United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-93/066
June 1993
f/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Hastings Groundwater
Contamination, NE
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R07-93/066
3. Recipient's Accession No.
Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Hastings Groundwater Contamination, NE
Eighth Remedial Action
5 Report Data
06/30/93
7. Authors)
a Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C)orGrant(G)No.
(Q
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-964301
16. Abstract (Umtt: 200 words)
The Hastings Ground Water Contamination site is an area of ground water contamination
located east of Hastings, Nebraska. An estimated 23,000 people draw their public water
supply from the High Plains Aquifer, which has been contaminated with industrial
chemicals. Contamination of the ground water was first detected in 1983, when the
State sampled the Hastings public' water supply system in response to citizen complaints
of foul taste and odor in the drinking water. Ongoing site investigations by the State
and EPA, starting in 1983, have identified several sources of ground water
contamination. The Hastings public water supply system is located onsite and consists
of two VOC-contaminated ground water plumes that encompass the Well #3 subsite. A 1989
ROD identified and addressed the source area for Plume 1, as OU13. Since it was only
detected recently, the source area for Plume 2 (OU18) has not been identified and the
extent of Plume 2 has not been accurately defined. This ROD addresses an interim
remedy for the Well #3 subsite. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs, including PCE and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes pumping contaminated ground water
from Plumes I and 2 to hydraulically contain the contamination; treating the extracted
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Hastings Groundwater Contamination, NE
Eighth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
COSAT1 Field/Group
Availability Statement
(See ANSI-Z39.1B)
1ft. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
84
See Instructions on Rmrt»
22. Price
OPTIONAL FORM 272(4-77)
(formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R07-93/066
Hastings Groundwater Contamination, NE
Eighth Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
ground water onsite with granular activated carbon to remove VOCs and achieve MCLs,
followed by reinjection, reuse, or onsite discharge; and monitoring ground water to
determine the effectiveness of the selected remedy. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $1,933,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $141,000 for
years 0-10 and $72,000 for years 11-12.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Ground water cleanup goals for the interim remedy are based on attaining risk levels equal
to or below the 10~4 level. Chemical-specific goals that will be met through management
of plume migration include PCE 150 ug/1 and TCE 290 ug/1.
-------
INTERIM ACTION RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION SITE
WELL #3 SUBSITE
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNITS
PLUME 1 OPERABLE UNIT #13
PLUME 2 OPERABLE UNIT #18
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
Kansas City, Kansas
June 30,1993
-------
INTERIM ACTION RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Well #3 Subsite, Ground Water Operable Units
Plume 1 - Operable Unit #13
Plume 2 - Operable Unit #18
Hastings Ground Water Contamination Site
Hastings, Nebraska
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial actions for the Well #3
ground water operable units. The Well #3 Subsite is a subsite of the Hastings Ground
Water Contamination Site. Hastings, Nebraska. These actions were chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
administrative record for this subsite.
The State of Nebraska concurs with the selected remedies as interim actions for this
subsite.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this subsite. if not addressed
by implementing the response actions selected in this interim action Record of Decision
(ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health,
welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED INTERIM REMEDIES
The interim action ROD addresses two separate areas of ground water contamination.
Plume 1 is characterized by carbon tetrachloride (CC14) and chloroform (CHC13)
contamination. Plume 2 is characterized primarily by trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and dichloroethene (DCE)
-------
contamination.1 These interim ground water remedies were developed to protect public
health, welfare and the environment by controlling the migration and reducing the
volume and mass of contaminants present in the ground water beneath and downgradient
from each source area of the Well #3 Subsite. Operable unit interim actions will be
consistent with all planned future remedial activities.
The major components of the selected interim remedies include:
Plume 1: EPA and the State of Nebraska will initiate extraction of ground
water by the pumping of welJ CW-1. From the information gained on CC14
concentrations and the aquifer response, the full scale ground water
extraction and treatment system will be designed. The system will be
designed to actively control migration of ground water contaminated with
CC14 and to rapidly remove contaminant mass from the aquifer.
Contaminant mass removal will be monitored by using existing or newly
installed monitoring wells, if needed. A schedule of sampling and analysis
of the ground water will be initiated to observe the effectiveness and
progress of the remediation system. Extracted contaminated ground water
will be treated to meet Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), as
established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-l, with
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) prior to reinjection or reuse.
Plume 2: EPA will request the Potentially Responsible Panics (PRPs) to
design a ground water extraction and treatment system. EPA will require
that the extraction system be designed to actively control migration of
ground water contaminated with TCE/TCA and other volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and to rapidly remove contaminant mass from the
aquifer. EPA will also require that monitoring wells be installed and
ground water sampling and analysis be conducted to observe the
effectiveness and progress of the remediation system. Extracted
contaminated ground water will be treated to meet MCLs with GAC prior
to reinjection or reuse.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
These interim actions are protective of public health, welfare and the environment. The
actions comply with action-specific and some chemical-specific federal and state
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and are cost-effective. Although
these interim actions are not intended to fully address the statutory mandate for
permanence and treatment to the maximum extent practicable, these interim actions
utilize treatment and thus are in furtherance of that statutory mandate. Because these
actions do not constitute a final remedy for the subsite, the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
1 Plume 1 was identified in the Proposed Plan for the Well #3 Subsite as the CC14
contamination plume and Plume 2 was identified as the TCE/TCA contamination plume.
-------
element, although partially addressed by these remedies, will be more fully addressed by
the final response action.
Because these interim remedies will result in hazardous substances remaining on site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted to ensure that these remedies
continue to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment within
five [5) years after commencement of the remedial action. Review of these interim
remedies will be ongoing as EPA continues to develop final remedial alternatives for the
Well #3 Subsite.
Date
m W. Rice
g Regional Administrator
Region VII
Attachments: Decision Summary
Responsiveness Summary - Attachment A
-------
Interim Record of Decision
Decision Summary
Contents
Section
I. Site Description 1
II. Site History 2
III. Enforcement History 4
IV. Community Relations 4
V. Scope and Role of Operable Unit 5
VI. Site Characteristics 6
VII. Summary of Site Risks 8
VIII. Description of Alternatives 12
IX. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 16
X. Selected Remedies 22
XI. Statutory Determinations 24
-------
Decision Summary
Contents
List of Tables:
1. Summaiy of In-Situ Ground Water Quality Data (1 page)
2. Summary of Ground Water Quality Target Compounds for Municipal and
Monitoring Wells at the Well #3 Subsite (8 pages)
3. Target Concentrations for Carcinogenic Chemicals Detected in Ground
Water At The Hastings Site (1 page)
4. Target Concentrations for Noncancer Risks for Chemicals Detected in
Ground Water at the Hastings Site (1 page)
5. Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative - Plume Management of the CC14
Plume to a 1X10"4 Risk Level with GAC Adsorption
6. Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative - Plume Management of the CC14
Plume to a 1X10"* Risk Level with Air Stripping
7. Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative - Plume Management of the TCE
Plume to a 1X10"4 Risk Level with GAC Adsorption
8. Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative - Plume Management of the TCE
Plume to a 1X1CT* Risk Level with Air Stripping
9. Chemical-Specific ARARs (3 pages)
10. Chemical-Specific ARARs for Selected Compounds Detected in Ground
Water
11. Action-Specific ARARs (5 pages)
12. State ARARs (2 pages)
13. Cost Estimate for Alternative - Plume Management of the CC14 Plume to a
1XKT* Risk Level with GAC Adsorption
14. Cost Estimate for Alternative - Plume Management of the TCE Plume to a
1X10"4 Risk Level with GAC Adsorption
-------
List of Figures:
1. Site Location Map, Hastings, Nebraska,
2. Hastings Ground Water Contamination Site
3. Well #3 Subsite - 1992 indicating CC14 source area boundary, municipal and
monitoring wells
4. Plume Contour Maps for CC14 and TCE at 10"* Risk level
5. Plume Contour Maps for CC14 and TCE at MCLs
6. Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options for Well Number 3
Ground Water
7. Summary of Assembled Remedial Action Alternatives for Well Number 3
Ground Water
8. Proposed Extraction Well Locations for CC14 Contamination Plume
9. Process Flow Diagram for the Alternative Treatment System (GAC) for
CC14 Contamination
10. Process Flow Diagram for the Alternative (Air Stripping) Treatment System
for the CC14 Contamination
11. Proposed Extraction Well Location for TCE/TCA Contamination Plume
12. Process Flow Diagram for the Alternative (GAC) Treatment System for
TCEyTCA Contamination
13. Process Flow Diagram for the Alternative (Air Stripping) Treatment System
for TCE/TCA Contamination
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
Well #3 SUBSITE
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION SITE
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNITS
PLUME 1, OPERABLE UNIT #13
PLUME 2, OPERABLE UNIT #18
I. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Hastings Ground Water Contamination Site is located in south central
Nebraska, within and east of the city of Hastings, Nebraska. The location of Hastings is
shown by Figure 1. Hastings has an estimated population of 23,000. This site consists of
several source areas which are referred to as "subsites" and depicted in Figure 2.
The Hastings Ground Water Contamination Site consists of an aquifer
contaminated with industrial chemicals, primarily chlorinated volatile organics.
Contamination was discovered in 1983 when the Nebraska Department of Health
(NDOH) sampled the Hastings public water supply system in response to citizen
complaints of foul taste and odor in the drinking water. That same year, NDOH and the
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (NDEC), now known as the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ), began investigating wide-spread ground
water contamination in the Hastings area. The City obtains all of its drinking water
supply from the public water supply system which taps the ground water aquifer, known
as the High Plains Aquifer deposited during the Pleistocene period. The ground water
contamination problems addressed by this interim Record of Decision (ROD) pertain to
this aquifer.
The Well #3 Subsite is located in the Central Industrial Area of Hastings between
B Street and Second Street in the north-south direction, and between Maple Avenue and
Denver Avenue in the east-west direction. The subsite includes commercial and
industrial properties situated along the Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) right-of-
way. The Well #3 Subsite is characterized by Plume 1, which extends eastward from a
former grain storage facility and Plume 2, which appears to extend eastward from an
industrial area between wells CW-4 and CW-9 as depicted in Figure 3.
The source area for Plume 1 is located on property that was formerly used as a
grain storage facility. The source area for Plume 2 has not currently been identified.
EPA published a ROD on September 26, 1989 which selected a remedy for CC14
contamination in the source area. The source area is currently undergoing remediation.
Hastings Public Water Supply wells are located within the subsite and
downgradient. Figure 3 shows the location of the City wells in relation to the subsite.
-------
II. SITE HISTORY
In 1983, the city of Hastings attempted to put municipal well M-18 into service, 40
years after installation. However, following startup, complaints by citizens of Hastings of
foul taste and odor prompted the City to remove the well from service permanently.
NDEC analyzed samples collected from Well M-18 in 1983 and 1984 and detected
elevated levels of compounds TCA, TCE, DCE and PCE. These compounds belong to a
general class of compounds referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs
are those chemicals that tend to evaporate when exposed to air. The NDEC also
detected elevated levels of these and other VOCs in three other municipal wells in
Hastings, including Well M-3, which was contaminated with CC14.
In 1984, the state of Nebraska installed five pairs of monitoring wells in the city of
Hastings to define the extent of the contamination. The EPA began to sample wells on a
quarterly basis in 1985. Due to the presence of VOCs, the city of Hastings
decommissioned several of its public water supply wells including Well M-3; the
Community Municipal System (CMS) operating east of Hastings decommissioned two
wells.
Through EPA's soil-gas investigations in 1986-1989, EPA found CC14 upgradient
from M-3 in the soils on property currently owned by W.G. Pauley Lumber Co., which
was previously owned by grain merchandisers. After further investigation, EPA
concluded that the most likely cause of the CC14 contamination on the Pauley property
and downgradient of it was a grain fumigant spill. EPA obtained information that during
the 1950s and 1960s, when there were large grain crop surpluses, extensive amounts of
grain were stored for long periods of time while waiting for market. Fumigants were
used on the grain in an effort to keep the grain in good condition. A primary ingredient
of the liquid grain fumigants that was used then was CC14. CHC13 is a breakdown
product of CC14. EPA, with the state of Nebraska, is remediating the CC14
contamination in the soils. EPA has no information that CC14 was ever generated at the
subsite. Therefore, no onsite burial of wastes is suspected.
Prior to 1990, EPA installed two ground water monitoring wells at the subsite,
MW-23 and CW-1, to assist EPA in defining the extent of Plume 1. In 1991, EPA added
six monitoring wells: CW-2, CW-3, CW-4, CW-5, CW-6 and CW-7. Locations of these
monitoring wells are shown on Figure 3. EPA also collected "in-situ" water samples
during the drilling of these wells.1 In addition, quarterly ground water samples have
been collected from completed subsite wells. The analytical results from monitoring well
CW-7 indicated that the subsite was contaminated with TCE, TCA, PCE and DCE. The
original intent of these sampling efforts was to characterize the CC14 and CHC13 plume
that began at the source control area and contaminated municipal well M-3. An
unexpected result was the discovery of high levels of TCE, TCA, PCE, and DCE in CW-
1 In-situ samples are one time only water samples; sampling results are presented in
Table 1.
-------
7. A separate subsequent investigation was undertaken to characterize this plume. In
1992, EPA installed three additional monitoring wells (CW-8, CW-9, and CW-10) to
determine the extent of the contaminant source for Plume 2.
From 1988 to the present, EPA has been collecting ground water samples at the
subsite. See Table 2 summaries of the analytical results of the sampling efforts. As more
fully set forth in the Remedial Investigation (RI) Report and the draft Feasibility Study
(FS) Report, two separate areas of VOC contamination within the aquifer have been
identified and are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows the estimated plume
boundaries based on a ground water contaminant concentration that is equal to a 1 in
10,000 (1X10"4) excess lifetime cancer risk.2 EPA has targeted contaminated ground
water exceeding the 1 in 10,000 risk level as an appropriate cleanup goal for interim
ground water actions in Hastings.
The contamination source for Plume 2 is presently unidentified but appears to be
emanating from an area north of the BNRR tracks and in the vicinity of monitoring wells
CW-4 and CW-9. EPA has issued Information Requests pursuant to its authority under
Section 104(e) of CERCLA to property owners and business operators in that general
location.3 Based on information provided by Dutton-Lainson Co. (Dutton-Lainson) that
it used and stored significant quantities of TCE and TCA at its plant site, which is
located directly north of CW-4 and CW-9, EPA has requested that Dutton-Lainson
undertake a focused site investigation to determine the amount of TCE/TCA
contamination present within the vadose zone at this location. The results of this focused
investigation will aid EPA in determining if additional remediation is needed for the
TCE/TCA contamination.
EPA has determined that two separate interim actions are needed to address the
contamination at the Well #3 Subsite where the contaminants exceed the 1 in 10,000 risk
level. EPA has estimated that in Plume 1 there are approximately 27 million gallons of
CC14 contaminated ground water containing 79 pounds of CC14. EPA has estimated that
in Plume 2 there are approximately 97 million gallons of TCE contaminated ground
water containing approximately 720 pounds of TCE. Subsite information used to
calculate the amount of contamination present in the plume is presented in the draft FS.
The ground water data indicate that the subsite's surface contamination has
migrated and may continue to migrate to the ground water beneath and downgradient of
the subsite. All data results are presented in the RI Report which was released on
2 1 X 10^ refers to a contaminant concentration that would cause one additional
cancer for every 10,000 individuals, assuming a lifetime of exposure at target
concentrations. Target concentrations of the contaminants are set forth in Table 3.
3 TCE and TCA were used as degreasing solvents by metal finishing industries, as
well as other industries. Presently TCA continues to be used for degreasing. PCE has
been used by several industries within Hastings. DCE is a breakdown product of PCE
and TCE.
-------
December 14, 1992. The draft FS, based on the RI Report, was released on January 15,
1993. A Proposed Plan explaining the preferred alternative to mitigate the
contamination at the subsite was released January 25, 1993 with a public comment period
held from January 25 to March 29. 1993 to receive comments from any interested party
on the Proposed Plan and other subsite documents. The EPA has prepared a
responsiveness summary which addresses the comments received (Attachment A).
III. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are those individuals or corporations liable
under CERCLA for the costs incurred by the EPA in responding to a release or threat of
release of a hazardous substance from a facility.4 EPA conducted a PRP search to
identify panics liable for Plume 1. EPA found that a grain merchandising business
known as Farmers Grain Storage operated at the subsite. EPA attributes the CC14
contamination to a spill of grain fumigant during its period of operation. Farmers Grain
Storage is a dissolved corporation. No PRPs have been named for Plume 1.
EPA is actively conducting a PRP search to identify panics liable for Plume 2.
EPA issued a notice letter to Dutton-Lainson Company on November 5, 1992, based on
information that Dutton-Lainson has used TCE or TCA since 1948 and has stored up to
400 gallons of TCE or TCA at its facility. On September 23, 1985, EPA named
Ingersoll-Rand as a PRP for the central industrial area which included the subsites within
the city of Hastings, based on information that Ingersoll-Rand used PCE. On February
26, 1993, EPA issued a notice letter to Ingersoll-Rand specifically for the TCA/PCE
contamination at the Well #3 Subsite. This notice, like the earlier one issued to
Ingersoll-Rand, was based on information that Ingersoll-Rand has used and stored
significant quantities of these solvents.
EPA is continuing to request information from other owners and operators of
businesses located near the Plume 2. EPA will continue to evaluate the potential liability
of parties and determine PRP status.
IV. COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Community relations activities for the Hastings Ground Water Contamination Site
were initiated by EPA in 1984. Early community relations activities included meeting
with City and state officials to discuss the Site (December 1984), conducting interviews
with local officials and interested residents (February 1985), establishing an information
repository (February 1985), and preparing a Community Relations Plan (October 1985).
Since December 1984, EPA has conducted periodic meetings with Hastings city officials
and concerned citizens to update them regarding site work and investigation findings.
4 The contaminants of concern, CC14, CHC13, TCE, TCA, PCE and DOE are
hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA.
-------
The Community Relations Plan was revised in January 1988 and again in January 1990 to
reflect new community concerns and site activities.
Information on the Well #3 Subsite, in the form of fact sheets, has been mailed to
public officials, Hastings' businesses, and numerous citizens. EPA held a public comment
period from January 25 to March 29, 1993 following the release of the Proposed Plan
(January 25, 1993). The Proposed Plan identified the preferred alternative to mitigate
the two separate ground water contamination plumes at the Well #3 Subsite. On
February 16, 1993, EPA held a public meeting to discuss the preferred alternative for the
subsite and to receive citizens' comments and questions. Agency responses to these
comments are included in the Responsiveness Summary attached to this Decision
Summary.
V. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
This interim action ROD addresses activities which will mitigate two separate
areas of contamination within the ground water operable unit in the vicinity of the Well
#3 Subsite and will reduce contaminant mass in the ground water from both plumes.
The purpose of the interim action for each ground water operable unit is to begin
aquifer restoration and collect additional information on the aquifer's response to
remediation.
This interim action ROD is consistent, to the extent practicable, with the NCP.
According to the NCP, the EPA regulation which establishes procedures for the selection
of response actions, an interim action is appropriate where a contamination problem will
become worse if left unaddressed and where the interim action will not be inconsistent
with a final remedial action. Consistent with the principles of the NCP, these interim
remedial actions are designed to promptly initiate an interim remedial action response
which should prevent further degradation of the aquifer and will rapidly reduce
contaminant mass.
In accordance with the NCP, the interim actions for the Well #3 Subsite will
complement and be consistent, to the extent possible, with a final remedy. The final
remedy may include ground water monitoring, ground water extraction and treatment
options, well head protection and treatment, and institutional controls. Any future
actions will be considered and selected based on the requirements of the NCP.
As interim actions, these selected remedies need not meet all federal and state
standards for clean-up of the aquifer, nor must they provide a permanent solution to the
contamination problems. Prompt remedial response is necessitated because water supply
wells in the proximity of the Well #3 Subsite that remain in use have been threatened,
and will continue to be threatened, by the contaminated ground water emanating from
the Well #3 Subsite, unless these actions are taken. If left unaddressed, significant
concentrations of contaminants in the ground water could impact other City supply wells,
thus limiting the supply of water available for public use. In addition, if left unaddressed,
-------
the plume will continue to increase in size and migrate, affecting areas not currently
contaminated.
The interim actions to be conducted at all of the subsites which are pan of the
Hastings Ground Water Contamination Site will have a common interim goal: to achieve
ground water containment, rapid reduction of contaminant mass in the ground water and
a reduction of excess cancer risk levels to one case in an exposed population of 10,000
over a 30-year period in a seventy year lifetime. In addition, EPA's interim goal at the
Well #3 Subsite is to rapidly reduce contaminant levels to their target concentrations
within approximately 10 years.5 EPA will ensure that any final remedial action will
minimize the potential for human exposure to ground water exceeding health-based
standards.
EPA has calculated the volume of ground water contaminated with CG4 above 31
micrograms per liter (ug/1) and the volume of ground water contaminated with TCE
above 290 ug/1.6 These calculations were made assuming an aquifer porosity of 24
percent. To calculate the CC14 contamination, the aquifer was estimated to be
approximately 125 feet deep; it was assumed that the CC14 contamination was present at
the source area in only the upper 9 feet of water. Based upon this information, EPA
calculated that approximately 26.6 million gallons of water is contaminated with CC14
above 31 ug/1. To calculate the TCE contamination, the levels of contaminants were
assumed to be present in a 50 foot thickness of the aquifer. Based upon this
information, EPA calculated that approximately 97.1 million gallons of water is
contaminated with TCE above 290 ug/1.
Steps have been taken to prevent human exposure to contaminated ground water.
However, unrestricted water use, though it is not known to be occurring, would pose an
immediate threat to human health. Analytical results from samples collected during
EPA's ongoing investigations are supplied to the City and the NDOH. If future sampling
indicates the chemicals have migrated to other public water supply wells, the NDOH,
which has been delegated authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42
U.S.C. § 300f et. seq.. can cause the public water supplier to provide water which meets
the requirements of the SDWA.
VI. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Ground Water Characteristics
The geologic profile in the Hastings area, from shallowest to deepest deposits of
interest, are Quaternary fluvial deposits and Cretaceous marine deposits. Pleistocene
5 The target concentration of a contaminant is the level of contamination that is
equivalent to a 1 in 10,000 cancer risk level.
6 31 ug/1 and 290 ug/1 represent the target concentrations for CC14 and TCE
respectively.
-------
deposits make up the majority of the regional unconsolidated deposits and contain the
aquifer that supplies the Hastings area. The upper geologic units of the Pleistocene
deposits, the Peoria, Loveland and Sappa Formations, are finely grained loesses and
sandy clays with some sandy lenses. The total thickness of the upper fine grained
Pleistocene materials is approximately 50 to 100 feet. The lower Pleistocene deposits
consist of fine to coarse sand and gravel with discontinuous layers of silts and clays.
These water-bearing deposits are approximately 100 feet thick. The Cretaceous Niobrara
Formation, a marine shale with frequent chalky zones, is considered to be bedrock in the
Hastings area. The contact between the Pleistocene and Cretaceous formations is a
weathered and eroded surface.
The Pleistocene age ground water aquifer is a prolific ground water resource
capable of sustaining substantial pump rates of 1000 to 2000 gallons per minute. The
regional potentiometric surface slopes toward the east-southeast with a gradient of
approximately 0.001 foot per foot (ft/ft) to 0.002 ft/ft. Although there are some
differences between the upper and lower portions of the aquifer, available information
indicates that it behaves as a single unconfined aquifer. The transmissivity of the aquifer
ranges from 90,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) to 225,000 gpd/ft. The hydraulic
conductivity of the aquifer ranges from 989 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/ft2) to
2184 gpd/ft2. The aquifer is recharged by infiltration of precipitation, seepage from
streams, and inflow from irrigation to the extent of approximately 1.6 inches per year.
The results of the RI have indicated there are sources of contamination in the
vadose zone and in the ground water within the Well #3 Subsite and downgradient from
both these source areas. The source area of the vadose zone CC14 contamination was
described in the September 26, 1989 ROD for this subsite. The source area for the
vadose zone contamination for Plume 2 has not yet been identified.
The ground water data gathered during the RI indicated that CC14, CHC13, TCE,
TCA, DCE and PCE have migrated vertically into the deeper vadose zone and have
entered the aquifer. The data further indicated that once these VOCs entered the
aquifer, they migrated downgradient primarily in the dominant direction of flow.7
Precise ground water plume characterization is made difficult by the fact that the
Pleistocene aquifer is highly transmissive and is heavily used. Seasonal stress on the
aquifer alters the hydraulic flow patterns in the region substantially; consequently,
contaminant concentrations vary seasonally. The present monitoring network is
insufficient to fully characterize the extent of the plume but is adequate to establish
primary contaminant plume features.
7 Although the ground water flow is in the east-southeast direction, the nature of the
soils and the thickness of the vadose zone at this particular subsite allow the
contaminants to travel in all directions as they migrate to the aquifer.
-------
Ground water data from all the monitoring and municipal wells depicted in Figure
3 were used to characterize and evaluate the contamination at the Well #3 Subsite.
Analyses of samples collected from the wells named CW-1 through CW-10
indicate elevated levels of CC14, CHC13, TCE, TCA, DCE and PCE in the ground water.
Table 2 is a summary of the ground water data collected from all subsite wells. Figure 4
is a depiction of the area of the two separate ground water contamination plumes.
Pursuant to the authority of the SDWA, EPA has established maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for CC14, CHC13, TCE, TCA, DCE and PCE. MCL refers to
the maximum contaminant level or maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water
which is delivered to any user of a public water system. MCLs are based on health risk,
treatment technology, cost and analytical methods and are used in developing ground
water cleanup levels. The MCL established for CC14, TCE and PCE is 5 parts per billion
(ppb or ug/1); the MCL for TCA is 200 ppb; the MCL for CHC13 is 100 ppb; and the
MCL for DCE is 7 ppb. Figure 5 shows the areas of contamination which exceed the
MCLs for both CC14 and TCE where Plumes 1 and 2 intermingle.
As indicated by the data presented in this ROD, the MCLs for CC14, CHC13, TCE,
TCA, DCE and PCE have been exceeded. All these compounds are VOCs which readily
volatilize because they have high vapor pressures. In addition, these vapors have a
tendency to move through soil pore spaces driven by diffusive and dispersive processes.
Further, gravitational forces tend to drive vapors and liquids in a downward vertical
direction until they meet ground water. VOCs may then become dissolved in ground
water or may be transported separately, if concentrations are great enough.
The continuous movement of CC14 is indicated by the data. For example, prior to
the decommissioning of public supply well M-3 in 1985, CC14 concentrations ranged from
27 to 46 ppb. Since M-3 was taken out of service and is no longer drawing CC14 from
the source area, the presence of CC14 has been noted in MW-23, a downgradient
monitoring well. Recent data from M-3 indicated that the CC14 contamination levels
have remained steady as the contamination moves through the aquifer.
The extent of Plume 2 is not well defined since its recent discovery at the subsite
in 1991. The field investigation conducted in 1992 focused on identifying the upgradient
source of the TCE found within CW-7. Sufficient data has been gathered to determine
that Plume 2 exists and requires remediation. Additional data regarding the extent of the
VOC contamination will be gathered during remediation.
VII. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
CERCLA requires EPA to seek permanent solutions to protect human health and
the environment from hazardous substances. These solutions provide for removal,
treatment, or containment of dangerous chemicals so that any remaining contamination
does not pose an unacceptable health risk to anyone who might come into contact with
them. The risks associated with the subsite were based upon the presence of CC14,
8
-------
CHC13, TCA, TCE, DCE and PCE that have been found in the ground water at the
subsite.
EPA has evaluated potential risks to human health posed by ground water
contamination if no remedial action were taken. The Baseline Risk Assessment, included
as Section 5 of the RI Report, is based on the results of the contamination studies and
evaluates potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. The results presented here
incorporate the 1992 RI Report, and prior studies conducted at the Well #3 Subsite and
other Hastings subsites contaminated with TCE and PCE.8
In preparing the Baseline Risk Assessment, EPA first determined the most likely
ways in which community members might come into contact with site-related chemicals.
EPA determined that residents living near the Well #3 Subsite might be exposed to
contaminants in ground water if they ingest ground water, use the ground water for
bathing, or inhale ground water vapors while cooking, showering, washing dishes, etc.
Pursuant to Section 300.430(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the NCP, EPA determines
whether or not Superfund remedial actions are required for a site based upon the human
health risk for a reasonable maximum exposed individual (RME). RME exposures
generally include not only current exposures given existing land uses, but also exposures
which might reasonably be predicted based upon expected or logical future land uses.
The RME for this site assumes certain exposures which may not currently exist.
EPA believes such exposures are reasonable and may occur unless preventive actions are
taken.
A. Carcinogenic Risks
EPA considers the cumulative carcinogenic risk at a Superfund site to be
unacceptable if an RME for the site results in an increase in cancer risk over background
risk of one-in-ten thousand (1XKT*). The term "cancer risk" sometimes is referred to as
"excess cancer risk" because it is the number of additional cases above the average
number of cases that are expected to occur in the general population if the chemicals are
not present.
For the Well #3 Subsite, EPA calculated the increased cancer risk of the RME
using exposure to drinking water from the following monitoring wells:
Plume 1 - monitoring well CW-1. EPA averaged the concentrations of the CC14
present (240 ug/1) and calculated the RME's cumulative carcinogenic risk. This
calculation indicated a carcinogenic risk of 3.7 X 10"4. This risk is sufficient to
warrant remedial actions for Plume 1; or
8 Risk studies conducted at other Hastings subsites are contained in the
Administrative Record which is available at the Hastings Public Library.
-------
Plume 2 - monitoring well CW-9. EPA used the following data for calculation:
TCE, concentration of 920 ug/1; PCE, concentration of 160 ug/1; and 1,1-DCE
concentration of 86 ug/1. The cumulative cancer risk for the RME at Plume 2 was
calculated to be 2.2 X 10"4. This risk is sufficient to warrant remedial actions for
Plume 2.
EPA believes that additional exposures to the water from Plume 1 or Plume 2,
related to showering, bathing and household uses of water, may create additional cancer
risk which has not been calculated because the oral risk alone was sufficient to warrant
remedial action.
B. Non-carcinogenic Risks
Exposure to chemicals can cause adverse health effects which include birth
defects, organ damage, central nervous system effects and many other non-carcinogenic
health impacts. Non-carcinogenic health effects are based upon contaminant
concentrations and are given a Hazard Index Rating (HI). Compounds with HI ratings
greater than or equal to one would pose an unacceptable health risk whereas those
having a rating of less than one would not pose an unacceptable health risk. Table 4 lists
the HI equal to one for each contaminant at this subsite.
For the Well #3 Subsite, EPA evaluated the increased non-carcinogenic risk of
ground water using exposure to drinking water from the following subsite wells:
Plume 1 - the HI is greater than one for Plume 1 where CC14 is greater than 14
ug/1. The following monitoring wells were found to be contaminated with CC14 at
a level greater than 14 ug/1: CW-1, and CW-2. Ground water from former
municipal supply well M-3 were also found to be greater than 14 ug/1. This risk is
sufficient to warrant remedial actions for Plume 1; or
Plume 2 - the HI is greater than one for Plume 2 at locations where contaminants
are present at concentrations greater than the following levels: PCE greater than
198 ug/1; TCE greater than 140 ug/1; and TCA greater than 2,516 ug/1. EPA
found the HI greater than 1 in the following monitoring wells: CW-7 and CW-9
for TCE. This risk is sufficient to warrant remedial actions for Plume 2.
EPA believes that additional exposures to the water from Plume 1 or Plume 2,
related to showering, bathing and household uses of water, may create additional non-
carcinogenic risks which have not been calculated.
C. Classification and Associated Risks of Contaminants found in Plume 1
and Plume 2
• CC14 is classified by EPA as B2, a probable human carcinogen. CC14 is
well absorbed by all dosage pathways: ingestion, inhalation and dermal.
Many other toxic chemicals interact with CC14 to increase the toxicity of
10
-------
these toxicants. CC14 has been found at the subsite above the target
concentration of 31 ug/1 which is the 10"4 cancer risk level.
Non-carcinogenic effects of CC14 include central nervous system depression
and gastrointestinal tract irritation. Repeated doses cause severe liver and
kidney lesions, including liver tumors in many species of animals. The HI
for CC14 equal to 1 is 14 ug/1; CC14 has been found at levels above 14 ug/1.
Therefore, EPA has determined the presence of CC14 at the subsite may
pose an unacceptable non-carcinogenic risk.
CHC13 is classified by EPA as B2, a probable human carcinogen. CHC13 is
well absorbed by all exposure pathways: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact. CHG3 has been found at the subsite in one sample above the
target concentration of 94 ug/1 which is the 10"* cancer risk level.
Non-carcinogenic effects of CHC13 include central nervous system
depression. Repeated doses produce liver and kidney damage in animals
based on animal tumor development. The HI for CHC13 equal to 1 is 190
ug/1; CHC13 has not been found at levels above 190 ug/1. Therefore. EPA
has determined that the presence of CHC13 at the subsite does not pose a
non-carcinogenic risk.
TCE is classified by EPA as B2, a probable human carcinogen. TCE has
been found at the subsite above the target concentration of 290 ug/1 which
is the 10"4 cancer risk level.
Non-carcinogenic effects of TCE include headaches, vertigo, visual
disturbance, tremors, nausea, vomiting, eye irritation, dermatitis, cardiac
arrhythmias, and paresthesia. Chronic exposure may irreversibly damage
the respiratory system, heart, liver, kidneys, and central nervous system.
The HI for TCE equal to 1 is 140 ug/1; TCE has been found at levels
above 140 ug/1. Therefore, EPA has determined that the presence of TCE
at the subsite may pose an unacceptable non-carcinogenic risk.
TCA is not classified by EPA as to human carcinogenicity due to the
insufficient amount of data available.
Non-carcinogenic effects of TCA include headaches, lassitude, central
nervous system depression, poor equilibrium, eye irritation, dermatitis, and
cardiac arrhythmias. Chronic exposure may cause irreversible damage to
the central nervous system, cardiovascular system and eyes. The HI for
TCA equal to 1 is 2,516 ug/1; TCA has not been found at levels above
2,516 ug/1. Therefore, EPA has determined that TCA does not pose a
non-carcinogenic risk.
11
-------
• The classification of PCE is under review by EPA. PCE has been found at
the subsite above the target concentration of 150 ug/1 which is the 10"*
cancer risk level.
Non-carcinogenic effects of PCE include irritation to the eyes, nose, and
throat; finger tremors; flushed face and neck; vertigo, dizziness; skin
erythema; liver damage; and mental confusion. Chronic exposure may lead
to irreversible damage of the liver, kidneys, eyes, upper respiratory system
and central nervous system. The HI for PCE equal to 1 is 198 ug/1; PCE
has not been found at levels above 198 ug/1. Therefore, EPA has
determined that PCE does not pose a non-carcinogenic risk.
• DCE is classified by EPA as C, a possible human carcinogen. DCE has
been found at the subsite above the target concentration of 5 ug/1 which is
the 10"* cancer risk level.
Non-carcinogenic effects of DCE include irritation to the skin and mucous
membranes, headaches, and liver and kidney damage. Chronic exposure
may lead to irreversible damage of the liver and kidneys. DCE is
considered an experimental mutagen. The HI for DCE equal to 1 is 161
ug/1; DCE has not been found at levels above 161 ug/1. Therefore, EPA
has determined that DCE does not pose an unacceptable non-carcinogenic
risk.
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
EPA has evaluated ground water remediation alternatives at several other
Hastings subsites. Alternatives evaluated at the Hastings East Industrial Park (HEIP)
and at the Colorado Avenue Subsite were used to develop and consider the alternatives
for the remediation of the ground water contamination at the Well #3 Subsite.
As presented in the draft FS, the retained remedial alternatives fall into three (3)
general categories.9 These are: No Action. Institutional Controls and Limited Action,
and Ground Water Containment and Treatment. Figure 6 lists the technologies and
process options evaluated for the Well #3 Subsite. Figure 7 lists the alternatives
evaluated for treatment of each contaminated area. Estimated costs for the alternatives
a
9 Two treatment alternatives not retained were treatment by air sparging and
ultraviolet (UV) photooxidation. The cost and physical problems associated with air
sparging and the need to expand or install new Soil Vapor Extraction facilities make this
technology less implementable and more costly than extraction and treatment. UV
photooxidation is a relatively new technology that combines a chemical oxidant such as
ozone and/or hydrogen peroxide with ultraviolet light to oxidize VOCs to carbon dioxide
and water. A pilot program would be needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
technology.
12
-------
are presented in the draft FS. These cost estimates were based on what the remedies
would cost today to build (Capital Cost) and what they would cost to operate and
maintain until the remedial actions are completed (Annual Operation and Maintenance).
EPA has combined the capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs to obtain a
single present worth value for purposes of comparing the various alternatives. Present
worth is the amount of money that, if invested today at the present interest rate, would
pay for the capital and operating and maintenance costs for the life of the project.
These alternatives are briefly described below.
A. No Action
Under the no action alternative, the subsite ground water contamination would
continue to expand into ground water presently free of contamination at the rate of
approximately 300 feet per year. The potential for significant ground water
contamination to reach City supply wells would exist. This could result in the curtailment
of available drinking water as additional wells would have to be shut down. The
potential for community exposure to contaminant levels exceeding health standards still
would exist. EPA policy requires consideration of a no action alternative to serve as a
basis against which the other remedial alternatives can be compared.
The cost for this alternative is zero; implementation time is zero.
Chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs),
discussed in Section DC. A.2. below, would not be met. Action-specific and location-
specific ARARs do not apply to this No Action alternative at the Well #3 Subsite.
B. Institutional Controls and Limited Action
Institutional controls are actions which lower the risk of exposure to contamination
through physical and/or legal means. Institutional controls would include deed
restrictions to limit future development and domestic use of the ground water. Limited
action includes ground water monitoring within the boundaries of the subsite.10 Also
included as part of a limited action is the installation of a public drinking water supply
well outside the plume of contamination to replace decommissioned well M-3. This
alternative does not attempt to clean up the contaminated ground water or restrict the
flow of the contaminated ground water.
The estimated present worth for this action is $812,000 which includes $120,000
for the installation of a new public supply well and $45,000 annual costs for ground water
monitoring for a period of 30 years.
10 Ground water monitoring, for purposes of this ROD, refers to the collecting and
analyzing ground water samples to determine the effectiveness of the selected remedy
and to determine whether the quality of the ground water poses a threat to human
health and the environment.
13
-------
Chemical-specific ARARs would not be met. Action-specific ARARs would be
attained using this Institutional Control alternative at the Well #3 Subsite.
C. Action - Ground Water Containment and Treatment
1. Plume Management of Plume 1 to a 1X10"4 Risk Level
This plume management alternative involves pumping contaminated ground water
at a rate sufficient to hydraulically contain the contaminated ground water with extraction
wells, treating the water and reinjecting the water back into the aquifer (or beneficial
use). Two treatment processes were retained for comparison, GAC adsorption and air
stripping without air emission control. EPA's preliminary analyses indicated that
pumping for 12 years at a flow rate of 25 gallons per minute would be sufficient to reach
the target concentration for CC14 of 31 ug/1.11 The final pumping rates would be
determined as part of the Remedial Design. A higher pumping rate than considered for
cost analysis would remove contaminants in a lesser amount of time, but could be more
costly. See Figure 8 for conceptual extraction well locations.
The pumping rate selected would contain the contaminated ground water at
health based target levels, identified in this ROD. A water monitoring program would be
established to determine the effectiveness of the extraction and treatment system and to
chan the progress made in achieving our remediation goals. In addition, all extracted
water would be treated to a level meeting MCLs prior to reinjection, reuse or discharge.
Action-specific ARARs for the interim action, such as level of treatment for
ground water to meet MCLs, would be achieved. Location-specific ARARs are not
applicable. Chemical-specific ARARs (MCLs) would be met for treated ground water.
This interim action would only provide for the cleanup of the ground water to the 10"4
risk level, not to MCLs.
a. GAC System
The GAC system would consist of a piping manifold and minimal instrumentation.
The system would be enclosed in a building for weather protection and security.
Contaminated water from extraction wells would be pumped to a surge tank and from
there, pumped through the GAC system. Two modular GAC adsorbers would be used
and would be arranged in series so that breakthrough, that is passage of the
contaminants from the first adsorber to the second adsorber, would be prevented. Until
breakthrough occurs, GAC would remove nearly 100% of the VOCs. The piping
11 Our current information indicates that the target concentration of CHC13 (94 ug/1)
is at a higher level than that of CC14 (31 ug/1); therefore, when the target level for CC14 is
attained, CHC13 contamination would be remediated to a protective level (at less than
the 1XW4 level).
14
-------
manifold would allow either of the two adsorbers to be the first in series. Treated water
would flow to one or more reinjection wells (or other beneficial use) via underground
piping. See Figure 9 for a process flow diagram of this system.
b. Air Stripping System
The air stripping system would consist of piping, minimal instrumentation, and
possibly a chemical feed system to prevent scale formation. The system would be
enclosed in a building for weather protection and security. Contaminated ground water
would flow to the top of a packed column stripper. The removal efficiency of such a
stripper is estimated to be 99.8%. A blower would be used to force air through the
tower, counter current to the flow of water. Treated water would collect in a sump at
the base of the stripper and from there, pumped to one or more reinjection wells, or
would be committed to beneficial use via underground piping. The air stripper would
extend out of the top of the building because of its height. Contaminants removed from
the water in the air stripper would be released to the atmosphere. NDEQ requires a
permit for air toxic emissions above 74 pounds per day.12 The air stripping system
would emit air toxics at a rate of 0.03 pounds per day, based upon an extraction of 20
gpm and the average VOCs concentration of 132 ug/1. See Figure 10 for a process flow
diagram of this system.
A pump test would be conducted at the subsite using the monitoring well CW-1 to
determine the appropriate extraction rate of ground water for Plume 1 containment and
mass removal system.
2. Plume Management of Plume 2 to a 1X10"4 Risk Level
This plume management alternative involves pumping contaminated ground water
with one extraction well at a rate sufficient to hydraulically contain the contaminated
ground water. Two treatment processes were retained for comparison, GAC adsorption
and air stripping without air emission control. EPA's preliminary analyses indicate that
pumping Plume 2 for 10 years at a flow rate of 40 gallons per minute would be sufficient
to reach the target concentration for TCE of 290 ug/1.13 The final pumping rates would
be determined as part of the Remedial Design. A higher rate than considered for cost
analysis would remove contaminants in a lesser amount of time, but could be more costly.
See Figure 11 for a conceptual extraction well location.
The pumping rate selected would contain the contaminated ground water at
12 As set forth in Section 121 of CERCLA, no permit is required when a remedial
action is performed under CERCLA
13 The target concentration of TCA is at a higher level than that of TCE, therefore
when the target level for TCE is attained, TCA contamination will be remediated to a
protective level (a HI less than 1 or 2,516 ug/1). PCE has a target level of 150 ug/1.
DCE has a target level of 5 ug/1.
15
-------
health based target levels, identified in this ROD. A water monitoring program would be
established to determine the effectiveness of the extraction and treatment system and to
chart the progress made in achieving our remediation goals. In addition, all extracted
water would be treated to a level meeting MCLs prior to reinjection, reuse or discharge.
Action-specific ARARs for the interim action, such as level of treatment for
ground water to meet MCLs, would be achieved. Location-specific ARARs are not
applicable. Chemical-specific ARARs (MCLs) would be met for treated ground water.
This interim action would only provide for the cleanup of the ground water to the 10"4
risk level, not to MCLs.
a. GAC System
The GAC system for Plume 2 would be very similar in design to the system
designed for Plume 1. Refer to paragraph C. l.a. in this section for a description of the
GAC system to be implemented and see Figure 12 for a process flow diagram of this
system.
b. Air Stripping System
The air stripping system for Plume 2 would be similar to the system designed for
Plume 1. Refer to paragraph C. l.b. in this Section for a description of the air stripping
system to be implemented and see Figure 13 for a process flow diagram of this system.
The air stripping system for Plume 2 would emit air toxics at a rate of 0.2 pounds per
day, based upon the an extraction of 40 gpm and the average VOCs concentration 484
ug/1.
DC. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The NCP sets forth nine evaluation criteria which serve as a basis for comparing
the remedial alternatives for final actions. Interim actions, such as those proposed here,
may not achieve final cleanup levels for the ground water although they are effective in
the short term in preventing further degradation of the ground water and initiating
reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume. Nine evaluation criteria were developed by
EPA to serve as a basis for comparing the remedial alternatives for final actions. Interim
actions, such as those proposed, will fulfill some, but not all of the nine criteria.
The nine criteria are divided into three categories: Threshold Criteria, Primary
Balancing Criteria, and Modifying Criteria. If any remedial alternatives identified during
the Feasibility Study do not meet the Threshold Criteria (Criteria 1 and 2), EPA will not
consider them as possible final remedies. If the alternatives satisfy the Threshold
Criteria, they then are evaluated against the next five criteria, called the Primary
Balancing Criteria. These criteria are used to compare the remedial alternatives against
each other in terms of effectiveness, degree of difficulty involved, and cost. The final two
criteria, state acceptance and community acceptance, are called Modifying Criteria. The
16
-------
alternatives are compared against the Modifying Criteria after the state and the
community have reviewed and commented on the Proposed Plan and the other
alternatives considered by EPA.
Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 present the remedial alternatives and describe how each
alternative satisfies the threshold and primary balancing criteria. Evaluation of
compliance with the remaining Modifying criteria is included in the following discussion.
The following is a discussion of the nine criteria used by EPA for remedy selection.
A. Threshold Criteria:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
EPA assesses the degree to which the alternatives would eliminate, reduce,
or control threats to public health and the environment through removal,
containment, and/or institutional controls. An alternative is normally
considered to be protective of human health if the excess cancer risk is
reduced to less than 1 in 1,000,000 (10"6) and risks do not pose non-
carcinogenic health risks (HI <1).14
Two alternatives presented for plume management and ground water
treatment provide overall protection of human health and the environment.
In contrast, the No Action would not be protective as it would not prevent
further degradation of the ground water or reduce risks associated with
exposure to contaminated ground water. Institutional Controls would
provide marginal protection of human health and the environment by
preventing exposure, controlling ground water use, and monitoring.
However, Institutional Controls would not prevent further degradation of
the ground water or reduce risks by removing contaminants from the
ground water. Therefore, the No Action and Institutional Controls
alternatives will not be discussed further in this ROD. Instead, the
comparative analysis for discussion will focus on the other protective
alternatives for plume management.
These are interim actions and would not restore the plumes at the subsite
to drinking water standards. However, these interim actions would prevent
the further degradation of the aquifer as high concentrations of the
contaminants would be contained. As a result of these interim actions, the
public water supply wells in Hastings would not become contaminated by
the Well #3 Subsite plumes.
GAC would be more protective than air stripping as a treatment process
14 The Hazardous Index rating, as discussed in Section VII. B., herein, does not
exceed 1.
17
-------
since no air emissions would be generated with GAG Air stripping would
allow the contaminants to be transferred from the ground water into the
atmosphere.
2. Compliance with all Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate State
and Federal Environmental Regulations
EPA assesses whether the remedial alternatives being evaluated would
comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations, called
ARARs, established by the state and federal government. As these are
interim actions, full compliance with ARARs might be delayed until
implementation of the final action. The ground water interim action would
address plume control at a 10"4 risk-based level. To achieve that level, the
ground water extraction system would be required to pump contaminated
ground water at a rate which would stop the contaminant migration by
hydraulic plume control and also provide rapid mass removal. The ground
water interim action would provide for treatment of the extracted ground
water to MCLs prior to release, reinjection or reuse.
There are three (3) types of ARARs to be addressed: chemical-specific,
action-specific, and location-specific.15
• Chemical-specific ARARs are requirements that set final
concentrations of chemicals of concern in the contaminated material
(e.g., ground water) which must be achieved by the remedial action.
Chemical-specific ARARs for this subsite are listed in Table 9.
These interim actions would not attain chemical-specific ARARs set
forth in the Nebraska Administrative Rules and Regulations (Neb.
Adm. Rules and Regs.), Title 118 - Ground Water Quality Standards
and Use Classification, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
42 U.S.C. § 300 et. seq. However, all extracted ground water, prior
to discharge, would meet the requirements of Title 118 and the
SDWA as the extracted water would be treated to a level that would
achieve MCLs. If the treated ground water is discharged into
surface water, the requirements of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §
1251 et. seq. and the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act would
have to be met. In summary, this interim action is required to meet
the ARARs set forth in Table 10 for the extracted ground water.
• Action-specific ARARs are those requirements that set standards on
the treatment and discharge components of the remedial action.
15 The state of Nebraska has identified the state ARARs, listed in Table 12, for the
remedial action alternatives.
18
-------
Action-specific ARARs for this subsite are listed in Table 11.
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-678
and SDWA apply to the GAC alternative and the air stripping
alternative. Specifically, all remediation would be performed by
workers acting in compliance with OSHA regulations. Additionally,
if the treated ground water is provided as a beneficial use to the
public drinking water supply, with the State's permission, the MCLs
would have to be met, in compliance with SDWA. Also, treated
ground water would have to comply with SDWA prior to reinjection.
The GAC adsorption alternative would meet action-specific ARARs
in that hazardous waste generated through the GAC adsorption
would be disposed in compliance with RCRA and the Neb. Adm.
Rules and Regs., Title 128 - Rules and Regulations Governing
Hazardous Waste Management in Nebraska. The use of air
stripping with no emission controls would also meet action-specific
ARARs even though this alternative would result in the discharge of
very low levels of VOCs into the atmosphere. The limitation on
discharge of VOCs without a permit, set by Neb. Adm. Rules and
Regs., Title 129 - Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations,
would not be exceeded. Air emissions would comply with the Clean
Air Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et. seq.. as well as Title 129 - Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations.
• Location-specific ARARs are requirements that might apply to a
remedial action due to the site's unique cultural, archaeological,
historical, or physical setting (e.g., wetlands). There are no location-
specific ARARs for the Well #3 Subsite because there are no such
features in the subsite area.
B. Primary Balancing Criteria:
1. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The alternatives are evaluated based on their ability to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment after the remedial action
is completed. This criterion also focuses on the magnitude of health and
environmental risks remaining after the remedial action is completed.
Because this ROD selects interim action remedies, EPA will evaluate the
long term effect and permanence by comparing the residuals which remain
after achievement of the target concentrations. Extraction of contaminated
ground water would reduce contaminant mass and prevent the further
migration of contaminants in significant concentrations. These interim
actions will not achieve final cleanup levels for the ground water at the
subsite, although they are effective in the short-term in preventing further
degradation of the ground water and initiating reduction in toxicity,
19
-------
mobility or volume. Also, as mandated by Section 121(c) of CERCLA,
EPA will conduct 5-year reviews at the subsite as long as hazardous
substances remain above health based criteria.
2. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
This criterion focuses on the amount and types of hazardous substances
that will be destroyed or treated, whether the results of the remedial action
are reversible, and whether the alternative includes a treatment process.
Remedial actions which include treatment are favored by the NCP. EPA
evaluates each alternative based on how its treatment methods reduce the
harmful nature of the contaminants, limit the ability of the contaminants to
migrate, and minimise the amount of contamination remaining after the
remedial action is completed.
Both of the plume management alternatives would employ treatment to
reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the contaminated ground water
plume. GAC treatment removes the contaminants from the ground water
and regeneration of the GAC for reuse will ultimately result in the
destruction of the contaminants. Air stripping removes the contaminants
from the ground water and releases them into the atmosphere. Though
any release to the atmosphere would be in compliance with state and
federal standards.
3. Short-Term Effectiveness
The length of time needed to implement each segment of the alternatives
is considered. Both alternatives would meet the short-term effectiveness
criteria as each could be implemented within 6 to 8 months. EPA
considers the risks that conducting a particular activity may pose to site
workers, nearby residents, or the local environment.
A Health and Safety Plan will be prepared for the implementation of the
response actions which will be conducted. This plan will provide the
procedures for all site workers to follow during the field testing, installation
of the extraction wells and all associated equipment needed for the ground
water treatment system. Health and safety issues will be addressed at each
phase of these interim response actions.
Implementation of either GAC or Air Stripping would present a minimal
risk to workers, the community and the environment. The potential
worker exposure during construction and operations would be minimized
by following a site Health and Safety Plan addressing issues such as air
monitoring and personnel protective equipment. The release of
contaminants to the atmosphere is expected to be minimal during
construction. Contaminated soils or fluids would be properly handled and
20
-------
disposed.
4. Implementability
EPA considers how difficult the alternative is to construct and operate,
how other government agencies and EPA will coordinate monitoring
programs and the availability of goods and services and personnel needed
to implement and manage the alternative.
Ground water extraction and treatment is a well established technology for
ground water containment and contaminant mass removal. In addition, it
would be easily implemented at Well #3 Subsite. It has been implemented
at numerous Superfund sites and has proven effective in removing
significant levels of contaminants.
Both GAC and Air Stripping are conventional, well established
technologies, and therefore should be simple to implement. There are no
expected technical or administrative difficulties in implementing either
alternative.
5. Cost
EPA considers capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and Present
Worth, which is the cost of the activities that will take place until the
remedial action is completed. Capital costs apply to activities such as
construction, land and site development, and disposal of waste materials.
Annual operation and maintenance costs are spent on activities such as on-
going operation of equipment, insurance and periodic site reviews.
a. Plume 1
GAC Air Stripping
Capital $ 469,000 $ 492,000
Annual O&M $ 72,000 $ 62,000
Present Worth $ 1,104,000 $ 1,042,000
Capital costs include $135,000 for design and treatability study costs.
b. Plume 2
GAC Air Stripping
Capital $ 294,000 $ 323,000
Annual O&M $ 69,000 $ 58,000
Present Worth $ 829,000 $ 768,000
Capital costs include $95,000 for the cost of design.
21
-------
C. Modifying Criteria:
1. State Acceptance
The state concurs with the selected remedies as interim remedial actions
for these operable units.
2. Community Acceptance
EPA held a public comment period to allow the community to comment
on the preferred alternative as set forth in the Proposed Plan and the
other alternatives considered. No one commented that EPA's preferred
alternative was inadequate to protect public health and the environment.
However, many community members questioned the benefits and cost of
remediation efforts at the Well #3 Subsite. EPA's responses to these
comments are included in the Responsiveness Summary section of this
document.
X. SELECTED REMEDY FOR EACH PLUME
EPA selects the following interim actions to address the ground water operable
units at the Well #3 Subsite.
A. PLUME 1
• Extraction of contaminated ground water, (extraction rate, number and
location of wells to be based on subsite pump test);
• Treatment of contaminated ground water with liquid phase GAC; and
• Ground water monitoring to determine effectiveness of the selected interim
action remedy.
B. PLUME 2
• Extraction of contaminated ground water, (extraction rate and well location
to be based on information contained within the draft FS and other Well
#3 Subsite documents);
• Treatment of contaminated ground water with liquid phase GAC; and
• Ground water monitoring to determine effectiveness of the selected interim
action remedy.
22
-------
C. BASES FOR EPA's SELECTION
EPA has identified these interim actions as its selected alternatives because they
provide the best balance among other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria
based on the information available. Each of these actions, explained below, shows a
preference for treatment. EPA believes that these interim actions are protective,
implementable, and effective in reducing the toxicity, mobility and volume of
contamination present at the subsite. EPA selects GAC treatment of ground water over
air stripping treatment without air emission controls because GAC treatment does not
result in the release of contaminants to the atmosphere. In addition, air stripping with
air emission controls would be more costly than EPA's selected remedy.
In order to implement the selected remedies, ground water extraction wells will be
installed at locations within the 1Q~* plume area to be determined as pan of the remedial
design. The ground water will then be pumped to the surface at a rate that will prevent
further migration of contaminants and rapidly reduce the contaminant mass in the
aquifer. The treated ground water will either be reinjected, reused, or released to
promote conservation of ground water. The ground water will be treated with liquid
phase GAC prior to release. GAC does not create air emissions.
EPA's selected interim response actions for both plumes would contain and
remove contaminant mass from the ground water plumes. Significant levels of CC14 and
TCE contamination at the Well #3 Subsite are within the bounds of the municipal water
supply system. The interim response actions would rapidly reduce contaminant
concentrations and would be consistent with the expected final remedy. These interim
response actions would achieve long-term effectiveness as contaminated ground water
would be pumped via extraction wells, whose locations would be determined as part of
the design of the system. The pumped ground water would be treated with GAC and
then reinjected into the aquifer or reused. The extraction of contaminated ground water
would generally remove contaminant mass and contain each contaminant plume within
the areas as shown on Figure 4. These interim actions would be monitored to
determine their effectiveness in producing a hydraulic control of the contaminated plume.
EPA's interim response actions would meet the criteria for long-term effectiveness and
permanence. All extracted ground water would be treated to drinking water quality prior
to reinjection or reuse or to the appropriate level to assure that all action specific
ARARs would be met.
GAC treatment has several distinct advantages over air stripping without emission
controls: there are no air emissions associated with the process; it is effective in
removing a wide range of VOCs and other organics; and it is also effective over a wide
range of influent concentrations. All of these factors reduce the risk of human exposure
during operation. Additionally, GAC is a relatively low maintenance process compared
to UV photooxidation and air sparging. The system requires frequent monitoring, but
little in the way of maintenance. Monitoring and carbon change outs would become less
frequent with time as experience is gained in the operation and maintenance of the
system and influent concentrations decrease.
23
-------
Operationally, the GAC treatment plaint would consist of an influent tank to
provide surge capacity and equalization of flow into the carbon columns. Contaminant
removal should be nearly 100 percent. Series operation, that is, the water flowing
through the two carbon beds in sequence, gives GAC the additional advantage over the
other processes of having a reserve treatment capacity at all times. By monitoring the
effluent from the first carbon bed in the series, contaminant breakthrough would be
detected well before the contaminants enter the second carbon bed in the series.
Carbon consumption is directly proportional to the amount of contamination
removed from the ground water. This process is sensitive to influent contaminant
concentrations. Costs can increase if the actual contaminant loading rate is higher than
estimated. EPA believes that the advantages of GAC outweigh any risk of a higher than
anticipated cost
EPA prefers ground water reinjection as the preferred method of water discharge
because of its ability to return treated ground water to the aquifer. Reinjection was
considered preferable to surface water discharge because the latter would not result in
beneficial use of the pumped ground water. Reinjection and other beneficial use of the
treated ground water (industrial, irrigation, etc.) will be evaluated during the design.
EPA estimates that the interim action for remediation of Plume 1 will cost
$1,104,000 in capital and operation and maintenance cost for the 12-year period that is
described in the draft FS.
EPA estimates that the interim action for remediation of Plume 2 will cost
$829,000 in capital and operation and maintenance cost for the 10-year period that is
described in the draft FS.
These costs are explained in Tables 13 and 14. Based upon the cost of the
alternatives and the degree of protectiveness that one alternative affords as compared to
the other alternative, EPA has selected the most cost effective alternatives which meet
interim remedial action guidelines.
XI STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected interim action remedies will achieve substantial reduction in risks by
initiating the reduction of the toxicity, mobility and volume of ground water contaminants,
by containment and removal of ground water contamination to the target concentration
associated with a KF* cancer risk level, and by reducing environmental risks associated
with the contaminated ground water.
The selected interim action remedies meet those ARARs appropriate to this
action, based on the following federal and state standards identified in Tables 9, 10, 11
and 12 herein.
24
-------
The selected interim action remedies will protect human health and the
environment because the interim actions will reduce contaminant concentrations in the
aquifer to a level that poses significantly reduced risk. This level will be at or below a
10^ cancer risk level, or a risk of less than one cancer case in 10,000 due to exposure to
contamination. This will provide a significant level of protectiveness to human health. In
addition to risk reduction, the interim actions will stop the ground water contaminant
migration at the target level and prevent further degradation of the ground water within
the area of containment through rapid mass removal and hydraulic plume control. These
interim actions represent the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with regard to
implementability, effectiveness and cost
Because these interim action remedies will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted to ensure that the
remedies continue to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment
within five (5) years after commencement of the interim actions. Review of this subsite
and of these interim remedies will be ongoing as EPA continues to develop site-wide
final remedies.
25
-------
WELL #3 SUBSITE
TABLES, FIGURES AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS
-------
Summary of In-SUn (Ground Wilcr Quulliy |)ul«
DO
1991 DATA
Pmmcltj (pg/p
BiomodJoronicdiue
ChitniTclndiluilde
Olarobnn
1,1-Dkfclonxlbcac
U OldJococlUne
Elhjrleac Dihomlik
TctncUotoelbcoc
Toluene
I.I.I -•
TtltiloneiBeae
Xylena(tciil)
PmmcUi (m/0
Be tux DC
CkibMTclndiloflde
aionfara
l.t-DUJofoclbcn:
Bkirtme Dtoomldc
TctndJoioelbcne
U.I -T
TtkUaralbcao
Vinyl ChknUe
Simple IdcolinalkM
Simple Location:
Simple Dcptb (Peel):
Simple UenttflallM
Simple London:
Simple Depta (Pttl),
CSISKKQ
CW-J
129
NA
NA
14
NA
OIU
NA
NA
0051)
03
NA
NA
OOIII
NA
Nl ITS TOM
C9A
118:130
SOU
63
35
SOU
NA
SOU
SOU
301)
14U
CSMS200I
CW-1
129
NA
NA
OIU
NA
OIU
NA
NA
00511
006U
NA
NA
OOIU
NA
Ninszoai
CIO
128:139
SOU
100
41
S.OU
NA
SOU
SOU
SOU
14U
csMsiand)
CW-J
1«
NA
NA
171
NA
33
NA
NA
0051)
I |
NA
NA
01
NA
N1I7S1II1
Cll
121
i
700
120
SOU
NA
sou
6
)
141)
CSNS200I
CW-4
!*>
NA
NA
2j
NA
04
11
NA
00511
| 4
NA
31
III
NA
NII7SJI20
Cll
128:120.
SOU
60
16
SOU
NA
12
11
3JO
Ml)
CSNSUIIII
CW-4
!<«
NA
NA
NA
ill
NA
II 0511
n i
n t
NA
03
56
NA
NliVSUKII
CWl
\i\rn
5011
g
jj
5011
NA
5011
SOU
sou
1411
C.SOS2JIIII
cw s
m
NA
NA
28
NA
0 4
NA
NA
IIIISII
0 1
NA
NA
OOIII
NA
NTO2IIIJ
CWl
!«•!»/
501)
J C
*J
IB
1 O
MIII
NA
501)
5 mi
sou
1411
csnszun
CW-5
is?
NA
NA
IS
NA
2 5
NA
NA
00511
03
NA
NA
IIOIII
NA
NK7S2HI4
CWl
!»•»!
5011
IS
11
5011
NA
SOU
SOU
SOU
1411
C-SOS200J
CW-S
!?S
tJA
NA
0 IOU
NA
Illll
N.\
NA
0051)
00611
NA
NA
oolu
NA
NIHS203S
CWl
!«!}}
5011
s
12
5 III!
NA
SOU
SOU
SOU
1411
C3PS2IIII
CW-6
m
NA
NA
31
0311
II >
N*
Illll
(ll Illll
NA
06
NA
OOIII
NA
NI!/S2
-------
Summary of Ground Water Quality Targu! Compounds, paq« t ol (I
m
ro
(Well M-3
Tind PinBrtffi fitfl )
Qilorafcrm
Oiboa Tefcicfclorid*
Clhjfcoo DlbraiDld*
TtlracfeloroeUieae
1.1,1-THcMarottfiino
ItlcMoroelhew
Well M-3 (continued)
Tinrt r»riil"H'n /••'M
Qilorufono
CiitoaTefriclilofld*
Eftijto* tHbramld*
Tcl/idilorotthcne
IVkMonclheae
Well M-3 (continued)
Timi fluBuiriffi (ttfl •)
Qilurofono
Often Tetracblorld*
EthflcBO DtbnnoMo
TctnclikifotllieM
1llcMniMl)ie«
I Sample ID ft NIXJIl
Dale Sampled: 4/18/83
Smpte Deplbi 122JS6
NA
J7.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample ID ft NI7S200I
Pule Sampled: 6/9/88
San|4e Drplh: IZMBU
SOU
14
NA
5011
SOU
SOU
Simple ID ft NI7S2007
Dole Sanpled: AVI 3/89
9am|-"
-------
Soinmarj of Croud W»Ur Qnalllj Target Compound*. p»g« I of I
jWclj M-g
S»fl» ID ft
Efcft-
|WtllM-9
T«iw» fmarttrp (MflJ
I.U1
IVfcUMMlMM
NIIM:
VJMJ
LHIM
077
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AKCS2009
VMS
uo.ua
1.0 U
IOU
NA
LOU
IOU
IOU
AKISAItt
iMih
IOU
IOU
NA
LOU
IOU
IOU
ousiiif
4/iiw
ustisa
sou
sou
HA
s.ou
sou
sou
CKoam
UUM
sou
sou
HA
IOU
IOU
SOU
I0S20M
intm
H4UO
IOU
IOU
aoiu
1.0 U
IOU
IOU
IKISJIIM
LMllft
lull
IOU
HA
LOU
IOU
IOU
NWTSKMi
1/11*9
W.IM
SOU
sou
HA
.sou
sou
sou
UK IN/I'M
V/l/M
IMlBti
Ul II
OIU
NA
UIU
aiu
OIU
IISXSJIH
MJ*»
imaO
son
sou
NA
sou
sou
sou
"V'/MT"
IHWO
lull
IOU
HA
LOU
IOU
IOU
nan am
9/1 IW
Ittlffl
ion
IOU
HA
1.0 II
IOU
ion
IV'S/IIII
9/111*1
LMI«0
1 u II
IOU
HA
ion
IOU
IOU
(ii™.,»
MS/90
1111 IM
Hill
ion
HA
ion
ion
ion
"OU
ion
IOU
(J,VS«,H
»nrMi
140 l*ti
Kill
IUII
UliJMI
SOU
ion
sun
9/HWI
Ul l"t
lull
inn
N\
ton
Sun
suu
(s, >,„«,;
VI §»1
nom
1 III!
IOU
HA
IOU
IOU
lull
IISXVMHI
tnva
Ull»6
lull
sou
NA
1011
sou
sou
OiK5/illl
4/1 (W 2
HO 150
1 nil
IOU
HA
IOU
1 Oil
IOU
MM.'.AIM (.V.bMlli (^vKSAill
Ul 111 Ul Ita Ul l"6
mil till) inn
ion sou ion
NA U 117 Ml NA
IOU )OII IOU
IOU SOU IOU
IOU SOU IOU
CiMSAIII
mm
l«i»
IIIK
101
N.\
Ittt.
lot
101
111 1 •/ •
Ul IH
1 ilk
IIIK
M\
10k
IflK
IOK
ro |WtllM-ll
NDW: N» AKCSWII OKSUII IKISBI1S UKI&IH" IIW1IK
I/XM) IOOS/M 4/9/IS t/IIM W9/B6 »/l/M !!*««
IILJU uun lUJn iiuu uum ULUJ iu:isj
ill
111 I
ro
fii/14
Oufa»T*«*iloiU<
nMUonwteM
015
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.41
IOU
NA
NA
LOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
IOU
HA
LOU
IOU
IOU
SOU
iOU
NA
sou
IOU
sou
IOU
IOU
HA
1.0 II
IOU
IOU
OIU
aiu
NA
am
aiu
LIU
01 U
OIU
MA
inn
OIU
aiu
a in
OIU
OIU
OIU
0111
I.I
1 III!
IOU
NA
1011
IOU
IOU
Wdl M-l Haitian «1)
If rart f»i*"«i»*« ru/u
IJ9S10M
Ml/17
HUM
IOU
1.0 U
HA
1.0 U
tou
LOU
1695200)
yaw
nun
LOU
IOU
HA
1.0 II
IOU
201
NUTS MO
J/1LWI
uun
sou
sou
NA
S.OU
SOU
sou
KSXSMM
Mim
U10U
sou
sou
NA
sou
sou
sou
Msistoa
MM9
uuu
IOU
LOU
HA
IOU
IOU
101
CSlSfflll
3ASM
HUM
ion
IOU
NA
IOU
IOU
s
aasjnt
MMI
1111?)
)u u
sou
nia/ii
sou
sou
son
(SRUlFII
9/1 inj
HI 01
IOK
lot
NA
10k
IOK
]
NPEC /Urijtb CM«ibM< kj »• Nefcrmb 0
-------
SummU7 of Croaad WtlcrQaalljTiittlCaaipouDdt, p«gc ) ott
(Well M-20
Olurafc
l.l.l-THcfclorocttio,
THttknahiM
|WclllN-IOA
aiaralont
CD
m l.l.l-WAIorocrt.o.
CM
{Well CVV-1
rmtmatlam lo«/lj
CUofotcrai
CMcaTttncUorfifa
W«llCW-l(conUniitd)
KuepblDt:
HS9SMM7
SW/M
nun
sou
sou
IOU
sou
sou
sot
oiusxns
ivtvu
HI
IOU
1.0 U
NA
1.0 U
IOU
IOU
NB7S2UIO
vain
122JJ4.
U
in
001
sou
sou
sou
csiisjuw
1/J3/9I
UiOH
NmiOOl
«OT/If
inua
sou
sou
OOBU
sou
sou
sou
DKJSW24
1 I/IMS
bB
401
1.0 U
NA
1.0 II
IOU
201
NU7S20I2
yoim
12U2S
1§
no
COM
50U
SOU
SOU
CSSS100I
IOW/91
121131
Nnsioii
tnvu
mxn
iOtl
sou
aoiu
sou
sou
sou
FKJS202J
MVM
(A
41
1.0 U
NA
1.0 II
IOU
0*M
IOXS20I.
)iui ink
SOU IOK
01)7/11 NA
SOU IOK
SOU IOH
5011 IOK
IJ3IH HM»
21 17 1
Ml 111)
NA NA
1)11 5011
Hit SOU
mi sou
(SMiJIKU
9/1 S/W
122:124
CMISHMJ tSDSJIIH
9/17/90 I2/M/90
UO U4 US Ui
671 »
1701 1)0
NA NA
SOU SOU
SOU SOU
SOU SOU
Cklanrfim
7J
DO
NA
JOU
S.OU
J.OU
JOU
43
oozTu
IOU
sou
IOU
IOU
no
NA
IOU
IOU
IOU
6
74
NA
1
IOU
IOU
4
110
NA
)
IOU
IOU
7
lid
NA
4
IOK
IOK
U: UBlkuif-cilM toMfcM ML
I)
I:
M:
NIL' Dill Ml
Kl Autflt «a< lu
-------
Sumuuty of Ground Wilcr Qiullly Target Cumpouoili, page 4 11(8
|WcUCW-l
!*•!* Dtftte
CUantan,
Ortn Tea (chloride
ErtfkK DUnmUt
TtsncUmtAat
l.l.l-THcfelamltuiic
IHdilomtba*
CSSS2002
KW/91
1JU11
sou
17
0(0711
SOU
SOU
sou
jVVcll CW-3
IO *:
Olarahra
TclncWuodbcat
l.l.l-IHdikioabt
Wttlorortkoi.
{Wcjl CVV-3R
vnm
Olonftni
&A«Taridilori
-------
Sum..* o, Ground Waler QMillly 7nrfle, Compound8
CD
r\>
|Wcll CW-S
Imd ftremdtaliu/U
Staple ID ft
Dilt Stapled:
CSSS20QS
10/V9t
CS6S200J
12/12/91
3/ 17/72
136: It]
Oilofufona
OftwaTeOuhloilde
eOij/kae Olbramld*
TelricMnioeihene
l.l.l-IYfchlonxUuae
1>kbloioc(heno
|WellCW-6
Tine* Fknmrfr.! fmfi,)
Olorufouo
CkitonTeliichloiJde
BAjflefiaDanonlde-
Tctradiliiioclliene
l.M-IVIchloiDclhiao
IVkhbioclhcoc
Well CW-7
Ilnti hnmrf.r, fojfl,)
Qilurofoim
CkiboaTcbichloildo
Blhjrlene Dlbmrnlde
Tttidibroclhcoe
l.l.l-TtfchlOTDCtfallK
IVkhkNOctteM
50U
19
0107 U
5011
50U
5011
(Sample ||) «; CVVQIIVWI
Ililc Suuplrd: IQfWl
SwiiiileDrplb: ^fljgfl
you
10 U
OIB7U
I Oil
sou
sou
Dalr Snnpln): 10/4/91
S.mpl« Drplb: UfiJTJ
5011
| SOU
0 (07 U
n
TOO
II) U
27
NA
1011
mo
mil
CSASJIItt
12/1 l/vl
Jfiu lau
I.OII
10 U
NA
ion
IOU
10 II
tSAS2()07
12/14/91
1JH17J
IUII
3
NA
2J
68
*V^n
740
2
27
NA
1011
1 0 If
1 nil
<-M^UM
]/!7/
-------
Summary Of Ground Water Quality largat Compounds, poge 8 of B
I Well CW-8
Omit amuftei:
Bui|4c Dtplk:
CSKSaoil
9/17/VZ
O> loro form
CMwa TcfctcMoiMe
GtbylcM Dfcromlde
Tc«richlui«thtD«
I.U-TVfcJibroeUunc
IMcliloroelbene
I OK
I OK
NA
1.0 K
2
150
|Wcll CW-9
D«t* Sen pled:
Pmrmmtinm fug/I.I
CSRS20I9
9/17/92
132:112
CMorofoim
DO
BttyleiM DRnaoUe
TcttKhloroelheot
I.M-IVfchbiDcthtDt
|WellCW-10
SuDpklOt:
Pit* Snapled:
Sample Dcplb:
• rainrtm fut/L>
Oilorofotm
CkftKn Tcbtchluf Me
TctracMufucihm*
I.M-IVfchlDtocUuao
IVklikuoclhia*
I
NA
160
170
no
CSRS20I7
9/l«92
HUM
I OK
1
NA
1.0 K
IOK
II)
Notau
NA:
-------
Somnurr of Crowd W.Ur QO.UI, T.r^i Compound.,,
OO
|Well MW-23
1*r*f rtranrtrn fnv/L)
Otorofom
CMwaTefticliloiM.
Ethflee. DlbromhJ*
Tetrachlurocihen*
1.1.1-TOchlc.ocA.o.
ItlcMoroelhena
Well MW-23 (continued)
Tind Pknntl.fi fVBf| )
CblotDfani
CkitoaTrtnchloilde
Ethyloi. Dftmnld*
Tctruhloioclheitf
M.I-IHchloroeAia*
Itldiloioelheae
Well MW-23 (condnned)
TM*rf Fhrunritnfa^i,)
Cblomtum
CMwn Tcfcichloilda
Blhylai* DihromM.
TdnchbrocliicnD
I.M-lfeMaroctfi.ao
DkhloioctheiM
Well MW-23 (continued)
Iintf fmrmmcUnla*tl\
Oiloreflbm
Chiton Tefridiloilda
Btylcai Mbroaldi
TctndilonwAeot
1.1.1-IMcMo.octuu
THcWofoeAeo.
_J Sunpl. ID ft NA7S2ID!
IMt Suaplal: 12/8/88
aw|4«Drp.ki UMfg
SOU
30M
IOU
SOU
SOU
6
Siaplt ID f: CS2S203 1
tMtluaplcd: 12/12/89
SuniJ.Drptb: J3i;|(jj|
SOU
20 J
010 U
SOU
sou
s.ou
SuBplclDf: CSIIS2002
IMcSunpled: 3/21/91
8uD|9
'I/IVH9
in !»o
51)11
1011
MA
5011
s o u
2 0 J
(MI.S2IIZ2
12/11/90
1 Uil I Iff
IKl 111
51)11
SOU
NA
5011
SOU
f|l||
3 II 11
css.vuia
10/2/91
1AO-16S
5 III!
SOU
n 112/u
sou
sou
19
(SO, Jill}
3/24/92
2m.?ru
• IU .AlS
1 Oil
IOU
MA
nA
I.OU
lOU
I.OU
MSIS2H68
•VIJ/N9
!»V«B
5 nil
sou
NA
5 Oil
SOU
SOU
CSDS2II2J
12/11/90
12UI2J
3 II II
SOU
NA
5.011
SOU
SOU
CSSS2III8
10^91
!8J.-!SU
5011
sou
IIII2/ U
SOU
SOU
SOU
M.SIS2llft7 (S2S2III2
9/M/H9 I2/IM9
;!52»
5 II II
401
IIA
5011
SOU
sou
-------
Summary of Ground Water Qua U If Tirgd ('iiiiipnunil], |
8 of 8
Well MW 23 (coDtinoeil) ,..„„
o..,.,-, isr "ET "sr ™r -sr -•" — —•
I««U«UM»«U — -* «=» «'« .»:.» MS S S S """
Oilorolbrm
Qrt)ooT«ti
Etfijleoe OD
Telraclititoedicne .-.. "" "" NA HA ..
M.i.-nich^o,.,,. •• «" 1.0 ii ,„,, /0MK »* »* NA
i»"«««*«- °" 20U '»« '"ii °K "^ lnlt '-»K
100 «" IOU ,„„ !"? '"K "'* IOK
LJilarolbrm
Qrtx»T««.«hb,ld. ', 20U IOU ,„,, ,
BATl«»OlbcDBU. * l6 '0« IOU 2 , "IK 'UK
Telraclit.tc»il»n. NA NA NA ... 2 2
'OK I (IK
"'K IOK
3> Nolec U:Leailh«oip(clfleddcUclloDUinll
°^ NA,- Finatter DM lulrud
^ fc Auljrtt not drtartcdilvihie reported.
ro
-------
F°R CARCINOGENIC CHEMICALS
GROUND WATEH AT THE HASTINGS SITE
.-.e~:ci;
Weiqnt or
Evidence o)
Slooe Factor cna/ng-aav)-! CSource) C)
3rai
Target Csncentraticm for
Cancer RISK Hange t
«.s assunea that the irtialation toxicity criterion is
TABLE 3
-------
'
GROUND WATER AT THE HASTINGS SITE (a)
Acetone
5ramoaienicrometnane
Ziroon retracmortee
I.1-, lororcra
' ,; -Oicncrcetnane
i . '. -Dicnioreetnene
°i. 3-Dicruoroecneoe c::au
•tfivt 3enzene
"etnvienr CMoriee
Styrene
Tetracntoroetnene
oluene
'.,i,1-Tricntoroetnane
Trichloroetnene
Xylenea (total)
(a) Sourct of
< CO
—— — — — _
3.20
3.78
0.79
3.84
3.92
3.95
3.94
3.90
0.93
0.83
0.77
0.94
0.84
0.23
0.90
-"
on: IRIS • w»,
inhalation
Sf f*
<~u
(ng/ni)
MA
MA
NA
MA
3. SO HEAST
MA
NA
1.00 IRIS
3.00 HEAST
NA
NA
2.00 HEAST
1-00 HEAST
NA
0.30 HEAST
..•natation
?fO
(ffl9/kg~aav)
3.10 Cb)
3.020 Cb)
3.00070 Cb)
3.010 <£)
3.20 HEAST
3.0090 (b)
3.010 Cb)
0.29 (d)
0.86 (d)
0.20 (b)
0.010 (b)
0.57 (d)
0.30 HEAST
0.0074 (b}
0.086 (d)
••
3rai
?fO
' •'"S/kg.Qav)
0.10 IRIS
0.020 IRIS
0.00070 IRIS
3.010 IRIS
3.10 HEAST
3.0090 IRIS
3.010 HEAST {«<
0.10 IRIS
0.060 IRIS
0.20 IRIS
0.010 IRIS
0.20 IRIS
0.090 IRIS
0.0074 HA
2.0 IRIS
— — • — — ^ — _
"arget Concentration
3asea on Hazard Inaex
of On* 1,2-dtchlero»tnena «aa used for 1,2-dichloroethent (total).
NA - not availabl*
Information Syttaa (M of 4/1/91);
TABLE 4
-------
Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative -
Plume Management of the CC14 Plume to a 1X10*4 Risk Level with GAC Adsorption
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Would prevent further degradation of ground water downgradient of the 1X10"* plume area
and would reduce risks associated with exposure to ground water.
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs (MCLs) would not be attained.
Action-specific ARARs would be attained.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Would permanently reduce contaminant concentrations to below a 1X10~* risk level.
Final action or institutional controls would be necessary to manage residual risk because
contaminant concentrations above MCLs would continue to exist.
Reduction of ToxicitT. Mobility, or Volume
Contaminants would be removed from the aquifer and treated, thus reducing the toricity,
mobility and volume of ground water contaminants.
GAC treatment would result in the destruction of contaminants since they would be removed
from the ground water, adsorbed onto GAC, and ultimately incinerated at a regeneration
facility.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementation would present a low-level, controllable risk to workers, the community and
the environment
Implementability
All of the individual technologies and process options for this alternative are readily
implementable.
State Acceptance
Determined by State comments after its review of the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Community Acceptance
Determined by comments received during the public comment period on EPA's Proposed
Plan.
Costs
Capital Costs S 469.000
O&M Costs S 72,000yyr.
Present Worth
(12 years, 5%) S 1,104,000
TABLE 5
-------
Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative -
Plume Management of the CCl/Plume to a iXlO"* Risk Level with Air Stripping
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Would prevent further degradation of ground water downgradient of the IXICT* plume area
and would reduce risks associated with exposure to ground water.
Air stripping would transfer contaminants from the ground water to the atmosphere creating
potential for impact to human health and the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs (MCLs) would not be attained.
Action-specific ARARs would be attained.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Would permanently reduce contaminant concentrations to below a 1X10"* risk level.
Final action or institutional controls would be necessary to manage residual risk because
contaminant concentrations above MCLs would continue to exist.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Contaminants would be removed from the aquifer and treated, thus reducing the toriciry,
mobility and volume of ground water contaminants.
Air stripping would result in the release of contaminants to the atmosphere and therefore
would be less desirable than GAC adsorption in addressing the intent of this criteria.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementation would present a low-level, controllable risk to workers, the community and
the environment.
Implementabilitv
All of the individual technologies and process options for this alternative are readily
implementable.
State Acceptance
Determined by State comments after its review of the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Community Acceptance
Determined by comments received during the public comment period on EPA's Proposed
Plan.
Costs
Capital Costs S 492.000
O&M Costs S 62,000/year
Present Worth
(12 years, 5%) 51,042,000
TABLE 6
-------
Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative -
Plume Management of the TCE Plume to a 1X10*4 Risk Level with GAC Adsorption
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Would prevent further degradation of ground water downgradient of the 1X10"* plume area
and would reduce risks associated with exposure to ground water.
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs (MCLs) would not be attained.
Action-specific ARARs would be attained.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Would permanently reduce contaminant concentrations to below a 1X10" risk level.
Final action or institutional controls would be necessary to manage residual risk because
contaminant concentrations above MCLs would continue to exist.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Contaminants would be removed from the aquifer and treated, thus reducing the toxicity,
mobility and volume of ground water contaminants.
GAC treatment would result in the destruction of contaminants since they would be removed
from the ground water, adsorbed onto GAC, and ultimately incinerated at a regeneration
facility.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementation would present a low-level, controllable risk to workers, the community and
the environment
Implementabilitv
All of the individual technologies and process options for this alternative are readily
implementable.
State Acceptance
Determined by State comments after its review of the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Community Acceptance
Determined by comments received during the public comment period on EPA's Proposed
Plan.
Costs
Capital Costs $294.000
O&M Costs S 69,000
Present Worth
(10 years, 5%) 5829,000
TABLE 7
-------
Detailed Analysis Summary of Alternative -
Plume Management of the TCE Plume to a IXIO" Risk Level with Air Stripping
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Would prevent further degradation of ground water downgradient of the 1X10"4 plume area
and would reduce risks associated with exposure to ground water.
Air stripping would transfer contaminants from the ground water to the atmosphere creating
potential for impact to human health and the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs (MCLs) would not be attained.
Action-specific ARARs would be attained.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Would permanently reduce contaminant concentrations to below a 1X10" risk level.
Final action or institutional controls would be necessary to manage residual risk because
contaminant concentrations above MCLs would continue to exist
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Contaminants would be removed from the aquifer and treated, thus reducing the toxicity,
mobility and volume of ground water contaminants.
Air stripping would result in the release of contaminants to the atmosphere and therefore
would be less desirable than GAC adsorption in addressing the intent of this criteria.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementation would present a low-level, controllable risk to workers, the community and
the environment
Implementabilitv
All of the individual technologies and process options for this alternative are readily
implementable.
State Acceptance
Determined by State comments after its review of the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Community Acceptance
Determined by comments received during the public comment period on EPA's Proposed
Plan.
Costs
Capital Costs 5323,000
O&M Costs S 58,000/yr.
Present Worth
(10 years, 5%) 5768,000
TABLE 8
-------
Cliemiuil Spccillc AUAKs1
Standard. Hci|ulrcmcnl
• ml
00
Safe Drinking Water Ad
National Primary Drinking
Water Standards
National Secondary Drinking
Water Standards
Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals (MCI Cis)
Ulalh-fl
40 USC Sect. 300
40 CFK Part Ml
40 CFR Part 143
PL No. 99-339,
100
Slat. 642 (1986)
Establishes maximum contaminant
(MCI.s) which arc health-based
standards for (inlilic water systems.
Establishes secondary maximum
contaminant levels (SMCI-s) which arc
non-enforccubic guidelines for public
water systems to protect the aesthetic
quality of the water.
Establishes drinking water quality goal*
set (I levels of no known or anticipated
adverse health effects with an adequate
margin of safely.
Ycs/Ves
N,./Ycs
No/Yes
The MCI .4 for organic and inorganic
coiiuminaiils are relevant and appro|ui.iii:
to (lie ground water contamination in
potential drinking water sources, iiiilu.lin,;
M(!I-S for volatile organics and metals.
SMCI.S may Itc relevant and a|)|ii(i|iii.ilc il
treated ground water is used as a source nl
drinking water.
MCl.Os for organic and inorganic
contaminants may be relevant and
appropriate il a more stringent standard is
required to protect human health or the
environment. When available, noci-veio
MCI/is arc relevant and appropriate to
potential drinking water sources in lien ul
MCI.S.
-------
Chemical-Specific A It A Us
Standard, Requirement
Criteria, or Nmltotloo
Clean Wafer Acl
Anil>icnl Water Quality Criteria
CJMflfl
33 DSC Seel.
1251 1376
40 CPU Part 131
Quality Crilen'a
for Water, 1976.
1980, 1986
A|i|illcuble/
Relevant and
Inscription
Requires the slates to set amliinil w.iin
quality criteria (AWQC) liasccl on walci
use classifications and (hi: criteiiii
developed under Section 304(a) ol ilic
Clean Water Acl.
No/Vcs
Cgmuignj
May lie u lev.ml and uppmpii.iic if
conlamiitnfed (if treated ground walti i-.
ilisrhargcd lo smf.icc water dining a
remedial
CO
m
Clean Air Act
42 USC Sect.
7401-7642
National Primary and Secondary 40 CFR Part SO
Ambient Air Quality Standards
S|alc
Nebraska Environmental Protection Chapter 81
Acl
I
Water Quality Standards for Title 117
Surface Water of the Stale
Establishes standards for imhienl air Yes/No
quality lo protect public health and
welfare.
Establishes slate's policy on
environmental control.
Establishes environmental quality Yes/No
Standards for the surface waters of (he
stale.
The suhsiie is not considered lo Itc a
source of air |M>llu!ion. However, niny IK:
applicable if contaminants are discharged
lo I lie air during a treatment process.
Surface water is not present at the site.
May be applicable if contaminated ground
witter is discharged into a surface water
body.
-------
C'licmicul-Spccilic Alt VKs
Standard, Rcqulremcol
. or NmltalJon
Ground Water Quality Standards
and Use Classification
Citation
Title 118
Nebraska Air Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations
Title 129
Inscription
Establishes standards and use
classifications for ground wnler sources
of drinking wjler. Determines priorities
for ground water rcmcdijl actions.
Establishes Primary anil Secoud.uy
Ambient Air Quality Standards and
requires operating ((trniils for \arious
operations emitting conlaniinanls into
(he air.
A|i|ilicuble/
Kdevanl and
Vi-s/No
V..S/NO
Nebraska MCl-s arc applicable to tlie
ground w.itcr at the siibsile if they arc
more stringent llian any of I lie federal
AKAIls. Nebraska MCI^ have |*ccn
esliiblislii-il for inorganic and (ir(;,iui(
compounds detected in Ilic gioiinil W.HI i
'I 111- Sllliilli: is llul IOllshli It il In IK: .1
sniiice nl .lir |H)lhilion. However, ru;iy In
applicuMc if C4Hiliiminanls are dist hurled
to the air during a treatment process. If
Ire.'ilmenl units urc located nusilc, no
permits aie required. However, the
iivc rci|iiiieniciils iniisl be met.
-------
Potential Chemical-Specific ARAKs for
Selected Compounds Detected in Ground Water
Contaminant
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachlornethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
SDWA MCL
mg/l
0.005
O.ld
0.007
0.005
0.200
0.005
Nebraska MCL
mg/l
0.005
0.1
0.007
0.005
0.200
0.005
SDWA MCLG
mg/l
0
—
0.007
0
0.200
0
Federal Water
Quality Criteria,
Protection for
Ingestion of
Water Only'
mg/l
0.00042
0.00019
0.000033
0.0008
NA
0.00028
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria Tor Protection or
Freshwater Aquatic Life
Acute
mg/l
35
28b
11.6
5.28b
c
45"
Chronic
mg/l
1.2"
0.005
0.84b
c
21.9
a The criterion corresponds to an excess carcinogenic risk of 1X106.
b Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value listed is the Lowest Observed Effect l^evel (L.O.E.L.).
c Criteria have not been developed.
d Based on criteria Tor total trihalomethiincs.
-------
Action-Spedi'ic AUAKs
09
PI
Standard, Ke<|ulrenico(
CrilcHn. or limitation
Federal
Solid Waslc Disposal Act (SWDA),
Subtitle C as amended by Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA)
Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices
Hazardous Waste Management
Systems General
Identification and listing of
Hazardous Wastes
Kclcvaiil and
CJUlloa
41 USC Section
69016987
40 CFR Part 257
40 CFR Part 260
40 CFR Part 261
Establishes criteria for use in
determining which solid waste disposal
facilities and practices pose a reasonable
probability of adverse effects on health,
and thereby constitute prohibited open
dumps.
iislablishes procedure and criteria fur
modification or revocation of any
provisions in 4(1 CFR Puits 2M) 2<>5
Defines those solid wastes which urc
subject to regulation as hazardous
wastes under 40 (I It Parts 262-2fi5 uml
Parts 124, 27(1. and 271
Standards Applicable to 40 CFR Part 262 iJslablislies standards for generators of
Generators of Hazardous Waste hazardous waste.
Vcs/Vcs
Yci/Ycs
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
If an alternative ilcvclopcil would involve
the l.md disposal of solid waste, this p.iil
would be applicable or relevant and
appropriate
Mjy Itc applicalile or relevant ami
appropriate if a substance at the silc w;is in
be excluded fiom the list of ha/unions
wastes.
Identifies those wastes considered to be
harardoiis wastes at the site. Any w.islth
considered as hazardous would be rr<|iiin
-------
Action-Specific AltAKs
CD
m
Standard, Requirement
£dkrJ§. cc Nallallaa
Standards Applicable to
Transporters (if Hazardous
Waslc
Standards fur Owners and
Operators of hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities
Interim Standards for Owners
•nd Operators of hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities
l>and Disposal
Hazardous Waste Permit
Program
Appllcidde/
Kijevnnt and
C.((u|!nn
40 C[a Pail 263
40 CFR Part 264
40 CFR Part 265
40 CFR Part 268
40 CFR Part 270
Establishes standards which apply to
persons transporting hazardous w.isic
within the U.S. if the Iranspoil.iliim
requires I manifest under 40 (Tit
Part 262.
Establishes minimum national blamlanls
which define the acceptable management
of hazardous waste for owners and
operators of facilities which treat, More,
or dispose hazardous waste.
Establishes minimum national slandaids
that define the acceptable management
of hazardous waste during the period of
interim status and until certification of
final closure or if the facility is subject
lo post-closure requirements, unlil post-
closure responsibilities are fulfilled.
Establishes a timetable for restriction of
burial of wastes and other hazardous
materials.
Establishes provisions coveting basic
EPA permitting requirements.
Vi-s/Ycs
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
If an alternative dcvt:lo|>ed would involir
olfsile transportation of ha/ardoiis
materials, these siamlards would In-
applicable or relevant and appropriate
Suhparls II through () may be applii.iblr i
relevant and appropriate lo onsilc and
offsile remedi.il actions.
Ktmedics should IK; consistent with the
more stringent Part 264 standards as these
represent the idlimatc ItCKA conipli.iurc
standards and are consistent with
COUOI-A's goal of long-term protection nl
public health and welfare and the
enviroiiineiil.
If an alternative involves land dis|H)sal ol
any restricted wastes, this part may be
applicable or relevant and appropriate.
A permit is not required for onsile
CIJRCLA response actions; however, a
permit is required for ofTsitc actions.
Substantive requirements are addressed in
40 CFR Part 264.
-------
Action-Specific AltAKs
Standard, Rcqulremeal
Cr1ttr|n. or I .Imitation Cliliifia
Inscription,
Relevant and
A|>CFQD!!§iC
Occupational Safely and Health Act 29 DSC Section
651 678
Regulates worker health and safety.
oo
m
Safe Drinking Water Act
Standatds (or Owncts and
Operators of Public Walcr
Supply System
Underground Injection Control
Regulations
Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
29 USC Section
300(1)
40 C[H 141
40 CFR Parts
144-147
33 USC Section
1251-1376
40 CFR Parts
122-125
Provides treatment (water quality)
requirements for pulilic water supply
systems.
Provides for protection of underground
sources of drinking water.
Requires permits for the discharge of
pollutants from any point source into
waters of the United Stales.
Yes/ Yes
Yes/ Yes
Yes/No
Under 4(1 UK Section 3Maniivc iei|iiircnicnls would *p|-ly if un
alternative developed would discharge into
a creek or other surface water on the site.
A permit would be required if the point of
discharge is to a creek or surface water
located olfsile.
-------
Aclion-Spccilk AK/VKs
CO
G
Standard, Kcijulrcncat
. or Mmllnllon
National Prclrealraenl
Standards
40 CFR Part 403
Clean Air Act
National Ambient Air Quality
Slaodards/NESIIAPS/
NSPS/ll ACI'/PS'n/LA ER
42 USC Section
74017642
40 CFR 50 I .17.
.50 .54, .IS-.154,
.480-.489, 40
CFR 53.1 33, 40
CFR 6101-.18.
.50.11A
.24^.247
A|i|ill< nlilc/
Id If caul ami
Sett standards lo control pollutants
which pass through or interfere wild
treatment processes in puMirly owned
Irealmeat tvorls or which may
contaminate sewage sludge.
Vrs/No
Treatment technology standard for
emissions lo air
• incinerators
• surface impoundments
• waste piles
• landfills
• fugitive emissions ,
Vcs/Ves
ComrocnJ
If an allcinative developed involves
discharge lo pulilidy owned treatment
win Is, llu.se standards would be ipplii -
If an allci native developed would involvi:
emissions govcnicd by these standards.
Ilicn (he ic<|iiitL-meiiU ire applicable.
-------
Action-Specific AKAKs
Standard, Requirement
- or IJmltBtlQii
Applicable/
Relevant and
CJlflliflB
Slalfi
Nebraska Environmental Proleclion Chapter 81,
Act Article 15
Nebraska Prclrcairaeol
Regulations
-H Nebraska General NPDES
oo Rules for New and Brisling
r»i Sources
~~" National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems
Rules and Regulations for
Injection Wells and Mineral
Production Wells
Nebraska Air Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations
Tille 127
Title 121
Title 119
Tille 122
Title 129, Section
6007
Inscription
Establishes limilalions on types of
wastes which can be discharged lo a
POTW and requires a pet mil when a
discharge may interfere with, pass
through, or be incompatible with a
POTWs treatment process.
Establishes point sources effluent
standards.
Requires permit for discharge pollutants
from a point source into the waters of
the Slate.
Establishes procedures for permitting
underground injection of hazardous
wastes into or above an underground
supply of diinking water.
Establishes control technology standards
for emissions of toxic air pollutants from
new modified or reconstructed sources.
Ycs/Ves
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Comment
Any allciualivcs which discharge
contaminated ground water In a I'OTW
will have lo meet (he substantive
requirements of this regulation. Permit will
l>e required.
May be applicable lo any discharge of
treatment effluent lo a surface water U
May be applicable or relevant and
appiopriate if an effluent is discharged into
an oiTsile stirf.ice water.
May be applicable or relevant and
appropriate if treated ground water is
injected into aquifer. Will require peimit if
rcinjeclion wells are located olTsile.
Rcinjectcd water must comply with
drinking water standards.
May be applicable or relevant and
appropriate lo treatment processes with
atmospheric emissions.
-------
STATE ARARs
Revision May 1992
CITATION
I. Nebraska Environmental Protection Act
A. Rules and Regulations Governing
the Nebraska Pretreatment Program
B. Effluent Guidelines and Standards
C. Rules and Regulations Pertaining
to the Issuance of Permits Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
D. Rules and Regulations for Underground
Injection and Mineral Production Wells
E. Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations
F. Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards
G. Ground Water Quality Standards and
Use Classification
H. Rules and Regulations Pertaining to
Solid Waste Management
I. Rules and Regulations Governing
Hazardous Waste Management in Nebraska
J. Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the
Management of Wastes
II. Water Well Standards and Contractors' Licensing
Act
A. Regulations Governing Licensure of Water
Well and Pump Installation Contractors
and Certification of Water Well Drilling
and Pump Installation Supervisors
III. Statutes Relating to Ground Water
IV. Nebraska Safe Drinking Water Act
A. Regulations Governing Public Water
Supply Systems
Neb. Rev, Stat. Ch. 81
Article 15
Neb. Adm. Rules & Regs.
Title 127
Neb. Adm. Rules & Regs.
Title 121
Neb. Adm. Rules & Regs.
Title 119
Neb. Adm.
Title 122
Neb. Adm.
Title 129
Neb. Adm.
Title 117
Neb. Adm.
Title 118
Neb. Adm.
Title 132
Neb. Adm.
Title 128
Neb. Adm.
Title 126
Rules & Reg.
Rules & Regs.
Rules & Regs.
Rules &. Regs.
Rules & Regs.
Rules & Regs.
Rules & Regs.
Neb. Rev. State. Ch. 46
Article 12
Neb. Adm. Rules & Regs.
Title 178
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ch. 46
Article 6
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ch. 71
Article 53
Neb. Adm. Rules & Regs.
Title 179
TABLE 12
-------
STATE ARARs
V. Flood Plain Management
CITATION
A. Flood Plain Rules
B. Rules Governing Flood Plain Management
VI. Statues Relating to Disposal Sites
VII. Nebraska Nongame and Endangered
Species Conservation Act
A. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Rules and Regulations Concerning Wildlife
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ch. 31
Article 10
Neb. Adm. Rules & Reg.
Title 455
Neb. Adm. Rules & Regs.
Title 258
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ch. 19
Articles 21 & 41
Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 37-
430 to Ch. 37-438
Neb. Adm. Rules & Regs.
Title 163, Chapter 6
TABLE 12
-------
Cost Estimate for Alternative - Plume Management of
the CC14 Plume to a 1X10"* Risk Level with GAG Adsorption
CAPITAL COST
CONSTRUCTION:
Installation of New Wells
Well Pumps, Piping, and Manholes
Site Prep and Building
Underground Piping
Treatment Plant Mechanical
Electrical
Taxes/Small Tools and Supplies
Contractor Overhead and Fee
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CONTINGENCY @ 15%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
OTHER CAPITAL COSTS:
Access Agreements, Permitting and Legal
RD Investigation/Studies
Engineering (10% of Construction)
Construction Mgmt. and Startup (15% of Construction)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST:
ANNUAL O&M COSTS
Electricity
Carbon Purchase and Regeneration
O&M Labor
Maintenance Parts
Analytical
Taxes, insurance and Admin.
Contingency
ANNUAL O&M COST
PRESENT WORTH (12 YEARST
530,000
$14,000
517,000
560,000
524,000
533,000
511,000
526,000
5215.000
532250
S247.250
525.000
5135.000
524,725
537.088
5469,063
51.350
59.540
525.500
52.473
516.000
57,418
59.342
S71.622
Sl.103,866
Notes:
Discount rate = 5%
Duration = 12 years
TABLE 13
-------
Cost Estimate for Alternative - Plume Management of
the TCE Plume to a 1X10^ Risk Level with GAG Adsorption
CAPITAL COST
CONSTRUCTION:
Installation of New Wells
Well Pumps, Piping, and Manholes
Site Prep and Building
Underground Piping
Treatment Plant Mechanical
Electrical
Taxes/Small Tools and Supplies
Contractor Overhead and Fee
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CONTINGENCY @ 15%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
OTHER CAPITAL COSTS:
Access Agreements. Permitting and Legal
RD Investigation/Studies
Engineering (10% of Construction)
Construction Mgmt. and Startup (15% of Construction)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST:
ANNUAL O&M COSTS
Electricity
Carbon Purchase and Regeneration
O&M Labor
Maintenance Parts
Analytical
Taxes, Insurance and Admin.
Contingency at 15%
ANNUAL O&M COST
PRESENT WORTH (10 YEARS1
519,000
510,000
515,000
S17.000
524,000
516,000
57,000
S13.000
S 18.150
5139,150
525.000
595.000
513,915
520.873
5293,938
52.000
511.200
525.500
51392
516,000
54,175
59.040
5121,000
569306
5829,099
Notes:
Discount rate = 5%
Duration = 10 years
TABLE 14
-------
--- .__ .
•**•& ""*"":•—f r~
»!• -
?! ~ i
Site Location Map
HASTINGS. NEBRASKA
Scoit
Nebraska
FIGURE 1
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
cr>
73
m
no
I OCA DON OT HASTINGS REOON
W1HM THE SfAIC OF NEBRASKA
BIIRHNGIQN NOHIHIHN RR
•-• \-\ i-i-*-»-4--1 f-1 •!-»••*-*-! f-
R All ROAD
OTY
MAJOR HIGHWAY
APPROMMA1C AREA OF SUBSTE
-
HASTtNQS OROUND WATER
COKTAMIWTION SHE
««fll«n§ VI. VII. VIII
IIS CiHr»iKti«nltl Pfjlnll
^MOimiSON-RNUOSCN CORPORATION
-------
en
TO
08
—
_M
ili
...ij.
•WMMMH
*06
- - i
:'| •;'
• \ • <
[
1
!
i
1
i
1
"*LI
*W-
i
BURLINGTON
is i::t i:i :T r=
i
t=i
. j- . .
J
"N
C±
1
4
XI
.•'•
!
'
1 ••••
ifV
n-T
. .;
$
tol
f
~
\
* ./
*;
8'
&
f>
?
X
•
cu
i
vi:.
v
r ™~
j
/
/.
•:
I
r-SOl)Rct AR
' BOUNDARY
— — —
1 i
1 •
-01 '
J»CW-(
"Vpu r
• LW- 1
\ '
•* ' f
|.r
I'
— r—
tf
f
)3R A
T "1
J '
- •
1
'-'/
> ,
:
'
—
•
!
!
j
1'
^^MMM
EA
i
••i .1 ._
!
j
M-n
j _
m-f HA
1 Un
'• ,
>-cn-oVk:r
i ~1 i ;
• i 1
' TIIIRO SIRItl
i 'I
; stcotm siiuii
W 09 - ^':W
; ' • •"- •• • • •
J:-?.." .AT" " " ' •
/' i CW-03
•
1
i
...i —
•»
! 1
j
i
i
l
i
i
1
$
CU-06
.
B SIHICF
»ci i
K
V c simir
5
*: i
'
i
j
1
i .
• |
M 09
|
!
i
i
Oil
_
-------
Cl AT
PRESENT j—
I ' CLAY
ABSENT
IIIIHII sun11
SOURCE AR(A
BOUNDARY
1 X 10 RISK
Pi IIMF llOUNOARY
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF Cl AY
NOTES:
1 CCI,PLUME BOUNDARY BASED ON COMPILATION OF
IN SITU AND WEU SAMPLING DATA.
2 TCE PLUME BOUNDARY BASED ON AVERAGE
CONCENTHATIONS FROM WELLS CW-4. CW-5,
CW-7. CW-8. CW 9. Ic CW-10 (9-91 THROUGH
fl-92 SAMPI£S) HUME IS ASSiMCO TO Bt
SYMMETRICAL ABOUT CflOUND WATER FLOW AXIS.
_mu.
AI'I'rtOXlMAIL
Wtl I. No.J SOUS I l(
BOUNDAHY
H-c.'U
M- 11
MW 2)
HMO A
C 09
MUNICIPAL
fl'A MONIIORING Will
I NODS IK I AL WEIL
(ABANDONED)
BOREHOIE
ISOPLETII CONCENTRATION
IN PARIS PER BILLION (DASHED
WHERE INCERRED)
TCE CONIAMINAIION
IIA'jIINI.S CHOIJNI) WAICH CONIAMINAI |U| -,| I
Will 110 ] SllflSIII
FIGURE 2-1
GROUND WA1ER PI UML MAP I OK
(HI 1 IN 10000 RISK LL'VEL
CCI, AND TCE PLUMES
ADPC R'9'onj VI. VII, VIII
** !jj Cn»jfonm«nlql PnUtli
-------
CD
KALE
Cl AY
PRESENT
SOURCE AREA M . |
BOUNDARY) ' " • ' '
CW-
(-' CLAY
AUSFNI
niiNu i mi 11
J
rf-02
W-IOA
ac(inii_!,iHii i
WlliNo.J SUBSIIf
ROUNDAMY
L'W- ()/
*r.
I NCnitlERN
x
»
I
Si
* ^Wi
\
n ^;
I /
p/
1 •" T"3r
nl., csmui i
1 • • 1 • -t
i ~i_ I
I CIAY
;." .i PR"fNr 'n;
I ESTIMATED LIMIT OF Cl AY-^— A 1 '
>.?' ; i ! n.i
/" • '
•f" M-09
1
£?
i J?
3
01
^-
f .' • .1 ,
~ :
oj s; j
< u)
S K
XS-
NOTE:
I. CO .PLUME BOUNDARY BASED ON COMPILATION OF
IN-SITU AND WELL SAMPLING DATA.
2. TCE PIUME BOUNDARY BASED ON AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS FROM WELLS CW-4. CW-5.
CW-7. CW-8. CW-9, it CW-10 (9-91 THROUGH
9-92 SAMPLES) PLUME IS ASSUMED TO BE
SYMMETRICAL ABOUT GROUND WATER FLOW MIS.
A
S -
-SXMBQ.L. JttLL.ID. NQ. WLLL JYL't.
M-" MUNICIPAI
«* 2J f I'A MONITOR INC WEI |
IN IDA INDUSTRIAl WFIL
(ABANDONED)
ISOf'UIH CONCENTRATION IN PPB
(DASHED MIEftE INFERRED)
TCE CONTAMINAIION
CCI, CONTAMINATION
MAKINGS (MUM WAItR CONIAUINAIKXI
IM I I •"• • *
-------
CD
73
C;ENEHAI.
pESPONSE ACTION
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES AND I'ltOCESS OITIONS I OK
WELL NUMHEIt 3 GROUND WATEK
REMEDIAL
t.., * 1
No Aclion |
t 1
| Institutional Controls |
1 1
| Plume Management f
I
I
—I
~\
None
Monilonng
Alternate Waler Supply
(•round Water Eitnclion
Treatment |
Water DiKhaigc
Air Stripping
_
l
Nol Applicable
New City Well
Itollled Waler
Conventional Itiliariiim Wclk
llorironlal Ililiaciion Welle
UAC Adstupiion
Air Suipjiing
.
Rcin|eclinn
Gry Waler Su|Tly
Irfifallim
Siorro Sewer I)t4|ilii'ul'lc
Nul iflai/ir.l iluc In oitl
rulculially Apjilirahle
Tolcnliilly ipi'lictblc, howcvtr OAC AiUtiijxiun lic«Mc
Nul niiiiiiltinl in IK •Jminiitnlivcl|f ImplcmcnlnMr
I'lilcnliilly n|i|i|i(Bhlc on • xttonil b«U only
Poleniiilly Applirdilc (or very luw flow nlei
Polenlitlly ApjilicjSIc
Not Relilncd
Not Retained
-------
SUMMAKY OF ASSEMBLED KCMIiniAI. ACTION Al II KNATIVI S FOR
WltlJ, NUMHKR 3 (.ROUND WAIICR
CD
cz
•XI
m
CENKRAL RESPONSE ACTION
TKCIINOUXJV
MONntlRIW;
AI.1CRNAIV
WATER SIHTI.V
CROIINI) WATER
EX1TU(T1(IN
nKA'niKtrr
TREATED
WATKK DISCIUKCE
PROCESS onioN
C.W MONITORINC
NEwcmrwnj.
txiiurnoN wti.1 s
(MCADSOUrilON
AIR SlWiri'lNG
REINJEC110N OR
BENKHCUI, REUSE
RfMfOMI. ACI10N AI.11KNA11VES
1
NO ACmON
1
iNjfmirrniNAi,
cnimoi.5
•
•
j
KXIKACIION/
lUfAniKNTOK
I0'«l( I'l.llMK
• •
•
•(A)
•(II)
•
4
EXTKACriON/
•IWM1-MKNTOK
la'Kf.rnmiE
•
•
•(A)
•(II)
•
s
EriHACIlON/
1KEATMKNTOF
MCI. ri.HME
•
•
•(A)
•(II)
•
NOI I!S: I. *A" rclcn lo plume management •llcmalivn thai ulilite (!AC •ilMiipiinn Im Inumicnl. 'II* rclcu in plume munjgcnicnl illeiiiel. Alicmiljvc S tupplemcntt
Allcmalivcs 3 «nd 4 by addressing long lerm objcctlvu.
-------
s
73
m
00
CLAY
; PRESENT ;
ESTIMATED LlillT or Cl AY
T| : y
\ n i *
— --- ^ '-
M-09
• AI'I'UOXlMAIE i
WI 1 Ij No.3:SUBSI IE
finilMDAKY ' !
•
M -03
_ I _
* ;
*:
i
I •
I ;'
' < !
NOTES:
1. CCI,PLUME BOUNDARY BASED ON COMPILATION OF
IN-SITU AND WELL SAMPLING DATA. PLUME BOUNDARY
10 BE BE HER DELINEATED IN RD PHASE.
2. MONITORING WELL CW 0) WILL BE CONVERTED 10 AN
EXTRACTION WELL DURING RD PHASE. NUMBER AND
PLACEMENT OF AODI TIONAL WELLS TO BE DETERMINED
BASED ON DATA COLLECTED IN RD PHASE. WELL LOCATIONS
SHOWN ARE CONCEPIUAL, BASED ON CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
INFORMATION.
^IMBQL.
O
-LEGEND.
WELL ID. NO.
EW-J-J
M-T1
MW-2J
_WLLLJY£E^
EXTRACTION WELL
MUNICIPAL WEIL
EPA MONITORING WELL
ISOPLETII CONCENTRATION
IN PARIS PER Bill ION (DASIILD
WHERE INI ERRED)
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION SI 1C
MIL NO. JSUBSITt
HUtlNC* «BU»A
FIGURE 3-2
EXTRACTION WELL LOCATIONS FOR
ALTERNATIVE 3
ADPC R*gloni VI, VII, VIII
nl\wO
US Intlrcnituntol PralKHon «o»nct
MORRISON-KNUDSEN CORPORATION
,Bi*H*ic*iwKxiaiiKr^ TCI
MOICT I 1IH I "• I WlflXW
-------
en
yo
Ed
SUBMEBSJBLE
5 GPM EACH &
200 H 11)11
0.5 I IP
CARBON fflSflBHEBS
P-2. 3
Ezi
EUME
IPM EA(
son i
0.5 I IP
SiBU
E
QRSIBLE
UME
10 GPM O
IUO FI IDII
I III'
Id.
SUBGEJANK
. 90 GAI.
2 DIA x 4'III
EtOLEUME
20CPM 9100 IDII
I HI'
CARBON MEflRBERS
1.000 IBS. CACfEACII)
4' DIA. X b.lj 111
•5 IOSIORM
*• SEWER OR
_ REINJECTION
MQI&.
I. EXTRACTION WELLS WILL BE
4"DIAMEIER
INDOORS
Ez2Afl
- ipCAll.YMOIINIED
INSTRUMENT
10 RE INJECT I ON WOI S
OR 01HLR BENEflCJAI
USE
II1GIIIEVEL SWI1CII
IOWIEVEL SWIICH
SWITCH
- HOSE
MOHRISOM-KNUMtN CORPORATION
-------
F-t A.B P-2.3
CARBON ADSORBERS SUBMERSIBLE
200 I BS GAL. (EACH)
2' DIA. x J1 ll[ 5 Gf'M EACH 0
200 IT mil
05 IIP
5CPMEACH0
200 IT ||)M
0.5 IIP
M) GPM 0
200 rr IDIi
i IIP
10
AIMOSPIIERE
O SfORM
SEWER OR
RElNJLCTION
NOIL. IJSE
M-ffAfflffit^SWlLDE
R«0lon« VI, VII.
-------
en
M
;._
.'J..
i
f
-06 j /
\ - i • ,
CW- , LW
1 ' L~\O/
! r~~J*U'
i • *•
BUflL JNCT^^' i • ' ' .:
It Ijj 'J !| ::;::-il '•!* '! : ' 'I''.. ,'
._!...— — •• >
1 » !' /
jjji fci 5"
S! E <
' ' . V
.
SCAlt ' .. '/
0 sw vat /?
LM^^^^^^B^^^^ i*.
^^^^•••^^^^H^H ^ .
*v
*
Z
"1 I
:d
3
O
i
.
i ' :
j- AI'I'lJOXlMAIt '•
/ 1 Will; No.ysi/USI l(
: / BOUND AH V ' !
1 !
i
NOHlljf" ]•;',•• ' i
' ' :
"*— ^^^ •'
O "~^-
/ '
f :
.' • . .
EW 4
0
M JU.l
4*' '
MU-/( 1 *
£ y' ^ { ' .
si S " ;
— *
? ' f ! '
i ! 1
l
: 1
1 i ; ' '
: 1
• i . i
• i
• f ! f i ;
i L ! •
: •• '. [mi
1 < H-i;oi i
!
NOTES:
1.
2.
TCE PLUME BOUNDARY BASED ON AVERAGE
CONCENTKATIONS FROM WELLS CW-4. CW-S.
CW-7. CW-6. CW-9. It CW-tO (9-91 THROUGH i crct
9-92 SAMI'IXS) f'IKME IS ASSUMEP 70 BE -Ltytl
SYMMETRICAL ABOUT GROUND WAlElt FLOW AXIS.
-SXMBQL JKELLID..K
WEa LOCATION SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL BASED ON r» ru/ „
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA. O Ew'4
ACTUAL LOCATION WILL BE DETERM INEO DURING « M - 1 1
THE RD PHASE. BASED ON ADDITIONAL DATA AND
ACCESS CONSIDERATION.
,
•*• MW-23
JO.
r\ U/F"I 1 TVPP
u. f|^L(^ 1 ||t
EXTRACTION WEIL
MUNICIPAL WEIL
EPA MONITOR INC WELL
• • •
, s,B_^ ISOPIEPI CONCENTRATION
^90^ IN PARIS PER Bill ION (DASHED
WHFRF INPT
• i :
!'
i1- i
l i
HASIINCS GROUND WAFER CONMUINMION SI Ti
WtIL NO. J SUBSI (I
HUIIHCS, ICHU9C4
FIGURE 3-5
EXTRACTION HCLL LOCATION
FOR ALTERNATIVE 4
ApPC Regions vi, vn. VIM
nnUJ U| Cfptnnmntol rrtttcHon »a«nc|
^%linnm»n»i M..» .-*..-
t HPM11
-------
Ed.
SUBMERSIBLE
40 GPM
IfiO FI 1011
SHI1
SUfjGE TANK
90 GAL
2'OIA. K 4'IIT
EEQLEUME
40 CPM « 120 11)11
2.5 I IP
F-l A. fl
CABBON ADSQHBEBS
1.000 IRS CAC (EACH)
4' DIA. X 5 i) III
INOonus
CT
;o
ro
6" DIAMETER
EXTRACTION WELL
"i . i
i ri
F-l A.B
LECEMftL
PI
n
I'SV
1C
LSI)
LSL
PSH
IX
E=l
- IOCAU YMOUNIEI)
INSTRUMENT
- f'RESSURF INDICATOR
- MOW INDICATOR
- I'KESSURl REI.IEI VALVE
- IEVEI. CONIHOL
- HIGH LEVEL SWITCH
- IOWLEVEL SWITCH
- HIGH PRESSURE SWITCH
- VALVE
- HOSE
TOREINJEC1ION WEI IS
OR OTHER BENEFICIAL
USE
IIASIINCS GROUND WAtlfl CtWrAMINAIION SHE
HTIL NO. 3 rCASIBIllir SIUDY
"taarpr
PMXE9 mm OIMMN m «c ALTwunw M
inpc Riglana VI. VII. VIII
nl\U«J US trufirnitxiriel Pr«l«cHon Aointf
tMORRISOH-KNUOStN CORPOfUflOH
-------
en
fcJ.
CHEIflpAl FEED QLDWER
SISItM *nn f>r.
AJB STHIEEEH
20 FT PACKING III
'>. DIA.
6" DIAME1ER
EXTRACTION WEI I
- IOCAU V MOIJNIll)
INSFRUMENT
f'RESSUHF INDICAIOR
- HOW INDICATOR
- IEVEI CONFROL
- LOW LEVEL SWITCH
- VALVE
- HOSE
IOREIN.1ECTION WTIIS
OR OIHER BENEFICIAL
USE
IMSIIMCS GROUND WAIU CONIAUINAIION Sill
WIL NO. 3 FEASIBILITY SIUDY
HUSllMLMHUaa
nnXEB rUW OIMMMI m tC ALIDMAnK 4B
MORmSON-KNUDStM CORPOmnnM
-------
GLOSSARY
RMledM I*—*-: to esuaple.
oescnbed, o, <»saL as appropriate. Alternatives are uitima**
<>•*—* * »- .eiongm, to
to
'.to a discoum ra,= os °'
ra,= o. 5 p«c-,, Detore
«*
of General Resnon " "^i^™ of the above. A eombman
General Respome
step
-------
Pore Volume - ine amount of water contained in the aquifer pore space wrthin the area and
tnrougnout the total depth of contamination.
Pore Volume Displacement -
------- |