United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-92/058
September 1992
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
29th and Mead Groundwater
Contamination, KS
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the indexthafare.not found in this document l1avebeen removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They oontain material Which supplement, butadds no further applicable information to
the content .of the document. All supplemental material is, however,contained in the administrative record
for this site.
~ ~
t<;, .
-------
50272-1 01
REPORT DOCUMENTATION /1. REPORTNO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R07-92/058
4. TIlle and Sub1llle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
29th and Mead Groundwater Contamination, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(s)
I ~
3. Reclplenfs AcceaaIon No.
5. Report Date
09/29/92
6.
8. Performing Organization Repl No:
9. Performing Orgalnlzallon Name and Address
10. ProjectITaakIWOIk Unit No.
11. ContracI(C) or GranI(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type 0' Report & Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplemen1ary NoIIIs
PB93-964301
16. Abatract(Umlt: 200 words)
The 1,440-acre 29th and Mead Groundwater Contamination site is an active
manufacturing facility in north-central Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Since 1887,
land use in the area has been predominantly industrial. In 1947, the property was
purchased by Coleman, Inc., for the manufacture of household furnace and air
conditioning units. Previous onsite activities had included the manufacture of
railway cars, automobiles, light aircraft, and electronically controlled aircraft. In
1987, Recreational Vehicles Products (RV) purchased approximately 10 percent of the
property for manufacturing air conditioners for recreational vehicles. Since 1990,
the remaining 90 percent has been occupied by Evcon Industries. Evcon's portion of
the site, which is the former Coleman Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
facility, includes a manufacturing plant (North Plant) and an administration/
engineering building. Several industrial wells are currently in operation to support
Evcon's operations, which consist of the production of consumer furnaces and
air-conditioning systems intended for conventional residential use. The manufacturing
process uses solvents for metal cleaning, prior to painting and fabrication of furnace
or air-conditioning units. In 1983, EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the state
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - 29th and Mead Groundwater Contamination, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: Soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (TCE, PCE)
b. Identlfleral~nded Terms
Co COSATI FIeIdIGJoup
~a. Availability Slat8ment
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. SecurIty Class (ThIs Page)
1\1 (H1 P
21. No. 0' Pages
52
I
22. Prtce
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on R-
o. ..~
272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department 0' Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R07-92/058
29th and Mead Groundwater Contamination, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
~stract (Continued)
began investigating the ground water at the site and found elevated levels of several
VOCs. In 1988, Coleman and the state initiated a ground water recovery and treatment
program, which uses two 40-foot air strippers and a soil vapor extraction (SVE) program
to treat contaminated soils in a 65,000-square-foot area. Water from the system is
discharged to the Wichita Drainage Canal under a CWA NPDES permit issued by the state.
This ROD, which focuses on the Coleman Operable Unit, addresses soil contamination as a
final remedial action and interim measures for the contaminated ground water. A future
ROD is planned to address a final remedy for the ground water at the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, including 1,1-DCE,
1,1-DCA, TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes expanding the existing SVE system to
remediate other source areas within the OU area: monitoring the SVE system to determine
performance and establish maximum attainable goals: monitoring air emissions from the
ground water treatment system and the SVE system to ensure the health and safety of
onsite personnel and determining if additional treatment of the emissions is necessary;
enhancing the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system (air stripping) with
the addition of a withdrawal well on the south boundary of the OU area; and discharging
treated water under a CWA NPDES permit, and monitoring of the ground water collection/
treatment system and the contaminant plume during remediation activities. Estimates
indicate that the SVE system will remove VOC contamination from approximately 4,000,000
cubic feet of soil. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$1,638,456 including an annual O&M cost of $78,900 to $182,200 for 18 years.
'PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals for the expanded
SVE system will be developed during the Remedial Design phase. Chemical-specific ground
water clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs and CWA discharge limits and include TCE
5 ug/l; TCA 200 ug/l: 1,2-DCE 70ug/l; 1,1-DCE 7 ug/l; and PCE 5 ug/l.
-------
COLEMAN OPERABLE UNIT
29TH & MEAD SUPERFUND SITE
RECORD OF DECISION DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Coleman Operable Unit, 29th & Mead site
Wichita, Kansas (Sedgwick County)
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial
action for the ground water and final remedial action for the soils
at the Coleman Operable Unit, 29th & Mead Site, in Wichita, Kansas,
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42
U.S.C. section 9601 et sea., and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.
This decision is based on the administrative record for the Coleman
Operable Unit, 29th & Mead site.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) agree on th~
selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The actual or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from
this operable unit, if not addressed through the implementation of
the response actions selected in this Record of Decision (ROD),
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health,
welfare, or the environment. .
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), conducted by
the Coleman Company and Evcon Industries from June 1991 to July
1992 at the Coleman Operable Unit of the 29th & Mead Site,
identified the primary route of exposure for future use is through
domestic use of water from existing or new water wells either at,
or downgradient, of the operable unit.
-------
In addition, available data shows elevated cC..centraticns of
volatile organic compounds in soils as a principai thr ~t to the
ongoin9 contamination of ground water.
Detectable levels of trichloroethene, 1,1,1 trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethane, cis 1,2 dichloroethene, 1,1 dichloroethene and
vinyl chloride have been detected in the ground water. Most of
these organics, including toluene, have been detected in the soil
at various locations on the site.
This remedy will address the principal threat posed by the
contaminants in the ground water by preventing the further
migration of contaminants off the Operable unit onto the 29th and
Mead site and by eventually restoring the ground water to
acceptable quality (Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant
Levels-:MCLs) by the extraction and treatment of contaminated ground
water. The remedy will further reduce the threat of continued
contamination of the ground water from the soil source areas with
the expansion of the soil vapor extraction system.
The major components of the selected remedy for the affected ground
water and soil include the following:
o
Enhancement of the existing ground water extraction and
treatment system with the addition of a withdrawal wellon
the south boundary of the Operable Unit hooked up to the
existing ground water treatment system.
o
Monitoring of the ground water collection/treatment
system and the ground water contaminant plume during
ground water remediation activities.
o
Expansion of the existing soil vapor extraction
(SVE)system to remediate other source areas within the
Operable Unit.
o
Monitoring of the SVE system to determine performance and
establish its maximum attainable goals.
o
Monitoring of the emissions from the ground water
treatment system and the soil vapor extraction system to
ensure the health and safety of on-site personnel and
determine if additional treatment of emissions
isnecessary.
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 remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
2
-------
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
permanently and significantly reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
as a principal element. Because this remedy may result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure, a review will be conducted no less
often than every five years after commencement of remedial action
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment.
9-- z.,r, r~
Date
3
-------
United
RECORD OP DBCISION
COLEKAN OPBRABLE UNIT
29TH' MEAD SUPBRFUND SITE
WICHITA, DBSAS
SBPTEXBBR, 1992
States Environmental Protection
Reqion VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Aqency
-------
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
site
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
TABLE OF COIITBN'l'S
Paae
Background
Site Location
Physical Setting
History
Past Investigations and
Highlights of community
Summary of the Remedial
Response Actions
participation
Investigation
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
Summary of Risks Presented By The Coleman
Operable unit
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
7
contaminants of Concern
Exposure Assessment
Toxicity Assessment
Risk Characterization
7
7
8
9
Scope and Role of Response Action
9
Summary of Alternatives
4.1 Screening and Formulation of Alternatives
4.2 Detailed Evaluation of Interim
Remedial Alternatives
10
10
12
Summary of comparative Analysis of Alternatives
5.1
5.2
19
Summary of EPA Evaluation criteria
Evaluation of the Alternatives
19
20
Selected Remedy
25
Statutory Determinations
27
Responsiveness Summary
30
-------
Attachment I
Attachment II
- Glossary of Terms
- Summary of Past Investigations at the Coleman
Operable Unit
- Groundwater Sam?ling Results
contaminants c Concern - Summary
- Contaminants o~ Concern, Maximum Concentrations,
MCLs and KALs
- Cost Summary of Alternatives
A~tachment III
r -.ach1Ilent IV
A_::achment V
AttaduIlent VI
Figure 1 - Coleman Operable Unit Location Map
Figure 2 - Coleman Operable unit Plan Map
Figure 3 - Potential Source Areas
Figure 4 - Monitoring Well Locations
Figure 5 - Groundwater Flow Direction Map for May 30, 1990
Figure 6 - Deep TCE Isoconcentration Map
Figure 7 - Shallow TCE Isoconcentration Map
Figure 8 - Simulation of the Preferred Alternative (3B)
-------
1.0
SITE BACKGROUND
1.1
SITE LOCATION
The Coleman Operable unit is located within the north-central
part of the 29th and Mead Superfund Site, a 1,440 acre
industrial area in north-central Wichita, Kansas (see Figure
1). The Coleman Operable Unit is occupied by Evcon
Industries, Inc. at 801 East. 37th Street North, and by
Recreational Vehicle Products (RV Products), located at 3010
North Mead street (see Figure 2). Evcon occupies the former
Coleman Heating, ventilation, and Air Conditioning facility
which includes a manufacturing plant (North Plant) that
occupies approximately 60 percent of the Coleman Operable
Unit, and an Administration and Engineering (A&E) Building
which occupies approximately 30 percent of the Coleman
operable unit. The remaining 10 percent of the Coleman
Operable unit area is occupied by RV Products. The southern
boundary of the Coleman Operable unit is approximately 300
feet south of East 30th Street North.
The Coleman operable unit is surrounded by other industrial
facilities such as a cardboard box manufactu.rer, a meat
packing facility, a structural concrete manufacturer, grain
elevators, a chemical manufacturing company, a railroad track,
a petroleum products packaging facility and the location of a
former metals fabricating company. .
1.2
PHYSICAL SETTING
The Coleman Operable Unit lies within the Arkansas River
lowlands section of the Central lowlands Physiographic
province, which is characterized as relatively flat.
Unconsolidated deposits underlying the Coleman operable Unit
are approximately 40 feet in depth and consist of clay, silt,
sand, and gravel. These deposits represent at least four
major depositional episodes, which range in age from the Early
Pleistocene to Recent Alluvium. The Wellington Formation,
which comprises the impermeable bed beneath the unconsolidated
deposits, consists of calcareous gray and blue shale
containing several thin beds of argillaceous limestone,
gypsum, and anhydride.
These unconsolidated deposits are the primary source of usable
ground water in Sedgwick County. The direction of ground
water flow in the unconsolidated materials is generally south,
although there are local variations caused by the pumping of
a recovery well and several industrial wells currently
operating on the Coleman Operable Unit. Each industrial well
has an average pumping rate of approximately 250 gallons per
minute (gpm), and one of the wells must always be in operation
1
-------
to support Evcon operations. Groundwater flow velocity
estimated at 340 feet per year.
is
1.3
HISTORY
The Coleman Operable Unit is located in an area which has been
used primarily for industrial purposes since 1887. Various
operations at the Coleman Operable Unit property prior to
Coleman's occupation of the property include the manufacture
of railway cars, automobiles, light aircraft, and
electronically controlled aircraft. Coleman acquired the
property in 1947 from the Trustee of CUlver Aircraft
Corporation through a bankruptcy proceeding. Coleman
initiated the manufacture of household furnace and air
conditioning units at the Coleman Operable unit property in
1949.
Evcon purchased the northern part of the Coleman Operabie Unit
property in 1990, and is the current owner/operator of these
facilities. Evcon operations include the production of
consumer furnaces and air conditioning systems intended for
use in conventional residences and manufactured homes. The
manufacturing process begins with coils of steel, which are
cut and formed into appropriate shape for assembly by welding
into the proper configuration for furnace or air condit.ioning
casings and other parts. The steel is then cleaned with
solvents, painted, and mated with purchased components to
complete the process.
The remainder of the Coleman property was purchased in 1987 by
RV Products, which manufactures air conditioners for
recreational vehicles.
1.4
PAST INVESTIGATIONS AND RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
EPA, the united States Geological Survey and KDHE began
investigating groundwater contamination in the 29th and Mead
area in 1983. These investigations revealed the presence of
several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) , including
trichloroethylene (TCE), carbon tetrachloride, toluene,
benzene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, trans and/or cis
1,2 dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and 1,1,1-
trichloroett.~ne (TCA), in the groundwater at the 29th and Mead
Site. In May 1987, several water samples were collected at
the Coleman facility from the effluent of cooling water from
two on-site industrial water wells. The results of this
sampling indicated elevated levels of several VOCs, which
incl uded TCE, TCA and I, 1 dichloroethene. These resul ts
prompted an investigation at the Coleman Operable unit to
determine the source, magnitude and extent of these
contaminants.
2
-------
Successive (phased) investigations conducted between 1987 and
1988, which included monitoring well installation and
sampling, soil gas surveys, aquifer tests and pilot tests,
indicated several potential source areas for VOC contamination
existed at 'the Coleman facility. A comprehensive list of
investigative documents is included as Attachment II.
In 1988, Coleman and KDHE agreed that a groundwater recovery
and treatment program' and a soil vapor extraction program
should be designed and implemented to control further
migration of contaminants from the Coleman Operable Unit
property. This system became operational in 1988 and included
a 62 point soil vapor extraction system to treat contaminated
soils in a 65,000 square foot area and a groundwater recovery
and treatment system that currently utilizes two (2), 40-foot
by 4-foot diameter air strippers. Water from the system,
subsequent to treatment, is discharged to the Wichita Drainage
Canal in conformance with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit that was issued by KDHE.
The 29th and Mead Superfund Site, which includes the entire
Coleman facility, was officially listed on the Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL) on February 21, 1990. The
Coleman Company was identified as one of the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) for the 29th and Mead Superfund
Site. The Coleman Company and Evcon Industries a$ked KDHE and
EPA to consider the area covered by the interim groundwater
and SVE system as an operable unit within the 29th and Mead
Superfund site, since an interim recovery system was
operational prior to the 1990 NPL listing. An operable unit
is any action taken within a small area of a site as one part
of an overall site cleanup. On June 6, 1991, a Consent
Agreement was signed between KDHE, The Coleman Company and
Evcon Industries to conduct a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Coleman Operable Unit.
The objectives of the RI/FS included: (1) characterization of
VOC contamination in groundwater and soil through evaluation
of past investigative data and collection of supplementary
data: (2) development and evaluation of alternatives for
appropriate remedial response actions needed to control or
mi tigate effects of VOCs present at the Coleman Operable Unit;
and (3) to determine the appropriate means of remediating the
concentrated area of contamination beneath the structures at
the Coleman Operable Unit.
1.5
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Community participation was provided in accordance with
CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practical, the
3
-------
National Contingency Plan. Community participation highlights
include the availability of several key documents in the
administrative record, a public comment period and a public
hei:l.r ing .
A community relations plan for the 29th & Mead site was
completed by KDHE and approved by EPA in June of 1990. This
document lists contacts and interested parties throughout
government and the local community. It also establishes
communication pathways to ensure dissemination of pertinent
information.
The administrative record for 29th & Mead site was released in
June of 1990. The administrative record for the Coleman
Operable Unit was released on July 15, 1992. The records have
been made available to the public at the following addresses:
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Bureau of Environmental Remediation
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, Kansas 913/296-3393
Kansas Department of Health
Wichita District Office
1919 Amidon, Suite 130
Wichita, Kansas
and Environment
316/838-1071
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas
913/551-7000
A press release was issued on July 14, 1992 announcing the
availability of the administrative record, the release of the
Proposed Plan and notice of the Public Hearing for the Coleman
Operable Unit.
A public hearing was held on July 28, 1992 to present the
Proposed Plan. At this meeting representatives of EPA and KDHE
were available to answer questions and record commeI~CS
concerning the Proposed Plan.
All comments received by EPA and KDHE prior to the end elf the
pub I ic comment period are addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary in this Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedy for the
Coleman Operable Unit of the 29th & Mead site. The decision
for this Operable Unit is based on the administrative record.
4
-------
1.6. SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
1.6.1 Activities
The RI consisted of six primary components: (1) review
of existing data; (2) installation of monitoring wells,
soil vapor points and soil borings; (3) conducting a
shallow zone aquifer test: (4) executing an aquifer
sparging pilot test; (5) executing soil vapor extraction
tests; and (6) completing an extensive groundwater
sampling and analysis program. Each of these activities
is discussed in greater detail below.
1.6.2 Conclusions
Soil samples were collected from seven active or inactive
degreaser pits and from the north and south fields of the
Coleman Operable Unit property to evaluate potential
source areas at the Coleman Operable Unit. Figure 3 is
a map showing potential source areas.
Results indicate that trichloroethene (TCE) was detected
in 23 'soil borings from eight source areas.
Concentrations of TCE in the soil ranged from not
detected (ND) to 13,000 micrograms per kiloqram (uq/kg)
or parts per billion (ppb). ,Other siqnificant VOC
constituents detected during the soil sampling program
and their respective concentration range includes: 1,1,1
trichloroethene (TCA) ND to 6,100 uq/kg:
tetrachloroethane (PCE) - ND to 41 ug/kg: cis - 1,2-
dichloroethene (1,2 DCE) ND to 520 uq/kg: 1,1
dichloroethene (1,1 DCE) - HD to 370 ug/kq and toluene -
ND to 140,000 ug/kg. This data suggests that former
degreaser pits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, and the south
field are likely. sources for TCE contamination. In
addition, significant concentrations of TCA were observed
in former degreaser pits 1, 2 and 4.
A soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test was conducted in
several source areas identified by soil testing to
determine the feasibility of using SVE technology as a
remedial alternative. SVE technology involves
withdrawing air from the soil pore spaces to remove VOCs
from the soil and then releasing the vapors to the
atmosphere. The SVE pilot study results indicate that
SVE technology will effectively remove contamination from
the soil at the Coleman Operable Unit. These conclusions
can also be supported by the fact that the existing SVE
system has been successful in overall reduction of
5
-------
contaminants from the north field area where an estimated
8,990 to 14,323 pounds of VOCs have been removed from the
soil during the operation of the SVE pilot system.
Groundwater samples at the Coleman Operable Unit have
been collected during several sampling events. In May
1990, a total of 68 monitoring wells were sampled for
VOCs. As part of the RI, 35 monitoring wells were
resampled to verify previous results. Figure 4 shows
relative locations of monitoring wells at the Coleman
Operable Unit and Attachment III summarizes results from
the July 1991 sampling event.
Analytical results indicate that TCE is the predominant
VOC detected at the Coleman Operable unit. TCE was
detected in 32 of 35 monitoring wells sampled during the
July 1991 sampling event. Concentrations of TCE ranged
from ND to 15,000 micrograms per liter (ug/l). Other
significant VOCs detected during the groundwater sampling
program and their respective concentration ranges
include: TCA - ND to 3500 ugjl; PCE - ND to 100 ug/l;
1,2 DCE - ND to 2500 ugjl; 1,1 DCE - ND to 1,110 ugjl;
and vinyl chloride - ND to 250 ug/l.
Information gathered during the RI defined both the
vertical and horizontal extent of contaminated
groundwater at the Coleman operable Unit with the
exception of an area downgradient of the RV facility.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the groundwater flow direction
and area of TCE contamination in deep and shallow zones
within the aquifer as determined by the RI. As indicated
by the isoconcentration contours (Figures 6 and 7), there
may be one or more off-site sources which may be
contributing to the contamination at the Coleman Operable
unit. These additional source areas will be investigated
during the 29th and Mead RIjFS.
Several aquifer tests have been completed at the Coleman
Operable Unit. The purpose of these tests was to
determine characteristics of upper and lower portions of
the alluvial aquifer, evaluate pumping effects on the
groundwater regime and provide information for remedial
alternative evaluation.
Analysis of aquifer tests indicates a transmissivity of
96,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) for the entire
alluvial aquifer and 20,000 gpdjft for the upper aquifer
(above a localized clay layer). Groundwater flow is
generally southward with a velocity of 340 feet per year.
Resul ts indicate properly placed recovery wells will
assure hydraulic control of groundwater contamination at
the Coleman Operable unit.
6
-------
An aquifer sparging test was also conducted during the RI
to determine the feasibility of using aquifer sparging as
a remedial alternative. Aquifer sparging involves
pumping air down into the ground water to enhance the
volatilization of VOCs in the ground water. Results from
the pilot test indicate aquifer sparging would enhance
removal of VOCs from ground water and soils within the
saturated zone when used in conjunction with a SVE
system.
2.0
StJlllQRY 01' RISKS PRBSBIiTBD BY THE COLBD5 OPBRABLE UBI'!
As part of the RI/FS a Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) of the
Coleman Operable unit was completed in November, 1991, by PRC
Environmental Management, Inc. under contract to the u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. The objectives of the BRA were to
assess the magnitude and probability of actual or potential harm to
public health and the environment by releases of hazardous
substances from the Coleman Operable unit in the absence of
remedial action (i.e. the "no-action" alternative). As part of the
BRA, PRC reviewed remedial investigation reports, identified
contamination, assessed exposure pathways and toxicity,
characterized risk, and completed the report. The BRA report was
based predominantly on data collected during the remedial
investigation.
2.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
The initial phase of the BRA included compiling a list of
contaminants from results of the various sampling activities
that were measured above detection limits or natural
background levels. There have been 22 organic compounds
identified in groundwater, surface water, and soils at or near
. the Coleman Operable Unit. The chemicals that contribute most
significant impact are as follows: 1) 1,1 dichloroethane; 2)
1,1 dichloroethene; 3) 1,2 dichloroethene; 4) trichloroethene;
and 5) tetrachloroethene.
The contaminants of concern, the detection frequency, range of
detected concentrations, and mean chemical concentrations are
provided in Attachment IV.
2.2
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The BRA focused on potential or actual risks to human health
posed by contaminants at or released from the Coleman Operable
Unit property. The human population most likely to be exposed
to contaminated groundwater and air are those individuals
living and working in the vicinity. It should be noted that
the BRA for Coleman Operable unit focused on those exposures
with the highest probability of occurrence.
7
-------
The BRA identified three major potential release mechanisms of
the known contaminants which included: (1) the leaching of
contaminants into and subsequent movement with the ground
water, (2) the discharge of contaminants into surface soils,
and (3) the volatilization of contaminants from the ground
water into the ambient air via the existing recovery system
(air stripper). In evaluation of the potential release
mechanisms, the BRA identified several scenarios with a high
probability for exposure (risk) to populations living and
working in the vicinity of the Coleman Operable Unit. These
scenarios, evaluated for current and future conditions
included: (1) ingestion of groundwater; (2) inhalation of
volatiles; and (3) ingestion of soils.
2.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
Potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects associated
with the major chemicals of concern (see Section 3.1) detected
at the Coleman Operable unit property are described
qualitatively in the following discussion.
1,1 Dichloroethane, also known as ethylidene dichloride, is
classified as a group C carcinogen (possible human
carcinogen). Very high doses may produce liver and kidney
lesions. Acute exposure produces local irritation and central
nervous system depression.
1,1 Dichloroethene commonly known as vinylidene chloride, is
classified as a group C carcinogen. 1,1 Dichloroethene is
absorbed through all routes and is extensively metabolized in
the liver, primarily by oxidation and conjugation. There are
numerous known interactions with other compounds that cause
toxic effects.
1,.2 Dichloroethene and its cis-dichloroethene and trans-
dichloroethene isomers are not demonstrated human carcinogens.
The major effect of acute doses of 1,2 DCE is central nervous
system depression. Repeated inhalation causes lesions in the
lungs, liver and kidney.
Trichloroethene is classified as a group B2 carcinogen (a
probable human carcinogen). Trichloroethene is well absorbed
after inhalation and ingestion, and to some extent through the
skin, and it tends to collect in fat. It has been shown to
cause pulmonary adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, and hepatocellular
carcinoma in multiple strains of mice. Subchronic and chronic
exposures of animals to TCE appears to result in liver and
kidney toxicity.
Tetrachloroethene, commonly known as perchloroethene, is a
group C carcinogen. Mouse and rat studies have indicated that
PCE is a teratogen and reproductive toxin. In addition, both
8
-------
oral and inhalation exposure of laboratory animals to PCE for
intermediate and long-term exposure leads to liver, kidney and
spleen toxicity.
2.4
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The BRA evaluated potential non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic
risks posed by the indicator contaminants in the various
exposure media at the Coleman Operable Unit property.
Carcinogenic risks were characterized in terms of upperbound
. excess lifetime cancer risks and non-carcinogenic risks were
characterized in terms of a hazard index and hazard quotients.
Under future conditions the BRA identified potentially
significant risks to human populations using groundwater at
the Coleman Operable Unit as a drinking water source. Th,
carcinogenic risk was estimated to be 1 in 1,000, or 1 x 10
from ingestion of groundwater, which is considered
significant. The National contingency Plan (NCP) sets forth
the acceptable risk levels for Superfund sites, noting that
target carcinogenic risks resulting from exposure a~4Superfund
sites may range be~feen 1 in 10,000,. 0: 1 x 10 to 1 in
1,000,000, or 1 x 10 . usually, remedl.atl.on goals (the point
of compliance) for ground water remediation are Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Kansas Action Levels (KALs) or the
established clean up level for individual contaminants which
would reduce risk to an acceptable level.
3.0
SCOPB AIm ROLE 01' RBSPORSB ACTIOR
As discussed in Section 2.0, the BRA indicates that the greatest
risk to human health could occur from future ingestion of
contaminated groundwater. The primary route of exposure for future
use is through domestic use of water from existing or new water
wells. The point of ingestion may be either at, or downgradient
from the Coleman Operable Unit. contaminants of concern and their
corresponding MCLs and KALs, as well as a summary of the maximum
concentrations fou~d, are presented in Attachment v. .
Based upon the findings of the RI/FS, the fOllowing remedial
response objectives have been established for the Coleman Operable
Unit.. .
1. Prevent on-site ingestion of contaminated groundwater that
would exceed respective MCLs or KALs for indi vidual
contaminants. .
2. Prevent off-site migration of contaminated groundwater
that would exceed respective MCLs or KALs for individual
contaminants.
9
-------
The Gi::mclusions of the BRA and the identification of response
objectives provide the basis for selection of the preferred
alternative. The preferred alternative will address the
contamination by restoring the groundwater to acceptable quality
(MCLs or KALs) through the extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater. In addition, the preferred alternative will reduce
the threat of continued contamination of the groundwater from soil
source areas by SVE technology.
4 . 0 SUMMARY OP ALTBRHATIVES
4.1
SCREENING AND FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
'The feasibility study evaluates three general response actions
which could be applied to the contaminated media and
conditions known to exist at the Coleman Operable Unit
property. The general response categories include: (1) no
action; (2) containment; and (3) treatment. The feasibility
study identified and screened remedial action technologies
associated with each general response action previously
identified. The screening criteria used for the analysis
included effectiveness, implementability and cost of the
remedial action technology. Those remedial action
technologies failing to meet the pre-defined criteria were
screened out of the process.
Remedial action technologies were screened for applicability
to the specific affected media types ( i.e. soil and
groundwater). The remedial action technologies evaluated for
soil included: (1) containment through various capping
methods; (2) excavation; (3) soil vapor extraction; (4)
fixation and stabilization; and (5) biodegradation. The
remedial action technologies evaluated for groundwater
included: (1) containment through various technologies such as
c.apping, hydrologic barriers and hydrologic control, and (2)
treatment of groundwater by various technologies such as air
stripping and carbon absorption. In addition, aquifer
sparging was considered for both media types.
Individual field pilot tests were performed during the
remedial investigation, utilizing aquifer s:r 'irging, soil vapor
extraction, and hydraulic control by aq,- .ifer pumping, to
assist in the screening and evaluation process. Based upon
the results of the field pilot testing all three technologies
were retained for detailed analysis.
The remedial alternatives selected for further evaluation are
presented below and are discussed in more detail in section
5.2. These alternatives, which were formulated by combining
10
-------
the technologies and process options that passed initial
screening, are numbered to correspond with the FS report.
* Alternative 1:
* Alternative 2A:
* Alternative 2B:
* Alternative 2C:
* Alternative 2D:
* Alternative 3A:
* Alternative 3B:
* Alternative 3C:
* Alternative 4A:
* Alternative 4B:
* Alternative 4C:
No Action.
No Further Action.
Existing groundwater pump and treat
system wi thout the soil vapor
extraction system.
Existing system with south end
enhancement by groundwater pump and
treat.
Existing groundwater pump and treat
system with south end enhancement by
groundwater pump and treat (no soil
vapor extraction system).
Additional soil vapor extraction in
source areas with continued
operation of existing groundwater
pump and treat system.
Existing system with south end
enhancement by groundwater pump and
treat and additional soil vapor
extraction in source areas.
Existing system with additional
groundwater pump and treat system in.
source areas.
Aquifer sparging and expanded soil
vapor extraction in source areas
with existing groundwater pump and
treat system.
Aquifer sparging and expanded soil
vapor extraction in source areas
with south end expansion of the
groundwater pump and treat system.
Aquifer sparging and expanded soil
vapor extraction in source areas
with south end and source expansion
of the groundwater pump and treat
system.
11
-------
4.2 DETAILED
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION
OF
INTERIM
REMEDIAL
.l\CTION
The "No Action" alternative provides only the continued
operation of the north and south industrial wells. All other
remedial action alternatives considered for the Coleman
Operable Unit include a number of common components. The
series of remedial action alternatives designated as 2 (A, B,
C and D) include operating the existing groundwater system
with and without operating the existing soil vapor extraction
system and enhanced pumping at the south end of the site. The
series of alternatives designated as 3 (A, B and C) include
operating the existing groundwater system, expanding the soil
vapor extraction system, and enhanced pumping at the south and
within other source areas of the site. The last series of
al.ternatives, designated as 4 (A, B and C) are similar to the
3 series of alternatives with the addition of a
-------
further contamination is placed on the soil or into the
ground water at the. Coleman Operable Uni t. computer
modeling was used to arrive at. the number of years
necessary for this to occur for each remedial scenario.
The estimated operating life of this alternative, which
is the amount of time it would take for the existing
contamination in the soil to leach into the. ground water
and be carried away by the ground water flow, is over 45
years. The hydraul ic control of the ground water may not
be maintained by this al ternati ve. In addi tion, the
toxicity or mobility of VOCs in the soil would not be
reduced.
ALTBRDTIVB 2A: NO FURTJlBR ACTIO.
Estimated Capital Cost: $0.00
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $63,400
Estimated operating Life: 21 years +
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and operating Costs:
$802,953
This alternative would include continued maintenance and
repair of. the existing groundwater and soil systems,
including the two industrial wells, one recovery well,
two air strippers and a 62 point soil vapor extraction
system. The system currently in operation at the site
would remain intact without additional modification.
Treated water would be monitored through an NPDES permit
prior to discharge. The estimated operating life of this
alternative is over 21 years. The current system has
been demonstrated as being effective in the hydraulic
control of groundwater migration. However, the toxicity
and mobility of VOCs in the soil at recently identified
source areas would not be reduced.
ALTBRDTIVB 28:
ONLY
Estimated Capital Cost: $0.00
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance
Estimated Operating Life: 23 years +
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and
$772,164
EXISTING GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT SYSTBK
Costs: $63,400
Operating Costs:
This alternative would include continued maintenance and
repair of the existing groundwater system only,
consisting of two industrial wells, one recovery well and
two air strippers. Treated water would be moni tored
through an NPDES permit prior to discharge. The existing
soil vapor extraction system would be eliminated. The
operating life' of this alternative is over 23 years. The
current system has been demonstrated as being effective
13
-------
in the hydraulic control of groundwater migration.
However, the toxicity and mobility of VOCs in the soil at
recently identified source areas would not be reduced.
ALTERNATIVE 2C:
PUMP AND TREAT
Estimated Capital Cost: $43,000
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance
Estimated Operating Life: 20 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and
$972,334
EXISTING SYSTEM WITH SOUTJI END ENHA!lCEHE!lT BY
Costs: $78,900
Operating
Costs:
Under this alternative, the existing groundwater and soil
systems, which consist of two industrial wells, one
recovery well, two air strippers, and a 62 point soil
vapor extraction system, would continue to operate
without modification. An additional recovery well would
be installed at the southern boundary of the property to
enhance hydraulic control of the contaminated
groundwater. The new recovery well would be installed in
the same manner as the existing recovery well and be
operated at approximately 200 gpm. Water would be pumped
to an existing on-site air stripper. Treated water would
be monitored through an NPDES permit prior to discharge.
The estimated operating life of this alternative is 20
years. In addition to enhancing the hydraulic control of
contaminated groundwater, this alternative would reduce
the time needed for remediation within the Coleman
Operable Unit. However, the toxicity and mobility of
VOCs in the soil at recently identified source areas in
the south field of the Coleman Operable unit property
would not be reduced, as no SVE system would be
implemented in that area under this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 2D:
EXTRACTION SYSTEM
Estimated Capital Cost: $43,000
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance
Estimated Operating Life: 22 years
Estimated Present Worth of capital and
$983,131
SAME AS 2C WITHOUT EXISTING SOIL VAPOR
Costs: $78,000
Operating
Costs:
Alternative 2D maintains the existing groundwater system,
consisting of the two industrial wells, one reGovery
well, and two air strippers. An additional recovery well
would be installed at the southern boundary of the
Coleman Operable Unit property to enhance hydraulic
control of the contaminated groundwater. The new
recovery well would be installed in the same manner as
the existing recovery well and be operated at
approximately 200 gpm. Water would be pumped to an
existing on-site air stripper. Treated water would be
14
-------
monitored through an NPDES permit prior to discharge.
Under Alternative 2D the current soil vapor extraction
system would be eliminated. This would not reduce the
toxicity and mObility of VOCs in the soil at the north
field of the property, because although the existing
system has removed large amounts of contaminants from the
soil, some contamination would remain. The estimated
operating life of this alternative is 22 years.
Alternative 2D would be effective in the hydraulic
control of contaminated groundwater and would reduce the
time needed for remediation. However, the toxicity and
mObility of VOCs in the soil at recently identified
source areas of the Coleman Operable Unit property would
not be reduced.
ALDRHATIVB 3A:
AREAS
Estimated capital Cost: $421,000
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $63,400-
166,700
Estimated Operating Life: 19 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and Operating Costs:
$1,450,513
Under this alternative, the existing groundwater and soil
system, which consists of two industrial wells, one
recovery well, two air strippers and the north field 62
point soil vapor extraction system, would continue to
operate. The soil vapor extraction system would be
expanded for removal of VOCs from unsaturated soils in
all known on-site source areas, including the source
areas in the south field area of the property. Estimates
indicate that this alternative will remove VOCs from over
4,000,000 cubic feet of affected soil. The soil vapor
extraction system would be expanded to include 96
additional soil vapor extraction points that would be
screened from approximately 5 to 20 feet below ground
surface. Based upon the soil vapor extraction pilot
study, approximately eight blowers would be needed to
implement this alternative. It is anticipated that
treatment of gases vented from the soil would not be
required. The estimated operating life of this
al ternati ve is 19 years. This a1 ternati ve would be
effective in the hydraulic control of contaminated ground
water in the north field; however, contaminated ground
water could still escape from the property' s southern
boundary under this scenario. In addition, the overall
load of VOCs leaching into the groundwater from active
source. areas would be greatly reduced by soil vapor
extraction.
ADDITIONAL SOIL ~POR BXTRACTION IN SOURCB
15
-------
ALTERHAT:IVE 3B:
AND TREAT
Estimated Capital Cost: $464,000
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $78,900-
182,200
Estimated Operating Life: 18 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and Operating Costs:
$1.,638,456
SAKE AS 3A WITH SOUTH END ENBANCEHENT BY PUXP
Alternative 3B, the selected alternative is a combination of
the existing system with an additional recovery well and
expanded SVE system. Under this alternative, the existing
groundwater and soil system, which consists of two industrial
wells, one recovery well, two air strippers and a 62 point
soil vapor extraction system, will continue to operate. The
soil vapor extraction system will be expanded for removal of
VOCs from unsaturated soils in all known on-site source areas.
Estimates indicate that this alternative will remove VOCs from
over 4,000,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil. The soil
va.por extraction system will consist of 96 additional soil
va.por extraction points that would be screened from
approximately 5 to 20 feet below ground surface. Based upon
the soil vapor extraction pilot study, approximately
eight blowers will be needed to implement this alternative.
Performance criteria for the expanded SVE system will need to
be developed during remedial design. Monitoring of the
pe~rformance of the existing SVE system will both allow f:or the
development of the criteria for the expanded SVE system and
will determine when operation of the existing SVE system may
be discontinued. It is anticipated that treatment of gases
vented from the soil will not be required. However, air
monitoring will need to be included to ensure the health and
safety of on-site personnel and to ensure that vapors released
from both the SVE system and the air strippers do not Ix:Ee a
threat to human health or the environment. If emissions
exceed permissible levels, further treatment of the vapors may
be required prior to release.
In addition to expansion of the existing soil vapor extraction
system, an additional recovery well will be located along the
southern boundary to enhance hydraulic control. The new
recovery well will be installed in the same manner as the
existing recovery well and be operated at approximately 20J
gpm. Water will be pumped to an existing on-site ai~-
stripper. Treated water will be monitored through an NPDES
permit prior to discharge. The estimated operating life of
this alternative is 18 years. The enhanced pumping system at
the southern boundary, in conjunction with the existing
pumping system, will continue to mitigate off-site migration
of VOCs over the long term through hydraulic control. In
addition, the overall load of VOCs leaching into the
groundwater from active source areas will be greatly reduced
by the additional soil vapor extraction.
16
-------
ALTERnT%VB 3C: SAJIB AS 3A W:ITH EIUlAKCBMBR'l' :IN SOURCE AREAS
BY PUXP AND TREAT .
Estimated Capital Cost: $596,100
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $139,400-
242,700
Estimated Operating Life: 11 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and operating Costs:
$2,042,339
Alternative 3C is the same as 3A with the addition of
recovery wells in known on-site source areas to enhance
hydraulic control. The new recovery wells would be
installed in the same manner as the existing recovery
well and be operated at approximately 200 gpm. Water
would be pumped to an existing on-site air stripper.
Treated water would be monitored through an NPDES permit
prior to discharge. The estimated operating life of this
alternative is 11 years. The enhanced pumping system, in
conjunction with the existing pumping system, would
continue to mitigate off-site migration of VOCs over the
long term through hydraulic control. This alternative
would also tend to substantially decrease the
concentration of VOCs in the groundwater aroupd source
areas. In addition, the overall load of VOCs leaching
into the groundwater from active source areas would be
greatly reduced by soil vapor extraction.
ALTERnT%VB 4A: AQU:IFER SPARG:ING AND EXPANDBD SO:IL VAPOR
EXTRACT:ION SYSTBK :IN SOURCE AREAS
Estimated Capital Cost: $463,500
Estimated Annual operation and Maintenance Costs: $178,400-
210,200
Estimated Operating Life: 10 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and Operating Costs:
$1,746,227
Alternative 4A is the same as 3A with the addition of
aquifer sparging in source areas. Aquifer sparging
technology invol ves the introduction of air into an
aquifer to increase the volatilization of dissolved VOCs
in the groundwater and on soil particles. The objective
is to decrease the time required for remediation. An air
sparging pilot test .conducted at the Coleman operable
Unit indicated this technology was effective at
increasing the removal of VOCs from the aquifer. Aquifer
sparging used in conjunctionwith.the expanded soil vapor
extraction system would accelerate the release of VOCs
from the aquifer for capture and control. The aquifer
sparging points would be installed at the base of the
aquifer on top of the confining layer (Wellington Shale
Formation). Estimates from the pilot test indicate that
26 cubic feet per meter of air at 60 pressure per square
inch would be injected into each aquifer sparge point.
17
-------
This air flow would produce an estimated radius of
influence of 75 feet at each locacion. Air sparging
provides an additional benefit by creating a high
dissolved oxygen content in the surrounding soils which
supports natural biodegradation of VOCs in the
subsurface. The overall load of VOCs in the soil and
aquifer media contaminated from active source areas would
be greatly reduced by soil vapor extraction and air
sparging. As with the other alternatives, the existing
pump and treat system would maintain hydraulic cont:rol at
the site. This alternative would also tend to
substantially decrease the concentration of VOCs in the
groundwater and soil around source areas. The estimated
operating life of this alternative is 10 years.
ALTERNAT:IVB 4B:
AND TREAT
Estimated capital Cost: $506,500
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $193,900-
22:5,700
Estimated Operating Life: 9 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and Operating Costs:
$1,799,523
SAKE AS 4A WITH SOUTH END ENHANCEKENT BY PUMP
This alternative is the same alternative as 4A with the
addition of a recovery well at the southern boundary of
the site to enhance hydraulic control of the contaminated
groundwater. The new recovery well would be installed in
the same manner as the existing recovery well and be
operated at approximately 200 gpm. Water would be pumped
to an existing on-site air stripper. Treated water would
be monitored through an NPDES permit prior to discharge.
The estimated operating life of this alternative is nine
years. The enhanced pumping system at the southern
boundary, in conjunction with the existing pumping
system, would continue to mitigate off-site migration of
VOCs over the long term through hydraulic control. In
addi tion, the overall load of VOCs leaching into the
groundwater from active source areas would be greatly
reduced by soil vapor extraction and aquifer sparging.
ALTERNATIVE 4C: SAKE AS 4A WITH EIlHANCEKENT IN SOURCE AREAS
Bt' PUMP AND TREAT
Estimated capital Cost: $638,600
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $254,400-
286,200
Estimated operating Life: 5 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital and Operating Costs:
$1,711,410
Alternative 4C is the same as 4A with the addition of
recovery wells in known on-site source areas to enhance
hydraulic control. The new recovery wells would be
18
-------
installed in the same manner as the existing recovery
well and be operated at approximately 200 qpm. Water
would be pumped to an existing on-si te air stripper.
Treated water would be monitored through an NPDES permit
prior to discharge. The estimated operating life of this
alternative is five years. The enhanced pumping system,
in conjunction with the existing pumping system, would
continue to mitigate off-site migration of VOCs over the
long term through hydrologic control. This alternative
would also tend to substantially decrease the
concentration of VOCs in the groundwater around source
areas. In addition, the overall load of VOCs leaching
into the groundwater from active source areas would be
greatly reduced by soil vapor extraction and aquifer
sparging. This alternative basically applies all the
combined selected remedial action alternatives into one
alternative.
5.0
81JHMARY OP COMPARATIVE ADLYSIS 01' ALTBRDTIVBS
5.1
SUMMARY OF EPA EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following section presents a summary of the criteria that
EPA uses to evaluate remedial action alternatives.
5. 1. 1 . OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each
pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls. .
5.1.2
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
Addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of
other Federal and State environmental statutes and
regulations and/or provides grounds for invoking a
waiver.
5.1.3
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time
once cleanup goals have been met.
5.1.4
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME
Reviews the. anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies a remedy may employ.
19
-------
5.1.5
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Addresses the period of ti:m~ needed to achieve
protection, and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during the construction
and implementation period until cleanup goals are
achieved.
5.1.6
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of
a remedy, including the availability of materials and
services needed to implement a particular option.
5.1.7
COST
Evaluates the estimated capital cost, operation
maintenance costs, and net present worth costs.
and
5.1.8
STATE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE
Discusses whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and
Proposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no
comment on the preferred alternative.
5.1.9
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
This criteria is assessed in the Record of Decision
following a review of the public comments received on the
RI and FS reports, the administrative record, and the
Proposed Plan.
5.2
EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Th.is section profiles the performance of the preferred
alternative against the nine criteria, noting how it compares
to the other options under consideration.
5.2.1
OVERALL PROTECTION
The preferred alternative (3B) provides adequate
protection of human health and the environment by
removing contaminants in the soil and ground water and
thus eliminating the risk posed by those contaminants.
Alternative 3B enhances hydraulic control by minimizing
the migration of VOC contaminants and treats VOCs in the
soils reducing vclume and mObility. Overall
concentration of VOCs would decrease over time wii:h
implementation of the preferred alternative.
Alternatives 2A through 4C inclusive, provide some. level
of protection of human health and the environment. 2A,
which provides for continued operation of the existing
20
-------
. system, would remove contaminants from the northern end
of the property, but would still permit migration of
contamination from the southern field. 2B, 2C and 2D
provide for various levels of contaminant removal and
plume control, but each leaves some area of contamination
unaddressed. Al ternati ve 3A provides for additional soil
contaminant removal, but would permit the migration of
contaminated ground water from the property.
Alternatives 3A, 4A, 4B and 4C each provide enhanced
contaminant recovery from both soils and ground water,
thus providing greater levels of protection.
Alternative 1, the "no action" alternative, does not meet
the criteria for protection of human health and
environment. Therefore, it is not considered as an
option for the Coleman Operable Unit.
5.2.2
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) are defined as Federal, state or local laws,
regulations, clean-up standards, standards of control or
other environmental protection standards which address
specific problems at a contaminated site. There are
three types of ARARs: 1) Chemical Specific ARARs, which
set final concentrations of chemicals of concern in the
contaminated media (i.e., soils or ground water) which
the remedial action must achieve: 2) Location-specific
ARARs, which set limitations on allowable concentrations
of hazardous substances because of location-specific
considerations, such as critical habitats: and 3) Action-
Specific ARARs, which are technology based requirements,
limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous
wastes. Compliance with ARARs is not required for an
interim remedial action. The remedy set forth in this
Record of Decision .is the final remedial action with
respect to the soils at the Coleman operable Unit.
However, because the plume from the Coleman Operable Unit
is only a small portion of the ground water contamination
at the 29th & Mead Site, this remedy is an interim remedy
with respect to the ground water and is selected for the
purposes of plume containmerit and mass contaminant
removal. A final remedy for the ground water will be
selected for the entire 29th and Mead site at a later
date. The eventual clean up levels for the ground water
at the Coleman Operable Unit, as well as at the 29th &
Mead Site, will be MCLs and/or KALs. However, the
preferred alternative complies with all identified ARARs.
21
-------
Primary ARARs considered for the Coleman Opera~le Unit
include:
1) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as promulgated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act are the relevant and
appropriate standards for remediation of contaminated
groundwater (Chemical-Specific).
2) Effluent limitation guidelines as governed by the
Clean Water Act through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) are ARARs for any discharge
resulting from site remediation, such as pump and treat
(Chemical-Specific).
3) No specific ARARs exist for contaminated soils at the
Coleman Operable unit. However, performance criteria for
the expanded SVE system will be developed during remedial
design. Performance standards will be based on data from
the monitoring of the performance of the existing SVE
system. This will both allow for the development of the
criteria for the expanded SVE system and will determine
when operation of the existing SVE system may be
discontinued.
4) No specific ARARs, other than state reporting
requirements, currently exist for air emissions from the
existing SVE and ground water stripping towers or for the
additions to that system set forth in the preferred
alternative. However, the preferred alternative provides
for air monitoring to ensure the health and safety of on-
site workers.
5.2.3
LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
All alternatives, with the exception of the alternatives
which would permit contamination to escape from the
Coleman Operable unit property, would provide for long-
term effectiveness and permanence. The preferred
alternative (3B) would significantly reduce the volume
and mobility of VOCs in the soils through soil vapor
extraction, preventing further migration of VOC
contaminants into the groundwater. Enhanced groundwater
recovery assures hydraulic control, providing permanent
control of the migration of VOC contaminants.
5.2.4
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITv, OR VOLUME
All alternatives which provide _~r removal of
contaminants from soil and ground water reduce the volume
of contaminants at the Coleman Operable Unit. In
addition, these alternatives also reduce the mobility of
the contaminants by providing hydraulic control.
22
-------
The toxicity of the contaminants would be reduced only
through volumetric reductions in the levels of
contaminants present in the soil and ground water. Only
the alternatives which call for the removal of these
contaminants will provide a reduction in toxicity.
The preferred alternative provides for a reduction of
contaminants from the soil and ground water through
treatment and recovery (volume), controls the migration
of contaminants from the Coleman Operable Unit. property
by providing hydraulic controls which prevent
contaminated ground water from escaping from the property
(mobility), and provides for treatment of contaminated
groundwater and soil to acceptable levels determined by
EPA and KDHE (toxicity). Reduction of VOC contaminants
in the soil (volume and mobility) greatly increases the
overall effectiveness of cleanup and decreases time
needed for cleanup.
5.2.5
SHORT TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Alternatives 2A through 2D would be less effective in
addressing short term risks to the community and on-site
workers during construction and implementation of the
proposed remedial action, since very little additional
remediation activities would be undertaken under these
alternatives.
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, and 4C all involve
additional technologies to control and/or eliminate
sources. Therefore, the short term effectiveness of
these technologies would be somewhat greater than those
previously described.
This criterion also provides a subjective evaluation of
the estimated time to achieve cleanup. Generally,
alternatives 2A through 2D would accomplish cleanup
between 20 and 25 years, whereas alternatives 3A through
3C (including the preferred alternative) would accomplish
cleanup within between 10 and 20 years. Alternatives 4A.
through 4C would accomplish cleanup within a 10 year time
frame by using the most aggressive remedial alternatives.
5.2.6
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Few associated administrative difficulties which would
delay implementation are associated with any alternative.
Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3A, and 4A have as a common element
the continued utilization of the existing groundwater
recovery and treatment system; no problems are
anticipated with the continued operation of this system.
Alternatives 2C, 2D, 3C, 4B, 4C and the preferred
alternative 3B, require slight modifications to the
23
-------
existing systems; however, no problems are anticipated
with implementation since this technology has been used
extensively. Skilled workers needed to construct the
enhanced groundwater recovery and treatment system are
available in this area. All permits for such systems are
in place and regulated by KDHE. Plant personnel are
familiar with this type of system since one has been in
operation at the site for five years.
Alternatives which expand the soil vapor extraction
system (Alternatives 3A, the preferred alternative 3E,
and 3C) and/or add an aquifer sparging system
(Alternatives 4A, 4B, and 4C) may involve compliance with
substantive permitting requirements. Pilot studies for
both soil vapor extraction and aquifer sparging conducted
at the site demonstrated the implementability of each
technology. In addition, each of these alternatives may
pose technical difficulties due to locations of source
areas in relation to on-site buildings and operations.
5.2.7
COST
Attachment VI includes a summary of present worth costs
for each alternative evaluated in this Proposed Plan.
The range of total capital and operating costs was from
$2,042,339 for Alternative 3C to $623,310 for Alternative
1. The preferred alternative (3B) has an estimated total
cost of $1,638,456.
The range for estimated capital cost was from $638,600
for Alternative 4C to $0.00 for Alternatives 1, 2A, and
2B. The preferred alternative (3B), has an estimated
capital cost of $464,000.
The range of estimated annual operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs was $286,200 for Alternative 4C and $42,267
for Alternative 1. The preferred alternative (3B) has an
estimated annual O&M cost of between $78,000-$182,200.
5.2.8
STATE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE
Both the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency support the
preferred alternative.
5.2.9
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
EPA received comments from the Coleman Company, Inc. No
other comments were received during the public comment
period.
24
-------
6.0
SBLBC'l'BD RBKBDY
*
ALHlUJATZVB 3B:
Estimated capital Cost: $464,000
Estimated Annual operation and Maintenance Costs: $78,900-
182,200
Estimated Operating Life: 18 years
Estimated Present Worth of Capital, and Operating Costs:,
$1,638,456
The preferred alternative is a combination of the existing
system wi th an addi tional recovery well and expanded soil
vapor extraction (5VE) system. Under this alternative, the
existing groundwater and soil system, which consists of two
industrial wells, one recovery well, two air strippers and 'a
62 point soil vapor extraction system, will continue to
operate. . The soil vapor extraction system will be expanded by
the addition of 96 more soil vapor points for removal of VOCs
from unsaturated soils in all known on-site source areas. In
addition, a recovery well will be located along the southern
boundary to enhance hydraulic control.
The rationale for the selection of the preferred alternative
is premised upon the following:
* Extensive investigations at the Coleman Operable Unit have
identified eight (8) definitive sources of VOC contamination
with concentrations as high as 13,000 ug/kq. 50il vapor
extraction pilot studies conducted at the Coleman Operable
Unit have conclusively shown the effectiveness of 5VE on the
soil contamination in the area.
* The existing interim soil vapor extraction system is
documented as being effective in the removal of VOC
contaminants from on-site soils. . Estimates indicate 14.323
pounds of VOC contaminants have been removed from the north
field by a soil vapor extraction system in less than five
years.
* 50il vapor extraction technology will significantly reduce
the volume of contaminants in the soils at the Coleman
Operable Unit, therefore reducing the amount of VOCs reaching
the ground water.
* 50uth end enhancement using pump and treat technology will
assure that hydraulic control over the Coleman Operable Unit
is maintained, thus reducing the mobility of contaminants from
the site.
* The preferred al ternati ve meets the remedial response
objectives by preventing off-site migration and on-site
ingestion of contaminated groundwater. In addition, the
25
-------
preferred alternative will significantly decrease the volume
and mobility of contaminants at the site.
* The cost of Alternative 3B is not prohibitive when compared
with the costs of implementing other alternatives, considering
the rapid and dramatic reduction in soil and ground water
contaminants provided by the inclusion of one additional
ground water extraction well and the enhanced SVE system. In
addition, the preferred alternative prevents further ground
water contamination from VOCs in the soil as well as
preventing migration of contaminants from the site for a
relatively low increase in costs over other, less effective
remedies.
In summary, the preferred alternative, Alternative 3B, would
alleviate substantial future risks associated with ingestion
of contaminated ground water through removal of contaminants
from the soils and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
Alternative 3B will also decrease the volume of VOCs and
overall mobility of VOCs at the site. The preferred
alternative is protective of human health and the environment,
will maintain protection over time, and will minimize
untreated waste in the soil (NCP section 300.430 (a) (1) (i».
contaminated Soil
The selected remedy is the final remedy with respect to the
soil at the COU. Estimates indicate that this alternative will
remove VOCs from over 4,000,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil.
The soil vapor extraction system would consist of 96 soil vapor
extraction points that would be screened from approximately 5 to 20
feet below ground surface. Based upon the soil vapor extraction
pilot study, approximately eight blowers are needed to impleDlent
this alternative. Performance criteria for the expanded SVE system
will need to be developed during remedial design. Monitoring -
the performance of the existing SVE system will allow both for t.-~
development of the criteria for the expanded SVE system and will
determine when operation of the existing SVE system may be
discontinued. It is anticipated that treatment of gases vented
from the soil will not be required. However, air monitoring w~ ~
need to be included to ensure the health and safety of on-site
personnel and to ensure that vapors released from both the SVE
system and the air strippers do not pose a threat to human health
or the environment. If emissions exceed permissible levels,
further treatment of the vapors may be required prior to release.
contaminated Groundwater
The selected remedy represents an interim remedy with respec...
to the ground water at the COU. Because the plume of contaminated
ground water at the COU has merged with the contaminated ground
water from other sources in the 29th and Mead Site, the final
remedy for the 29th and Mead Site will include the ground water in
26
-------
the coo. In addition to expansion of the existing soil vapor
extraction system, an additional recovery well will be located
along the southern boundary to enhance hydraulic control. The new
recovery well will be installed in the same manner as the existing
recovery well and be operated at approximately 200 gpm. Water will
be pumped to an existing on-site air stripper. Treated water will
be monitored through an NPDES permit prior to .discharge. The
estimated operating life of this alternative is 18 years. The
enhanced pumping system at the southern boundary, in conjunction
with the existing pumping system, would continue to mitigate off-
si te migration of VOCs over the long term through hydraulic
control. In addition, the overall load of VOCs leaching into the
groundwater from active source areas would be greatly reduced by
soil vapor extraction.
7.0
statutory Determinations
Under its legal authorities, the Environmental Protection
Agency's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake
remedial actions that achieve protection of human health and the
environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several
other statutory requirements and preferences. These specify that
when complete, the selected remedial action for this site must
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental
laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy
also must be cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the
statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment
that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The
following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these
statutory requirements.
1.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment
through extraction and treatment of contaminated ground water and
soil vapor. The contaminants will be permanently removed from the
ground water and from the soil through volatilization.
The extraction of the contaminated ground water will eliminate
the threat of exposure due to the spread of contamination to the
rest of the 29th & Mead site area by checking the migration of the
plume at the property boundary. The soil vapor extraction will
greatly decrease the volume of the contamination in the unsaturated
zone of the subsurface soils that is contributing to the
contamination of the ground water. That will reduce the time needed
for the remediation of the ground water.
27
-------
2. Compliance
Requirements
with
Applicable
or
Relevant
and
Appropriate
The interim remedial action to be taken on the ground watE~
~ill comply with all identified ARARs and will be consistent with
the final remedy on the 29th & Mead site. The remedial acticn to be
taken on the soils will be considered final at the Coleman Operable
Uni t when the performance criteria to be developed during the
remedial design are met.
Action Specific ARARs:
The Clean Water Act requirements under 40 C.F.R. 122-125 for
point source direct discharge will be obtained under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) by which effluent
standards, monitoring requirements and standard conditions for
discharge are set. A NPDES permit has been granted to both
operating air stripper units on the COD site.
T~e Kansas Air Taxies Strategy requires only pl~riodic
reporting for air emissions from the ground water stripping towers
and the SVE system. A monitoring system for both the air stripping
towers and SVE system will be designed during the remedial design
phase ~ith levels established to ensure the health and sa!ety of
the on-site workers.
No permits are required for on-site activities but the
additional withdrawal well will have to comply with substantive
requin~ments of a permit as is required by the Kansas Stab~ Board
of Agriculture for withdrawal of water from an aquifer.
The planned remedial actions do not warrant any specific ARARs
under the Resource, Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA). If
monitoring of the emissions from the air stripping towers and/or
the SVE system determine that additional treatment is nec1~ssary,
then certain RCRA requirements may be applicable to the required
additional treatment process(s), such as disposal of carbon filters
or sludges.
Chemical Specific ARARs:
1he Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) for aquifers with Class I and Class II characteristics (i.e.
irreplaceable, current or potential drinking water sources) are as
follows: [levels are in micrograms per liter (ugjl)]
trichloroethene (TCE)
1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA)
cis 1,1 dichloroethene (1,2 DCE)
1,1 dichloroethene (1,1 DCE)
vinyl chloride
tetrachloroethene
5 ugjl
200 ug/l
70 ugjl
7 ugj I
2 ugj I
5 ug/l
28
-------
Location Specific ARARs:
There are no location specific ARARs that apply.
other criteria. Advisories or Guidance to be Considered for this
Remedial Action (TBCs):
For compounds without a MCL, proposed MCL or state ground
water standard, a risk based cleanup level corresponding to an
excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10(-6) will be calculated using
slope factors for carcinogens. In cases where these levels are
below a laboratory quantification limit the lowest attainable
detection limit will be used as the cleanup goal.
3.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective because it provides the
best balance among the evaluation criteria. It provides a higher
degree of overall protection than the less costly alternatives by
treating all known source areas and preventing the migration of
contaminated ground water from the area.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum.
Extent Practicable.
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner for the
site. Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and
the environment and comply with applicable standards, EPA has
determined that this selected remedy provides the best balance of
trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through
treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, while
also considering the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element and considering state and community input.
The best data available to EPA and KDHE shows that elevated
soil concentrations are contributing to ground water contamination
in several areas on the COU site.
5.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy uses technology for ground water treatment
and active soil vapor extraction for source control and thus
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment of the principal threat which permanently and
significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances as a principal element.
29
-------
ARARS .-
BRA -
ATTACHMENT I
Glossary of Terms
Appl icable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements -
Clean up standards, standards of control or other
environmental protection requirements.
Baseline Risk Assessment - Provide an evaluation of the
potential threat to human health and the environment in
the absence of remedial action.
AR File - Administrative Record File includes all pertinent
documents and site information which forms the basis and
rationale for selection of a remedial alternative.
CERCLA -
FS -
KAL-
KDHE -
MCL -
NPDES '-
NCP -
NPL -
OU -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980. The federal "Superfund" law.
Feasibility study. The study used to evaluate various
alternatives to clean up contamination.
Kansas Action Level is a concentration that could produce
chronic health effects after long term consumption of
water. If a contaminant is detected at or above the KAL
in a public water supply, the well must not be used for
drinking water purposes.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Maximum contaminant
contaminant allowed
regulations.
Level The maximum
in ground water by
amount of
applicable
National Pollutant Discharge
permit that sets standards
potentially contaminated water.
Elimination System
for the discharge
a
of
National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. The procedures used to address the
response powers and responsibilities created by the
federal Superfund law.
National Priorities List. A list of most contaminated
sites as determined pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA.
Operable unit - An action taken as part of an overall
si te clean-up. A number of operable units can be
incorporated in the overall plans for a site clean-up.
36
-------
PRP -
RI -
ROD -
SARA -
US EPA -
VOCs -
Potentially Responsible Party A party who is
potentially responsible for clean-up costs at a Superfund
Site.
Remedial Investigation - The report which identifies site
conditions, extent of contamination, and site risks.
Record of Decision - The official document by U.S. EPA
which selects the remedy to clean up a Superfund site.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
The federal law which amended and extended authorization
of the original Superfund law (CERCLA).
United States Environmental Protection Agency - The
support government agency for the Coleman Operable Unit.
Volatile Organic Compounds - generally man-made chemicals
that are found in many household, commercial, and
industrial products. They are used widely in industrial
processes, usually as solvents. VOCs in ground water are
a concern due to their potential health effects.
37
-------
ATTACHMENT II
?revl.ous
below:
investigations and remediation activities are described in chrcJnological or dEl
May - ~ugust 1987:
September 1987:
December 1987:
March 1988:
April 1988:
July 1989:
August 1989:
January 1990:
December 1989
through April 1990:
May 1990:
May - August 1991:
A series
installed
impacting
of temporary groundwater monitor:.ng po~nts
with the goal of ident.:.£ying source (s) of
groundwater.
were
VOCs
A limited soil vapor survey was conducted in ~he north field.
Four monitoring wells were installed to
conditions and to serve as monitoring
aquifer pumping test.
characterize aquifer
point;s for a future
A groundwater pumping test was conducted in RW-l to determine
aquifer parameters.
A soil ventilation feasibility test was conducted in the
northern portion of the North Plant property. The test was
conducted in areas that were previously ide~tified by soil
vapor surveys as being contaminated.
Soil sampling was conducted at selected locations.
A soil vapor extraction system test was conducted to determine
optimum vapor extraction point locations, air flow ratas, and
radii of influence.
A site investigation report was submitted te> KDFIE and EPA.
This report detailed the results of the ac-:.ivities listed
above. These included the installation of 27 monitoring \oIells;
monitoring well sampling and analysis for metals, VOCs,
pesticides, and semivolatile organics; soiL sampling and
analysis for VOC and metals; evaluation of the performance of
the existing groundwater and soil vapor remediation systems;
and an assessment of the presence of liquid separate-phase
organic compounds beneath the site.
Ten shallow monitoring wells were installed to characterize
the shallow groundwater system, and ten monitoring wells
couplets were installed to characterize on-site and off-sit
deep and shallow groundwater systems.
Samples from all monitoring wells were collected and analyzed
to document the effectiveness of the operational remediation
systems.
RI activities were conducted as outlined in the KDHE~a?proved
RI Work Plan for the COU. These activities con!3isted of a soil
boring/sampling program, soil ventilation test, aquife::- pUIT.?ing
test, aquifer sparging test, and sampling groundwater frc"!.
selected monitoring wells.
-------
ATTACHMENT III
Page 1 ol 3
Groundwater Sampling Results for
COLEMAN OPERABLE UNIT
July 1991
Concentrations ug/L
Sample
ID.
MW-1
MW-3
MW-6
MW-1 4
MW-1 5
MW-1 6
MW-1 7
MW-21
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-30
MW-33
MW-34
MW-35
KAL
1,1
DCE
23
-
-
89
170*
4.8
150J
73*
-
.
78*
-
79
130J
160*
7
1,1,1
.TCA
45
-
.
. 39
330*
18
210*
200*
-
•
210*
-
280
400*
280*
200
'•4:TCE:^;.
410*
8.7
•
220*
2000*
13
2200*
650*
17
•
1,300*
7.0
8100J
8100J
13,000*
5
:Cls1,2-
• DCE
63
.
•
61
•
-
360*
410*
•
•
87*
.
800*
920*
850*
70
1,1 DCA
2.1
.
-
5.7
4.7
-
10
38
-
.
15
*
4.5
-
15
5
MC
.
-
-
-
- '
-
3.5
2.2
-
•
.
4.0
4.5
' -
50
VC
.
-
-
-
-•
-
»
79
• -
-
-
-
-
•
45J
A
PERC
.
•
.-
-
-
*
2.2
1.3
-
-
1.8
•
5.6
9.6
.
7
trans
: 1.2 DCE
.
-
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
1.1
•
8.7
6.4
B.5
70
• '•: •.-.... 'I::'
". '^•••••:v:-;f
:: ;1.2 DCA;
.
-
-
1.1
-
•
1.2
- .
-
9.1
•
1.7
1.9
.
5
l^i-iiiz-
?>TCA;';
.
.
-
-
••
1.6
.
-
. -
-
2.8
3.9
*
6.1
.i-l^^^^-'Olher-'^;/.-:"^;^
Chloroform = 14
.
.
Benzene = 2.1
.
.
•
Toluene = 3.0
Ethyl Benzene « 9.9
M-P Xylene ° 5.6
0-Xylene = 7.9
.
"
. .
.
.
.
-
-
-------
ATTACIIMENT III (Continued)
Page 2 01 3
Sample 1,1 DCE 1,1.1 cis 1,2- trans 1.1,2
1.0. TCA TCE DCE 1,1 DCA MC VC PERC 1,2 DCE 1,2 DCA TCA Other
MW-36 290 340* 15,OOOJ 2,500* . 1.6 250 100 16 1.1 11 Benzene = 2.7
MW.37 - 3.6 3.4 - - - - - - - - MP Xy1ene = .72
MW-3B 1,100* 3,500* 150 150* 17 - 24 1.2 - 1.0 - -
MW-39 - - - - . - . - - - . -
MW-40 - - 96 2.3 - - - . . . . -
Benzene.. 1.3
Toluene a 12
Ethyt Benzene 0:; 45J
M.P Xy1ene ... 17
MW-42 84* "20* 850* 200* 34 . 79 1.3 - 1.2 - O-Xy1ene = 15
MW-45 150* 160* 2,000. 76 9.9 4.6 - - 3.3 3.8 - .
MW-47 - - 3.7 - - - - - - - - -
MW-4R 27 37 580* 74 1.8 - . - - - . vlllUloform 18
MW-51 . 2.9 - . - 3.8 . - - - - .
MW.52 - - 7.6 - - - . - - - - -
MW-59 4.2 19 . - . - - - - . - -
MW-60 - 2.5 - - - - - - -
MW-63 - - - - . - . - - - - -
KAL 7 200 5 70 5 20 2 7 70 5 6.1 -
-------
A'ITACflMENT III (Continued)
Pege 3 0' 3
'::.:/cib~;-:':it . . . 'i':i-::;~~:~~:!:~.!::. :::[~:'~l'~@~2:~~::~;: :1:\:'~~:1:~i:~.i:~1gWi~'! i!'i'~~'~~1'~~: J.'~lj!~~1.\~~~ . '. .... ~t:,I;1::~~~~~'1!'. ~~lij~~ij~I:~~I~; I,fJi~:~r'!~:~~~~~:i.~':; . .". .-" .
SamPI~:.:.:.: ..;j'1;:';:;~~~:';;f\"i:: i~~':~~!I;~~:~ -""':;-"':';'-'."'.;:
:.::::;:::.~;:'(.::~::::::::.
1:::::!.:i.D;'.'.: :~':6:iH~;'~::
MW-6 4 - 1 5 6. 6 - 2 .0 3 .4 - 1 . 1 - - - -
MW- 67 1 8 2 4 200 . 30 - - - - - - - -
.
MW.68 4 6 . 73 . 540J 4 6 5 .6 - - - - - - -
N Ind 578 1 1 O . 860 . 1 20 . 9 5 - 3 1 - - - - -
. .
S. Ind. 1 7 20 2 20 . 24 2 .6 - - - - - - -
RW- 1 74 . 330 . 5 1 O . 30 6. 2 - - 1 .2 - - - -
KAl 7 200 5 70 5 50 2 7 70 5 6. 1
. == From Dilution VC' ", Vinyl Chloride
J = Estimated Value PERC ... T etrachloroethene
1,1 DCE == 1 ,1 Dichloroethene trans 1,2 DCE III trans 1,2 Dichloroethane
1,1,2 TCA == 1,1,2 Trichloroetf1ane 1,2 DCA co 1 ,2 Dichloroethane
TCE == T richloroethene cis 1,2-DCE DO Cis 1,2-Dlchloroethene
RW == Recovery Well M-Xylene co Meta Xylene
N.lnd. == North Industrial Well P-Xylene co Para Xylene
S.lnd. "" South Industrial Well O-Xylene '" Ortho Xylene'
MC == Methylene Chloride ... Below Detectable limit
KAL ... ' Kansas Action Limit 1 , 1 , 1 TCA a 1 , 1 , 1- Trichloroethane
it Data taken from 8 report by Groundwater Technology, Inc. entitled. "Report of Remedial Investigation
. Activities Coleman Operable Unit" - Dated September 3, 1991; Revised April 13, 1992.
-------
A'ITAC
ENT IV
Parameter
Contaminants of Concern-Summary
VINYL CHLORIDE """"'.'
CHLOROETHANE .............
METHYLEHE CHLORIDE .......
1,1'DICHLOROETHYLENE .....
1;1-DICHLOROETHANE .......
TRANS.1 Z-OICHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROFORM ...............
1,Z'0ICHLOROETHANE "'.'"
1,1,T-TRICHLOROETHANE ....
CARSON TETRACHLORIDE "'.'
BROMOOICHLOROMETHANE .....
1,Z-DICHLOROPROPAHE ......
CIS-1,3'OICHLOROPROPENE ..
TRICHLOROETHYLENE ........
BENZENE, HEXADECONE ......
1,1,Z-TRICHLOROETHANE ....
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE ......
TOLUENE ."'.'.'."""'"
ETHYL9~~ZENE .............
TOTAL LENES ............
M/P-XY~~NE ""'."'.'.'"
O-XYLENE ""'.'.""'.'"
Notes:
Detection
Frequency ( 1 )
12/91
1191
10/91
63/91
53/9'
68/9
17/91
18/91
71/91
1/91
1/91
3/91
1/91
85/91
5/91
3/91
22/91
'/91
2/91
1/91
3/29
2/29
Ari ttlmet i c
Mean
ug/l
6.22
1.26
3.57
89.3
7.a2
118
2.9'
2.51
150
0.863
1.56
0.911
1.21
712
2.50
0.926
3.28
1.0'
1.1"
1.61
1.25
1.25
Ranr;e<3 )
Lc-.hign
0.70-79
9.3-9.3
1.2-'.6
0.30,1100
0.32-65
0.1,0.930
0.20"5
0.70,52
0.1,0.3500
2. . .2.0
~.o
.3.8
1.5.1.5
0.30- 13000
1.3.100
1.6'3.9
0.50-100
0.90,12
9.9"5
6.8-6.8
0.72'17
7.9,15
1989 and COM, 1990 except as noted In the text.
Data corpi led primari ly from ANL,
... Cannot be calculat~.
(1) Deteccion frequency a I/b
wnere:
Confidl~nce
I nterv" I (t.)
ug/l
--
9_60
1.7~
t,_9t.
12l.
10.5
163
'.59
I,.0t.
231
1. 15
2.17
1.21
1.66
110t.
'.80
1.23
5.68
1.'2
2.45
2.22
2.45
2.38
I : Number of times I compound was detected
b a Total number of samples tested
(Z) Adjusc~ detection frequency omits sample results that were qualified with the flag
described' U.S. EPA, 1989. RisK Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health E.
Offke of -gency Response and Rem--:Jial Response, Interim Final, lJasnington, D.C.,
Ol'\lys~ sul ts included in the adjusted detection frequency were used to deterrr.
standard ~ :ion, and cOl'\fidence ~rval results.
(3) Range 2 tt ~ge of detected value
(I,) The 9'; per upper confidence lie
. s calculat~ f'
... uR" as
Manua 1 ,
'1- 89 - 002 .
I'"anse.
standard error of the aritr~tic mean.
*
j
Table taken from a report by
"RisK Assessment for Coleman
November 12, 1991.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. e~tJ..~-
Operab:'" TTnit; Wichita, Kansas" - LJ'~:ed
-------
ATTACHMENT V
Maximum Concentrations, MCts, KAts
'.
(a) (b) (C)
CONTAMINANT *MCL *KAI. *MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
=---======== ---- ===== ======================
l;l,~ICHLOROETBANE 5 75
1, 1, 1, TRICHLOROETHANE 200 200 3500
TRICHLOROETHENE 5 5 21000
TETRACHLOROETHENE 5 7 43
TOLUENE 2000 2000 LESS THAN 80
1,1 DICHLOROETHENE 7 7 1300
TRANS 1, 2 ~ICHLOROETHENE 70 3100
*ALL UNITS ARE PARTS/BILLION
(a) Data taken from an EPA memorandum dated April 11, 1991.
Subject: Update to Numeric Action Levels for Contaminated
Drinking Water Sites
(b) Data taken from a Kansas ~epartment of Health and Environment
memorandum dated December 5, 1988.
Subject: Revised Groundwater Contaminant Cleanup Target
COncentrations For Aluminum and Selenium
(c) Data taken from a report by Groundwater Technology, Inc. entitled
Report of Remedial Investiqation Activities
Coleman Operable Unit Wichita, Kansas - Dated September 3, 1991
'.
-------
ATTACHMENT VI
Cost Summary of Alternatives
:
,....
",: "'",i>.c."::.':J",,, '. I,. ," "
. ,'n.:." , .. "" .,,: Present Worth Cost ,i
'!'.~F.~(~~~ri~ly.!:;::: c:~, 5 percent:.., ,', "'~':7pe~c:erlt" ': ".'.1----"'1 &p~rc~nt
'c.
I
-
1
1
45 819.468 623,310 447,551
21 954,612 802,953 637,332 '
23 929,486 772,164 603,260 I
20 1,133,539 972,334 791,976
22 1,168,652 983.131 782.030
19 1,594.611 1.450.513 1.284,500
18 1,801.630 1.638,456 1.449,229
-
11 2.193.647 2.042.339 1.854,917
10 1.871,343 1,746.227 , ,588.600
-
9 1,914.992 1.799.523 ',652,084
5 1.770.305 1,711,410 , .631 .885
2A
28
2C
20
3A
. 38
3C
4A
48
4C
. A 7% discount rate was used for base cost estimates.
Data. taken f:-.::;m:
F sibility St~~y Repol
i'I. .1i ta, Kansas
Sp~tember 25, 1991
R,'ised January 18, 1992
:oleman ~perable Unit
-------
FIGURE 1
COU Site Location Map
o
SCALE: I
1000 2000
I I
feet
SOURCE:Report of Remedial Investigation Activities
Coleman Operable Unit - Wichita, Kansas
September 3, 1991 (rev. November 22, 1991)
POOR QUAUTY
ORIGINAL
-------
FIGURE 2
COU Site Plan Map
LEGEND
..0
r--
Sc.uJI:
o
400
100
..
..
.
'31----
n%!'
..
...
o
....
.
.... .
..
.
. .
L-J
~
N
~
SOURCE:Report of Remedial Investigation Activities
Coleman Operable Unit - Wichita, Kansas
September 3, ~991 (rev. ~ovember 22, ~99~)
POOR QUAUTl
ORiG1N,~L
-------
Figure 3
Potential Source Areas
"VJ
o
OO
M—e»
tf«9r«**«r pi
- Recently d**etlvat«4
- Aetlv* i
- Iiuatlv* i
* Intctlv* d»9r*ft««r pit
- Inicllvt d<«t«»t pit
- tnaetlv* d«gr«aa*r pit
- Inactive d«9r««*«c pit
It - north rl«ld - Knami laurc* «r»
II - iouth rUld - rot»ntl«l >olv«nt burlil .r>
MIKMWM - tor or nrt H ctxto or MOHIM HOT MM
- unit
SC*LI
SOURCE: Map Generated from the Report entitled,
"Report of Remedial Investigation Activities
Coleman Operable Unit - Wichita, Kansas - Dated
September 3, 1991; Revised April 13, 1992.
-------
Figure 4
Monitoring Well Locations
SOURCE: Report of Remedial Investigation Activities
Coleman Operable Unit - Wichita, Kansas
September 3, 1991 (rev. November 22, 1991)
POOR QUALITY;
Ik • * *
-------
Figure 5
Groundwater Flow Direction Map for May 30, 1990
LEGEND
i
n
. - -- WIIJ.
wwc - -- WIIJ. CWSnI!
i: f , 11"''''
. . - ,
400
.~
o
400
nJ:r
S'1'1U:AM PATHS -.
-
-
\,
~
-
...
~
~
-N-
,
SOURCE:Report of Remedial Investigation Activities
Coleman" Operable Unit - Wichita, Kansas
September 3, 1991 (rev. November 22, 1991)
PCO::: Q~J:-\U1Y
-------
Figure 6
Deep TCE Isoconcentration Map
LEGEND
. -_waJ.
IIWC - -- waJ. CU/SIIII
. . 1'11011 WNIO SAllNIIC
e. F\lU.T I'tNrTUTDIC WtUS
- 0 -
C"
sc.uz
800
nc
.
~
,_-
...z
-0
1;-
I
I
1,-
I
a I
J
II -., I
II S?P .;r
II ~ I :.._~
I.g.:= ...... ~
1- ! I ~ I
0g - 0
g
...
III
o
('I
o
:I
...('1
:lD
:I
'Or-r
II"
.,11
r-rr-r
....
o
"'=
.
"n
o
==
...r-r
~o
~c::
...."
o.
=
...
o
"
~
n
fill
!
-,.-
~
SOURCE:Report of Remedial Investigation Activities
Coleman Operable Unit - wichita, Kansas
September 3, 1991 (rev. November 22, 1991)
:- '-"'" -,-:,
-: .. ; .
~ '-' -- "
"",,\.'" .", . . .
« ,.. . .~
~ 101 -" --,... - ,..
-------
Figure 7
Shallow TCE Isoconcen:ration Map
LEGEND
. - ~WOJ.
IIIIIC . IOOf!IIaMIC: WtU. a.IISIUI
. . FIIOII WMIO SA.WI'UHC
-
,......-
sc.uz
II
nrr
1"1
L....I
.
nzo
O~.
1i~.
~:;:o
...0.
..~~
,....z
0"'"
;:.0
~Si
~J:
0;;1
"'...
n..
~~
;~
'-
i:
~
i~ J:
_w ..
6011
-
g g;;
l ~ I~! i i
I I Ii 1 I
'/ /(-)1
/ - I
e t,/ I
I
/
/ ........ ...
/ ~
/ g
/ .-~
//0 :I~
I "CII'P
III"
I / ~~
..-
f / 1 g
II "g
111:1
I I ::~
I-'S;:
""'"
o .
:I
...
o
"
of
n
CIJ
e.
~-
n~
-0
::-
u.
::.
/
~II
~.I -:
-'"
i:;:
~
1;::;; I
~.!.i
SOURCE:Report of Remedial Inve~tigation Activities
Coleman Operable Unit ~ Wichita, Kansas
September 3, 1991 (rev.: November 22, 1991)
--
...
~~
~i
", ~-
-,
: ":' "'-
-------
.-1
)
)
)
)~
.-'
"
. -<
'. .~\
~.' ,.
.........
.......
;) 1*" J
!
I.
Figure 8
Simulation of the Preferred AI~ernative (3D)
."
.
.
\
\ \
-es-
i
(:.
i
l
~ . . "JE~E~D .
,..'~i'~~
~-~--.
.--_wna.'
IMC - _0IIIf0 iIm. CUIS1'DI
. e:=JD,~~t'na ~YI
.=rWl1na&&O:O.cfJPO/IT
...,... - "a"" 11VG..
- ftUM .,1t8
. 8f, .,.....
:~ f'W"I " soma r- ..
"f: IUVA1'8CII -
\
,.
..
,
0:""'11
I ''to,
. -\
.11 1
--=u ~
'400
100
FUr
to
0#
\ .
..
~
.
SOl! 1'1C1jJ bl.lltH ute\! from Figures 29 and 32 of the
Rep..rt entitled. "Fp.8sibility Study Report Coleman
Operable Unit i ~' , Kansa", ~Rted S~rtember 2S t 1991;
avised .f 1992.
------- |