EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Sheller-Globe Corporation
Disposal Site, Keokuk, IA
9/20/1995
PB95-964303
EPA/ROD/R07-95/082
January 1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SHELLER-GLOBE DISPOSAL SITE
KEOKUK, IOWA
Prepared by:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
REGION VII
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION DISPOSAL SITE
KEOKUK, IOWA
DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
Sheller-Globe Corporation Disposal Site
Keokuk, Iowa
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the Sheller-Globe Corporation Disposal site located near
Keokuk, Iowa. The remedial action was chosen in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et sea.. and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
This decision is based on the documents and information
contained in the Administrative Record for the site. A copy
of the Administrative Record is available for review at the
Keokuk Public Library, 210 North 5th Street, Keokuk, Iowa,
and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Regional Office located at 726 Minnesota Avenue in Kansas
City, Kansas.
The State of Iowa concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response
action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may
present a potential threat to public health, welfare or the
environment.
Description of the Remedy
The selected remedy addresses the principal threat posed by
the site and constitutes the final action for this site.
The selected remedy consists of the following components:
• Recording of deed restrictions to run with the land which
limit land use. Deed restrictions will limit future use of
the Site to non-residential and will notify future
-------
potential property purchasers that hazardous substances
remain on-Site;
•Demolition of the on-Site house to preclude future use as a
residence;
•Removal of all drums exposed at the ground surface (all
identified drums were determined during the RI to be empty
or filled with non-hazardous material such as soil, sticks,
rusty metal, etc.) Demolition debris and the consolidated
drums will either be disposed of on-Site within the house
foundation, covered with soil, and vegetated or off-Site
as construction debris;
•The addition of a 12-inch layer of topsoil placed in those
areas in which ash material is exposed at the surface;
• Seeding with grass in the area of contamination those areas
not currently vegetated.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this
site. However, because treatment of the principal threats
of the site was not found to be practicable, based on the
risk posed by the site, this remedy does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of
the remedy.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use
of the site, a review will be conducted within five years
after commencement of remedial action pursuant to Section
121 of CERCLA to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
DENNTS GRAMS, P.E. DATE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION VII
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SHELLER-GLOBE DISPOSAL SITE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I DECLARATION
SECTION II DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 SITE BACKGROUND
1.1 Site Location and Description
1.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities
1.3 Community Participation
2.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITH SITE STRATEGY
3.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Waste Material
3.1.1 Primary Disposal Area
3.1.la Soil/Waste Material
3.1.Ib Ash
3.1.Ic Sludge
3.1.Id Drum Survey
3.1.2 North Hill Disposal Area
3.1.2a Soil/Waste Material
3.2 Subsurface Soil
3.2.1 Primary Disposal Area
3.2.la Soil Borings
3.2.1b Soil Below Test Pits
3.2.2 North Hill Disposal Area
3.2.2a Soil Below Test Pits
3.3 Ground Water
3.3.1 Shallow Groundwater
3.3.2 Deep Groundwater
3.4 Surface Water and Sediments
3.4.1 Surface Water
3.4.2 Sediments
3.5 Surface Soil
3.5.1 Primary Disposal Area
3.5.2 North Hill Disposal Area
3.6 Summary
3.6.1 Primary Disposal Area
3.6.2 North Hill Disposal Area
3.6.3 Groundwater
3.6.4 Surface Water and Sediments
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
4.1 Baseline Risk Assessment and Ecological Assessment
4.2 Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
4.3 Noncarcinogenic Risks for the RME
4.4 Carcinogenic Risks for the RME
4.5 Lead Exposure
4.6 Environmental Risk
-------
4.7 Risk-Related Need for Remedial Action
4.8 Preliminary Remedial Goals
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Primary Disposal Area: Surface Soil, Subsurface Soil,
and Waste Material
5.1.1 Alternative 1: No-Action
5.1.2 Alternative 2: Deed Restrictions
5.1.3 Alternative 3: Deed Restrictions, Building
Demolition, and Soil Cover
5.2 North Hill Disposal Area: Surface Soil, Subsurface
- Soil, and Waste Material
5.2.1 No-Action
5.3 Groundwater
5.3.1 No-Action
5.4 Surface Water and Sediments
5.4.1 No-Action
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment
6.2 Compliance with ARARs
6.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
6.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through
Treatment
6.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
6.6 Implementability
6.7 Cost
6.8 State Acceptance
6.9 Community Acceptance
7.0 SELECTED REMEDY
8.0 STATUTORY- DETERMINATIONS
8.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
8.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
8.3 Cost-Effectiveness
8.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable
8.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
SECTION III RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A - Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Primary Disposal Area Map With Soil Boring, Test
Pit and Monitoring Well Locations, and Surface
Soil Sampling Grid
Figure 3: North Hill Disposal Area Map With Test Pit
Locations and Surface Soil Sample Grid
Figure 4: Surface Water and Sediment Sample Locations
ATTACHMENT B - Tables
Table 1: Test Pit.Information - Primary Disposal Area
Table 2: Metals in Test Pit Soil/Waste
Table 3: Semi-Volatile Organics in Test Pit Soil/Waste -
Primary Disposal Area
Table 4: Metals in Ash
Table 5: Semi-Volatile Organics in Ash and Sludge
Table 6: Metals in Sludge
Table 7: Volatile Organics in Sludge
Table 8: Test Pit Information - North Hill Disposal Area
Table 9: Semi-Volatile Organics in Test Pit Soil/Waste -
North Hill Disposal Area
Table 10: Metals in Subsurface Soil From Borings
Table 11: Volatiles and Semi-Volatiles in Subsurface Soil
From Borings
Table 12: Metals in Subsurface Soil from Test Pits -
Primary Disposal Area
Table 13: Volatile Organics in Subsurface Soil from Test
Pits - Primary Disposal Area
Table 14: Semi-Volatile Organics in Subsurface Soil from
Test Pits - Primary Disposal Area
Table 15: Metals in Subsurface Soil from Test Pits - North
' Hill Disposal Area
Table 16: Total Metals in Shallow Groundwater - Round 1
Table 17: Dissolved Metals in Shallow Groundwater - Round 1
Table 18: Total Metals in Shallow Groundwater - Round 2
Table 19: Dissolved Metals in Shallow Groundwater - Round 2
Table 20: Total Metals in Shallow Groundwater - Round 3
Table 21: Dissolved Metals in Shallow Groundwater - Round 3
Table 22: Volatile Organics in Groundwater
Table 23: Semi-Volatile Organics in Groundwater
Table 24: Summary of Total and Dissolved Metals - MW-3D
Table 25: Summary of Total and Dissolved Metals - MW-5D
Table 26: Summary of Total and Dissolved Metals - MW-6D
Table 27: Summary of Total and Dissolved Metals - MW-10D
Table 28: Metals in Sediments
Table 29: Ranges of Metals in Surface Soils
Table 30: Total Site Risks and Background Risks
ATTACHMENT C - Glossary of Evaluation Criteria
ATTACHMENT D - Glossary of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION DISPOSAL SITE
1.0 SITE BACKGROUND
1.1 Site Location and Description
The Sheller-Globe Disposal site is located in Lee County,
approximately four miles northeast of the City of Keokuk in the
extreme southeast corner of Iowa (Figure 1). The Site consists
of a Primary disposal area and a much smaller secondary disposal
area. The smaller area is known as the North Hill disposal area.
The Primary disposal area covers approximately 4.5 acres and is
bordered by Airport Road, 260th Street, and two nameless
intermittent streams. The North Hill disposal area is located on
a small hill east of 260th Street approximately one-quarter of a
mile north of Airport Road.
Land use in the vicinity of the Site is predominantly
pasture and forest with scattered farms and residences. The Site
is unoccupied and its use is .controlled by United Technologies
Automotive Systems, Inc. (UTAS) through a long-term access
agreement.
1.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities
The Sheller Manufacturing Company (later Sheller-Globe
Corporation) purchased the Site in 1948. From 1948 until 1972,
waste materials were hauled to the Site from the former Sheller-
Globe plant located in Keokuk, Iowa. During the years the Site
was used as a disposal area, the Sheller-Globe Keokuk plant
manufactured various rubber products and automobile parts. The
waste material brought to the Site for disposal consisted of
rubber, wood, paper, plastics, and drums of various solvents and
paint sludges. These waste materials were brought onto the Site
via an access road running along the crest of the on-Site hill.
The wastes were dumped at the crest of the hill, periodically
burned, and then bulldozed over the hillsides. The estimated
area of waste material is illustrated in Figure 2.
In 1972, use of the Site as a disposal area ceased and the
Primary disposal area was covered with soil. A private home was
subsequently constructed on the Site and used as a primary
residence until 1991.
The period of time that the North Hill disposal area was
used is unknown. It was discovered during the planning stage of
the RI.
In 1986 and 1987, the EPA conducted Site Investigations
(Sis) at the Site. Analysis of soil samples collected during the
-------
investigations showed elevated levels of toluene, bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, di(n-octyl) phthalate, trichloroethene,
ethyl benzene, styrene, benzene, lead, and zinc in samples
collected from the hillsides. Analysis of groundwater samples
showed the presence of various metals in samples collected from
shallow on-Site monitoring wells.
Based on the SI data, the Site was evaluated for possible
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a
nationwide list of sites that, due to site conditions and
contaminants, have been determined to warrant remedial evaluation
and, if necessary, remedial response. EPA proposed the Site for
listing in May 1989 and it was listed on the NPL in October 1990.
The EPA and Sheller-Globe entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) in October of 1990. Subsequent to signing
the AOC, Sheller-Globe changed its name to United Technologies-
Automotive Systems, Inc. (UTAS). The AOC required Sheller-Globe
to perform a Remedial Investigation (RI) for the purpose of
determining the nature and extent of contamination by conducting
a field investigation. In addition, the order required a
Feasibility Study (FS) to be performed, evaluating a range of
appropriate alternatives to address contaminants identified
during the field investigation. EPA reviewed and approved the
plans detailing work to be conducted by UTAS in performing the
work required by the AOC. EPA also provided oversight of RI
field activities conducted by UTAS.
The Site was added to the State of Iowa's Registry of
Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites in 1989.
The Iowa Registry is a list of confirmed abandoned or
uncontrolled disposal sites in the state. The statute creating
the Registry provides that a person shall not substantially
change the manner in which a site on the Registry is used without
prior written approval of the Director of the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR). It also mandates that a person shall
not sell, convey or transfer title to an abandoned or
uncontrolled disposal site which is on the Registry without
written approval of the Director. When a site is placed on the
Registry, the Director files a statement with the appropriate
County Recorder's Office disclosing the period during which the
site was used as a hazardous waste or hazardous substance
disposal area.
1.3 Community Participation
The RI and FS Reports and the Proposed Plan for the Sheller-
Globe Corporation Disposal site were released to the public for
comment as required by CERCLA Section 113(k)(2)(b)(I-V) and
Section 117. These documents were made available to the public
in the Administrative Record, which is located at the Keokuk
Public Library and at the EPA Region VII office. The notice of
-------
availability of the Administrative Record was published in the
Daily Gate City on July 28, 1995.
The public comment period ran from August 1, 1995 to August
31, 1995. A public meeting was held on August 8, 1995 in Keokuk,
Iowa. At this meeting, representatives from EPA, the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, the Iowa Department of Public
Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) were available to answer question about the site and the
remedial alternative under consideration. No comments were
received from the public during the public meeting or during the
comment period. The decision for this site is based on the
Administrative Record.
2.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITH SITE STRATEGY
The response activities required by the selected remedy
address all risks known at the site and are intended to
constitute final action for the Sheller-Globe Corporation
Disposal site.
3.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
During the Remedial Investigation (RI), UTAS characterized
the nature and extent of contamination at the Site and
investigated the effects the contamination at the Site has had on
groundwater, surface water, and sediments. A Site map displaying
subsurface soil boring and test pit locations and the surface
soil sample grid pattern at the Primary disposal area is
presented in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows test pit locations and the
surface soil sample grid pattern at the North Hill disposal area.
Figure 4 presents the groundwater monitoring well and surface
water and sediment sample locations. A more complete discussion
of the nature and extent of contamination characterized during
the RI, as well as tabulated analytical results, may be found in
the RI Report which is available in the Administrative Record.
Prior to the RI, only the Primary disposal area was thought
to exist on-Site. During a Site reconnaissance conducted in the
planning stages of the RI, a second, separate and much smaller
disposal area was identified, the North Hill disposal area. The
North Hill disposal area is located approximately 1,000 feet
north of the Primary disposal area.
RI field investigation efforts included the collection of
off-Site surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface
water, and sediment samples. These samples were laboratory
analyzed in the same manner as on-Site samples in order to
determine "background" concentrations of Site-related
contaminants. Background levels of Site-related contaminants may
represent either naturally occurring concentrations of these same
contaminants, or concentrations from sources other than the Site.
-------
The background concentrations provide a basis for comparison with
samples from areas that may have been impacted by the Site.
3.1 Waste Material
3.1.1 Primary Disposal Area
Ten test pits were excavated and sampled in the Primary
disposal area. The test pit locations at the Primary disposal
area are presented in Figure 2. The test pits were excavated to
approximately five feet wide, 25 feet long, and to a depth of
eight feet or native soil, whichever was encountered first.
Table 1 lists the amount of material removed, the number of
samples collected, and an estimate of waste type and quantity
removed from each test pit completed in the Primary disposal
area.
The average depth'of waste material was approximately 5.5
feet, which yields an estimated total volume of waste and soil
above the waste-soil interface of approximately 40,000 cubic
yards in the Primary disposal area. On average, the material
encountered in the ten test pits in the Primary disposal area
consisted of 84% soil, 12% ash, 4% rubber stripping and other
rubber products, and 0.005% sludge.
Visual observations, combined with the analytical results of
the test pit program, indicate the majority of waste at the
Primary disposal area is located in a ring around the crest of
the. hill. The waste material was apparently burned at the top of
the hill and then pushed down the slope. The ash and unburned
material likely mixed with the surface soil during this disposal
method.
Two soil/waste samples were collected from material
excavated from each test pit. These samples consisted of
predominantly, soil with some waste material that could not be
segregated. In addition, a total of three ash and three sludge
samples were collected from the Primary disposal area.
After the majority of the RI work was completed, additional
information resulting from an interview with a past Sheller-Globe
employee, became available which indicated that a previously
unknown disposal trench may exist on the western portion of the
Primary disposal area hillside. Two additional test pits were
excavated in the alleged disposal trench area in the same manner
as the original test pits. No waste material was found in either
test pit, so no samples were collected.
3.1.la Soil/Waste Material
Four metals were detected in test pit soil/waste samples at
three times background concentrations: barium, cadmium,
-------
chromium, and lead. Table 2 shows the metals detected, the range
of concentrations, as well as background concentrations for
comparison purposes.
Twelve different phthalate and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds were detected in test pit soil/waste
samples at concentrations up to 27 ppm. Table 3 presents the
results of semi-volatile organic analysis of test pit soil/waste
samples. Volatile organics were detected above trace levels in
only one of the ten test pits. Xylene, ethylbenzene, acetone,
and toluene were detected in Test Pit 6 (TP 6) at concentrations
up to 82.0 ppm.
3.1.Ib Ash
Several metals were detected in ash samples at
concentrations greater than background soil concentrations.
Table 4 compares selected metals of concern and their
concentrations in ash samples with background soil
concentrations. Acetone, ethylbenzene, toluene, trichloroethene,
and xylene were detected in ash samples at levels up to 0.49 ppm.
Twelve phthalate and PAH compounds were also detected in ash
samples at concentrations up to 13 ppm (see Table 5).
3.1.1c Sludge
Several metals were detected in sludge samples at
concentrations greater than background soil concentrations.
Table 6 compares selected metals concentrations in sludge samples
with background soil concentrations. Nine volatile organic
compounds were detected in sludge samples at levels up to 3.4 ppm
(see Table 7). Four phthalate compounds were detected in sludge
samples at levels up to 27,000 ppm. See Table 5 for a listing of
analytical results.
3.1.Id Drum Survey
A survey of the Primary disposal area was conducted to
identify all drums exposed on the hillside and to determine the
contents, if any, of the drums. Eighty-six drums were found
scattered at the surface of the hillside. All of these drums
were either empty or contained varying amount of soil, sticks,
rusty metal, etc. No drums were found intact and no drums
contained sludge or liquids.
3.1.2 North Hill Disposal Area
Six test pits were excavated and sampled in the North Hill
disposal area in a manner similar to those excavated at the
Primary disposal area. Figure 3 shows test pit locations at the
North Hill disposal area. No ash or sludge was found in the test
pits at the North Hill disposal area. Scattered pieces of rubber
-------
at the surface was the only waste material identified in the
area. One soil/waste sample was collected from each test pit.
These samples consisted of predominantly soil with some waste
material that could not be segregated. Table 8 lists the amount
of material removed, the number of samples collected, and an
estimate of waste type and quantity removed from each test pit
completed in the North Hill disposal area.
3.1.2a Soil/Waste Material
Concentrations of metals in soil/waste samples were, in
general, only slightly above background levels (see Table 2). No
volatile organic compounds were detected in test pit soil/waste
samples collected from the North Hill disposal area. Five semi-
volatile compounds were detected in soil/waste samples at low
levels up to 0.110 ppm (see Table 9).
3 ..2 Subsurface Soil
3.2.1 Primary Disposal Area
3.2.la Soil Borings
Eleven soil borings were drilled and sampled during the RI
field investigation. Seven borings were drilled in a ring around
the outer edge of the waste material at the Primary disposal area
(SB-1 through SB-7). Two borings were located near the crest of
the Primary disposal area hill (SB-8 and SB-9). Two borings were
drilled off-Site, with one of these borings (SB-10) providing
background sample information. Soil boring locations are shown
in Figure 2. Soil samples were collected from the 2- to 4-foot
and 6- to 8-foot intervals below ground surface in all borings.
In addition, six of the borings were also sampled at the 2-foot
interval above the groundwater-saturated zone.
Metals analysis of soil boring samples show on-Site
concentrations similar to background subsurface soil
concentrations with one exception. The analytical results for
the sample collected at the 6- to 8- foot interval from Soil
Boring 9 (SB-9) indicate the presence of several metals above
background levels. Boring logs show that SB-9 intercepted native
glacial till material from the ground surface to approximately 15
feet below ground surface. The metals present in the SB-9 sample
may be due to the natural variability of glacial tills rather
than Site waste material. Table 10 lists the ranges of metals in
both on-Site and off-Site subsurface soils.
Volatile and semi-volatile analysis detected few
contaminants in subsurface soil samples collected from borings.
Acetone was detected in three of the 27 on-Site subsurface soil
boring samples at concentrations up to 14 parts per billion
•(ppb) . Methylene chloride was detected in three soil boring
-------
samples at concentrations up to 3 ppb. Benzene and one phthalate
compound were detected in eleven and three samples, respectively.
However, both of these chemicals were detected in the clean
quality control sample also, indicating that the noted
concentrations may not be representative of actual contamination.
Table 11 shows the volatile and semi-volatile compounds detected
in subsurface soil boring samples.
3.2.1b Soil Below Test Pits
A total of eight soil samples were collected from below the
waste/soil interface in four of the ten test pits excavated in
the Primary disposal area. Samples were collected from the 0- to
2-foot and 6- to 8-foot depth intervals below waste material.
Several metals were detected in subsurface soil samples at
elevated levels above background. Table 12 compares selected
metals of concern and their concentrations in subsurface soil
samples with background soil concentrations. Acetone,
ethylbenzene, and xylene were detected in soil samples collected
below test pits at concentrations up to 0.24 ppm (see Table 13).
Three phthalate compounds and- pyrene were detected in subsurface
soil samples at levels up to 0.950 ppm. Table 14 compares test
pit sample results with subsurface soil results.
3.2.2 North Hill Disposal Area
3.2.2a Soil Below Test Pits
Six soil samples were collected from below the waste/soil
interface in three of the six test pits excavated in the North
Hill disposal area. Samples were collected from the 0- to 2-foot
and 6- to 8-foot depth intervals below the waste material.
Concentrations of metals in the subsurface soil samples were
similar to background levels (see Table 15). Pyrene and bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected in subsurface soil samples at
levels up to 0.091 ppm.
3.3 Ground Water
Ten shallow groundwater monitoring wells and four deep wells
have been installed on and near the Site. Three shallow
monitoring wells (MW-4S, MW-5S and MW-8S) were located so that
their samples represent background, that is, naturally occurring
chemical concentrations. Monitoring well locations are shown on
Figure 4. The shallow wells range from 20 to 64 feet deep and
were all completed in the glacial till material which underlies
the Site. Glacial till aquifers in southeastern Iowa are of
limited extent and yield only small amounts of water, and
therefore do not provide a reliable source of water.
-------
The four deep monitoring wells range in depth frqm 71 feet
to 138 feet deep and were all completed in the uppermost water-
bearing bedrock unit which consists of alternating beds of
claystone and limestone. The bedrock unit from which the four
deep wells draw water, transmits water so slowly that the shallow
gradient, and therefore, direction of groundwater flow was not
possible to determine. For this reason, no upgradient well was
identified to represent background concentrations. However, the
relative locations of the four deep wells ensures that at least
one well is located in an upgradient direction. The bedrock
aquifer is isolated from the glacial till aquifer by two
confining units of low hydraulic conductivity. The two confining
units consist of clay, silt, claystone, and shale and have a
combined thickness of approximately 40 to 45 feet in the vicinity
of the Site.
During the RI, three rounds of ground water samples were
collected and analyzed' from the ten shallow monitoring wells and
the 300 foot deep on-Site drinking water well, and two rounds
were collected from the four deep monitoring wells. Analytical
results associated with the on-Site drinking water well will be
discussed along with the deep monitoring wells.
Monitoring well samples are frequently quite silty and
turbid due to the nature of monitoring well design. When
monitoring well samples are analyzed, groundwater, as well as any
silt and clay particles suspended in the sample, are analyzed for
chemical content. Because silt and clay particles contain
naturally occurring metals, analysis of groundwater monitoring
well samples may not accurately represent the chemical content of
groundwater that migrates through the subsurface. Therefore,
metals concentrations in groundwater monitoring well samples may
overstate actual concentration values. This type of groundwater
sample analysis is called "total" metals analysis.
Passing the sample through a filter to remove silt and clay
particles prior to analysis may result in metals concentration
values which more accurately represent actual groundwater
contamination. Using this approach results in concentration
values which represent metals dissolved in the water sample.
However, there is some possibility that the filter used to remove
silt and clay particles may also remove some metals that are
dissolved in the groundwater sample. For these reasons, both
total and dissolved metals analysis were conducted on groundwater
samples collected from the Site.
3.3.1 Shallow Groundwater
Total concentrations of arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, nickel, and thallium were all detected at least
once in one shallow monitoring well at levels greater than twice
the background concentration. Dissolved concentrations of
8
-------
antimony, beryllium, chromium, lead, and nickel were detected at
least once in one shallow well greater than twice background.
Tables 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 list the results of total and
dissolved metals analysis on shallow groundwater samples.
Acetone, toluene, chloroform, and 2-butanone were detected
in shallow groundwater samples, with acetone found at the highest
concentration of 11 ppb (see Table 22). Three phthalate
compounds were detected in shallow groundwater samples with the
highest concentration at 39 ppb (see Table 23).
3.3.2 Deep Groundwater
Total metals analysis detected antimony, arsenic, chromium,
lead, and nickel in deep monitoring well samples above primary
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The highest concentrations of
arsenic and chromium were 59.2 ppb and 114 ppb, slightly above
their MCLs of 50 ppb and 100 ppb, respectively. The highest
concentrations of lead and nickel were 66.8 ppb and 225 ppb,
compared to their MCLs of 15 ppb, and 100 ppb, respectively.
Dissolved metals analysis detected antimony above its MCL. The
highest concentration of dissolved antimony detected was 119 ppb,
while the MCL is 6 ppb. All other dissolved metals in deep
groundwater samples were below primary MCLs. Both total and
dissolved metals results can be found in Tables 24, 25, 26, and
27.
The on-Site drinking water well samples contained lead at
concentrations ranging from not-detectable to 55 ppb, over the
years it had been sampled. However, the source of this lead is
inconclusive and most likely due to the water pipes rather than
site related contaminants.
No volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds were detected
above MCLs. Acetone, benzene, chloroform, and methylene chloride
were detected in deep groundwater samples, with the highest
concentration an outlier of acetone at 53 ppb (see Table 22).
Phenol and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected in deep
groundwater samples, with the highest concentration an outlier at
39 ppb (see Table 23).
3.4 Surface Water and Sediments
Seven surface water and sediment locations were sampled
during the RI. Three locations (SW-l/SD-1, SW-2/SD-2, SW-3/SD-3)
were upstream from the Site, three were adjacent to the Site (SW-
4/SD-4, SW-5/SD-5, SW-6/SD-6), and one was located downstream
from the Site (SW-7/SD-7). Figure 4 depicts surface water and
sediment sample locations. All samples were collected from the
two nameless intermittent creeks which bound the Primary disposal
area, except SW-3 and SD-3 which were collected from an off-Site
upgradient pond.
-------
3.4.1 Surface Water
Total metals concentrations of samples collected adjacent to
or down gradient from the Site were either similar, to or below,
background (upgradient) levels. In general, dissolved metals
concentrations were within the same range as total
concentrations. No semi-volatile compounds were detected in
surface water samples. Volatile analysis was not performed on
the surface water samples because volatile organic chemicals are
generally not found in surface waters. This approach of not
performing volatile analysis on surface water samples is standard
procedure.
3.4.2 Sediments
In general, significant differences between upstream and
downstream metals concentrations were not indicated in the
analytical results (see Table 28). Cadmium was detected above
background concentrations at 2.5 ppm compared to a background
level of non-detect. One upstream sediment sample contained
acetone at 0.021 ppm. One downstream sediment sample contained
acetone at 0.088 ppm and 2-butanone at 0.020 ppm. All sediment
samples contained bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at levels up to 2.0
ppm. One upstream sample contained a phthalate compound at 0.068
ppm.
3.5 Surface Soil
3.5.1 Primary Disposal Area
A 150-foot grid pattern was established for the Primary
disposal area, resulting in 21 grids from which four surface soil
samples were collected and combined together to form one
representative sample per grid. The surface soil sample grid
pattern at the Primary disposal area is presented in Figure 2.
Sample analytical results indicate the presence of antimony,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and zinc at
levels greater than twice background values. The highest metals
concentrations were detected in a semicircular pattern around the
perimeter of the hilltop at the Primary disposal area. Table 29
summarizes the ranges of metals in surface soil samples collected
from the Primary disposal area, the North Hill disposal area, and
from off-Site areas. No volatile organic compounds were detected
in surface soil samples. Di-n.-octylphthalate was detected at
1.7 parts per million (ppm) in one surface soil sample which was
collected from the northeastern portion of the Primary disposal
area hillside. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in
several surface soil samples at concentrations up to 1.9 ppm.
10
-------
3.5.2 North Hill Disposal Area
A 100-foot grid pattern was established for the North Hill
disposal area, resulting in 7 grids from which four surface soil
samples were collected and combined together to form one
representative sample per grid. Figure 3 shows the surface soil
sample grid pattern at the North Hill disposal area. Sample
results indicate the presence of antimony and cadmium at levels
greater than twice background values. No volatile organic
compounds were detected in surface soil samples and no semi-
volatile compounds above laboratory detection limits were
identified, with the exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at
concentrations up to 1.9 ppm.
3.6 Summary
Data collected during the RI identified the presence of low
level threat wastes in the soil at the Sheller-Globe Disposal
site. No principal threat waste was identified because waste
material at the Site is not at high concentrations, highly
mobile, or a liquid. Further, on-Site waste material would not
present a significant risk to-human health or the environment
should exposure occur and no potential risk greater than 1x10-3
exists. In addition, waste material at the Site can be reliably
contained on-Site.
Grpundwater is generally not considered a source of
hazardous constituents, pollutants, or contaminants and, at the
Sheller-Globe site, does not act as a reservoir for migration.
Therefore, groundwater at the Site is neither a low level threat
waste or a principal threat waste and does not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
3.6.1 Primary Disposal Area
RI sample results indicate that the ash material is the
primary source of elevated levels of metals detected at the
Primary disposal area. Although elevated levels of various
metals were detected in sludge samples, a only a small amount of
sludge was found in the 16 test pits excavated during the RI.
Several volatile organic compounds were detected in Test Pit
6, with the highest concentration at 82.0 ppm. Analytical
results for the soil sample collected from the 0- to 2-foot level
below the soil/waste interface, • contained lower levels at
concentrations up to 0.24 ppm. The concentrations dropped even
further at the 6- to 8-foot level to 0.018 ppm.
Semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in soils from
the test pits. Higher levels of semi-volatile compounds,
primarily phthalates, were detected in sludge samples collected
from the test pits. These semi-volatile compounds were detected
11
-------
at lower concentrations, or not at all, in soil samples collected
below the waste/soil interface.
Surface soils at the primary disposal area contained
elevated levels of several metals and of a semi-volatile
compound. The highest metals concentrations were detected in a
semicircular pattern around the perimeter of the hilltop at the
Primary disposal area. This pattern correlates with the disposal
practices known to have been conducted at the Site and with the
findings of the subsurface soil and test pit studies.
Volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds were detected
in subsurface soils collected from soil borings located in a ring
around the waste area. Metals concentrations in these boring
samples were similar to background levels, indicating that
migration of Site-related contaminants of concern is minimal.
3.6.2 North Hill' Disposal Area
The North Hill disposal area was found to consist of shallow
(less than 1 foot in depth) deposits of scattered rubber.
Chemical analysis showed slightly elevated metals levels in
subsurface soil samples and metals levels similar to background
in surface soil samples. Therefore, the North Hill disposal area
is not considered a source of contamination.
3.6.3 Groundwater
Volatile and semi-volatile organics were detected in a few
shallow monitoring wells although none were detected above MCLs.
Several total and dissolved metals were detected at levels
greater than twice background. Of the seven on-Site shallow
monitoring wells, MW-11 was the only well that consistently
showed total metals greater than twice background levels.
Manganese was the only Site-related contaminant of concern
consistently detected in dissolved groundwater samples at levels
greater than twice background.. Antimony was the only Site-
related contaminant of concern detected above its primary Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) in dissolved monitoring well samples.
The differences in the total and dissolved concentrations of the
metals indicate that the metals are attached to individual soil
particles withdrawn from the aquifer along with the water sample.
Therefore, the higher total metals concentrations are likely the
result of suspended solids in the groundwater samples.
Volatile and semi-volatile organics were not detected above
MCLs in any of the four deep (bedrock) monitoring wells.
Antimony was the only Site-related contaminant of concern
detected above its primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in
dissolved monitoring well samples. Both total and dissolved
metals analyses indicate the metals concentrations are generally
consistent with each other. The groundwater flow direction in
12
-------
the bedrock aquifer has not been determined due to the extremely
slow moving nature of the aquifer. However, the four wells have
been located so that one of the wells is expected to be
upgradient from the Site. Based on the data, which shows
consistency between the four deep wells, there is no evidence
that the deep aquifer has been affected by the disposal
activities at the Site.
Groundwater data indicates that Site-related metals have
migrated from the ash material into the shallow groundwater
bearing unit within a limited area on-Site. Given the limited
areal extent of metals in the shallow groundwater, the limited
extent of the sand and gravel zone in which this water bearing
zone occurs, and the discharge of the shallow groundwater to the
on-Site intermittent drainages, off-Site migration of the metals
in shallow groundwater appears to be unlikely. The confining
units between the shallow and deep water bearing zones serve to
limit the hydraulic communication between these zones. No
evidence of contaminant migration from the Site to the deep
groundwater was observed.
3.6.4 Surface Water and Sediments
Total metals concentrations in surface water were similar to
background levels. In general, dissolved metals concentrations
were within the same range as total concentrations. No semi-
volatile compounds were detected in surface water samples.
Volatile analysis was not performed on the surface water samples
because volatile organic chemicals are generally not found in
surface waters. This approach of not performing volatile
analysis on surface water samples is standard procedure.
In general, significant differences between upstream and
downstream metals concentrations in stream sediments were not
indicated in the analytical results. Cadmium was detected above
background concentrations. Several volatile and semi-volatile
compounds were detected in sediments.
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
4.1 Baseline Risk Assessment and Ecological Assessment
EPA prepared a Baseline Risk Assessment and an Ecological
Assessment, using the data collected during the RI, as well as
the other data and information available for this Site. The
purpose of the Baseline Risk Assessment and the Ecological
Assessment is to characterize any risk posed by the Site to human
health and the environment. The Baseline Risk Assessment and the
Ecological Assessment are summarized in the RI report and are
available for review in the Administrative Record.
13
-------
Non-carcinogenic risks and carcinogenic risks were evaluated
for each contaminant of potential concern in each exposure
scenario. Superfund remedial actions can be undertaken to
address any of three types of risk: carcinogenic risk to human
health, noncarcinogenic risk to human health, and environmental
risk.
4.2 Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Pursuant to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) [40 C.F.R.
Section 300.430(d)(4), Section 300.430(e)(2) and the preamble],
EPA determines whether or not Superfund remedial actions are
required for a site based upon the human health risk for a
reasonable maximum exposure (RME). Reasonable maximum 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.
EPA assumes that the RME for the Sheller-Globe Disposal site
will include future residents (adults and children) at the
Primary disposal area who consume vegetables from an on-Site
garden and use shallow on-Site groundwater for drinking water and
other household uses. The RME also includes future residents
(adults and children) at the North Hill disposal area who consume
vegetables from an on-Site garden and use shallow on-Site
groundwater for drinking water and other household uses.
Although use of shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the Site
is unlikely due to low yield and poor quality (high turbidity),
this potential exposure pathway was included in the RME.
Site trespassers may also potentially be exposed to Site
contaminants. EPA initially included a Site trespasser in the
RME, however, exposures were judged to be very minor to non-
existent and therefore, not quantified in the Baseline Risk
Assessment.
4.3 Noncarcinoqenic Risks for the RME
Hazard indices are used to assess chronic (long-term) and
sub-chronic (short-term) non-carcinogenic risks. Chronic and
sub-chronic hazard quotients are determined for each contaminant
of concern in each exposure scenario. A hazard quotient is the
ratio of the exposure level to a reference dose. A reference
dose is the exposure level considered to be safe with respect to
non-carcinogenic effects. A hazard index (HI) is a summation of
the hazard quotients for the exposure scenario. An HI greater
than one may be a concern with respect to non-cancer health
effects and so, Superfund remedial actions may then be
undertaken. An HI of less than 1 indicates that adverse,
noncarcinogenic effects on human health, including sensitive
subpopulations, are not expected.
14
-------
The cumulative chronic and subchronic HI values calculated
for potential future on-Site resident exposures to Site-related
contaminants in surface soil, subsurface soil, and to Site-grown
vegetables at the North Hill disposal area are less than 1,
indicating no significant noncarcinogenic risks exist via these
pathways.
His calculated for potential future on-Site resident
exposures to Site-related contaminants in surface soil at the
Primary disposal area are also equal to or less than 1. Chronic
and subchronic His calculated for potential future on-Site
resident exposures to Site-related contaminants in subsurface
soil are 3 and less than 1, respectively. The elevated HI
associated with subsurface soils was based on the potential for
subsurface soils to be ingested by a future resident throughout a
30 year "lifetime". Chronic and subchronic His calculated for
Site-related contaminants associated with Site-grown vegetables
are 9 and less than 1, respectively. The chronic HI of 9 is
associated with ingestion of vegetables grown at the Primary
disposal area for a 30 year "lifetime" and is predominantly due
to the presence of cadmium in soils. These HI values represent
potentially unacceptable risks associated with exposures to
subsurface soils and Site-grown vegetables at the Primary
disposal area.
The cumulative chronic and subchronic HI values calculated
for ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of shallow
groundwater potentially used as a primary source of drinking and
household water, are at or below 1, indicating no unacceptable
non-carcinogenic risks.
Table 30 depicts total Site risks as well as background
risks due to naturally occurring compounds. The table also lists
Site risks due to Site-related contaminants.
4.4 Carcinogenic Risks for the RME
Cancer risks are expressed as an upper-bound (most
conservative) estimate of the additional cancers which could
result from lifetime exposure to all contaminants of concern
under the RME. In general, EPA considers as being acceptable
those concentration levels representing an excess lifetime cancer
risk of between 10-4 and 10-6, or lower. A cancer risk level of
10-4 means that one person out .of ten thousand is at risk of
developing cancer during a lifetime of exposure to Site
contaminants under the RME. A cancer risk level of 10-6 means
that one person out of a million is at risk of developing cancer
during a lifetime of exposure to Site contaminants under the RME.
The cumulative total carcinogenic risk calculated for
potential future on-Site resident exposures to surface soil,
15
-------
subsurface soil, and to Site-grown vegetables at the l^orth Hill
disposal area is equal to or less than background risks.
The cumulative carcinogenic risk associated with Site-
related contaminants calculated for potential future on-Site
resident exposures to surface soil, subsurface soil, and to Site-
grown vegetables at the Primary disposal area is 3.5x10-5. A
cancer risk level of 3.5x10-5 means that 3.5 people out of one
hundred thousand (3.5/100,000) is at risk of developing cancer
during a lifetime exposure to Site contaminants under the RME.
The cumulative carcinogenic risk associated with Site-
related contaminants calculated for ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation of shallow groundwater potentially used as a
primary source of drinking and household water is 7x10-4. A
cancer risk level of 7x10-4 means that 7 people out of ten
thousand (7/10,000) is at risk of developing cancer during a
lifetime exposure to Site contaminants under the RME.
4.5 Lead Exposure
Although there is no universally agreed upon value of lead
in blood that may be identified as "safe" for the effects of lead
on children, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has
concluded that some adverse health effects have been observed at
a level of 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) and has identified
as a goal the reduction of children's blood lead levels to below
10 ug/dL. EPA also considers values above 10 ug/dL to be of
concern and recommends that, for an exposed population of
children, no more than 5% of the population exceed this value.
The potential for residential children to develop blood lead
concentrations above 10 ug/dL due to past Site-related activities
was calculated in the Baseline Risk Assessment using the Uptake/
Biokinetic (UBK) model. Calculations indicate that potential
exposures by a child resident to surface soils in the Primary
disposal area may result in 15.45 % of exposed children
developing blood lead concentration greater than 10 ug/dL.
Potential exposures by a child resident to subsurface soil/waste
in the Primary disposal area may result in 38.16 % of exposed
children developing blood lead concentrations above 10 ug/dL.
These percentages are greater than EPA's goal of no more than 5%
exceedances.
Baseline Risk Assessment calculations indicate that no
unacceptable potential lead exposures were likely to occur in the
North Hill disposal area.
4.6 Environmental Risk
The environmental impact of the releases of hazardous
substances from the Sheller-Globe Disposal site were assessed in
16
-------
the Ecological Assessment, which is included in the
Administrative Record. These releases do not appear to present a
significant threat to the environment.
4.7 Risk-Related Need for Remedial Action
In general, EPA undertakes remedial actions for Superfund
sites when the cumulative risk (for the site as a whole, from all
potentially complete exposure pathways) exceeds 1E-4 (an increase
of one-in-ten thousand) lifetime risk of getting cancer as a
result of releases from the site for a reasonable maximum
exposure (RME). Superfund remedial actions may also be
undertaken when an HI of 1 or greater is calculated for a RME.
An HI of less than 1 indicates that adverse, noncarcinogenic
effects on human health, including sensitive subpopulations, are
not expected.
Chronic and subchronic His of 3 and less than 1,
respectively, were calculated in the Baseline Risk Assessment
based on the potential for Primary disposal area subsurface soils
to be ingested by a future resident throughout a 30 year
"lifetime". A chronic HI value of 9 was calculated to represent
the potential risk from, predominantly cadmium, in soil to a
future resident who may ingest Site-grown vegetables for a period
o.f 30 years. These values exceed EPA's standard of 1, thereby
warranting remedial action to address the potential future risks
posed by the Primary disposal area.
The cumulative carcinogenic risk associated with Site-
related contaminants calculated for ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation of shallow groundwater potentially used as a
primary source of drinking and household water for a period of 30
years is 7x10-4 (7/10,000). The Baseline Risk Assessment, in
calculating risks associated with use of the shallow groundwater,
used total metals concentrations to represent potential exposure
concentrations. This is a conservative approach to risk
calculation when dealing with turbid monitoring well samples,
such as those collected at the Sheller-Globe Disposal site, since
total metals analysis over-estimates actual groundwater
concentrations.
It is unlikely that the shallow groundwater at the Site
would be used as a source of water due to its low yields, low
quality, and the fact that the area is served by two rural water
districts. Further, the recharge rate of the shallow wells is
very slow and so will not support domestic water supply
requirements. Shallow groundwater at the Site is quite turbid,
containing silt and clay particles not desirable in a drinking
water supply. Given the limited areal extent of metals in the
shallow groundwater', the limited extent of the sand and gravel
zone in which this water bearing zone occurs, and the discharge
of the shallow groundwater to the on-Site intermittent drainages,
17
-------
off-Site migration of the metals in shallow groundwater appears
to be unlikely.
Therefore, while the cumulative carcinogenic risk associated
with use of shallow groundwater at the Site slightly exceeds the
EPA acceptable risk range, no remedial action is determined to be
necessary with regard to groundwater. The now closed (per State
of Iowa approved procedures) on-Site drinking water well was
drilled through the shallow groundwater into the deep bedrock
aquifer to a depth of 300 feet and thus was not affected by the
contamination in the shallow groundwater.
The actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from this Site, if not addressed by the selected remedy, or other
remedial alternatives, may present a current or potential threat
to public health, welfare and the environment.
4.8 Preliminary Remedial Goals
The goal of any remedial action is to prevent unacceptable
risks to human health and the environment from occurring due to
the presence of site-related-contaminants. This may be
accomplished by one of two means: removing and/or treating
contaminated -material to reduce contaminant concentrations or by
breaking exposure pathways to prevent unacceptable exposure of
sensitive populations from occurring.
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
A range of remedial alternatives were identified and
screened in the Development and Screening of Remedial
Alternatives Technical Memorandum. Remedial alternatives were
evaluated in detail in the Feasibility Study (FS) and are
described in this section. Three alternatives were determined to
be appropriate for consideration at the Sheller-Globe Disposal
site.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) states that EPA expects to use "treatment
to address the principal threats posed by a site, wherever
practicable" and "engineering controls, such as containment, for
waste that poses a relatively low long-term threat", 40 CFR
§300.430(a)(iii). Further, the NCP states that the EPA expects
to use institutional controls such as deed restrictions to
supplement engineering controls as appropriate to limit exposure
to hazardous substances. These expectations help to streamline
and focus the FS on appropriate waste management options.
Therefore, treatment alternatives addressing the low level threat
wastes at the Site were retained in the Feasibility Study through
the preliminary screening process but were omitted prior to the
detailed analysis of alternatives because treatment is not
necessary to address the threats posed by the site. The NCP
18
-------
further provides that in situations where active response
measures are not practicable, institutional controls may be the
sole remedy at a site based on the balancing of trade-offs among
alternatives that is conducted during the selection of the
remedy.
A component common to all of the alternatives described
below is the listing of the Site on the Iowa Registry of
Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites. As noted
in Section 1.2, the Iowa Registry provides that a person may not
substantially change the manner in which a site on the Registry
is used without prior approval of the Director of IDNR. It also
mandates that a person shall not sell, convey or transfer title
to an abandoned or uncontrolled disposal site which is on the
Registry without written approval of the Director and requires
the Director to notify the appropriate County Recorder's Office
when a site is placed on the Registry. The following discussion
summarizes the alternatives. The media potentially affected by
the Site, as discussed in Section 4.0, are further addressed
below.
5.1 Primary Disposal Area;. Surface Soil. Subsurface Soil, and
Waste Material
The Baseline Risk Assessment indicated a potential
noncarcinogenic health threat if future residents were allowed to
ingest subsurface soil/waste material for a 30 year "lifetime".
An additional potential noncarcinogenic health threat may exist
if future residents ingested Site-grown vegetables for a 30-year
"lifetime". Baseline Risk Assessment calculations indicate that
potential exposures by a child resident to surface soils and
subsurface soils/waste in the Primary disposal area may result in
elevated blood lead levels. Therefore, a range of alternatives
was evaluated as described below.
5.1.1 Alternative 1: No-Action
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires that EPA
consider a no action alternative as a benchmark against which
other alternatives can be compared. Under this option, no
remedial actions, including no additional monitoring or
institutional controls, would be implemented to reduce risks from
exposures to Site contamination or releases.
There would be no monetary costs associated with this
alternative. However, EPA would conduct 5-year reviews pursuant
to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as it would for all of the other
alternatives evaluated. Section 121(c) requires that if a
remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances
remaining at the site, a review should be conducted no less often
than each five years after initiation of the remedial action.
19
-------
5.1.2 Alternative 2: Deed Restrictions
This alternative would include implementation of deed
restrictions to run with the land which limit land use. Future
use of the Site would be limited to non-residential use of the
property. In addition, the deed restriction, to be recorded with
the County Recorder, will notify future potential property
purchasers that hazardous substances remain on-Site.
The cost of implementing Alternative 2 is estimated to be
approximately $5,000.
5.1.3 Alternative 3: Deed Restrictions, Building
Demolition, and Soil Cover
This alternative would include demolition of the on-Site
house to preclude future use as a residence and the addition of a
12-inch layer of topsoil placed in those areas in which ash
material is exposed at the surface. Areas not currently
vegetated would be seeded with grass. Prior to placing the soil
cover, exposed drums at the ground surface will be removed for
consolidation (all identified drums were determined during the RI
to be empty or filled with non-hazardous material such as soil,
sticks, rusty metal, etc.) Demolition debris and the
consolidated drums would either be disposed of on-Site within the
house foundation, covered with soil, and vegetated or off-Site
as construction debris. In addition, the deed restrictions
discussed in Alternative 2 would also be implemented. The
discussion under Section 5.1.2, above, also applies to this
alternative.
The time required to implement the building demolition
alternative, including drum consolidation and soil cover is
estimated to be approximately six months from beginning of field
work. The present worth cost of implementing Alternative 3a
(off-Site disposal of construction debris) is estimated to be
approximately $120,604. The present worth cost of implementing
Alternative 3b (on-Site disposal of construction debris) is
estimated to be approximately $100,875.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
for Alternative 3 may include the following, depending upon
whether demolition materials and drums are disposed on-Site or
off-Site: the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Iowa
Hazardous Substances and Waste Regulations, and the Iowa Solid
Waste Disposal Regulations. Implementation of this alternative
could be completed while meeting the ARARs.
20
-------
5.2 North Hill Disposal Area; Surface Soil. Subsurface
Soil, and Waste Material
Data collected during the RI and the Baseline Risk
Assessment indicate that surface soils, subsurface soil, and
waste material at the North Hill disposal area do not pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment, therefore,
only the "no-action" alternative was considered for the North
Hill disposal area.
5.2.1 No-Action
This alternative involves no action at the Site to prevent
or reduce exposures to potentially contaminated surface soil,
subsurface soil, and waste material at the North Hill disposal
area. There are no costs associated with this alternative.
There are no federal or state ARARs for the no-action
alternative. Compliance with federal and state ARARS is not
required because no remedial action is necessary to protect human
health or the environment.
5.3 Groundwater
Based on the results of the RI and the Baseline Risk
Assessment, EPA has determined that no remedial action is
necessary with regard to groundwater, therefore only the "no-
action" alternative is described below.
5.3.1 No-Action
This alternative involves no action at the Site to prevent
or reduce exposures to potentially contaminated groundwater.
There are no costs associated with this alternative. EPA would
conduct 5-year reviews pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as
it would for all of the other alternatives evaluated.
There are no federal or state ARARs for the no-action
alternative. Compliance with federal and state ARARS is not
required because no remedial action is necessary to protect human
health or the environment.
5.4 Surface Water and Sediments
Data collected during the RI and the Baseline Risk
Assessment indicate that neither surface water nor sediments pose
a threat to human health or the environment, therefore only the
"no-action" alternative is described below.
21
-------
5.4.1 No-Action
This alternative involves no action at the Site to prevent
or reduce exposures to potentially contaminated surface water and
sediments. There are no costs associated with this alternative.
There are no federal or state ARARs for the no-action
alternative. Compliance with federal and state ARARS is not
required because no remedial action is necessary to protect human
health or the environment.
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A comparative analysis of each alternative against nine
specific evaluation criteria has been made. The evaluation
criteria serve as the basis for conducting analysis of the
remedial alternatives during the FS and for subsequently
selecting an appropriate remedial action in a Record of Decision.
These nine criteria are categorized into three groups: threshold
criteria, primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria.
The threshold criteria must be satisfied for an alternative to be
eligible for selection. The -primary balancing criteria are used
to weigh major tradeoffs among alternatives. The modifying
criteria take into account the public comments on the Proposed
Plan and the support agency concurrence. Attachment C provides a
glossary of the nine evaluation criteria which are also presented
in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP.
Based on the Baseline Risk Assessment, EPA has determined
that groundwater, surface water, sediments, and the North Hill
disposal area do not pose a significant threat to human health
and no remedial action with respect to these media is necessary
to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
Therefore, no further evaluation of alternatives for groundwater,
surface water, sediments, and the North Hill disposal area is
required.
EPA's selected remedy for addressing surface soil and
subsurface soil and waste material at the Primary disposal area
of the Sheller-Globe Disposal site is Alternative 3, deed
restrictions, building demolition, and soil cover. EPA used the
nine criteria to evaluate all of the alternatives. The selected
remedy was determined to provide the best balance of trade-offs
with respect to the criteria. The selected remedy is described
in Section 5.0 and discussed below in relation to the criteria
and is compared to the other alternatives under each criterion.
The criteria are organized into three categories to prioritize
the criteria used in making the final selection.
22
-------
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
The first such category is threshold criteria. An
alternative must meet the following two requirements to be
considered as a final remedy for the Site:
6.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy, Alternative 3, would require additional
clean soil over exposed ash material. Seeding of currently
unvegetated areas of the Site would aid preventing any
potentially contaminated material from leaving the Site. In
addition, deed restrictions would be placed on the property to
limit future use of the Site to non-residential activities.
These actions would help ensure that exposures to Site related
contaminants above health based levels does not occur.
Alternative 2 would provide protection of human health by
use of deed restrictions limiting the future use of the Site in a
manner that would limit exposure to on-Site contaminants. The
no-action alternative does not provide overall protection of
human health and the environment and therefore will not be
evaluated further.
6.2 Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy may be subject to the following ARARs,
depending upon whether demolition materials and drums are
disposed on-Site or off-Site: the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Occupational Safety
and Health Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the
Iowa Hazardous Substances and Waste Regulations, and the Iowa
Solid Waste Disposal Regulations. The selected remedy would
comply with all ARARs.
There are no federal or state ARARs for Alternative 2, Deed
Restrictions or for the no-action alternative.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
The second category of criteria is primary balancing
criteria. The following five criteria are used to evaluate the
alternatives to determine the option that provides the best
balance to qualify as the final alternative for the Site:
6.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, the selected remedy, would
both require deed restrictions to run with ownership of the land
limiting land use and therefore, potential future exposures.
Deed restrictions would effectively ensure no inappropriate use
23
-------
of the Site. They would run with the land to ensure that they
are in effect with future owners of the property.
In addition, the selected remedy would require demolition of
the existing on-Site building and the covering of exposed ash
material. These actions would effectively aid in limiting direct
contact with Site-related contaminants and inappropriate use of
the Site.
6.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume Through Treatment
Neither Alternative 2 or the selected remedy would achieve a
reduction in contaminant toxicity or volume through treatment.
Some reduction in mobility of contaminants would be achieved by
covering the area of exposed ash, a requirement of the selected
remedy. The remedy does not satisfy the preference for treatment
as a principal.element. However treatment of the Site's low
level waste was not found to be necessary.
6.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Minimal risks to the community and Site workers would be
associated with implementation of the selected remedy. The
selected remedy, which requires demolition of the building and
covering of exposed ash, may generate fugitive dust. Dust
generated during demolition and on-Site work can be controlled
through dust suppression techniques minimizing releases.
Alternative 2 would provide a high degree of short-term
protectiveness as unacceptable exposures are not currently
occurring and no on-Site work is required by this alternative.
6.6 Implementability
Deed restrictions required by both Alternatives 2 and 3, the
selected remedy, could be readily implemented by the Site's
owners through making the appropriate.filing with the Lee County
Recorder's Office.
The remaining elements of the selected remedy can be
completed with readily available equipment and labor. No
permits, treatability studies, or new technologies are required
to implement the selected remedy.
6.7 Cost
The cost of implementing the selected remedy includes the
cost of filing the deed restrictions, demolition of the building,
covering exposed ash, vegetating the covered area, and various
"housekeeping" activities such as removing empty drums found near
the ground surface. The total estimated cost of implementing the
24
-------
selected remedy falls between $100,875 and $120,604, depending on
whether demolition debris is disposed on-Site or off-Site.
The cost of implementing Alternative 2 is associated with
filing the deed restrictions and is estimated to be approximately
$5,000. There is no cost associated with the no-action
alternative.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
The third category of criteria is modifying criteria. The
following two criteria are considered when evaluating the
alternatives and are used to help determine the final alternative
for the Site:
6.8 State Acceptance
The Governor of Iowa has designated IDNR as' EPA's contact
for consultations on Superfund remedy selections. IDNR stated
its agreement with EPA's selected remedy in a written letter of
concurrence.
6.9 Community Acceptance
EPA's assessment of this criterium is based upon the oral
and written comments received on the Proposed Plan. No comments
on the Sheller-Globe Corporation Disposal site Proposed Plan were
received from the public.
7.0 SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the evaluation of each alternative with respect to
the above criteria, EPA and the State of Iowa have made a
determination that the selected remedy for the Sheller-Globe
Disposal site is Alternative 3, which represents the best balance
of trade-offs among the alternatives. Alternative 3 includes
filing of deed restrictions to limit future use of the property,
demolition of the on-Site building, and placement of soil cover
over portions of the Site. Based on the information available at
this time, therefore, EPA and the State of Iowa believe the
selected remedy will protect human health and the environment,
will comply with federal and state requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate for the alternative, and
will be cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for this Site. However, because treatment of the
Site's low level threat waste was not found to be necessary, this
remedy will not satisfy the preference for treatment as a
principal element.
Because the selected remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining on-Site above health-based levels, a review
25
-------
will be conducted no less often than every five years .after
commencement of the remedial action pursuant to Section 121 of
CERCLA to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
8.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authority, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes the following
statutory requirements and preferences:
8.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. The remedy requires additional clean soil over
exposed ash material. 'Seeding of currently unvegetated areas of
the Site will aid in preventing any potentially contaminated
material from leaving the Site. In addition, deed restrictions
will be placed on the property to limit future use of the Site to
non-residential activities. These actions will help ensure that
exposures to Site related contaminants above health based levels
does not occur.
8.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
• The selected remedy will be subject to the following ARARs,
depending upon whether demolition materials and drums are
disposed on-Site or off-Site: the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Occupational Safety
and Health Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the
Iowa Hazardous Substances and Waste Regulations, and the Iowa
Solid Waste Disposal Regulations. The selected remedy will
comply with all ARARs.
8.3 Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been
determined to provide overall protection of human health
proportional to its cost, with the total estimated cost of
implementing the remedy falls between $100,875 and $120,604,
depending on whether demolition debris is disposed on-Site or
off-Site. The cost of implementing the selected remedy includes
the cost of filing the deed restrictions, demolition of the
building, covering exposed ash, vegetating the covered area, and
various "housekeeping" activities such as removing empty drums
found near the ground surface.
26
-------
8.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner at the
Sheller-Globe Corporation Disposal site. The selected remedy
provides the best balance in terms of long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume achieved
though treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and
cost.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, the selected alternative,
both require deed restrictions to run with ownership of the land
limiting land use and therefore, potential future exposures.
Deed restrictions will effectively ensure no inappropriate use of
the Site. They will run with the land to ensure that they are in
effect with future owners of the property.
In addition, the selected remedy will require demolition of
the existing on-Site building and the covering of exposed ash
material. These actions will effectively aid in limiting direct
contact with Site-related contaminants and inappropriate use of
the Site.
Neither Alternative 2 or the selected remedy will achieve a
reduction in contaminant toxicity or volume through treatment.
Some reduction in mobility of contaminants will be achieved by
covering area of exposed ash, a requirement of the selected
remedy.
Minimal risks to the community and Site workers will be
associated with implementation of the selected remedy. The
selected remedy, which requires demolition of the building and
covering of exposed ash, may generate fugitive dust. Dust
generated during demolition and on-Site work can be controlled
through dust suppression techniques minimizing releases.
' Alternative 2 would provide a high degree of short-term
protectiveness as unacceptable exposures are not currently
occurring and no on-Site work is required by this alternative.
Deed restrictions required by both Alternatives 2 and 3, the
selected remedy, can be readily implemented by the Site's owners
through making the appropriate filing with the Lee County
Recorder's Office.
The remaining elements of the selected remedy can be
completed with readily available equipment and labor. No
permits, treatability studies, or new technologies are required
to implement the selected remedy.
27
-------
The cost of implementing the selected remedy includes the
cost of filing the deed restrictions, demolition of the building,
covering exposed ash, vegetating the covered area, and various
"housekeeping" activities such as removing empty drums found near
the ground surface. The total estimated cost of implementing the
selected remedy falls between $100,875 and $120,604, depending on
whether demolition debris is disposed on-Site or off-Site.
The cost of implementing Alternative 2 is associated with
filing the deed restrictions and is estimated to be approximately
$5,000. There is no cost associated with the no-action
alternative.
The State of Iowa concurs with and supports the selected
remedy for the Site.
As reflected in the lack of comments from the public, the
community accepts the selected remedy.
8.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy will not reduce contaminant toxicity or
volume through treatment and does not satisfy the preference for
treatment as a principal element. Site wastes will not be
treated in implementing the selected remedy because they are not
liquid, highly toxic or highly mobile, and treatment is not
practicable because the benefit derived from treatment of the
waste would be marginal. Therefore, treatment of the Site's low
level waste was not found to be warranted. Some reduction in
mobility of contaminants will be achieved by covering area of
exposed ash, a requirement of remedy.
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No significant changes were made in selecting the preferred
alternative as described in the Proposed Plan.
SECTION III RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
No comments on the Sheller'-Globe Corporation Disposal site
Proposed Plan were received from the public.
28
-------
ATTACHMENT A
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE 1
•' . \v\
• JT .v:;'
ALL.
..
'"•V",
1 •"'
I
ion • D
^tHoctnio* >•*<* ,
/ M .0 N
' '>.. \[
^N^ \«-;.
0 S ,E
T"-r;.'"ij'V '' ,-
'•< " ,, V' '-.'o
INICilPM. »IRPORI
•' I /'" '"•• > •
:-xu ;. *%
I ,":'*'- '
SCALE 1:24000
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
K**knk
4 nil**
1
|
=5°"" \ 5^ i
inncm 1 . — / I
OU«OR*HCIE LOCATION •
M
SHELLER-GLOBE DISPOSAL SITE
KEOKUK. IOWA
.
Woodward— Clyde Consultants
Enftneer*. Ceolofttt*. And Environment*) ScI«DU«ti
SITE LOCATION MAP
OUT* U.A.L. |o«rt: 02/00/0=1 PROJECT »UUiH«
cncno, CJD |..n, >-/;i-7a. | 90C /•!!«;-<;
^>
0*C. NO. I
1-1 1
-------
VERNON VARNER
FRANCIS 6UNDT
atfTMino •cBiu
•
-------
4>SW-6/SD-6
E300
CL
I i
I
CO
<^
5
O
-+-SS-BKD-0
ATP-00
0
CENTEKL1NE ROAD
R.O.W. LINE
FENCE LINE
BACKGROUND SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING LOCA1IO
SURFACE WAICR/SCDIMI Nl -JAWI'I INC. I OCA I ION
TEST PII
D1SCRC1E SUIttACl SOU SAMI'll I UK VIM A I II I;
oil
*:2
CD
m . >-
O -o -:" |:;
E100 ^§K§
zp^u
O u 10 i.j
_- LU IO liJ
H (/) i- _i
LDGE OF ROAD
EDGE OF ROAD
:FiE£I_
(GRIMES LANE) (GRAVEL)
I
O
•N-
50
e
SCALE
50
100
^a
FEET
K)
in
z
2
O
u
UJ
w
HUBINGER COMPANY
I
•+SS-BKD-.3
SHCLLER-GLOBE DISPOSAL SITE
KEOKUK, IOWA
Woodward—Clyde Consultanls ^g^
. G«olofl»l*. And EnvlrenueDtBl SrlcotiaU
NORTH HILL DISPOSAL AREA -
SURFACE SOIL, SURFACE WATER. SEDIMENT
AND TEST PIT LOCATIONS
ntm. w.i.L. IDIT* 01/30/02! PMUCCT HVMII
12-i
IB love. HI
-2\2-'<
FIGURE 3
-------
BASELINE AND STORM EVENI
SAMPLING LOCATION
BASELINE SAMPLING LOCATION
| " | PONDS
— — INTERMITTENT DRAINAGE
ISPOSAT^ARER —
SHGLLER-GLOBE DISPOSAL SITE
KEOKUK. IOWA
Woodward —Clyde Consultants
r*. Geolo(i»U. And EovironmeDltl ScleoluU
SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT SAMIM.ING LOCATIONS
muter KUHBU IO«O HO
\2-22-4
M.A.t. lO.TI, 02/OB/02
FIGURE 4
-------
ATTACHMENT B
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
TKST IMT INFORMATION - PRIMARY DISPOSAL ARKA
PHASE I SAMPLING
ITest I'il
TP-1
TT-2
TP-3
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TF-7
TP-8
TP-9
Anomaly
Depth lo Waste/Soil Interface
(elevation)
noi extahlished ai 8-foot depth
3 feet
(636)
4.5 feet
(632)
5 leel
(634)
3 feel*
(634) .
6.3 feet
(637)
5 feel
(626)
6 feet
(614)
2.5 feet
(611)
not established at 8-foot depth
Maleria
Remove<
and
Keplacee
37 yd3
14 yd3
21 yd3
23yd'
14yd3
30 yd'
23yd3
28yd'
12yd3
37 yd3
Samples Collected
Composite soils: SC-I, SC-2; Sludge TPI-S1
Composite soils: SC-I, SC-2; Soil samples below
waste/soil interface: TP2-0-2. TP2-6-8
Composite soils: SC-1, SC-2; Rubber sample:
TP3-Rubber; Ash sample TP3-A2; Soil samples
below waste/soil interface: TP3-0-2, TIM-6-K
Composite soils: SC-1, SC-2; Soil below waste/soil
interface: TP4-0-2, TP4-6-8
Composite soils: SC-1, SC-2
Composite soils: SC-I. SC-2; Ash: TP6-A1; Soil
below waste/soil interface: TP6-0-2, TP6-6-8
Composite soils: SC-I, SC-2; Sludge: TP7-S3
Composite soils: SC-1. SC-2
Composite soils: SC-1, SC-2; Sludge: TP9-S2; Ash:
TP9-A3
Composite soils: SC-1, SC-2; Rubber: Anomaly-
ubber 2
Waste Quantity Estimate**
Ash 5%; Rubber 1%; Sludge 0.5%
Ash 2%; Rubber 2%
Ash 8%; Rubber 1%
Ash 5%; Rubber 2%
No waste eiicouiileied
Rubber 15%; Ash 2%; Plastic 0.5%
Ash 2.5%; Sludge 0.25%; Metal 1(1%
Ash 5%; Rubber 0.5%
Ash 5%; Rubber 0.5%
Ash 40%; Rubber 5%; Metal 1%; Wood 1%
Notes:
* No waste materials were encountered. Depth represents depth of excavation.
** Remainder of material encountered was soil.
Plastic I'ound in Test Pit 6 appeared to IK; polyethylene sheeting. Rusted metal pieces were found in Test Pit 7 and the anomaly.
10111 zvjvKpr-Mtrr-i TA B.CJK 02/25/93
Sheet 1 of I
-------
TAIM.K2
TOTAL MliTALS AND CYANIDli
TEST PIT - SOIL MATRIX
PHASE I INVESTIGATION
Clirwtlca!
Aluminum
Anlimony
A i v: nit
11.1111x11
HnUliiim
t '.illinium
.-,i™,,,,
t 'htllUMUMI
<«fi|Wr
(\jn.dc
I,.,,,
1 f.nl
M.ijjatsiuni
M,m»jinc%c
M.-u-my
Silt:ii«im
Stlvvi
?;. -limn
Iti.illium •
v.imJinfli
/Ilk'
ANOM. SC
2:«IK)
204
1141)
K| II
t,l ii
KUmK)
K.I
:(,t
N»
WttOQ
«S
17300
Hlfl
.1'*
2ND
26
1.7 II
I'Wtt
.4311
U.Z
16900
ANOM. SC
2d SIM)
171
1360
1 211
1.1)
2*190
l/>
'»7 II
27VO
NO
iu:oo
IT i-st:
11200
5.1
475
811
212
IUUM
W.2
MU
NO
IVIOO
436
•KM
519
.is
19(0
12.9
Nl)
16*)
4311
.WOtW
TIM-SC
loSOU
4.9
4W
.111
flu
\-MMM
65.6
12T
NO
PIOO
S6A
12300
425
.1.1
2610
.11 n
Nl)
!IMK>
Nl)
3.1:00
TP-IO-SC
II4(«
3.3
».»
.511
NO
|«DO
t7
118
Nl)
1310)
.17.3
MM
•172
Nl)
II20U
ND
Nl)
21.1 II
Nl)
SM>
TIMI.SC
10500
NO
4.7
11.1
.45 n
Nl>
2070
11.4
7.4
ND
14300
165
1780
347
Nl)
760 U
ND
ND
2MIU1
.51 U
709
T1M1.SC
I460U
Nl)
62
79.5
.4SB
Nl)
moo
21.2
IX
ND
19100
1)2
2610
237
NO
893 D
ND
Nl)
321 ll.l!
.4411
25U
tr-u-sc
1920
103 II
3.1
65 «
.35 n
Nil
•170
lot
10.1
NU
13600
146
1010 D
17)
Nl)
6J7II
Nl)
.711
167 |l,|;
Nl)
229
MOO
TP-I4-SC
114)0
12.1 II
16
801
.2411
2.3
41100
16.9
32
ND
16500
263
2190
353
Nl)
793 D
ND
Nl)
4« ll.fi
.2711
225
6770
TP-I5-SC
9i70
Nl)
46
44 3 n
.2411
Nl)
6790
».7
ll.l
ND
21600
126
1220
194
Nl)
40011
ND
Nl)
m n.n
.2411
276
«2
T1M-SC
IIMOO
ND
5
513
.178
.6n n
24
33.7
„
ND
16100
169
2020
IIS
Nl)
851 B
Nl)
ND
1110
25 II
259
2-12
TI'.«C
HJM
ND
59
51.J
.780
Nl)
22»
19.3
124
ND
18800
III
2IO>
147
Nl)
II»U
Nil
HI'
1.110
.311
31 >
24H
iro.sc
16000
21.7
5.1
193
.610
34.7
2390D
336
3116
ND
19800
79.J
3140
200
NO
1140
.19
NO
HU9
Nl)
»5
5470
Tf.JiCl
18700
36.2
66
234
.610
774
3830)
31.9
47
ND
20100
172
4790
J79
ND
1030
22
ND
li*8
.an
40
8(40
tr-4-sc
10300
ii n
78
155
590
5.3
5340U
36
809
ND
16200
141
1470
513
HO
1410
ND
ND
63711
Nl)
25.2
11900
TP-I.SC
10700
11311
6.9
147
.820
4.7
507UU
124
17V
ND
16900
126
6300
S3»
ND
1440
.330
Nl)
63111
Nl)
243
11200
TP.5-SC
14400
Nl)
46
63.1
.91 »
ND
2191)
20.7
•J.I
ND
19500
II
1620
103
NO
756 D
.28 B
Nl)
2160
Nl)
327
39.1
TP-5-5C
11200
Nl)
.53
97.1
.550
Nl)
1680
16
H
ND
16700
14.1
1450
I2H
ND
701 B
.690
ND
2020
Nl)
29.1
105
TP-6-SC
K5IW
Nl)
5.9
3411
1.6
Nl)
2171)
21.1
109
ND
22100
17
I860
123
ND
lllll
NO
ND
1370
..17 II
316
.182
•fP-6-SC
17700
Nl)
52
50.5
1.4
Nl)
28)10
1114
ND
20200
12.1
2loO
90
ND
6930
ND
ND
1580
:tx n
3U4
4«6
TP.7-SC
11100
698
119
7J8
.25 U
756
40.SOU
Id*
Nl)
65600
321
56SO
435
.1!
1410
Nl)
643 II
Nil
3£S
9380
TP.7-SC
14700
5') 2
9.1
823
.470
86 6
.19200
Ibrt
ND
35100
210
6580
389
ND
1320
84 n
91611.1-
17 II
26 b
11300
TP.I-SC
8310
14
3
193
12
2'/2
10*7110
.HI 1
Nl)
82700
606
19-10
988
Nl)
VHH II
Ml 11
169 11
Nil
377
ixm
Tr-4-SC
10200
Irit.
:«
216
.34 II
v><
1 ?tl(N)
,M
Nil
I260U
321
law
477
Nl)
10 711 II
Nl>
IH2 11
Nl>
2*M
2«0
Tl'.y.SC
9V 10
10 1 II
3:
4.44
3511
559
Mllhi
17 lit
NI7
£78011
902
WlHI
1210
Nl)
HUM II
57
272 II
Nil
:i
•l.'lii
TI'.».$C1
IIBOO
117 II
4 1
552
4111
437
1751X1
XS6
Mill.
Nl>
24700
103
J2»
417
Nl)
1271111
ND
25.. II
Nil
J/ *
4M1CI
111 .v\ii r c t\itr r-i'i AS : i ~ii
Slice! I ui )
-------
TABLE 3
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS IN TEST PIT SOIL/WASTE
PRIMARY DISPOSAL AREA
Compound
Bis(2-eihylhexyi iphthalate
Pemachlorophenoi
Pyrene
Fluoranthrene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
Di-n-ociylphthaJate
Di-n-butylphthaiaie
Chrysene
Benzol ajantiiracene
Anthracene
Range of
Concentration
ND - 10.0 mg/kg
ND - 0.290 mg/kg
ND - 0.130 mg/kg
ND - 0.055 mg/kg
ND- 0.140 mg/kg
ND - 0.275 mg/kg
ND - 0.043 mg/kg
ND - 27.0 mg/kg
ND -0.1 10 mg/kg
ND - 0.130 mg/kg
ND - 0:420 mg/kg
ND - 0.047 mg/kg
Frequency
of
Detection
24
2
17
8
10
7
4
5
9
1
1
3
Soil Matrix Sample
With Highest
Concentration
TP9-SC1
TP3-SC1
TP7-SC1
Anomaly SC2
Anomaly SC2
Anomaly SCI
Anomaly SC2
TP9-SC2
TP9-SC2
TP7-SC1
TP7-SC1
TP7-SC2
TABLE 4
METALS IN ASH
Metal
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Chromium
Selenium
Range of
Concentrations in
Ash (mg/kg)
223 - 625
. 26.0 - 46.9
127 - 2.860
5.370 - 45.200
72.8 - 262
38.5 - 70.5
ND- 3.8
Ash Sample With
Highest
Concentration
TP9 - A3
TP3 - A2
TP3 - A2
TP3 - A2
TP3 - A2
TP3- A2
TP3- A2
Background
Subsurface Soil
(mg/kg)
54.4- 211 .
ND
3.9- 16.5
32.6 - 57.8
12.8 - 18.2
14.4- 31.9
ND - 0.75
-------
TABLE 5
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS IN ASH AND SLUDGE
Semivolatile Compound (mg/kg)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phihalate
Pyrene
Fluoranihene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2- Meihy Inapnthalene
Pentachlorophenol
di-n-hutylphthaJate
Chrysene
di-n-octylphtnalate
Benzol hltlunramhene
Butylbenzvlphthalate
Ash
TP6- Al
3.6 B
0.16 J
0.061 J
0.150J
0.086 J
0.100J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ash
TP3 - A2
9.2 BE
0.073 J
0.042 J
0.077 J
0.05 J
0.03 J
1.1
0.061 J
0.17 J
ND
0.098
ND
Ash
TP9- A3
13.0
0.041 BJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16.0
ND
0.022J
Sludge
TP7-S3
2.500
6.0 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
39.0 J
ND
6.200 E
ND
ND
Sludge
TP9-S2
2.600 BJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
27.000
ND
ND
TABLE 6
METALS IN SLUDGE
Metal
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Chromium
Selenium
Copper
Zinc-
Range of
Concentration in
Sludge (mg/kg)
373 - 1,340
317 - 580
84.9- 153
24.0 - 34.4
18.8 - 36.5
64 - 149
451 - 1.340
Sample With
Highest
Concentration
TP7 - S3
TP7- S3
TP7 - S3
TP7 - S3
TP7 - S3
TP7 - S3
TP9 - S2
Background
Subsurface Soil
(mg/kg)
54.4- 211
ND
3.9 - 16.5
14.4 - 31.9
ND - 0.75
12.8 - 18.2
32.6 - 57.8
-------
TABLE 7
VOLATILE ORGANICS IN SLUDGE
Compound (mg/kg)
4-methyl-2-pemanone
1 , 1 -dichloroethane
2-butanone
2-hexanone
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroeihene
TP7 -S3
0.038 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TP9-S2
0.460
0.130
1.6E
1.1
3.4E
0.740
0.086
2.8
0.330
TABLES
TEST PIT INFORMATION - NORTH HILL DISPOSAL AREA
PHASE I SAMPLING
Test Pit
TP-10
TP-11
TP-12
TP-13
TP-I4
TP-15
Material Removed
and Replaced
4.6 yd1
4.6 yd1
4.6 yd'
4.6 yd1
4.6 ydj
4.6 yd'
Samples Collected
Composite Soil: SCI
Composite Soil: SCI; Below Waste/Soil Interface:
TP1 1-0-2, TP1I-6-8
Composite Soil: SCI; Below Waste/Soil Interface:
TP12-0-2, TPI2-6-8: Rubber: TP12-Rubber 3
Composite Soil: SCI
Composite Soil: SCI: Below Waste/soil Interface
Composite Soil: SCI
Waste Quantity Estimate*
Rubber 1%
Rubber 0.1%
Rubber 0.5%
No waste encountered
Rubber 1%
Rubber 0.5%
Notes:
Remainder of material encountered was soil.
-------
TABLE 9
SEMI^VOLATILE ORGANICS IN TEST PIT SOHVWASTE
NORTH HILL DISPOSAL AREA
Compound im«/lmi
N-niu-osodjoomvlimiDt
Pvrcne
bisl2-eUiylheit hpbtbaliit
Phcnuibrcne
di-n-ociylpbuulju
TP-KWCl
0.076 1
0013 1
0.110 BJ
0.023 J
SD
TP1I-SC1
SD
0.054 J
SD
SD
SD
TP12-SCI 1 TP13-SC1
SD
SD
0 M8 BJ
ST)
ST)
ND
0.023 I
0.019 BJ
ND
0.130J
TP14-SC1
ND
0.032 J
0.024 BJ
0.02SJ
SD
SP15- SCI
SD
SD
0.032 J
SD
SD 1
TABLE 10
RANGES OF METALS IN SUBSURFACE SOILS
(Parameters)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Off-Site/Background
7,920-31.100
ND-25.4
1.7B-7.7
54.4-211
0.62B-1.5
ND
1,810-106,000
14.4-31.9
5.3B-16.5.
12.8-18.2
16,800-30.300
3.9-16.5
2,660-5,510
60.4-920
ND
15.6-36.3
812B-1.260
ND-0.75B
ND
106B-399B
ND-0.26B
25.0-51.0
32.6-57.8
ND
Top of Hill
SB-8 to SB-9
13,700-42,300
ND
5.5-8.5
118-580
0.91B-2.3
ND-0.99B
1,820-5,140
20.3-57.2
4.7B-141
13.0-32.7
20.000-53,600
8.6-12.0
2,890-5,620
48.1-1,290
ND
17.5-49.4
866B-2.150
0.32B-0.46B
ND
269B-780B
ND
36.2-81.4
33.1-80.0
ND
Toe of Hill I)
SB-l to SB-7
3.220-14.600
ND
0.55B-11.1
14.3B-230
0.41 B- 1.4
ND-1.2
635B-5 1.300
7.3-21.8
3.1B-21.5
5.4B-16.4 1
8,530-25.400
4.1-13.5
568B-6.230
38.1-1.780
ND
7.3B-23.5
254B-1.160
0.24B-1.9
ND-0.68
46.5B- 1.140
ND-0.31B
10.6B-41.6
18.7-51.6
ND 1
Note:
Concentrations in me/kg.
-------
TABLE 11
SUKSIIKKACK SOILS - VOLATILES AND SEMIVOLAT1LES RESULTS
PHASE I SAMPLING
*
I'uruim-lt-i >
Viilmilel
Atvloile
llcnzene
Mclhylrnc < hl,.ii.lc
Strnl Vn|alile>
hi><2 cinylheiyDI'hUuliic
SB- 1-1-4
NI)
KRI)
KD
NI)
SB 1 64)
NI)
0.9(BI)
1(1)
NO
SB 1 115 US
NI)
I(B1)
HO
ND
Nlt-J-1-4
NI)
08(B))
NT)
3XBJ)
Nil 3&-B
NI)
09(HI)
NO
27(BI)
Sample Number
SB-3-I1-U
NI)
KBI)
NO
ND
SB-4 115 I4J
14
ND
NI)
ND
SH-6-2-4
NI)
09(RI)
NI)
NI)
SB 6 III U
9(1)
KB)>
NI)
31(1)
SB-T-2-4
NI)
0.7IBJ)
ND
NI)
SII-T-6-H
NI)
09IBJ)
NI)
NI)
Ml 7« HI
NI)
09(BJ)
NI)
NI)
SII-H-1-4
U
ND
NI)
NI)
SB 106 «
NI)
NI)
NI)
111(1)
SR-II.1.4
<>(ll
NI)
NI)
Nl>
Nolts:
('onfenimiioii* in |ig/kg. Tahlr iiicluiie* ihobe &lc$ with paratncicn repined above (he detection limit.
I • |isum«ie
-------
TABLE 12
METALS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL FROM TEST PITS
PRIMARY DISPOSAL AREA
Metal
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Selenium
Range of
Concentrations
34.4 - 860 mg/kg
ND - 1.1 mg/kg
13.1 -28.4 mg/kg
6.4- 18.7 mg/kg
19.6 - 100 mg/kg
11.7- 18.9 mg/kg
ND - 0.25 mg/kg
Sample With
Highest
Concentration
TP6 - 0-2
TP6 - 0-2
TP3 - 0-2
TP3 - 0-2
TP3 - 0-2
TP3 - 0-2
TP3 - 0-2
Background
Subsurface Soil
54.4-211 mg/kg
ND
14.4- 31.9
3.9 - 16.5 mg/kg
32.6 - 57.8 mg/kg
12.8 - 18.2 mg/kg
ND - 0.75 mg/kg
TABLE 13
VOLATILE ORGANICS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL FROM TEST PITS
PRIMARY DISPOSAL AREA
Compound
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Acetone
TP6-0-2
0.210 mg/kg
0.240 mg/kg
0.140 mg/kg
TP6-6-8
0.008 J mg/kg
0.018 mg/kg
0.009 J mg/kg
-------
TABLE 14
SEMI.VOLATILE ORGANICS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL FROM TEST PITS
PRIMARY DISPOSAL AREA
Compound
Di-n-butylphthalate
«
Concentration
in Test Pit
(mg/kg)
TP2 - 0.041 J
TP3 - 0.042 J
TP4- ND
TP6- ND
Concentration
in 0 to 2 Feet
Below Interface
(mg/kg)
0.016 J
ND
0.026 J
ND
Concentration 6
to 8 Feet Below
Interface
(mg/kg)
0.018 J
0.030 J
0.018 J
ND
TABLE 15
METALS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL FROM TEST PITS
NORTH HILL DISPOSAL AREA
Metal
Banum
Chromium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Selenium
Range of
Concentrations (mg/kg)
38.9- 117
11.9 - 20.3
ND
7.5 - 13.5
7.7 - 25.3
33.7 - 72.8
ND
Background
Subsurface Soil
(mg/kg)
54.4-211
14.4-31.9
ND
12.8 - 18.2
3.9 - 16.5
32.6 - 57.8
ND - 0.75
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF TOTAL METALS DETECTED
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION
ROUND 1
|| . II Background Concentrations II Detections Above Background in On-Sile Wells
II 1 II
[| <:iicnm-:il |j MW-4
II Aluminum
Aniiinoiiy
I Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
I Cadmium
Calcium
II Chromium
Cohall
40
73.2
11
86.8B
1U
3U
147,000
81)
61)
Copper I 5.4B
Cyanide IOU
Iron 5 15
Lead 1.2B
Magnesium 79,900
Manganese .
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium ||
150
0.2U
25.7B
3.860B
2U
Silver 3U
Sodium 52,800
Thiilliimi III
Vanadium II 3D
Zinc 6.4BE
MW-SS
46.6(K
92.
5.2B
629
4.9B
4U
80,000
119
33B
77.1
IOOU
I95,(XH)E
33.2
283,000
5.200E
0.2U
102
9,530
1.5BE
4U
61,600
III
151
271
MW-8S || MW-I
276
35.8B
2.4B
114
38.6B ||
1U
3U
202,000
8U
6U
383,000
4.7B |j
2011
1.420
• 'U I
88,900
876
0.2U
16U
12,000
1U
31!
32,900
III
6.9
11.5
20U
MW-2
142
6B
703
915.000
20U
85,200
IOU
MVV-JS
65,600
MW-6S
250,000
MW-7S
*
MW-9S
y9.4
535,000
20U
MVV-IIS
I22.(KK)
115
30.9
993
11.3
5.9
420.000
263
125
262
JI4,(KH)
143
10.500
209
13.400
20U
I57.(HX)
I.2B
509
626E
•J07I IN\RKT4VTASS7.UI-- 03/03/93
Sheet I of 2
-------
Notes:
All concentrations arc in ug/L.
U = The analyie was analyzed for, but not delected.
B = The reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL), but greater than or equal to the Instrument Detection Limit
I: = Tlie rupuiied value is estimated because nl the presence til iuiei Terence.
Blanks indicate values below background concemralions.
VU7IIZ\ZsRI'T4\TAS57.aH 03/U3/V3 Sheet 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF DISSOLVED METALS DETECTED
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
ROUND I
I | Background Concentrations
Chemical ,
|| Aluminum
|| Antimony
|| MYV-4
|| I43B
.14.XB
|| Arsenic ||
Barium
Beryllium
I) 90.2B
IU
Cadmium | 3U
Calcium
Chromium
Coball
Copper
|| Iron
LT-I\TAS57.UI: 03/03AU
Sheet I of I
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF TOTAL METALS DETECTED'.
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION
ROUND 2
Background Concentrations
Detections Above Background in On-Site Wells
I! Chemical ,
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
1 Calcium
I Chromium
Coball
II Copper
I Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium j
Manganese
Mercury
1 Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
|| MW-4
I,
44U
I.1R
85 .5 B
2B
4U
139,000
8.2B
I 4-'B
9.2B
IOU
408E
2.2
74.000
30.8E
0.2U
I7U
4.530B
111
4U
50,600
III
5.6B
16.1B
MW-5S
609
25U
IU
I18B
IU
3U
89,800
2h.8
6U
I9.8B
IOU
1,940
3.3
53,000
169
0.2U
I6U
3.070B
14.9
3U
73,400
III
3UE
20
MVV-8S
412
77.9
I.6B
4I.5B
IU
4.4 B
210,000
HI)
6U
16.7B
2011 1
1,770
4.3
88,500
867
0.2U I
I6U
12,400
2.2B
3U
33,400
III
5.6BIE
M.3B
|| MVV-I
3,36(
3.8B
285
369.000
I2.3B
1
19.900E
110,000
2.290E
25.3B
I7.7B
63
MVV-2
4,250
85.7
3.3B
219
544,000
2I.4B
21.600E
140,000
1.010E
20B
75.900
22B
86.2
MW-3S
3.310
1.8B
153B
6.7B
8.060E
946E
20.2B
87,700
I4B
32.5
MW-6S
2,520
5.5B
242,000
I3.800E
92,200
I.100E
26.5B
f
MVV-7S
'
16.2B
62.6
MW-9S
8.110
135
524,000
7.IB
9, HO
14.7
188,000
2,740
22.5B
23.9BE
49.9
MW-IIS
65,800
91.5
16.9
482
4.5B
296,000
H
50.6
no
I2H,(KX) II
92.7
3,890
106 ||
148.000 ||
2JKI-
298 1
Note:
See Table /(, for footnotes.
9071I2\Z\RIT4\TAS57 Ul:
03/03M
Sheet I of 1
-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF DISSOLVED METALS DETKCTEI)
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION
ROUND 2
|| , II Background Concentrations || Detections Above Background in On-Site Wells
1 "
|| Chemical ' || MW-4
|| Aluiiiiiniin || S5.4I
|| Antimony II 441.
Arsenic 2.5B
Barium 77.5B
Beryllium
J| Cadmium
Calcium
|| Chromium
IU
4U
145,(KX
7U
Cobali II 4U
1 Copper 4U
Iron I3.7BE
Lead 3.1
Magnesium 78,400
Manganese 7.2BE
Mercury 0.2U
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
I7U
4.160B
IU
4U
53.700
IU
511
I2.5B
MW-5S
76.7B
30B
IU
105B
IU
3U
81,900
8U
6U
13.6B
11.8B
IU
50,400
119
0.2U
16U
2,9808
14.9
3U
71,100
III
3.2BE
I3.5B
MW-8S || MW-I
57B
69.8
1.5B
38.7B
IU
3U
210.000
8U
340.000
6U || 6.5B
4U
631
I.8B
90,400 102,000
881 1940E
0.2U
16U
12,700
IU
3U
34,600
III
3.2BE
27.1
20.4B
MW-2
94.9B
466.000
I.870E
123.000
21B
77,800
31.7
MW:3S
MW-6S
92.4 B | 240
72.4
794E
974E
98.800
244,000
97.800
944E
MVV-7S j MW-9S
-
I77B
533,000
ion
27.2
192,000
3,140
5.8BE
MW-I IS
W.6B
97.3
267.IKM)
11.1
14.oB
4.490
1,920
156.000
||
Nole:
See Table /<{. for footnotes.
•JU7I I2\2WT4\TAS57.<-JK 03/03/91
Sheet 1 of I
-------
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF TOTAL METALS DETECTED AHOVK THE
MAXIMUM BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION
ROUND 3
III llackground C'oncenlralion || Detections Above Background in On-Site Wells
Chemical •
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
II Iron
Mad
1 Magnesium
|| Manganese 1
Mercury
Nickel
|| Potassium |
|| Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
1
|| MW-4
(mi
85.9
I.5B
I23B
2.2U
5.6U
137,000
12.7
I2.2U
7.8U
2340
I.I
74,800
125
0.2U
32.2U
431 OB
1.8B
4.4U
56,300
2.2
11. 1U
43
MVV-5S
742(
87.9
3.3B
I54B
2.2U
5.6U
161.000
15.9
12.2U
8.3B
I8.(KK)
2.5B
75,200
514
0.2U
32.2U
4.690B
22.3B
4.4U
42,100
2.2U
23.2B
33.3
MW-8S || MW-I
534 || 62.6W
,03
2.9B 34.4
22.9B 1,660
2.2U ll.l
5.6U
227,000 560,000
IOU 163
12.2U . 73.1
7.8U 144
1,630 254,000
I.1U 67.6
81,700 148,000
529 5.470
0.1U 0.3
32.2U 159
6,670 16,900
1.1U
4.4U
32,000
I.1U 4.8B
II. Ill 271
Kill 365
MW-2
4.6B
559,000
150.000
742
94,600
MW-3S
14,')(H
3.5B
190B
21.3
I3.5B
5
693
41. IB
MVV-6S
I03.0IX)
5I.4B
881
11.3
654.000
262
66.2
148
256,000
140
167,000
4,120
188
23,500
2.3
368
647
MW-7S
:u),()(X)
10.9B
363
57.9
17.1B
31.1
44.KK)
. 26.4
2,250
48.6
9.190
97.6
113
MVV-9S
mifiO
510.000
IK.I
196.IMK)
2080
10,000
51.6
MVV-IIS
97.000
35.8
639
7.1
24A.IKX)
190
59.1
131
163,00(1
I2o
3.750
136
13,200
136.000
335
336
Note:
See Table
for footnotes.
W7ll2\2WPT4\TA.S57.ril: 03/03/93
Sheet I of I
-------
TABLE 21
SUMMARY OK DISSOLVED METALS DETECTED
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION
ROUND 3
Chemical
Aluminum
Aiilimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Background Concentrations
MW-4
4(>.7l
79.6
LIB
94.4B
2.2U
Cadmium 5.6U
II
Calcium II 134,(KH)
Chromium IOU
Cobalt I2.2U
Copper 7.8U
Iron 29B
ILead I.I LI
Magnesium 1 74,600
Manganese II 37
Mercury | 0.2U
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
32.2U
3.980B
1.2B
4.4U
57,300
2.2U
II. Ill
IOU
MW-5S
46.7U
66.7U
2.6B
II7B
2.2U
5.6U
94.100
IOU
I2.2U
7.8U
56.5B
I.IU
58.600
87.1
0.2U
32.2U
2,5708
31
4.4U
41.700
2.2U
11. IU
IOU
MW-8S
{Detections Above Background in On-Site Wells 1
MW-I
46.7U ||
66.711
2.7 B
23.2B
2.2U
2.5B
5.6U ||
222.000
339.000
IOU II
I2.2U ||
7.8U
392
I.IU
80.100
503
|| 1.820
I.7B
106,000
1.890
0.1U ||
32.2U
6,090
I.IU
4.4U
3 1,1 (HI
I.IU
II. IU
23.4
MW-2
91.4
-
4.IB
477.000
3,500
129,000
90.300
28.3
MW-3S
68. IB
477
541
MVV-6S
2.6B
MW-7S
3.9B
1,050
-
MW-9S
3.9B
524,(XM)
II. Ill
200,000
2,010
6,390
39.6
MW-IIS |
91.1
3.6B
5,170
1,140
'
132.000
26.9
Note:
See Table /(( Tor footnotes.
Sheet I of 1
-------
TABLE 22
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC DETECTIONS
GROL'NDWATER SAMPLES
PHASE I INVESTIGATION
Well l.D.
MW-I
MW-2
| MW-3D
j MW-3D
| MW-3D
1 MW-3D
1 MW-3D
1 • MW-4
1 MW-l
1 MW-4
1 • MW-l
1 MW-5S
| MW-5S
1 MW-5D
| MW-SD
1 MW-5D
1 MW-5D
| MW-6S
| MW-fiD
| MW-7S
1 MW-9S
MW-9S
( MW-ICD
| MW-IOD
| MW-IOD
| MW-US
| MW-US
: Grimes
Sample Date
11-21-91
12-04-91
! 1-25-91
11-25-91
12-04-91
12-04-91
12-04-91
11-21-91
12-05-91
12-05-91
12-05-91
12-05-91
12-05-91
12-11-91
12-11-91
12-19-91
12-19-91
12-05-91
12-04-91
12-06-91
11-22-91
12-05-91
11-23-91
12-04-91
12-04-91
12-06-91
12-06-91
12-20-91
Round No.
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
I
2
2
2
2
2
Compound
Acetone
Toluene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
2-Butanone
Acetone
Toluene
Acetone
Toluene
Acetone
Benzene
Acetone
Benzene
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Benzene
Acetone
Toluene
Methylene Chloride
Result (ug/L)
6
5
5
2
0.8
3
1
5
7
5
3
4
3
53
0.7
30
0.7
11
4
7
4
4
3
14
1
4 . '
2
2
Qualifier
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
—
J
J
J |
J ||
j 1
J ||
J 1
J |
J |
J
BJ
Notes:
J - The associated value is an estimated quanuiy.
= No qualifier en result.
B = Associated blink contaminated with compound.
"•.••|l"RPT4VrAS.CJF
Sheet 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 23
SUMMARY OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC DETECTIONS
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PHASE I INVESTIGATION
Well I.D.
MW-I
MW-2
MW-3S
MW-3D
MW-3D
MW-5S
MW-5S
MW-5S
MW-5S
MW-5D
MW-6D
MW-7S
MW-7S
MW-KS
MW-XS
Sample Date
12-04-91
12-04-91
12-04-91
11-25-91
12-05-91
11-27-91
11-27-91
11-27-91
12-05-91
12-12-91
12-04-91
11-21-91
12-06-91'
12-05-91.
12-05-91
MW-4S 12-05-91
MW-9S
MW-11S
Grimes
Grimes
12-05-91
12-06-91
12-14-91
12-14-91
Round No.
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
Compound
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-eihy Ihexyl iphthaiate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butyl benzy Iphthaiate
bis(2-eihylhexyl)phtbalate
Phenol
bis(2-eihylhexyl)pbthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyljphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl iphthaiate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexy 1 jphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexy I iphthaiate
Result
(Mg/L)
0.6
0.7
OJ
3
39
14
0.5
1
5
3
7
0.6
4
4 •
0.9
3
0.6
0.5
7
3
Qualifier
J
J
J
J II
—
—
J
J It
J It
I I
J I
J I!
J |
J • I!
J
J I
J I!
BJ |
J II
J j
Notes:
j = The associated qualifier is an estimated quantity.
= No qualifier nn result.
B = Associated blank contaminant with compound.
03,79/95
Sheet I of 1
-------
TABLE 24
SUMMARY OF TOTAL AND IMSSOI VKI) MKTALS ANALYSES
I'HASK I INVESTIGATION
MW-31)
1.
f'liemiful
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Gihall
1 Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
| Vanadium
| Zinc
Total Metals
Kiiund 1
2.430
48.9B
5.6R
42.IR
IU
3U
60. MX)
12.9
611
27.9
2011
2,710
.1.1
12.500
49.1
0.2U
I6U
6,870
IB
3U
38,800
IU
II.5B
34
Hound 2
8.230
71.4
11.2
98.2R
2H
4U
137,000
50.6
8.4 B
2I.3R
Kill
20.200E
20.6
48.600
46.1E
0.2U
45.9
7.980
I.2B
4U
42,800
IU
23.6B
94.4
Dissolved Metals
Round 1
I56R
32B
5.6B
4IR
11
3U
48.51K)
KU
611
32.2
NA
8.9R
lit
8,520
2U
0.2U
I6U
5.620
I.2B
3U
39,81 K)
IU
5.1B
14. IB
Koiind 2
3I.9B
44U
2.9B
48.8R
III
411
62.7(X)
711
411
411
NA
I6.2B
2 HII
22.HOO
I15R j
0.211 j
I7U |
6.2SO 1
IU
411
45.100
III
511
Notes:
All concentrations are in ug/L.
See Table /1 lor a description of the qualifiers.
'll-
OI/OW)
Sheet I of I
-------
TABLE 25
SUMMARY 01-
TOTAL AND DISSOLVED MKTAI.S ANALYSKS
I'llASK I INVESTIGATION
MW-5I)
1
II Chemical
II Aluminum
|| Aniininny
Arsenic
ll:iiiniii
Rcryltiunii
|| Cadmium
1 Qildum
C'hnimiuin
I Oihali
Cupper
Cyanide
I '"?"
Lead
|| Magnesium
| Manganese
|| Mf'"nry
1 Nu-itel
Pniassium
| Selenium
1 Silver
Sodium
Thallium
V.iiiiiilinni
Zinc
Total Melals
Hound 1
46,5
-------
TABLE 26
SUMMARY OF
TOTAL AND IHSSOl vi I) MKTALS ANALYSKS
PHASE I INVESTIGATION
MW-61)
1.
) Ill-mil ;il
Aluillllllllll
Antimony
Aiscnic
H.iniini
Rcrylliuin
Cadmium
Calcium
1 Chromium
Cohali
Copper
Cyanide
Irpn
1 XMll
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sclcniiiin
Silver
Sodium
Thai Hum
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Metals
Itllllllll 1
758
30B
III
III8H
III
3U
86.KX)
8U
61)
22.6B
lonn
1.2-1(1
I.2B
35,300
159
0.2U
I6U
5,430
I.3B
3U
54, 100
ID
3.4B
25.4
Konnd 2
7,62(
54.2B
8B
I60H
IB
4U
1 28,000
29
4.7B
19. IR
IOU
I5.300E
6.9
53.200
667E
0.2U
42.8
5.810
I.4B
4U
56,400
IU
20. IB
84.5
Dissolved Metals 1
Konnd 1
57B
33.7B
I.2B
I2IB
III
3U
86.9110
8U
611
411
NA
I0.8B
III
35.400
158
0.2U
I6U
4.91 OB
I.7B
3U
52,800
IU
3U
6U
KHIMKI 2 \
5ft..»H 1
4411 |
..IB
7<)HB 1
III |j
411
W.R(K)
711
411
22.7B
NA 1
71 IE ||
••'"' II
40.IKM)
4.12E 1
0.2(1 1
1711 1
3.660B ||
I.2B 1
411 1
52.7IK!
IU
511 1
:" ' II
Nolrv
All conccniraiiuns are in ug/L.
Soe Table /' fa for a description of ihe qualifiers.
lll/lll/VI
Sheel I of I
-------
TABLE 27
SUMMARY 01 TOTAL AND DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSES
PHASE I INVESTIGATION
MW-IOD
Chemical
Aliiiniliiini
Aiiliinony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
1 Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Irpn
Lead
.Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vuiudiiini
Zinc
Total Metals
Kuund 1
11. KM
6<>.5
12.3
222
III
3U
224.01)0
41.8
I48B
66.2
Kill
25,700
20.K
89.200
1.370
0.2IJ
83.5
15.500
2B
3U
38.4(10
IU
27.711
152
Kound 1
21.901
49.9B
16.7
248
2B
4U
349.00J
71.2
25.5B
31.2
NA
48.4ME
33
134.000
2.340E
0.2U
137
17.400
6.6
4U
49.000
IU
52
197
Dissolved Metals 1
Kound 1
I65B
50.4R
3B
I59B
II
31
96,8(K
K(
6U
40.8
NA
7.4B
2.3B
48.000
74K
0.2U
35B
9.580
3.5B
3U
36.100
IU
Ml
29.4
Kound 2 1
MSB
16. 1 B
LIB
I46R
Id
W
I70.0IM) 1
Kll 1
611
30.1 |
Kill
I7.7B |
2B
7r..(KHt 1
1.7-41) I
0.211
61.5 1
10.500 1
9 1
3D
46,800
IU 1
Mil: ||
2V.5 |
Notes:
All concentrations are in ug/L.
See Table /£ Tor a description of the qualifiers.
SK)7IIZ\2\RPT4\TAS57.CJH 03AJ1/93
Sheet I of 1
-------
TABLE 28
SKDIMKNT SAMI'I.KS - TOTAL MKTALS
I'll ASK I INVKSTKJATION
IM&al
Aliiiiiiiiiiin
Aiiiiiiuiny
Arsenic
Itaiiiini
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
IC.ihall
Cll|l|)CI
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
SIMM
K.I 60
NO(7.0)
3.3
67.8
.55 B
ND(.84)
1.750
12.5
8.2 R
7.7
11.600
10.6
I.I7IIH
353
ND(.I4)
10.7 R
923 B
ND(.28)
ND(.84)
41.7 B
NUC.28)
23.3
29.6
ND(3.5)
SIMI2
2.9KII
NL>(6.5)
5.1
31.7 B
ND(.26)
ND(.78)
1.520
8.3
5.4 B
6.5
12.900
23.9
567 R
345
ND(.I3)
ND(4.2)
251 B
ND(.26)
ND(.78)
17.6 B
NU(;26)
23.4
11.2
ND(3.2)
SIMIJ
5.1 Mil I
NL>(8.4)
1.6 R
6'*
.3V B
ND(I.O)
3.840
9.9
5.6 B
8.4
7.110
16.6
I.OMI B
175
NU(.I7)
7.7 R
693 B
ND(.34)
NIX 1.0)
51.7 B
ND(.34)
15.3 B
40.4
Nl)(4.2)
SD-04
2.910
NU(5.9)
7.6
476
.378
2.5
3.840
9.1
8.4 B
7.1
21.700
19.5
958 B
428
ND(.I2)
9.8
396 B
.44 B
ND(.7I)
35.8 B
ND(.24)
14.6
324
NUC3.0)
SIMI5
4.55(1
ND(6.4)
3.2
66.8
.40 B
ND(.77)
2.930
10.9
6.9 B
8.7
9.570
10.1
1.350
155
NU(.I3)
9.7 B
608 B
ND(.26)
ND(.77)
105 B
.38 B
II B
48.2
NU(3.2)
SD-OSB
5.3 III
9.0 B
2.3 B
62.6
.41 B
ND(.79)
3,440
12.8
6.7 B
8.2
9.950
10.4
1.510
186
ND(.I3)
11.4
699 B
ND(.26)
Nli(.79)
104 R
.28 B
14.9
50.7
Nl)(3.3)
SI>-«6
2.21(1
NU(6.2)
4.6
68
.29 B
2.5
4,45(1
6.8
8.2 B
fi.l R
12.500
12
I.IIHI II
597
NU(.I2)
6.2 B
403 B
.31 B
ND(.75)
62.9 B
NLX.25)
17.4
581
ND(t.l)
SD-07
I.K4II
NU(6.2)
5.4
-47.5 H
.29 B
ND(.74)
8.22(1
6.4
I'.l R
-1 (1 H
12.5(1(1
12.3
I.I 20 II I
499 II
NIX. I2>
5.4 B
286 B
.32 B
NIX. 74)
3J.7 B
NU(.25)
15
1(12
Nl)(«.2) ||
( .piKcnciilions 10 rog/kg.
M) nSH u i duplKile ul SI) 115
NIHi) - Not dL-lnli-d (iMixliun linilO .
Sec Ijbli- /(, Im d >li->inpln>n of inurgink. inalysra
II Win I
Slieci I ol I
-------
TABLE 29
RANGES OF METALS IN SURFACE SOILS
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Background
7710-14.900
ND-7.8
4.0-5.7
77.2-267E
ND-0.69B
ND
2,740-4.670
1 1.7-18 .5
4.8B-16.1
7.8-12.3
11.100-17.700E
ND-25.1
1.130-2.450E
351-2.070E
ND
8.1-17.2
855-1,680
ND-0.47B
ND
16.5-57.5BE
ND-0.41B
19.9-38.7
56.7-82.2
ND
Primary
8,930-26.700
ND-177
3.2-8.9
111E-U70
0.31B-1.4
NDE-207E
4.040-66.800
20.2-92.7
6.0B-17.1
11.8-127
13.300-90.400E
26.4-502
1.770-7,010
159E-853
ND-0.29
15.0-89.9
972B-3.030
ND-15.6
ND-1.2B
51.5B-790B
ND-0.40B
20.2-55.3
234E-17.100E
ND
North Hill
5.690-13,000
ND-17.4
- 2.6-6.3
77.6E-111E
0.46B-0.76B
ND-2.5
2.490-39.100
9.2-18.6
5.4B-11.0
6.6-21.0
10.000E-13.800E
ND-41.0
837BE-3.990E
368E-763E
ND j
9.6B-20.5 1
567B-1.220B j
0.27B-0.38B |
ND |
17.9BE-303BE
ND-0.33B
16.7-33.5
• 45.3-7,230
ND
Note:
Concentrations in mg/kg.
-X>711 r>2>RPT.<\TAi4A.GIF 03/31/93
Sheet 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 30
COMPARISON OF TOTAL SITE RISKS AND BACKGROUND RISKS
Es t i m;i Led
Carcinogenic Risk
Media Contributions;
Soil
GroundwaLer
Vegetables
Total:
Risk
3E-05
1E-03
2E-05
1E-03
On-Site Component
Background Component
CoiUributinR Chemicals
Arsenic, Beryllium
Risk
Contributing Chemicals
Arsenic, Beryllium
Noncancer Subchronic Hazard
Hazard Index
Media Contributions:
Soil
Groundwuter
Vegetables
Total:
2E+00
8E+01
1E+00
9E+01
ContributtnR Chemicals
Antimony, Arsenic
Antimony, Arsenic, Manganese, Vanadium
Arsenic
Hazard
Index
1E+00
9E+01
4E-01
9E+01
Contributing Chemicals
Antimony, Arsenic
Antimony, Arsenic, Munguncsc
Noncancer Chronic Hazard
Hazard Index
Media Contributions:
Soil
Groundwater
Vegetables
Total:
Index
JE+OO
AE+01
9E+00
5E+01
Contributing Chemicals
Antimony, Cadmium
Antimony, Arsenic, Chromium, Manganese,
Thallium, Vanadium
Cadmium
Hazard
Index
AE-01
4E+01
S-01
4E+01
Contributing Chemicals
Antimony, Manganese
-------
ATTACHMENT C
Glossary of Evaluation Criteria
Threshold Criteria:
Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment provides a
final check to assess whether each alternative meets the
requirement that it is protective of human health and the
environment. The overall assessment of protection is based on a
composite of factors assessed under the evaluation criteria,
especially- long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term
effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a remedial action
alternative will meet all of the ARARs of federal and state
environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria:
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanance refers to the magnitude of
residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time once the
response objectives have been met.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
addresses the statutory preference for selecting remedial actions
that employ treatment technologies that permanently and
significantly reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of the
contaminants.
Short-Term Effectiveness assesses the speed with which the remedy
achieves protection, as well as the remedy's potential to create
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may
result during the construction and implementation period.
Implementabilitv addresses the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen response action.
Cost includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
Present worth costs are based upon capital costs plus the present
sum necessary for operation and maintenance over a given period
and a discount rate of 5 percent. Cost estimates are made with
an anticipated accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
-------
Modifying Criteria:
Support Agency Acceptance evaluates the technical and
administrative issues and concerns the support agency (the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in this instance) may have
regarding each of the alternatives.
Community Acceptance addresses comments and concerns expressed by
the public during the public comment period of the Proposed Plan.
-------
ATTACHMENT D
GLOSSARY OF TERMS. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CERCLA- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, commonly referred to as the "Superfund Law".
EPA- Environmental Protection Agency: the federal agency charged
with implementing most parts of Superfund.
HRS- Hazard Ranking Score: a numeric ranking assigned to sites
based upon information available about the site, used to
determine whether or not the site will be placed on the NPL.
IDNR- Iowa Department of Natural Resources: EPA's state
counterpart under Superfund.
IDOH- Iowa Department of Health: EPA's state counterpart, also
does risk assessments for EPA under Superfund.
MCL- maximum contaminant level: the highest level of a
contaminant acceptable in a public drinking water supply. (Note
that not all contaminants have an MCL.)
NCP- National Contingency Plan: the Superfund regulations.
NPL- National Priorities List: EPA's list of most significant
sites being addressed under Superfund and sites whose HRS was
high enough to make the site eligible for long-term response, or
remedial, actions.
RI/FS- remedial investigation/feasibility study: the basic
investigation conducted by EPA or the state or by responsible
parties on a Superfund site. The nature and extent of
contamination is characterized in the RI. Potentially applicable
remedial alternatives for cleanup are developed and evaluated in
the FS.
ROD- Record of Decision: the document in which EPA selects the
remedial action for a Superfund site.
SDWA- Safe Drinking Water Act: the federal law regulating public
water supplies. Public supplies are defined as those supplies
with fifteen or more connections or which regularly serves
twenty-five or more people with drinking water.
------- |