2.0
100.0 0
0« .
.2 J
0.4
66.0
0.1 J
5.0
o'.2 j
9.0
50.0
22.0
50.0
"
"*
22*0
*l°7
0,7
9.0
1,1 -OCA
0.4
0.5
0.6
*
120 R
210 FB
0.6
1.7
i"s
0.26 FB
3.7 J
3.0
5.2 FB
»
1.8
9.4
»
»
0*38
81.0
75.0
0.6
2.1
0?i2
»
»
0.21 J
63iO
"
0*43
1.5
6.4
"
0.3 J
0.5 J
4.0 J
» *
25.0
2*0
1*6 J
14.0 J
6.0
16.0
*"
3*6 J
16.0
«!6 j
1,1 -OCE
* *
.
-
* "
i!i
5.6
0.6
0.3
1.2
2*0
,
-
0.5
.
.
:
0.*2 J
..
-
z'.6 J
4.6 J
0*51
o!57
*
0.06 J
4.0
i!o
o'i j
0.5
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
6*6
J.2-OCE
^ m
f f
. .
» .
..
. »
4 0
8 3
f
f_
..
.
..
-
»
f
» .
i!?
.
0.8
0.57
-
1.2
1.5
2.6
..
--
..
»
0.1 J
6*7
o!i j
6*2
*
o!i j
0.6
-.
o!i j
0.7
0.09 J
NOTES; WW WOMR monitoring well
RW USEPA monitoring well
HW NPI monitoring well
J Estimated value (QA/OC criteria not within control limit!)
R Indicates initial analysis exceeded the calibration range
and was diluted and reanalyzed
FB Also detected in the field blank
BENZENE
* *
-
a
_ B
. .
- -
-
-
0.7
.
.
.
-
,
.
.
.
. .
0.06 j
..
12.0
0.3
D Value obtain*** from » 7 S» rfiii.»(«- ._.i ...._-.
-------
LOCA7TO4SOF
MONTTOFttNG AND PRIVATE
WELLS
Monitoring Well (WYf Prefix)
NPI Monitoring Well (MW Prefix)
Monitoring Well (Rw Prefix)
Production Weft (w Prefix)
A Private Well (PW Or AW Prefix)
-------
10
The contaminant intake, and thus the risk that an individual would likely
incur from exposure to an indicator chemical was estimated from the
exposure pathway by incorporating standard exposure assumptions' of a 70-kg
human and ingestion of two liters of water per day over a lifetime of 70
years.
C. TOXICTTY ASSESSMENT
Using data generated during the RI, U.S. EPA conducted a site-specific
baseline risk assessment to characterize the current threat to human health
from ingestion of contaminated groundwater. The results of the risk
assessment establish acceptable levels for the contaminants of concern in
groundwater.
Toxic substances may pose certain types of hazards to human and animal
populations. Typically, hazards to human health are expressed as
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxic effects. Carcinogenic risk,
numerically presented as an exponential factor (e.g., 1 x 10"6), is the
increased chance a person may have in contracting cancer in his or her
lifetime. For example, a 1 x 10"6 risk due to a lifetime of drinking water
that contains the contaminants of concern means that a person's chance of
contracting cancer is increased by 1 in 1 million. The U.S. EPA attempts
to reduce risks at Superfund sites to a range of 1 x 10~4 to l x lO"6
(1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1 million), with emphasis on the lower end (1 x 10"6)
of the scale. For this operable unit, a risk of 1 x 10"6 is determined to
be protective of human health and therefore appropriate considering that
contaminated groundwater is currently used for drinking water and is the
sole source of drinking water for the affected area. In addition, the risk
level established by the State of Wisconsin for contaminants for which
there is no Federal MCL is 1 x 10"6 or 1 in 1 million.
The Hazard Index is an expression of non-carcinogenic toxic effects and
measures whether a person is being exposed to adverse levels of non-
carcinogens. Any Hazard Index value greater than 1.0 suggests that a non-
carcinogen presents a potentially unacceptable toxic effect.
Based on toxicological studies, TCE and PCS are classified as Group B2 -
Probable Human Carcinogens. There is sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate evidence of carcincgenicity in
humans. 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA are classified as Group C - Probable Human
Carcinogens. There is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. The
carcinogenic potency factors for TCE, PCE, 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA are
1.1 x 10~2' 5.1 x 10~2, 6 x 10~2 and 9.1 x 10~2, respectively. Not erough
data is available to generate carcinogenic potency factors for 1,1,1-TCA
and 1,2-DCE and these compounds were excluded from the risk calculations.
However, it is noted that by entirely excluding 1,1,1-TCA and 1,2-DCE, the
risks calculated are likely underestimated.
D. SUMMARY OF RISK QiAIttCTERIZATION
Ideally each private well should be modeled over the expected exposure
duration to obtain the arithmetic mean and upper bound concentration value
-------
11
for each contaminant of concern. A calculation of risk at each well can
then be determined under the assumption that the reasonably maximally
exposed individual is drinking water only from that well. However, with
the limited sampling data, no temporal averages and upper bound
concentration values could be calculated. Therefore, the one-time samples
are assumed to be representative of the temporal average for each well and
the risks calculated are assumed to be for an average exposed individual,
and not for a maximally exposed individual as called for in the Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (12/89). This results in an
underestimation of the calculated risks.
Under current groundwater use conditions, a potential carcinogenic risk
range of 9 x 10~7 (9 in 10 million) to 7 x NT5 (7 in 100,000) was
calculated for the groundwater ingestion pathway for the combined effects
of the contaminants of concern, excluding 1,1,1-TCA and 1,2-DCE. The
potential carcinogenic risks for monitoring wells within the affected area
ranged from 2 x KT6 (2 in 1 million) to 2 x 10~4 (2 in 10,000).
Hazard Indices did not exceed 1.0 in any private or monitoring wells for
which a value was determined. The highest Hazard Index estimated for any
well was 0.2, well below the acceptable limit of 1.0.
The potential cancer risks from direct contact with VOCs in groundwater and
inhalation of VOCs during normal household use were not determined by U.S.
EPA for this operable unit remedial action. The baseline risk assessment
conducted by U.S. EPA's contractor will evaluate the potential health risks
for these exposure pathways. The additional risks from these pathways
would increase the cumulative risks associated with consumption of and
exposure to contaminated groundwater. Additional concerns are
uncertainties of past contaminant levels in private wells and potential
increased risks due to long-term exposure. The East Disposal Area dates to
the 1950s and the Melby Road Site operated between 1966 and 1969.
VTT, CESQRIFnCN OF
Based on the requirements of the Unilateral Order, NPI conducted a PFS that
identified and evaluated in detail, a number of remedial alternatives for a
permanent and safe alternate drinking water supply for the affected area.
NPI initially developed a list of nine alternatives for the permanent
replacement of drinking water supplies in the affected area. Through a
pre-screening process in which each of the nine alternatives were
evaluated with respect to effectiveness, implementability and cost, four
alternatives were eliminated from further consideration and five
alternatives were retained for the detailed analysis based on their
applicability to site conditions. A sixth alternative, sale of water from
the City of Eau Claire to Hallie Sanitary District No. 1 (District) , was
one of the alternatives dropped from further consideration even though it
is cost effective and easily constructed. The City of Eau Claire has
steadfastly refused to sell water to nonresidents, including residents in
the affected area whose drinking water is presently contaminated. Eau
-------
12
Claire has a municipal ordinance prohibiting connection to municipal
services unless the property annexes to the City. Diis prerequisite of
annexation precluded ijnplementation of this alternative and eliminated it
from further consideration. However, during the public comment period, the
City of Eau Claire granted an exception to its municipal ordinance and
proposed to retail water to individual customers within the affected area
without requiring annexation. The City's proposal was subsequently
formalized in a resolution adopted by the Eau Claire City Council on
February 13, 1990, and is identified as Alternative 6.
Alternatives 1 through 6 are summarized below. Alternatives 1 through 5
are discussed in detail in the PFS. Detailed information on Alternative 6
is presented in Eau Claire's March 1, 1990 submittal during the public
comment period, which is part of the Administrative Record for the Site.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Under this alternative, no further action would take place at the Site.
Individual private wells would continue as the source of drinking water for
the affected area. Selected wells would be sampled semiannually for VDC
analysis. U.S. EPA policy requires consideration of the No Action
Alternative to serve as a basis for comparing the other alternatives. The
monitoring costs associated with this alternative are estimated at $23,500
per year.
Alternative 2 - Hallie Sanitary District with Eau Claire Supply for the
Areas Annexed by the City of Eau Claire
Under this alternative, a permanent water supply for the affected area
would be provided by two independent water distribution systems. The
District would construct a supply well, distribution system and storage
facilities to provide drinking water to the businesses and residences
within the affected area that are part of the District. The City of Eau
Claire would extend municipal water service to those residences and
businesses within the affected area that have successfully annexed to the
City. The connection to Eau Claire would be made at Melby Road,
immediately east of U.S. Highway 53, where the City has an existing 12-inch
diameter water main.
All systan components would meet American Water Works Association (AWWA)
specifications. Design specifications for the respective systems will
require approval by WDNR Bureau of Water Supply to insure compliance with
applicable state codes. Each system will also comply with the respective
codes of the District and City of Eau Claire, including minimum design
requirements for fire protection.
All existing wells would be closed and abandoned in accordance with WDNR
well abandonment requirements. Individual well owners could seek a
variance to well abandonment by demonstrating a need for continued use of
the well for non-human consumption, subject to any restrictions by the
local governing body. The well would also be inspected by WDNR to ensure
that the well complies with state construction codes.
-------
13
Several cost estimates were prepared for comparison purposes. NPI's cost
estimates in the PFS were prepared by a local engineering firm familiar
with state and local requirements for a municipal water system. NPI
estimated construction costs at just over $2 million and $521,780 for the
District and Eau Claire, respectively. These estimates were based on the
assumption that Eau Claire would service those portions of the affected
area that had annexed to Eau Claire at the time the PFS was prepared and
independent of federal involvement. Nell closure and abandonment adds
approximately $107,000 to the remedial action costs for a total projected
cost of $2.6 million.
An engineering firm contracted by the District, estimated construction
costs of approximately $2.1 million for a distribution system that would
service the entire affected area. An additional $226,000 was provided for
design-related activities. With well abandonment and closure costs of
approximately $107,000, the estimated total remedial action costs are $2.4
million.
Yearly operation and raintenance cost estimates vary considerably and range
from the District's estimate of $48,200 to NPI's estimate of $120,000. The
Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) established a yearly revenue
requirement of approximately $80,000 for the District which probably
represents the most accurate operation and maintenance cost estimate.
Approximately $10,000 are added to the operation and maintenance costs for
monitoring private wells immediately outside the affected area that are
still used for drinking water.
Final remedial action costs will be determined by the size of the
respective District and Eau Claire service areas and the extent of
duplication of construction required to implement this alternative. For
comparison purposes, the minimum remedial action cost estimate presented
below assumes 100 percent of the services will be provided by the District
and the Tnayijnm estimate is based on the assumptions and conditions
presented in the Proposed Plan. Increasing the size of Eau Claire's
service area through annexations within the affected area will increase the
total remedial action costs.
Estimated Remedial Action Costs $2.4-2.6 million
Estimated Annual O&M Costs $90,000
Estimated Time to Completion
of Remedial Action (Minimum) 15 Months
Estimated 10 Year Present Worth $3.0-3.2 million
Followed by Extension of Municipal Water to the Affected Area
Under this alternative, the entire affected area would annex to the City of
Eau Claire. Eau Claire would then extend its municipal system to service
the affected area. It is assumed that the point of connection would be at
Melby Road as discussed under Alternative 2. Construction of the
distribution system would comply with municipal codes and AWWA
specifications. The WCNR Bureau of Water Supply must approve the design
-------
14
to ensure the proposed system meets the minimum cSesign criteria'established
by state code, including fire protection. As with Alternative 3, all
existing wells would be closed and abandoned in accordance with WENR well
abandonment requirements.
Estimated construction costs and annual operation and maintenance costs
were prepared by NPI. The estimated cost of implementing this alternative
is $1.6 million. The operation and maintenance costs were estimated using
the 1989 operation and maintenance costs for the Eau Claire water utility.
The costs were calculated based on the average per user cost and projected
to the number of services in the affected area. The estimated operation
and maintenance costs for Alternative 3 are $41,000, which includes $10,000
for monitoring private wells immediately outside the affected area.
Estimated Remedial Action Costs
Estimated Annual O&M Costs
Estimated Time to Completion
of Remedial Action (Minimum)
Estimated 10 Year Present Worth
$1.7 million
$41,000
15 Months
$2.0 million
Treatment Systems
Under this alternative, individual granular activated carbon (GAC) units
would be installed on each residential and cxmnercial water supply well to
remove VDCs prior to use within the home or business. The activated
carbon, through proper maintenance, would efficiently remove TOCs through
adsorption.
The system would consist of two carbon filters connected in series with
piping, valves, sampling taps and pressure gauges. The primary filter is
designed to remove the majority of TOCs and the secondary filter provides
polishing. A filter after the polishing removes carbon fines.
A GAC treatment unit would be installed on the existing water supply line
downstream of the well water pressurization tank and prior to entry into
the household plumbing system. The treatment system will be a whole house
treatment system.
The selected GAC treatment unit requires approval from the Wisconsin
Department of Industry, labor and Human Relations (DIIHR) to ensure that
the treatment device is acceptable for the intended use. Additionally,
WENR's Bureau of Water Supply-Private Water Supply Section must approve the
DIIHR-approved unit for each home and business.
The estimated cost of providing individual carbon treatment systems to
residences and businesses in the affected area is $417,300. Annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $248,000, including the
costs of monitoring.
-------
15
Estimated Remedial Action Costs $417,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs $248,000
Estimated Time to Completion
of Remedial Action (Minimum) 9-12 months
Estimated 10 Year Present Worth $1.9 million
Alternative 5 - Replacement of Private Wells
Under this alternative, existing shallow wells in the affected area would
be closed and abandoned pursuant to WCNR requirements, and new veils would
be installed in the underlying granite bedrock aquifer. New individual
wells would be drilled in the bedrock to depths of approximately 300 feet
and developed by "hydrof racking" in order to improve yield. The wells
would be drilled adjacent to existing wells where practical and cased into
the bedrock.
Wells would be test pumped to ensure they could deliver flow equal to the
existing well flow. If necessary, "hydrofracking" would continue until the
new well produced the required flow rate. The new well would be equipped
with a submersible pump and if necessary, modifications to individual home
plumbing systems would be made to accommodate the new well.
The costs associated with individual well replacements are estimated at
$2.4 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at
$321,000 because of the frequent VOC monitoring which would be required to
ensure that contamination is not migrating to the deeper wells.
Estimated Rpmprlial Action Costs $2.4 million
Estimated Annual O&M Costs $321,000
Estimated Time to Completion 2 years
of Remedial Action (Minimum)
Estimated 10 Year Present Worth $4.4 million
Alternative 6 - Eau Claire Water Supply to the Affected Area Without
Requiring Annexation by Residences and Businesses
With the exception of the elimination of annexation by the entire affected
area as a prerequisite to water service, this alternative is identical to
Alternative 3. Businesses and residences that choose to remain in the Town
of Kallie would not have to annex and would receive municipal water from
Eau Claire on the same schedule as those who previously annexed.
Annexation by businesses and residences within the affected area would
continue to be on a voluntary basis and not impact their ability to receive
water from Eau Claire. All annexations are subject to municipal and state
law governing annexation.
As with Alternative 3, the water system would comply with municipal
and AWWA specifications. All existing private wells in the affected area
would be closed and abandoned in accordance with WCNR well abandonment
requirements. The estimated cost of implementing this alternative,
including provisions for fire protection, is $1.6 million. Annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $41,000. As in
-------
16
Alternatives 2 and 3, approximately $10,000 of the operation and
maintenance costs are for monitoring private wells outside the affected
area that still serve as a drinking water supply.
Estimated Remedial Action Costs $1.7 million
Estimated Annual O&M Costs $41,000
Estimated Time to Completion 9-12 months
of Remedial Action (Minimum)
Estimated 10 Year Present Worth $2.0 million
VIH. SUWARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP
Alternatives were evaluated against each other to determine the most
appropriate alternative for a permanent and safe alternate drinking water
supply for the affected area that is protective of human health, attains
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), is cost
effective and represents the best balance among the evaluating criteria.
Comparisons are based on the nine criteria, as determined to be applicable
to this operable unit, outlined in the National Contingency Plan (Section
300.430(e) (9) (iii) and Section 121 of CERCIA, as aiwrted (Clean-up
Standards).
A.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether a
remedy eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to human health and the
environment.
All replacement water supply alternatives, with the exception of the No
Action Alternative, achieve overall protection of human health by
eliminating exposure to and consumption of contaminated groundwater;
however, there are differences in the measures required to maintain and
guarantee continued protection. Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 are equally the
most reliable because they offer a proven and dependable method for
providing drinking water to the affected area. Central distribution
systems have built-in sampling and treatment safeguards to ensure that
drinking water quality continues to meet applicable Federal and State
standards.
There are uncertainties associated with Alternatives 4 and 5 which result
in higher operation and maintenance costs for these alternatives.
Alternative 4 requires a monitoring and maintenance program by qualified
personnel to ensure proper operation of the treatment units. Filters have
to be replaced periodically and sampling on a regular schedule is required
to verify effective removal of contaminants. Under Alternative 5, bedrock
replacement wells would presumably draw from a deeper and uncontaminated
aquifer; however, a sampling and analysis program will be required to
monitor the quality of the bedrock aquifer. Well replacement techniques
-------
17
could potentially create pathways for contaminant movement fron the sand
and gravel aquifer to the bedrock aquifer.
The No Action Alternative does not provide for the protection of public
health because the consumption of contaminated groundwater would continue.
Furthermore, until on-site source areas are remediated, the release of
contaminants to the environment will also continue.
Due to the limited scope of this operable unit, it only provides for the
protection of public health. Protection of the environment will be
achieved by future operable unit(s) that actress treatment of contaminated
groundwater and remediation of on-site source areas.
2. Ocrpliance with Appli<^ble or Relevant and Appropriate Reep" reroents
(ARARsl
This criterion evaluates whether an alternative meets applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements set forth in Federal or more
stringent State laws or environmental standards pertaining to the remedial
action.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will meet all Federal and State ARARs and
other requirements and regulations which are sumnarized in Table 3 for the
respective alternatives. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), consunption of
groundwater containing VOCs at concentrations above Federal Mds, Wisconsin
MR 140 groundwater standards and health-based risk levels would continue.
B. PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion evaluates the ability of an alternative to naintain
protection of human health and the environment along with the degree of
certainty that the alternative will prove successful.
As central distribution systems, Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 are reliable and
proven methods of providing a permanent drinking water supply. Monitoring
safeguards ensure that the drinking water quality continues to meet Federal
and State standards.
Alternative 4, individual GAG treatment units, is also a proven and
reliable method for providing a safe drinking water supply; however, due to
the number of treatment units required to service the affected area and the
availability of a central distribution system, this alternative does not
meet the remedial action objective of providing a permanent drinking water
supply. Long-terra effectiveness is also contingent upon unrestricted full
access to each treatment unit for required maintenance and monitoring by
qualified personnel.
There are several uncertainties associated with Alternative 5, individual
well replacement. It is not known if bedrock wells will be able to provide
adequate short-term or long-term flow rates for business and residential
-------
TABLE 3
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND REGUIATIONS
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
40 CFR 141
National Primary
Drinking Water
Standards
Enforceable numerical standards for
public water supplies. Of particular
interest are the MCLs for identified
VDCs of concern
All
Alternatives
NR 140 KAC
Groundwater
Quality1
NR 109 KAC
Safe Drinking
Water
FEDERAL
29 CFR 1910
Protection of
Hazardous Waste
Site Workers
STATE
CH 160 Wis. Stats.
Groundwater
Protection
Standards1
Establishes numerical standards for
concentrations of substances in
groundwater. Ranges of response are
required for preventive action limit (PALs)
or enforcement standards (ES) exceedences.
Establishes drinking water standards for
public water supplies.
ACTION-SPECIFIC
All
Alternatives
Establishes requirements for training,
protective equipment, waste handling,
personnel monitoring and emergency
procedures for hazardous waste site
workers.
Alternative 5
Establishes an administrative process
which produces numerical standards comprised
of ES and PALs for substances in groundwater
Provides for minimizing the concentrations of
substances in groundwater and development
of sampling programs to monitor substances
in groundwater.
1 This operable unit only provides for a replacement drinking water supply,
and does not address groundwater remediation or establish clean-up levels or
goals for substances in groundwater. Therefore, CH 160 Wise. Stats, and NR 140
are not ARARs for this operable unit; however, they do serve as a basis for
this remedial action.
-------
TABLE 3 CONTINUED
ARAR/RECUIREMENT/REGULATIQN
SUBJECT
APPLICATION
STATE
NR 108 WAC
Requirements for
Suhmittal of Plans
and Specifications
NR 111 WAC
Requirements for
Operation and
Design of Community
Water Systems
NR 112 WAC
Well Construction
and Pump
Installation2
ILHR 81-84 WAC
State Plumbing
Code
ILHR 50-53 WAC
State Building
Code
IND 1 WAC
General Industrial
Safety
Ind 6 WAC
Industrial Safety
For Trenches and
Excavations
Governs the submission of plans and
specifications and general operation
and control of a ocnrunity water
system.
Governs the general operation, design
and construction of community water
systems. Establishes minimum standards
for new facilities and the upgrading of
existing facilities when improvements
are undertaken.
Establishes minimum standards and
methods for procuring and protecting
an adequate supply of groundwater for
new and existing private water supplies,
except those for community water systems
serving 15 or more living units.
Design, construction and materials for
piping, plumbing and sewer connections
must comply with requirements. State
review and approval is required.
Design and construction of structures
roust comply with requirements.
Construction and operation must
comply with safety requirements.
Construction must comply with
safety requirements
Alternatives
2, 3 & 6
Alternatives
2, 3 and 6
Alternative 5
Alternative 4
Alternative 2
All
Alternatives
except 1
Alternatives
2, 3 and 6
2 NR 112 WAC is being repealed and recreated. The new NR 112 has been passed
by the WCNR Board and the State legislature and has an anticipated effective
date of January 1, 1991.
-------
TABLE 3 CONTINUED
APPLICATION
LOCAL
Pules and Pro-
cedures for
Sanitary District
No. 1, Town of
Hallie, Section 4
City of Eau Claire
Municipal Code:
Title 14,
Chapter 14.08,
Section 150(B)
Water Main
Installation
in Platted Subdiv.
Establishes requirements for fire
protection, including hydrants,
consistent with appropriate standards
for efficient fire protection.
This subsection governs the development
of plans for the extension of mains
together with the installation of
of service laterals and hydrants
required to adequately serve the area
and provide public fire protection as it
pertains to public fire protection
service requirements.
Alternative 2
Alternatives
2, 3 and 6
-------
18
use. In addition, the potential exists for contamination to be drawn into
the bedrock aquifer via pumping from the upper sand and gravel aquifer.
The No Action Alternative offers no long-term effectiveness and permanence
as private well users would continue to use the contaminated sand and
gravel aquifer for drinking water.
4. Deduction of Toxjgjty, f«cbility or Volume through Treatment
This criterion evaluates treatment technology performance in the reduction
of contaminant toxicity, mobility or volume.
As an operable unit for a replacement water supply only, this remedial
action does not address groundwater or source remediation. The ability of
the selected remedy to achieve a reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume
of contaminants was not a factor in the remedy selection process.
5. Short
Short-term effectiveness is assessed through risks to site workers, the
community and the environment during construction of the remedial action,
and the length of time before the remedial action can be implemented.
The estimated time for design and construction for Alternatives 2 through 6
vary; however, until a permanent alternate water supply is available to the
affected area, the bottled water program will continue. Regulatory
requirements and administrative review of design and system specifications
will impact the construction schedule for all alternatives, with the
exception of the No Action Alternative which can be implemented immediately
but provides no short-term effectiveness.
Under Alternative 4, the estimated time to complete installation of the GAC
treatment units is six months; however, as previously indicated, this
alternative is not a permanent remedial action. In addition, before
installation can begirt, the specific treatment unit must be approved by the
Bureau of Plumbing within DHHR. Prior to implementation, WCNR's Bureau of
Water Supply must approve the GAC treatment unit for each individual home
and business. This review areS approval process could take significant time
given the number of treatment units required to service the affected area
and lengthen the implementation schedule.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 will require similar implementation timeframes with
variability generally attributed to system design, review and approval by
appropriate State agencies. Before construction can begin, Alternatives 2,
3 and 6 will require approval from WCNR's Bureau of Water Supply to make
sure that the proposed system meets the State's minimum design standards.
Service by the District (Alternative 2) will also require a public hearing
by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for the purpose of establishing a
rate structure.
The minimum time for implementation of Alternative 2 is 12-16 months.
Construction may take longer for this alternative due to service
duplication and the construction of a well and storage facilities for the
-------
19
District. Under Altentative 3, annexation of the entire affected area is a
prerequisite to implementation and the miniman estimated time to
completion is 15 months, depending on the annexation process. The City of
Eau Claire's estimated time for implementation of Alternative 6 'is nine
months following the availability of funds, including the necessary review
of plans by State agencies. The estimated time to complete construction of
Alternative 5 for the entire affected area is two years and assumes
continuous equipment availability.
None of the alternatives present a significant threat to the community or
to labor during construction. Construction activities associated with
Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 would not encounter any groundwater or expected
areas of contamination. Workers would be subject to the normal and
customary risks associated with construction, pipelaying and associated
activities, and would be expected to follow standard safety practices. For
Alternative 5, well drillers would be required to comply with the
protection levels and safety measures specified in the approved Health and
Safety Plan. For Alternative 4, workers would be subject to the normal
risks associated with the installation of a GAC treatment unit and would
follow standard safety practices.
6. Impl ementr«bil ity
This criterion considers the technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing an alternative.
The No Action Alternative is easily implemented with no administrative or
jurisdictional issues as residents and businesses would resume using their
private wells for drinking water. With respect to the other alternatives,
implementability in conjunction with ccrcunity acceptance are the key
criteria in the selection of the final remedy.
The technologies associated with Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 6 are proven and
reliable, and the systems are easily constructed and operated. The
technology for Alternative 5 is demonstrated, but not under site-specific
conditions.
The selected remedy, Alternative 2, is an annexation-neutral solution
offering the most implementable alternative that accommodates the
preferences of businesses and residences within the affected area and many
members of the general public. It is recognized by U.S. EPA and WCNR that
any outstanding or future jurisdictional disputes between the City of Eau
Claire and the Town of Hal lie regarding the legality of annexations or the
PSC Order may affect the implementation schedule for portions of the
selected remedy.
Construction of Alternatives 3 and 6 are easily accomplished due to the
proximity of the Eau Claire system: however, successful implementation is
largely dependent upon camunity acceptance. Annexation of the entire
affected area is a prerequisite to construction and implementation of
Alternative 3. Annexation appears to be unacceptable to Town of Hallie
residents and renders this alternative uniirplementable.
-------
20
Alternative 6 eliminates the requirement for annexation, but is also
uninplementable because of the PSC decision which authorizes the District
to service those portions of the affected area under its jurisdiction. In
response to an inquiry from the PSC, Eau Claire declined to b£ the
provider of water utility service throughout the entire geographic area of
the District on an essentially equivalent basis as the District proposes
without requiring annexation. Although the entire geographic area of the
District encatrpasses a much larger area than the affected area, the
unwillingness of Eau Claire to provide water service to the expanded
District also precludes Eau Claire from servicing the affected area. Eau
Claire has not received the necessary authorization from the PSC to
construct and operate a water distribution system in the Town of Hallie.
Furthennore, Town of Hallie elected officials voiced strong opposition to
any alternative involving Eau Claire. Based on research conducted by U.S.
EPA and WENR, it was determined that such opposition may jeopardize the
ability to implement Alternative 6, even with PSC approval of Eau Claire's
proposal.
There are also significant implementability issues with Alternatives 4 and
5. For Alternative 4, this technology is generally applied to a limited
number of users in areas not easily accessed by a central distribution
system. The GAC titsatment units require approval from DILHR and the
Private Water Supply Section within WCNR's Bureau of Water Supply.
Provisions must be arranged with each user for access to the treatment
units for required maintenance and monitoring. Comunity acceptance is
also a factor limiting the implementability of this alternative.
Alternative 5, individual well replacements, can be implemented immediately
and individual residences and businesses can be connected as the wells are
installed. Again, ccrnnunity acceptance is a limiting factor in the
inplementability of this alternative.
7. Cost
This criterion compares the remedial action or capital costs, operation and
maintenance costs and present worth costs of implementing the various
alternatives at the Site.
Cost comparisons of the alternatives are based on either estimated remedial
action cost or present worth cost, depending on the alternative. Under
Alternatives 2, 3 and 6, operation and maintenance costs will be the
responsibility of the water system users through water bills. For this
reason, the present worth costs are not an accurate basis for comparing
these alternatives. Operation and maintenance costs for Alternatives 4 and
5 will be the responsibility of the party funding the remedial action (U.S.
EPA or responsible party) and are therefore factored into the comparative
analysis.
With the above information in mind, the most costly alternative is
Alternative 5, replacement of private wells, with a 10-year present worth
value projected at $4.4 million. This is due to the high operation and
maintenance costs of approximately $321,000 to go along with implementation
-------
21
costs of $2.4 million. There are also significant uncertainties associated
with this alternative which are reflected in the high operation-and
maintenance costs.
The second most costly alternative is the selected remedy, Alternative 2.
The minimum remedial action costs of $2.4 million assumes 100 percent of
the affected area will be serviced by the District. Annual operation and
maintenance costs are approximately $90,000 ($80,000 for the District and
$10,000 for monitoring private wells immediately outside the District that
are still in use). The maxim m remedial cost estimate of $2.6 million
assumes the same conditions presented in the Proposed Plan and accounts for
construction duplication necessary to service the areas that annexed to Eau
Claire. Additional annexations requiring service from Eau Claire will
cause additional increases in the total remedial action costs and decrease
operation and maintenance costs for Alternative 2. Well closure and
abandonment accounts for approximately $100,000 of the total remedial
action cost and will not vary with the size of the respective service
areas.
It is noted that remedial action costs may increase with further
annexations of the affected area by Eau Claire. These actions by Eau
Claire appear to foster the very same type of "unorderly development" which
Eau Claire accused the District of in its expansion beyond the affected
area.
Alternatives 3 and 6 have identical costs as the only difference between
them is annexation. Implementation costs are estimated at $1.7 million
with annual operation and maijTtenance costs of approximately $41,000 and a
10-year present worth value of $2 million. Alternatives 3 and 6 provide
the same services as the selected remedy; however, the lower implementation
costs are attributed to an existing system with adequate supply and storage
facilities already in place. The selected remedy is a new system requiring
installation of a well, and the construction of storage facilities and
water mains from the well to the service area. There is also no need for
service duplication under Alternatives 3 and 6. Operation and maintenance
costs are significantly lover because service is provided by an established
system with a larger customer base.
With the exception of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 4 has the
lowest implementation costs, approximately $417,000. However, the high
operation and maintenance costs of approximately $248,000 maJce the 10-year
present worth value $1.9 million. High operation and maintenance costs are
necessary for required maintenance of the GAC treatment units and the
necessary monitoring to ensure effectiveness of treatment. This
alternative was eliminated fron consideration because it does not offer
permanence, is discouraged by WCNR's Bureau of Public Water Supply and
suffers significant access problems for proper maintenance of the treatment
units by qualified personnel.
-------
22
C. MDDIFYING CRITERIA
8.
The State of Wisconsin has been an active and supporting participant In the
remedial process for this Site. The State is a signatory to the RI/FS
Consent Order with NPI and supported U.S. EPA's decision to issue a
Unilateral Order to NPT in April 1989, to address private well
contamination in the Town of Hal lie. The State of Wisconsin concurs with
the selected operable unit remedial action for a permanent and safe
alternate water supply for the affected area in the Town of Hal lie. The
State does not support Alternatives 4 or 5 because of implementation issues
and neither alternative provides long-term effectiveness and permanence.
9. Qonmunity Acceptance
A replacement water supply directly impacts a community and feedback from
residents and businesses is an important element in the selection of the
final remedy. Because of ccranunity interest and the nature of this
operable unit, the public comment period ran for 60 days, from January 3,
1990 through March 4, 1990. The initial 45-day ccranent period was extended
15 days to provide the public additional time to comment on Eau Claire's
proposal to extend municipal water without requiring annexation and to
acccnmodate the February 19, 1990 PSC hearing. Information compiled as
part of the PSC's record was subsequently incorporated into U.S. EPA's
administrative record for the Site and included oral and written testimony
and Garments submitted during the PSC hearing.
A large majority of citizens submitting caanents indicated support for U.S.
EPA's preferred alternative. Of the 57 affected area residents and
businesses submitting cccments to U.S. EPA or appearing before the PSC
hearing, 38 (66.7 percent) supported the U.S. EPA's preferred alternative.
Thirty-six of the 46 (78.3 percent) comments received from residences and
businesses outside the affected area also supported the preferred
alternative. A minority of residents and businesses within the affected
area, and to a lesser degree in the surrounding community, either opposed
the preferred alternative or supported other alternatives. Of the 57
affected area comments, 16 (28.1 percent) opposed the preferred
alternative or supported one of the other alternatives, and 3 (5.2 percent)
did not indicate a preference. Of the 46 comments from outside the
affected area, 7 (15.2 percent) opposed the preferred alternative or
supported another alternative. Three (6.5 percent) did not indicate a
preference.
Numerous residents have voiced concern about the decline in property values
in the affected area because of the groundwater contamination and media
exposure. Real estate values were not a factor in selecting a final
remedy, although it is U.S. EPA's belief that a commmity-accepted drinking
water supply will help restore depressed property values.
-------
23
The PSC also recognized the importance of community acceptance and
the Order authorizing the District as the water utility to provide drinking
water to the majority of the affected area.
As part of the ROD, the Responsiveness Summary presents background
information on community involvement and categorizes the public comments
received during the public cement period and U.S. EPA's responses to the
merits*
D. SUMMARY OF COMPARISON
As an operable unit for a replacement drinking water supply, protection of
the environment and reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume were not
part of the comparative analysis. Future operable units will address
protection of the environment by source control and groundwater
remediation. Any reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants
is only incidental and not a specific component or objective of this
remedial action.
Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the bottled water would be
discontinued and residences and businesses would resume using their private
wells as the source of drinking water. Given the conditions at the Site
and the contaminants of concern, the No Action Alternative is not
consistent with the remedial action objective of providing a permanent and
alternate water supply to the affected area that protects human health. It
does not satisfy the Threshold Criteria of protection of human health and
compliance with ARARs.
Alternative 4, individual GAC treatment units, has the lowest construction
costs; however, this alternative does not offer the degree of permanence to
satisfy the remedial action objective and is eliminated from further
consideration. There are also significant implementability and community
acceptance issues associated with this alternative.
Alternative 5 was also eliminated from further consideration because of
uncertainties in its ability to provide a long-term and reliable source of
drinking water. In addition to high construction costs, operation and
maintenance costs are high which reflect the extensive monitoring required.
Again, implementability and community acceptance are key criteria limiting
its applicability.
The remaining alternatives; combination Kallie Sanitary District and City
of Eau Claire (Alternative 2), City of Eau Claire with annexation
(Alternative 3), and City of Eau Claire without annexation (Alternative 6)
offer equal protection of public health, and long-term effectiveness and
permanence. The annexation component of Alternative 3 and the absence of
PSC approval for Alternative 6 render both alternatives unimplementable.
For discussion purposes only and assuming Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 were
implementable, there are slight differences in construction timetables due
to legal and administrative requirements. Assuming there are no additional
jurisdictional disputes between Kallie and Eau Claire over the service
-------
24
area, and timely review and approval of system design is provided by
appropriate state agencies, Alternative 6 could probably be implemented
more quickly due to ease of construction. Alternatives 2 and 3 will likely
have similar implementation schedules. Although more construction is
required for Alternative 2, it is expected this would be more than offset
by the time required for the affected area to annex to Eau Claire before
construction could begin.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 will ccnply with ARARs by providing a water supply
that meets Federal and State drinking water standards. State and local
codes will govern design specifications, the review and approval process,
and construction of the water systems.
The selected remedy, Alternative 2, is the most costly alternative with
estimated remedial action or implementation costs of $2.4-2.6 million,
annual operation and maintenance costs of approximately $90,000 and a
10-year present worth value of $3-3.2 million. Alternatives 3 and 6 have
identical implementation costs of approximately $1.7 million, annual
operation and maintenance costs of $41,000 and 10-year present worth values
of $2 million. The higher costs associated with Alternative 2 can be
attributed to the construction of new facilities: production well,
reservoir, pump house, etc.; and the duplication of services within the
affected area due to annexations to Eau Claire. Operation and maintenance
costs of the selected remedy are also higher than those for Alternatives 3
and 6 but were not a factor in selecting the final remedy.
Community acceptance and implementability were the primary criteria
supporting the preferred alternative and similarly the selection of the
operable unit remedy. Comments received during the public comment period
indicated strong support from the preferred remedy. The prerequisite of
annexation jeopardizes the ability to ijiplement Alternative 3. Alternative
6 is not implementable because the City of Eau Claire does not have
authority from the PSC to service those portions of the affected area
outside its municipal boundaries with drinking water. Alternative 2
recognizes the preferences of businesses and residences who chose to annex
to and receive services from Eau Claire. For the above reasons,
Alternative 2 is selected as the final remedy with U.S. EPA and WDNR
believing it to be the only implementable alternative.
DC. THE SELEL'ivi^ REMEDE
Public Service Commission Order 2428-CW-100 dated June 14, 1990, grants
authority for Town of Hallie Sanitary District to construct water supply
facilities and operate as a water public utility. Based on the PSC Order
and the fact that portions of the affected area have annexed to the City of
Eau Claire, the selected remedy is Alternative 2, Hallie Sanitary District
No. 1 with Eau Claire supply for the areas annexed by the City. The major
components of the selected remedy are:
* construction of a well field, storage facilities and distribution
system to service businesses and residences within the affected
-------
25
area that are part of the District;
* extension of municipal water service from the City of Eau Claire to
businesses and residences within the affected area that have
annexed to Eau Claire:
* closure and abandonment of all existing private wells within the
affected area that are finished in the contaminated aquifer; and
* annual monitoring of U.S. EPA and WENR-designated private wells
immediately outside the affected area that are still used as a
drinking water supply to ensure continued quality of drinking water
and monitor potential migration of the contaminant plume.
For the District portion of the selected remedy, the PSC Order specifies
the following conditions:
1. That prior to construction, plans and specifications be submitted
to, and approved by, the WCNR for all items included in this
project.
2. That a tabulation of the bids received, with a notation of the bids
accepted, shall be submitted to the PSC.
3. That initial rates be prescribed at a later date in a separate
docket. The utility shall notify the PSC approximately six months
prior to commencement of service, requesting that a hearing be
scheduled to establish equitable rates for water service.
4. That upon completion of the project, the date the facilities are
placed in service and final costs segregated by plant accounts,
shall be submitted to the PSC.
5. That the certificate issued herein is valid only if construction is
started within one year of the date hereof.
6. That jurisdiction is retained.
The Eau Claire component will also require WCNR approval of the system
design and specifications before municipal water service can be extended
into the affected area.
All existing wells within the affected area will be closed and abandoned in
accordance with WCNR well abandonment requirements. Individual well owners
may seek a variance to well abandonment by demonstrating a need for
continued use of the well for non-human consumption, subject to any
restrictions inposed by the Town of Hal lie or City of Eau Claire, depending
on the location of the private well. The private well would require
inspection by the WCNR to make sure the well complies with State
construction codes.
-------
26
Private wells immediately outside the affected area that remain as a source
of drinking water will be sampled semi-annually to monitor groundwater
quality and the potential for movement of the contamination plume beyond
the affected area. These wells will be designated by U.S. EPA and WCNR.
The projected remedial action costs for the selected remedy are $2.6
million and are broken down as follows:
* $2 million for the District to service businesses and residences
in the affected area that are also part of the District;
* $500,000 for Eau Claire to service businesses and residences in the
affected area that have annexed to Eau Claire; and
* $107,000 for closure and abandonment of private wells in the
affected area.
Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $90,000 and include
approximately $10,000 for monitoring private wells immediately outside the
affected area that continue to be used for drinking water.
The respective cost estijnates for the District and Eau Claire portions
of the selected remedy are based on conditions and assumptions presented in
the Proposed Plan issued on January 4, 1990, and included in the
Administrative Record.
The selected remedy accommodates the preferences of residences and
businesses in the affected area who have annexed to Eau Claire. U.S. EPA
recognizes that the most cost-effective remedy is the District, as
authorized by the PSC, to provide drinking water to the entire affected
area. Duplication of services and associated cost increases are the result
of annexations by the City of Eau Claire and ultimately burdens the
funding party(ies) with unnecessary costs.
U.S.EPA's and WCNR's primary goal has been and continues to be to provide a
permanent and safe alternate drinking water supply to the affected area.
Under the circumstances, the selected remedy is the only implementable
alternative.
x.
Under its legal authorities, U.S. EPA's primary responsiMlity at Superfund
Sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of
human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCtA
establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences. These
specify that when complete, the selected remedial action must comply with
ARARs under Federal and State environmental laws, unless a statutory waiver
is justified. The selected remedy must also be cost effective and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute
includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently
-------
27
and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants. The following sections
how the selected remedy, where applicable, meets the statutory requirements
and preferences.
A. PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEMJ
The selected remedy provides for protection of human health by eliminating
consumption of and exposure to contaminated groundwater within the affected
area. As a public water supply system, the selected remedy is a proven and
reliable method of providing a permanent and safe drinking water supply
through required treatment and monitoring. An element of the selected
remedy is long-term monitoring of private wells limediately outside the
affected area that continue to be used for drinking water.
The remedial objective of this operable unit is protection of human health
only. Protection of the environment will be achieved by future operable
units that address remediation of contaminated groundwater and on-site
sources of contamination.
f ARARs)
The selected remedy will comply with all identified Federal ARARs and more
stringent State laws, including local codes governing the design and
construction of community water systems. Table 3 summarizes the ARARs that
will be met by the selected remedy. This operable unit only provides for a
replacement drinking water supply and does not address groundwater
remediation or establish clean-up levels or goals for substances in
groundwater. Therefore, NR 140 WAC and CH 160 Wis. Stats, are not ARARs
for this operable unit; however, they do serve as a basis for this remedial
action. All ARARs identified for the selected remedy are applicable. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions do
not apply to this operable unit remedial action.
C. POST £
Based on the PSC Order which authorizes the District to construct and
operate as a water district utility, the selected remedy is the only
implementable alternative. Service to the entire affected area can be
accomplished most efficiently and at lower cost by the District; however,
the remedy provides for Eau Claire to service businesses and residences
which have annexed to Eau Claire. The duplication of services necessary to
implement the Eau Claire portion of the selected portion of the selected
remedy increases the total remedial action costs.
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
U.S. EPA and the State of Wisconsin have determined that the selected
remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions can be
utilized in the most cost-effective manner to address private well
-------
28
contamination in the affected area. Of the alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with APARs, U.S.
EPA and the State have determined that the selected remedy provides the
best balance of tradeoff in terms of long-term effectiveness and
permanence, short-term effectiveness, inplementability, cost, and
consideration of State and conrunity acceptance.
This operable unit does not address the reduction in toxicity, mobility or
volume achieved through treatment. Future operable unit(s) will
specifically address the remediation of on-site sources and contaminated
soils and groundwater with respect to applicable statutory requirements.
E. FRJ^-mENCE FOR TREA3MEOT
As a replacement water supply for the affected area, this operable unit
does not address the preference for treatment. This statutory preference
will be evaluated in future operable units that specifically address
contamination at the Site.
-------
A. OVfcKV.LLW
This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to meet the requirements of
Sections 113 (k) (2) (B) (iv) and 117 (b) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCXA), which
requires the United States Environmental Agency (U.S. EPA) to respond
"...to each of the significant Garments, criticisms, and new data submitted
in written or oral presentations" on a Proposed Plan for remedial action.
This Responsiveness Sunmary addresses concerns expressed by the public,
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and governmental bodies in the
written and oral comments received by U.S. EPA on the preferred remedy for
a permanent alternate water supply for the affected area in the Town of
Hallie.
At the time of the public comment period, U.S. EPA recommended an
alternative for the National Presto Industries, Inc. (NPI) Superfund Site
(Site) in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. This alternative addressed the
groundwater contamination of private drinking water wells near the Site in
what is defined as the "affected area." The preferred alternative, as
specified in the Proposed Plan, involved two independent water distribution
systems to provide a permanent water supply for the affected area, Hallie
Sanitary District No. 1 (District) and the City of Eau Claire. In
addition, existing wells would be closed and abandoned pursuant to State
requirements. Private well owners could request a variance from the State
whereby they would be permitted to use their wells for non-human
consumption, unless otherwise directed by the local governing body.
Judging from the comments received during the public comment period, the
selected remedy specified in the Record of Decision (ROD) is supported by
residents of the affected area, residents of the Town of Hallie and the
Hallie Town Board. The Wisconsin Deparbnent of Natural Resources (WENR)
also concurs with the selected remedy. A large majority of citizens
submitting comments indicated support for the preferred alternative. Of
the 57 affected area residents submitting oonnents, including those made
orally at U.S. EPA's public meeting on January 18, 1990 or appearing before
the Public Service Commission (PSC) of Wisconsin hearing on February 19,
1990 regarding the proposed District, 38 (66.7 percent) supported the
preferred alternative. Thirty-six of the 46 (78.3 percent) non-affected
area residents submitting comments supported the preferred alternative. A
minority of the residents living within the affected area, andto a lesser
degreein the surrounding comunity, either opposed the preferred remedy
or supported other alternatives. Of the 57 affected area ocmnentors, 16
(28.1 percent) opposed the preferred alternative or supported one of the
other alternatives and three (5.2 percent) did not indicate a preference.
Of the 46 non-affected area commantors, seven (15.2 percent) opposed the
preferred alternative or supported another alternative. Three (6.5
percent) did not indicate a preference. Table 1 provides an overview of
oral and written comments received by U.S. EPA.
-------
2
TAHUE 1
PERIOD
BY AREA OF RESIDENCE
Ctinna itors Area
of Residence
(No. of Qjuumts)
Affected Area
(57 - 100%)
Support Alt. 2
(Unqualified)
No. %
36 63.2
Support Alt. 2
(Qualified)
No. %
2 3.5
(^.ttfcie Alt. 2
or ^ 1 1 * ^i *
Other Alt.
No. %
16 28.1
No
Preference
No. %
3
5.2
Oitside Affected 36 78.3 0 7 15.2 3 6.5
Area (46 - 100%)
TtJtal 72 69.9 2 1.9 23 22.4 6 5.8
Notes:
1. Eleven ociiiuentors submitted multiple comments. For this table, one
cement per commentor was included in the stannary results.
2. Fifteen Garments included two or more names on the submitted, (most
were spouses) . For this table, these were treated as one conment.
However, in sane cases, separate cements were submitted by residents
of the same household, and each was included in the sunmary.
3. This table is based on oral and written comments submitted to U.S.
EPA during the public ccranent period and individuals who appeared
before the PSC hearing regarding the application to the Town of Hallie
Sanitary District No. 1 to construct and operate as water district
utility.
The City Councils of Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls and NPI do not support
the preferred alternative. The two cities and NPT support the extension of
City of Eau Claire water service to the affected area without requiring
annexation.
These sections follow:
o Background on Connunity Involvement;
o Summary of Cements received during the Public Ccranent Period and
Agency Responses;
o Remaining Concerns; and
o Attachment: Ccranunity Relations Activities at NPI.
B. BACreROOND ON COM3NTIY
Significant community interest in the Site dates to 1985 when WEKR
initiated a groundwater contamination investigation at and near the Site.
In 1986, WCNR reported that significant concentrations of contaminants were
-------
found in drinking water wells in an area north and east of the Site.
Community concern and involvement have remained strong since then. There
has been considerable media attention about the Site, as well'as public
concern regarding groundwater contamination. There have also been legal
and political disputes involving the Town of Kallie and City of Eau Claire
over annexations of portions of the affected area that were previously
under the jurisdiction of the Town of Hallie.
The major concerns expressed by citizens of Hallie during the remedial
planning activities focused on decreasing property values; the scope of
residential well sampling; oversight of the Remedial Investigation (RI);
and the availability and funding of an acceptable alternate water supply.
These concerns and how U.S. EPA addressed them are described below:
Ccmnent: Many residents of the affected area expressed concern that
insufficient information and excessive media coverage had, in part,
resulted in a decline in property values within the affected area.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA is unable to directly address concerns with
declining property values. However, the Agency addressed the one key
cause of declining property valuesdrinking water supply
contamination. U.S. EPA issued a Unilateral Order to NPI in April
1989 requiring NPI to distribute bottled water to residences and
businesses in the affected area. The Unilateral Order also required
NPI to coiplete a Phased Feasibility Study (PFS) to evaluate methods
to provide a permanent and safe drinking water supply to the affected
area. Furthermore, U.S. EPA provided the community with accurate,
up-to-date information about the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS), PFS, and possible health effects caused by
the groundwater contamination. The ROD details U.S. EPA's selected
alternative for a replacement drinking water supply for the affected
area and believes the final remedy will have a positive impact on
property values.
Conment: Local residents and elected officials expressed concern about the
scope of the private well sampling and its ability to fully define the
area of contamination.
U.S. EPA Resjponse: U.S. EPA believes it has sufficiently defined the area
of contamination based on extensive private well sampling in
conjunction with groundwater elevation data used to determine the
direction of groundwater movement. Where appropriate, wells outside
the expected limits of contamination were sampled to confirm that they
were free of contamination. The final boundaries of the affected area
include a margin of safety to account for potential future movement of
contamination beyond its current limits. The final remedy includes
sampling of private wells along the boundary of the affected area to
monitor any unexpected movement or shifting of the contamination
plume.
-------
Garment: Concern was expressed regarding U.S. EPA oversight of NPI during
the RI. '
U.S. EEA Response: In fact sheets and at public meetings, U.S. EPA
informed the occrounity of Agency oversight responsibility at Superfund
sites where PRPs have undertaken the RI/FS to ensure that it is
conducted in accordance with the Superfund law, U.S. EPA policy and
guidance, and the approved Work Plan for the investigation. U.S. EPA
is required by the Superfund law to oversee the RI to the extent
necessary to satisfy these requirements.
Ctmnent: Several Town of Hallie officials and residents expressed concern
that the need for a permanent water supply would result in an unwanted
annexation into the City of Eau Claire.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA believes the selected remedy satisfies this
< concern. Annexation is a personal choice and the selected remedy is
an annexation-neutral approach that accommodates the preferences of
businesses and residences in the affected area. U.S. EPA emphasized
the importance of community input into the remedy selection process.
Through a fact sheet, copies of the PFS and Proposed Plan in local
repositories, a press release, an advertisement in two local
newspapers, and a public meeting, residents were given information by
the Agency concerning all alternatives considered.
Residents were encouraged to submit contents which would be
considered before a final remedy was selected. To facilitate written
cements, a special insert was included in the fact sheet and
distributed at the public meeting. The insert explained the purpose
of the public eminent period and encouraged residents to submit
occments. The insert provided space for a written content and was
designed to be a "self-mailer." Finally, the Agency provided
residents with a 45-day connent period, which was later extended to 60
days in order to accommodate the PSC hearing and allow residents ample
opportunity for comment. A final remedy was not selected until the
public content period ended and after the June 13, 1990 decision by
the PSC.
C. SCWARY OP OCHMEyiS flBCEIVEn EHRTHG THE PUBLIC Cd-MEWr PERIOD
Garments received during the public connent period on the PFS and Proposed
Plan for a permanent drinking water supply for the affected area along with
U.S. EPA's responses are summarized below. The connent period was held
from January 4 through March 5, 1990. Contents and responses have been
divided into three sections and are further categorized by topic within
each section. The three sections are as follows.
1. Summary of comments from the local community including written
and oral comments submitted during the February 19, 1990 PSC
hearing at the Hallie Town Hall;
-------
2. Summary of ounuents frcn one PRP (NPI), the Cities of Eau Claire
and Chippewa Falls, and the Town of Kallie; and
3. Summary of comments from Eder Associates, Inc. and Short Elliot
Hendrickson, consultants for NPI and the Town of Hallie,
respectively.
Sane of the comments below have been paraphrased in order to effectively
summarize them in this document. The reader is referred to the public
meeting transcript and written ccmnents which are available for review at
the public information repositories.
Under a March 1, 1990 cover letter to U.S. EPA, the City of Eau Claire
submitted correspondence between the City and U.S. EPA, and two bound
volumes of testimony and exhibits as its Garments for inclusion in the
administrative record for the Site. Volume I consists of sworn testimony
by Eau Claire witnesses before the February 19, 1990 PSC hearing. Volume
II contains exhibits to each witness identified in Volume I. Exhibits
include rorrespondence between the City of Eau Claire and other interested
parties, maps, excerpts and copies of local and regional planning
documents, cost estimates and comparisons, photos and other information
deemed appropriate by the City of Eau Claire for the PSC's record. One of
the letters, dated January 29, 1990, contains Eau Claire's proposal to
extend retail water service to the entire affected area without requiring
annexation. The letter also presents the City's conclusions after its
review of the PFS and Proposed Plan. After a thorough review of the City's
submittal, U.S. EPA incorporated the City's significant comments into this
Responsiveness Summary. Although the City of Chippewa Falls, the Town of
Kallie and NPI did not submit a conparable volume of comments, the
approach was applied to these Garments.
1.
a. __
Cannes-it: Several residents and State Senator Marvin J. Roshell expressed
support for the preferred remedy because it provides an independent,
township-ccntrolled water system. One resident contented that
Alternative 2 allows the Town of Kallie to solve its own problems.
Several residents connented that they would rather pay for a Town of
Kallie water system, even if the cost were ultimately greater than
service from the City of Eau Claire.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA wants to implement the best remedy for the
Site. Several factors are taken into consideration when selecting a
cleanup alternative, such as: protection of human health and the
environment; effectiveness; reduction in toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants; implementability; compliance with Federal,
State, and local environmental laws and regulations; cost; and
acceptance by the cxiiiiunity and the State. The selected remedy
provides the best balance among these criteria with particular
-------
emphasis on community acceptance and implementability. The
system is designed to accommodate the District as authorized by the
PSC, and those businesses and residences who chose to annex to Eau
Claire. Furthermore, it is viewed by U.S. EPA and WCNR as' the only
implementable alternative.
cconent: Two residents supported Alternative 2 as the best solution
because those who had annexed to the City of Eau Claire would receive
services from that City, while residents of Hallie would be served by
the District.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees that the remedy selected would avoid
problems which may be associated with local units of government
providing service to property beyond their corporate boundaries. This
was one important factor in the selection of the preferred and final
remedies.
Comment: One commentor did not support Alternative 2 because they
believed that Town of Hallie officials were more interested in
maintaining Bailie's integrity as a town rather than providing
residents of the affected area with a clean source of drinking water.
U.S. EPA Response: The purpose of the PFS was to evaluate alternatives for
a permanent drinking water supply that is implementable and protects
human health. Alternative 2, and each of the other alternatives
considered, only addressed providing a permanent water supply for the
affected area. The plans and policies of the Town of Hallie and the
District for servicing customers beyond the affected area were not a
factor in selecting the final remedy.
Comment: Many residents of the affected area and the surrounding areas of
the Town of Hallie specifically opposed Alternative 3, as presented in
the PFS and the Proposed Plan, because of opposition to annexation to
the City of Eau Claire.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with the connentors' concerns. The
evaluation of Alternative 3 did consider that annexation was a
prerequisite to the implementation of this alternative which is not
acceptable to the majority of the community. During the public
comment period, Eau Claire did offer to provide water to the affected
area without requiring annexation. As a viable alternative, U.S. EPA
was obligated to evaluate it in a manner consistent with other
potential alternatives. The identification of Alternative 2 as the
preferred remedy and as the final remedy reflects, in part, U.S. EPA's
sensitivity to the preference of residents in the affected area for an
alternative which was independent from the City of Eau Claire, with or
without annexation. Furthermore, the PSC decision rendered
Alternative 2 as the only implementable alternative.
-------
b.
Cement: Alternative 2 was supported by seme residents as they believed it
would help restore property values which had been adversely affected
by groundwater contamination. Other ocuiaentors opposed Alternatives
1, 4, and 5, as presented in the PFS and the Proposed Plan, because
they believed these alternatives would not have a beneficial effect on
property values.
U.S. EPA Response; U.S. EPA's goal for this remedial action is to
implement a remedy which protects human health. This action pertains
only to providing a permanent water supply for the area affected by
groundwater contamination. Property values were not a factor in
selecting the final remedy, although it is U.S. EPA's belief that a
permanent and safe water supply will help restore depressed property
values.
c. Speed of Implementation
Comment: Two residents commented that they preferred Alternative 2 because
it could be implemented faster than the other alternatives. One
contended that the Town of Hal lie has already completed ground work to
implement the alternative and therefore, the alternative could be
speedily implemented. Another cormentor believed that Alternative 6,
as presented in the PFS and the Proposed Plan, should not be adopted
by U.S. EPA as the final remedy because it would result in slowing
down the implementation of the Hal lie Sanitary District system.
Several residents recommended Alternative 3 because it would provide
the fastest way to solve the problem.
U.S. EPA Response: Short-term effectiveness is one criteria used by the
Agency to evaluate remedial alternatives. In the Proposed Plan, U.S.
EPA estimated that Alternative 4 would require the least time to
implement. However, the time required to implement an alternative is
only one factor considered in the selection process. The selected
remedy would neither be the shortest nor the most time-consuming
alternative to implement. U.S. EPA does believe that the selected
remedy is the only alternative that can be implemented in a timely
manner and it provides the best balance among all the criteria used
for evaluation.
d. Protection of Human Health
Comment: A number of residents recommended the selection of Alternative 2
as the final remedy because it would eliminate potential health risks
associated with ingestion of contaminated groundwater.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with the commentors; however, through
proper maintenance and monitoring, a number of the remedial
alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan would protect human
health. Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 would achieve the same remedial
action goals of preventing exposure to contaminants in the
-------
8
groundwater, without the extensive monitoring and maintenance required
for Alternatives 4 and 5. Additionally, Alternatives 4 and 5 do not
meet the remedial objectives of long-term effectiveness and
permanence. Alternatives 3 and 6 are unimplementable because of
preconditions that have to be satisfied. This leaves Alternative 2 as
the only implementable alternative that satisfies the remedial
objectives.
Ocnment: Several residents expressed concern over the presence of volatile
organic ccnpounds (VOCs) in the City of Eau Claire water supply and
the potential effects on human health. Similar concerns were
expressed for Alternative 4 if the treatment units were not properly
maintained and for Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA has considered the advantages, disadvantages,
and uncertainties associated with each alternative evaluated in the
PFS. Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 would eliminate contact with and
consumption of contaminated groundwater. Each would provide
safeguards to ensure drinking water quality. Contaminated
groundwater at the Eau Claire well field is treated and continuously
monitored to ensure that it complies with Federal and State drinking
water standards. U.S. EPA recognizes that the ability of Alternative
4 to effectively eliminate exposure to contaminants in groundwater is
dependent on periodic monitoring and required maintenance over a long
period of time. The Superfund law requires U.S. EPA to consider the
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) as a basis for comparison with
other remedial alternatives. The No Action Alternative was not
selected for this site because it would not protect human health,
would not comply with Federal and State regulations and would not be
effective in addressing site conditions. After considering the
tradeoffs between each alternative, U.S. EPA decided on the remedy
described in the ROD.
Coanent: One ccranentor opposed Alternative 4 because it would require
homeowner maintenance, which could result in the individual hone
treatment unit not providing the level of protection intended.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees that individual home and business
treatment units would require monitoring and maintenance by qualified
personnel to ensure that drinking water quality meets Federal and
State standards. The need for long-term monitoring and maintenance
was considered when this alternative was evaluated. U.S. EPA
determined that Alternative 4 did not provide the best balance among
the criteria used to evaluate clean up alternatives.
e. Betterment
Comment: Several comentors favored Alternative 3 because if the area were
to be annexed to Eau Claire, sewer service would become available. In
fact, one resident favored Alternative 3 only if water and sewer
service is extended to the annexed area.
-------
U.S. EPA Response: Superfund remedies only address the problems caused by
the Site. Any remedial action beyond what is necessary "to address
contamination attributable to the Site is considered a betterment. In
this case, the provision of sewer services as a part of the selected
remedial action is beyond the scope of the Superfurd program. The
evaluation of Alternative 2, and each of the other alternatives
considered, only addressed providing a permanent water supply for the
affected area. The selected remedy will provide a permanent and safe
drinking water supply to the affected area that complies with State
and local codes governing community water systems, including fire
protection.
f . Impl en^JT^foi 1 ity
Garment: A number of conrentors opposed Alternative 2 because they did not
believe that the District was viable.
U.S. EPA Response: The viability of the District is an issue which is
addressed by appropriate agencies in the State of Wisconsin. The
District is the unit of local government authorized by the PSC to
provide drinking water to that portion of the affected area within the
District's boundaries.
eminent; One resident commented that without the support of the Town of
Hallie, the City of Eau Claire would not have the authority to
implement service to residences in the Town of Hallie.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA seriously considered the ability of
Alternative 6 to be implemented without cooperation from the Town of
Hallie. U.S. EPA determined that without cooperation from the Town of
Hallie, Alternative 6 may not be implementable. Presently, the Town
of Hallie has indicated that it would not support water service from
the City of Eau Claire to residents of the Town of Hallie living in
the affected area, even if annexation is not required by Eau Claire.
Lack of support by the Town of Hallie may result in this alternative
being unimplesnentable. However, this is no longer an issue because
in the absence of PSC approval, Eau Claire does not", have the authority
to service those portions of the affected area outside its municipal
boundary and in the Town of Hallie.
Comment: One resident contended that the incorporation of the District
would prevent any other unit of government from providing service
within the jurisdiction of the District.
U.S. EPA Response: More important than the creation of the District was
the PSC Order which granted the District the authority to provide
drinking water to those areas within District boundaries. If the City
of Eau Claire and the District dispute the authority to service
portions of the affected area that have annexed to or petitioned for
annexation to Eau Claire, the decision may ultimately be decided
through litigation between Eau Claire and the District.
-------
10
Ctmnent: One resident of the affected area requested a variance to permit
continued use of his well for non-potable purposes.
U.S. EPA Response; The granting of variances is the responsibility of the
State of Wisconsin. Local codes may also regulate the future use of
private wells.
Ctmnent: One commentor questioned whether proposed changes to some State
of Wisconsin groundwater enforcement standards would impact the final
remedy.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA has evaluated the potential risks to human
health under the No Action Alternative which assumes continued
consumption of contaminated groundwater. Potential health risks were
determined for the groundwater ingestion pathway. Even if State
Enforcement Standards do change, the risk assessment is basis enough
to justify a remedial action that is protective of human health, in
this case a replacement water supply for the affected area. If the
proposed standards are adopted by the State legislature, a significant
number of wells will still be contaminated at levels above the State's
Preventive Action Limits and a lesser number will exceed the
Enforcement Standards.
Ctranent: A number of ccranentors supported Alternative 3 because it could
provide drinking water to the affected area at less cost to residents
than other alternatives. Two commentors indicated that they supported
Alternative 4 because it was the least expensive alternative to
implement.
U.S. EPA Response: The cost to residents of providing service to the
affected area (annual operation and maintenance costs) was not a
factor in selecting the final remedy because the operation and
maintenance costs will be the responsibility of customers through user
fees. U.S. EPA is aware of the fact that service can be provided at a
lower cost to the customer under either Alternative 3 or 6. This
information was provided to the commity during the public Garment
period and yet support for the District remained high. Alternative 3
requires annexation of the entire affected area prior to
implementation. Alternative 6 is not implementable because the PSC
order authorizes the District to service those portions of the
affected area under its jurisdiction. For Alternative 4, lower
implementation costs are offset by the high operation and maintenance
costs to guarantee continued effectiveness of the treatment units.
Furthermore, Alternative 4 does not satisfy the degree of permanence
required for the final remedy. Given the above conditions, U.S. EPA
and WCNR believe the selected remedy is the only inplementable
alternative.
-------
11
Comment: One resident cemented that the water supply available to the
City of Eau Claire may not be sufficient to supply water to the
affected area of the Town of Hal lie without capital construction.
However, such costs were not included in the cost estimates for this
alternative.
U.S. EPA Response; Based on the information provided by the City of Eau
Claire, a sufficient supply of water is available through its water
system to supply water to the affected area. No upgrades of the Eau
Claire water system are required. Therefore, the capital costs
estimate for Alternative 3 presented in the PFS included construction
costs related to the extension of water to each residence in the
affected area.
Comment: One ocimentor opposed Alternative 4 because it would be the most
expensive alternative to operate and maintain over the long term.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with the cccinentor's statement and
identified it as one of the reasons for eliminating Alternative 4 from
further consideration. Of greater significance is the inability of
Alternative 4 to meet the remedial objective of long-term
effectiveness and permanence.
Concent: Two conroentors favored Alternative 3 because it would not result
in the duplication of services between the District and the City of
Eau Claire.
U.S. EPA Response: Duplication of service was one factor considered in the
evaluation of the cost and implementability of the preferred remedy.
U.S. EPA agrees with the conuentors' statement that Alternative 3
would not require duplication of services; however, before Alternative
3 could be implemented, the entire affected area would first have to
annex to the City of Eau Claire. Annexation is a personal decision
and not something U.S. EPA can recomnend or enforce. Given the
political climate and the desire for self government by a majority of
the Town of Hallie citizens, U.S. EPA determined this alternative to
be unimplementable. The selected remedy is implementable because it
aoocuipodates those residences and businesses who have annexed to Eau
Claire.
Comment: Some cannentors were concerned that several differing estimates
of the costs of the various alternatives had been provided by the Town
of Hallie, NPI, City of Eau Claire, and U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA recognizes the discrepancies in the cost
estimates provided by different parties and understands the confusion
this can cause. For purposes of identifying a preferred alternative,
U.S. EPA considered the cost estimates included in the PFS. These
estimates were prepared by NPI. The PFS contained the necessary
documentation and assumptions to support NPI's cost estimates.
Although operation and maintenance costs are not part of the selected
remedy, U.S. EPA also recognizes the importance of accurate cost
-------
12
information in order for citizens to make informed decisions about
their preference. Other estimates prepared by third parties were only
considered in reaching the decision on the final remedy if they were
submitted to U.S. EPA during the public cement period. U.'s. EPA
certainly places more credibility in the operation and maintenance
cost estimates for the District prepared by the PSC as well as
operation and maintenance costs for Eau Claire prepared by the City.
Comment: Several residents Garmented that NPI should be required to pay
for the final remedy.
U.S. EPA Response: It is U.S. EPA's intention to first provide the
responsible parties, including NPI, the opportunity to implement the
selected remedy. If the responsible parties are unwilling to finance
the selected remedy, it is U.S. EPA's intention to implement the
remedial action through Superfund and pursue reimbursement from the
responsible parties.
Comment: Several residents commented that they should be compensated for
inconvenience and long-term effects.
U.S. EPA Response: There are no provisions in CERdA authorizing U.S. EPA
to compensate residents for inconvenience, loss in property values or
potential long-term health effects. Consequently, U.S. EPA cannot
require the responsible parties to compensate residents for these
reasons. Residents may want to consult with their attorneys regarding
these issues.
Comment: Several residents Garmented NPI should be required to pay for
water usage by residents in the affected area.
U.S. EPA Response: Operation and maintenance costs are the responsibility
of the District through customer water bills and other special user
fees, if any, that the District determines are appropriate.
Qxment: One resident expressed concern regarding the number of employees
which may be required to operate and maintain the proposed District
drinking water system.
U.S. EPA Response; Salaries for support staff to operate and maintain the
District will be paid by the District through user fees which are not
a component of the selected remedy. This concern is more
appropriately addressed by the District.
Comment: One ocranentor expressed concern that the Town of Hallie had
incurred expenses to establish the District without U.S. EPA approval,
and that the town would therefore not be compensated for those
expenses.
U.S. EFA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with the ocranentor's concern. Prior to
a Record of Decision, U.S. EPA cannot authorize funds for remedial
design or remedial action activities. Local officials were made aware
-------
13
of this fact in an October 1989 letter to the City of Eau Claire and
the Town of Hallie. Actions taken by the Town of Hallie'.and City of
Eau Claire have certainly influenced the selection of the final
remedy; however, monies spent by the Town of Hallie, the District, or
the City of Eau Claire are not reimbursable by Superfund.
Compensation fron NPI for non-preauthorized expenses by the Town of
Hallie is an issue for those parties to settle on their own.
h.
Garment: One ccranentor opposed the selection of Alternative 5 because it
could cause cones of depression. These would result in contamination
moving lower into the groundwater and thereby contaminating the
replacement wells to be constructed under this alternative.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with the ccrmentor. One uncertainty
with Alternative 5 is the potential contamination of the replacement
wells. This alternative would require extensive sampling and
analysis to verify an uncontaminated water supply at the time of
construction and thereafter. After considering the tradeoffs between
each alternative, U.S. EPA decided on the remedy described in the
POD.
i. Long-^TeriD Effectiveness
Garment: Two caiiuentors were concerned that the contamination may spread
beyond the existing affected area. One resident supported extending
drinking water to residents who did not reside in the affected area in
anticipation of the spread of contaminants. Other commentors
questioned whether water service would be extended if contamination
spreads beyond the existing affected area.
U.S. EPA Response: Based on available information, contamination is not
expected to move beyond the affected area. The remedial action
includes a groundwater monitoring program for private wells outside
the affected area that continue to be used for drinking water. The
final boundaries of the affected area were based on careful
evaluation of the private well data collected over the past several
years. U.S. EPA believes that an appropriate safety zone was
established based on the limits of contamination and direction of
groundwater movement. Groundwater monitoring will continue during and
following remedial action, and if it is determined that movement
beyond the affected area has occurred or is likely to occur, the
remedy may be modified to ensure protection of human health.
. Ra>=*Hal investiation
Oonnent: One person cemented that U.S. EPA has known of the problem for
many years, yet has delayed implementing a solution.
U.S. EPA Response: Under the Superfund law, U.S. EPA must adhere to the
remedial process specified by law and U.S. EPA policy and guidance.
-------
14
Each remedial activity requires time to complete. U.S. EPA adopted an
"Operable Unit" approach to expedite the implementation of a permanent
drinking water supply. An operable unit approach involves the
development and implementation of separate actions taken as part of an
overall site clean up. (A number of operable units can be used in the
course of a site clean up). This approach allows the Agency to
address threats posed to human health by groundwater contamination
while the investigation of clean-up alternatives for the source
material and contaminated groundwater at the Site proceeded.
The State of Wisconsin attempted to resolve this situation in
September 1986, by issuing an Order to NPI requiring it to replace
contaminated drinking water supplies in the Town of Hal lie, conduct
further investigations of the extent of contamination and clean up
contaminated groundwater and soils. NPI appealed the Order and the
matter remains in litigation.
Comment: Several residents encouraged U.S. EPA to address the source of
groundwater contamination by cleaning up the Site.
U.S. EPA Response: This remedial action pertains only to the
implementation of a permanent drinking water supply to address
contamination of groundwater resulting from past waste disposal
practices at the Site. Future "operable unit(s)N will address the
clean-up of on-site sources of contamination, including groundwater.
k. Other CcBinents
Comment: Two residents commented that they favored Alternative 2 over
Alternative 3 because water from the Town of Hallie tasted better than
water from the City of Eau Claire.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA did not consider potential differences in
taste between drinking water from the City of Eau Claire and the Town
of Hallie. Taste is a highly subjective quality which is beyond the
scope of the PFS. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would eliminate contact
with and consumption of contaminated groundwater which poses a public
health threat.
Comment: One resident of the affected area supported Alternative 4 because
it would require only the wells affected by groundwater contamination
to receive individual home and business treatment units.
U.S. EPA Response: The fact that some private wells are not presently
contaminated does not mean they will not be affected by contamination
in the future. The groundwater environment is complex and
concentrations within a contamination plume vary over time. To only
service contaminated private wells with treatment units would require
extensive monitoring beyond what would already be required to
implement Alternative 4 to guarantee a continued supply of safe
drinking water. U.S. EPA and WCKR do not believe Alternative 4
-------
15
provides for long-term effectiveness and permanence and therefore
eliminated treatment units from further consideration.
Ctxanent: One person commented that Alternative 6 was preferable to
Alternative 2 because it would result in water service only being
provided to the affected area and not to other areas where no need
existed for a public drinking water supply.
U.S. EPA Response: The purpose of the PFS was to evaluate alternatives for
a permanent drinking water supply for only the affected area and not
to assess the needs for water service for the entire District. U.S.
EPA was certainly aware of the plans and policies of the Hallie
Sanitary District to service residences and businesses outside of the
affected area; however, this was not factored into the remedy
selection process. The PSC order addressed the need for a public
drinking water supply for the District by granting the District the
authority to construct and operate as a water district utility. The
PSC decision also had an impact on the final remedy selected by
U.S. EPA.
Comment: One comrtentor supported Alternative 2, with the belief that
portions of the Town of Hallie which have annexed to the City of Eau
Claire should be included in the service area of the District rather
than that of the City of Eau Claire.
U.S. EPA Response: The identification of Alternative 2 as the preferred
remedy and as the selected remedy in the ROD reflects, in part, U.S.
EPA's sensitivity to the preferences of residents in the affected area
for an alternative which did not involve service by Eau Claire, with
or without annexation. However, other residents of the affected area
have successfully annexed to the City of Eau Claire. The selected
remedy would allow these residences to receive a permanent drinking
water supply from the City of Eau Claire to which they have already
annexed. The question to which U.S. EPA cannot respond is: At what
point does the District (or the City of Eau Claire) not have the
authority to service areas within the District that have annexed to
Eau Claire?
Comment: One resident expressed conditional support for Alternative 2
contingent on the District providing only drinking water and not
providing fire protection services.
U.S. EPA Response: Fire protection is an element of the selected remedy.
The selected remedy must comply with Eau Claire and District codes for
the respective service areas, which require fire protection and sizing
the system to meet minimum fire protection requirements set by State
code.
Comment: One resident expressed concern that dredging of ponds on the
National Presto property may have resulted in off-site releases of
contamination.
-------
16
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA is not aware of any past dredging activities
of the waste disposal lagoons. With the exception of portions of
Lagoon 1 having been covered, they have remained unchanged -since use
discontinued. An examination of the nature and extent of
contamination at and near the Site, and of remedial alternatives for
addressing on-site sources and contaminated groundwater, will take
place in the next phase of the investigation.
_____ a PRP QtPI)
a. Scope of the Preferred Remedy
Comment: NPT believed the preferred remedy is too broad because the
alternate water supply systems are sized and equipped for fire
protection, a function which is beyond the scope of a CERCEA remedy.
The additional features of the systems beyond what is necessary to
deliver household water supplies include oversized mains, fire
hydrants, and sane degree of increased storage capacity, at a total
cost of approximately $500,000.
U.S. EPA Response: The inclusion of fire protection as an element of the
remedial action for the permanent alternative water supplies is
directly related to insuring that the water supply systems comply with
minimum design standards of the District and City of Eau Claire.
Local codes set the minimum design standards for a public water supply
and establish the premise for providing fire protection. For those
portions of the affected area that have annexed to Eau Claire, its
municipal codes apply. Eau Claire City Ordinances, Section 14.08.150
- water main installation in platted subdivisions states in part: "...
The Public Works Department shall develop plans for the extension of
mains together with the installation of service laterals and hydrants
required to adequately serve the area and provide public fire
protection. The water utility will prepare detailed estimates of the
cost of extending water mains and hydrants of the size deemed
necessary in the subdivision and submit the same to the City Council
for approval of the extension as it pertains to public fire-protection
service requirements.11 Minimum public fire protection requirements
for municipal systems are set by State code.
The District adopted rules and procedures on October 30, 1989.
Section 4 (a) states: "The District shall provide water hydrants
throughout the district where water mains are installed in accordance
with appropriate standards for efficient fire protection." This rule
applies to private well users within the affected area that are also
within the jurisdiction of the District. Any remedial action,
whether financed by the responsible parties or U.S. EPA, for providing
a permanent drinking water supply to the affected area would be
expected to comply with existing State and local codes. The financial
responsibility for upgrading a system above the im'niitum design
requirements established by the State will rest with the governing
body and its patrons.
-------
17
NPI's references apparently include fire protection as an element of
its most recent preference for a final remedy. Cost estimates
presented in the PFS for Eau Claire supply with and withdut fire
protection are approximately $1.6 and $1.1 million, respectively. In
a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Eau Claire, NPI, and
the Department of the Army (another PRP), NPI and the Army guarantee
payment of up to $1.6 million for the cost of extending the City's
municipal water supply to the affected area. This dollar figure is
also referenced by NPI in its March 5, 1990 response to the Proposed
Plan as the approximate cost for serving the affected area from the
Eau Claire system.
Coma it; NPI stated the preferred remedy is too broad in territorial
scope, because it extends water to users whose existing water supplies
are not contaminated or threatened with contamination. CERCZA does
not authorize the provision of alternate water supplies to any user
whose existing water supply is not contaminated or threatened with
contamination. The preferred remedy would provide water to
approximately 225 users. For many of these users, there is no
evidence that the existing water supply is actually contaminated nor
any reasonable basis to believe that it is threatened with
contamination.
U.S. EPA Response: Establishing a margin of safety or buffer zone adjacent
to a Known area of grourdwater contamination is a technically sound
approach consistent with Superfund remedies where private drinking
water wells are impacted. It is unclear from the comment to which
portions of the affected area the cement refers. However, given the
distribution of off-site contamination, the only portion of the
affected area this ccmnent can reasonably refer to is the eastern
boundary of the affected area, Halifax Street.
Grcundwater data exists from numerous sampling events dating to 1985;
however, there has not been a sampling program conducted over an
extended period of time to establish any trends or seasonal
fluctuations in both distribution and concentration of contaminants.
Quarterly sampling of selected private wells within the affected area
was initiated by NPI in late 1988 as part of the RI, and will continue
until at least the implementation of remedial action.
Data from the May 1986 Existing Conditions Report prepared by a
consulting firm contracted by WDNR, detected VOCs in private wells on
Halifax Street. Private well (PW) data collected during the RI
detected the same VOCs along the eastern boundary of the affected area
(PW-203, FW-25, PW-64, and PW-33). Refer to Figure 6 in the ROD for
the location of private wells sampled. VDC detections were sporadic
and concentrations were significantly below existing State standards
and health-based levels; however, given the direction of groundwater
movement, their presence identified this as the liJcely fringe of the
contaminant plume originating from the NPI site.
-------
18
For practical and planning purposes, final boundaries of the affected
area were established along streets to include residences and
businesses on both sides of the street. Ihis also defined -an
appropriate margin of safety for the affected area. U.S. EPA believes
the affected area is properly defined based on the information
presently available. To exclude an appropriate margin of safety zone
would require extensive monitoring for an undetermined period of time
to ensure that contamination does not migrate beyond the boundaries of
the affected area.
Comment: NPI believes the preferred remedy suffers from one overriding
conceptual flaw; it ignores the constantly changing jurisdictional
landscape of the "affected area." Rather than addressing this
critical aspect, the remedy attempts to freeze the affected area to a
specific point in time. While such an attempt has administrative
appeal, it doesn't comport with reality. As a result, the remedy
becomes meaningless as the jurisdictional landscape evolves
notwithstanding the EPA-imposed freeze.
U.S. EPA Response: An October 13, 1989 letter from U.S. EPA to Eric
Anderson, City Manager of Eau Claire and Dave Meier, Hallie Town
Chairman, acknowledged the uncertainties and potential for
jurisdictional change within the affected area. The intent of the
letter was to establish stable boundaries for the purpose of selecting
a preferred alternative only. Ihe letter states: "Further changes to
the City boundary would require a reevaluation of alternatives thus
delaying the implementation of a permanent alternate water supply for
the affected area through Superfund authorities."
NPI does not make the necessary distinction between the preferred
alternative and the selected alternative. The preferred alternative
identified in the Proposed Plan was based on information gathered
during the preparation of the PFS. U.S. EPA has carefully evaluated
all the information gathered during the public connent period prior to
selecting the final remedy. The selected alternative is detailed in
this POO which certifies that the remedy selection process was
carried cut in accordance with CERCIA, as amended, and provides the
rationale behind the selection. A selected alternative may differ
from the preferred alternative.
Contrary to NPI's statements, the selected remedy is a reflection of
reality. It recognizes the evolving jurisdictional landscape of the
affected area by accccmodating the preferences of businesses and
residences in the affected area. U.S. EPA acknowledges that
continuing jurisdictional disputes between the Town of Hallie and the
City of Eau Claire could delay the timely implementation of portions
of the selected remedy. The boundaries of the respective service
areas may ultimately be determined by Wisconsin courts through their
interpretation of State law. However, the District portion of the
selected remedy and annexations by Eau Claire not disputed by the
Town of Hallie are imnediately jjtplementable following WCNR's approval
-------
19
of water supply system design and availability of funds for
construction.
Ctmnent: The City of Eau Claire noted that the District will not have the
ability to provide sanitary sewer to the area. It is most likely that
growth areas within the Town of Hallie will eventually become part of
a City as the need for municipal services increase.
U.S. EPA Response; Providing or planning for other municipal services,
including sewer, is beyond the scope of the preferred and selected
remedies. The remedial objective under this operable unit is the
selection of an implementable and permanent replacement water supply
for the affected area that protects human health. The provider of
future services in the Town of Hallie, if determined to be
appropriate by local government, is not something for U.S. EPA to play
a role in or decide. U.S. EPA is hopeful that the Cities of Chippewa
Falls and Eau Claire and the Town of Hallie will cooperate on a
regional level to address local needs and concerns of the respective
communities.
Garment: The city of Eau Claire indicated that the District is designed to
serve users outside the affected area and provides larger mains to
serve future customers, and higher fire flows than required by State
code or normal practice. The proposed system provides facilities
unreasonably in excess of immediate needs to serve the affected area.
The District's proposal to the PSC lacks sufficient detail (no unit
cost information, size of storage reservoir not specified) to
effectively evaluate the District's cost estimates.
U.S. EPA Response: The selected remedy only provides for a replacement
drinking water supply, including fire protection, for the affected
area. The final system design is subject to approval by WDNR. If
system specifications, for example size of mains and storage
facilities, are designed above the minimum design standards
established by State code and what is required to service only the
affected area, the costs associated with improvements will be the
responsibility of the District. The District's financial obligations
also include upgrades designed specifically to accommodate future
growth of the District.
WCNR will require sufficient design detail prior to approving the
proposal for construction. In the event U.S. EPA implements the
remedial action, the Agency will ensure adequate detail to justify
expenditure of Superfund monies for the affected area.
Ccmnent: The Town of Hallie pointed out the fact that the Hrdlicka and
Russell annexations referenced in the Proposed Plan as part of the Eau
Claire service area, were rendered void by the Chippewa County Circuit
Court on December 29, 1989 and January 24, 1990, respectively. These
parcels remain in the Town of Hallie and are to be served by the
District. The Schong annexation ordinance is presently in litigation
and may be rendered void. These circuit court decisions elijninated
-------
20
the need for duplication of services, regardless of the court's
decision on the Schong annexation.
U.S. EEA Response: The Proposed Plan "froze" jurisdictional boundaries for
purposes of identifying only a preferred alternative. The decision to
annex is a personal choice in which U.S. EPA has no role or control
other than to highlight the impact it nay have on the implementation
of the final remedy or portions thereof.
Jurisdictional disputes between the Town of Hallie and City of Eau
Claire over the boundaries of the respective service areas are not for
U.S. EPA to resolve. Interpretation of State law as it relates to the
legality of annexations and who services annexed land, rests with
appropriate State agencies and ultimately with Wisconsin courts. Such
disputes and litigation may delay implementation of portions of the
selected remedy; however, the design and construction of facilities to
service the District and undisputed annexations to Eau Claire can
proceed without delay.
Comment: Wisconsin Statute 60.79(2) provides the methodology for handling
incorporations of part of the District into Eau Claire. Where the
annexations constitute less than one-half of the entire District, the
territory annexed will continue to be served by the District, even
though an annexation has occurred. Accordingly, all annexations
subsequent to September 14, 1989, will not have an impact upon the
water distribution provided by the District.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA believes that this issue depends on the proper
interpretation of Section 60.79(2)(b), Wisconsin Statutes. In order
for the Ttwn's reference regarding annexation of territory
constituting less than the entire district to be applicable, one of
two conditions in Section 60.79(2) (b) Wisconsin Statute must be
satisfied.
1. The territory is served by the town sanitary district with a
water supply or sewerage system; or
2. The territory is not served by the town sanitary district with a
water supply or sewerage system, but the district has obligations
related to the territory subject to incorporation or annexation
which require payment for longer than one year following the
incorporation or annexation.
Neither U.S. EPA nor Hallie is capable of determining the
applicability or proper interpretation of this Section of Wisconsin
law. The interpretation may ultimately be made by the Wisconsin
courts if it continues to be an issue between the District and city of
Eau Claire.
-------
21
b. Cost
Comment: Several comments state the preferred remedy results- in
duplication of capital investment and would be more costly than other
alternatives to implement, costing nearly $1 million more in capital
costs than the extension of water by Eau Claire. Some duplication of
services (piping and appurtenances) is necessary to accommodate two
water systems within the affected area. Duplicate supply and storage
facilities, which are already in place in the Eau Claire system,
account for the largest percentage of the cost differential between
Eau Claire serving the entire affected area and the preferred
alternative. One oommentor added that cost is one of the "primary
balancing criteria" proposed by U.S. EPA in connection with the
development and screening of remedial alternatives.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA acknowledges the higher costs associated with
the selected remedy. As the commentors stated, the largest percentage
of the increased costs are for duplication of services already
available through Eau Claire; construction of the supply well, storage
facilities and laying pipe across the affected area. Cost is only one
of the criteria that is evaluated during the detailed analysis of
alternatives. Other particularly relevant criteria to this situation
are implementability, community acceptance and state acceptance. Cost
later beccnes one of the primary balancing criteria considered during
selection of a final alternative. Implementability is also one of
the primary balancing criteria for this remedy selection step.
As a result of the June 13, 1990 PSC Order which authorizes the
District to construct and operate as a water district utility in the
affected area, the selected remedy is the only implementable
alternative, and therefore the most cost effective. In the absence of
annexation, Eau Claire is unable to service the affected area because
it does not have the required authorization from the PSC. The
duplication of services and increased capital investment necessary to
implement the selected remedy is the result of portions of the
affected area annexing to Eau Claire.
Comment: Several commentors believe the preferred remedy is inefficient
and more costly to operate. In addition to higher capital
expenditures, the preferred remedy would result in higher operational
and administrative costs.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA disagrees with the statement that the
preferred remedy is inefficient. The selection of the preferred
remedy was predicated on the concept of an implementable and
community-accepted alternative that protects public health. Each of
the alternatives, including Eau Claire's proposal to service the
affected area without requiring annexation, may provide protection of
public health and be more cost effective; however, the selected
remedy is the only efficient solution because it is the only
implementable alternative.
-------
22
U.S. EPA agrees with the commentors on the higher operation and
maintenance oasts associated with the preferred remedy; however, these
costs had no bearing on the selection of the preferred and final
remedies because operation and maintenance costs will be the
responsibility of the customers of the respective water systems.
Every effort has been made to provide accurate information to the
residences and businesses within the affected area. The initial 45-
day public eminent period was extended to 60 days to accommodate the
PSC hearing, thereby allowing further evaluation of Eau Claire's
proposal to service the area without requiring annexation, including
cost comparisons between the alternatives. Ihe responsibility of
interpreting the information and assessing the District's financial
impact on the Town of Kallie rests with the District and its patrons.
Following the PSC hearing on February 19, 1990, the District continued
to receive overwhelming support. There is an apparent willingness on
the part of Kallie residents to pay operation and maintenance costs
that are higher than those in Eau Claire.
c. Community Acceptance and Implementability
Comment: NPI reaffirmed the importance of ccuimnity acceptance as a
factor in the selection process. Community acceptance encompasses far
more than a simple polling of those directly affected by the remedy.
Widespread community acceptance for the preferred remedy does not
exist. Both Chippewa Falls and Eau Claire formally oppose the
preferred remedy. Finally, the on-going annexation requests indicate
sane opposition to the preferred remedy by those directly affected by
it. There is widespread community concern, not acceptance, regarding
the preferred remedy. The Hail lie Sanitary District is clearly
contrary to expressed wishes of the area-wide community.
U.S. EPA Response: NPI is correct in stating the importance of community
acceptance in the remedy selection process. As defined in the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), community acceptance includes
"determining which components of the alternatives interested persons
in the cormjnity support, have reservations about or oppose."
On page 2 of NPI's May 5, 1989 response to U.S. EPA's April 25, 1989
issuance of a unilateral order, NPI states:
"Only the Town can decide if it will have a municipal water
system and, if so, what type. EPA and WCNR admit that no federal
or state agency has the authority to force the Town to allow a
municipal water system and that NPI lacks both the necessary
condemnation powers and statutory standing to operate and
maintain a municipal utility system within the Town."
-------
23
On page 19 and 20 of the same response, NPI further states: '
"Both existing and proposed EPA regulations require EPA to take
into account local interests and concerns....EPA is required, to
the extent practicable, to be sensitive to local community
concerns....11
"The importance of local concerns and interests is reaffirmed
and strengthened in the EPA's proposed modifications to the
National Contingency Plan... .EPA has emphasized that it strongly
believes that cccrounity relations is an integral part of the
Superfund program... .In development and screening of remedial
alternatives, comunity acceptance is one of the modifying
criteria designated by the EPA... .Further, the EPA recognizes
implementability as one of the prijnary balancing criteria in
choosing among alternatives."
"In this case, a municipal water supply alternative simply is not
implenentable without Town cooperation. Only the Town
can ultimately decide to establish a municipal water supply
system. The Order ignores this critical reality."
U.S. EPA agrees with the cccmentor's Kay 5, 1989 assertion of the
importance of community acceptance and implementability and has
integrated these evaluation criteria, as required by the NCP, into the
remedy selection process.
The opposition of Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls, as governmental
units, to the District are obvious because it infringes on the ability
of the two municipalities to manage growth and development in Kallie.
To conclude, as the conraentor does, that this limitation "will likely
lead to unorderly development and urban sprawl" is a subjective
statement that assumes the Town of Hal lie will not institute planning
practices to manage growth and development within the Town.
No comments were received from residents of Eau Claire or Chippewa
Falls; therefore, U.S. EPA cannot gauge the interest or degree of
acceptance by the general public in these two cities. However, U.S.
EPA acknowledges that the municipalities' position may reflect the
positions of at least seme of the residents of Eau Claire and Chippewa
Falls.
Over 100 contents, written and oral, were received by U.S. EPA during
the public comment period. The majority of the comments were from
residences and businesses in Kallie. Oral occments included those
accepted at the January 18, 1990 U.S. EPA public meeting, and at the
February 19, 1990 PSC hearing to accept public cements on the
proposed town sanitary district. Written comments were received
between January 4, 1990 and March 5, 1990 and are part of the
Administrative Record for the site.
-------
24
U.S. EPA acknowledges that sane comments expressed opposition to the
preferred alternative; however, based on the cannents received,
approximately 67 percent of the affected area supports the District.
Outside the affected area, support is even nicker, 78 percent.
U.S. EPA strongly disagrees with the commentors' statement that the
District is "clearly contrary to expressed wishes of the area-wide
community.11
Comment: Several ccnmentors pointed out that the preferred remedy has
significant implementation problems. On-going annexations complicate
the ability to serve the affected area by continually changing
boundaries. Existing litigation regarding annexations and the
District's service boundaries may make timely design and construction
difficult. A jurisdiction cannot provide water to an area no longer
in its boundaries simply because U.S. EPA has elected to freeze
boundaries on a specific date. For example, the District will not be
, able to provide water to those areas which have been annexed to Eau
Claire. Moreover, the preferred remedy ignores the possibility that
the District will not receive the necessary approvals, namely PSC
authorization.
On the other hand, Eau Claire's alternative is ready to be
implemented. It does not need PSC approval because it is merely an
extension of existing water mains. To the extent the Town refuses to
authorize construction of water mains in its road right-of-ways, the
city can seek approval from the Transportation Commissioner pursuant
to Wisconsin statutes.
Moreover, Eau Claire possesses the statutory authority to condemn
lands for purposes of laying water lines. The Eau Claire alternative
is the most expedient method and should be the preferred remedy. It
provides a permanent water supply to the affected area in the most
expeditious, reliable, cost effective and environmentally sound
fashion.
U.S. EPA Response: The coitnentors are not differentiating between the
preferred remedy and final remedy. U.S. EPA imposed a temporary
"freeze" on jurisdictional boundaries in the affected area in October
1989 for purposes of identifying only a preferred alternative. At
that time, U.S. EPA recognized that future annexations to Eau Claire
may require a reevaluation of alternatives prior to U.S. EPA selecting
a final remedy. The selected remedy conforms with state law by
providing for Eau Claire to service those portions of the affected
area that have annexed to Eau Claire.
U.S. EPA fully acknowledged the role of the PSC in the Proposed Plan
and withheld Agency decision on the final remedy until the PSC Order
was issued on June 13, 1990. Under the PSC Order, Eau Claire's
alternative (Alternative 6) is no longer implementable. Eau Claire
only has the authority to extend water service to those portions of
the affected area that have annexed to Eau Claire. Eau Claire cannot
provide municipal water to the District because the PSC Order grants
-------
25
that authority to the District. The dual service alternative, which
results in the duplication of services, is the only implementable
alternative. Service duplication and implementation costs increase
with continued annexations of the affected area by Eau Claire.
Any annexation in the affected area that is the subject of a dispute
or litigation between the City of Eau Claire and the District with
respect to which governing body has the authority to provide services,
may jeopardize the implemantation of a replacement water supply for
the disputed parcel until the dispute is resolved. Other than any
outstanding disputes or litigation, the selected remedy is
implementable and should proceed forward with design and construction.
One of the cccinentor's discussion of means by which Eau Claire can
seek approval under State law to install water mains in Town road
right-of-ways is no longer an issue under either the preferred or
selected remedies. To fully evaluate these issues, U.S. EPA sought
input from the Wisconsin Department of Justice (WDOJ) and the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT) . The ccrmentor is
referred to the administrative record for opinions rendered by WDOJ
and WDOT.
e. General ccnroenl'g
Comment: Several cccnnentors assert that the preferred alternative is
inconsistent with existing land use and regional plans and would
foster unorder ly development with its attendant environmental impacts.
Consistent with the urban planning process, sewer and water facilities
in both Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls have been planned and sized to
provide eventual service to what is now the District.
The creation of a single purpose sanitary district is contrary to
sound planning and would not even be a consideration but for the
unilateral order. It appears to be the objective of the proposal to
create a single purpose district to leverage second party money,
required to serve the affected area, which will extend service to
areas which would not otherwise warrant the investment. The creation
of a sanitary district with multiple additions has come about solely
due to the availability of federal funds.
U.S. EPA Response: The Eau Claire land Use Plan referenced in the
ooanentors' submittal, was prepared by the City between 1979 and 1982,
and upon its approval in 1982, became the official planning document
for development within the City limits. This plan also contains
"reccranendations" for unincorporated areas within and adjacent to the
Eau Claire Urban Area; however, the reconraendations are not part of
the official land use plan. The plan indicates a desire to enter into
joint planning efforts with the Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls Urban
Areas, but further states; "If reasonable efforts are not successful,
the City's implementation efforts will need to be reviewed and
adjusted accordingly."
-------
26
Ihe Chippewa Falls - Eau Claire Urban Area Plan, 1975-2000- (Urban Area
Plan) was prepared by the Nest Central Wisconsin Regional Planning
demission (WCWRPC). WCWRPC is comprised of representatives from the
member counties and serves in an advisory role to local government
units. Ihe plan was formally approved by the Metropolitan Area
Planning Advisory Coanittee in 1976.
Ihe Urban Area Plan sets goals that are applicable to and consistent
with general regional planning documents for any urban area inclining;
providing for services economically, preservation of natural
resources, growth of the Urban Area as a unit and not as distinct
governmental and political units, developing a well-balanced and sound
economy as its foundation, and energy-efficient development. These
are sound planning principles designed to maximize the orderly and
efficient growth of an urban area. There is no denying that from a
practical, economic and planning perspective, urban services can
probably be more efficiently provided to the affected area by
existing and proven facilities.
The regional planning documents referenced above are outdated and
certainly did not contemplate the future existence of a sanitary
district to provide urban services to the Town of Hallie, services
presumed to be provided at some point by Eau Claire and Chippewa
Falls. Additionally, it is difficult for regional plans to factor
historical relationships between adjoining communities, a critical and
unpredictable element of long range planning and particularly relevant
in this situation.
One of the commentors, NPI, has previously recognized the need for
sensitivity to the historic differences and emotional realities
between the Town of Hallie and City of Eau Claire. NPI further
recognized the importance of the Town's initiatives and objectives in
the remedy evaluation and selection process by stating the following
in its May 5, 1989 response to the unilateral order issued by U.S.
EPA:
"The Town has embarked upon a two-pronged initiative to: (1)
evaluate the political integrity of the existing township; and
(2) to determine the best way to provide certain municipal
services to its more urbanized area."
"The EPA and NPI must be sensitive to the twin objectives of the
Town to maintain its political integrity and provide municipal
services sought by its taxpayers. The Town is in a fragile
political position being located between two growing
municipalities. The transportation corridor between those two
municipalities provides an ideal setting for commercial and light
industrial development and an increased demand for municipal
services such as municipal water. Other portions of the Town are
prime areas for development as suburban bedroom communities and,
as a result, are attractive annexation targets for the adjoining
cities."
-------
27
Thus the "affected area" which is the subject of the Order
represents just one portion of a larger geographic area to which
the Town needs to provide municipal services. The Town cannot
afford to segregate the discussion of water problems in the
"affected area" from water problems in other sections of the
Town. The Town must address the broader considerations in order
to reach a politically and economically viable solution.
Therefore/ to achieve the Town's objectives, the technical and
political investigation of the affected area must be coordinated
as part of the Town's overall objectives."
In a March 21, 1989 letter to U.S. EPA, NPI stated the following:
".. .neither the EPA, CNR nor any private third party has the
authority, individually or collectively, to establish in the Town
of Hal lie a municipal water supply system. Under federal and
state law, the authority to take this action is vested solely
with residents of the Township. The decision whether to
establish a public municipal water district or seek a permanent
water supply fron sane other source, is a decision that only the
Town of Hallie can make. No one can make that decision for the
Township. Consequently, it follows that the Town of Hallie
political process must be allowed to operate freely without undue
influence fran external government or private interests, whoever
they may be."
U.S. EPA agrees with NPI on the importance of these issues and
factored them into the Agency's decision on the preferred and
selected remedies.
U.S. EPA strongly disagrees with the assertion that the District is
the direct result of the unilateral order and the availability of
federal funds. First of all, it is U.S. EPA's intention to pursue the
responsible party(ies) for the funding of the selected remedy.
Secondly, the availability of third party funds may have been a factor
in the creation of the District; however, U.S. EPA cannot state there
is a direct relationship between the District's growth and the
availability of funds because the financial obligation of extending
water service beyond the affected area rests with the users of the
system. The availability of third party funds was also a factor in
Eau Claire's decision to provide water to the affected area without
requiring annexation as stated in the resolution adopted by the Eau
Claire City Council on February 13, 1990.
To conclude, as several carcnentors do, that the District would
encourage an urban sprawl pattern of development is a subjective
statement that assumes the Town of Hallie will not institute planning
practices to manage growth and development within the Town. Economics
may ultimately drive the ability of the District to serve additions to
the District beyond the affected area. Furthermore, U.S. EPA
questions the validity of this comment when one observes the
annexation tendencies of Eau Claire in the affected area.
-------
28
The unilateral order required NPI to evaluate potential alternatives
for a permanent water supply for the affected area that protects
public health. It did not set the framework for creating a sanitary
district. The District was created in response to Eau Claire's
unwillingness to serve the affected area without first requiring
annexation. At the time of formation, the District comprised only the
affected area with the exception of one small addition outside the
affected area. The growth of the District to its present size was due
to the interest and desire of other Hallie residents to be part of a
water district utility and had no bearing on U.S. EPA's selection of
the final remedy.
Ctmnent: NPI specifically takes exception to U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan and
the PFS Addendum with respect to the following matters:
1. EPA statement that "...NPI has been, and continues to be,
unwilling to accurately present information to either the public
or U.S. EPA that implicates confirmed on-site disposal areas as
sources of off -site contamination."
2. U.S. EPA allegations that representations by NPI and its
consultants in the PFS were misleading and biased, and
3. U.S. EPA allegations that the PFS contains unwarranted
editorializing or speculation by NPI and its consultants.
The commentor respectfully requests that the U.S. EPA Addendum and
Proposed Plan be revised to delete reference to the matters
specifically excepted to by the comroentor as set forth in Section III
B.I, 2. and 3. above.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA notes these comments for inclusion into the
administrative record. Without specifically responding to items 1.,
2. and 3. above, and the two pages of narrative immediately following
in NPI's March 5, 1990 suhmlttal, the Agency stands behind the
Addendum to the PFS and believes the administrative record fully
supports the statements and conclusions contained therein. U.S. EPA
respectfully declines to revise the Proposed Plan in response to the
exceptions taken by NPI.
U.S. EPA does agree with some of the technical comments submitted by
Eder Associates in its March 1, 1990 letter, and these are
incorporated into the Addendum by reference with qualifications noted
by U.S. EPA. Refer to Section 3.A. of this Responsiveness Summary for
U.S. EPA's response to specific comments from Eder Associates.
Cement: The City of Chippewa Falls emphasized that the District will
create an additional governmental unit in the metropolitan area
resulting in more fragmentation which can complicate coordinated
development of the entire area. land use planning, street and highway
planning, facilities planning, to name a few, do not respect
governmental boundary lines. But the development, and more
-------
29
particularly, the ijiplementation of planning activities becomes nuch
more difficult where many fragmented separate governmental systems
exist.
U.S. EPA Response: It is beyond the scope of the preferred and selected
remedies to assess the inpact the District may or may not have on the
future growth and development of the Eau Claire - Chippewa Falls Urban
Area. The District and Town of Hallie are synonymous with Hallie Town
Board members also serving as District Commissioners. For this
reason, U.S. EPA does not believe the District will significantly
impact the ability to implement regional planning activities.
However, long-term regional goals and objectives may have to be
revised to account for the existence of the District. A more
significant barrier to successful implementation of regional planning
activities appears to be the hostility and lack of cooperation between
Eau Claire and the Town of Hallie.
Comment: One commentor believed the District is not required by the
public convenience and necessity. Public convenience and necessity
are better served by the extension of City of Eau Claire water to the
affected area.
U.S. EPA Response: The City of Eau Claire offered to only extend municipal
water to the affected area without requiring annexation. In a May 7,
1990 letter to the Cities of Eau Claire and Chippewa Palls and the
Town of Hallie, the PSC made a preliminary determination that there is
a need for a public water system in the entire geographic area of the
proposed District, inclining the affected area. The PSC also provided
Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls the opportunity "to be the provider of
water utility service throughout the entire geographic area of the
District on an essentially equivalent basis as the District proposes
without the requiring annexation." Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls
could not comply with the conditions established by the PSC and the
order was issued on June 13, 1990. In the order, the PSC certifies:
"That the general public interest and public convenience and necessity
require the Town of Hallie Sanitary District No. 1, Chippewa County,
to operate as a water public utility...."
Comment: The Town of Hallie submitted its own interpretation of the nine
evaluation criteria, excluding caimunity and state acceptance, in
comparing the District to Eau Claire's proposal to extend municipal
water to the affected area without requiring annexation.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA appreciates the comments from the Town of
Hallie and thanks the Town and District for its interest and support
throughout the remedial process. Without responding to the
applicability of the Town's comments relative to the nine criteria,
U.S. EPA did not select Eau Claire's proposal (Alternative 6) for
reasons detailed in the ROD.
-------
30
,it: The City of Chippewa Falls submitted Resolution 90-20 regarding
Kallie Sanitary District No. 1. passed by the City Council on February
26, 1990. The City of Chippewa Falls resolves the following:
1. That the City of Chippewa Falls hereby supports the prompt
extension of water to the affected area known as the Kallie
Triangle.
2. That the City of Chippewa Falls favors the proposal of the City
of Eau Claire to provide safe water to the Kallie Triangle as the
most cost-effective solution.
3. That formation of the Kallie Sanitary District within the
ultimate service areas of the cities of Eau Claire and Chippewa
Falls is redundant and not cost effective and promotes urban
sprawl.
4. That the City of Chippewa Falls hereby opposes the formation of
the Kallie Sanitary District No. 1 based on the adopted service
area plans and the investment that has been already made by the
City of Chippewa Falls to comply with these plans.
5. That sewer and water service be provided to the planned Ultimate
Service Area in accordance with the approved area-wide plans
referred to above.
6. That the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to make
this position known to the Environmental Protection
Administration, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the
Kallie Sanitary District No. 1 by the respective deadline for
filing written comments or briefs with these agencies.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA acknowledges the resolution adopted by the
City Council of Chippewa Falls and appreciates the interest by the
City in the prompt implementation of an alternate water supply for the
affected area. U.S. EPA agrees with Resolution No. 1 and believes the
selected remedy will aoocnplish this objective in a timely manner.
For Resolutions 2 through 5, the City is referred to other sections of
this Responsiveness Summary for U.S. EPA's response to the City's
comments and concerns.
Comment: The City of Eau Claire questions the long-term economic
viability of the District. It is further concerned that citizens in
the area and the City may incur additional costs when it is necessary
to incorporate an independently-constructed system into the City's
facilities.
U.S. EPA Response: The ROD does not address the long-term economic
viability of the District. Since operation and maintenance costs are
the responsibility of the District through user fees, the responsible
parties' financial obligations, or Superfund's in the event the
responsible parties do not implement the selected remedy, are for
-------
31
design and construction only. U.S. EPA did not select the final
remedy under the presumption that the City of Eau Claire- would
incorporate the District's facilities into the City's municipal water
system at some point in the future.
3. Responses to CciuuaiLs Submitted by Eder Aggnm^tes. inc. (Eder) and
Short Elliot Hendrickson. Inc. (SEH)
A. Eder
CCmnent: This comment pertains to Items 1) and 3) on page 1 of the
Addendum: Only dry wells 2 and 3 contained VOCs, therefore the
statement that all dry wells are sources of VOC contamination is
incorrect.
U.S. EPA Response: The Addendum does not state that all dry wells are
sources of VDC contamination. It simply states that dry wells,
without reference to specific dry wells, are sources of contamination.
Coronflnt: This comment pertains to the Melby Road discussion on page 4.
The analytical method and detection limits were approved by U.S. EPA
following extensive pre-RI testing by Pace laboratories. VOCs were
detected at lagoon No. 1 using the same detection limits. The
implication that there were other analytical methods available that
would provide better detection limits is not correct. The
characterization of the detection limits as being unusually high is
not justified given the nature of the sample matrix.
U.S. EPA Response: The intent of this paragraph was to simply present an
explanation for the absence of VOCs in the analytical results of soil
and waste samples from the Melby Road Site. It was not intended to
imply the availability of other analytical methods with lower
detection limits. The analytical method and detection limits were
approved by U.S. EPA prior to sample analysis.
Comment: This comment pertains to the Melby Road discussion on page 5.
The highest VOC readings in soil vapors were found east of the
trenches as shown on the drawing submitted by Eder Associates to U.S.
EPA. In fact, when the soil vapor results showed very low VOC
concentrat-.ions or non detects over the trenches, additional samples
were collected at these locations for laboratory analysis. With a
detection limit of 1,000 ppb, no VOCs were detected in the trench
samples. Therefore, the statement that a strong correlation exists
between the trenches and the detection of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in
soil vapor samples is incorrect.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with the above comment which will serve
as the revision to the Addendum.
Comment: This comment refers to Table 1 on page 5. 1,1-Dichloroethene and
1,1-dichloroethane were not analyzed in soil samples and the table
should be corrected to read not analyzed rather than not detected.
-------
32
The range in the concentration column is misleading in two ways.
First, the lower end of the range should be the detection limit (or
not detected) instead of "0." Second, to indicate that a range is
from "0" to "4" ppb when only one sanple contained 4 ppb is
misleading. Suggested revisions to Tables 1 and 2 are attached.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with the above conments which will
serve as the revision to the Addendum.
Ctnment: This comment refers to Table 2 on page 6. As in the preceding
comment, only one sample contained trichloroethene (at 18,000 ppb) and
the representation of the range in concentration as 0-18,000 ppb is
misleading.
U.S. EPA Response: U.S. EPA agrees with Eder's comment which will serve as
the revision to the Addendum; however "only" should be deleted from
Eder's content.
Ctmnent: This comment pertains to the affected area discussion on pages 6
and 7 of the Addendum. The depiction of the west plume (Figure 4)
ignores data from private wells along Highway 53. These wells contain
TCE and not the Melby Road fingerprint VDCs (DCE, DCA and TCA). Wells
containing only TCE would not be included in the west plume. The east
plume does not extend to the east edge of the west plume as shown on
Figure 4. However, the arrows showing flow from the East Disposal
Area to Lake Hallie are fairly accurate.
In order to more accurately show the plumes, residential well and
groundwater flow data should be considered along with fingerprint WCs
from the monitoring wells. This would show that TCE in wells along
Highway 53 and downgradient is not originating from Melby Road because
of fingerprinting (wrong TOGs) and groundwater flow direction. All of
this ties into the discussion on page 7 of the Addendum concerning the
investigation of off-site sources along Highway 53. While the U.S.
EPA discussion does not rule out off-site sources, it is left for the
reader to conclude that, since TCE was not found at potential off-site
source areas, there are no off-site sources located along Highway 53.
If fingerprint VOCs and groundwater flow are considered, there appear
to be sources of TCE along Highway 53.
U.S. EPA Response: The area referenced by Eder's comments is identified as
Plume 4 in the draft RI report and the language proposed by Eder in
its discussion of Plume 4 in the draft RI is the most appropriate
response to its comment. The draft RI reads as follows: "The mapping
of plume 4 is based on the anomalous TCE occurrence in an area which
may not be related to the NPI site. The primary reason for not
connecting plume 4 with the NPI site is the non detection of TCE in
MW-5A,B, MW-9A,B, MW-8A, MW-14 or MW-15 which are the closest
upgradient monitoring wells. MW-8 lies between plume 4 and the only
documented NPI site source of TCE, the East Disposal Site. MW-8 is
screened in the 75 to 90 foot zone as compared to PW-98 which is
screened in a comparable zone at 93 to 98 feet and contained 14
-------
33
ug/1 of TCE. The possibility of a slug release fron the. NPI site
cannot be entirely ruled out."
The discussion continues "...samples were collected at facilities
along the east side of Highway 53 and analyzed for TOCs. At Northwest
Equipment Co., sanples were collected along a ditch that carried
wastewater away from the facility. One sample of soil from the ditch
contained high levels of benzene oaiipounds which resulted in high
detection limits for other VOCs. The presence of TCE at an estimated
concentration of 256 ug/kg is a qualified result.... Given the non-
validated nature of this result, no definitive statement can be made
on Northwest Equipment as a potential source of TCE."
U.S. EPA wishes to add that this is draft language not yet approved by
U.S. EPA and WDNR. The identification of the East Disposal Area as
the only documented on-site source of TCE is not correct. TCE was
detected in 6 of 41 soil vapor samples and one soil/waste sample at
the Melby Road Site. TCE has been detected in downgradient monitoring
wells at the Melby Road Site, although at concentrations significantly
lower than in private well samples within plume 4. TCE was also
recently detected in new monitoring wells in the southwestern portion
of the Site, although the most recent grcundwater data was not
available at the time of Eder's comment.
b.
Comment: The PFS misrepresents operation and maintenance costs for the
District. On December 14, 1989, prior to release of the PFS, the
District forwarded to NPI the operation and maintenance cost estimate
of $48,200 per year. When writing the alternatives comparison, NPI
elected to use a cost estimate of $120,000 per year which was provided
by Ayres Associates with a documented list of assumptions as the basis
for this extremely high estimate. Although NPI had both operation and
maintenance cost estimates, it chose to use $120,000 for obvious
biased reasons which has led to significant misunderstanding among
affected parties of the District.
In Table 10 on page 79 of the PFS, the operation and maintenance cost
for the District is presented as $120,000. We herein request that the
self-serving estimate of $120,000 be removed and that the District's
operation and maintenance estimate of $48,200 be inserted in this
Table.
U.S. EPA Response: The operation and maintenance cost estimates presented
in the PFS for the District were prepared by Ayres Associates, a local
engineering firm presumably familiar with camunity water systems in
the State of Wisconsin, including minimum design standards set by
state codes and operation and maintenance requirements and costs. For
comparison purposes, the Proposed Plan used the operation and
maintenance costs presented in the PFS but also acknowledged the cost
estimates prepared by the District in its December 4, 1989 application
to the PSC. At the PSC hearing on February 19, 1990, the PSC provided
-------
34
preliminary annual revenue requirements of approximately $30,000 which
U.S. EPA believes is the roost reliable estimate of annual operation
and maintenance costs. The PSC estimate of $80,000 was incorporated
into the ROD as the projected costs for the selected remedy.
Oonment: Through the PIPS, NPI continually suggests that a high percentage
(example, page 11, 22 percent) of the District does not exist. The
impact of these inaccurate assumptions greatly biases the cost
estimates and alternative comparisons throughout all sections of the
PFS examples, pages 11, 12, 15, 17, 31, and 35 through 82). The issue
is further utilized on page 43 to suggest that the District with
declining users, would incur a user charge even higher than the
inaccurate cost presented. We herein request that the District be
recognized as formed and that the total district be properly evaluated
as a viable alternative.
U.S* EPA Response: The percentages of the affected area to be serviced by
Eau Claire and the District and corresponding cost estimates were
based on conditions that existed at the time the PFS was prepared and
in response to U.S. EPA's October 13, 1989 temporary "freeze" of the
jurisdictional boundaries within the affected area. The evaluation of
alternatives by NPI and the selection of a preferred alternative by
U.S. EPA assumed the annexation petitions filed with the City of Eau
Claire on or before October 13, 1989 would be subsequently adopted by
the City Council and not rendered void by the Chippewa County Circuit
Court. These annexed parcels, which comprise approximately 22 percent
of the affected area, would then be serviced by Eau Claire.
The discussion on page 43 does not suggest that the District would
incur a higher user charge with declining custcmers. It simply
states: "If the number of users is reduced because the area receives
water from other sources, operation and maintenance costs would be
less but they would be borne by fewer users. As fixed costs would not
decline with the user base, the cost of delivered water per customer
will increase...." U.S. EPA believes this to be a reasonable
conclusion.
Based on the PSC's preliminary cost estimates, it is apparent that
operation and maintenance costs for the District prepared by NPI were
overestimated; however, the operation and maintenance costs projected
by the District were significantly underestimated. Finally, the
District has always been recognized by U.S. EPA as a viable
alternative as documented by the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Caraent: The schedule for operation of the District is presented in Table
4 of the PFS to convey that it is not possible to have service on-line
in 1990. As the project is on schedule, we herein request that the
District's remediation of the problem be restated as a 1990 reality
and that the status of the District water source, water storage
facility and system design as presented to U.S. EPA on December 4,
1989, become a part of the record.
-------
35
On page 41 of the PFS, the author suggests that the deadline for PSC
approval "has slipped by several months." This is untrue and the
project remains on schedule for 1990 construction and operation.
U.S. EPA Response; The schedule in the PFS was prepared by NPI and its
consultant and the District's implementation schedule was
independently prepared by the District and its project engineer, both
without input from U.S. EPA. These schedules were based on the
District's and NPI's interpretations of Wisconsin's administrative
requirements and the time required to fulfill these obligations. U.S.
EPA has never concurred with either schedule; however, the Agency has
until recently, remained hopeful for an "on-line" system in 1990. The
schedule has been delayed several months while awaiting the decision
from the PSC which jeopardizes a 1990 construction schedule. The
timely implementation of the District depends on the willingness of
the responsible parties to fund the design and construction, and the
availability of Federal funds in the event U.S. EPA undertakes the
remedial action. If the District is determined to have a central
distribution system constructed and operational by the end of 1990, it
may proceed on its own with the understanding that there will be no
reimbursement from U.S. EPA for unauthorized expenditures by the
District, as previously explained in an October 1989 letter from the
Agency to Hallie and Eau Claire officials.
The reference to page 41 of the PFS is no longer relevant because the
PSC Order was not issued until June 13, 1990.
Conment: The author concludes that a change in political jurisdiction "is
a logical option." When SEH personnel conducted door to door
interviews to determine the desired water service location of each
facility in the District, 93 percent of those contacted supported the
Hallie project. We request that this editorial cement be struck from
the record and that the unanimous support for the District be included
as fact.
U.S. EPA Response: The preferred remedy in the Proposed Plan and the
selected remedy in the ROD acknowledge the support for the District.
Written and oral contents received during the public cotment period
are also part of the administrative record and can be reviewed by any
interested party to gauge support for the various alternatives
discussed in the Proposed Plan and PFS.
Conment: We herein request that the following conclusions in Sections
4.3.7 and 4.4 of the PFS be correctly stated:
1) Section 4.3.7 - The District roust be recognized as formed and be
considered as such in the entire PFS.
2) Section 4.4 - Preferred Alternative. Add the District to this
list.
-------
36
3) page 83 - This discussion does not consider the District as a
utility.
U.S. ERA. Response:
1) U.S. EPA has always recognized the creation of the District.
U.S. EPA required NPI to modify the draft PFS submitted in August
1989 to reflect the newly formed District as a viable
alternative. U.S. EPA identified the District as a coiponent of
both the preferred remedy in the Proposed Plan and the selected
remedy in the ROD.
2) The District as the sole provider of drinking water to the
affected area was not one of the alternatives evaluated in the
PFS or U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan due to the annexation of several
parcels within the affected area to the City of Eau Claire. For
this reason, the preferred remedy in the Proposed Plan was a dual
service alternative. The ROD details the final remedy and the
rationale for its selection. U.S. EPA believes the selected
remedy, Alternative 2, is the only uplementable alternative to
provide a permanent and safe drinking water supply to the entire
affected area in a timely manner.
3) NPI evaluated potential remedial alternatives pursuant to U.S.
EPA policy and guidance. By undertaking the PFS, it was NPI's
discretion to select its own preferred remedy. The discussion on
page 83 is presented in support of NPI's preferred alternative
(Alternative 4}, individual home and business treatanent units,
and is not interpreted as lack of consideration for the District.
The ocnmentor is referred to pages 9 and 10 of the Addendum to
the PFS prepared by U.S. EPA, in consultation with WCNR, for
U.S. EPA's Garments on Sections 4.3.7 and 4.4 of the PFS.
-------
37
ATTACHMENT
Community Relations Activities
at
National Presto
Community relations activities conducted at the Site to date have
included;
o U.S. EPA established information repositories at Hal lie Town Hall
and the Chippewa Falls Public Library (October 1987).
o U.S. EPA issued a press release announcing finalization of the
Administrative Order by Consent between U.S. EPA, WDNR and NPI
for conduct of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
(June 1986).
o U.S. EPA released the Administrative Order by Consent for a
30-day public comment period (June-July 1986).
o U.S. EPA conducted cccrunity interviews with local officials and
interested residents (October 1987).
o U.S. EPA held a public meeting at Hal lie Town Hall to describe
the RI/FS and to respond to citizens' questions. Approximately
75 people attended, including citizens and elected officials and
local press (October 1987). The meeting was advertised in the
Chippewa Falls Herald-Telegram and the Eau Claire
Leader-Telegram. Also, a press release was issued on October 14,
1987.
o U.S. EPA prepared and distributed a fact sheet, as well as
announcing the public meeting summarizing the RI/FS process and
the Site history. The fact sheet was mailed to area residents
and elected officials (October 1987).
o U.S. EPA finalized a community relations plan (June 1988).
o U.S. EPA advertised the availability of Technical Assistance
Grants in the Herald-Telegram and Leader-Telegram (June 1988).
o U.S. EPA prepared and distributed a letter detailing private well
water sampling results to residents whose wells were tested
(March 1989).
-------
38
o U.S. EPA prepared and distributed a fact sheet summarizing
drinking water well sampling results, the proposed distribution
of bottled water to affected residents, the proposed Phased
Feasibility Study (PFS) conoerning a permanent drinking water
supply, and announcing a public meeting (March 1989).
o U.S. EPA held a public meeting at Hallie Town Hall to describe
the sampling results, proposed bottled water program and the PFS,
and to respond to citizens' questions. U.S. EPA also distributed
a short questionnaire to solicit citizens' input concerning a
long-term drinking water supply. Approximately 90 people
attended the meeting, including citizens, press and elected
officials (April 1989). The meeting was advertised in the
Herald-Telegram and Leader-Telegram. Also, a press release was
issued on March 22, 1989.
o U.S. EPA issued a press release announcing the issuance of a
Unilateral Order to NPI requiring NPI to initiate a bottled
drinking-water program, conduct a PFS and undertake additional
private well sampling to fully define the affected area
(May 1989).
o U.S. EPA held an informal availability session at the Hallie Town
Hall to update citizens on the RI/FS and the PFS (August 1989).
The meeting was advertised in the Herald-Telegram and
Leader-Telegram. Also, a press release was issued on August 15,
1989.
o U.S. EPA issued a press release announcing the release of the PFS
report and the Proposed Plan for public review and comment
(December 1989).
o U.S. EPA advertised the availability of the PFS report, U.S.
EPA's addendum to the PFS and the Proposed Plan for review and
comment, summarizing remedial alternatives as well as announcing
a public meeting to record public contents (December 1989).
o U.S. EPA prepared and distributed a fact sheet summarizing the
PFS report, remedial alternatives, and the preferred alternative
(December 1989).
o U.S. EPA advertised the public meeting to accept public comments
in the Herald-Telegram and Leader-Telegram (January 1990).
o U.S. EPA held a public meeting at the Hallie Town Hall to
describe the PFS and the Proposed Plan, respond to citizens'
questions, and record comments by the public (January 18, 1990).
Approximately 130 people attended the meeting. A transcript of
this hearing is available at the Chippewa Falls Public Library
and at the Hallie Town Hall.
-------
39
o A transcript of the January 18, 1990 public meeting was placed
in site information repositories (January 1990).
o U.S. EPA established an administrative record for the site at the
Chippewa Falls Public Library (January 1990).
o U.S. EPA advertised a 15-day extension of the public ocnment
period in the Herald-Telegram and Leader-Telegram (January 1990).
o The public eminent period lasted from January 4 to March 5, 1990.
o Information repositories at the Chippewa Falls Public Library and
Hal lie Town Hall have continuously been updated since October
1987.
-------
State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Cirroll D. Betidny, Secretary
Box 7921
Mtdison, Witconain 53707
" DNR TELEFAX NO, 608-267-3579
TDD NO. 608-267-6857
SOLID WASTE TELEFAX NO. 608-267-2768
July 26, 1990 FILE REF: 4430
Mr. Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
SUBJECT: Selected Superfund Remedy
National Presto Inc.
Eau Claire, WI
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The Department is providing you with this letter to document our position on
the proposed interim remedy for the National Presto Inc. (NPI) Site. The
proposal, as identified in the draft Record of Decision includes the
following:
Alternative 2: Hallie Sanitary District with Eau Claire Supply for the
Areas Annexed by the City of Eau Claire
A permanent water supply for the affected area in the Town
of Hallie provided by the Hallie Sanitary District through
the construction of a supply well, distribution system and
storage facilities, and the City of Eau Claire (for those
businesses and residences which have annexed to the City).
Estimated Costs: Construction - $2,600,000
Operation and Maintenance (annual) - $90,000
10 Year Present Worth - $3,2000,000
The total 10-year present net worth for the NPI interim remedial action is
approximately $3,200,000. We understand that if the potentially responsible
parties do not agree to fund the remedy, the State of Wisconsin will
contribute 10% of the interim remedial action costs associated with the NPI
Site.
We also understand that our staff will continue to work in close consultation
with your staff during the remaining Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
-------
Mr.. AdamlvUS -'July 26, 1990
2.
work associated with the NPI Site, as well as during the design and
construction of the interim remedy.
Thank you for your support and cooperation in addressing this contamination
problem at the NPI site in Eau Claire and the Town of Hal lie. If you have any
questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Paul Didier, Director of
the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, at (608) 266-1327.
Sincerely,
C. D. B£S_adpy, Secre
CDB:SB
ary
c.c
. Lyman Wible - AD/5
. Linda Meyer - LC/5
Paul Didier - SW/3
Dave Lundberg - WD
John Paddock - WD
Jim Boettcher - WD
-Jfrike Gifford - EPA Reg. V (5HS/11)
Mark Giesfeldt/Sue Bangert - SW/3
------- |