United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-91/055
September 1991
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Mid-America Tanning, IA
-------
5C]~.101
~IREPORT DOCUMENTATION I,. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R07-91/055
4. TIle and SubtIle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Mid-America Tanning, IA
First Remedial Action
7. Aulhar(.)
1 ~
3. RecIpient. Acceulon No.
5. Report D8te
09/24/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
8. Pwfonnlng OrgalnlDUon Name and Add-
10. ProjectlTuklWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant1G) No.
IC)
IG)
1~ Sponaor\ng Organlz8llon Name and Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type o' Report & Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary No-
16. Abatrac:t IUmlt: 200 worda)
The 98.7-acre Mid-America Tanning site is a former leather tannery in Sergeant Bluff,
Woodbury County, Iowa. Surrounding land use is mixed industrial and agricultural. A
portion of the site is bordered by Oxbow Lake and lies within the 100-year
floodplain. The Missouri River is approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest of the
site and receives discharges from Oxbow Lake. The facility began onsite processing
of animal hides in 1970. From 1973 to 1989, the site was used intermittently under
various owners as a chrome tanning operation. Process wastewater containing debris,
chromium, and other chemicals was discharged to onsite lagoons and impoundments.
Sludge generated from the process was disposed onsite in the surficial soil or in
disposal trenches. Occasional system overloads resulted in overflow of chromium
wastewater into Oxbow Lake. In 1980, the State confirmed the onsite burial of
chromium-containing sludge in trenches, and the company was cited for permit
violations. A 1985 EPA investigation identified excessive chromium contamination in
onsite soil, sediment, and ground water. In 1990, EPA conducted a removal action
that included excavating and consolidating onsite 1,290 cubic yards of sludge from
the trench disposal area. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the contaminated
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyaia .. Dncriptora
Record of Decision - Mid-America Tanning, IA
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris,
Key Contaminants: metals (chromium, lead)
sludge, sw
b. kfentifieralOpen-Encfed Terma
Co COSA 11 ReldlGroup
18. Avlilabllty SIatement
19. Security Cia.. (11Ila Report)
None
20. Sea8ity CI... (1111. Page)
Nnn4">
21. No. o' Page.
130
I
n PrIce
See ANSJ-Z39.18
See /".trucliona on Reveree
,-If)
IFonneJly NTlS-35)
Department o' Convnerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R07-91/055
Mid-America Tanning, IA
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
soil, impoundment sediment and water, and the excavated trench material. A future ROD
will address onsite ground water contamination. The primary contaminant of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, debris, sludge, and surface water are metals including
chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site includes treating 8,300 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and 44,500 cubic yards of impoundment sediment onsite using in-situ
immobilization; immobilizing 1,293 cubic yards of consolidated trench sludge onsite,
followed by either onsite or offsite disposal; removing and disposing of debris offsite
and discharging impoundment water onsite through an NPDES-permitted outfall or
treatment, if needed, with offsite discharge to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW); capping contaminated areas, and grading and seeding top soil; conducting ground
water monitoring; and implementing institutional controls including deed restrictions.
A contingent remedy using ex-situ immobilization will be implemented if treatability
studies determine that the selected remedy is inadequate. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $4,857,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$21,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Federal and State clean-up standards for chromium have
not been established at this time. Clean-up objectives are based on a 10-4 cancer risk
to human health and include hexavalent chromium 2,490 mg/kg.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
MID-AMERICA TANNING CO. SITE
SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
Prepared by:
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
~
DECLARATION
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Mid-America Tanning Co. site
Sergeant Bluff, Iowa
,.
Statement of Basis and PurDose
This decision document presents the selected remedial ac~ion
for the Mid-America Tanning Co. site, in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa.
The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the require-
ments of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and the Nation-
al Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
The information supporting this remedial action decision is
contained in the administrative record for this site.
The State of Iowa concurs 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 (ROD), may present a current
or potential threat to pUblic health, welfare, or the environ-
ment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This ROD addresses the operable units of soils, sediments
and impoundment water. The principal threat at this site is
chromium contamination in the soil and impoundment sediments and
chromium-contaminated impoundment water. The presence of this
contamination in these media presents a threat to any workers who
would use the site.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
. The removal and disposal of impoundment water;
. The in-situ immobilization of contaminated soil and
impoundment sediment;
. The placement of caps over contaminated areas; and
. Grading and seeding top soil to control erosion.
-------
---
-- --J. - - ..
. --..- _.----- ~-_. ..-......---..- ..- .-...
Declaration of StatutorY Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedi-
al action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, and it satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume as their principal element. Institutional controls will
be installed at the site to insure that the remedy provides
protection of human health and the environment. This protection
is based on health-based levels that have been determined to be
protective when used in conjunction with institutional controls.
Since these controls will not allow for unlimited use and unre-
stricted exposure at the site, and because contaminated materials
will be left at the site, a review will be performed no less
often than every five years after initiation of the selected
remedial action.
The selected remedy employs innovative treatlJent technology
in in-situ immobilization. The full effectiveness of this
technology will be determined through treatability studies during
the design phase. If it is determined through treatability
testing that the technology will not be adequate, ex-situ immobi-
lization, as described in the decision summary (alternative 4),
will be implemented. This contingency remedy also complies with
the statutory determinations.
The remedial action that will be undertaken pursuant to this
ROD is a source control operable unit. This ROD is a source
control operable unit ROD, because the ground water at the site
will be addressed as a separate operable unit. Based on the
data collected during investigations, addressing the contaminant
source areas through treatment will mitigate future ground water
problems. However, this can be finally determined by monitoring
the ground water for several years. Therefore, the response
actions described in this ROD will address the principal threat
at the site, but will not constitute the final action for the
site. The need for a final action to address ground water will
be determined at a later time, not to exceed the initial five-
year review.
AZ~:;I{~
Regional Administrator
United states Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
tJ-7~-7/
Date
-------
--
. .
.._~_.- ..
"--'---*---_.. -
- . ..----- . -- ."'
.~. .. -. - .
LO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE BACKGROUND
1.1
1.2
1.3
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
3.0
2.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
4.0' SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
OVERVIEW OF BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
REMEDIATION GOALS .
ECOLOGICAL RISK
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
NO ACTION
REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL/
PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM GROUND WATER MONITORING
REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL/ON-SITE DISPOSAL/
PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM GROUND WATER MONITORING
REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL/IMMOBILIZATION/ON-SITE
DISPOSAL/PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM GROUND WATER
MONITORING .
IN-SITU IMMOBILIZATION/PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM
GROUND WATER MONITORING " .
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
STATE ACCEPTANCE
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
ENVIRONMENT
SELECTED REMEDY
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
-------
.. .- ~
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
, ,
L-
-------
1.0
SITE BACKGROUND
1.1
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Mid-America Tanning Co. Site is located in Woodbury
County in western Iowa, approximately seven miles south of sioux
City and four miles south of the town of Sergeant Bluff. It is
located in an industrial area known as the Port Neal Industrial
District. The nearest reach of the Missouri River is approxi-
mately 1.5 miles to the southwest. A map of the vicinity and
site location is shown in Figure 1.
The site occupies approximately 98.7 acres. It is bordered
on the north by Kind & Knox, a gelatin manufacturer, on the east
by a Chicago and Northwestern railroad right-of-way, and on the
west and south by agricultural land and public-use hunting
grounds.
The site is a closed leather tannery that operated intermit-
tently under several owners from 1970 to 1989. The main features
of the site include: a main building used for offices and hide
processing, a maintenance building, and a wastewater treatment
system consisting of a small building used to house pumping
operations. It also includes the following surface impoundments:
two aeration lagoons, a primary and secondary clarifier, a con-
crete aeration basin and a polishirig basin. The polishing basin
empties into an oxbow lake, which flows into a system of lakes
and streams that eventually empty into the Missouri River. These
features are shown on Figure 2.
A portion of the site bordering on the oxbow lake lies
within the 100-year flood plain, however the surface impoundments
do not. Information from the U.S. Department of the Interior and
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources indicate that there are
no sensitive environments within a one-mile. radius of the site.
. Sensitive environments would include wetlands, critical .habitats
of endangered species, and national wildlife refuges.
1.2
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The facility began processing animal hides in 1970, when
the plant was operated by Needham Packing Co. Facility opera-
tions included the fleshing, curing, and trimming of hides, but
no chrome tanning. These actions continued until 1973 when
Needham Packing Co. changed its name to Flavorland Industries
(Which has subsequently merged into a corporation known as Foxley
Cattle Company) and chrome tanning at the facility began and
steadily increased to approximately 40% of all production in
1976. The plant closed in December of 1976 due to labor prob-
lems. The plant was leased to the Mid-America Tanning Co. in
1977, which purchased the property in April, 1978. Mid-America
Tanning's operations, which were predominately chrome tanning,
began as soon as it leased the facility. In 1985 Mid-America
Tanning filed a Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
2
-------
~
Bankruptcy Code and the name of the company changed to u.s.
Tanning Co., Inc. U.S. Tanning continued the chrome tanning
operations until November of 1989, when business at the facility
ceased.
So far as is known, the chrome tanning operations at the
facility were conducted in the same fashion by all of its owners.
The process generated a waste stream of wastewater from the tan-
ning operations that contained debris, chromium and other chemi-
cals and organic products. This waste liquid was passed through
bar screens at the hide processing plant to filter out hair and
other protein solids. Wastewater passed through the bar screens
to the primary clarifier, where a chromium sludge would settle
out from the wastewater. When the sewer in the bar screen sta-
tion became overloaded, occasionally excess chromium wastewater
would flow out the doors directly into the oxbow lake in an
unpermitted discharge.
The effluent in the wastewater stream was supposed to travel
from the primary clarifier to the aeration lagoons to the final
clarifier for more settling, and then to the polishing basin for
final settling. Water from the pOlishing basin discharged di-
rectly to the oxbow lake in accordance with the facility's NPDES
permit. Occasionally the system would overflow at various points
and the effluent would flow directly into the oxbow lake without
going through the polishing basin, as required in the permit.
According to the most current historical information in
EPA's possession concerning the site, the sludge that collected
in the bar screening process was filter-pressed for dewatering
and sent to the local landfill during the time that the facility
was operated by Flavorland, Inc. However, the former president
.of Mid-America Tanning has stated that, beginning in 1979, much
of the waste sludge was disposed of on-site through burial in
trenches and by landfarming. As described above, the clarifiers,
aeration lagoons and polishing basins were used to settle out
sludges and aerate the wastewater. Chromium contaminated sludges
in these impoundments heavily accumulated on the bottom of all of
the impoundments. As with the sludge collected in the bar
screening process, some of this impoundment sludge was occasion-
ally. collected and disposed of on-site in the surficial soils or
in disposal trenches.
The site was identified as a potential problem in 1980 by
the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) due to the
on-site burial of chromium-containing sludges in trenches. A
site inspection was performed and the facility was cited for
violating its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. In March 1982, an NPDES permit compliance in-
spection by IDEQ found that the company was discharging chromium
effluent in excess of state limits. EPA Region VII conducted a
Compliance Monitoring Inspection at the facility in April 1983
3
-------
. which determined that the facility had repeatedly exceeded per-
mitted effluent limitations. .
In 1985, EPA conducted a Preliminary Assessment/site Inves-
tigation (PA/SI) at the site which showed excessive chromium
contamination in the trench disposal area and in a cornfield
north of the hide processing building. Ground water tested from
sample borings at the site revealed elevated heavy metal contami-
nation. Permanent ground water monitoring wells were installed
and sampled in 1986 by EPA. Analysis of these samples found
chromium and lead levels above Maximum contaminant Levels (MCLs).
These results were confirmed in 1987 with a second round of
ground water samples which found chromium, lead, arsenic, barium
and cadmium above MCLs. The site was scored under the Hazard
Ranking System and received a score of 47.91. It was proposed
for the National Priorities List in June 1988 and became final in
March 1989 (54 Fed. Reg. 13296).
A Special Notice Letter was issued to u.S. Tanning Co., the
site owners and operators, in March 1989, which requested that
the company perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). After unsuccessful negotiations with the responsible
party, EPA issued an Administrative Order to U.S. Tanning Co. in
December 1989 requiring that the RI/FS be conducted and that a
removal action be performed on the trench disposal area. After
failure of the responsible party to perform the work, and in
accordance with CERCLA, EPA initiated the necessary activities at
the site in 1990. The removal site assessment began in May 1990
by the Environmental Services Division of EPA Region VII. The
extent of soil contamination from total chromium was determined,
five monitoring wells were installed, and 1290 cubic yards of
sludge was removed from the trench disposal area which was
consolidated on and covered by plastic liners at the site. The
disposal of this material will be addressed during the RA. The
removal action was performed by EPA concurrently with the RI.
1.3
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
The RI Report, the FS, and the Proposed Plan for the Mid-
America Tanning site were released to the public for comment.
The public comment period was from July 16, 1991, through August
15, .1991. These documents were made available to the public with
the Administrative Record, which is located at information repos-
itories maintained at the Sergeant Bluff City Hall and at EPA
Region VII office. The notice of availability for these docu-
ments was published in the Sioux City Journal on July 15, 1991.
A public meeting was held on Tuesday, July 30, 1991 at the Ser-
geant Bluff City Hall in Sergeant .Bluff, Iowa. A summary of
comments received at this meeting and during the comment period
and EPA's response to those comments, the Responsiveness Summary,
is attached hereto as Appendix A.
4
-------
2.0
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
The selected remedy, as described in the following sections,
will address the principal threat of soil contamination, and
impoundment sediment and impoundment water contamination at the
site. Of particular concern is the presence of chromium contam-
ination in these media and the threat that exists to any site
workers who would use the site. This ROD will be considered a
final source control operable unit ROD, because this action is
the final action for the contaminated source areas, but does not
address ground water. Based on the data collected during the RI,
addressing the contaminant source areas through treatment will
mitigate future ground water problems. However, this can only be
determined by monitoring the ground water for several years.
Therefore, the response actions described in this ROD will ad-
dress the principal threat at the site, but will not constitute
the final action for all media at the site. The need for a final
action to address ground water as a separate operable unit will
be determined at a later time, at the latest before the five-year
review.
3.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The investigation performed by EPA identified all sources of
contamination and characterized the nature and extent of contami-
nation at the site. The discussion of these findings are de-
scribed as follows per impoundment/media:
East and West Aeration Laaoons
The east and west aeration lagoons are impoundments that
were used in the treatment of wastewater and sludges at the site.
Liquid in the west lagoon was approximately 1.5 feet deep, while
the liquid in the east lagoon ranged from 4 to 7.5 feet deep.
The primary contaminant in both lagoons, as well as throughout
impoundments and media at the site, is chromium. The contamina-
tion level in the water of the west lagoon was 2,300 micrograms
of total chromium per liter of water (~g/l) and the east lagoon
had 31,000 ~g/l (see Figure 3). A complete list of contaminants
detected above background water levels is contained in Table 1.
Some values on this and other tables are presented in units of
milligrams of contaminant per liter of water (mg/l). The volume
of contaminated water in the west lagoon is 486,000 gallons
(2,400 cubic yards) and in the east lagoon, 990,000 gallons
(4,900 cubic yards).
The depth of the sludge in the west lagoon ranges from ap-
proximately 13 to 15 feet deep, as shown on Figure 4. Figure 5
shows the east lagoon, in which the depth of the sludge ranges
from approximately 11.5 to 15.5 feet. The contamination level in
the west lagoon sludge/sediments ranges from 4,200 to 43,000
milligrams of total chromium per kilogram of sediment (mg/kg),
5
-------
while the east lagoon chromium level in sediments ranges from
2,000 to 41,000 mg/kg. The volume of chromium-contaminated
sediments is 23,000 cubic yards in the west lagoon and 21,500
cubic yards in the east lagoon.
Primary Clarifier. Concrete Aeration Basin. Final Clarifier
The primary clarifier, concrete aeration basin, and the
final clarifier are all impoundments made of concrete. They were
used in the wastewater treatment process to separate water from
chromium sludges and organic matter. Effluent from the primary
clarifier did not contain heavy metal contamination above back-
ground water levels. The water from the final clarifier contains
cyanide at 120 ~g/l and total chromium at 480 ~g/l. The liquid
from the primary clarifier has been added to the water in the
east lagoon. The volume of water in the concrete aeration basin
was calculated to be 133,000 gallons (650 cubic yards) and does
not contain heavy metal contamination above background water
levels.
Sludges from the primary and final clarifiers were not
sampled. The sludge from the concrete aeration basin was sampled
and total chromium was detected at 970 mg/kg (see Figure 6).. The
volume of sludge was calculated at 4,700 cubic yards. The sludge
from the primary clarifier was incorporated with the sludges
removed from the trench disposal area. Water from the final
clarifier will be addressed with other contaminated impoundment
waters at the site, and the sludges from the final clarifier and
the concrete aeration basin will be contained in place or ad-
dressed with other contaminated sludges at the site, as deter-
mined during the Remedial Design (RD).
Polishina Basin
Measurement of the depth of water in the polishing basin
ranged from 24 inches in the southwest corner to 42 inches in the
northwest corner, which depicts the greater accumulation of
sediment in the southwest corner where the outfall from the final
clarifier is located. A list of contaminants above background
water levels for liquid in the polishing basin is provided in
Table 2. Total chromium ranges from 16 to 93 ~g/l and hexavalent
chromium ranges from 20 to 37 ~g/l. Trivalent chromium was the
type used in facility tanning processes, however hexavalent
chromium may be present under certain conditions. The Ph of the
water ranges from 9.57 to 9.79 and the Eh (redox potential)
ranged from +0.376 to +0.410. The chrome tanning agent used in
the facility process was CrZ(so')3' which dissociates to CrZ03 and
Cr(OH)3. Figure 7 shows that hexavalent chrome as the divalent
anion cro,- is the stable dissolved species in the presence of
Cro3 and Cr(OH)3 under the Eh-Ph conditions present in the oxbow
lake. Figure 8 shows hexavalent chromium sampling locations for
impoundment water. Other contaminants of interest include
6
-------
. .
ammonia-nitrogen and manganese at 58,900 and 1,600 ~g/l respec-
tively. The volume of contaminated water was calculated to be
12,220,000 gallons (60,500 cubic yards).
The concentration of total chromium in the polishing basin
sediments from composite sampling ranged from 79 to 11,000 mg/kg.
Nickel was also detected above background concentrations at 17 to
140 mg/kg. Manganese values ranged from 400 to 1200 mg/kq.
These values are shown on Table 3. The volume of contaminated
sediments in the polishing basin was calculated at 40,500 cubic
yards.
The magnitude of the contaminant values in water and sedi-
ments in the polishing basin decrease in a northerly direction as
the depth of the water and the distance from the outfall increas-
es.
Sludqe Disposal Areas
The chromium-contaminated sludges were disposed of at the
site in several locations in the surficial and subsurface soils.
As previously mentioned, sludges were disposed of in trenches
located northeast of the east aeration lagoon. These sludges
have been excavated and will be addressed in this ROD. Sludges
were also incorporated into surficial soils in the northeast
field and the south field, as shown on Fiqure 9. A preliminary
action level of 2000 mg of total chromium per kg of soil was
chosen by the Environmental Services Division based on previous
usage at another chrome tanning site. This level has been used
at this site on a preliminary basis for costinq and planning pur-
poses. To determine the extent of soil contamination, the site
was divided into grids, and then the soil was sampled and ana-
lyzed. Fiqure 9 shows those grids that exceed the 2000 mg/kg
criteria, based on a 95% upper confidence level (UCL) sampling.
Contamination above the preliminary action level is also apparent
in the drainage pathways from the primary and final clarifiers to
the oxbow lake, in the surficial soil around the trench disposal
area, and in sediments near the impoundments.
Total chromium in the northeast field ranged from 850 to
22,000 mg/kq, and from 14 to 7474 mg/kq in the south field.
Also, soil samples were collected from the northeast field for
the purposes of conductinq a treatability study. Hexavalent
chromium was found at an average of 71 mg/kq. The range of total
chromium samples in the drainage pathway from the primary clari-
fier to the oxbow was 100 to 2732 mg/kg. The grid sample from
the outfall of the final clarifier to the oxbow lake had a total
chromium concentration of 3004 mg/kg. The range around the
impoundments for total chromium was from 14 to 3070 mg/kg. The
calculated volume of total contaminated soil above the 2,000
mg/kg action level is 12,000 cubic yards.
7
-------
. .
. Oxbow Lake
Table 4 lists the concentrations of contaminants detected in
the oxbow lake water samples above background levels. The
highest barium detection was at location 13 (see Figure 10), 7000
~g/l, with fourteen samples above background. The highest
detection of total chromium in the oxbow lake was found in 1985
at location B, 190 ~g/l (see Figure 11). The sampling and analy-
sis conducted during the RI generally found few samples above
background for total chromium. Hexavalent chromium was detected
in seven samples ranging from 11 to 34 ~g/l in the oxbow lake
water. These values are potentially the result of discharge from
the polishing basin.
Table 5 lists the concentrations of oxbow lake sediment
contaminants detected above background levels. Arsenic concen-
trations ranged from 4.9 to 100 mg/kg, with the 100 mg/kg detec-
tion at location 11 on Figure 12. Total chromium ranged from 59
to 5400 mg/kg. The 5400 mg/kg value was from location 18 (taken
in 1985) and locations A4, 12, and 17 had concentrations of 2500,
1700 and 1200 mg/kg respectively (Figure 13). Lead ranged from 9
to 64 mg/kg in 15 samples, with the 64 mg/kg value found at
location 17, however lead was undetected in a duplicate sample
(see Figure 14).
Ground Water
Eighteen monitoring wells were installed during the RI at
the site to assess the nature, degree, and extent of ground water
contamination in the alluvial aquifer system. Figure 15 shows
the location of these wells. Of these wells, five were deep
(100-110 feet), one was of an intermediate depth (70 feet), and
the remaining wells were shallow (48-50 feet). Monitoring wells
1S and 1D were originally installed as background wells, however
a source of contamination not related to the site was discovered.
This area will be addressed with a preliminary assessment and a
site investigation. Background ground water samples were ob-
tained from neighboring residential wells, which were identified
during an exhaustive well survey of the area (detailed in the
RI). The locations designated with an H on Figure 15 are Hydro-
punch samples, a sample of water drawn straight from a borehole,
taken to evaluate ground water without monitoring well influenc-
es. However, many uncertainties exist as to the representative-
ness of this data.
Table 6 presents the highest values and locations of ground
water samples. The Hydropunch values are generally the highest,
as would be expected. K & K refers to the Kind & Knox plant
north of the site. FIT refers to those wells installed by EPA
around the trench disposal area during the 1986 investigation and
TAT refers tp wells installed by the Environmental Services
Division around the east and west aeration lagoons and at the
8
-------
southeast corner of the site during the 1990 investigation. The
FIT and TAT wells can also be seen on Figure 9. MCLs are pre-
sented for comparison purposes.
The direction of ground water flow at the site is west to
southwest toward the Missouri River, as shown on Figure 16.
Figure 17 shows the high total dissolved solids (TD5) content of
the ground water, which is mainly due to the processes used at
the facility. This figure also shows the geologic cross section,
where jt can be seen that the surficial soils are composed
heavily of clay, with large amounts of sand underneath. Chloride
contributes to the high TD5 content of the ground water: chlo-
ride-rich wastewater was discharged from the facility and from
Kind & Knox into the oxbow system and ultimately the ground
water. The concentration of total chromium has been shown to
increase proportionally with the concentration of TD5. Hydro-
Fanch samples detected total chromium at 690, 3,500 and 5,700
~g/l where the TD5 content was, respectively, 835,000, 1,360,000
and 4,520,000 ~g/l. However, total chromium was not detected in
significant concentrations in the monitoring wells, with the
ground water results generally below the MCL of 100 ~g/l. The
highest value for total chromium was at FIT well 5 (190 ~g/l), in
1987, but was not confirmed in recent sampling events. A possi-
ble reason for the lower-than-expected values for total chromium
could be the high content of total organic carbon (TOC) in the
aquifer, which has been shown to affect data results. The facil-
ity processes of tanning hides produced animal byproducts, which
contributed large amounts of organic ligands to the impoundments
and the oxbow lake, which in turn has percolated into the ground
water. TOC is a measure of the decomposition of organics in
water systems. The TOC plumes emanating from the aeration la-
goons are shown on Figure 18. Metal contaminants in water sys-
tems that are relatively porous with high flow rates and contain
high TOC and TD5, such as at the site, will form colloidal parti-
cles with organic ligands. This will facilitate the movement of
the metals through the aquifer. The alluvial aquifer at the site
is extremely transmissive, with a hydraulic conductivity as high
as 100 centimeters per second, has the ability to store large
volumes of water and has a ground water velocity as high as 160
feet per day.
. The chloride and chromium plumes are shown in Figures 19 and
20. Manganese was also used during the facility operations and
has been detected in rather high amounts in the ground water.
Also detected in high amounts were cadmium, fluoride, and ammonia
(see Table 6). Aluminum was detected as high as 38,000 ~g/l in
FIT well 5 (1987) and 18,000 ~g/l in well 105 during the RI. The
plumes for manganese, fluoride, ammonia and aluminum are shown in
Figures 21 through 24 (a plume was not developed for cadmium).
Beryllium was found above the MCL of 1 ~g/l in well 175 (2 ~g/l),
but otherwise was not detected at the site. other heavy metals
detected but in lesser amounts were barium, cobalt, copper,
nickel, and vanadium (see Table 6).
9
-------
The data collected during the RI for ground water did not
provide useful results for arsenic and lead due to problems
encountered with the analyses. Therefore, a second round of
samples was conducted' in April 1991 to supplement the data. The
results from this event were not included in Table 6. Arsenic
was detected in the highest concentration at the site in well 265
at 47 ~g/l, and in wells 135 and 125 at background concentra-
tions. otherwise arsenic was below background or undetected at
the site. Lead was found at significant levels in wells 26S (86
~g/l), 13S (53.5 ~g/1/61.5 ~g/l duplicate), 14S (17.8 ~g/l), 25D
(10.4 ~g/l) and 12S (10.9 ~g/l). These wells will be resampled
to confirm the results, which may be inflated due to insufficient
well development and high turbidity. The lead plume is shown in
Figure 25.
In addition to lead and arsenic, beryllium was found in
elevated levels at well 135 (4.22 ~g/1/3.59 ~g/l duplicate) and
265 (3.22 ~g/l). Cadmium was found at 6.16 ~g/1/8.62 ~g/l dupli-
cate at well 13S and at 10.2 ~g/l at well 265. Well 13S also
found total chromium at 96.1 ~g/1/109 ~g/l duplicate. Nickel was
elevated in wells 20S (888 ~g/l), 265 (227 ~g/l) and 13S (143
~g/1/160 ~g/l duplicate).
Subsurface Soils
No consistent trends of individual constituents with depth
were detected when evaluating the vertical extent of contamina-
tion in subsurface soils. Table 7 lists the highest metal
concentrations detected from samples taken from the installation
of the monitoring wells.
4.0
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
4.1
OVERVIEW OF BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
A baseline risk assessment is an evaluation of the potential
threat to human health and the environment in the absence of any
remedial action. It provides information to help EPA determine
whether remedial action is necessary at a site. A baseline risk
assessment was conducted by EPA to determine the potential ef-
fects of exposure to the contaminants found at the site on human
health and the environment. This risk assessment was performed
according to the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS).
In this evaluation, both current and future land-use scenarios
were evaluated. An ecological risk assessment was also per-
formed, and is summarized in this section.
Chemicals of potential concern were identified for the site.
All chemicals that have been detected in environmental media at
the site were first identified. These chemicals were then evalu-
ated and those that may cause toxic effects in humans were se-
lected as chemicals of potential concern at the site. Table 8
lists these chemicals.
10
-------
4.2
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of a toxicity assessment is to weigh available
evidence regarding the potential for chemicals of concern to
cause adverse health effects in exposed individuals and to the
environment, and to provide, where possible, an estimate of the
relationship between the extent of exposure to a chemical and the
increased likelihood and/or severity of the adverse effect.
The toxicity assessment for the site was accomplished in two
steps: hazard identification and dose-response evaluation.
Hazard identification of chemicals involves determining whether
exposure to a particular compound may cause an increase in the
incidence or severity of an adverse health effect. This involves
a thorough review of toxicological data available for each chemi-
cal of potential concern and the preparation of a toxicological
profile.
Dose-response evaluation is the process of quantitatively
evaluating the toxicity information and characterizing the
relationship between the dose of the chemical and the incidence
or severity of adverse health effects. As a result of this.
evaluation, toxicity values are derived that are used to estimate
the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans under
different conditions of exposure.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs or Slope Factors) have been
developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to poten-
tially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)-', are multiplied by the estimat~d intake of
a potential carcinogen, expressed in mg/kg-day, to provide an
upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associat-
ed with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper-bound"
reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from
the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the
actual cancer risk highly unlikely.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to chemicals eXhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals, that
are likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health
effects. Estimated intakes of chemicals are compared to the
RfDs.
CPFs and RfDs are derived from the results of human epidemi-
ologrcal studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-
human extrapolation and uncertainty have been applied. Toxicity
values for carcinogenic effects are provided in Table 9 and for
noncarcinogenic effects in Table 10.
11
-------
. 4.3
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
An exposure assessment was developed to identify potential
pathways and routes for contaminants of concern to reach poten-
tial receptors at the site. Estimates of contaminant concentra-
tions were made and applied at the points of exposure. Pathways
by which humans could be exposed to the chemicals of concern at
the site were evaluated based on reasonable assumptions about
current and future land uses. A reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) represents a situation which is more conservative than an
average case but is not a worst case scenario. An RME scenario
is developed to reflect the types and extent of exposures that
could occur based on the likely or expected use of the site in
the future. 95% UCL sampling was used at the site to represent
the RME. The mean average was also used as a basis of compari-
son.
Exposure was also evaluated using data from the Hydropunch
sampler, and from monitoring wells 1S and 1D. These wells were
originally to be used as background wells, but upon sampling,
significant chromium contamination was found that appears to come
from an unknown source. Based upon these findings, a PA/SI will
be conducted there in the future. The risks derived from these
samples have not been used for decision-making purposes at the
site.
Table 11 provides a summary of the exposure scenarios that
were evaluated at the site. Briefly, these scenarios are: the
current risk to duck hunters frequenting the site through dermal
contact with lake water and sediments and ingestion and dermal
contact with contaminated soil: the future potential risk to
residents through the ingestion of contaminated ground water and
a child's ingestion of soil; the future potential risk to con-
struction workers during possible remedial activities through
inhalation of airborne contaminated soil; and the future poten-
. tial risk to industrial workers through inhalation of airborne
contaminated soil and ingestion and dermal contact with impound-
ment sediment and water.
4.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The risk characterization quantifies present and/or poten-
tial future risk to human health that may result from exposure to
the contaminants of concern found at the site. The site-specific
risk values are estimated by incorporating information from the
toxicity and exposure assessments.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard quo-
tient (HQ), or the ratio of the estimated intake derived from the
contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's
reference dose. By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a
12
-------
. medium or across all media to which a given population may rea-
sonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The
HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media.
A HI was calculated for each pathway evaluated. An HI of
less than 1.0 (unity) indicates that the risks associated with
that pathway are low. An HI above 1.0 indicates that some risk
of noncarcinogenic effects exists and the risk increases propor-
tional to the HI value. The HI values are presented with the
chronic daily intakes us~d in the calculations in Table 12. All
HI values for the current duck hunter scenario were less than
unity. The HI values for the future construction worker scenario
were also less than unity. The HI values for risk to future
residents via ground water were calculated for both children and
adults. The HI value was 5.52 for children and 3.73 for adults.
The future residential child ingesting contaminated soil pathway
had an HI less than unity. For the future industrial worker
scenarios, all HI values were less than unity for chronic inhala-
tion, ingestion and dermal contact with soil. However, the HI
for an accidental acute exposure to falling in the east aeration
lagoon and ingesting water was 3.61 and having dermal contact
with sediment was 2.5. The HI values for the acute exposure to
sediment by dermal contact are: 40 in the west aeration lagoon:
1.21 in the concrete aeration basin; and 13.8 in the polishing
basin.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying
the intake levels with the cancer slope factors. These risks are
probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific nota-
tion. An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 X 10-6 indicates that,
as a plausible upper bound limit, an individual has a one in a
million chance of developed cancer as a result of site-related
exposure to a carcinogen over a 30-year period for an adult and
an 18-year period for a child, under the specific exposure
. conditions at a site.
The carcinogenic risks were also calculated for the evaluat-
ed pathways at the site. The risk associated with each pathway
is summed for each receptor. The intakes used in the calcula-
tions are presented in Table 13 and the carcinogenic risks for
the pathways evaluated at the site are provided in Table 14. The
carcinogenic risks to the current-duck hunter were 3.87 X 10-6
for a child and 3.50 X 10-6 for adults. The carcinogenic risk to
the future construction worker was 8.57 X 10-9. The carcinogenic
risk to future residents via ground water were calculated for
both children and adults. The risks were 5.84 X 10-4 for chil-
dren drinking contaminated ground wat~r and 7.14 X 10-6 for in-
gesting soil. The risk to adults was 7.87 X 10-4 for ingestion
of contaminated ground water. For the future industrial worker
scenarios, the risk for exposure to~sediment in the polishing
13
-------
. basin by acute ingestion and dermal ~ontact is 4.39 X 10~. The
ingestion of contaminated soil had risks of: 4.28 X 10-6 for
ingestion, 3.07 X 10-6 for dermal contact, and 7.82 X 10-3 for
inhalation. All of the above risks are based on arsenic, which
was the only carcinogenic compound identified during the RI.
However, soil samples taken by the Environmental Services Divi-
sion for the purposes of a treatability study found that the soil
contained hexavalent chromium. The 95% UCL for soil from the
northeast field was 4.5 x 10-3 for chronic inhalation over a 30-
year period.
To evaluate lead exposure, EPA has established a procedure
which estimates blood lead levels resulting from exposures to
lead, the Uptake/Biokinetic (UBK) model. Estimated blood lead
levels are compared to 10 ~g lead/deciliter, which is the level
of lead in the blood believed by EPA to be without adverse
effect. An unacceptable health risk is deemed to exist when
greater than 5% of exposed children are estimated to have blood
lead levels exceeding this value. The value based on the April
1991 sampling event was 3.6%.
4.5
REMEDIATION GOALS
Of the carcinogen~c risks associated wit~ the site, those
risks that are greater than 1 X 10-' deserve consideration for
potential remediation. The risks were 5.84 X 10-' for children
and 7.87 X 10.' for adults ingesting contaminated ground water.
However, these risks are based solely on arsenic and c~lculated
using concentrations that are representative of background
levels. For the future industrial worker scenarios, the risk for
exposure to sediment in the polishing basin by acute ingestion
and dermal contact is 4.39 X 10-4. The risk was 7.82 X 10-3 for
inhalation of contaminated soil. However, these risks are based
on arsenic also, and the remediation of the soil and polishing
basin based solely on arsenic values representative of background
is not appropriate.
The 95% UCL for soil from the northeast field was 4.5 x 10.3
for chronic inhalation over a 30-year period. Based on this
risk, direct contact with contaminated soil represents an unac-
ceptable risk at the site and remediation is necessary. Federal
and state soil cleanup standards for the contaminant~ of concern
have not been established at this_ti~e. Therefore, it is appro-
priate to determine soil cleanup levels on a site-specific basis
using the risk assessment's carcinogenic risk factors, in the
event that the preferred alternative requires soil removal. By
using a 10-' value and back-calculating, a cleanup level was
calculated at 2490 mg/kg, based on 0.1% hexavalent chromium in
the soil and an assumption of exposure of one day per year for
thirty years. For the purposes of estimating costs and volume,
this level will be reduced to 2000 mq/kg since volumes have been
calculated at that level and it is more conservative. However,
14
-------
.
this level may be adjusted based on treatability studies conduct-
ed during the RD. The 2000 mg/kg level has been reviewed and ap-
proved by ATSDR.
. At the Mid-America Tanning Co. site, the 10.6 risk level for
soil cleanup would be protective if no institutional controls
were in place. With proper institutional controls at the site,
the cleanup of soil to a 10" risk level at this site would be
protective of human health and thp environment. The NCP states
that preliminary remediation goals are to be set at a 10.6 excess
upper bound lifetime cancer risk level as a point of departure,
but mal be revised to a risk level in the acceptable range (10"
to 10.) based on consideration of appropriate factors, including
uncertainty, technical and exposure factors.
There are several uncertainty factors that should be consid-
ered. Uncertainty is generated with the toxicity assessment in
extrapolating data from animals to humans. The exposure assess-
ment employed an assumption that all concentration values will
renain constant and that the RME best quantifies thp- exposure.
Assumptions were also made in developing the exposure pathways
and in the values used for the parameters in the risk equations.
These assumptions cause uncertainty in the exposure assessment.
A technical factor for soil that should be considered is the
practical limit to which soil can be remediated. The 10'6 risk
level for the contaminated soil areas is 24.9 mg of total chromi-
um per kg of soil. It would be technically impractical to
remediate soil to this level based on the volume of soil that
would be generated. Finally, institutional controls will be
implemented at the site, reducing the potential for exposure.
For these reasons, cleanup of soil at the site to the 10" risk
level would be protective.
Of the noncarcinogenic risks at the. site, those pathways
with His in excess of unity were for future residents via ground
water and future industrial workers via contact with the impound-
ments (east and west aeration lagoons, concrete aeration basin
and the polishing basin). For the impoundments, the His require
that an action be taken to prevent direct contact with the
sediments and the east aeration lagoon water. Any action requir-
ing remediation of sediments 'would be performed throughout the
sludge layer, but should not have to involve the remediation of
underlying soil. Therefore, it is not necessary to calculate a
cleanup level.
For ground water, the more conservative HI, that for chil-
dren, was 5.52. Of this, the HQ were as follows: arsenic, 1.30;
cadmium, 0.61; chromium, 0.00; manganese, 1.79; and fluoride,
1.82. The arsenic value was calculated using a concentration
that is representative of background levels and is not useful for
remediation purposes. Cadmium had an HQ less than unity, and the
health effects caused by cadmium are not additive when evaluated
15
-------
in conjunction with other chemicals. . Chromium has a value of
0.00 because it is not as deleterious through oral and/or dermal
contact as it is through inhalation. The health concern associ-
ated with fluoride is. dental fluorosis, a cosmetic concern.
Manganese affects the central nervous system. The HQ for manga-
nese of 1.79 indicates that ground water control needs to be
exercised. However, with the potential remediation of the im-
poundments and the contaminated soil, as described above, the
levels of manganese in the ground water should reduce to below
health concerns. Therefore, ground water will be addressed as a
separate operable unit at a later time. Ground water will be
biannually monitored until addressed, which will be at a time not
to exceed the initial five-year review.
Accordingly, EPA has determined that the actual or threat-
ened risk caused by the hazardous substances in the contaminant
source areas at this site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare or the
environment.
4.6
ECOLOGICAL RISK
The goal of the ecological risk assessment at the site was
to evaluate the need for action based on the potential effects
that contaminants at the site may have on local species, popula-
tions, communities, and ecosystems. The ecological risk assess-
ment was conducted according to RAGS, the Environmental Evalua-
tion Manual (USEPA, 1989). This assessment used information
gathered during the RI to develop a characterization of ecologi-
cal risk associated with a no-action alternative.
The methodologies used to conduct the ecological risk
assessment differ somewhat from those used to conduct the human
health portion of the Baseline Risk Assessment. However, both
risk assessments incorporate and utilized common elements, such
as toxicity information and exposure routes. . The assessment
consisted of four major elements: the identification of ecologi-
cal receptors, including sensitive or important species: the
identification of contaminants which may pose a risk to these
receptors: the evaluation of exposure scenarios: and the charac-
terization of ecological risk.
The ecological assessment was performed qualitatively, since
site-specific data was not gathered for analyses. A biologist
did spend time at the site gathering visual information on the
presence and diversity of the fauna and flora that are at the
site, and those species that should be present but are not.
The contaminants in the oxbow lake were not of a concentra-
tion to cause concern in fauna o~casionally drinking the water.
However, the diversity of the resident algae and aquatic inverte-
16
-------
-
brate species may be limited due to these contaminants.
is known to bioconcentrate in macrophytes and aquatic
invertebrates, which could result in exposure to those
higher on the trophic level. However, vertebrates are
expected to bioaccumulate chromium.
The bald eagle was identified as an important species in the
region. The preferred food source of the eagle, winter-killed
shad, is available from the Missouri River and the home range of
the eagle is very large and the contributi~n to the eagle's diet
from the site is expected to be extremely limited. The piping
plover also resides in the region, downgradient of the site in
the oxbow lake system. It is possible that the piping plover
could potentially use the oxbow lake for foraging, however the RI
has shown that significant contamination from heavy metals is not
moving from the site into the oxbow system.
Chromium
species
not
Overall, chromium could affect the resident flora, macro-
phytes and aquatic invertebrates, and this could potentially
result in exposure to those species utilizing these organisms as
a food source. However, vertebrate3 are not expected to bioaccu-
mulate chromium, and the effect that contaminants may have on the
flora, macrophytes and aquatic invertebrates is not expected. to
significantly alter the next trophic level. It is possible that
deer and waterfowl could be minimally exposed to chromium contam-
ination. This could potentially be of a concern since these
species are known to be hunted in the area. A response action
taken to address the impoundments would reduce this threat.
5.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The NCP requires that, for source control actions, a range
of alternatives in which treatment that reduces the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants be developed for evaluation in the FS. As appropri-
ate, this range shall include an alternative .that removes or
destroys hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants to the
maximum extent feasible, eliminating or minimizing, to the degree
possible, the need for long-term management. Other alternatives
shall be developed, as appropriate, which, at a minimum, treat
the principal threats posed by the site but vary in the degree of
treatment employed and the quantities and characteristics of the
treatment residuals and untreated waste that must be managed.
Also, one or more alternatives shall be developed that involve
little or no treatment, but provide protection of human health
and the environment primarily be preventing or controlling
exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants,
through engineering controls, such as through containment, and,
as necessary, institutional controls. One or more innovative
treatment technology alternatives shall also be developed for
further consideration if those technologies offer the potential
for comparable or superior performance or implementability, fewer
17
-------
--
.. ~ ~. „ -"-
. adverse effects, or lower costs than demonstrated technologies.
In addition, a no-action alternative~ which may be no further
action if some removal or remedial action has already occurred at
the site, shall be developed.
Based on the findings of the Risk Assessment, the sources of
contamination at the site are the contaminated soil and contami-
nated impoundment sediment and impoundment water at the site.
These contaminant locations represent the principal threat at the
site. The Remedial Action objectives (RAOs) for this site are
listed in Table 15. The RAOs specify that the contaminant
sources must be addressed to reduce the levels of contaminants in
the ground water and prevent the future remediation of contam-
inated ground water. Therefore, alternatives not removing or
treating at least a portion of the contaminant sources at the
site, s~ch as those that merely prevent direct contact with the
source material, were screened out in the FS.
The alternatives that were evaluated in detail in the FS are
described in this section. Five alternatives, including the no
action alternative, were determined to be appropriate for consid-
eration at this site. These alternatives provided a range of
various remedial options to satisfy the requirement in the NCP.
The following descriptions summarize the alternatives, including
their treatment components, implementation requirements, the
estimated time for completion and estimated costs.
For the four alternatives which address the contaminant
source areas at the site, it was determined in the FS that the
areas of heavy and dense contamination would be best addressed by
the excavation and/or the treatment of material. These areas
include the east and west aeration lagoons, which have average
total chromium concentrations of 16,243 mg/kg and 24,645 mg/kg,
respectively, and the northeast field, which have an average
total chromium concentration of 10,862 mg/kg. Figure 26 is a map
showing the locations of contaminated soil at the site above the
cleanup level of 2000 mg/kg and Figure 27 shows the densely
contaminated areas. The polishing basin, at 3386 mg/kg average
total chromium, and the contaminated soil areas on Figure 26
other than the northeast field, with an average total chromium
concentration of 3849, are less densely contaminated than the
other areas by an order of magnitude of at least three. The
alternatives evaluated address these areas through capping of
contamination with no excavation or treatment in an interest of
providing solutions which consider the cost effectiveness as well
as the protectiveness. The combination of excavation and/or
treatment with capping in the alternatives presented therefore
provides a balance of long-term protectiveness and cost consider-
ations.
All alternatives also include the immobilization of the
contaminated trench material currently placed on a liner on-site.
18
-------
This material fails the Toxicity Characteristic LeaChing Proce-
dure (TCLP) test, which measures the amount of contaminants that
leach from a sample, for total chromium and therefore must be
treated before it can be moved for disposal. This immobilization
will be performed in accordance with the technical requirements
of RCRA. After immobilization, the material can either be placed
in the polishing basin and covered with a soil-clay cap or sent
off-site. Either disposal will be in accordance with RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs).
5.1
NO ACTION
The NCP requires that the no-action alternative be evaluated
for every site. The no-action alternative provides a baseline
for comparing the effectiveness of other remedial options. This
alternative, alternative 1, involves no further action at the
site to prevent the migration of contaminants from the site.
There would be no costs associated with this alternative.
5.2
REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL/
PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM GROUND WATER MONITORING
Alternative 2 would involve the excavation and disposal of
the densely-contaminated source areas in an off-site landfill in
conjunction with the placement of soil-clay caps over the less
densely contaminated source areas. The northeast field contami-
nated soil areas would be excavated using conventional excavation
equipment, such as backhoes, and loaded into trucks for off-site
disposal in a Subtitle D facility (solid waste landfill).
The sediments in the east and west aeration lagoons would be
removed in slurry form with a portable dredge and pumped into
tanks through flotation or pontoon-supported pipelines. The
sediments that settle in the holding tanks will be treated using
the Paint-Filter Test. If the sediments fail, they would require
dewatering prior to off-site disposal at the Subtitle D facility.
The type of dewatering apparatus, such as a "plate-and-frame"
press, would be determined during the RD. Also, the sediments
may require pre-conditioning (e.g. the addition of polymers)
prior to their dewatering. Therefore, a treatability study may
be necessary to examine the dewatering characteristics of the
sediments.
The water in the impoundments would be removed and decanted
from the holding tanks and discharged through an NPDES-permitted
outfall if its characteristics can satisfy NPDES criteria. If
not, the water would be shipped to a publicly-owned treatment
works facility (POTW), if an agreement with the local POTW can be
arranged. Treatment may be required before discharge and/or
shipment to a POTW. The type of treatment would be determined
during the RD.
19
-------
. The excavated and dredged areas would be backfilled and
. .covered with a soil cap and top soil. A cross section of the
soil cap is shown on Figure 28. The polishing basin would also
be backfilled, but covered with a soil-clay cap and top soil. A
soil-clay cap and top soil would also be placed over the remain-
ing contaminated soil areas. The soil-clay cap cross section is
shown on Figure 29. The top soil would be seeded to control
erosion. Figure 30 shows all areas to be capped.
The trench material would be immobilized, as discussed
earlier. This material would either be sent off-site or remain
on-site and placed in the polishing basin following immobiliza-
tion. Either disposal will be in accordance with RCRA. Also,
since chromium contamination in areas with concentrations less
than 2000 mg/kg will remain at the site unaddressed and the less
densely-contaminated areas will be.capped but not excavated or
treated, the ground water would be monitored biannually on a
long-term basis to assure that contaminants have not migrated.
The estimated volume of contaminated soil is 12,000 cubic
yards, 8,300 cubic yards of which would be excavated and disposed
off-site. The estimated volume of sediments is 85,000 cubic
yards, 44,500 cubic yards to be excavated and disposed off-site.
The amount of impoundment water to be remediated is 13,829,000
gallons. The amount of trench material is 1293 cubic yards. The
time required to implement the individual process options of
alternative 2, and all other alternatives, is provided in Table
16. Alternative 2 would require 40 to 44 weeks total to imple-
ment.
The direct capital costs for alternative 2 are estimated to
be $4,997,000, which gives a total capital cost of approximately
$6,439,000 when indirect costs are added. The operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs would be $21,000 annually, which would
give a total present worth cost of $6,675,000 for this alterna-
tive (annual monitoring is used for costing purposes, however
this ROD requires that biannual monitoring be performed for the
first five years: all increases would be proportional per alter-
native).
This alternative would result in the removal of contamina-
tion in the. source areas. It would be necessary to monitor the
ground water on a long-term basis every five years because of the
chromium which would be left at the site. Additionally, because
this is an operable unit remedy, the need for ground water
remediation still must be addressed at some time prior to the
initial five year review.
20
-------
--
5.3
REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL/ON-SITE DISPOSAL/
PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM GROUND WATER MONITORING
Alternative 3 would involve the excavation and disposal of
the densely-contaminated source areas on a lined area in the
polishing basin. The northeast field contaminated soil areas
would be excavated using conventional excavation equipment, such
as backhoes. The water in the polishing basin would be removed
and disposed as described below. The sediments in the polishing
basin would be dewatered by windrowing them with mixing/aerating
equipment, determined during the RD. The sediments in the o~her
impoundments would be removed in slurry form with a portable
dredge and pumped into the polishing basin through flotation or
pontoon-supported pipelines and dewatered.
A flexible liner and a leachate collection and removal
system would be installed in the polishing basin. The existing
clay layer on the bottom of the polishing basin will be used as a
clay liner, providing contamination in these areas is less than
the cleanup level. After the addition of lime, the dewatered
soil and the east and west aeration lagoon sediments would be
placed on the liner. A geomembrane layer would be placed between
the soil and sediments. The polishing basin would be covered
with a soil-clay cap and top soil. A cross section of the soil-
clay cap is shown on Figure 29. The excavated and dredged areas
of the east and west aeration lagoons would be backfilled and
covered with a soil cap and top soil, as would the northeast
field. The soil cap and top soil is shown on Figure 28. A soil-
clay cap and top soil would also be placed over the remaining
contaminated soil areas. Figure 30 shows the areas that will be
capped. Top soil areas would be seeded to control erosion.
Water removed from the impoundments and the leachate collec-
tion system would be discharged through an NPDES-permitted out-
fall if its characteristics can satisfy NPDES criteria. If not,
the water would be shipped to a POTW, if an agreement were ar-
ranged. Treatment may be required before discharge and/or ship-
ment to a POTW. The type of treatment would be determined during
the RD.
The trench material would be immobilized, as discussed
earlier. This material could either be sent off-site or remain
on-site placed in the polishing basin following immobilization.
Either disposal will be in accordance with RCRA.
The estimated volume of contaminated soil is 12,000 cubic
yards, 8,300 cubic yards of which would be excavated and disposed
of in the polishing basin. The estimated volume of sediments is
85,000 cubic yards, 44,500 cubic yards to be excavated and
disposed of in the polishing basin. The amount of impoundment
water to be remediated is 13,829,000 gallons and the amount of
trench material is 1293 cubic yards. The time required to
21
-------
implement the individual process options of alternative 3 is
provided in Table 16. Alternative 3 would require 42 to 48 weeks
total time to implement.
The direct capital costs for alternative 3 are estimated to
be $5,025,000, which gives a total capital cost of approximately
$6,782,000 when indirect costs are added. The O&M costs would be
$21,000 annually, which would give a total present worth cost of
$7,018,000 for this alternative (annual monitoring is used for
costing purposes, however this ROD requires that biannual moni-
toring be performed for the first five years: all increases would
be proportional per alternative).
This alternative would leave contamination at the site,
although the contamination would be contained to prevent threats
to human health and the environment. Therefore, a five-year
review would be required. Ground water would need to be moni-
tored until addressed, but it would also be necessary to monitor
the ground water long-term to ensure that the remedy is working
adequately. site inspections would be required to ensure the
integrity of the caps and the landfill, along with maintenance.
Deed restrictions would also be required at the site.
5.4
REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL/IMMOBILIZATION/ON-SITE
DISPOSAL/PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM GROUND WATER
MONITORING
Alternative 4, the contingency remedy, involves the excava-
tion, immobilization and disposal of the densely-contaminated
source areas on a lined area in the polishing basin. The north-
east field contaminated soil areas would be excavated using
conventional excavation equipment, such as backhoes. The water
in the polishing basin would be removed and disposed as described
below. The sediments in the polishing basin would be dewatered
-by windrowing them with mixing/aerating equipment, determined
during the RD. The sediments in the other impoundments would be
removed in slurry form with a portable dredge and pumped into the
polishing basin through flotation or pontoon-supported pipelines
and dewatered.
A flexible liner and a leachate collection and removal
. system would be installed in the polishing basin. The existing
clay layer on the bottom of the polishing basin will be used as a
clay liner, providing contamination in these areas is less than
the cleanup level. The excavated soil and dewatered sediments
from the east and west aeration lagoons would be immobilized
using cement and additives. The additives may be pozzalonic
materials or polymers. The fixation agents, the mix ratios, and
the time required for immobilization would be determined during
the RD. The method for immobilization would also be determined
during the RD, but would likely involve a process mixer. After
immobilization, the treated matrices would be placed on the
22
-------
liner. A geomembrane layer would be' placed between the treated
soil and sediment matrices. The polishing basin would be covered
with a soil-clay cap and top soil. A cross section' of the soil-
clay cap is shown on Figure 29. The excavated and dredged areas
of the east and west aeration lagoons would be backfilled and
covered with a soil cap and top soil, as would the northeast
field. The soil cap and top soil is shown on Figure 28. A soil-
clay cap and top soil would also be placed over the remaining
contaminated soil areas. Figure 30 shows the areas that would be
capped. Top soil areas would be seeded to control erosion.
. Water removed from the impoundments and the leachate collec-
tion system would be discharged through a NPDES-permitted outfall
if its characteristics can satisfy NPDES criteria. If not, the
water would be shipped to a POTW, if an agreement can be ar-
ranged. Treatment may be required before discharge and/or
shipment to a POTW. The type of treatment would be determined
during the RD.
The trench material would be immobilized, as discussed
earlier. This material could either be sent off-site or remain
on-site placed in the polishing basin following immobilization.
Either disposal would be in accordance with RCRA. .
The estimated volume of contaminated soil is 12,000 cubic
yards, 8,300 cubic yards of which would be excavated, immobilized
and disposed of in the polishing basin. The estimated volume of
sediments is 85,000 cubic yards, 44,500 cubic yards to be exca-
vated, immobilized and disposed of in the polishing basin. The
amount of impoundment water to be remediated is 13,829,000
gallons and the amount of trench material is 1293 cubic yards.
The time required to implement the individual process options of
alternative 4 is provided in Table 16. This alternative would
require 48 to 52 weeks total time to implement.
The direct capital costs for alternative 4 are estimated to
be $6,416,500, which gives a total capital cost of approximately
$8,664,000 when indirect costs are added. The O&M costs would be
$21,000 annually, which would give a total present worth cost of
$8,900,000 for this alternative (annual monitoring is used for
costing purposes, however this ROD requires that biannual moni-
toring be performed for the first five years: all increases would
be proportional per alternative).
This alternative would leave contamination at the site,
although the contamination would be contained and the densely-
contaminated areas immobilized to prevent threats to human health
and the environment. Therefore, a five-year review would be re-
quired. Ground water would need to be monitored until addressed,
but it would also be necessary to monitor the ground water long-
term to ensure that the remedy is working adequately.. site
inspections would be required to ensure the integrity of the caps
23
-------
. and the immobilized material, along with maintenance.
restrictions would also be required at the site.
Deed
5.5
IN-SITU IMMOBILIZATION/PLACEMENT OF COVERS/LONG-TERM
GROUND WATER MONITORING
Alternative 5, which. is the selected remedy, involves the
in-situ immobilization of the densely-contaminated sediments in
the east and west aeration lagoons and the northeast field in
conjunction with the placement of soil-clay caps over the less
densely-contaminated source areas. The water in the impoundments
will be pumped into holding tanks. It will then be discharged
through a NPDES-permitted outfall if its characteristics can
satisfy NPDES criteria. If not, the water will be shipped to a
POTW, if an agreement can be arranged. Treatment may be required
before discharge and/or shipment to a POTW. The type of treat-
ment would be determined during the RD.
After the water has been removed from the east and west
aeration lagoons and debris has been removed from the northeast
field, these areas will be immobilized in-situ using a auger
system which mixes a solidifying agent and additive directly into
the contaminant matrix, solidifying and stabilizing in place. A
treatability study will need to be performed during the RD to
determine the proper solidifying agents, additives and mix
ratios. -
The removal of water from the impoundments requires that
these areas be backfilled before caps can be placed. A soil cap
will then be placed over all immobilized areas and grading per-
formed to reduce water accumulation. Top soil will be added and
seeded to control erosion. The soil cap is shown on Figure 28.
Figure 29 shows the cross section of the soil-clay cap, which
will be placed over the remaining contaminated soil areas and the
polishing basin, as shown on Figure 30.
The trench material will need to be immobilized, as dis-
cussed earlier. This material can ei~her be sent off-site or
remain on-site placed in the polishing basin following immobili-
zation. Either disposal will be in accordance with RCRA.
The estimated volume of contaminated soil is 12,000 cubic
yards, 8,300 cubic yards of which will be immobilized in-situ.
The estimated volume of sediments is 85,000 cubic yards, 44,500
cubic yards to be immobilized in-situ. The amount of impoundment
water to be remediated is 13,829,000 gallons and the amount of
trench material is 1293 cubic yards. The time required to
implement the individual process options of this alternative is
provided in Table 16. Alternative 5 will require 40 to 44 weeks
total to implement.
24
-------
- - .
The direct capital costs for alternative 5 are estimated to
be $3,424,000, which gives a total capital cost of approximately
$4,621,000 when indirect costs are added. The O&M costs would be
$21,000 annually, which would give a total present worth cost of
$4,857,000 for this alternative (annual monitoring is used for
costing purposes, however this ROD requires that biannual moni-
toring be performed for the first five years: all increases are
proportional per alternative).
This alternative leaves contamination at the site, although
the densely-contaminated areas would be immobilized and the
remaining areas contained to prevent threats to human health and
the environment. Therefore, a five-year review will be required.
Ground water will need to be monitored until addressed, but it
will also be necessary to monitor the ground water long-term to
ensure that the remedy is working adequately. site inspections
will be required to ensure the integrity of the caps and the
immobilized matrix, along with maintenance of the caps. Deed
restrictions will be used at the site to ensure that it is not
used for residential or agricultural purchases, and that build-
ings are not constructed on the capped areas.
6.0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The NCP has established nine criteria that are used to
evaluate remedial alternatives. These criteria serve as the
basis for conducting detailed analyses during the FS and subse-
quently are used to determine the appropriate remedy for the
site. Appendix B provides a glossary of the nine criteria.
A detailed analysis of the remedial ~lternatives was per-
formed, consisting of an assessment of the individual alterna-
tives against each of the nine criteria and a comparative analy-
sis that focused on the relative performance of each alternative
against those criteria. As a result of this detailed analysis,
EPA has determined that alternative 5 provides the best balance
among the alternatives with respect to the criteria.
When conducting the analysis, the nine criteria are orga-
nized into three categories. The first such category is thresh-
old criteria. An alternative must meet the following two re-
quirements to be considered as a final remedy for the site:
6.1
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy will involve the in-situ immobilization
of densely-contaminated soils and impoundment sediments at the
site, in conjunction with the capping.of the less densely-contam-
inated soils and sediments, and the removal and discharge of
contaminated impoundment water. This will reduce the exposure to
contaminated soils and sediments and contaminated impoundment
water to protective levels and also minimize the potential for
25
-------
~
contaminant migration into the ground water in the future.
However, ground water contamination will need to be addressed at
a later time, not to exceed the initial five-year review.
The no-action alternative would not provide overall protec-
tion to human health and the environment and was not evaluated
further because this threshold criteria was not met. All the
alternatives would provide overall protection of human health and
the environment from risks posed by the contaminants at the site
through treatment, engineering controls, and/or institutional
controls. Alternatives 4 and 5 provide a higher degree of
protection than alternatives 2 and 3, since 4 and 5 involve the
treatment of contaminants in addition to engineering controls.
Although the contaminants for alternative 2 would no longer be at
the site, the protection of human health and the environment at
the off-site landfill would still be of a concern.
6.2
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
The selected remedy will comply with all federal and state
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
Applicable requirements are those state or federal requirements
legally applicable to the release or remedial action contemplated
that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance
found at the site. If it is determined that a requirement is not
applicable, it may still be relevant and appropriate to the
circumstances of the release. Requirements are relevant and
appropriate if they address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to the circumstances of the release or remedial action
contemplated, and are well-suited to the site.
Table 17 lists the ARARs for this site, including those that
will be met. The chemical-specific ARARs that would be relevant
and appropriate at the site include Ambient Water Quality crite-
ria (AWQC) standards and NPDES standards. However, the actions
to be taken on the polishing basin should reduce contaminant
levels in the oxbow lake. No location-specific ARARs were iden-
tified by EPA after consultations with the appropriate federal
and state agencies. The federal action-specific ARARs that the
selected remedy will have to comply with are: all pertinent
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements: all
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) regulations: and
the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations applicable to discharge to
POTWs. RCRA regulations may be considered as relevant and appro-
priate, but would not be applicable since the chromium contami-
nated areas do not fail TCLP. The one exception is the trench
material, which will be treated in accordance with RCRA to remove
the leaching characteristic and will be disposed according to
RCRA LDRs. A treatability variance~may be required if the
material cannot be immobilized to meet best developed available
technology (BDAT) standards. This will be documented in an
Explanation of signi~icant Differences (ESD) for public comment.
26
-------
The action-specific ARARs would be met for all other alter-
natives considered. These ARARs include all OSHA requirements,
all HMTA regulations, RCRA requirements, and the state landfill
requirements described in Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 103.
The second category of criteria is primary balancina crite-
ria. The following five criteria were used to evaluate the
alternatives to determine the option that provided the best
balance of trade-offs for the final remedy for the site:
6.3
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
The selected remedy involves the implementation of the
immobilization of the site contaminants and will effectively
eliminate the long-term risks associated with direct contact and
potential contaminant migration. The mobility of the contami-
nants will be reduced through bonding to the solidified matrix
and through reduction in the surface area exposed to ground or
surface water. By providing treatment to reduce the mobility,
with maintenance and monitoring, the selected remedy will ade-
quately prevent migration and direct contact. Direct contact
will also be prevented through the use of the soil-clay caps in
the less densely-contaminated areas. Long-term controls will be
required to ensure the integrity of the remedy. It is anticipat-
ed that the chromium will remain beiow the cleanup level at the
site, as will contaminants in the ground water, which will be
addressed at a later date, not to exceed the initial five-year
review.
The other alternatives would all effectively eliminate the
long-term risks associated with direct contact and contaminant
migration. Maintenance and long-term monitoring would also be
required to ensure the integrity of these remedies. The degree
of permanence would be greater with alternative 4 and 5 than
alternatives 2 and 3, since 4 and 5 involve the treatment of
contaminants in addition to engineering controls. Although the
contaminants would no longer be at the site if alternative 2 were
used, the permanence of the disposal of these contaminants at the
off-site landfill would still be of a concern. Under all of the
alternatives chromium will remain at the site below the cleanup
level, as will contaminated ground water. Also, for all alterna-
tives involving caps, the potential for replacement always ex-
ists.
6.4
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME
The selected remedy will employ treatment to reduce the
mobility of the hazardous constituents in the densely-contaminat-
ed soil and sediments. Their toxicity will not be affected. The
volume will increase due to expansion of the contaminant matrix
caused by the immobilization process.
27
-------
Alternatives 2 and 3 would not satisfy the CERCLA preference
for alternatives which reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume
through treatment. Alternative 4 would employ treatment that
would reduce the mobility of the contaminants, but the toxicity
would not change and ,the volume would increase.
6.5
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
The short-term risks associated with the selected remedy
include worker exposure to contaminants as well as possible
exposure to fugitive dust. However, this scenario was evaluated
in the Risk Assessment and the risk was negligible. Also, there
could be a potential for exposure to HS when the water is re-
moved from the impoundments. These potential exposures will be
effectively minimized and controlled by compliance with the
action-specific ARARs, implementing engineering controls, per-
forming air monitoring and adhering to a site-specific safety
plan. In conformance with OSHA standards, all workers will be
hea1th-and-safety trained, wear the appropriate protective cloth-
ing, and participate in a medical monitoring program.
The selected remedy will require 40 to 44 weeks to imple-
ment. A breakdown of the times for individual remedy processes
is provided in Table 16. Protection from the soil and sediment
contaminants will be achieved when the remedy has been installed.
This alternative could be delayed if large amounts of debris need
to be removed. A treatability study must also be performed and
disposal of the impoundment water must be arranged, which could
cause delays.
All other alternatives would have the minimal short-term
risks described above. As previously noted, compliance with the
action-specific ARARs would effectively minimize and control the
potential for exposures. Additionally, the short-term risks
associated with alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would involve the normal
construction hazards associated with excavation and contaminant
removal. Alternative 2 involves the transportation of wastes and
would have short-term risks associated with off-site transport.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 could have odor problems due to the
dewatering process.
The time required to implement alternative 2 is 40 to 44
weeks, alternative 3 is 42 to 48 weeks and alternative 3 is 48 to
52 weeks. A treatability study must be performed for alternative
4 which could cause delays. Disposal of the impoundment water
must be arranged for all alternatives, which could cause delays.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 could have potential delays due to de-
watering equipment problems and rainfall during the dewatering
process.
28
-------
6.6
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Implementation of the selected remedy will involve conven-
tional immobilization technologies that are proven and reliable.
Monitoring can easily be performed to ensure the reliability of
the technology. The implementation of water pumping and the
installation of caps are also frequently used and reliable
technologies. Disposal of the impoundment water will require
either a NPDES permit or an agreement with a POTW. This could
potentially be difficult and treatment of the water may be
required. If so, this technology will be proven, effective and
reliable. All needed services and materials are readily avail-
able.
Excavation, pumping, dewatering, dredging and the installa-
tion of caps are all reliable technologies that have been proven
to be effective. An agreement would have to be reached with the
off-site disposal facility for alternative 2, but preliminary
investigation has shown this to not be of a concern. All servic-
es and materials are readily available.
6.7
COST
The direct capital costs for the selected remedy are esti-
mated to be $3,424,000, which gives a total capital cost of
approximately $4,621,000 when indirect costs are added. The O&M
costs are projected to be $21,000 annually, which gives a total
present worth cost of $4,857,000 for this alternative (annual
monitoring is used for costing purposes, however this ROD re-
quires that biannual monitoring be performed for the first five
years; all increases would be proportional per alternative).
The range of total present worth costs for the alternatives
is $4,857,000 for the selected remedy to $8,900,000 for alterna-
tive 4. The estimates prepared involve approximations, assump-
tions, estimations, and engineering judgment and may be subject
to adjustment. The figures are based on estimates of the volume
of soil and sediment to be treated and could greatly vary,
depending upon the full definition of the extent of contamination
determined in the RD/RA. Also, the discount rate used was 8%.
With a different rate the costs will vary. Table 18 provides a
description of the cost estimates and shows the present worth
with a change in discount rate to 5%, 8% and 10%. Table 19 pro-
vides a cost sensitivity analysis for all alternatives, based
upon a +/- 50% change in volume of contaminants.
An alternative that was not evaluated in this ROD, based on
its failure to satisfy the RAOs, was the capping of the source
areas with no removal or treatment. However, the cost for this
option was estimated for comparison purposes with the selected
remedy. It is worth noting that the cost of this lesser option
was approximately the same as the cost for the selected remedy.
29
-------
-
. 'Since the selected remedy prevents direct contact with the con-
taminants and provides better long-term protection, its selection
is appropriate.
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it provides
overall protection of human health and the environment, long-term
effectiveness and permanence, a reduction in mobility, and short-
term effectiveness at costs that are proportional to its overall
effectiveness. It is also the least expensive of all alterna-
tives evaluated.
The third category of criteria is modifvina criteria. The
following two criteria are considered when evaluating the alter-
natives and are used to help determine the final remedy for the
site:
6.8
STATE ACCEPTANCE
The State of Iowa agrees that the selected remedy is protec-
tive of human health and the environment, and concurs with the
information presented in this ROD, which supports the selected
remedy for the cleanup of contaminated soil and contaminated
impoundment sediment and impoundment water at the Mid-Americ~
Tanning Co. site.
6.9
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Community acceptance of the selected remedy was evaluated
during the public comment period. After minor modifications, the
remedy was selected as described in this ROD. The comments
received are contained in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A.
7.0
SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the evaluations prepared for each of the proposed
alternatives, EPA has made the determination that the appropriate
remedy for the Mid-America Tanning Co. site is the in-situ
immobilization of contaminated soils in the northeast field and
the impoundment sediments in the east and west aeration lagoons,
performed in conjunction with the placement of a soil-clay cap
over the polishing basin and the remaining soil areas, which are
considered lower level threat wastes that can be reliably con-
tained. This remedy will also require the removal and discharge
of contaminated impoundment water. This will reduce the exposure
to contaminated soils and sediments and contaminated impoundment
water to protective levels and also minimize the potential for
contaminant migration of ground water in the future. However,
ground water contamination will need to be addressed at a later
time, not to exceed the initial five-year review.
. The selected remedy provides the best balance of the factors
identified by the nine criteria. However, the full e.ffectiveness
30
-------
. ---....--.. - --
of the technology employed by the selected remedy cannot be
determined until treatability studies are performed during the
design phase. If it is determined through treatability testing
that the technology will not be adequate, alternative 4 will be
implemented. Alternative 4 also provides protection of human
health and the environment at the site through treatment, only at
a greater cost. This increase in cost prevented the alternative
from being chosen over the selected remedy during the evaluation,
however alternative 4 is still cost-effective. This contingency
remedy also complies with the statutory determinations. This
decision would be documented in an ESD.
The water in the impoundments will be removed from the east
aeration lagoon, west aeration lagoon and the polishing basin.
H~S monitoring will be performed during water removal. The water
w~ll be pumped. using pontoon-supported pipelines into holding
tanks. It would then be discharged through a NPDES-permitted
outfall if its characteristics can satisfy NPDES criteria. If
not, the water will be shipped to a POTW, if an agreement can be
arranged. Treatment may be required before discharge and/or
shipment to a POTW. The type of treatment would be determined
during the RD. The final decision for the disposal of impound-
ment water will be documented in an ESD. .
All debris will be located and removed from the contaminated
areas of the northeast field. All debris will be disposed
according to RCRA and the CERCLA off-site policy. After the
water has been removed from the east and west aeration lagoons
and debris has been removed from the northeast field, these areas
will be immobilized in-situ. A sOlidifying agent and additive
will be mixed with the soil and sediments using specially devel-
oped equipment. If determined to be most cost-efficient, this
equipment will utilize a single rig, large diameter .~uger which
will facilitate the addition of the solidifying agents and addi-
tives in a dry form. The existing water in the lagoons will mix
with the solidifying agents and additives, forming an immobilized
matrix. Water may need to be added to the northeast field con-
taminated soil area. A treatability study will need to be per-
formed during the RD to determine the proper solidifying agents,
additives, and mix ratios and to verify the UCS of the immobi-
lized areas.
The removal of water from the east aeration lagoon, west
aeration lagoon and the polishing basin would require that these
areas be backfilled with fill material before caps can be placed.
The volume of fill material will be reduced in the immobilized
areas, when compared to the amount of water removed, since the
immobilization process will expand the contaminated matrix.
A soi1 cap that meets state of Iowa requirements will be
placed over all immobilized areas, the east aeration lagoon, the
west aeration lagoon, and the northeast .field contaminated soil
31
-------
~
. area. The polishing basin will be covered with a soil-clay cap
which also meets state of Iowa requirements. In addition, the
contaminated soil areas greater than the health-based cleanup
level of 2000 mg total chromium per kg of soil, except for the
northeast field, will be covered with a soil-clay cap. Figure 30
shows the areas to be capped. Grading will be performed to
provide water run-off and prevent water accumulation in the
capped areas. Berms will be constructed as appropriate, and
sumps will collect water for discharge or treatment. Top soil
will be added and seeded to control erosion. A cross-section
showing the components of the soil cap and top soil is shown on
Figure 28. A cross-section showing the components of the soil-
clay cap and top soil is shown on Figure 29.
The contaminated trench material which has been stored in a
sealed liner at the site will be immobilized as determined
appropriate during the RD and in accordance with RCRA. This
material can then either be sent off-site or remain on-site, also
in accordance with RCRA LDRs, and the CERCLA off-site policy, if
applicable. The final decision for the disposal of this material
will be documented in an ESD. '
Chemical dust suppressants and/or water will be used for
dust control during activities at the site, as necessary. The
ambient air will be monitored for contaminants (especially HzS)
during all activities.
Ground water will be monitored biannually long-term at the
site to ensure that the remedy is working adequately and to
assess ground water contaminant levels to determine the need for
future actions. New monitoring wells will be installed if
necessary, although the present monitoring wells shall be uti-
lized to the greatest extent possible before new wells are
installed.
Annual site inspections will be required to ensure the
. integrity of the caps and the immobilized matrix. Maintenance of
the caps will also be performed long-term. Deed restrictions
will be required at the site to ensure that future use is limited
to industrial purposes. Also, the capped areas effectiveness is
based on the assumption that structures will not be erected on
them, therefore a restriction will be required to control these
areas.
The selected remedy will require 40 to 44 weeks total to
implement. The estimated volume of contaminated soil that the
selected remedy will address is 12,000 cubic yards, 8,300 cubic
yards of which will be immobilized in-situ. The estimated volume
of sediments is 85,000 cubic yards, 44,500 cubic yards to be
immobilized in-situ. The amount of impoundment water to be
remediated is 13,829,000 gallons and the amount of trench materi-
al is 1293 cubic yards.
32
-------
~
Table 18 lists the capital costs for the selected remedy.
The direct capital costs are estimated to be $3,424,'000, which
gives a total capital cost of approximately $4,621,000 when
indirect costs are added. The O&M costs would be $21,000 annual-
ly, which would give a total present worth cost of $4,857,000 for
this alternative. Annual monitoring was used for costing purpos-
es, however biannual monitoring for the first five years would be
performed.
Th~ selected remedy will provide long-term protection of
human health and the environment at a practicable and reasonable
cost. This alternative provides the best balance of all factors
considered when evaluating possible options at this site.
Changes may be made to the selected remedy during remedial
design work and the processes of construction.
8.0
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy satisfy
the statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9721, as follows:
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy will be
protective of human health and the environment by elimi.nating the
potential for direct contact of contaminated sediment and pre-
venting the inhalation of contaminated soil through immobiliza-
tion and capping. The immobilization of the soil areas will
provide protection of human health which corresponds to the 10.'
risk level. Proper institutional controls will be taken at the
site, including land use restrictions.
The mobility of the contaminants will be reduced by treat-
ment, providing for maximized long-term effectiveness and perma-
nence to the greatest extent possible 'when considering all of the
alternatives presented. Minimal short-term risks would be
associated with the remedies, and the proper controls will be
taken to minimize these risks.
ComDliance with ADDlicable or Relevant and ADproDriate Reauire-
ments
Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy comply
with all applicable ARARs associated with this site (See Table 17
for a complete list of ARARS associated with this site). The
chemical-specific ARARs.that may be applicable at the site
include AWQC and NPDES standards. Actions to be taken on the
polishing basin should reduce contaminant levels in the oxbow
lake, meeting AWQC standards. These will be readdressed during
the subsequent evaluation of the ground water. If NPDES stan-
33
-------
. ~ards are determined to be applicable, they will be met. No
location-specific ARARs were identified by EPA after consulta-
tions with the appropriate federal and state agencies. All
action-specific ARARs, including all OSHA, HMTA, CWA and RCRA
regulations, including LDRs, and all State requirements will be
met. .
Cost-effectiveness
The overall effectiveness of the selected remedy is propor-
tional to its estimated cost. The selected remedy provides
protection of human health and the environment, long-term effec-
tiveness and permanence, a reduction in mobility, and short-term
effectiveness at a reasonable cost. The selected remedy is the
least expensive of all alternatives presented, excluding no
action. The cost of the selected remedy is also approximately
the same as the cost for the less protective remedy of capping
with no excavation or treatment, indicating the cost effective-
ness of the selected remedy.
The contingency remedy is more expensive than the selected
remedy, and therefore was not chosen for implementation at the
site. However, the contingency remedy is also cost-effective
when considering that treatment will provide for the protection
of human health and the environment, long-term effectiveness and
permanence and a reduction in the mobility of the contaminants at
costs that are proportional to its overall effectiveness.
utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technoloaies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
A range of alternatives which reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the hazardous substances at the site were developed
and evaluated. Two of the alternatives developed addressed the
principal threats posed by the site through treatment and two
alternatives provided protection of human health and the environ-
ment by controlling exposure to the hazardous substances. Both
of the treatment alternatives involved immobilization, however,
two different types of immobilization were discussed. These were
in-situ using an auger system and ex-situ utilizing a process
mixer. The utilization of additives increases the effectiveness
of the treatment, providing an alternative to conventional solid-
ification. These treatment alternatives represent the selected
remedy and the contingency remedy.
Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy utilize
proven technologies in immobilization and capping, which can be
effectively implemented. These processes provide the best
solutions in addressing the contaminants at the site. Monitoring
can easily be performed to ensure the reliability and long-term
effectiveness of the technologies. Therefore, these solutions
provide for the permanent protection of human health and the
environment to the maximum extent practicable at this site.
34
-------
. 'Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
~
Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy utilize
treatment as a principal element. with either remedy, the
densely-contaminated soil and sediment areas will be immobilized.
Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
9.0
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No signifi'~ant changes were made in selecting the preferred
alternative as described in the Proposed Plan.
35
-------
APPENDIX. A
Responsiveness Summary for the Record of Decision
A.
overview
EPA recommended a remedy which addressed the contamination
at the Mid-America Tanning Co. site and made this remedy avail-
able to the public for comment. All comments received from the
public are considered when EPA selects the remedy to be imple-
mented during the RA. This document summarizes the comments
received regarding the proposed alternative and describes how
these comments were considered and incorporated into the final
selection of the remedy at the site.
The preferred alternative that EPA recommended to the public
for implementation at the site was in the in-situ immobilization
and soil capping of the densely-contaminated soil and sediment
areas and the soil-clay capping of the remaining contaminated
areas. Several questions about the site and the Proposed Plan
were asked at the public meeting. Only two of these questions
were not answered during the public meeting, and therefore are
answered in this Responsiveness Summary. A copy of the tran-
script of the public meeting will be added to the Administrative
Record immediately after this ROD is signed. No written comments
were received from the pUblic.
B.
Backaround on Communitv Involvement
The presence of contamination at the site was first brought
to the attention of the community in and around Sergeant Bluff
through articles published in local and regional newspapers. In
June 1990, EPA released a fact sheet to the community which
described the status of the site. EPA conducted community inter-
views on June 27 and 28, 1990, and also on June 28 held an avail-
ability session in Sergeant Bluff. The purpose of this session
was to present a forum for the public to ask. questions about the
site and future activities at the site.
The public comment period was from July 16, 1991, through
August 15, 1991. During the public comment period, the RI Re-
port, the FS and the Proposed Plan for the Mid-America Tanning
site were released to the public for comment. These documents
were made available to the public with the Administrative Record,
which is located at information repositories maintained at the
Sergeant Bluff City Hall and at EPA Region VII office. The
notice of availability for these documents and the announcement
of the public comment period and the public meeting was published
in the sioux City Journal on July 15, 1991. The public meeting
was held on Tuesday, July 30, 1991 at the Sergeant Bluff City
Hall in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa. EPA, in coordination with the Iowa
Department of Public Health, met with the public, described past
36
-------
-
..,
and future actions at the site and answered questions related to
the site. Updated fact sheets were provided to the public during
the public meeting.
C.
Summarv of Public Comments and Lead Aqencv ReSDonse
This responsiveness summary addresses the oral comments
received by EPA during the public comment period, specifically
during the public meeting, as previously discussed. The follow-
ing questions were asked auring the meeting and could not be
fully addressed at that time:
1. The pUblic's first question concerned what prompted
EPA's investigation of the site. Was there an apparent problem
that EPA was aware of that required investigation?
EPA's Response: After reviewing the files, it is not apparent
what originally prompted EPA to investigate the site. A prelimi-
nary assessment (PA) was performed in February 1980, which was
EPA's first involvement with the site. The "How Identified"
section of the report was left blank. The report, however,
discusses the disposal of chromium sludge waste in the trench on
site as a potential problem. At the time, no samples were taken
and no visual contamination of soil or water other than the
burial area were found. Based on this, it was determined that no
further action was necessary. This evaluation was re-examined in
May 1985 and the decision was made to sample the site to deter-
mine if contamination was present. Contamination was found and
activities progressed.
EPA's response during the public meeting indicated that the
original reason for investigating the site could be one of two
things. Several sites were investigated in 1980 when CERCLA was
enacted, and this site could have been chosen for an assessment.
Also, the facility had a history of NPDES violations, which could
have prompted an assessment. In addition, after reviewing the
PA, it very well could have been that EPA became aware, possibly
through the state of Iowa, that the disposal of sludge was
occurring at the site and investigated. Any of these three rea-
sons could have prompted the original activities at the site.
This amends' the statement made by BPA during the public meeting.
2. The public inquired as to whether the sludge disposal
practices at the site were subject to EPA or IDNR permits.
EPA's Response: As stated in the public meeting, the sludge
disposal at the site was not undertaken pursuant to an EPA per-
mit. The State of Iowa was asked by EPA as to whether a state
permit was issued for the land disposal of sludge wastes. The
State responded that, at the time ot the land disposal of chromi-
um sludges at the site, State policy allowed for site owners to
dispose of chromium sludge wastes on their own property without
37
-------
. needing a permit.
for this action.
Therefore, no permit was necessary or issued
All comments received during the public comment period were
answered either during the public meeting or in this Responsive-
ness Summary. No comments were received from the public which
pertained to the selection of the preferred alternative as the
selected remedy at the site. Therefore, the selection of in-situ
immobilization in conjunction with the placement of caps is
determined to be the appropriate remedy for the Mid-America
Tanning Co. site.
. .
L-
38
-------
~
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following evaluation criteria were developed by EPA to
address CERCLA statutory requirements and technical, cost, and
institutional considerations. The evaluation criteria serve as
the basis for conducting the detailed analyses during the Feasi-
bility study and for subsequently selecting an appropriate reme-
dial action.
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Alternatives are assessed as to whether they can provide
adequate protection from risks above health-based levels posed by
contamination present at the site by eliminating, reducing, or
controlling exposures. This criteria draws on the assessments of
other evaluation criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and
permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
The alternatives are assessed as to whether they attain
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of
other Federal and State environmental and public health laws or
provide grounds for invoking a waiver. ARARs can be chemical-
specific, location-specific or action-specific.
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
The magnitude of risk remaining after implementation of the
alternative is evaluated. The adequacy and reliability of con-
trols used to manage treatment residuals. or untreated wastes that
remain at the site are also assessed.
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY AND VOLUME
The degree to which the alternatives employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants is asses-
sed.. Factors that shall be used include: the treatment used an
materials that will be treated, the amount of contaminants that
will be destroyed, treated or recycled, the degree of expected
reduction in the toxicity, mObility or volume, the irreversibili-
ty of the treatment, the type and amount of residuals, and the
degree to which the principal threat is addressed.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
The alternatives are evaluated with respect to their effects
on human health and the environm~nt during implementation of the
alternative. Evaluation factors include the short-term risks to
39
-------
the community, the site workers performing the activity, and the
environment: and the reliability of mitigative measures and the
time until protection is achieved.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
an alternative and the availability of services and materials are
evaluated. Technical feasibility factors include the difficul-
ties and unknowns associated with the construction and operation
of a technology, the reliability of the technology, the ease of
undertaking additional remedial activities, and the ability to
monitor the effectiveness of the action. Administrative feasi-
bility must address the activities needed to coordinate with
other offices and agencies, including the feasibility and time
required to obtain any permits. Included with the availability
of services and materials is the availability of necessary equip-
ment, specialists, and any additional resources or prospective
technologies that may be required.
COST
This criteria requires that direct and indirect capital
costs, operation and maintenance costs incurred over the life of
the project, and the total net present worth of these costs be
identified.
STATE ACCEPTANCE
Technical and administrative issues and concerns the state
may have regarding the alternatives are assessed.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
The issues and concerns of the public regarding the alterna-
tives are assessed.
40
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLES AND FIGURES
41
-------
Table 3 Contaminant Concentrations In Polishing Basin Sludges
(for Constituents Deviating from Background Values)
(all concentrations are mglkg)
CDllCar,bdot! Ailna81J11r1Jut1an8 ~..... SoI8nd ~
(low) (high) Boring 3S Boring Mo.Av. Browns
2.5 . 8.1 148 Flood PlaIn La.
HIIIrw ~ 11.5 -21.5
AIumlnurn- (8700.'~ (14000. 22COO),3 e2QO 11000 NA 13OQO
AntImony (<8.4 - <38),4 (54), <18 <15 NA <41
~ «3.4. <8)8 (4.5 . 8)., 14 <5.8 2.4 15
Bartum (140 - .,2 (S) . 3113)3 240 280 300 NA 2CO
CadmIum «1.4. <2.4)'4 (2.7), <1.3 <1.3 <1 <3.4
a"omlum (78 . 11,CXXn 15 12 14 7 113
~ (33 . 53),5 12 12 S <17
!!!s!!!!l «18.24)4 (17 - 140)11 14 20 7 <%7
.1a5t (4.5), (17 . 30),4 12 <13 113 18
Vanadium «20. <~ (33. ee),3 22 30 15 30
~ (100 . .'5 sa 81 18 80
Millar M8tIIII:
CaJdurn (88CIO. 18000)2 (2!CCIO . 120000) 13 17CC1O 14000 700 NA 23OQO
Mllgnalum (38CIO . 7000) 10 (78CIO. 11000)5 780D 8700 1400 NA 2COO
~ (6100. 13000)'5 <1300 <1300 4CIO < 34CIO
Potu8Iurn (2!5CIO . 4100) 15 1500 <1300 12COO NA < 34CIO
- (11000. 12COO)2 (17CC1O. 27tXIO),3 12COO 14000 7CCIO 17000
Mana."... (400. 12CO)'5 280 230 100 330
MaJor AnIons and G..-1Ie..
CYanide «1.5. <15)8 (3.5 . 25)., -
me (3eCIOO . 6OOCIO)3
011 and GrM88 «13000. dDCCO)2 (2900) 1
Ammonta «14- <1~ (18.8 . 38.4)8
.m «22. <251:2 (0.8 . 42.5)8
0I1Oftd8 (58.71), (830 . 22m).,
JiIdfIII f88CIO), (83500. ~ -
Jw!!IsIt «0.3. <0.4)2 (2.2 - 25.7)8
Phosoh0N8 (UII . 10.3)
-. Concentration range 18 d8fIn8d In t8nn8 of the number of aampi.. (u the eublcript) In 8 rang. below and
aboYe background 01' the d8t8ellon limit.
-. Con8titu8nt undertlned means 8 lignltlcant number of ump188 had COIIOa.,batlOIl8 8"'" 1h8n the
background Umlt.
NA. NR me.". Not A8p1'8.lotd~
a:\TABLE73
-------
Table 4 Contaminant Concentrations In Oxbow Liquids
(for Constituents Deviating from Background Values)
Realonal Backaround Data
Oxbow Groundwater
Coc lCeI,tration Rance DIstribution . Browns
(lOW) (hIgh b!9 Joraensen Skataes IPS MW9
Total Heavy Metals: (all concentrations ar. ugll)
Aluminum.. (<200 - <1000) 1121 (400 -19(0) 131 500 450 <200 <200
Barium (<200) 111 (650 - 7000) 1141 <200 <200 <200 <200
Chromium «10 - <50) 1121 (15 - 190) 131 <10 <10 <10 <10
ChrOmlum[.&] «10) ISI (11 - 34) I7J 12(1) <10
~ (<25 - <250) 1111 (29 - 46) 141 <25 <25 <25 <25
Nickel «40 - <400) 1141 (52) 111 <40 <40 <40 <40
~ (<20 - <44) 1101 (29 - 53) 151 <30 <20 <20 <20
Dissolved Malor Metals: (all concentrations are mgll)
Calcium (1500 - 1600) 1101 14 120 120 120
Magnesium (110 - 120) 1101 15 40 38 43
Sodium (320 - 340) 1101 51 f6 30 27
Potassium (14 - 20) 1101 6 6.8 6.7 6.4
Total Malor Metals:
Iron (0.78 - 3.7) 1151 <0.1 8.2 6.1 7.2
Manganese (0.38 - 0.89) 1'51 0.02 0.9 0.5 1.1
Malor Anions and Oraanlc8
Bicarbonate (4.5 - 15.3) 1101 622 549 622
Chloride (3600 - 9200) 1101 3.2 1.2 3.2
Sulfate (9.6 - 52) III 71 53 44
Auortde (2.9 - 7.4) 1101 0.8 0.5 0.6
AmmonJa-N (110 - 175) III 0.13 0.9 0.9 0.5
T1
-------
.'
Table 5 Contaminant Concentrations In Oxbow Sediments
(for Constituents Deviating from Background Values)
(all concentrations In mg/kg)
Backaround Soli and Sediments
BorIng BorIng Missouri
ConcentratIon Ranoe DIstribution. 3S 148 RIv. Flood Browns
(low) (hIgh) 2.5 - 8.5 11.5 - 21.5 f!J!!l !:m
Heavy Metals:
Aluminum .. (11 (00) 111 (14000 - 31(00) 1211 6200 11000 NR ... 13000
AntImony «12.4 - <70) 1211 (49) 111 <18 <15 NR <41
~ «12 - <74) 1101 (4.9 - 100) 1111 14 5.8 2.4 15
Barium (170 - 260) 1211 (290) 111 240 260 300NR 200
Beryllium (<1.8 - <5.8) 1211 (2.7) 111 <1.3 <1.3 <1 <3.4
CadmIum «1.4 - <5.8) 1111 (2.2 - 9.5) 141 <1.3 <1.3 <1 <3.4
Chromium (59 - 5400) 1221 12 14 7 10
~ (<29) 111 (19 - 44) 1211 12 12 3 <17
Nickel (<20 - <47) 141 (18 - 36) 1111 14 20 7 <17
b!i5t (<24 - <37) 181 (9 - 64) 1111 12 <13 10 19
Vanadium (<37) 111 (30 - 81) 1211 22 30 15 30
Z/l]£ (70 - 180) 1221 58 61 10 80
Malor Metals:
Calcium (17000) 111 (27000 - 160000) 1211 17000 14000 700NR 23000
Magnesium (4600 - 7800) 117] (8200 - 9400) . 151 7800 6200 1400NR 2000
Sodium (<701 - <5800) 1201 (1900 - 2400) 121 <1300 <1300 400 <3400
Potassium (<3700) 111 (2400 - 6400) 1211 1500 <1300 1200NR <34000
!!ml (12000 - 17000) 141 (18000 - 31(00) 1111 12000 14000 7000 17000
Manaanese (260 - 320) 141 (360 - 1200) 1111 280 230 100 330
Malor AnIons and Oraanlcs:
~ (38 - "1) 121 (11 000 - 62000) 1111 540 1100
CEC (140 - 320) 1141 41 54
Oil & Grease ( 1111 0.72
Nitrate. Nitrite - N (0.03 - 0.09) III (0. 15 - 19) I7J 0.09
PhOSDhorul (0.021) 111 (0.11 - 2.5) 1141 0.046
~ (50 - 410) 141 (29000 - 1100000) 1111
Sulfide (<0.5 - <400) 1131 (3.5 - 29.5) 121
. - Concentration range Is the given number o. samples (In the bracketll D In a range abOve and below
a background or detection limit.
.. - Constituent underlined means . signIficant number o. samples exceeded .
background IImh.
... - NR: means not representative o. sit, condhlons
. -- No data avallabl,
c::11Z1R\T A8LE71. '" 1
-------
-
.-:>.. -
ANAL Y1C
(ARARs)
Total Heavy Metals (ualn
Aluminum
Arsenic
(MCL (P) SO
NRL (F) 0.025
AWOC (HXF) 2.2e-03
AWQC (AXF) SO)
Malor Anion (main.
Ammonia
(HAL (0) 30)
-..--.--- ------.-...----
Table 8 Metal and Constltuenta In Groundwater
No. of
~anc8I
Well Locatton
Concentration
20
H3 52.5-53.5 It
H10 18-25 It
H3 18.5- 1 9.5 It
108
98
26S
13S
1D
FIT-S
3S
18
FIT-S
178
148
1SS
198
31
20S
25D
10D
3D
11D
11D
1 sample less than 300
8 samples less than 200
820000
170000
97000
18000
13000
8900
8900
7000
7000
6100
5000
5000
4800
. 2900
2700
2400
2200
1700
1200
600
260
230
300
8
H10 18-25 It
H3 18.5-19.5 It
26S
FIT-S
FIT-S
sa
108
TC-A
18
198
188
188
K&K9Q3S
26S
11D
108
100
TC-1
18
31
3D
25D
TC-A
98
25D
11 samDIM Ia.u th:an 0 A
1380.00
768.00
652.00
16.00
1.83
1.80
1.78
1.60
1."
1.30
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.13
1.12
Regional
Background Groundwatw
Joraensen Skataes IPS MW-9
78
51
25
23
21
15
13
11
0.90
4SO
<200
<200
<10
<100
<100
0.87
0.48
-------
- . l
Table 8 Metals and Constituemsln Groundwater (continued)
ReQlonaI
ANALYrE No. Of Background Grounclwat.
ARARsl &eeed~ Well LocaIIon Concentration Joraensen Skataes IPS MW-8
Total Heavv Metals (uafl) (contlnu8d\
Bartum 32 H10 18-25 It 13000 <200 <200 <200
IMCL{P)5000 H3 1 8.5-1~.s It 7600
HAl(F)2OOO H3 52.5-53.$ It &COO
AWQC(H)(F)1000) K&K903S 4400
TAT 1 1500
TAT. 1200
FrT-5 1100
10S 1000
. 18 870
,
FrT-5 860
. FrT-5 690
178 670
178 640
195 810
26S 610
188 600
95 570
K&K 900tS 570
188 560
TAT 2 550
TAT 2 <&90
138 480
38 480
20S 420
31 .,0
1.s 330
TATS 270
TC-1 270
3D 260
TC-1 230
128 230
11D 220
1D 220
TAT 5 100
5aamples less than 200
Bery1l1um . H3 S2.$-53.$ It ., 63 <5 <5 <5
[MCL (P) 1, NRl (D) 0.01 18 17
AWQC (H) (F) 8E-03) H10 18-25 It 18
178 2
1 sampletess than 8.8
1 sampl. lass than 6.5
29 sampl. ... than 5
c:\123A\T ABLE7-X11.wt1
-------
Table 8 Metals and Constituents in Groundwater (continued)
Regional
ANAL YTE No. of Background Groundwater
(ARARs) Exceedances Well Location Concentration Joraensen Skataes IPSMW-9
Total Heavy Metals (uall) (contInued)
Cadmium 11 H3 52.5-53.5 It 76 <5 <5 <5
(MCL (P) 5. HAL (F) 5 H10 18-25 It 14
AWaC (A) (F) 930) 18 12
250 11
TAT 1 11
110 9.4
TCA 8.9
100 7.1
110 6.6
TAT 4 5.6
250 5.4
30 samples less than 5
Chromium 14 H10 18-25 It 5700 <10 <10 <10
(MCL(P)1oo H3 52.5-53.5 It 3500
HAl(F) 100. H3 18.5-19.5 It 690
AWac (H) (F). 1. 7SE.OS FrT5 190
AWaC (A) (F) 1.0E.041 18 69
110 54
3S 23
98 23
128 21
108 19
178 19
TAT 1 18
138 15
198 13
5 samples less than 50
3 samples less than 28
19 samples less than 10
Cobalt 5 H3 52.5-53.5 It 800 <50 <50 <50
H10 18-25 It 360
1S 180
H318.S-19.S II 170
108 56
. .
c:\,23R\T ABLE7-X' 1.wII1
-------
~
Table 8 Metals and Consdtuent8 In Groundwater (Continued)
ANAL YTE
(ARARs)
No. of
Exceedance8
Well location
ConceIllflilon
Total Heavy Metals (uafl) (continued)
Copper
(MCL (P) 1300,
AWac (A) (F) 2.8)
1~
Lead
(MCL (P) 5,
AWOC (H) (F) 50,
AWQC (A) (F) 5.6)
H3 52.5-53.5 II
H10 18-25 II
H3 18.5- 1 8.5 II
18
8S
10
108
128
28S
3S
110
178
31
13S
21 samples I8sI than 25
2200
610
150
87
61
57
~7
41
39
36
,.
33
28
25
Regional
Background Groundwatw
Joraensen Skataes IPS MW-9
<25
<25
<25
4
H10 18-25 II
H3 18.5- 1 8.5 II
TC-2
FIT 5
290
140
"
8.1
<3
Nickel 11 H3 52.5-53.5 II 3200 <40 <40 <40
(MCL (P) 100, H10 18-25 II 3100
HAL (F) 100, H3 18.5-18.5 II 580
AWQC (H)(F), 1.3E-07, 18 170
AWQC (A) (F) 8.3) 138 75
8S "
108 58
148 58
sa ~
FITS 43
FITS ~1
23 samples 18$1 than 40
.
. Vanadium 5 H3 52.5-53.5 II 1500 <50 <50 <50
(HAL (0) 20) H10 18-25 II 800
H3 18.5-18.5 II 390
18 170
10 87
30 samples less than 50
c:\123R\T ABLEr-X" .M'
-------
ANAL YTE
[ARARs)
Table 6 Metals and Constituents In Groundwater (continued)
No. of
Exceedances
Well locatIon
Concentration
Regional
BackgrOUnd Groundwat.
Joraensen Skataes IPS MW-9
Total Malar Metals (mall)
Manganese
[MCL (S) 0.05)
Maior Anions (mall):
Chloride
[MCL (S) 2S0)
25
H3 52.5-53.5 It
H10 18-25 It
108
H318.5-19.5 It
188
188
K&K904S .
K&K803S
. FIT-5
FIT-5
19S
FIT-5
3S
20S
9S
178
178
18
26S
31
148
13S
FMC-5
128
TC-1
9 samples less than 1.0
120
28
9
8
U
8
7.5
7.~
8.8
6.7
5.7
~.3
~.1
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.2
2.8
2.6
1.8
1.5
1.1
a
K&K903S
K&K904S
188
10S
18S
19S
30
178
178
FIT-5
20S
11D
TC-1
26S
31
TC-A
FMC-5
13S
100
11D
2SD
1S
148
12S
3S
1D
ftC!
2830.0
2825.0
2100.0
1900.0
1550.0
999.0
760.0
7D8.0
701.0
589.0
551.0
435.0
435.0
~O
283.0
229.0
225.0
142.0
87.0
76.0
41.0
26.4
23.0
18.8
16.0
9.6
0.94
."
0.53
1.1
3.2
3.2
1.2
POOR QUAUTy
ORIGINAL
-------
Table 8 Metal and Constltuenta In Groundwater (continued)
Regional
ANAL YTE No. of Background Groundwater
[ARARs) Exceedances Well Location Concentration Joraensen Skataes IPS MW-9
..
.. Malor Anions (mall) (continued):
Sulfate Z1 1as 456 71 52.7 44.3
[MCl(P) 400) 1as 390
178 290
178 Z11
110 266
100 243
10 235
250 220
250 210
18 187
198 176
3S 171
20S 166
K&K904S 148
3D 140
31 132
TC-A 129
TC-1 11g
26$ 117
128 112
K & K 903S 101
14$ 93
FMC-5 88
FITS 84
9S 82
13S 49
10$ 19
Fluoride 23 1as 8.07 0.77 0.52 0.65
[MCL (F) 4) K&K903S 6.85
K&K904S 5.93
10$ 4.62
1as 4.58
178 4.26
178 3.86
19S 2.71
3D 2.20
FIT -5 1.83
26S 1.71
110 1.52
TC-1 1.52
20S 1.44
10 1.40
TC-A 1.38
sa 1.31
110 1.30
100 0.96
14$ 0.95
13S 0.92
FMC-5 0.91
3S 0.89
9S 0.79
4 samples less than 0.17
TOC 6 100 63.9
110 47
2S0 28.1
13S 10.3
10$ 6.8
98 5.7
-------
Table 7 Metal Concentrations In Subsurface Soli Samples
(all concentrations In mglka)
'Background SoIl and Sediment
BOring BOring MiSSOUri Browns
3S 148 RIv. Flood LaIc8
Heavv Metal Bortna ~ Concentration 2.5 - 8.5 11.5 - 21.5 f!.I!!l Sediment
Alumlnuru 128 1.1 - 1.1 27'DOO 1200 11000 28000 NA 13000
138 1- ..1 28000
148 3.1- 11.1 21000
128 1- ..1 24000
148 21.1 - 28.1 22000
138 0- 4.1 21000
138 '.1-11.1 21000
,. 1- ... 11000
128 ,.1- 11.1 11000
18 1.1- 1.0 .700
HJ 10-11.1 3100
Arsenic 128 1.1-11.1 II 14 I.' U 11
128 1.1- 1.0 21
128 1-'.1 D
HJ 10-11.1 8.1
Barium 138 1-'.1 350 2<80 210 :JOG NA 200
128 1- '.1 a40
138 1.1- 11.1 -
128 '.1-11.1 210
128 1.1-1.0 270
148 0.1- 28.1 210
138 0.0- 4.1 2<80
148 3.1- 11.1 DO
18 1- ..1 110
18 1.1- 1.0 1<80
HJ 10 - 11.1 1<80
Beryllium 138 1- ..1 2.1 <1.1 <1.1 <1
-------
. ..---.-"
Table 7 Metal Concentrations In Subsurface Soli Samples (continued)
(IU concentratlonlln mglkg)
Background SoIl and Sediment
BoMg Boring Mo. AN . BrownI
, 3S 148 F100d ~
Heavv Metal ~ I2mt!l Concentration 2.5 - 8.5 11.5 - 21.5 f!I!n Sediment
NickI! 128 1- I" ., ,. ao '7
-------
Table 8
ChemlcaIa 01 PoteadaJ CoDcma
HUID8D Health AaHl-...t
Mld-Amaica T81U1iD8 Site
IMPOUNDMENTS
~
Sediment
alumiDum
arseDicl
chromium
copper
c:yaDide
lead
nickel
YaDadium
ziIu:
Polishing Basin:
Primary Clarifier.
Aeration Lagoon-£:
Aeration Lagoon-W:
Aeration Tank:
F"maJ Clarifier:
chromium
chromium
chromium
chromium
chromium
chromium
OXBOW LAKE
fluoride
Sedi~cp1
arsemc
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
vanadium
zinc
~
barium
GROUNDWATER
Shallow Wells
aluminum
antimony
arsenic
beryllium2
cadmium
~
lead
manB'!-
aicbJ2
vaaadium2
Intermediate/DeeD Wells
aluminum
cadmium
YaDadium2
HvdroDunch
alumiDum
arseaic:
barium
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
cobalt
copper
lead
fluoride
manB"ft~
nickel
YaDadium
DDc
.mIL
arseDicl
chromium
1 PreseD1 at background levels
2DetCC1ed at elevated levels only at MW1SW or DW
JEt\£:\ T94JS321
-------
...
I'
Table 9
,..
CIMn*:aI
CASH
Slope f8dor
~-1
IN RIsk
Toxicity Values
Carcinogenic Effects
WeghtolEv1denc8
CIa''''[)ft
1P of c.nc.
SF BuJs/
SF Saura8
ORAL EXPOSURE
Beryllium
7440-41-7
1.75 S x 10-5 A skin cancer in human populations drinkinl water water/IRIS
with high arsenic concentrations
4.3 I x 10" B2 (total gross tumon in male rats drinkinl water water/IRIS
with high beryllium concentration)
CAG recommends no numerical B2 (renal tumors in rodents with dietary exposure to diet/IRIS
estimate be used several soluble lead salts)
Arsenic
7440-38-2
Lead
7439-92-1
INHALA nON EXPOSURE
Arsenic 50.0 4 x 10-3 A lunl cancer in humans exposed occupationally air/IRIS
7440-38-2
Beryllium - 2 x 10-3 B2 (lunl cancer in humans. rats. and monkeys) :air/IRIS
7440-41-7
Cadmium - 2 x 10-3 BI (Iunl cancer in rail and humans) air/IRIS
7440-43-9
Chromium (VI) 41.0 I x 10.2 A lunl cancer in humans exposed occupationally air/IRIS
7440-47-3
-Inhalation slope facton were removed from IRIS on the recommendation of the Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) Work
Group on January I, 1991. Arsenic Ind chromium (VI) values are from "EAST (USEPA 1990).
JE1:E/T928JS21
-------
Table 10
Toaicily Values
NoaC8fcmoleaic Effects
a-KRO AaJI. RIO
Ch81'11c:81 ~ taG'aJ ~ QtIIcII RO Ih:8tahrI
CASH cnfda,j... Sp8des ...... fled ~ """,f8ctan 1
Aklmlnum No AI)..1WIIe
7421H1O.5
Anl1mon1 0.~.00004 fl' low reduced~: 1t\Slw8l. 10(lf); 10(At; 10(1)/1
74*38 8II.ed ellenay
Menlo 0.001"'.0001 0.00110 0009) h- II-lasts & HEAST/W8I1f(1) 1/1
744().38.2 hyperpiJP1lefl18t1on
e,"'m 0.*.0 fll medium "'creased blood ItlS/waler 10(lf); 10(A)l1
744O-a-3 prn_.
'~ 0.005 ,.1 low liD Idvers. dedi mlSlwller 10(H); 10(AII1
noled
CadrMJm 0.0001.00003(;»> human I'JB~ prolelnurla IRISiwaIer 10(H)ll
7440-43., '.001 .00008 hunwI proteinuria ItISJlood
Ch,onUn VI O.OOW.oool 0.10100024 ,al low liD Idvers. tIIedl 1t1S/w8ler 10(lf); 10(At; 5(S)/1
1440-41-3 noled
Ch,onUn In 1.010.02 0.1010.0024 'II low no adv"l dedi ItISJlood 10(lf); 10lAll10
1~3.1 lIOIed
Cobell No HD ......
1440-48-4
~4 O.M "'.02 0.04,Q.02 ) hunwI vomIIInll. nava.. ODW
cbntIri
~nlde 0.~.02 00210.024 ..1 medium welghlloss.lhyrold ItlSJlood 10(lf): 10(At
5.12.5 =~"='
lud ~ ..1IbhII8d. no"" conaldered 10 newobehavorW
7439-82.1 ......... .nlda'" chIIhn
Ma~n. 0.1"'.003 hunwI medium CHS tiled, ItIS/lood 1/1
7...86-5
Nldcel. Sol. S8I8 0.~.002 0.1010.01 4 ..1 medium decna,ed ~ IIId ItIS/lood 10(lf): 10(AJ13
7~~ organ weigh"
Vanadium 0.001"'.IlOO2 0.00810.000244 ..I no a~. lIedl HEAST/W8Ier 10(lf); 101A)
7440-82-2 noted
n.c 0.2AI.12 0.410.234 hunWI I118II'I8 HEAST/UIerap8uIo 10(lf)
744084 do....
FbIrIde O.QIW.OI 0.0810.08) ~ high denial "0111 1t1Stw...
7782-41.. ....... ........lkIoroala ItIS/w8t8r
1.1te.lf 0.1te.12
\Jncartanlyln RI) "...rnul8rrom W8IIationaln ~ ,ensl\Mly(H). 8IdrapOI8IIonfrom obMrnIoftln..... 8p8dn(At...npoIdon1rolll ~"""Ioc:llronlcupo-"CSJ. or
~tIon from .lOAB.Io. NOAa. CIJ.
b.tved from EPA'IPropoaedMa.01 1.3..
\:qutw8tenllo chronicRO.
t8Jcukted Irom Ollce 01 0IHdn1l Wit. an...., HaIIh Advisory lor . chid. naumnll- .. water lngast8dlday and 10 "II body wllght.
benMI RID . Of" RO . GI ablorpllon c--ncO.'. ....... 0.0. cectrUft 0.'. cItrIIfnbIt '.02. ooppero.o5. ......- 0.03, line '.58 Cfllllf. "'" tlllIS); 1IuortcI81.0 (talWl1I'" 18101:"""'- 0.03
(ATSOR. 18911.
OOW. 0tIc8 01 DrtnIdng Wiler
.
"
-------
..
r
Table 11
Summary of Exposure Scenarios Evaluated
Mid-America Tanning Site
Potentially Exposed
Population
~
Exposure Scenario
Duck hunters frequenting the
MA T vicinity; adult and child
Current Land Use. It is assumed that duck hunters visit the MA T vicinity every day during the Iowa
duck hunting season for 35 years (adult) or 8 years (child, ages 7-1S yrs). Direct contact with Oxbow
Lake water and sediment is assumed to occur during each visit after an accidental fall in the Lake in
which waders become temporarily filled with water and sediment accumulates in the feet. It is
assumed to take one hour for the hunter to reach shore and dry/clean off. It is also assumed that
hunters may visit areas of previous sludge disposaJ onsite and contact soil via incidental ingestion or
dermal contact. Exposure point concentrations are the mean and the 95th percent upper confidence
limits on the mean of lake water and sediment values. Exposure point concentrations for soil are the
maximum detected chromium concentrat.ion in sampling grid locations sampled during the Removal
Action (Site Assessment, Ecology and Environment, Inc. August 1990), and 2000 mg/kg. the
established chromium clean-up level.
Residents; adult and child
Future Land Use. It is assumed that future residential wells will be located downgradient and close
to the MAT site. Exposure to contaminants in sroundwater is assumed to occur via daily ingestion.
It is further assumed that exposure will last for 30 years (adult) or 18 years (child). Exposure point
concentrations are derived from shallow monitoring well data (arithmetic mean and 95th percent
upper confidence limit on arithmetic mean), from MW ISW, and from hydropunch samples (maximum
detected values). '
Construction Workers
Future Land Use. It is assumed that future use of the MAT site involves excavation related to
construction activities and that construction workers are exposed for a total of eight hours a day for
ten days to contaminated airborne soil. Exposure point concentrations are the mean and the 95th
percent upper confidence limits of the mean of chromium in sampling grids in the area of sludge
disposal, and 2000 mg/kg, the established clean-up level.
Industrial Workers
Future Land Use. It is assumed that future use of the MAT site is industrial and that workers may
occasionally be in proximity to contaminated impoundments. It is further assumed that future
concentrations of contaminants in impoundment water and sediment will be equivalent to current
concentrations. Ingestion of and dermal contact with impoundment water and sediment may result
from an accidental fall. Exposure point concentrations of contaminants in impoundment water and
sediment are highest observed values.
JE5:C/WP51fT9BJS13
-------
Table 12
NON-CARCINOGENIC HAZARD QUOT1ENTS
DUCK HUNTER SCENARIO
EXPOSURE PATMWAY: DERMAL CONTACTwmf CONTAMlNA1m LAKEWA1ER
NON-cARClNOGENIC
CDI HAZARD
CHEMICAL (mglk~y) ouonEN1'
~ ~ ~ ~
Blrium~'UCQ'T0]L:L:.:.}.:j}:':j~~~');@?i~10E~.. .;~..o.ooaDO)i'}}:CUICI£~~:
Barium (A VG) 1.1BE-OS 6. 77E-06 O.OOe.OO O.ooe.oo
FluofIae (95iii.uCij::J;;::J':::;;:ifLI~;7~~@S~7.iE-rii: . . '. ,","," . "":"-:-:"""'~:""~:-:-:':"~:"'" "';", . .....'0:';':'''''';'
,,:~89&D4,:;+Y:'.~:'
Fiuorio8 (AVG) 3.82E-OS 2. 1SE-OS 6.36E-04 3.6o'E-04
EXPOSURE PATMWAY: csv.w. CONTACTwmf COHTAMINA1m LAKE SfDIMSfI'
NON-cARClNOGENIC NON-cARaNOGENIC
CDI HAZARD CDI HAZARD
(mglk~ QUonENT (mglkg-dly) QUonENT
(bU8d on 95~ UCl) (bU8d on 95~ UCl) (bU8d on AVG) (bU8d on AVG)
~ ~ ~ ~ £Q!!!t MIIJ1 2I!!Q Mill
ArunIc::::';',',,:..':\:'..;. .. ..:';;"1~39E..05;,:~.:::,:,1;26E.;;os, :.;.1~...a2.d::i::;'~.:,,;1;31e;ooe,/....,..,.., a.~': 1JW:0;G2~: ..,I.~
Cadmium. ".. "'uoE-of 1.36E-07 2.50E.03"'"2.27E~03'''1.12E-07''' 1.02E-07 1.87E-G3 1.7OE-03
ChrcraJurft;\'::':;:,:S:':;;'?:'\{::::.:.::.:,:.:::i~::t64&;OS8L~,UOC-oS' .::1.82&03::f/:,1~6SE';;03 . ,':.,%23S005':,q::;:.:,:2.GzE.;.OS: 1.;11E;;03.':. ..:'::,.01e,;Q3
CoPPer . , ......-......, ... ....-.., ...... 1.53E-05" ,.. 1.39E';'OS '7.65E~" ..U3E-04 .i41E-oS.'" USE-OS 7.07E-04' 6.41E-cM
~ ...: '.:.:.::'.' "'~-:'..,. . .. . ',' " . ,.",'.' '-",',',' '.," . . " ... ,', . . . . .. . . ......: """"~':"""'" .' "'~.' ,',' . ...,' . . ,',',,,
NIck8I.."'. '.: .::' .:'.:.,:,. ,'.' .', .'.", :.,.:: :;'/,'.;22E.;OS,;:,:,;;:.'~" 605. ... .J;"~ /i",','5.5SE..;G3::.::1~12SC15:,:,::.:',::1;ote,;OS,:,s;uEi003"..,,5Jm:.OQ3
Vanadlunt.."... ,.. , , , ....... i46E-06 '''i2'3E-06. .i23E~of'" ".1.11E~ .. i'4E-OI""'. U4E4 1.07E-G2 9.71E-03
Zinc" ,~~"'c::,::.. ':: "';":7::i74~OS:::::::.:.iae;;;05 :: ~.,.7:':i07E4M:i47E';;D5"':'.::':'~05'" iOse~:::' .. 1.ssc-04
CHEMICAL
PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX:
I 3.92E-02 I 3.55E-G2 I
\3.06E-02 I
2.77E-02 I
EXPOSURE PATMWAY: DERMAL CONTACTwmf CONTAMINATED SCIL
NON-cARClNOGENIC
CDI HAZARD
CHEMICAL (mg/kg-day) QUonENT
~ MIIJ1 ~ &ad
Chra8IIIn~~.:;:::': ....;';:;;'3;2SE.>OS';;,%::'U5e-OS' .. .1.64S003::,;:',:::1~17E.oo:i':
Ch,- !HIOII8. DeI8at8cI "-I)""3.62E-04 ,- 2.58E-04 "1.a1E-02." '.29E~
IAlllnia (HIGftnI D8I8at.ct LweI). ;;':;?:2;'''e;01:*i:,1~' :.2;~'H/;:~:':1~:
EXPOSURE PA11tWAY: INGESnQN OF CONTAMINATED 8QL
NON-cAACiNOGENIC
CDI HAZARD
CHEMICAL (mo/kg-day) QUonENT
=:=~~;::;::=:;r.;:;::::-:~:,;;,::.:;:.:.:~"
Ar...-Jo fHIQ....OIteat8d"-l) ,,:,:."."2.;t4E';';07"':':..'~53E';;07 :'2;14E.;.;()4..:"::1'~...
LlI_U.wII1
-------
- .
Table 12.
NONCARCINOG~IC HAZARD QUOTIENTS
CONSTRUCTION WORKER SC~ARIO
EXPOSURE PATK-NAY: INHALAl10N OF SOIL
NON-cARCiNOGENlC
CD HAZARD
(mCVkg-day) QUanENT
CHEMICAL Least Case Worst Case . Least Cas. Worst Cas.
Arsenic (averag.) 2. 7SE-07 3.91£-07 2. 75E-04 3.97E-04
Arsenic (95'4 UCt.) 3.03E-07 4.38E-07 3.03E-04 4.38E-04
Chromium (Clean-up IIYIf) 8. 86E-OS 1.28£-04 8.86E-04 1.28E-Q3
Chromium (Iverlge) 4.65E-04 6.72E-04 4.6SE-03 6.72E-Q3
Chromium (95% UCL) 5. 16E-04 7.46E-04 S.16E-Q3 7.46E-Q3
INDUSTRIAL WORKER SCENARIO
A~ INGESTION OF 0CB0f1CALl W WA1"I!A
#oQa8 NON-cARC&NOGENIC
InC8k8 HAZARD
CmCIIIIQ-dm ouanENT'
Contlmlftlm
0vamIum CE ,., Lagoon)
CIvomIum tN ,., Lagoon)
OIromJUm (FInal Clan,.,
..~-03
~29E.o&
8.86E-G5
..~-02
~-03
U6E.o&
A~ INGESTION OF CHBAICALI W SEDIMENT'
#oQa8 NON-cARClNOGENIC
InIaII8 HAZARD
Contlmtn8". lmallre-dlvt aucmENT'
EAST' AERA110N LAGOQN
AIMnIc 1.71!o08 1.71!-03
QvamIum U8E.o& ,,--03
WES'f AERA110N LAGOQN
ArI8IIC 1.71E-GI 1.71E-03
QIramIUIII ..57E-03 ..57E-02
CyanIde ~CICIE.c17 1.I0E-G5
AERA110NTAMe
A/IIIIIC 1.n!-GI 1.nE-G3
Cftt\:IIIIUnI 1'-.0& UIE-o:I
PaJSHlNClIA8
AlumInum 3.1CE-03
A/IIIIIC 1.2IEo08 1.211&-03.
0ItamIunI 1.57E-03 1.57E-02
CCICIOIf U7EoGIS a.I3E.o&
CyanIde U7E-GI 1.11E!04
LAId ..28E-08
NIcQI 2.ClClEoGIS 2.00e.o&
V8/l8lllulll a.ooe-os 1.00e-03
ZInc S.57E-G5 U3E-05
. -. - EPA .... ftCIIl8IbIIIfI8d ..f.-.nc8 CIOIII tar ~ 01 88Id.
Aan'E DERr.tAL CONfACTwmt'CHBIICAU .. WA1!R
#oQa8 NONoCAAONOGENIC
InIaII8 HAZARD
(,"Ma~M 0U0TtENr
QvOI'IIIUm CE ,., I.a;DcIn) 7.221:-03 U1E.oo
CtvomIum tN AM Lagoon) U5E.o& uae-01
CI\ramIuIft (FInal ~ 1.121:.0& 5,581:-02
I
Aan'E DEfNAL CONfACTwmf 04B0flCALS.. SEDIMENT'
Acull NONoCAAONOGENIC
... HAZARD
''''alka-dm oucmENT
EAST AERA110N LAOOCIN
At-* 3.-.0& U2-01
CIInIInIu8 s.CIGE-03 2.5OE.OO
WEST AERA110N LAOOCIN
At-* 3.CICIE.o& U:IE-01
QnmIunI LCICIE-02 ..OOE.o1
CW8/IIII8 5.25E.o& U3E-02
AERA110N TAMe
At-* 3...0& ~S3E-01
QnmIunI 2...-03 1.21E.OO
POLISHING IA8N
AIun'MIUm UCE-01 -
AI8MIC - 2.25E.o& 2.5OE-01
QnmIunI 2._-02 1.S8E.o1
CCICIOIf 1.25E-03 . ~ 131:-01
Cy8IIId8 1.25E-03 ~ 13E-01
LAId UOEoGIS -
NIcII8I UOE-03 s..sae-01
VIftIdIum UOE.o& U"~-o1
ZInc S. 131:-03 1.36£-02
-------
Table 12
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD QUOTIENTS
INDUSmlAL WORKER SCENARIO
..
CHRONIC INHALATION OF aiEMICALS IN SOIL: 95"- Ua.
INTAKE NON-CARCINOGENIC
(mglkg-evenl) HAZARD
Adult QUOTIENT
2.31E-OS 2.31E-02
1.56E-04 1.56E-01
4.04E-02 4.04E-02
2.66E-01 2.66E-01
6.94E-03 6.94E-03
4.51E-02 4.51E-02
Conlamlnanl
Arsenic (Least Case)
Arsenic (Worst Case)
Chromium (least Case)
Chromium (Worst Case)
Chromium (clean-up level) (Worst Case)
Chromium (clean-up level) (least Case)
CHRONIC INGEsnON OF CHEMICAlS IN SOIL: 9SCMt Ua.
INTAKE NON-CARCINOGENIC
(mglkg-evenl) HAZARD
Adult QUOTIENT
2.44E-06 2.44E-03
4. 16E-03 4. 16E-03
Conlamlnant
Arsenic 'f
Chromium
Chromium (clean-up
1.14E-04
7. 14E-04
CHRONIC DERMAl CONTACTWRH CHEMICALS IN SOIL: 95"- Ua.
INTAKE NON-CARCINOGENIC
(mglkg-evenl) HAZARD
Mull QUOTIENT
1.58E-OS 1.16E-02
2.69E-03 1.35E-01
Conlamlnant
Arsenic
Chromium
Chromium (clean-up level)
8:\lMPNDMT.wtr1
4.62E-04
2.31E-02
CHRONIC INHALATION OF CHEMICALS IN SOIL: AVERAGE
INTAKE NON-CARCINOGENIC
(mglkg-evenl) HAZARD
&M! OUanENT
2.15E-OS 2. 15E-02
1.42E-04 1.42E-01
3.64E-02 3. 64E-02
2.40E-01 2.4OE-01
Contamlnanl
Arsenic (Least Case)
Arsenic (Worst Case)
Chromium (least Case)
Chromium (Worst Case)
CHRONIC INGEsnON OF CHEMICALS IN SOIL: AVERAGE
INTAKE NON-CARCINOGENIC
(mglkg-evenI) HAZARD
Adult QUanENT
2.21E-06 2.21E-03
3.75E-03 3.75E-03
Contaminant
- Arsenic
Chromium
CHRONIC DERMAl CONTACTwnH CHEMICALS IN SOIL: AVERAGE.
INTAKE NON-CARCINOGENIC
(mglkg-evenl) HAZARD
Adull ouanENT .
1.43E-OS 1.59E-02
2.43E-03 1.21E-01
Contaminant
Arsenic
Chromium
-------
.....&..- -...
Table 12
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD QUOTIENTS
RESJDENTIAL SCENARIO
INCJESnON OF CONTAMINATED DRlNIONCJ WAT!R
ShallOw Willi: 85- UCL
NON-cARClNOGENIC
CDI HAZARD
CHEMICAL (mg/kg.clay) QU011EN1'
S8!1UsI !GIII1 Si!!!III ~
AIumInunt~, ~'3E.;.01,'2.53E-01 _..Yo. -.-..
At.-c 1.3OE-o:I 1.05£-03 1.30 1.015
CadmIum, , ~06E-o.-2.~ 0.81'" UO
ClvomlVnl '.D5E-o:I 8.~1£-06 0.00 0.00
ManQ11181 " 'u...~. 'UtE.cn" USE.Cn u.~" us
FluortcI8 1.OIIE-D1 1,84E-02 1.82 0.7~
PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX: 5.521 3.73
(WtUIOut 8IumInum)
INCJESnON OF CONTAMINATED DRlNICINO WAT!R
UONrTCA WB.L ,
CHBtICAL
CD
(mg/ko-dly)
S8!1UsI !GIII1
NON-cARClNOGENIC
HAZARD
QU011EN1'
S2IIIII MIl
AIumInum~, U8E.;;o1,~.ae~'
Ar88niC 1.'I1E-03 U3E-o:I
BarIum a.42E4.:2.77I!4
BeryllIuIII 1.00E-eM ..86E-eM
CadmIum" u.e-o.~a.43E-04
Cobalt .... . "U5E-G3 1.1.e-a3
CIvomiuID'" . ,,':~,,';",:a..we.O:r::U1£'.;QS
CCIPC* ' '1.01£-03 UIE-03
MII~- ',': ,{,::r:~1.stE-01 1.o8E80'
NICUI "",,'v.'.""I.OOE..03 ...8&-03
~,. . .::;:;';;:;;UII£ 03:""U8E-03
VanIdIunI "8.00E..03 ...1E..03
ZInc: ;,; :':""'"~'::~'~'~~'",',:':7.0se;c)3'":,:"I.71£.;QS"
FlUCtId8 ,'..' '.",",...."" '2.I8E-02 2. ,7E-02
PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX:
(without 8IuInInuInICCIb
-....,. . u-......
1.'11 U3
0.. us
0.12 0.10
Q.I5;.'" 0..
- -
Q.OO;'" Q.OO
G.OI 0.01
,oSS;,;;: ,:f.OI
UO QM
'1,s.M,;,. .10.71
OM 0..
o.OCc::;.: "0.03
0.. 0.'8
11UII 15.715
"-" .. AeI.,.1C8 Da8I8 tar IIumInUIII and cobaIIlI8V'8 lICIt b88t .......
.INGES11ON OF 8CIL: ... UCL
CHEMICAL
CDI
(mg/ko-dly)
gaa
NON-cARCINOGENIC
HAZARD
ouanENr
Si!!!III
AI8nIc~: ,,: :4.~'"
CIvomIuIn I. '1E-02
PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX:
CIIN8III88~"'" 1.""
~.ne;:Q2 -;'
8. , 8&-G3
I 0.061
UOE-03
JNGESnCN OF CONTAMINATED DRINCINCI WAT!R
...... AVENBE
NON-cARCINOGENIC
CD HAZARD
CHBIICN. (~ oucmENT
GbIIIt MIl S2IIIII MIl!
AIuIn8II88-,""," '2.ZIE-01 ::".I!5Ir-O', , .._.... -.-.
Ar...c '.D5E-03 "~7E-06 1.05 0.85
C8dn*8II '0 U8E-CMN,1.I3E-o. .. UI.. o.a
CIvomIum 8. ,ae-06 1.83E-06 0.00 0.00
~"'" 1;2".;01 '~'1.CI7I"-o1' '''~' 1.G7
F1uorIcS8 7.4IE-02 1.06E-02 1.25 0.50
PATKWAY HAZARD INDEX: 4.08' 2.80
~ IIUn*UII)
INBESnON OF CONTAMINATED DAINICING WAT!R
HYI)AQfIUNCH
\'
NON-cARClNOGEHIC
~. HAZARD
CHEMICAL (rng/IIg.cIay) oucmENT
GbIIIt MIll ~ MIII1
~.;". 1.000.oo....-.oo _....... _..
Ar...c 2.7I5E-G3 2.23E-03 2.75 2.23
B8rIuII' ~.58E~1 a.71E~' 1.18 7.43
&er,IIum U5E-06 ..57E-eM 0.11 0.011
CIdIIIIuIft .. ..ICE-04"."OOE-cM OM'" 0.80
CabII " .m-02 '._-02 - -
DnnII8',; ',2.01E~' "'._;.0, CUD'::' 0.18
CCICII* 2. ,se-02 1.7E-oz 0.&& 0...-
""'I0Il---";1.,8&-0,,:' 7.aEo01 I.SI"~' 1.43
NIcII8t t.C11E~' L88E-02 " U7 U3
YIIIIIIUII':'..",; ~:,2.a2E;.oa..::2.2IEOOI .... .. ~OL.;::, ,U7
ZInc 8.7tE-02 U3E-02 o.s. 0.27
PATKWAY HAZARD INDEX: 3Z. 7'8 , 26.54
,,'
v'
. "
(wtUIOUI8IuIIIInumICCID
INBEST10N OF 8aL: AvSwIE
NON-cARQNOGENIC
HAZARD
QUO'T1EN1'
~
CCII
OEMICAL (rng/llo-dIy)
~
AI88IIC'~: ..sa:o.os
CI\romIum 7.35E-02
PAtHWAY HAZARD INDEX:
..scE-oz :..
7.35E-03
I 0.D15 I
-------
Table 13
UFET1ME A VG. DAILY DOSE: CARCINOGENS
DUCK HUNTER SCENARIO
SOIL
CarcInogen
INGESnON
(mglkg-day)
Child Adull
DERMAL CONTACT
(mglkg-day)
Adult
Child
ArMnlC
2.44E-08
7.63E-08
3.86E-07
1.73E-06
Carcinogen
LAKE SEDIMENT
DERMAL CONTACT
(mglkg-day)
Child Adult
Arsenic (A VG)
Arsenic (951141 UCL)
1.06E-06
1.59E-06
4.22E-06
6.30E-06
RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
Carcinogen
SHAllOW W8..LS: 951141 Ua.
INGESTION
(mglkg-day)
Adult
Child
SHAllOW WB.1.S: AVERAGE
INGESnON
(mglkg-day)
Child Adult
Arsenic
3.34E-04
4.50E-04
2.69E-04
3.63E-04
Carcinogen
MONrroR WEU. 1
INGESTION
(mglkg-4ay)
Adult
HYDROPUNCH
INGESTION
(mglkg-day)
Adult
Child
Child
ArsInic
Blryllium
4.54E-G4
1.54E-04
6. 12E-04
2.08E-04
7.08E-04
1.4SE-04
1.55E-04
1.96E-04
SOIL: 95'" Ua. SOIL: AVERAGE
INGESTION INGESTION
(mglkg-day) (mglkg-dly)
Carcinogen Child Child
ArsanlC 4.08E-06 3.72E-08
-------
Table 13
LIFETIME AVERAGE DAILY DOSE: CARCINOGENS
INDUSmlAL WORKER SCENARIO
INHALA110N OF CHEMICAlS IN SOIl: 951M. UCl
INTAKE
(mgllcg-event)
Adull
".64E-OS
8.7OE-OS
ContamInant
Arsenic (least Case)
Arsenic (Worst Case)
CHRONIC INOES11ON OF atEMICAL8.. SOIl; 151M. ua.
INTAKE
(mglkg-event)
Adult
1.05E-08
Contaminant
Arsenic
CHRONIC DERMAl CONTACTwmt CHe.41CALS IN SOIl: 95-.. UCL
INTAKE
(mglllg-event)
Adull
G.78E-08
Contaminant
Arsenic
.--.------
INHAlATION Of CHEMICALS IN SOIl: AVERAGE
INTAKE
(mgllcg-event)
Adult
".20E-OS
G.OSE-OS
ContamInant
Arsenic (least Case)
Arsenic (Worst Case)
CHRONIC INGESnON OF CHEMICALS IN SOIl: AVERAGE
INTAKE
(mglkg-event)
Adull
2.21 E-08
ContamInant
Arsenic
CHRONIC DERMAL CONTACfwnH CHEMICALS IN SOIl: AVERAGE
INTAKE
(mgllcg-ewenl)
MY!!
8. 14E-08
Contaminant
Arsenic
CONSTRUCTIoN WORkER .
_._--_.....
AanE INHALATION OF CONrAMINA1ED SCIL
Contaminant
Arsenic (average)
Ar88n1c (151M. UCl)
MAKE
(~)
J.east Case Worst Case
1.07E-10
1.19E-10
1.55E-10
1.71E-10
-------
Table 14
CARCINOGENIC RISKS
DUCK HUNTER SCENARIO
CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE:
Ingestion of contaminatecllOl1:
ArMnic
4.21£-08
Dermal contaCt with contaminated 1011:
ArMnIc
7.48E-07
Dermal contaCt with contaminatecllake sediment:
Atlenic (AVG)
ArseniC (95% UCL)
2.06E-06
3.08E-06
. . . TOTAL ( CBiculated wiAVG): .. .'.~86E~ >
TOTAL (calculated w/95% UCL): . 3.87E.;;.oS:
ADUI. T EXPOSURE:
Ingestion of contaminated 1011:
Arl8n1c
, .34E-07
Dermal contaCt with contaminated 1011:
Atl8nic
3.36E-06
Dermal contaCt with contaminatecllak. sediment:
ArMnic (AVO)
ArHnic (95~ UCL)
8. 1 BE-06
1.22E-OS
'. "TOTAL ( caieuiatedwiAVG):
.. TOTAL ( calculated w/95% UCL):
1.17E;"oS
3.50E~6
. -
CONSTRUCTION WORKER SCENARIO
Inhalation of contaminated soU:
Arsenic (AVERAGE)
Arsenic (9S~ UCL)
Least Cas.
S.37E-ot
S.83E-ot
Worst Cas.
7.77E-08.
B.57E-09
-------
Table 14
CARCINOGENIC RISKS
RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE:
Ingestion of contaminated water from
Shallow wells (95% UCL): ArsenIC 5.84E-D4
Ingestion of contaminated water from
shallow wells (AVERAGE): Arsenic 4.71E-04
Ingestion of contaminated water from Monitor Well 1:
Arsenic 7.94E-D4
Beryllium 6.63E-04
Ingestion of contaminated water from Hydropunch:
Arsenic 1.24E-03'
Beryllium 6.24E-04
Ingestion of contaminated soil (95% UCL):
Arsenic 7. 14E-06
Ingestion of contaminated soil (AVERAGE):
Arsenic 6.51E-06
ADULT EXPOSURE:
Ingestion of COntaminated water from
Shallow wells (95% UCl): Arsenic
7.87E-04
Ingestion of contaminated water from
Shallow wells (AVERAGE): Arsenic
6.35E-04
Ingestion of Contaminated water from Monitor Well 1:
Arsenic
BttyJllum
1.07E-03
8.95E-04
Ingestion of contaminated water from Hydropunch: - ..
Arsenic
Berytllum
1.67E-03
8.42E-04
L-
c:\MATlA.wlc1
-------
Table 14
CARCINOGENIC RISKS
INDUSTRIAL WORKER SCENARIO
AOUL T EXPOSURE:
Ingestion of contaminated Sedi"lent (Polishing Basin):
MAnic
2.25E-06
Dermal contact with contaminated sediment (Polishing Basin):
Arsenic 4.37E-04
TOTAL (polishing Basin): I 4.39E-G41
Ingestion of contaminated soil (95% UCl):
Arsenic
4.28E-06 .
Ingestion of contaminated soil (Average):
ArsenIC
3.88E-06
Dermal contact with contaminated soil (95% UCL):
Arsenic
3.07E-OS .
Dermal contact with contaminated 5011 (Average):
Arsenic
2.78E-OS
Inhalation of contaminated soil (95% UCL):
Arsenic (Least Case) 5.41E-03
Arsenic (WorSt Case) 7.82E-03-
Inhalation of contaminated soil (Average):
Arsenic (Least Case)
Arsenic (WorSt Case)
4.90E-03
7.09E-03
C:\IMPNDMT.wk1
-------
TABLE IS. REMEDIAL ACI10N OBJECTIVES
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE. SERGEANT BLUFF. IOWA
MEDIUM CONTAMINANTCS» P01ENJW. PREUMINNIY REMEDlA110N GOAL COMMEiflS
OF CONCERN RECEPTORS
Sol Chnwrium (VI) SIIeW0dcer8 Prevent 8"8 workers from inhalation 01 contamnated soland Facility Is c:urnnUy dosed. Potential receptors ant ahe workers
remove contlninent sources to prevent future groundwater who may work at the lacility when II resumes openItIons action
contamination. levellrom total chromium In 800 Is 2.000 mg/kg.
Sediment ChronUn (lIQ sreWorkerl Prevent ale workers from dermal contact with sediments and The preliminary remediation goala~ to the ."aeratlon
l'8nOVe conIImInant soun:es to prevent future groundwat. lagoon, the West aeration lagoon, ..d the poIshing basin and the
contlninetlon. aerallon tank.
TABLE 18. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES. TIME REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROCESS OPTIONS
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
TNE REOtmED 10 IMPlEMEN1'
PROCES9 0PI10NS APPUCA8l£ 10
~~0Pn0N 1EaN~ (WEBS) ALTERNA11VE
Excavate contaminated sol using ExcavatIon Depth c 2 It 2 2.3. and 4
conventional excavation equ~ ExC8Y81lon Rate .1000 yct3/da'f
(e.g., backhoes)
Dredge 8edlments using portable DredgIng Rate . 200 gpm 24 2
dredges and pipelines Into tanks DredgIng hours per day . 10
SoIds content of dredged material . ~
Mechanical dewatering of 100 cu.ft. plate and hme press 24-32 2
sediments using recessedc:h8mber
plate and frame presses
Offs"e dsposalol dewsterect Subtf1Ie D Iac:IIIy loc81ed wllhin 50 mIe8 of the site 18-24 2
sediments and excavated sol
Dredge sediments from the AeratIon DredgIng Rate. 200 gpm 12-14 hnd4
lagoons and the Aeration Tank Into DredgIng hours per day . 10
the PoIshlng Basin SoIds content of dredged material . ~
CoIect water from the Aeration PumpIng rate 200-300 gpm N 2.3,4. andS
lagoons, the Aerallon Tank, and Use lour pumps
the PoUshlng Bssln
In st.. a "'er with leachate lIn. wi! be instilled abova the native day layer thatlorrns N 3 8"Id 4
collection and removal system In the base of the Polishing Basin
the PoAshlng Basin
-------
TABLE 16. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES - TIME REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROCESS OPTIONS (Continued)
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
DE REQUIRED 10 NPI..B£NT
PROCESS 0P110NS APPUCABlE TO
PROCESS 0PT10N lEQiNlCALASSUMPT10NS (WEEKS) ALTBtNA11VE
Dewater sediments In the Polshlng Sedment depth for "Brown Bear" operation wII be 10-12 3and4
Basin by windrowing with a "Brown approximately 2 ft. ThIs operation may be performed on
Bear" or equivalent equipment. aectora of the PoIahlng Basin.
Place excavated soDs In the
Polishing Basin
Add lime to the dewstered 0.05 lonalcu yd of matertaJ 2... 3
sediments and excavated sols
(contained In the ponshlng Basin)
ImmobUize contaminants In the Cement to waste ratio of t:4 (actual mix ratio wit be 12-16 4
dewatered sediment and the determined thrOugh a treatablDty study)
excavated soli (contained In the
Polishing Basin)
In-situ ImmoblDzatJon of sediments Cement to waste ratio of 1 :4 (actual mix ratio wII be 20-24 5
and contaminated sol determined through a treetabUIty study)
"0 2,3,4and5
Backfln areas FI material Is locally avaHable 12-16
Place soU cap over bacldiDed areas, Sol cap wi meet State's requirements 12-16 2and5
grade. snd seed capped areas -
Place soll-c:lay cap over backflled SokIay clay wII meet Slate's requirements 12-18 3and4
areas, grade, and seed capped
areas
Monitor groundwater One sampling event per year; analyze samples for metals 3--i 2. 3, 4, and 5
JE 1 :E\ARCS\D238\ T4148G11.WP5
-------
Stend8rd. RelJ.li re.ent
Criterion.or li.itation
Citation
Table 17a
Pederal Chemical - specific ARARs
Description
AtJpI tcable lIWJJor
lelevant ...
Aflprcprt ate
"
CI"" Water Act
ec-rt.
federal Mblent Water Qual Ity
Criteria (AWQC)
EPA Iisk leference Doses
(If D.)
EPA Carcinogen Asses88ent
Gr«q) Potency factor.
Solid Unte Disposal Act
(S\oDA)
Identification 8nd Listing 0'
IIlza"" V88te
. .
It"""'. leIJ.Ilre8!nt
Criterion. or LI.Uatlon
aM Sec. -
40 CfR 'Irt 131
40 use Sect. 6901-
6981
40 Cf. 'art 26'
_._- ....- .-- .
Citation
Nonenforceable surface water quality
criteria guidance are establ ished for
specific coqxJU'lds for protection of
human health fr08 water consumption
8nd frell consumption of aquatic
organi- and fish consumption alone
and for protection of aquat Ic life
and thair uses.
IfD. are considered to be the levels
unlikely to cauae significant adverse
health effects a.soclated with a
threshold lIedIanl.. of action In
h&8an exposurn for a Iffeti_.
Carcinogenic effects present
Infor88t1on on clnClr risk potency
derived ,... EPA'. cancer ..ses8lllent
gr«q).
Defines solid ...stes "'Ich are
Mbject to regulations .. hazardous
wast.. under 40 Cfl Part 262-265 8nd
'art. 124, 21D 8nd 211.
Yes
To Ie Considered
To .. Considered
PotentlaUy
Table 17b
state Cbeaical - specific ARAR8
De8Crlptton
AFPllcabie
lelevant
..........Iate
..-J/or
and
Likely route(s) of exposure lUSt be
detel'8lned. These were considered In the
eval'--tlon of the preferred aUemative.
EPA RfD. were used to characterize rlsts
b to noncarclnogena In vlrlCIUI _Ia.
EPA Carcinogen Potency factora were used
to c~e the Indlvl"1 Inc.--,tal
cancer risk resulting f... exposure to
certlln cCllllpounds.
If alte cont..inenta ..t the criteria 0'
hazardous MIItn, these regulations Mill
. apply. 10 Mbstances haw yet been
Identified .. hazardous MIlt...
c-.ts
Iowa lIaZlrdous S*tances end
Waste levullt ions
Cleanup Action levels for
Ioil, surface Water and Other
Medie
lAC 14'.'
(4551)
St..rd8 for owner/operator. of
hazerd0u8 waste treat8nt, storage and
dl.....t faclt Itles.
Where .Ignlflcant 880Unts of
cont..lnants are present In soils or
another erwl ~t, such that
groundll8ter cont..lnatlon is occurring
or is tikely, active cleanup I.
necnsary to prevent or .Inl.ile the
rei... to eur'aca ..ter.
PotentlaUy
Yes
If hazardous wastes at the site ..t the
definition of ICIA.defined hazardous
If..tes, this regulation If HI be apptfcabte.
No hazerdous s.tances haw yet been
Identified .. hazardous ...tes.
Gro&niMter cont..l..tlon ,. occurring ...
to cont..lnanta present In othel' _la, 80
thl. Ifllt be apptlc8bte.
-------
St"""". Iecf.li..-nt
Crlterfon. or U-Itatlon
I.. Ant'detratlon PoUcy
lowe Vatw GuI' Ity It""
lowe un...t end Pretreet.ent
Stenderd8
lowe "aza"" StAJetencn end
Va.te lefU'et'ons
. 1C1118 ....... "te ~,
o Identification end U.tlng
of hez.rdous we.te
Citation
lAC Ch8p. 61
lAC Chap. "
61.5(2)
62.1 (4451)
Chap. 151
'AC 567-140 to
152(4558)
'AC 567-141.2 (4558)
leferenc.. Part 261
Table 17b
state Chemical - specific ARARs
Description
h'.tlng .urfeee weter uses end the
'ew' of "Iter quII' I ty MCes18ry to
protect the exl.tlng uses ..," be
.Intalned 8Id protected. BUU)
Prowldea general ..ater qual' ty
criteria that are eppltceble to a"
eurface _tera.
Proh'b'tl dlsch.rge of WI'f pollut."t
un'es. under "POES p8r.1t Into aurfeee
Nater. Prohlbltl dllcherge 'nto POTU
of WI'f welte "Iter thlt ..1'1 exceed
the dea'", C8p8C'ty of the lyet...
legutatlon end deflnftlon of hezlrdous
.ubstance. for Identification.
tr8WpOf'tetlon. end dllpoall In 10118.
AIIP' 'eeb'.
letevant
AfIpnIprlate
,..
endJor
and
..
c-nta
If tha preferred at tamat'". IlIp8Ct.
awfee. _tw, thl. ..,,, be relevent.
If eurface ..tera ar. IlIip8Cted. tM.
regutat'on ,. eppttc8bt..
If the prefwred a'tamatt". 'ne''''
dlschlrge of ..t.r 'nto awface ..ter or .
JIOTV, thl. "I" be retevent.
If th. prefwred .t temat'". hwo'"..
tr_portatton or dlapoaal of "'1"""
""tane.., tM. "," be re'event.
If lCU.hala"" weltes are Identified
at the .Ite, th'l requlre.ent ~ be
-11~J!lh".
lONe Sefe Drl""ng Weter
Authorities
--
"
lAC 567.40.1 (4558)
Estabt I.h.. Itend8rds. treltllent,
~Itorlng end public notice
requlre.entl consistent ..fth the
$OVA
,..
,..
PotentlaHy
PotentlaHy
Y..
Apptlceb'. If 10111 conti,.,. to eet .. a
lource of cont.lnatlon to the .rCU1d
..ater whfch fs or -y be used .. a
sourc. af dr'.lng weter.
-------
Standard. RequirMent
Criterion, or LI.itation
Citation
Table 17c
Federal Location - specific ARARs
Description
Aflpl icableand/or
Relevant and
Aflpropriate
r. .
ec-ents
Fish and Ulldllfe
Coordlnet Ion Act
Protection of Archaeological
Resources
Discharge of Toxic Pollutants
to Surface Uater
CUA Sec.404
16 USC Sec. 661-666
40 CFR Sec. 6.302(G)
32 CFR 229. 229.4
43 CFR 7,7.4
CWA Sec.307(a)
and 303(c)(2)8)
Requi res consultat I on when federal
department or agency proposes or
authorizes any modification of any
stream or other water body to achieve
edequete provision for protection of
fish end wildlife resources.
Provides for protection of
archaelogical resources.
Requires states to identify water
bodies where discharge or presence of
toxic pollutants listed could
reasonably be expected to interfere
with the attainment of designated
uses end to adopt numeric criteria
for such toxicants applicable to the
water body that are sufficient to
protect the designated use.
No activity that adversely affects 8
wetlands shaH be permitted if a
practicable alternetive with lesser
effects t. BYailable.
Potentially
Potentially
potentiaUy
PotenttaUy
If the preferred alternative involves
discharge to surface waters, requirements
would then be potentially applicable.
USFII was consul ted end no concerns have
been tdentlfied.
If archaeological items are encountered
during any action requiring excavattons,
work rrust be stopped until a permit Is
obtained, therefore, this is potenttally
appl icable.
Preferred al ternetive IIIIIY involve
discharge of water containtng toxtc
poUutants to surface water bodies;
however, no concerns have been
identified.
The effects on the wetlands were
evaluated; however no concerns were
tdentifled.
-------
Stendard. Requi rel8ef'lt
Criterion. or ~i.itation
Citation
Table 17c
Federal Location - specific ARARs
Description
Appl icableand/or
Relevant and
Appropriate
Antidegradation Policy
ec-nts
Rivers and Harbors Act of
~
Executive Order on Protection
of Wetlands
Executive Order on Floodplain
Management
National Environmental Policy
Act
ReRA-location Standards
40 CFR Part 131.12
D use Sec. 40J
EO 11990
40 CFR Sec. 6.302(A)
and Append I x A
EO "988
16 USC 661
40CFR Part 6
40 CFR Sec.6.302CB)
W Appendi. A
42 USC Sec. 4321
40 CFR Part 6
40 CFR 264.18
Requires states to develop and adopt
a statewide antidegradation policy
and identify the methods for
i""lementing such a pol icy.
Requires federal agencies to avoid,
to the extent possible, the adverse
I~cts associated with the
destruction or loss of wetlands and
to avoid support of new construction
in wetlands if a practicable
alternative exists.
Requires federal agencies to evaluate
the potential effects of actions they
may take In a floodplain to avoid, to
the maxi.um extent possible, the
edverse Impacts associated with
direct end indirect developllent of a
floodplain.
Describes EPA policy for enforcement
of provisions of the wetlands EO
11990.
A facility located In a 100-year
floodplain IILISt be designed.
constructed, operated and IIIIlntalned
to prevent washout of any hazardous
wastes by a 100-year flood.
2
Potentially
Potent i ally
PotentiaUy
PotentiaUy
Potentially
If the preferred alternative Involves
discharge to a high quality receiving
water. this requirement may prohibit or
I imit such action. This requirement lIlY
be appl icable and wi II be evaluated-
The effects on the wetlands were
evaluated and no concerns were
identified.
The requirements of this EO were
considered cLlrlng remedy selection.
however, ilpOUndDents are not in the
FEM-deslgnated floodplains.
This will be evaluated cLlring the
developllent of al temativea.
The i~ts on the 100-year floodplliin
were considered cLlring remedy selection,
however, ilpOUndments are not in the
FEM-designated floodplains.
-------
Table 174 ,.
state Location - specific AltARs
St8rdlrd. ....,i n8!nt Af1p1 icable rdlor
'elevent end
Criterion. or U.itation C'tat'" Description Af1pnIpriate c:c-.t.
Mong-, Endangered, end Iowa Code See. Provides for regulation of nonglllll! PotentiaUy If the preferred attemetive i.-ct. ...
Threatened Speciea 109(A) wiadaife end threatened end endangered speclea thia wi a a be
end8ngered apeclea. appa leebae; however. none have been
identified within one .IIa of the alt..
1088 Haurdaus UllSte Act lAC 567-140 to
U2f:455.)
Ruaea end Reguaatlons lAC 567-150 (4551) £ataba Ithea requlr.-ents reaating to PotentiaUy If the aatemetl". would Invoave altl",
Pertaining to Hazardoua altlng of hazardoua weste disposal of auch a facility theae requlretnenta
Vastes. Requirementa for fac:llitiea. would be relev...t end appropriate.
Siting of Hazardous Weate however. the haz.rdous ..t8'ICea h.".
Disposal Sitea not been Idlnttfled .. haz.rd0u8 ...t..
Rul. end Regulatlona lAC 567-140 to 152
Pertaining to H.zard0u8 Uaat. (4551)
0 hazardaul ...te lAC 567-141.1 (4551)
~tay8t_: ..ferencet Part 260
general
0 Identification end Ilatlng lAC 567-141.2 (4551) Potentl.lly If RCU-haz.rdauI weat. .re ldenttfled
of hazard0u8 ...ta ..f8r'8'1C88 Part 261 .t the alt., thla requlr8l8nt ..y be
appl feebl..
o .t...,. applleabl. to lAC 567-141.5 (4551) Potentia", If .CU-haz.rdauI ...t.. .re I dent If fed
generaton of haurdaul ..f.renc:ea Part 262 at the alt., thla requlr8l8nt 88Y be
...t. appl fcabl..
o atenda,. for owner8 end lAC 567-141.5 (4551) Potent 1.11, If RCU-hazardaul ...t.. are fclenttfled
operaton of hazard0u8 ..ferencea Part 264 at the .ft., thf. requl~t .., be
..st. treateent, atorege, appl feebl..
end dlaposal flCflft'..
0 Interf. .tandardS for lAC 567-141.5 (455.) Potentfall, If RCU-hazard0u8 ...tea are Identified
owner. end operators of ..ferencea Part 265 at the a't., thla requlr8l8ftt 88Y be
hazardaul weate treataent, appl 'eebl..
atorage. end dlaposal
facHtt'ea
-- ---
" -. .
0 notification lAC 561-141.12 PotentiaHy If ICRA-hazardous wastes are Identified
(1,558) at the site, thfa requfre.ent .., be
appl ieabae.
Ant ldegradat Ion PoU ey lAC 61.2(2) lequlrea that the quaalty of the PotentiaHy If the preferred attemetive Involvea
watera of the State shouad not discharge to a high quality receiving
degreda. water thla require.ent ..y prohibit or
I IlI!ft . ~~ fCti~; - t~la 88Y be eprl 'cabla
-------
Standard, Requirement
Criterion, or li~itation
Cttatlon
TAble 17e
Federal Action - specific ARARs
Description
Applicable and/or
Relevant and
Appropriate
c:c-,ts
Sol id Vaste Disposal Act
Criteria For Classification
of Solid Vaste Disposal
Facilities and Practices
Hazardous Vaste Management
System: General
Identification and listing of
Hazardous Vaste
Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Vaste
Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous
Vaste
Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Vaste
Treatment, Storage, end
Disposal Facilities
location Standards for
Hazardous Waste Storage
Facllttles
42 use Sec. 6901-
6987
1,0 CFR Part 257
40 CFR Part 260
40 CFR Part 261
40 CFR Part 262
40 CFR Part 263
40 CFR Part 264
40 CFR 264.18
Establishes criteria for use in
determining which solid waste
disposal facilities and practices
pose a reasonable probability of
adverse effects on health or the
environment and thereby constitute
prohibtted open ~.
Establishes procedures and criteria
for IIIOdlflcatlon or revocation of any
provision of 1,0 CFR Parts 260-265.
Defines those solid wastes which Bre
subject to regulation as hazardous
wastes under 40 CFR Parts 262-265 and
Parts 124, 270, and 271.
Establishes standards for generators
of haza~ waste.
Establishes standards which apply to
persons transporting hazardous waste
within the u.S. If the transportation
requires a .-nifest under 1,0 CFR Part
262.
Establishes mlnimu8 national
standards which define the acceptable
8Bn8ge8ent of hazardous waste for
owners and operators of facilities
which treat, store, or dispose of
haza~ waste.
Prohibit landfills In floodplains or
In seismically unstable areas.
Yes
Potentially
Potentially
potentially
Potentlilly
Potentially
This requirement Is Ippllcable If the
preferred alternative would Involve
disposal of solid waste.
If RCRA-hazlrdous wistes'lre Identified
It the site, this requirement 8BY be
applicable.
If RCRA-hlzardous Wlltes Ire identified
at the site, this requirement ..y be
appllceble.
This requirement Is applicable If
preferred al ternatlve would Involve off-
site transportation of hlzardous waste or
_terlals.
If RCRA-hazardous wast.. are Identified
at tha site, this requlrelent 88Y be
applicable.
This will be evaluated; however, the
Iqxxnhents are not within the 100-yelr
floodplain.
-------
Standard, Requirement
Criterion, or limitation
Citation
Table 17e
Federal Action - Specific ARARs
Description
Applicable and/or
Relevant and
Appropriate
..
c:-rtts
RCRA-General Facility
Standards
RCRA-Preparedness and
Prevention
RCRA Closure and Post-Closure
Standards
Groundwater Protection
Standerds
Interl. Status Standards for
OWner. end Operators of
Hazardoul Waste Treatment,
Storage, end Disposal
facfl ftles
40 CfR 264.10
40 CfR 264.18
40 CfR 264.30
4DCfR 264.37
40 CfR 264.110
40 CfR 264.120
40 CfR 264.92'
264.99
40 CfR Part 265
RCRA general facility standards that
outline general waste analysis
security measures inspections, and
training requirements.
OUtlines requirements for safety
equipment end spill control
requirement. for hazardous waste
fecfl ftles.
Info~ local authorities of site
act Ivft les.
Details standerds for closure and
post-closure of hazardous waste
facilities tncludlng Installation of
a groundwater 8Onltorlng program.
Regulattons governing the groundwater
quality beneath hazardous waste
facllttles, Including concentration
If_It., potnt of cGq)lfence, end
monitoring requirements.
Establishes .Inl~ national
standards that define the acceptable
~gement of hazardous waste during
the period of Interl. status and
until certlftcatlon of final closure
or If the fecility ts subject to
post-closure requlr.-ents, until
post-closure responslbllttles are
fulf III ed.
2
TBC
TBC
TBC
Yes
Yes
potentially
These requl rements will be cons ldered.
These requirements wfll be considered.
During re.cflal planning and designing.
These regulattons wfll be considered.
These regulations will be considered.
If RCRA hazardoul westes are Identified
at the site, thts requirement mey be
epplleeble.
-------
Table 17e
Federal Action - Specific ARARs
Standard, Requirement
Criterion, or Limitation
Citation
Description
Applicable and/or
Relevant and
Appropriate
40 CFR Part 264.271-
264.238
c:c..mts
Land Treatment Requirement
Establishes requirements for treatment
wastes prior to land treatment.
Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure
40 CFR Part 261
Estabtlshes a rute used to Identify
those wastes which are hazardous and
thus subject to regutatlon under
subtltte C of RCRA due to their
potentlat to teach significant
concentrations of specific toxic
constituents.
EN latA Desi... Guidelines
A.
EPA'S RCRA DESIGN GUIDELINES
8.
,. Surfece Inpot.ncbents, Liner SystM8, Finet Cover 8nd Freeboard Controt
2. Waste Plte Design - Liner SystM8
3. lend Treatment Units
4. landftt t Design. Liner S)'Ite118 end Finet Cover
5. covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste SItes CEPA/540/2 . 85/002)
PERMITTING GUIDANCE MANUALS
1. Pennit Apptlcant.' Guidance Manuel for HazardOus Waste l8nd Treatment, Storage
and Dlsposat Fecilities
2. Pennlt Writers' Guidance Manuel for Hazardous Waste land Treatment, Storage and Disposat
3. Permit Writers' Guidance Manuel for S&q.rt F CGrcx.ndwater Protection)
4. Pennit Applicants' Guidance Manuel for General Faclt ity Standards
5. Waste Anet)'lis Plen Guidance ......1 .
6. Pennlt Writers' Guidance .....1 for Hazardous Waste Tenks
3
Potent iall y
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Fecit ities
If an atternative invotving tand
treatment is chosen the fottowing
requirements woutd be applicable: BDAT
levets, ensure treatment within
estabtished zone, end minimize/maintain
run-off.
This regutatian wit t be applied.
To be considered.
To be considered. .
To be considered.
To be considered.
To be considered.
Permit guidance I118OO8ts
are not directly appticabte
to the Mid-America Tanning
site since pel'llits need
not be secured. However,
the cantents of these
I18OO8ts lilt I be used if
guidance in a perUcular area
i. necessary.
-------
Standard, Requirement
Criterion, or Limitation
CHatlon
Table 17e
Federal Action - Specific ARARs
Description
Applicable and/or
Relevant and
Appropriate
c-nts
Occupational Safety and
Health Act
Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act
Hazardous Materials
Transportation Regulations
SARA 121(c)
National Pottutant D;fscharge
Ell.lnatlon Systell Progr_.
OSHA - General Industry
Standards
OSHA - Safety & Health
Standards for Federal Service
Contracts
OSHA - Recordkeeplng,
Reporting, and Related
Regulations
29 USC Sec. 651-678
49 use Sec. 1801-
1!Y
49 CFR Parta 107,
171-177
40 CfR.'arts 122-125
29 CfR 'art 1910
29 CfR 1926
29 CFR 1904
Regulates worker health and safety
Regulates transportation of huardous
materials Including packaging,
I abet! ng and III8nlfesti ng.
If actions leave hazardous substances
at a site, a five year review nust be
perforlled.
Contains applicable effluent
standards (technology-based and/or
water quality-based), monitoring
requlrenents, 8'd standard and
special conditions for discharge.
These regulations specify the 8-hour
tille-weighted average concentrat Ion
. for varlOUl organic c~s.
Training requlrenents for workera at
hazard0U8 waste operations are
specified In 29 CfR 1910.120.
This regulation specifies the type of
safety equlpaent 8'd procedures to be
fottowed during site rmedlation.
This regulation describes the
recordkeeplng 8'd reporting
requirements for an ~loyer under
OSHA.
4
Yes
Potentiatty
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Under 40 CFR Sec. 300.38, requirements of
this act apply to all response activities
under the National Contingency Ptan.
If the preferred alternative Invol~
transportstlon of hazardous I18terlala
off-site, the requirement will be
apptlcable.
Applicable If the preferred alternative
leaves hazard0U8 8Ubatences at the alte.
AU walt_ter would be I~Ject..
These regulations will be considered 8'd
adhered to durfng alte rellledlation
actfvltles.
These regulations wfll be considered 8'd
adhered to durfng alta retlll!dlation
activities.
These regulations will be considered end
adhered to durfng lite rellledlation
actlvltfes.
-------
Standard, Requirement
Criterion, or .limitation
Citation
Table 17e
Federal Action - Specific ARARs
Description
Applicable and/or
Relevant and
Appropriate
ec-rts
NEPA
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Coordination Act
Floodplain Management
RCRA - Contingency Plan end
Emergency Proc~res
CWA - National Pollutant
Discharge Elf.ination Systell
Regulattons
CWA - Pretreatment StandardS
for POTW Discharge
National Environmental Policy
Act
40 CFR 6
16 U.S.C. 661
Executive Order
(EO 11988)
40 CfR 264.5-264.56
40 CfR Plrts 122,125
40 CfR 'art 403
42 U.S.C. 4321
40 CfR 6
This act requires that before
undertaking any federal action that
causes the iqJOUrdnent, diversion, or
other modification of any body of
water, the appropriate agencies must
be consul ted.
federal agencies must minimize
potential having to or within
floodplains and avoid long and short
teM8 adVerse i~ts associated with
occupancy end modification of
floodplains.
This regulation outlines requirellents
for emergency proc~res to be used
following explosions, f.lrea, etc.
Regulates point lource dlschlrge to
waters of the United StItes.
This regulation describes
pretreatment standards for discharges
to e publicly owned trelt8ent works
(POT") .
This Act sets the policy for carrying
out provisions of the floodplains
Menegement and Protection of Wetlands
EOs.
5
potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potentially
This rule sets forth policy for the
floodplains and Wetlands Executive Order
end wit I be evaluated.
Wit I be considered for any discharging of
meteriels to the wetlands or surface
water. Fish end wildlife were consulted
end no concerns were Identified.
Wft I be cons idered; however, the
iqJOUrdnents are not In the fEMA-
designated floodplein.
Plans wi I I be developed end "i8plemented
dlring site.
If preferred elternative includes
discharge to weters of the U.S., this
regulation wUI be appltcable to .."
groundweter/surface water treat8ent end
dischert8 relledial ection.
If el ternattve tncludes discharging to a
POT".
This wUI be considered dlrtng remedy
selection; i~ts are not in the
'OO-yeer floodplains.
-------
Standard. R~irellll!nt
Criterion.or li.itation
Citation
Table 17f
state Action - specific ARARs
Description
Appl icable enJ/or
lelevant and
Appropriate
.
ec-nts
water discharged would be
National Potlutant Discharge
Elimination System Program
location Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous
Uaste Treatment. Storage. end
Disposal Facilities
Closure Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous
Uaste Treatment. Storage. and
Disposal Facilities
General Ground Uater
Monitoring R~lrements for
Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Uaste TreatMent.
Storage and Dispoial
Fecit Itles
Iowa Hazardous Su.tances and
Uaste Regulations
Iowa Hazardous Su.tanc.. end
Uaste Regulations
.018 Hazardous Uaste Act
Rules and Regulations
Pertaining to Hazardous
Uastes. Requirements for
Siting of Hazardous Uaste
01 sposal Sites
lAC 60
lAC 141.5 (4558)
(Adopted standards of
40 CFR 264)
lAC 141.5 (4558)
(Adopted standards
of 40 CFR 264)
lAC 141.5 (4558)
(Adopted standards
of 40 CFR 264)
lAC 141.1
(4558)
Chap. 131
lAC 567-140 to
152(4558)
lAC 567-150 (4558)
Contains applicable effluent standards
(technology-based and/or water qual i ty
based>. monitoring r~lrements. and
standards and special conditions for
discharge. (Analogous to the Federal
discharge regulations.)
Prohibit landfills In floodplains or
In seiSMically unstable areas.
Performance standards for cover
systems and related standards.
Ground water .onltorlng regulations.
Standards for owner/operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facilltl...
Regulation and definition of
hazardous substances for
Identification. transportation, end
dl8pol81 In Iowa.
Establishes r~lrements relating to
altlng of hazardous waite disposal
facilities.
Yes
Potentlatly
Yes
PotentlaUy
PotentlaUy
Potentially
Potentially
Al I waste
subject.
Potentially applicable. however,
iqxJUndnentl are not In the FEMA-designated
floodplain.
If alternative Includes Install Ing a
cover system. this II potentially
applicable.
If hazardous wastes will be treated
analte, thla Is applicable.
If hazardous wastes at the site meet the
definition of ReRA-defined hazardous
wastes, this regulation will be
eppllcable. lone have been Identified.
If alternative Involves tr_portatlon or
dlspolal of hazardous substances, this
will be relevant.
If the alternative would Involve siting
of such a facll Ity these requlre.enta
would be relevent end appropriate.
-------
atJAN111Y
PROCESS OPTION UNIT PRIce ES'1WATED COST REFERENCE
UNrT NO. ($) (S)
Excavate contaminated soR yd3 8,300 SO 664,000 7
Dredge sediments yd3 44,500 2 89,000 1
Oewater sediments (mechanical dewatering) yd3 44,500 18 801,000 1
Dewater sediments In the Polshlng Basin uA1g a "Brown Bear" yd3 40,500 4 182,000 1
Immobilization of trench matert81s
. matert8J cosl ~ cement) Ion 900 60 54,000 8
- mixing cosl yd3 1,300 15 19,500
Oft-site dlspoaalof dewatered aedmentaand 8XC8Y8Ied 8018 Ion 40,000 22 880,000 3,8
Colec:t water from Aeration Lagoons, Aera1Ion Tank. PaIIshkIg pion 14,000,000 0.012 188,000 1
Basin, and dewatemg ~tIon Into tank(s)
Backfil excavated/dredged ....s with de8I . yd3 132,800 8 1,082,400 7
Place cov« and !pete bacldled... yd3
. soH cap 21,500 8 172,000
- soll-clay C8p yd3 80,800 8 724,800 7
- lop aol yd3 13,000 9 117,000
. IJ1Ide al'88 acre 18 3,000 48,000
- cap maintenance (O&M) aae 18 500
Seed capped IU'MS for controlng erosion ' ft2 700,000 0.05 35,000 4
Monitor groundwater (O&M) " - - . loS. 13,000' 7
--
Supecvlslon and admnlstnltlon (5"1. of constnldloncoat) loS. 206,000 206,000 8
Englneertng and design (5'" of constructloncosl) L.S. 206,000 208,000 8
Bid contktgency (15'" of constNctIoncost) LS. 818,000 818,000 8
Change order and claims (1K of conatnICIIoncoat) LS. 412,000 412,000 9
TOTAl CAPITAl COST 8,438,700
ANNUAl O&M COST (for 30 yeers) 21,000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5'" 8,781,700
PRESENT WORTH AT 8'" 8,874,700
PRESENT WORTH AT 1K 8,838,700
I AbLt 1 U. ~u~ I t:~ liMA I t:~
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 2
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF. IOWA
r
~.
i
:
J.ot a conatNctIoncosl
A:6:(MRCS\T'
'19.WP5
-------
atJANmY
PROCESS 0PI10N UNrr PRICE ESrNATED cosr ttl"t:nt:fiICE
UNrr NO. ($) ($)
Excavate contaminated sol yet:J 8,300 80 864,000 7
Dredge sediments yet:J 85,000 2 170,000 1
Dewater s~tsln the PoIshlng Basin by windrowing wlh. yet:J 85,000 4 340,000 1
"Brown Bear"
InwnobRlzation of trench mat""
- material cost (50% cement) ton 800 80 54,000 8
. mbdng cost yet:J 1,300 15 19,500
Instal. tIexIbIe membrane Iner system (with _chate coIectIon ft2 545,000 2.5 1.382,500 4
and removal system) oyer the cI8y IIyer In the Pohhlng BasIn
Place d8w8tered sedmenta, and 8ICC8V8ted sol on thelned .. yetI
of the PoIshlng Basin; 88,000 5 340,000
. lme adcfltlon at 0.05 ton/yd3 ton 2,000 45 90,000 2
Bacldl excavated areas yetI 90,000 8 720,000 7
Placa a cover (sol cap/soklay cep) oyer the excavated 8I88S.
The sol-day cap wi! be placed OYer the area that wi! contain the
contaminated .01 and dewatered HCIment8
. aol cap yet3 21,500 8 172,000
. soll-day cap yetI 90.600 8 724,800
. top sol yet3 13,000 9 117,000
. grade a.... acre 18 3.000 48,000 7,
. cap maintenance (OIM) acre 18 500
CoIect wa1er from Aeration Lagoon., AeratIon Tn. and pion 14,000,000 0.012 188,000 1
Polishing Basin
Seed capped areas ft2 700,000 0.05 35,000 4
Monitor groundwater LS. 13,000 7
Supervision and administration (5" 0' construction cost) l.S. 251,000 251,000 9
Engineering and design (5" 0' construction cost) l.S. 251.000 . 251,000 9
Bid contlngency(15% 0' constructJoncost) l.s. : 753,000 753,000 9
Change order and claims (10'10 of constructloncost) l.s. 502,000 502,000 9
TOTAL CAPITAl COST 8,7"1,800
ANNUAL O&M COST (for 30 years) 21,000
PRESENT WOR11-t AT 5% 7,104.800
PRESENT WORTH AT 8% 7,017,800 '
PRESENT WORTH AT 10'11. 8,919,800
TABLE 18. COST ESTIMATES (CONTINUbO)
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 3
MID-AMERICA TANNING SrrE. SERGEANT BWFF. IOWA
t
I
r .
~.
JE6:C\ARCS\ T1880109. WP5
-------
,
QUANTTTY
PROCESS OPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ESlNATED COST . REfBENCE
NO. ($) ($)
Excavete contemnated sol yd3 8,300 eo 664,000 7
Dredge sediments . yd3 85.000 2 170,000 1
Deweter sedlmen1a In the PoIshing Balin by windrowing using . yd3 85,000 4 340,000 1
"Brown Bear"
immobilization o' trench matertals
. matnl cost (501to cement) ton 900 60 54,000 8
. mbdng cost yd3 1.300 15 18,500
Instal. clay and lexIbIe membrane In« ayatem (with _chate ft2 545,000 2.5 1,382,500 2
coIectlon .nd removal system) In the Polshlng Basin
Place dewatered sediments and excavated sol on thelned ..
o' the PoIshlng Basin: lmrnobIIze the conl8mlnant8ln the wat.
matrix by chemlcallbcatlon yd3
. placement of dewaterecl aedlment and aol 88,000 5 340,000
. Imrnobllzatlon ton 38,500 45 U42,5OO 2,5
BackftU excavBted Bree8 yd3 70,000 8 560,000 7
Place a cover (sol cap/sol-clay cap) ov« the excavated ....
The solk:l&y cap wi be placed ov« the .,.. that wi contain the
contaminated soIMd dewatered aeclmenta
. sol cap yd3 21,500 8 172,000
. Sol-dBY cap yd3 80.600 8 724,800
. top s08 yd3 13,000 8 117,000
. grade area acre 18 3.000 48.000 7
. cap maintenance (aIM) acre 18 500
Conectwater from theA8ndlon TMk, AeratIon I.8goona,and gdon 14,000,000 0.012 188,000 1
PoUshlng Basin
Seed capped arMS ft2 700,000 . 0.05 35,000 4
Monnorgroundwater (O&M) LS. 13,000 7
Supervision and administration (5% of construclloncost) LS. 321,000 321,000 8
Engineering Bnd design (5% o' constructloncost) LS. 321,000 321,000 8
Bid contingency (15% o' construction cost) LS, 883,000 883.000 8
Change order and claims (10'11. of construclloncost) LS, 842.000 842.000 8
TOTAL CAPITAl COST 8,664,300
ANNUAl O&M COST (.or 30 years) 21.000
PRESENT WORlH AT 5% 8.887,300
PRESENT WORlH AT 8% 8.800,300
PRESENT WORlH AT 10'11. 8.882.300
TABLE 18. COST ESTIMATES (CONTINUED)
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 4
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF IOWA
JE6:C\ARCS\
D9.WP5
I
-------
QUANmY
PROCESS 0P110N UNIT PRICE ESTNA1ED COST ta:t"t:f1t:I\ICE
UNIT NO. ($) ($)
CoIect water from Aeration lagoons. Aeration Tlnk. and gaIons 14.000.000 0.012 168.000 1
Polshlng Basin brto tank(s)
Dewatering 0' sediments In PoIshing Basin yd3 40.500 .
4 182.000 1
Immoblllzallon 0' trench materte18
'. material cost (5O'Mo cement) ton 800 10 54.000 8
. mbdng cost yd3 1.300 15 19.500
...8ftu IrnmobIIzaIion of .ec1ment8 end oonf8n"" 801
. material cost (2K cement) ton 9.400 10 564.000 8
. mbdng cost yd3 52.800 15 782.000
B8dd11.lnstal sol cap. grade. and 8eed yd3
. baeldl 71.000 8 568.000
. sol cap yd3 21.500 8 172.000
. sol-day cap yd3 90.600 8 724.800
. top soH yd3 13.000 9 117.000
. grade area acre 16 3.000 48.000
. seed/mulch capped area. ft2 700,000 0.05 35,000 7
. cap maintenance (O&M) acre 16 500
Monitor groundwater (O&M) loS. 13.000 7
Supervision and administration (5" 01 constnldloncosJ) loS. 171.000 171.000 9
engineering and design (5" 01 construction cost) loS. 171,000 171,000 9
Bid contingency (15" of constructloncost) LS. 513,000 513,000 9
Change order and claims (1ft of construdloncost) l.S. 342,000 342.000 9
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 4.621.300
ANNUAl OIM COST (for 30 v-n) 21.000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5" 4,944.300
PRESENT WORTH AT no 4.857.300
PRESENT WORTH AT 1ft ~ 4.819.300
TABLE 18. COST ESTlMA'm (CONT1NUI:D)
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 5
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
JE6:CV\RCS\T18BG709. WP5
-------
OOANT1TY
PROCESS 0F'110N UNrr PRICE ES11MATED COST N:I"~CE
UNrr NO. ($) ($)
Excavate contaminated soli- yd3 12,500 80 1,000,000 7
Dredge sediments yd3 -- 44,500 2 89,000 1
Dewater sedlmehts (mechanical dewatering)- yd3 44,500 24 1,068,000 1
OIl-site dsposal 0' dewatered sedm«lts 8nd 8ICC8V8ted sol- ton 44,100 33 1.455,300 3,8
Dewater sediments In the Polshlng B8s1n using. 8Brown Bear" yd3 40,500 4 182.000 1
ImmobIIIzaUon 0' trench materials
. material cost (75'" cement). ton 1.350 60 81,000 8
. mbdng cost yd3 1.300 15 19.500
CoDed wet. from Asatlon Lagoons. AeratIon TanIe. PoIaI1Ing gdon 21.000,000 0.012 252.000 1
Basin. and dewatering op..tton Into tank(a).
Backfln excavatedldredged 8I'88S with c:Ie8n . yd3 137.000 8 1.098,000 7
Place sol cap and grade bacldled... yd3
. 8011 cap 21,500 8 172,000
. sol-daV cap yd3 90,600 8 724,600 7
. top sol yd3 13,000 9 117,000
. grade area acre 18 3,000 48,000
. cap maintenance (O&M) acre 18 500
Seed capped areas 'or controlk'lg erosion ft2 700,000 0.05 35,000 4
Monitor grounc:twat. (O&M) LS. 13,000 7,
SUpervision end adminIstration (5'" of construction coat) LS. 243,000 243,000 9
Engineering and desIgn (5'" of constructtoncost) LS. 243,000 243,000 9
Bid contingency (15'11. 0' construction cost) LS. 729.000 729,000 9
Change order and dUn8 (1K of conatructloncoat) LS, 488,000 488,000 9
TOTAL CAPITAl COST 8.020,600
ANNUAl O&M COST (for 30 years) 21,000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5'11. 8,343,600
PRESENT WORTH AT 8% 8.258,600
PRESENT WORTH AT 10% ' 8.218,600
TABLE 19. COST SENSmVITY ANALYSIS
REMEDIAL ALTERNAT1VE 2 ( . ERCENT CHANGE)
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
Critical quantity or unit prtce
."'ot a construction cost
JE6:C\AAC
i709.WPS
I
-------
OUANITIY
PROCESS 0Pn0N UNrr PRICE ESTNATED COST RERJ£NCE
UNrr NO. ($) ($)
ExC8Vate contamnated 8018 ydJ 4,150 eo 332,000 7
Dredge sediments ydJ 44,500 2 89,000 1
Dewster sediments (mechanical dewat8ing)8 ydJ 44,500 9 401,000 1
OIl-aile dsposaJ of dewatered aeclments and 81CC8Y11ted sol" ton 33,000 22 728,000 3,8
Dewater sediments In the Pohhlng Basin Uling. .Brown Bear" ydJ 40,500 4 182,000 1
ImmobIzaUon of trench mat"'"
. material cost C25~ cement). ton 450 60 27,000 8
. mixing cost ydJ 1,300 15 19,500
CoIect water from Aeration Lagoons, AendIon T8nk. PoIa", gaIon 14,000,000 0.008 84,000 1
Basin, and dewatemg operation Into I8nk(s).
Backfll excayatecUdredged areas wfth dean . ydJ 128,600 8 1,028,800 7
Place aol cap and ..de baddlled ... ydJ
- sol cap 21,500 8 172,000
. sol-day cap ydJ 90,600 8 724,800 7
. top aol ydJ 13,000 9 117,000
. grade area acre 18 3,000 48,000
. cap maintenance (O&M) acre 18 500
Seed capped areas fot controlklg erosion ft2 700,000 0.05 35,000 4
Monllor groundwater (O&M) L.S. 13,000 7
Supemalon and actninlatratJon (5~ of construc:tloncoat) L.S. 182,000 162,000 8
Engineering and design (5~ of conatructloncoat) L.S. 162.000 162,000 8
Bid conUngency(15~ of conatruc:tJoncoat) L.S. 486,000 486,000 8
Change order and dUns (10. of construc:lloncoat) L.S. 324,000 324,000 8
TOTAl CAPITAl COST 5,100,100
ANNUAl O&M COST (for 30 yen) 21,000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5~ 5,423,100
PRESENT WORTH AT ~ 5,338,100
PRESENT WORTH AT 1K 5.288,100
TABLE 19. COST SENSmVrrf ANAL YS!S (CONTINUED)
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 2 (-50 PERCENT CHANGE)
f.4ID-AMERICA TANNING SITE. SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
Crttlcal quantny or unit price
.~ot a constructloncost
JE6:C\,ARCS\T1980109.WP5
,
-------
,
0UANTI1V
PROCESS 0PI10N UMT PRICE ESlNA1ED COST nt:f"t:HI:.NCE .
UNfT NO. (S) (S)
Excavale contaminated soll* yd3 12,500 80 1,000,000 7
Dredge sediments yd3 85,000 2 170.000 1
Dewater sediments In the PoIshlng Basin bv whirowIng with a yd3 85,000 4 340,000 1
"Brown Bear"
ImmobJlzatJon 01 trench materta18
. material cos1 (75" cement) " ton 1.350 80 81,000 8
. mixing cost yd3 1,300 15 19,500
Instal a tltDdbIe membrane In. system tMIh leachate coIedIon ft2 545,000 3.75 2,044.000 4
and removal sys1em) over the clay layer In tha PoIslmg Basin-
Place dewatared ledirnenta and 8ICC8Y8t8d I0Il on the In8d ...
of the PoRshlng basin: yd3 72.000 5 380.000
. Ime addition at 0.05 ton/yd' ton 3,800 45 182.000 2
Backtln excavated areal yd3 89,500 8 718.000 1
Place a cov. (sol cap/sol-day cap) ov. the excavated area..
The solk:lay cap wi be placed 0'1. the ... that wII contain the
contaminated sol and dewatered aecIments
. sol cap yd3 21.soo 8 172,000
. sol-clay cap yd3 80,800 8 724,800
. . top soU yd3 13.000 9 117.000
. grade area acre 18 3,000 48,000 7
. cap maintenance (OIM) acre 18 500
Collect water from Aeration lagoons, Aeration Tank. and pion 21,000.000 0.012 252.000 1
PoUshlng Basin "
Seed capped areas ,,2 700.000 0.05 35.000 4
Monitor groundwater LS. 13,000 7
Supervision and adrrinlslnlllon (5" of cons1ructloncoat) L.S. 312,000 312,000 9
Engineering and design (5" 01 constructJoncos1) LS. 312,000 312,000 9
Bid contingency (15" of construction cost) L.S. 938.000 938,000 9
Change order and dalms (10'1. of construc:tloncoat) LS. 824,000 624,000 8
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 8.425,300
ANNUAL O&M COST (for 30 yeerI) 21.300
PRESENT WORT1i AT 5.. 8,748.300
PRESENT WORT1i AT 8.. 8,661,300
PRESENT WORT1i AT 10'1!. 8,623,300
TABLE 19. COST SENSITM1Y ANALYSIS (CONTINUEO)
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 3 (+50 PERCENT CH '\NGE)
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFf IowA
Crttlcal quantity or unit price
JE6:C\ARC
'1109. WP.I
-------
CUANmY
PROCESS 0PI10N UNJT PRICE ESnMATm COST REFERENCE
UNJT NO. ($) CS)
Excavate contanmated sol- yd3 4.150 80 332.000 7
Dredge sediments yd3 85,000 2 170,000 1
Dewater sediments In the PoIstmg BasIn by windrowing with a yd3 85.000 4 340,000 1
"Brown Bear"
immobilization of trench materials
. material cost (25'fe cement) " ton 450 60 27,000 8
. mbdng cost yd3 1,300 15 18.500
Instal a lIexbIe membrane Iner system (will leachate coIec:tIon 82 545,000 1.25 881,000 4
and removal system) over the day IIyer In the Pohhlng Basin-
Place dewatered sedlmenta and 8ItC8Y8ted 8011 an thelned ..
of the PoIshlng basin; yd3 83,700 5 318.500
. Ime addition at 0.05 tonlyd38 ton 3,200 23 74,000 2
Baddll excavated areas yd3 88,700 8 717,800 7
Place a cover (sol caplsol-dly cap) over the 8XC8Yated ....
The soktay cap wi be plllcad over the area that wi contain the
canl8mnated sol and dewatered 8dnent8
. sol cap yd3 21,500 8 172,000
. aoktay cap yd3 So.eOO 8 724.800
. top sol yd3 13,000 8 117.000
. grade ares acre 18 3.000 48,000 7
. cap mUltenance (O&M) acre 18 500 ,
Collect water from Aeration Lagoon.. AeratIon Tank, and gaIon 14,000,000 0.008 84,000 1
PoIshlng Basin .
Seed capped aress ft2 700,000 0.05 35.000 4
Monllorgroundwater L.S. 13,000 7
Supervision and administration (5'fe of canstrudloncoat) LS. 183,000 193,000 8
Engineering and design (5'fe of canstrudloncost) LS. 193,000 193,000 8
Bid c:ontIngency(15'fe of canstrudlonC08l) LS. 578,000 578.000 8
Change order and dUns (1K of canstrudlancost) LS. 388,000 388,000 S
TOTAl CAPITAL COST 5,211,400
ANNUAl O&M COST (for 30 years) 21,000
PRESENT WOR'TH AT 5'fe 5.534,400
PRESENT WORJM AT me. 5,447,400
PRESENT WOR'TH AT 10'lIo 5,408,400 ,
TABLE 19. COST SENSlT1VITYlmAL YSIS (CONTINUED)
REMEDIAL ALTERNA11VE 3 (-50 PERCENT CHANGE)
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
"
i
t
I
;.'
Critical quantity or un" price
JE6:C\ARCS\T198G709.WP5
-------
l"AttU:: 19. CU::iT ::i~NSrrIVITY ANAL YSI5 (CUNTINUED)
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 4 (+50 PERCENT CHANGE)
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT SLUFF, IOWA
QUAN1tIY
mocess OPJIOH UNIT UNIT PRICE ES11MATED COST REfERENce
NO. ($) ($)
Excavate contaminated ,01. yd3 12,500 80 1,000,000 7
Dredge sediments yd3 85,000 2 170,000 1
Oewster sediments In the PoIshlng 88m by windrowing ullng . yd;J 85,000 4 340.000 1
"Brown Beer"
InmobIIlzation o' trench materta18
. material cost (75"" cement). ton 1.350 80 81.000 8
. mixing cost yd3 1.300 15 18.500
Instal a clay and flexible rnemtnne Iner system (with _c:h8ta ftz 545,000 3.75 2,044.000 2
coIectIon and removal system) In tt\e PoIshing Basin.
Place dewatered sedments and 8XC8V8ted 801 on the.... ..
01 the PoIshlng Basin; 1rnmobIIz. the COI""""'" the W88t8
m8tItx by chemical flutlon .
. placement of dewatered aadment yd3 72.000 5 380,000
. immobilization.. ton 85.100 70 4,557.000
2.5
Backfll excavated "I yd;J 70,000 8 560,000 7
Place a cover (soU cap/soklay cap) over the 8ICC8V8ted ..s.
The soll-clay cap w8 be placed tNer the .. that wi cont8Ilh8
contaminated 101 ad dew8tered aadmenta
. IOU cap yd3 21.500 8 172.000
. sol-clay cap yd3 80.600 8 724.800
. top 801 yd3 13.000 8 117.000
. grade area aaa 18 3.000 48.000 7
. cap maintenance (OIM) aaa 18 500
CoIect water from the Aeration Tank, Aer8tIon Lagoona, and gdon 21.000,000 0.012 252,000 1
PoDshlng Basin .
Seed capped areal ft2 700.000 .0.05 35,000 "
MonRor groundwater (O&M) LS. 13,000 7
Supervision and adrnk'llstratlon (5"" of construction cost) LS. 524,000 524,000 8
Englneerfng and design (5"" o' constnJctIonCOll) LS. 524,000 524,000 8
BId contingency (15"" o' constnJctIoncoat) LS. 1.572,000 1,572.000 8
Change order and claims (100. of construction coat) LS. 1,048,000 1,048,000 8
TOTAl CAPITAl COST 14,148,300
ANNUAL O&M COST (for 30 years) 21.000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5"" 14,471.300
PRESENT WORTH AT 8"" 14,384.300
PRESENT WORTH AT 10.. 14.348.300
~rilicall an or unit nee
JE6:
-------
QUAN11IY
PROCESS OPTION UNrr PRICE ESnMATED COST - ftn:ttr4CE
UNfT NO. ($) CS)
Excavate contaminated sol* ydJ 4,150 80 332,000 7
Dredge sediments ydJ 85,000 2 170,000 1
Dewater sediments In the PoIshlng Basin by windrowing using. ydJ 85,000 4 340,000 1
"Brown Belir-
ImmobIIzation of trench materials
. rnater1aJ cost (25~ cement)" ton 450 80 27,000 8
. mixing cost ydJ 1,300 15 18,500
Instal a day and IexIbIe membrane Iner system (will Ieachat8 If I 545.000 125 881.000 2
coIec:tIon and removal system) In the PoIshlng BasIn-
Place dewatereet sedments and excavated 8011 on theln8d ..
o. the Polshlng Basin; Imrnob8ze the contaII*IInI8ln lie....
matrtIt by chemlc:allbcatlon yd3
. placement of dew8tered .8dIment 87,000 5 335,000
. knmobIIDItIon" ton 53,400 23 1.228,200
2,5
Bacldll excavated 8I'88S ydJ 72,500 8 580,000 7
Place a cover (sol C8p/sol-day cap) tIffI the excavated .....
The solk:lay cap w8 be placed over the ..... that w8 contain the
contaminated sol and dew8tered aecIrnent8
. 801 cap , yd3 21,500 8 172,000
. 80l-c:lay cap yd3 80,600 8 724,600
. top sol " -. - -- yd3 13,000 9 117,000
- --
. grade 8rea acre 18 3,000 48,000 7
. cap maintenance (O&M) acre 18 500
conect water from the Aeration Tank. AeratIon Lagoon., and pion 14,000,000 0.008 84,000 1
Polishing Basin "
Seed capped VeilS 112 700,000 0.05 35,000 4
MonKorgroundwater (OiM) L.S. 13,000 7
SupervIsion and admnlstratlon (5~ o. constnlctloncoat) LS. 244,000 244,000 8
Engineering and design (5~ 01 constnlctJoncost) LS. 244,000 244,000 8
Bid contingency (15~ of conStnlctloncost) LS. 732,000 732,000 8
Change order and dUns (1~ of constnlctloncost) L9. 488,000 488,000 8
TOTAl CAPfTAl COST 8.801,500
ANNUAl O&M COST (for 30 years) 21,000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5~ 8,924,500
PRESENT WORTH AT 8~ 8.837,500
PRESENT WORTH AT 1~ 8,799,500
TABLE 19. COST SENSmViT'Y ANAL VSIS (CONTiNUED;
REMEDIAL AL TERNAl1VE 4 (-50 PERCENt CHANGE)
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT SLUFF, IOWA
Crttlcal quantity or unft price
JE6:CMACS\T19BG709.WPS
-------
QUANTTTY
PROCESS 0PI10N UNrr PRICE ESI1MAlED COST ~I::t1I:NCE
UNrr NO. ($) ($)
Collect water from Aeration Lagoons, AefaIIon T_1e, and galons 21,000,000 0.012 252,000 1
PoRshlng Basin Into I8nk(s) .
Dewatering ot sediments In PoBshlng 88*, yd3 40,500 4 182,000 1
InmobRizallon ot trench materials
. material cost (75% cement). Ion 1,350 60 81,000 8
. mixing cost yd3 1,300 15 18,500
In-ellu Inwnobllzatlon 0' 8edrnen18 Md conI8mInated 801
- malerial cost (3O'ft cement). Ion 14,100 60 848,000 8
- mixing cost yd3 57,000 22 1.254,000
88c1d11, Insl8l801 C8p, SJ'8de, end 88ed yd3
- baddll 71,000 8 568,000 8
- 801 cap yd3 21,500 8 172,000
- 8ol-day ClIp yd3 80,600 8 724,600
- top 801 yd3 13,000 8 117,000
- grade area acre 18 3,000 48,000
- 8eed/mulch capped 8I'88S ft2 700,000 0.05 35,000
- cap maintenance (OIM) acre 18 500
Monnor groundwater (OIM) L9. 13,000 7
Supervision and administration (5% of conatrucUoncost) L9. 214,000 214,000 7
Engineering and design (5% 0' conslruclloncoal) L9. 214,000 214,000 8,
Bid conlingencv (15% of conslructloncosl) L9. 642,000 642,000 8
Change order and claims (10% of conatruclloncoat) L8. 428,000 428,000 8
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 5,m,3OO 8
ANNUAL OAM COST ('or 30 years) 21,000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5% 8,100,300
PRESENT WORTH AT 8% 8,013,300
PRESENT WORTH AT 10% 5,875,300
TABLE 19, COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED~
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 5 (+50 PERCENT CHANGE~
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF, IowA
"OtIIc8I cpntIty or unit prtc:e
JE6:c;v\RCS'
<709.WPS
I
-------
QUANmY
PROCESS 0PI10N UNT PRICE ESI1MATED COST tti"btrlCE
UNrT NO. ($) ($)
Collect weter from AeraUon Lagoon., Aeration Tank, and galans 14.000.000 0.008 81,000 1
PoIshlng Basin Into tank!s) .
Dewaterfng 01 seclments In P08shlng Basin yd3 40.500 .. 182,000 1
immobilization 01 trench materla!a
. matertal cost (25~ cement) ton 450 60 27,000 8
. rnbdng cost yd3 1.300 15 18.500
In-aI1u IrnmobIlz8llon of aedlment8l11d CCII1t8NI8I8d 801
. material cost (10'5 cemenl). Ion ",100 60 248,000 8
. rnbdng cost yd3 48,700 8 388,800
Bacldll, Instal sol C8p, ...., IIId ued yd3
. backfill 71,000 8 568,000 8
. aol cap yd3 21,500 8 172,000
. aol-dey cap yd3 80.800 8 724.800
. top soli yd3 13.000 8 117,000
. grade area acre 16 3.000 48.000
. aeed/mulch capped areas ft2 700,000 0.05 35,000
. cap maintenance (OIM) acre 18 500
Monitor groundwater (O&M) LS. 13.000 7
Supervision and admlnlslratlon (5~ of construc:tJoncost) LS. 128,000 128.000 7
Engineering and design (5~ of conatructloncost) LS. 128.000 128,000 8
Bid oontIngency(15% 01 constructloncosf) LS. 387,000 387.000 8
Change order and claims (10'5 of conalrUdloncost) LS. 258.000 258.000 8
TOTAl CAPrTAl COST 3,482.900 8
ANNUAl O&M COST (for 30 ye8I'8) 21,000
PRESENT WORTH AT 5% 3.815,900
PRESENT WORTH AT 8% 3,728,900
PRESENT WORTH AT 10'5 3,880,900
TABLE 19, COST SENSmVIT. ALYSIS (CONTINUED)
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 5 (-50 PERCENT CHANGE)
MID-AMERICA TANNING SITE, SERGEANT BLUFF, IOWA
btuc:al quantity or un. pItce
JE6:CV\RCS\T19B0709.WP5
-------
'. -.
---,
,..
. 8.,~~.
-'-
I
"-.
L
B
/ \0
~/R
T
----~\ -""". t
~------------~--
; .':t
'JJIl._.__._~.=.
. . '~.: i. ---..
. .,
.'.'..... ....t.' ....
-~------4', ...,
1------'----
-.1
.
---~~-______l(~
...;.
....,
~-_:'~", \' .- "
:~, .
I \': I~--''. . ,~-':';.;::.:.:.._U~-
..., ':-" \ ..; .v
, ~ ~~....'
r' ". -,~'~
" >,-~:.
: "'~.,
'E
'R
".!"---_...
'':'-.' "
\';. ;
,#! .. ...
,
;---T-'
_:...
."-.. :
Source: U.S.G.S.
LOCATION OF MAT SITE
r1E1~..
I!!! QI8CUIINC.
--
--
1
-------
SOURCE: USEPA REGION VII "
,
,
Wi
\ .
\
\ ,
\ ,
,_,
POLISHIHC LAOOClH
1
. ~
I '
. '
I I
,... \
, I
, I
, I
, I
. I
, ,
, ,
." ",''
" , - - -
""--'
OXBOW
C0fV61ELO
t
N
... ... ... ... -
f-=:=::1__. _r:.=--::::-:7~k-T- :.;:;::-I--~:''::=~1
US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM
RESPONSE ENGINEERING AND ANAl Y11CAl CONTRACT
68-03-3482
Ie'''' I" nn
-------
11000
'''' LE'GEND
POLISHINIJ BASIN
I'
snr ;t
.
i!:)
LIQUID SAMPLING LOCATUJNS
~
11000
~
~.. ..
.
l$
."-...
~nr'l '-,
." "-
~~ " '
/
MI" .~
.
18
Total Chromium Cug/I)
107
107:50
SIT ~
.
1D
(~II Dup)
~II' t
.
1D
(~6 Dup)
105
~l1r 6
.
10
(~6 D\lp)
10500
snr u
.
;10
sal' 7
.
:10
102
SII' ..
.
:10
. 102:50
~II' 11
*
:11
IOCIOI .
---
-- -
97:50
lJE)JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
DBp = Duplicate Sample
SII( 11AI(: HID-AMERICA TANNING
SERGEANT BLUff. IOVA
rOR 1ISCJ!f10l SURf ACE IMPOUNDMENT
SAHPLING LOCATIONS
U Amllll. I£OOS AlOJ. to.
]8- 1m 10-02.1-00
rnR to:
3
IJICS
9~OO
50
"
00
:50
250
125
o
250 6\S( IW'
PReMlUBY
UlIJIw-""" _.(".. -,
-- ...
r-",,~.-
n ,.s... .... ..... CI" . .....
~
:.r...r .'(1'
'\8-0'>18
..
-------
-_...A.~
LAGOON BERM
270'
-I
PLAN VIEW
.f
EPA REMOVAL TEAM SLUDGE
SAMPUNG LOCATION. 3
DEPTHS MEASURED FROM
WOUlD SURFACE (TYPICAL)
~
t
A'
EXPANDED ISOMETRIC
SCHEMATIC VIEW
(Vertical Scale is Equal to 12
Times Horizontal Scale)
1080
.
I
,
.
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
1094
APPROXIMATE
UOUID LEVEL
'090
.
.
.
,
i
z
~ 1085
~
iii
,
,
.
- - :..'"
.."
LAGOON
CONSTRUCTED
FLOOR
ELEVATION 1077.0
'077
Analytical results in ~A
-------
PLAN VIEW
f
EPA REMOVAL TEAM SLUDGE
SAM .JNG LOCATION. 3
DEPi'HS MEASURED FROM
WOUlD SURFACE (TYPICAL)
LAGOON BERM
EXPANDED ISOMETRIC
SCHEMATIC VIEW
(Vertical Scale is Equal to 12
Times Horizontal Scale)
1094
APPROXIMATE
WOUlD LEVEL
1090
e-
i
z
a
~ 1 085
iiI
1080
1077
Analytical results In mgl1
-------
~
-"" LEGEND
POLISHING BASIN
I~.
~.
OlIO
SIS it
,.
~500
SE DIMENT SAMPL ING LOCA T IONS
11000
SIS a
.
1:1001
Total Chromium (ma/kc)
u
10150
SIS :;
.
1700
Sl~ t
.
4501
,..S\"
~",,\G"
J -
050
~c. II
.
2500
10500
SIS II
.
7000
102
SIS G
.
:1400
(t~OO Stull)
SIS.l1 SI\ 10/ /
UOOOI 211001
(e-uw ltOOI)
I sc. &1
.
aooOl
111250
10000
---
-- -
-~
-- ...,-,:
-- ~---...
:~~
"50
~JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
SII( JW(: MID-AMERICA TANNING lOR\( Am III.
SERGEANT Blurr. ID\JA ]8-1flII
Dup = Duplicate Sample
rOJ( IlSOIfIOt SURf ACE IMPOUNDMENT
SAMPLING lOCA HUNS
rWl[ 10:
6
.w:oos mu. to.
10-0238-m
#J!CS
~o
50
~
10
50
250
IZS
o
250 B\Sl WP
fRMID IJr
III r--... -'JUDO ..se.
-- ...
1_'" IPWaI ...1IDo
" ,..- -. -- cn, . -- "'~
I
K"'I . 'U'
~
-------
I.
,
,
,
,
,
\,Cr;>:-
I"
I
I I ~
I I
I I
I I
I I
~rOH I.
i I
I I
I ICr(OH);
1 1
1 I
1
1
,
I
,
I
! CdOH);
1
1
o
C,)o
o.
>
If 02
!AI
-0'lj
10
II
.r:
w
1.0
0.8
>
o
,
"
,
t"
I '-.;:
CrCOH'i I
I -
I C,(OH)..
I
I
I
-0.2
-04
-0.6
...
-0.8
o
4
6
8
pH
10
14
2
Equilibrium relationships In system Cr + HP + 02 with fixed total activities of sulfur = 10-4.00
and carbon = 10 .3.00 M at 25°C and 1 atm. (a) Areas of dominance of solute species (dashes lines)
and dissolved chromium activity (solid lines) In presence of Cr(OHh(c) (10.7.00 moleS!1 = 5.2 ugJl Cr).
(b) Areas of dominance of solute species and dissolved chromium activity In presence of Cr2C>.J (c).
. SauTes: Hem (1977)
_111-
Equilibrium relationships lor chromium
.,,_:
MID-AMERICA TANNING
..---...--...- ....
-10
::-' "'D ..", :sIIMI
7
04iCaI.C) ,'w -.- "'1'.88"10-
-------
11000
-""LEGEND
I .
~ .
SIW 2
.
371
LIQUID SAMPLING LOCATIONS
tl~
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium (ug/l)
11000
~-
SJW 3
.
371
sft' ')"',
. "-
371 "
107
10750
I~
SIW .
.
ZI.,
(W !hap)
,
,
,
IriER ~
---1
5I1r&
.
281
(221 !hap)
10500
5I1r 8
3t
snr7
.
32
102
snr .
.
3a
IDl50
IODOD
---
-- -
'750
-
--==== - -
[JEIJACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
9~OD
"
Dup = Duplicate Sample
l50
S/I( I!AI(: MID-AMERICA TANNING
SERGEArn BU'-f. m\JA
rill( IlSOIIPIOI: SUP.f ACE IHPOUNDHEtIT
SAI.IPlIUG lDCATIONS
lOIII( ASSDllll .w:oos ~. 11).
]8-11111 1G-D2J8-m
rnm In
8
ARCS
,.
00
lSO
Ic?S
o
c?50 6\S( WI
mMlOBr
VI ..,1ID8C.'" ""rCf" lWZecf
-- ...
._..,~. --
" ._roo -. --- CII' . --, M."
I
:;(.... .. .rr.
'~:;Ii:...
-------
/
!
I
J.
r--= 1M' DCIDIII
ICTIDI u:yQ. nil
TDT4IL CMDI\.II
ICTD u:va. .-at8 -
eftS IP'DI ClWIIOCI: u:vru
IIIISfIlE 111.1 LX
l1li1-. ~ - .,.."..
DlTSIIIE 111.1 LX
raL.I.IN- ~ - -
[I]
'00
Z08
,
LEGEND
StAU: III rtrT
DXIQV
"
.f
1
.
oJ
i
u
/
ill
&1
-
vcu. S-II.
--
.ytu. Sot.
.,...
lASt t4AP f'RDVIDtD IY
u.s. EPA REGION vn
tHVIRIJNM£NTAI. S~VlctS DIVISION
i IJEI JACOBS ENGINEERING Itf..N""""'~
!II[ 81(: MID-AMERICA TANNING III fi.DII)IJ Ilk .n _8:11 II1J[ I!.
SeRGeANT Jlurr. II,."A ARCS
GROUP, INC. IIZJ[ ID'D tftA IttMOVAL TtAK ICII5 PlDElIIk IHlHI oem Ir:' 9
SOil. S~ING GRIDS
I-
-------
..
Total Barium (ua/l)
~
12750
80110
8250
85110
e750
90DD
9250
95110
.750
IODOO
KIND" KNOX
rACILITY IMPOUNDMENTS
12S11O
lonG
127110
IZIDD
12250 tU50
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
12DIIII Uk ~ t20DD
. -.
1300 ~ -.-.
--.---.
L1I' it."
\11') . 1
117 1100 117~
.
1300
11'110 11'110
L1I' 20
.
1300
112S0 11250
"00 Dup = Duplicate Sample ,~o
L1I' 7
.
1500 IJEJACOBS ENGINEERING Dim 1II.38-7W1II
GROUP, INC. JAIXIIS PmI. 11). 10-0238
.~ SJl[IWL MID-AMeRICA TANNING ARCS FORIII. '2S0
SeRGeANT BLUF'r. ICWA
FOR CXBCW LAKE SURrACE WATER 10
ImIII'1Dt SAMPLING LCCA TICNS
9000 ~
Il.Da 7750 8000 1250 1500 1750 9000 9250 95110 9750 10000
IlDOO
10750
I~
10250
100lIO
.750
111100
IO~
10*
IO~
100DD
~
9750
-------
~~~
'275~
I~IIII
:ZZ'II
I
!
!lZ'~ U
11lIIIO
la~
. a,aa u
10~O.
10lIIIO
9150
Total Chromium (u,/l)
90l1li
~"'
,,.
'7!I
1-
lonct
;.1700
t!no
9500
8"0
~~oo
ZIID
amo
IiDOO
11750
11-
lalSO
1II1II
1O'7!O
10-
.orA
10lIIIO
~!I!I .9° ~ , '7!0
SCAL& 811 rut
.,00 LI' 7 ,.
. Dup = Duplicate Sample
sou ~JACCBS ENGINEERING m G:II. 111.18-7'1111
GROUP. INC. .IIaIIS PI1Q/. II.lO-oi.J~
9250 gr[ N: MID-AMERICA TA,...ING I ARCS I 1m( III ,~
SCRCiCANT BLLf'r. IO\lA 11
11m OXIC\I LAKE SURrAtE \lATER
IID'IDt SAMPLING LOCATIONS
9ODO ~
!raB 7 '7!0 IOOD lao .. IlSO .. ,no tSOI ,,,.. 1-
KIND I. KNOX
rACILITY IMPOUNDMENTS
~ ~PP~OXIHATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ro- ~ ~ J
.-..- "
o - 0 - 0 %.1' 2..
J 5~ O~_o_o_.
-.-
.~..
I'~
.
. Ii
LI' 2.b
.
15
LI' 20
.
SOU
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
o
I
.
I
LI' 19
.
50U (IOU Dupl
urn/
.
190 (1085)
-------
1- -
.". ~ '1'SO
(0.6" wluel6" to resistaDce value)
.. Dap = Duplicate Sample ..
LS?
.
31 IJE] JACOBS ENGINEERING" D3L lO..n
GROUP. INC. JICtIIS PIDI. In D-G1I
tnI ."'" .,....[.,[& T -,"" I ARCS 1"''' .210
SCRG£ANT 1ILlTr. leVA
lUll aXlDv LAKE S£DIHEHT 12
IID'IIt SAMPLING LCCATtDNS
.. ,..
I:EZlm T7SI - l1li .. 1750 .. tal .. ,,,. ...
~_. .._.._..},:..
.. - - .-.-
Total Arsenic (me/kI)
.~
IUS!
..
""
1-
...
"P.II
nil
..
""
..
II
KIND L KNQX
F" ACIUTY tHPDUNDMENTS
1ZS8
Ilno
APPRDXIMATE PRQPERTY BDUNDARY
128
.-.
-.-
......-.
;a~ t
. -.
uv\ ~ .-.-.-.
11-
IInD
11-
ID'"
10*
IDnG
.-
11m
ID8
IIISO
\IIIID
1118.0
UsaD
1Ir.~
1-
."
IOsaD
lor.,,(l
-------
Total Chromium (mg/k,)
1'I'!ID
117'5D
..
IftI
..
.,.
...
.!!I
"..
.'"
1-
1-
1171»
KIND L KNOX
F" ACIUTY IMPCUNDMENTS
1181
I"
lIZ'll Il15O
APPRDXIMATE PROPERTY BCUNDARY
IZIIIII 1;.~-.L_. ~
'\ '\ -.-. LS Ula
.
II 120 117"'..0
LS22
. .
1.0 \
11- US8
LS 20
.
120
11m 111:0
,
11- . ...
I
.
I
.
It 7'5D I ."
.
I
.
law I 10-
.
I
.
lanD I Ior..t'
.
I
.
I
.
1-
-
,,,
"1111 .1\10
SCU It rUT
(o.G' value/6" to resisluce glue)
~
,,,
LS7
.
8J
Dup = Duplicate Sam pile
nrtJACCBS ENGINEERING 18G1.ID..n
~GRCUP. INC. JaIlS PlOt 11
1[111(: HID-AM£IUC. TA*ING ARCS _II!.
StRGtANT BL.Lf"r. 10"'.
IDJ( OXIC.., LAKE SEDI~NT
IID'IDt SAMPLING LDtATrtlNS
,.
.,.
.,.
tISO
13
-
IDiID
,.
7,.
..
lei
..
.7:11
fa
.nII
IS
.7:11
-
-------
a;...
--~ ,-~ ,
-..- --- - - ------ .. -.----- -_..
Total Lead (ma/kc)
. mill
12711
I.
1-
..
'!II
". .
,,..
..
I"
...
KIND" KNOX
F' ACIUTY IMPOUNDMENTS ..
I"
.-
11700
U8I
lUSt IIISO
APPRDXIMATE PROPERTY BDUNDARY
.-.
-.-
I" .-.
-. u.~ t ...
. -.
a\ ~ '-'-'-' UZA
'1\ .
2811 una
1.5 22,
, .
I
1158 U58
uao
.
18
IIZH .tr.O
.18
.0,.
lnall
.one
.-
t1II
".
(o.G' Y81ael6" to resistaaCf ftlue)
Dop I: Duplicate Sample
nrI JACOBS ENGINEERING - maL Ia...
~CiRCUP. tNC. JIIDIS PlOt 11
I[ N: MID-AMERIC. T..,..ING ARCS IDllIa.
StR~tANT BLtFr. IOV. . 14
flU[ DXIDV LAKE StDIMENT
IID'IDt SAMPliNG LDCATIDNS
1.5.,
at
..
,.
!DID mil
,.,.
.".
,,.
-
...
.-
..
.,.
..
UI8
.,.
tnIIII
\IICtI
-
~
,no
".
'al
taIIII
-------
I
.
I
I
I
I
.
I
15
.
~ ~
I -
:=- ,
I
.
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
/'
I
.
'?
TernCh8m 01 0' 3D
\~~~
o ~
,..
.
- --.JPS
UW..
d"'.
-
~
-
-.0
-
.-
-
-
-
-
. ,
.'"':::.'
,-
---
--
--
. ,.. 0..>
\ .s:
-\ Su bs\ation
_.~ - -_.-
,
\
---
J
"'
/'~
I
- "1 IPIf
II RAUNO
WELL - -
l-~ -
,
.
i
\---
C EXlSTN1 DEEP UONITORtG WB.1.S
A EXlSTN1 SHAU.OW
IoICNITORINO WELLI
<> EXlSTN1 SHAU.OW GENERAl USE
MONITORINCI WELL
. RJ -INSTALLED OEEP
MONITORINO WELLS(t~ 110 FEET)
A. RI-INSTALLED SHAUCW
MONITOAINCI WELLS 1'0 - II FEEt}
. AI-INSTALLED INTERMEDIATE
MONITORINO WELL 170 FEi'T)
H HYOAOPUNCH LOCATIONS
o SAMPLED WELL
*' DUPLICATE SAMPLE LOCAT1ON
_4
[I] ° -I
I I
. -.-..... .
_c.~1~~g;=A= :=~Jw~G bII] a7-:.-
:w1 iW1
_ID
.,. a-1Wt
15
-------
-....~
-
...
LEGEND
.. Knox & Kind PutT1Xng W..
-'C6,r Potentiometric Contour
- (Feet NGVD)
Contour Interval 1 Feet
Dashed Where Data UncertlJn
Stagna1lOtl Point
<:>
,
1
I
j
='
1$
IL_.:I-
~E~
1"1:1 "8N.""
:- MW"'" 3n9J9I
~8O'" 3f19J91
'-"
Flow paW of Ibe a1hMa1
aauif'c:r aum:nmdiJ1a V " T
16
-------
~
1095
1090
1085
~
EI!DU!!I1
"- .HaVD'
- 6Iudga _S8cImonI
CJ Uqlld
.!. MonID W. Gr8II8I P8dI
U (ln8lM)
.t a-1IDn 01 W8IIr Table
""' ToI8I DI8IaMd SoIdI
, (JDS) IIocontour 119'1
~
~:$-3
,II
o
,
100 200
LEOEID
~ CI8y
o S8ncI
o GnMI
~ 0ednIdI
r!;.:] S8ndIIDn8
CiJ StI8Ie
.00
,
HarIIonI8f Sc8I8In ~
"""*"' EJlllIlII-8lan. '.A.
TAT-2.
I
I
1080
1075
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
1045
T~1
TDS
- 11,000
~BMIn
So18
I
&:20
. ' - T~I '. .
.....
- -. J;fIIi - ..
1040
1035
1030
1025
1020
1015
1010
1005
1000
995
090
185
180
875
070
965
900
.08 . .0. 0 ..,.,.,.,~.. ":8:':f-:";':~;":':"i":':f-:,:,,:..
.. .. .,~, ~:~., ~::i:,*1W:'ii:'ii:'ii-:'9:~:~:~:\i:":;i:"9-:
- -- ~1~'~''':::I't::''Q''tj.:~:~:~:~:~:..
-==-- - - - -- -=- - ~~,~,~.
~ - ~--=- --
- ~- -=-==-~~---~
,- - -- ----- --- "'--- r -
...1'
--~~ -
- -- --
- - ...::::::- - =-- - -==.:==-- - --r--
- ~----=---
- - --=-- -...-=--== - --
~-~
--
~-=
--
--
--
--
- - 1'--
955
950
94S
riflE JACOBS ENGINEER8tO
~~.
DR
---
- 3M1
-- 3M1
--:
MID-AMERICA TANNINO
SEROBAHT DWFP.IA
--
Sec:Iioa AA' hili TC-I eo SI4
M"oI1DS I" -WI
ARCS.
31-'1W7M
MW
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
1045
1040
1035
1030
1025
1020
1015
1010
1005
1000
D95
090
885
180
875
070
865
1160
055
850
--
1.7
-------
EI8ndon
Feet (NOVO)
1095
1090
1085
1080 59
I
1075
1CJ70
TOC
64S mgII
East
Toe
2710 mgJI
West
513
I
Elnalon
Feel (NOVO)
1095
1090
1080
1075
1 CJ70
10&5
1060
1055
1050
1045
1040
1035
1030
1025
1G20
1015
1010
1005
1000
1195
890
1185
1180
t75
870
-- - 165
SI60
1115S
1050
1045
1040
1035
1030
1025
- -
- -
-
-Dakota Formation=-
-
-- -
"""2'0.1
~E JACOBS ENGINEERING SecIIa8 M' from 510 ID 513 SIIow", TabI 0rpIIc
~ GROUP INC, c.tIo8 ill die AarriII Alpdl'ao.
-_110.
.-PllDEfIlO.
~AMERICA TANNING ARCS
SERGEANT DWFP,IA
38-7W7M
10-0238-00
LEGEND
f3 Clay
o Sand
(;!J Grew!
~ BedJOCk
E;;;I Shale
.!. Manltot We' Gr8V8I
fJ P8cII (Intake)
~ EIevaIIon of Walilf Table
128
o
240
..
120
............
8caI8 ~ .....
-
81':
_ED
81':
DR
MW
- '!O-
...re 3(2.S191
DOre 3t2S191
18
-------
1
I
I
1
----~--
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
,
I
.
,.
11
.
.
<:,~*...
..:~~
,", "v..
:.\~:... ~~~::..
LEGEND
j; 8urf8C8lmpoundmenta
...17 ~1ImpIe tom Mantel' Wd
(--....In 1IlOo1)
IS I80Ian ........
C -.......
;,''''' 1M c-."....III_CII9fI
- - -. ........"
? .........
~
lITI_t -~No. 0-"", 04Q; -
MID-AME!R.ICA TANNING ARCS ~=-.... OfIQWI~ 1lAQ; 4/l1.-J1 11OC1.9
SEROEANTBWFP.IA 31-7W7M JB 4/l I.-J I
-------
- -1.
~ -. . -.. .-.
~ . . , iJorvIM8ll
- .' -~ --"-- cO.01
-"
~ . »~"'~~~;::~._---._-
--' ~:::;:;;-'
_._-----~~(r' ~..J
---------- - ~ . ~j- -.
. ..
0.071
:7---
------
~
(i)
co.01
ilia!,.. ..
cO.01
_.........
e cO.01
100
I
LEGEND
.~2;Y;'J Surf_lmpoundment8
0.J7 Groundwllw ....18trom Monitor Will
OOIIMntratIon In mgII
< m8Ift8 ... Ulan
.... ~ '" laa aallMntr8tIon UM (mgII)
.- me.. dll'lClllon to well
- - 8118 Bound."
1 un08l1lln
Ap".ai-
8c81t III .....
Total Chromium(mg/l)
.... ~
MID-AMER.ICA TANNING
SERGEANT BLUFF, IA
:- MW"'''' 3/26/91 -...
~ """ 3126191 20
---
-------
-_....._~.
-
<:
,~~
"",...1-
Ic8I8 In ....
0238.139
IJEle:
---
--
MID-AMERICA TANNING
SERGEANT BLUFF IA
Total Manganese (ms'l)
3
2
GUt,,- .-
OoD
...-.........
8'"
1
LEGEND
.liP'?; Surf- ~ment8
0.27 QrvUnclwiter 8II\'IP11lrom Monitor wen
oonoentnltlon In moll
< rNIII8 11M thin
,. " .;' 110 aonOlntratlon Una (1ftOII)
.- ~na direction 10 well
- - 8IIlloundarJ
'1 unOllUlln
J I8tIIn8tId value
--...
31. '7W71oC
--...
IO.IXZ38.oo
:- MWDAtI. 3126~1 -...
ociIiIDMW DAti. 3126~1
...,
-------
! +........
lo.n
. .
- - -
- - --
-- .. 1A
--
.........-
..,.,.~"
.".......-
- --_.__..-._-----.._..~
?
-/-
1
<:
,~
lUte-
o.a
..
uno_.........
. ,
8U1
[~T
AtP.-.....
Ic8I8 In ,...
800
I
LEGEND
.dNJk lurfa081mpound1ll8llt8
G.I7 Ontundwat8r umpIe tram MonItor WeD
-oentratlon In """
C -.........
" , - 180 DDf_.Ldun'" (119'1)
~ fM8II8 dll'8llllon to..u
- - lItelouncl8ly
? UIIII8It8tn
F10uride (mgll)
I 8'11--=
i MID-AMERICA TANNING
\ SERGEANT BLUFF. IA
=- MW 0A1I: ~ 1-'"
:;,eaaMW 1111'1: 3f'1/JfJ 1 22
DZ»fG
~E JACOII
~~.:c
---
-------
I
I
I
I
-----!---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
------
,.
---
II
101
.
.
\CJ
.
---ii'~----
,
w~:;,..
..~~.
"'" "»
\~, ,""..
LEGEND
.~
, 8uff8oIlmpoundment8
...17 ar--.w I8mpI8 t811IorItar We,
(--'anln~
IJ l8ctan NunIbIr
C - IBM tIwI
/,,-' ""_,.o4h.,"'CII91)
.. - -. ..........,
.? -..In
~~No. OIlAWN8\'~ DATI; 4111/91 ~
Wcft~~No. 0£QD8\': Do\TI; 23
3a-7W7M m 4111/91
-------
.. - --
- --
-.........-
---...
---
r .... -.-.----
...~-
-'-- ....
--1"-- ....
-----
-'-
_._.--_..._-~~.--
-"----
-...-.--- --
<:
/:;;
Skat;- .
cO.2
---.........
84.1
\~~.~
~i..- 8001
N A,,........-
IIc8Ie In Peel
D2J3.J4D
fJEl~
FIIC IIWI
cO.2
LEGEND
iiJ'O lkIrfaaelmpoundll8lt8
0.27 0I0unctw8t8r -mple from Mantor w.n
oonaentllllDn kI mg.1
< ...... ... thin
- ~ - ,-_nt_Ian lna (mgII)
.- ....118 dlnclClon tD well
- - .t.loundarJ
? u.-t8ln
Total Alnmin1tm(mgll)
--
MID-AMERICA TANNING
SERGEANT BLUFF IA
=- MW Daft:!r'2M1
:a- ww -- Jo'WtI
_III.
-
24
-------
/
j--~.
I
/
... /1 i
Ie ~
/ I /oS
f I
==
-
...--.."...--.. -
--~.. ~
~
~- ...
~--_.--_.t-- ... ...
--
....,.,...-
--~
..----.-.......
,.,.-- -----
(i)
It
TCZ
,...
~
/1ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
(i)
cS
,"1. --
I
I
/'
4)'
,
{
I.,
~
\
, .. ..-.-
'- ,~ -
."
-
IOWA
[E'
+~-
Apprulm8t8
.... hi '"'
100
I
Total Lead (ug/1)
D2J&-/4Q
. [lJE :SEllING
CROUP INC.
--
I/Tt -=
MID-AMERICA TANNING
SERGEANT BLUFF IA
..t~._-_..- ~
------
.,-
"
/'
/
/
Sk8tgee
It ~
.~t
LEGEND
.tJJ!t 1urfIoI1mpouncI...u
on Gnlunclwat8r 88/ftPI8 ham lIon.or w.n
oonoenUltlon ~ ugn
C 1188118...thIn
- ,,- '-1I08",rltlon lne (u~
.- - cllr8otIon to'"
.. - '1.lou~
? ul108ft8ln
- WW DAft: ~1
rr.
--WW 11&11: ~1
...
_m
25
-------
-
------
---
----
- -
-
--
-.0
---
I
II
-
II
I
MID-AMERICA TANNING
SERGEANT BLUF~ IOWA
26
~
-
-
,
IGURE DESCRIPTION.
SITE LOCA TIDNS WITH CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
IN EXCESS OF THE ACTION LEVEL
<2000 ppM)
-.-
-------
------
---
----
- -
-
--
-'.
~
--
I
I
i
I
,I
/-
..
"
,...-..
P""
--.
-
",
JI
"
I ~ --=~- - - :
c:::::t~ ---- .........---...;;;..~.
I - --...;:::---- == --- -- --;:r -:ar-,
I ---.-.=--=---- -- --;:::.::::-::=- ..... ,
ra- -- -- -- -- .... ~ -- -.:::-~ -- ..
I . -- -~- r -----:- ---::::::-==---
\\ -- --
--::::-~ ) .......\ ... -- -- -- -- ~-
~~ --- -~
..-::;;;- I ----, --- ---
.... II - ~ - - --
\ -- -=-.:.::"";;;-~
--::::::: ..-
- - =-::in -- SITE: NAHL. . rIGURt NO.
. ~ MID-AMERICA TANNING 2 7
. SERGEANT BLUF~ IOWA
l£U£ND. IGURE: DESCRIPTION.
~ EXCAVATION/DISPOSAL DENSEL Y-CONTAMINATED AREAS WHICH WILL
~ AND/OR TREATeD ARtAS - ~ BE ADDRESSED BY EXCAVATION/DISPOSAL
-.- AND/OR TREATMENT
,
,...
-------
0.5 fr. . - . . - . . - . . - . . - .
1&<
TOPSOIL LAYER
COMPACTED NATIVE
"'-BARRIER LA YER
~LEVELING LAYER
SOURCE' COST or REMEDIAL ACTION
(CORA> MODEL. VERSION 2.1. U.S. EPA
JUNE 3~ 1988 .
SITE NAME:
MID-AMERICA-TANNING
SERGEANT BLUFF, IO\JA
r IGURE DESCRIPT ION:
SOIL CAP
"
I
I .
:'
SOIL
r IGURE
NO.
28
-------
2
,. ,.,. ,. ,......, .....", ., " . \'.' , '''.''''.\
fT. - - - - - - -
-
I .:::::,- :-:::'" ~.~
. '. .
fT,
+- ~/.h 2
fT.
L
0.5
2
SOURCE. COST or REMEDIAL ACTION
-------
----
- -
---
------
-
-.-
-'.
I
II
.
LEGEND, ~~I
. :~-:::, CAP ~
MID-AMERICA TANNING
SERGEANT BLUF~ IOWA
IGURE DESCRIPTIDN'
1M
-
,
AREAS COVERED BY A SOIL CAP
OR A SOIL CLAY CAP
-.-
------- |