UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  REGION 10
               1200 6TH AVENUE
             SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
              RECORD OF DECISION,
              DECISION SUMMARY,
                    AND
           RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
                    FOR
        INTERIM FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
            COLBERT LANDFILL SITE
             COLBERT, WASHINGTON
               SEPTEMBER 1987

-------
                           RECORD OF DECISION
                    REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE
    Colbert Landfill Site
    Colbert, Spokane County, Washington
PURPOSE
    The decision document presents the selected interim final remedial
    action for this site, developed 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), and to the extent practicable
    the National Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR Part 300).  The State of
    Washington has been consulted and has concurred with the selected
    remedy.
BASIS
    This decision is based upon the administrative record for the site,
    as obtained from the files of the U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency (EPA)  and the Washington State Department of Ecology.   This
    record includes, but is not limited to,  the following documents
    describing the site, the costs and effectiveness of the remedial
    alternatives, and community concerns:

    o    Remedial Investigation Report for  the  Colbert Landfill,
         Spokane, Washington;

    o    Feasibility Study Report for the Colbert  Landfill,  Spokane,
         Washington (includes  the Risk Assessment);
7411a

-------
    o    Decision Summary of Remedial  Alternative Selection (attached
         hereto);

    o    Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A); and

    o    Staff summaries and briefing documents.

    An index (Appendix D) identifies other items which are included in
    this administrative record.


DESCRIPTION

    This Record of Decision addresses management of the migration of
    contamination using a groundwater interception system and attempts
    source control through extraction in the areas of highest
    contaminant concentrations.

    The remedy is designed to:

         o    prevent further spread of contaminated groundwater in two
              aquifers by installing and operating interception wells,

         o    remove contaminated materials which have entered the
              aquifers and are contributing to the contaminant plume,
              by  installing and operating extraction wells in the area
              where the plumes originate,

         o    reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
              contaminants by treating all extracted groundwater from
              both interception and extraction wells, and

         o    provide an alternate water supply system to any residents
              deprived of their domestic supply due to demonstrated
              contamination from the landfill or due to the action of
              the extraction or interception systems.
 7411a

-------
    Treatment will  be sufficient to reduce contaminant levels in the
    aquifers and in the wastewater effluent to or below performance
    standards.   These have been  set at the Maximum Contaminant Levels
    (MCLs,  40 CFR 141.61), or a  similarly defined health-based level (a
    10~6 risk level for carcinogenic constituents).   Numeric values
    for these performance standards are presented in  Table 1.
    Treatment should be permanent, and should effectively reduce the
    toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants.   Any treatment
    system  which will  produce air emissions will  be designed to meet
    any appropriate state Air Toxics Guidelines and to use Best
    Available Control  Technology (3ACT) on the effluent air stream.

    In order to implement this remedial action,  adequate monitoring
    will be required in private  wells in the area of  impact, as well as
    in monitoring wells as needed to assess progress  of the remediation
    and performance of the containment system.  Treated water effluents
    also will be monitored to assure that they meet the appropriate
    performance standards (Table 1).   Treated water discharge shall at
    all times be consistent with U.S.  and Washington  State laws
    including but not limited to RCW 90.48 (Water Pollution Control)
    and WAC 173-218 (Underground Injection Control  Program).   Plume
    containment will  be confirmed by installation and periodic sampling
    of monitoring wells and residential wells downgradient of the
    interception zone.   Extraction will continue until  all  wells in
    contaminated zones show that the contaminants from the landfill
    have been reduced to and consistently remain below the health
    protection  maximum levels.

    Those residents who are deprived of domestic  drinking water, either
    because their well  water quality shows demonstrated  contamination
    from the landfill  or because the quantity available  has been
    reduced by  the action of the extraction and  interception  systems,
    will be connected to an adequate supply of safe drinking water  for
    in-home domestic use.   The present community  water system serving
    the area, the Colbert Extension of the Whitworth  Water District
    No. 2,  may  require upgrading to provide these supplies.  The system
    will be designed to meet state public water  system standards.
7411a
                                   3

-------
                               TABLE  1

                         PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

             MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
                      Health  Protection  Levels -
                                               II
    Contaminant
Maximum Concentration
        (ug/1)
Basis
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Methylene Chloride (MC)
200
7
4,050
5.0
0.7
2.5
MCL
MCL
MAC
MCL
10-6
io-6



cancer risk
cancer risk
\j  Health Protection Levels are not to be exceeded,  during operational
    life of remedial  action, in effluents from groundwater  treatment
    systems.  Permanent reduction of contaminant concentrations  below
    these levels throughout the site will  indicate  completion  of the
    remedial action.
7411a

-------
    Institutional controls will be developed consistent with the final
    design to assure that the remedial  action will continue to protect
    human health and the environment.  Colbert Landfill will be closed
    to meet state Minimum Functional  Standards for Landfill Closure
    (WAC 173-304-460), including capping, regrading, groundwater and
    gas monitoring and post-closure maintenance.

    This is designed to be the final  remedial action to be implemented
    at the Colbert Landfill  site.   It is an interim final  action
    because the extraction and interception well systems will  be in
    operation for decades before remediation is complete and changes in
    the selected action may be required during that period.  The design
    therefore will  be reassessed and  adjusted periodically, at
    intervals not to exceed five years.  It builds on the  Interim
    Remedial  Measure which provided alternate water supply, through the
    Colbert Extension of the Whitworth  Water District No.  2, to
    residents whose wells had shown contamination from the landfill at
    levels above public health concern.

    The performance standards described above will  serve both  as
    minimum treatment levels for effluents  and as maximum  residual
    levels for groundwater within  the contaminant plumes.   Completion
    of the treatment requirements  is  conditional upon reaching and
    maintaining contamination at concentrations below these maximum
    residual  levels.  The time required for this remedy is not
    presently known, but the entire treatment system will  be reassessed
    by the EPA at intervals  not to exceed five years.

    DECLARATION

    Consistent with CERCLA,  as amended  by SARA,  and the NCP, it is
    determined that the selected remedy as  described above is
    protective of human health and the  environment,  attains Federal and
    State requirements which are applicable or relevant and
    appropriate, and is cost-effective.   This remedy satisfies  the
    preference expressed in  SARA for  treatment that reduces toxicity,
7411a

-------
   mobility or volume, as a principal element.  Finally,  it  is
   determined that this remedy utilizes permanent  solutions  and

   alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent

   practicable.
    Date
Robie G. Russell
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA - Region 10
7411a

-------
                           DECISION SUMMARY
                    REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
                     INTERIM FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
              COLBERT LANDFILL SITE, COLBERT, WASHINGTON
7331 a

-------
                           TABLE  OF CONTENTS
Section                                                            Pa9e

I    SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION  	   1
II   SITE HISTORY	   5
          Landfill History, Operations,  and Regulatory Actions.  .   5
          Site Environment  	   8
          Nature and Extent of Problem	12
                 Organic Contaminants  Detected   	  12
                 Extent of Soil Contamination	12
                 Extent of Groundwater Contamination   	  16
                 Future Migration and  Impacts of Contaminants-
                     Upper Aquifer	22
                 Future Migration and  Impacts of Contaminants  -
                    Lower Aquifer	25
                 Future Migration and  Impacts of Contaminants  -
                    Surface Water 	   27
          Risk Assessment	28
                 Risk Assessment  of Contaminants  ........   30
                 Risks to Human Health and  the  Environment   ...   30
III  ENFORCEMENT	33
IV   COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY	34
V    ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION  	   36
          Alternatives  	   36
          Performance Criteria  	   37
          Evaluation Methodology   	   39
              *                      •«•
          Results	40
7331a
                                  ii

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)



Section                                                            Page



VI   SELECTED REMEDY	46

          Description	46

          Statutory Determinations	•	53

VII  REFERENCES	56



APPENDIX A - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

APPENDIX B - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX C - STATE CONCURRENCE WITH REMEDY

APPENDIX D - INDEX TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
 7331a
                                  iii

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.                                                         Page


     1    REGIONAL LOCATION MAP OF COLBERT LANDFILL SITE  ....   2

     2    COLBERT LANDFILL REMEDIAL ACTION SITE 	   3

     3    SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF LITTLE SPOKANE RIVER VALLEY

             THROUGH COLBERT LANDFILL SITE SHOWING GEOLOGIC

             STRATIGRAPHY 	  10

     4    RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN AND NEAR COLBERT

             LANDFILL SITE	13

     5    DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN UPPER AQUIFER 	  17

     6    DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN LOWER AQUIFER 	  18

     7    SCHEMATIC OF DENSE,  NONAQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID (DNAPL)

             MIGRATION BENEATH COLBERT LANDFILL 	  21

     8    ESTIMATED POTENTIAL  EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION IN

             UPPER AQUIFER IF  PLUME IS NOT CONTAINED	23

     9    ESTIMATED POTENTIAL  EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION IN

             LOWER AQUIFER IF  PLUME IS NOT CONTAINED	25

    10    POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR SOUTHERN AREA

             (CONCEPTUAL  DESIGN)   	  48

    11    POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WESTERN AREA

             (CONCEPTUAL  DESIGN)   	  49

    12    POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR EASTERN AREA

             (CONCEPTUAL  DESIGN)   	  51
7331a
                                  iv

-------
                             LIST OF  TABLES



Table No.                                                          Page






    1     REPORTED SOLVENT MATERIALS DISPOSED AT THE



             COLBERT SITE	   6



    2     ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN COLBERT LANDFILL



             SITE GROUNDWATER DURING REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION  ...  14



    3     MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER



             AT COLBERT LANDFILL SITE	19



    4     ESTIMATED CONTAMINANT FLUXES IN LOWER AQUIFER AND



             RESULTANT FUTURE CONCENTRATIONS IN LITTLE



             SPOKANE RIVER   	  29



    5     RESULTS OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR INGESTION AND



             DERMAL EXPOSURE  	  31



    6     PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONTAMINANT



             CONCENTRATIONS  (HEALTH  PROTECTION LEVELS)  	  38



    7     SUMMARY OF DETAILED EVALUATION



             1985 RI/FS GUIDANCE FACTORS	41



    8     EVALUATION OF CERCLA SECTION 121 (b ) (1 HA-G) FACTORS  .  .  43
 7331 a

-------
                    I. SITE  LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Colbert Landfill is a Spokane County-owned sanitary landfill that
was operated from 1968 through 1986.  The Colbert area is in
northeastern Washington, in Spokane County, approximately 15 miles
north-northeast of Spokane, Washington.   The landfill  covers 40-acres
and is located about 2.5 miles north of the Town of Colbert and a half
mile east of U.S. Highway 2 (Newport Highway)  in the northwestern
quadrant of the intersection of Elk-Chattaroy, Yale, and Big Meadows
Roads.  It is situated in the southeast corner of Section 3, Township
27 North, Range 43 East, W.M. (Figure 1).  The landfill  received both
municipal and commercial wastes up to 1986, is now filled to capacity,
and is no longer receiving waste.

The remedial  action site, the area of potential  impact surrounding the
landfill, extends north of the landfill  about  a  half mile, west about a
mile to the Little Spokane River, east a similar distance, and south
approximately five miles to Peone (or Deadman) Creek.   The total area
is approximately 6800 acres which includes parts of Sections 2, 3,  10,
11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28,  33, 34,  and 35 of the same
township and range.  The site is entirely within the drainage basin of
the Little Spokane River, mainly on a plateau  bounded  by bluffs down to
the river on the west and knobby granite and basalt hills to the east.

The area is semi-rural  with an estimated population of about 1,500
people within a 3-mile radius of the landfill.  There  are residences on
all sides of the landfill;  however, the  closest  residences are located
north and east.  Land use within the remedial  action site is
predominantly suburban residential, with some  agricultural  use, mainly
truck farming or livestock  production.   The land immediately
surrounding the landfill  is planned to remain  rural, according to the
Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan  (Figure  2), a designation
which allows a maximum of one house every ten  acres.   West and south of
this zone are- found, successively,  areas designated semi-rural  (one
house per two acres), suburban (one house per  half acre), and urban
(five houses per acre).
7331a
                                   1

-------
     117° 30* W
      R. 42 E.
R. 43 E
117° 15* W
 R. 44 E
R. 45 E.

                                            SCALE MILES
 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP OF
  COLBERT LANDFILL  SITE
 SOURCE: USQS 1:250.000 MAP OF SPOKANE. WA.
	 2 .
                                 FIGURE 1

-------
                                              COLBERT LANDFILL
                                                          —10K* «•
                                                          	!«•«

                                                          3
                                                          R
                                                       (RURAL)
                 SITE BOUNDARY
                    (SEMI-RURf\L)
                                              TOWN OF COLBERT >
   U
(URBAN)
                                      (SUBURBAN) ;
COLBERT LANDFILL
REMEDIAL ACTION SITE
SHOWING LAND USE
     :!!•;«_...!-__	
CITY OF MEAD
SOURCE: COLDER AND ENV1ROSPHERE 1987  *=^=J.^=
/_
                                             1U1 UHflftN    % IK3USI S/ *C*C

                                             til SUOmiDAN  I (iCk.Se . '/, *C'C

                                             ISAI MMi mHM.  I 'OrU / Z*C>ftS

                                             (HI NUNJU.    I ICUSI/W«.NtS
                                               FIGURE 2

-------
The population density is much lower than permitted because most of the
area is vacant or agricultural; 1980 census data indicate approximately
6.5 persons per acre in the areas which include the semi-rural,
suburban, and urban portions of the site.

Surface water resources include the Little Spokane River along the
western edge of the area, Peone Creek on the southern edge, and Little
Deep Creek flowing southwest through the middle of the site.
Groundwater in the area is obtained from several aquifers but mainly
from the upper and lower sand and gravel aquifers which have become
contaminated by releases from the landfill.

The presence of groundwater contamination in the aquifers has had
socioeconomic impacts in the area.  Many of the nearby homeowners
operate their properties as small crop and livestock farms.  Water was
supplied only by  local groundwater resources until 1984 when the
Whitworth Water District extended service to the currently impacted
area.
 7331a

-------
                           II.  SITE HISTORY
LANDFILL HISTORY, OPERATIONS, AND REGULATORY ACTIONS

Colbert Landfill had been operated as a sanitary landfill by the
Spokane County Utilities Department since it was opened in September
1968 to its cessation of operations in October 1986.  During the five
years from 1975 to 1980, a local  electronics manufacturing company. Key
Tronic Corporation, used the Colbert landfill to dispose of spent
organic solvents, mainly methylene chloride (MC) and
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), at an average rate of several  hundred
gallons a month (Table 1).  These wastes were typically brought to the
landfill in drums, and were poured out down the sides of open trenches
to mix with the soil or ordinary  municipal refuse already in the
trench.  During the same period a nearby military facility, Fairchild
Air Force Base, also disposed of  various solvent wastes at the site.   A
variety of other chemicals (such  as pesticides and refinery tar
residues) from other sources were also disposed at the site but have
not, to date, been detected in the groundwater at the site.

In 1980 nearby residents complained to the Eastern Regional Office of
the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) about these disposal
practices.  State and county officials, under the lead of the Spokane
County Utilities Department, initiated an investigation into complaints
of groundwater contamination in the area by sampling nearby private
wells of which some were found to be contaminated with TCA.

In the following years,  a number  of studies have been directed toward
the contamination problem at the  Colbert Landfill.   The original
investigation, which was initiated in response to citizen complaints,
was conducted by George  Maddox and Associates.  The Phase I study,
carried out in 1981 (Maddox 1981), included a review of existing
information on the site and some  field study, and recommended a
groundwater monitoring program.  Phase II studies,  carried out in 1982
7331a

-------
                                TABLE 1
        REPORTED SOLVENT MATERIALS DISPOSED AT THE COLBERT SITE
    Source
Compound
   Estimated
   Quantity
(Gallons/Month)
Key Tronic Corporation
Methylene Chloride
(20 - 25 percent
acrylic resins by weight)
300 - 400
                             1,1,1-trichloroethane
                             (20-25 percent
                             acrylic resins by
                             weight)
                         150 - 200
                             Mix of above
                             (10 percent acrylic
                             resins by weight)
                         100 - 150
Fairchild Air Force Base
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Poly Thinner
Enamel Thinner
Toluene
Paint Remover
Primer Wastes
   25
   12.5
   10
   10
   10
   10
Source:   CH2M Hill, 1983, p. 25.
 7331a

-------
 (Maddox 1982), involved monitoring well installation, injection  tests,
 and two rounds of groundwater quality sampling and analysis which  also
 included selected private and purveyor wells.

 In August 1983 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed
 the Colbert Landfill Site on its National Priorities List.
 Subsequently, Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation, who were  both
 identified as potential responsible parties (PRPs), continued to have
 George Maddox and Associates sample and analyze well waters around the
 landfill (Spokane County and Key Tronic 1986).  The EPA contracted
 CH2M Hill  to conduct a Remedial  Action Master Plan (CHJ1 Hill 1983)
 which presented a scope of work for an eventual  Remedial
 Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS).  Also in 1983,  Timothy D.
 Cook conducted an earth resistivity survey at the landfill site as part
 of a Masters Thesis (Cook 1985).

 Beginning in 1984, bottled water supplies were distributed by Spokane
 County and Key Tronic Corporation to some of the households with high
 contamination levels in their wells.  Ecology entered into a
 cooperative agreement with the EPA for conducting a RI/FS  at the
 Colbert Landfill  Site in August 1984.  A "Focused Feasibility Study for
 Initial  Remedial  Measures at the Colbert Landfill" (Ecology 1984a)  and
 a "Community Relations Plan for Remedial  Measures at the Colbert
 Landfill"  (Ecology 1984b) were developed in June 1984.   The chosen
 Initial  Remedial  Measure (IRM) was to supply water to the  affected  area
 by constructing a pressurized water system through the  Colbert
 Extension  (System 9) of the Whitworth Water District No. 2.  The hookup
 of affected residents to this system was subsidized,  again by the PRPs,
 contingent on three conditions imposed by the PRPs:

    o    Contamination of well  water of  more than the then-proposed MCL
         values,  including a 200 ug/1  limit for  TCA
    o    Proximity (less than 500 ft)  to  water supply mains
    o    Signing  of a hold-harmless agreement

Other residents,  although not meeting these conditions,  have also
elected to receive this water supply at  their own expense.
 7331a

-------
Ecology contracted Golder Associates to conduct a data review of the
Colbert Landfill Site.  They submitted their recommendation report  in
December 1984 (Golder 1984), and then developed a work plan for the
Remedial Investigation (RI) which was submitted in January 1985.
Authorization to conduct the RI was received in March 1985.  A draft RI
report was released for public review in May 1986 and the final RI
report was completed in May 1987 (Golder 1987).

In the summer of 1985, the EPA contracted Lockheed-EMSCO to perform
soil gas and earth resistivity surveys near the landfill.  A
subcontractor, Tracer Research Company, performed the soil gas survey
for three of the detected chlorinated hydrocarbons while Lockheed
conducted the resistivity survey.  The County of Spokane and Key Tronic
Corporation retained George Maddox and Associates and ABC Laboratory to
continue monitoring of private wells in cooperation with the efforts of
Ecology and Golder through 1985, 1986, and 1987.

In April 1986, Ecology authorized Golder to prepare a Feasibility Study
(FS) based upon the RI.  The FS was performed by Golder and their
subcontractor, Envirosphere Company, with input from Hall and
Associates.  The FS Final Report was submitted for public comment in
May 1987 (Golder and Envirosphere 1987).

SITE ENVIRONMENT

The site is in  the drainage basin of the Little Spokane River, on a
plateau bounded by bluffs down to the river on the west and knobby
granite and basalt hills to the east.  The climate is characteristic of
eastern Washington with mild temperatures ranging from typical summer
highs  around 83°F to  typical winter lows around 23"F, and a relatively
low annual precipitation of approximately 17 inches falling mainly
during the winter months of November through February (NOAA 1985).
 7331a
                                    8

-------
The geology of the site consists of a series of glacially-derived
materials laid down on an eroded landscape of clays, basaltic lava
flows, and granitic bedrock.  The strati graphic units (layers) as
described in the Remedial Investigation (Golder 1987), from youngest to
oldest (i.e., from the top down), are:

    A.   Glacial  outwash/Missoula flood sands/gravels.
    B.   Glacial  Lake Columbia lacustrine silts/clays.
    C.   Older glaciofluvial and/or alluvial  sands/gravels.
    D.   Weathered basalts and Latah (landslide deposits)-
    E.   Unweathered Latah silts/clays.
    F.   Granite bedrock.

A schematic view of a cross-section of  the Little Spokane River valley
at the site of the landfill  showing the general  configuration of these
units is provided in Figure 3.

This specific geological  system can be  hydrogeologically defined as
containing three aquifers and three aquitards.   There is an aquifer
associated with Unit A -  the glacial  outwash/Missoula flood deposits
which is designated as the upper sand/gravel  aquifer.  Unit B -  The
lacustrine silts/clays stratum is a relatively  impermeable layer which
acts as an aquitard.   The second aquifer,  located in Unit C - the older
glaciofluvial and/or alluvial  deposits, is called the lower sand/gravel
aquifer.  The weathered zone of the basalts and  Latah, Unit D,  may be
considered an extension of the lower aquifer.   The unweathered  Latah
silts/clays, Unit E,  serves  as the second  aquitard.   The upper
fractured zone of granite, Unit F,  is capable of water transmission
and, although a poor producer in most areas,  it  could be considered as
an aquifer while the deeper, less fractured portions of the bedrock
serve as the confining lower boundary or aquitard to the entire
regional flow system.
7331a

-------
 Basalt
                  Glacial outwash
                 and Missoula flood
                  •anda / gravala
            Little Spokane River
     g       (Valley created by
   Lacustrine     Missoula Flow
(Lake Columbia)  and subsequent
 •llta / claya   stream erosion)
                                                        Older gaclofluvlal
                                                           and  alluvial
                                                         aanda / gravels
                             SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF
        LITTLE SPOKANE RIVER VALLEY THROUGH COLBERT LANDFILL SITE
                          SHOWING  GEOLOGIC  STRATIGRAPHY
SOURCE: GOLDER 1987
                                                                            FIGURE 3

-------
The upper aquifer is unconfined with a water table at an approximate
elevation of 1,770 feet, 90 feet below ground surface in the area of
the landfill.  The thickness of the upper aquifer varies from 8 to 15
feet in the central  channel, decreasing as it extends toward the
western bluffs and eastern hills.   Groundwater is flowing predominately
toward the south with velocities ranging from 4 to 13 feet per day
(ft/day).  The lower aquifer is generally a confined system, with its
potentiometric surface at an approximate elevation of 1,680 feet,
180 feet below ground surface in the same area.   The thickness of the
lower aquifer varies considerably  from only a few feet,  east of the
landfill, to over 150 feet as it approaches the river valley, where the
aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Little Spokane River.
Groundwater in this  lower sand/gravel  aquifer flows predominately
toward the west at velocities ranging from 2 to 12 ft/day.   Northeast
of the landfill, the lower aquifer is closer to the surface, and
becomes unconfined,  interconnecting with the upper aquifer.

Both aquifers would  be classified  as current sources of  drinking water
(Class IIA) according to the EPA Groundwater Classification System
(EPA 1986).

The vegetation in the vicinity of  the landfill  is dominated by
ponderosa pine, with an undergrowth of grasses  that are  green in the
spring and dry-brown by summer.  Along the Little Spokane River the
forest is somewhat denser and includes more species of trees.   This
riparian zone also supports a variety of shrub  species and  broadleafed
herbaceous plants in addition to grasses.   Game  animals,  small  birds,
and small mammals inhabit the wooded areas,  and  the river supports a
variety of aquatic species, including trout.  Bald eagles are seen
occasionally along the river, especially in  winter.   Much of the
landfill  site itself has been cleared of trees,  generally leaving bare
soil, with occasional  patches of grasses and shrubs in unworked
sections.  Adjacent  to the site  are both wooded  areas and private
residences.  Wildlife use of the landfill  property is probably limited
to birds, insects, and perhaps small  reptiles and mammals,  similar to
species found in surrounding areas.
7331a
                                  11

-------
Most of the nearby residences are multiple-acre homesteads, although a
number of residential subdivisions are located within a short distance
of the landfill, including Wilson Heights, Open Air, Wahoo, North
Meadows, and Hermsmeier Additions, and North Glen Estates (Figure 4).
Several other residential subdivisions are located further south but
still within the site (the total potential area of impact); these
include Riverview Hills Addition, Hilltop Addition, Ranchettes North,
Ballards Addition, Colbert Heights, Little Spokane River Estates,
Golden Estates, Meadow View, Argonaut Estates, Lane Park, Peone Pines,
and Sherwood and Robert.  In addition, the site includes the town of
Colbert and part of  the City of Mead.  The area is primarily semi-rural
with limited agricultural land use consisting of part-time farming to
produce garden  vegetables and livestock.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM

Organic Contaminants Detected

Six  volatile organic chemicals, all chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,
were the main contaminants detected in the groundwater at the Colbert
Landfill Site during the Remedial Investigation (Colder 1987) and are
listed in Table 2.   Several other contaminants were also detected in
the  RI  samples, but  occurred at lower concentrations or were less
widely distributed  (bottom of Table 2).   Because they behave similarly
to  the above contaminants they were not  considered separately for
remediation.  There  is  no potential for  reuse or recycle of any organic
contaminants that were  detected at this  site.

Extent of  Soil  Contamination

Although the contaminants placed  into the landfill traversed a
considerable  thickness  of unsaturated soil to reach the groundwater,
the drilling  program carried out  during  the  RI found little trace of
 these  chemicals in  the  soil  samples obtained.  This may be because
 7331a
                                   12

-------
                                         COLBERT LANDFILL
                 SITE BOUNDARY
           - 1=1-
                                        TOWN OF COLBERT
                                                      FIGURE 4
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
IN AND NEAR
COLBERT LANDFILL SITE

-------
                                TABLE 2
            ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FOUND  IN COLBERT LANDFILL
            SITE GROUNDWATER DURING  REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
                                               Number      Maximum
                                               of          Concentration
    Contaminant                                Wells       (ug/1)!/
Major Contaminants

    1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)                  20          5,600
    1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)                   19            190
    1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA)                     19            600
    Trichloroethylene (TCE)                      11            230
    Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)                     9             23
    Methylene Chloride (MC) (also
      called Dichloromethane)                    11          2,500

Lesser Contaminants

    Acetone  (also called Propanone)                3           445
    Chloroform  (also called Trichloromethane)     11             6
    Methyl Ethyl Ketone (also called               2            14
      2-Butanone)
    1,2-Dichloroethane (also called
      Ethylene  Dichloride)              .           2             5
    1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene                     5            12
    Toluene  (also called Methyl Benzene)           2            <1
 I/   In  this  report,  all organic contaminant concentrations will be
     presented  in  the units of micrograms (ug) of chemical per liter (1)
     of  water.  This  conventional unit of measurement is essentially
     equivalent to parts per billion  (ppb).
 7331a
                                   14

-------
borings happened to be placed outside of areas where the solvents were
actually disposed, or due to a combination of influences from drilling
procedures (volatilization of the compounds by the air circulation of
the air rotary drilling) and from natural  forces which have had
sufficient time to drive off virtually all the contamination which
might have originally adsorbed onto the soil  particles.  The only
contaminant of concern which was detected in  any of the soil samples
from auger or well borings was methylene chloride (MC).  It was
measured at levels of about 4 milligrams per  kilogram (mg/kg) in auger
borings from the intermediate cover and garbage within the landfill.
This was unexpected since MC had not been  detected in the upper aquifer
beneath the landfill.  Similar concentrations of MC were also detected
in well borings of the lower aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the
landfill.   For these deeper borings, the presence of MC was probably
due to its lower volatilization compared to the other contaminants,  and
the presence of higher MC levels in the lower aquifer.   It should also
be noted that MC is a commo/i laboratory chemical  and when it is found
at low concentrations, it is possible that it was introduced
accidentally during analysis.

Another form in which contamination exists in the vicinity of the
landfill is in the soil  atmosphere.   Chapter  3 of the RI Report
(Golder 1987)  describes  the soil atmosphere survey carried out in
August 1985 by Tracer Research (Marrin 1986).  They tested for three of
the contaminants known to exist in the groundwater, TCA, TCE,  and PCE,
at probe depths of 3 to  5 feet.   Draft results for TCA were presented
in Figure 3-3 of the RI  Report,  and showed detectable levels of soil
gas contamination over much of the area where groundwater contamination
has been found, both in  the upper and lower aquifers.  Maximum soil  gas
concentrations of TCA were in the 100-200  ug/1  level  (except for one
reading of 940 ug/1) and were generally found in  a semicircular pattern
around and to the east of the landfill, an area where "secondary
sources" of the contaminants are suspected to lie.  Secondary sources
are points where contaminants migrating from  their original  disposal
site collected and* from  which contaminants are now migrating.
7331a
                                  15

-------
Much lower levels of TCE and PCE than TCA were detected in the soil
atmosphere during this .investigation.  According to Marrin (1986), the
highest quantified soil  gas concentration of TCE at 0.09 ^g/1 was
measured southwest of the landfill.  However, an area to the northeast
of the landfill is identified as having possibly higher
concentrations.  This is the same area where secondary sources of
contamination are suspected.  For PCE, the highest measured soil gas
concentration was 1 ug/1 northwest of the landfill, in the vicinity of
the highest levels of PCE groundwater contamination (23 ug/1) found
during the RI.

Extent of Groundwater Contamination

Contour maps  included in the RI Report (Figures 5-17 through 5-25 of
Golder 1987)  show the distribution of the contaminants of concern in
the two aquifers associated with the Colbert Landfill Site:
                *
    a.    1,1,1-Trichloroethane  (TCA)
    b.    1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
    c.    1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA)
    d.    Trichloroethylene  (TCE)
    e.    Methylene  chloride (MC)

These maps are presented here in reduced form as Figures 5 and 6 in
order to  show the  general  pattern  in which each contaminant has spread
in  the  upper  and  lower  aquifers respectively.

The maximum  levels  of these contaminants, plus tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), which  were  detected  in the  1985 RI groundwater sampling program
are summarized in Table 3.  These  values are rather dynamic and suffer
from  two  limitations  for representing the maximum  contamination levels
in  the  aquifers.   First, they fluctuate due  to movement of the plumes,
variations  in sampling, laboratory inaccuracies, or  some combination of
these.  Second, the wells  may not  be  located at the  point of highest
concentration in  the  aquifer.   Nevertheless, they  indicate the relative
magnitude of the  problem in the two  aquifers.
 7331a
                                   16

-------
             .%in^*»i
 V> I



  \
                           I
                       JDCA^
 DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN  UPPER AQUIFER

(a) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)   (b) 1,1- Dichloroethylene (DCE)
(c) 1,1-Dichloroethane  (DCA)  (d) Trichloroethylene (TCE)
SOURCE: COLDER AND ENV1ROSPHERE 1987
                             FIGURE 5

-------
  DISTRIBUTION OF
  CONTAMINANTS
  IN  LOWER  AQUIFER
  (a) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane  (TCA)
  (b) 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
  (c) 1,1-Dichloroethane  (DCA)
  (d) Trichloroethylene (TCE)
  (e) Methylene Chloride  (MC)


 SOURCE: COLDER AND ENVIROSPHERE 1987
                           RGURE 6
10

-------
                                TABLE 3
          MAXIMUM  CONTAMINANT  CONCENTRATIONS  IN  GROUNDWATER AT
                         COLBERT LANDFILL SITE
Contaminant
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Methylene Chloride (MC)
Concentration (ug/1)
Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer
1,300 5,
47
600 -
72 I/
23
ND -1 2,
600
190
420
230
1
500
    _!/   Latest concentrations recorded in 1984 by George Maddox and
         Associates in Well CS-13 which could not be sampled in 1985
         due to low water levels.

    2f   MD = not detected to date in any well  in aquifer.

Source:  Golder 1987.  Measurements are from the Fall/Winter 1985 RI
         samples, except as noted.
7331a
                                  19

-------
As can be seen in the  distribution maps,  the contamination has spread
much further in the  upper  aquifer than  it has  in the lower, with the
upper aquifer plume  extending  south  of  the landfill toward the town of
Colbert.  The lower  aquifer  plume, on the other hand, has proceeded
further north and southeast.   The highest levels of contamination in
the groundwater are  divided  between  the two aquifers, with TCA, DCE,
TCE, and MC  found at higher  concentrations in  the  lower aquifer, with
OCA and PCE  more concentrated  in  the upper aquifer.

Section 5.4.1 of the RI  Report (Colder  1987) presents an estimate that
only about  10 percent  of the TCA  documented to have been disposed at
Colbert Landfill can be  accounted  for  in solution  in the groundwater.
It  has been  proposed that substantial  quantities of the contaminants
remain at  the bottom of  the  aquifers in the form of dense, nonaqueous
phase  liquids  (DNAPLs),  i.e.,  relatively undiluted chemicals existing
as  separate  liquids  rather than in  solution in the groundwater.  While
it  is  difficult  to  estimate  how much was lost  to volatilization at the
time of disposal and subsequently  during contaminant migration, it
appears possible  that  some portion  of  the remaining 90 percent of this
material  could  remain  in the subsurface in DNAPL form.  Since these
chemicals  have  a  density greater  than  water, they  are likely to have
flowed  along the  bottom  of the upper aquifer under gravitational
influence.   Contaminant  flow would then occur  both to the east and to
the west  since,  according to stratigraphic interpretation, the landfill
is  situated over  a  ridge formed by the upper  surface of the lacustrine
silt/clay  aquitard,  which slopes  to  both the east  and the west.  The
DNAPL  flow would  continue along the  bottom of  the  aquifer until it came
to  a  confined low  point  where  it could pond.   There it would remain and
slowly release  its  chemical  constituents into  the  groundwater  flowing
over  it.   A schematic  illustration of  this contaminant migration is
reproduced from the RI Report  as  Figure 7.

The quantity of these  DNAPL  residuals  is impossible to determine with
any accuracy.   Their location  is  likely to be  to  the north and east of
the landfill,  and  probably more in the lower  aquifer than in the upper
 7331a
                                   20

-------
      1860
      1760
    CO
    CD 1660
    CO

    .» 1560
    LU
      1460
Lake Columbia
  Lacustrine
  Silts/Clays
              -..Alluvial "-V;:":
            sands / gravels '<
                                       Weathered Basalt
                                       Weathered Latah
                                       Unweathered Latah
                                         silts / clays
                                                  Granite
                         DNAPL Migration

                         Solute Migration
  SCHEMATIC OF DENSE,  NONAQUEOUS
   PHASE  LIQUID (DNAPL) MIGRATION
        BENEATH COLBERT LANDFILL
                                                                    RGURE 7
 SOURCE: COLDER 1987

"	1	
                         21

-------
aquifer.  The existence of these constituents is further indicated by
the centers of contamination in the lower aquifer being shifted toward
the northeast (see Figure 6), and by the high levels of contaminants
detected in the groundwater at this depth despite the fact that the
lower aquifer should be further from the original source.  As such, the
hypothetical pools of contaminants at  the bottom of the aquifer would
constitute  secondary sources which could cause continuing groundwater
contamination for an extended period of time.

Future  Migration and Impacts of Contaminants-Upper Aquifer

In  the  upper aquifer, the fronts of the contamination plumes for TCA,
DCE, and DCA have extended over the past 8  to 10 years as far as 9000
feet south  of the landfill  (see Figure 5).  'Colder (1987) calculated a
solute  plume velocity of about 2 to 3  ft/day for the TCA plume by two
separate methods.  The  other contaminants mentioned above appear to
have similar velocities.  These transport rates are likely to continue
                                        •
for the next  several years,  although the stratigraphy in the area ahead
of  the  plumes is  less well  understood  and so cannot be used to confirm
this.   The  plumes appear  to  be migrating toward the town of Colbert.  A
portion of  the  groundwater  flow in  the upper aquifer appears to move
toward  a granite  bedrock  outcrop just  north of the town, where runoff
from the eastern  hills  and  the upper aquifer infiltrate down into the
lower aquifer,  in which groundwater  flows westward to the Little
Spokane River Valley.   Therefore, contamination in the upper aquifer
could also  pass into  the  lower aquifer here and migrate westward.

An  estimate was made  of the  future  extent of the upper aquifer
contaminant plume  if  remediation  is  not undertaken (Figure 8).  This
was based  on  an interpretation of  the  topography of the site and
general vicinity  as  shown  on the  USGS  Mead  and Dartford 7.5-Minute
Quadrangles,  the  regional  geology  as derived by Griggs (1973) and shown
in  Figure  2-1 of  the  RI Report, and  the stratigraphy and hydrogeology
of  the  site delineated  in  the  course of the Remedial Investigation.
The upper  aquifer plume seems  to  be  advancing toward the south along a
 7331a
                                   22

-------
  ...*	-. —« -m '
  - 
-------
trough in the Lake Columbia lacustrine silt/clay aquitard.  This is
most likely a channel incised in the lake bottom from recessional
glacial outwash'f1ows and  flooding events following the draining of the
ice age lake.  The channel follows a paleo-valley bounded by the
granitic hills and older glacial outwasn materials to the east, and the
bluffs down to the Little  Spokane River to the west.  There are no
obvious discharge areas although portions of tne flow may discharge as
small  springs on the western bluff, feed Little Deep Creek where it is
perennial south  of Green Bluff  Road, or drain down through a connection
into the lower aquifer.  The bulk of the flow, and thus ultimately the
plume, however,  probably continues south and discharges in the valley
sides  of Peone  (or Deadman) Creek.  The overall course of the
groundwater flow is interpreted to be approximately parallel to
Highway 2.  Approaching Peone Creek the flow will probably be diverted
slightly by the  granitic bedrock high to the south beyond and align
with the westerly course of the Little Spokane Valley.  Groundwater
flows  from other areas, such as Peone Prairie to the east, would also
tend to divert the plume to the west.

Based  on available stratigraphic and hydrogeologic information, this
interpretation represents  a best estimate rather than worst case.
Using  the 2-  to  3-feet-per-day  advance of contaminants calculated to
date,  it is estimated that the  plume will migrate the remaining four
miles  to Peone Creek  in about 20 to 30 years.  Actual migration time
may be shorter or longer than this due to the width, depth, and
hydraulic properties of the aquifer.  Clearly, however, it is possible
that any wells in tne upper aquifer in the area delineated in Figure 8
could  become  contaminated  during the 30-year planning period of the FS.

Various processes could occur that may cause the quantity of
contaminants  in  the plume  to be reduced and tnereby diminish in
concentration during the period of transport.  These include:

    o    Volatilization into vadose soil gas, and then into the
         atmosphere;
 7331 a
                                   24

-------
    o    Adsorption onto soil particles, particularly organic matter;
    o    Microbial degradation; and
    o    Hydrolysis, the decomposition of a chemical compound by
         reaction with water.

Based upon tne observation that the concentration levels, at least for
the contaminants TCA and DCE, are fairly constant over most of tne
plume, it appears that the natural  degradation is slow.  If degradation
were occurring, tne concentration of contaminants at the front of the
plume would have diminished.  There has been a trend in the upper
aquifer for contamination levels near the source areas to diminish over
the time they have been monitored.   Chemical  concentrations for the
upper aquifer will remain elevated  for a significant time,  certainly
longer than the estimated time for  migration to Peone Creek.

Future Migration and Impact of Contaminants - Lower Aquifer

Tne RI Report did not develop a plume velocity for the contaminants in
the lower aquifer partially because the plume has not advanced far
enough to provide the data  required to make any accurate estimates
based upon historical  data, and also because the hydrogeology of this
aquifer is complicated.  Migration  of the contamination to  the west,
for example, is expected to slow down considerably over the next
several years as the plume  moves into thicker saturated zones adjacent
to tne river (see Figure 3).

Following a similar procedure to that described in the previous section
for the upper aquifer,  the  future extent of the lower aquifer plume is
predicted to impact a  much  smaller  area (see Figure 9)-   It is also
suggested that the upper aquifer may be connected with the  lower
aquifer in areas other than tnose identified east of the landfill.  For
example, in the area of the granite bedrock high north of the town of
Colbert, groundwater elevations from wells  indicate that flow in the
upper aquifer is diverted southeasterly (i.e., toward the bedrock
high).  This appears indicative of  a partial  sink in the upper aquifer
due to connection to the Tower aquifer in this area.  If this
7331a
                                  25

-------
                                           APPROXIMATE
                                           PRESENT
                                           EXTENTI
                                           OF    I
                                           CONTAMINATION
                            COLBERT LANDFILL
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
IF NOT CONTAINED
-   :--,-:  I
                        CONTAMINATION FROM
                        UPPER AQUIFER
SITE BOUNDARY
                               ~r-v?yf \jj  i!   n'v.1'*-1 •- .
                               ?^jK  Ll_A'1*-,3
                               TOWN OF COLBERT ' ';
                                     *
                                     /MiLtMl
                         cij"-:-V, i ^TT7/   f
                         l-"t jtiliil It *-* ^» ^^_ j L ,v
   ESTIMATED POTENTIAL
 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
   • IN LOWER AQUIFER IF
  PLUME IS NOT CONTAINED
    \
SOURCE: COLDER AND ENV1ROSPHERE 1987
                    CITY OF MEAD
                         26
                                               FIGURE 9

-------
connection does exist and contamination from the upper aquifer plume
enters the lower aquifer, it may affect residents who obtain water from
the lower aquifer in the area between the town of Colbert and the
Little Spokane River.

The same natural reduction processes mentioned in the previous section
may also occur in the lower aquifer and reduce contamination levels,
albeit very  slowly.  The volatilization pathway through the vadose zone
soils is active in areas where  the aquifer is unconfined despite its
depth, as can be seen in the results of the Tracer Research soil
atmosphere survey.   In  the areas where the aquifer dips below an
aquitard and becomes confined,  there is no air interface in which
interchange  can occur,  so volatilization is much slower.  Thus, natural
restoration  of the lower aquifer will require more time than for the
upper aquifer.  For  the most part the contamination will decrease only
as  the secondary sources, apparently mainly in the lower aquifer, are
solubilized  and depleted.  Estimation of the mass of chemicals
solubilized  in the groundwater  indicate that only about 10 percent of
the chemicals have gone into solution in the past 8 to 10 years since
disposal occurred.   At  the same rate, dissolution of the entire volume
of  contaminants could thus require decades.  However, it is very
possible that the emission rate from the secondary sources could
diminish over the years as the  more soluble contaminants are
exhausted.   As a result, the plume could continue to exist for a longer
period of time at a  lower, but  still significant, concentration level.

Future Migration and Impacts of Contaminants - Surface Water

There is a small amount of seepage emerging from the upper aquifer at a
few locations along  the valley  walls in areas where that aquifer is
known to be  contaminated.  One  of the discharge points, the King
Springs, was sampled by Ecology personnel and found to have an initial
TCA contamination level of 111  ug/1 as it emerges from the aquifer.
This level of contamination  is  consistent with concentrations recorded
in  the groundwater in the vicinity.  The contamination in the spring
water diminished rapidly as  the water trickled as little as 10 feet
 7331a
                                   27

-------
away, apparently due to the contaminants volatilizing into the air.
Contamination reaching the Little Spokane River from these springs
which are located several hundred feet away from the river will be
dissipated to undetectable levels.

The contamination in the lower aquifer has not reached the vicinity of
the river.  If it does, it will flow into the river below the water
surface and not be subjected to the same immediate aeration processes.
Future contaminant concentrations in the river were predicted (see
Table 4) based on four assumed conditions:   the present-day flux of the
chemicals in solution in the lower aquifer beneath the landfill;
unimpeded transfer from the aquifer to the river;  full  mixing in the
river; and no volatilization from the river surface.

It is expected that the levels attained immediately upon mixing will be
diminished through in-stream processes, predominantly aeration, before
the Little Spokane reaches the Spokane River some  20  miles downstream,
at which point the flow in the larger river will  further reduce any
remaining contaminant levels.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A Risk Assessment (RA)  of the  Colbert Landfill  Site was  conducted to
provide a quantitative determination of the potential  for harm to the
general public as a result of  exposure to site contaminants (Appendix A
- Golder and Envirosphere 1987).   Three primary pathways potentially
expose humans to the contaminants, which include  both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic compounds.  The pathway of most concern  is ingestion,
as site groundwaters are presently used as  a potable  water supply by
many residents in the Colbert  area.   In addition,  many residents of the
community use their properties for crop production and livestock
grazing.  Therefore, a potential  risk to human health also occurs from
the ingestion of crops irrigated  by or grown in contaminated  water and
ingestion of beef or dairy products from livestock grazing in the
area.  Pathways of .less concern,  but still  evaluated  in  the RA, are
dermal contact from bathing and inhalation  of volatile contaminants,
and health impacts for livestock  drinking contaminated water.
7331a
                                  28

-------
                                TABLE 4

             ESTIMATED CONTAMINANT FLUXES IN LOWER AQUIFER

      AND  RESULTANT FUTURE CONCENTRATIONS IN LITTLE SPOKANE RIVER
                           Colbert Landfill
                                         Maximum Future River

                                         Concentration Ug/1 _).
Present-day Mean river flow Drought flow
flux conditions conditions
i / 21
Contaminant (g/day) q = 236 cfs^7 q^10 = 75 cfs-
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(TCA) 9700 17
1 , 1-Dichl oroethyl ene
(DCE) 680 1.2
1, 1-Dichl oroethane
(DCA) 730 1.3
Trichl oroethyl ene
(TCE) 95 0.2
Methyl ene Chloride
(MC) 4400 7.6
53
3.7
4.0
0.6
24
Source:  Golder and Envirosphere 1987.

_!/  qavg is  long-term average  flow in the Little Spokane River,
    calculated for the  reach adjacent to the site.

2/  q7,io  is  the  seven-day average flow which is exceeded  (on the
~*   low side) only once every  ten years (on average).
7331a
                                   29

-------
Risk Assessment of Contaminants

For each of the indicator contaminants identified above, Acceptable
Doses (AD) were derived.  Noncarcinogen ADs were based on available
toxicity data that indicate a no adverse effect level.  For carcinogens
the ADs were based on a one-in-a-million (10  ) or one-in-a-hundred-
thousand (10" ) chance of developing cancer from a lifetime exposure,
using the EPA Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) evaluation of the cancer
potency.  The different pathways were analyzed as sequences of steps,
with partitioning of contaminants occurring at each specific step.   The
results of these calculations are presented in Table 5 as Maximum
Acceptable Concentrations (MAC) values which should not be exceeded in
water used for drinking (ingestion) or bathing, (dermal).  The Federal
Drinking Water Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs)  and the maximum
concentration detected in the upper and lower aquifers are also
presented for comparison.

Risks to Human Health and the Environment

Based upon the Risk Assessment, the following conclusions were made
concerning risks to human health and the environment from contaminants
associated with the Colbert Landfill  Site.

    o    Concentrations for the contaminants TCA,  DCE,  TCE,  and MC
         frequently exceed their human ingestion  MAC values  for both of
         the aquifers.   Therefore,  drinking the water from contaminated
         wells poses the most significant risk to human health.   The
         subdivisions that are already within the areas of aquifer
         contamination  above the MAC values are:   Wilson Heights, Open
         Air, Wahoo, North Meadows, and Hermsmeier  Additions.   Other
         subdivisions which are in  the total  potential  area  of impact
         include:   North Glen Estates, Ranchettes North, Hilltop
         Addition,  Riverview Hills  Addition, Little Spokane  River
         Estates,  Colbert Heights,  Golden Estates,  Ballards  Addition,
         Meadow View, Argonaut Estates, Lane Park,  Peone Pines, and
7331a
                                  30

-------
                                                                           TABLE 5

                                               RESULTS OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR INGESTION AND DERMAL EXPOSURE  I/

Detected
Contaminant
1,1,1-Trichloro-
ethaile (TCA)
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene (DCE)
1,1-Dichloro-
ethane (OCA)
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Tetrachloro-
ethylene (PCE)
Methylene Chloride
(MC)

Indicator Acceptable Dose
Parameter Carcinogens!/ (ug/day)
Yes No 400
Yes Possible 14
No No 8,100
No Yes 6.4
No Yes 1.4
Yes Yes 5
EPA

Maximum Acceptable Maximum Maximum
Concentration (MAC) Values (ug/1) Contaminant Concentrations (gg/1) i/
i Levels (MLLS) upper
ingestion Pathway Dermal Exposure (ug/D Aquifer
200 97,000 200 1,300
7 3,050 7 47
4,050 NA y None 600
3.2 NA 5 72
0.7 NA None 23
2.5 1,200 None NO I/
Lower
Aquifer
5,600
190
420
230
1
2,500
\J  See Risk Assessment document (Appendix A of Feasibility Study Report, Colder and Envlrosphere 1987).
21  Data for carcinogens is given for the 10'6 (one-in-a-million) risk level only.  MAC values for a 10'5 (one-ln-a-hundred thousand) risk levels can be
    computed by multiplying the MAC by 10.
3/  NA = not analyzed as part of Risk Assessment.
4/  From Table. 3.
F/  NO = not detected to date in any well.
7331a

-------
         Sherwood and Robert.  Some of these subdivisions or portions
         of them are already serviced by Whitworth Water District
         No. 2.  However, the Meadow View and Kellogg Wells, which
         presently serve System 9, could become contaminated by the
         advancing plume.

         Exposure from ingestion of crops grown in contaminated waters
         does not pose a significant health risk due to the volatile
         nature of the contaminants and the location of the
         contaminated aquifers below the root zone of local
         vegetation.  Similarly, a human health risk is not expected
         from the ingestion of beef or dairy products.

         Some contaminant concentrations exceed the dermal  MAC  values
         for MC and DCE both as a carcinogen and noncarcinogen;
         therefore, bathing in contaminated water could pose a  risk to
         human health.

         Although exceedances of the MAC values for MC  could occur in
         the Little Spokane River, the river is not used as  a potable
         supply.  Therefore, human health risks are negligible, as only
         incidental ingestion is expected.   Since no exceedances of the
         dermal  MAC values occur for any of the indicators,  swimming in
         the Little Spokane River does not  appear to pose a  risk to
         human health.

         The inhalation exposure to volatile organics was calculated
         using two different models for showering and normal  domestic
         water use, both of which indicated that volatilization of
         organics does not present a public health risk.
7331a
                                  32

-------
                            III.  ENFORCEMENT

The remedial action  is anticipated to be accomplished voluntarily by
the Responsible Parties who have been identified to date.  These
include Spokane County, Key Tronic Corporation, and Fairchild Air Force
Base. Other  responsible parties may be identified in the future.  There
have never been any  enforcement actions taken by the regulatory
agencies  (EPA or  the Washington Department of Ecology) regarding the
Colbert Landfill  Site.  If  the Responsible Parties decline to implement
the selected remedy  as described in this Record of Decision, however,
EPA will  seek appropriate enforcement action.
7331a
                                  33

-------
                    IV.   COMMUNITY  RELATIONS  HISTORY
Community interest in groundwater contamination at Colbert Landfill has
been high since 1980, when local residents complained to Ecology and
the Spokane County Utilities Department that hazardous materials were
being disposed of at the landfill.  At that time, Spokane County hired
a consultant to study the extent of the contamination.  The County also
developed a community relations plan and began a public information
program to explain the study to local  residents.  The County
distributed fact sheets and press releases about the situation,
notified well  owners of their test results, and established an
information repository at the Colbert Water District building.

The Utilities Department also held seven public meetings between May
1981 and November 1983, explaining each phase of the study and the test
results.  Representatives of several  agencies, including the Spokane
                                                     .
County Health Department and the Tax Assessor's Office, were available
to respond to questions.  Citizens expressed numerous significant
concerns at these meetings.   The primary concern was whether or not the
well water was safe to use for drinking or for other purposes, and what
the potential  health impacts could be  from drinking the water.
Residents were also concerned about how the contamination would affect
their property values.

There were three official  actions in response to these concerns.  In
March 1983, Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation began supplying
bottled water to homes whose wells had over 1,000 yg/1  of
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA).   Shortly  afterward, the Spokane County Tax
Assessor reduced the assessed valuation of homes with wells at this
contamination level  and of the other homes within 3/4 mile of the
landfill.
7331a
                                  34

-------
In response to continued public requests for safe drinking water
supplies, the County and Key Tronic constructed an extension to the
Whitworth Water District to serve the contaminated area.  This Initial
Remedial Measure was completed in early 1985.  Homes having wells with
contamination levels over 200 ug/1 TCA were connected to the system.

In the  fall of 1985, local residents, not satisfied with County
responses to their requests, formed the Colbert Landfill Contaminate
Area Committee.  The group's purpose was to collect information and
make it available to interested people.  In December 1985 this group
presented seven recommendations to the Spokane County Commissioners.
The major requests were:  free water hookup for all homes in the
contaminated area, with no water  payments for twenty years; revaluation
of property in the area; and continued well monitoring  for twenty
years.   The County's response continued the policy of hooking up only
those homes with specified contamination levels.  The citizens saw this
as too  restrictive, which increased their.frustration%

Ecology met frequently with concerned citizens and County and Key
Tronic  representatives between 1985 and 1987.  Ecology  held a public
meeting in 1986 to explain the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
process and the results of the RI and held another meeting in May 1987
when the FS report was released for public comment.  The main purpose
of this meeting was to explain the cleanup alternatives and the options
for treating the contaminated water.  Over 200 people,  primarily local
residents, attended.  Twenty-nine people returned  the detailed comment
forms and six sent letters commenting on the alternatives.  Response
strongly favored the recommended  extract!on-treatment-surface water
discharge alternative and the air stripping treatment option.

The major citizen concerns regarding the FS recommendations were the
shortness of the comment period (which was then extended), the
concentration on the County and Key Tronic without searching for other
responsible parties, potential air pollution from  air stripping, and
reduced ground water levels caused by the extraction system.  These
comments are discussed in detail  in the Responsiveness  Summary.
7331a
                                   35

-------
                      V.  ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

ALTERNATIVES

The remedial alternatives which were developed and evaluated in the
Feasibility Study included:

         1)   No action;
         2)   Alternate water supply;
         3)   Point of entry treatment;
    4 - 12)   Groundwater extraction, treatment,  and discharge (using
              various technologies for each)  plus an expanded water
              system.

Each of these alternatives was considered separately in three
geographic portions of the site:

         o    The Southern area,  where the plume  in the upper aquifer
                is advancing;
         o    The Western area,  where the plume in the lower aquifer is
                the major concern;
         o    The Eastern area,  where the plumes  appear to originate,
                probably from accumulations of concentrated solvent
                fluids.

Each of the alternatives is designated by a letter indicating its  area
(S-, W-, or E-) followed by a number, denoting the technology.

About 90 different technologies  were screened and evaluated during the
feasibility study.  As the result of this detailed analysis,
12 remedial alternatives in the  southern  area, 7  in the western area
and 7 in the eastern area were carried through for detailed evaluation
using EPA's 1985 RI/FS guidance  factors (EPA  1985).
7331a
                                  36

-------
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

One remedial alternative will be selected for each of the areas of
concern.  This Record will not, however, specify a particular
technology  in order to allow the responsible parties a sufficient
degree of latitude in selecting the technology required to achieve the
desired performance.  This performance is defined as treating the
wastewater  effluent to or below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs,
40 CFR 141.61) or a similar health-based level (the 10"6 risk level
for carcinogens) for contaminants for which MCLs have not been
determined.  Numeric standards are presented in Table 6 for discharge
levels and  for termination of the remedial action.  Treated water
effluents also will be monitored to assure that they meet the
appropriate performance  standards.  Treated water discharge shall at
all times be consistent  with U.S. and Washington State laws including
but not limited  to RCW 90.48 (Water Pollution Control) and WAC 173-218
(Underground Injection Control Program).  WAC 173-218 states in part
that  any permit  issued in accordance with the provisions of the chapter
are designed:  "(a) to satisfy the intent and requirements of Part C of
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 42 U.S.C. Section 300k et
seq.  as authorized by RCW 43.21A.445 and of the Water Pollution Control
Act,  chapter 90.48 RCW;  and  (b) to preserve and protect groundwaters,
including underground sources  for drinking water, for existing and
future beneficial uses (173-218-010 (a)(b))."

WAC 173-218-020  enunciates Washington State policy  regarding the
carrying out of  chapter  purposes.  Further, WAC 173-218 prohibits
certain classes  of new wells.

Treatment systems which  may  result in air emissions will be designed
and monitored to meet appropriate state Air Toxics  Guidelines and  to
use Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
 7331a
                                   37

-------
                                TABLE 6

                         PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

              MAXIMUM  ALLOWABLE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS

                      (HEALTH PROTECTION LEVELS)-7
                                          Maximum Concentration
    Contaminant                                   (ug/1)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)                       200
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)                          7
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA)                        4,050

Trichloroethylene (TCE)                             5
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)                           0.7
Methylene Chloride (MC)                             2.5
I/  Health protection levels are not to  be  exceeded,  during operational
    life of remedial action, in effluents  from  groundwater treatment
    systems.  In addition, permanent attainment of  these levels in the
    groundwater throughout the site will  indicate completion of the
    remedial action.
7331a
                                  38

-------
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The detailed evalution  in the Feasibility Study discusses the
cost-effectiveness of an alternative  in terms of technical,
environmental and public health,  and  institutional concerns.  According
to NCP Section 300.68(h), the detailed analysis of each alternative
should include:

    o     Refinement  and specification of alternatives in detail, with
          emphasis on use of  established technology;

    o     Evaluation  in  terms of engineering  implementation,
          reliability, and constructibility;

    o     An  assessment  of the extent  to which the alternative is
          expected to effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize threats
          to,  and provide adequate protection of public health and
          welfare and the environment;

    o     An  analysis of adverse environmental impacts, methods for
          mitigating  these  impacts,  and costs of mitigation; and

    o     Detailed cost  estimation,  including operation and  maintenance
          costs,  and  distribution of costs over time.

The detailed aspects of evaluating these alternatives are  presented by
 five major criteria:

    o     Technical  Feasibility,
    o     Institutional  Requirements,
    o     Public  Health  Impacts,
    o     Environmental  Impacts, and
    o     Cost Analysis.

 This  presentation facilitates  the comparison of  similar  components
 among  the alternatives  for  the  same criteria.
 7331a
                                   39

-------
The technical evalution addresses the feasibility of the technologies
and associated components which make up each alternative.  The
evaluation of institutional requirements analyzes compliance with
current EPA policy on the use of applicable and relevant standards and
other criteria, guidance, and advisories at Superfund remedial sites,
as well as coordination with other agencies and community concerns.
Each alternative is evaluated as to how well  it can limit the
concentrations of hazardous substances in the environment to avoid
unacceptable threats to public health as established by the Risk
Assessment.  The environmental impacts of each alternative are
evaluated by comparing beneficial  and adverse effects.   The cost for
each alternative includes the capital  costs for implementation and the
operation and maintenance costs spanning the  thirty year study period.

The results of the detailed evaluation for each alternative are
expressed in a rating system utilizing the terms high,  moderate, and
low.

A high rating indicates that the alternative  promotes the intent of the
criteria and/or meets or exceeds the remedial  objectives.   A moderate
rating indicates that the alternative only partially promotes the
intent of the criteria, however, the alternative does remediate the
problem to an acceptable extent even though it does not meet all the
remedial objectives.  A low rating indicates  that the alternative does
not promote the criterion and/or does not meet the remedial  objectives.

RESULTS

The detailed evaluation according  to 1985 RI/FS Guidance Factors (EPA
1985) is presented on Table 7, and an evaluation of these remedial
alternatives according to the Section 121(b)(l)(A-G) factors is shown
on Table 8.  The rating system for Table 8 is similar to that for
Table 7, using ratings of high, moderate, and low to indicate a degree
of compliance with each factor.
7331a
                                  40

-------
                                                                           TABLE 7
                                                                SUMMARY  OF DETAILED EVALUATION
                                                                  1985 RI/FS GUIDANCE FACTORS
Technical
Feasibility
Remedial Alternatives Rating
Institutional
Requirements
Rating
Public Health
Requirements
Rating
Environmental
Impacts
Rating
SOUTHERN AREA I/
S-l:
S-2:
S-3:
S-4:
S-5:
S-6;
S-7:
S-8:
S-9:
S-10:
>U:
S-12:
WESTERN
W-l:
W-2:
W-3:
W-4:
No action
Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions
Point of Entry Treatment
Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/Creek Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/Creek Outfall
Deep Hell Ex tract ion/Ozone/UV/Creek Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen PeroxIde/UV/Creek Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorptlon/Drainfield
Deep Well Extraction/Air Strlpping/Drainfield
Deep Well Extraction/Ozone/UV/Drainfield
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxide/UV/Dralnfield
Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/Recharge Wells
Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/Recharge Wells
Deep Well Extraction/Ozone/UV/Recharge Wells
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxfde/UV/Recharge Wells
AREA:
No Action
Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions
Point of Entry Treatment
Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/River Outfall
High
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Moderate
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
Cost
Analysis
(% Million)
Capital
Cost
.330
17.09
2.77
2.4
2.23
2.66
2.92
2.43
2.28
2.86
3.15
2.62
2.47
3.05
3.34
0
2.81
52.70
1.53
Present
Worth
0.592
18.08
17.90
4.10
2.88
3.69
7.02
4.42
3.00
4.23
9.31
4.68
3.26
4.49
9.57
0.124
2.99
571.0
41.58
7331a

-------
-pi
ro
                                                                        TABLE 7 (Continued)

                                                                   SUMMARY OF DETAILED EVALUATION


                                                                    1905 RI/FS GUIDANCE FACTORS
Technical Institutional
Feasibility Requirements
Remedial Alternatives Rating Rating
Public Health Environmental
Requirements Impacts
Rating Rating
WESTERN AREA (Continued):
W-5
W-6
W-7
: Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/River Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping 3 Carbon Adsorption/
River Outfall
Deep Well Extract1on/Ozone/UV/R1ver Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen PeroxIde/UV/Rlver Outfall
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Cost
Analysis
(% Million)
Capital Present
Cost Worth
High
High
High
High
1.02
1.81
2.34
2.26
2.15
22.84
6.26
15.37
EASTERN AREA
E-l
E-2
£-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
\t
: No Action
: Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions
: Point of Entry Treatment
: Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/River Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/River Outfall
peep Well Extraction/Air Stripping 3 Carbon Adsorption/
River Outfall
: Deep Well Extraction/Ozone/UV/Rlver Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen PeroxIde/UV/Rlver Outfall
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Costs for Southern Area Extractlon/Treatment/Olscharge Alternatives (S-4 through
supply system.
Low
Moderate
Low
High
High
High
High
High
S-12) Include
Moderate
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Improvements to Whitworth
Moderate
High
Low
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Water District
1.32
2.54
2.32
3.73
3.39
3.92
4.20
4.33
No. 2
1.50
2.89
3.06
22.7
4.34
14.13
6.52
13.58
water
    7331a

-------
                       TABLE 8
EVALUATION OF  CERCLA SECTION 121(b)(H(A-G) FACTORS i/



Remedial Alternatives
SOUTHERN AREA
S-l: No action
S-2: Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions
S-3: Point of Entry Treatment
S-4: Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/Creek Outfall
<-J S-5: Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/Creek Outfall
S-6: Deep Well Extractlon/Ozone/UV/Creek Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxide/UV/Creek Outfall
S-7: Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorptlon/Drainfield
S-8: Deep Well Extraction/Air StHpping/Dralnfleld
S-9: Deep Well Extractlon/Ozone/UV/Dralnfield
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxide/UV/Drainfield
S-10: Deep Well Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/Recharge Wells
S-ll: Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping/Recharge Wells
A



Land Disposal
Uncertainties
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-12: Deep Well Extraction/Ozone/UV/Recharge Wells N/A
Deep Well Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxide/UV/Recharge Wells
WESTERN AREA:
W-l: No Action
H-2: Alternate Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions
733!a
N/A
N/A

B


Solid Waste
Disposal Act
Objectives
Low
Low
Low
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Low
Low

C
Persistence,
Toxicity,
Mobility
of Hazardous
Substances
Low
Low
Low
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Low
Low

D


Adverse
Health
Effects
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Low
Moderate

Pi'

•
Future
Costs if
Failure
N/A
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
N/A
Low
•
G
Threats due
to Excava-
tion, Trans-
portation,
Containment
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low


-------
                                                                    TABLE 8 (Continued)
                                                    EVALUATION OF CERCLA SECTION 121(b)(l)(A-G)  FACTORS
Remedial Alternatives
WESTERN AREA (Cont.)
W-3:
W-4:
W-5:
W-6:
W-7:
Point of Entry Treatment
Deep Well
Deep Well
Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/River Outfall
Extraction/Air Stripping/River Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping a Carbon Adsorption/
River Outfall
Deep Well
Deep Well
Extractlon/Ozone/UV/River Outfall
Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxide/UV/Rlver Outfall
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Low
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
EASTERN AREA
E-l:
E-2:
E-3:
E-4:
E-5:
E-6:
E-7:
No Action
Alternate
Point of
Deep Well
Deep Well

Water Supply/Water Use Restrictions
Entry Treatment
Extraction/Carbon Adsorption/River Outfall
Extraction/Air Stripping/River Outfall
Deep Well Extraction/Air Stripping a Carbon Adsorption/
River Outfall
Deep Well
Deep Well
I/NOTES: A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G =
Extractlon/Ozone/UV/River Outfall
Extraction/Hydrogen Peroxide/UV/River Outfall
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Low
Low
Low
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
High
N/A
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
The long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal
the goals, objectives, and requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous substances and their constituents
short- and long-term potential for adverse health effects from human exposure
cost of remediation (see Table 7)
the potential for future remedial action costs if the alternative remedial action in question were to fail
the potential threat to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, and redtsposal, or containment
           For factor E (cost of remediation) see Table 7
7331a

-------
As shown on these tables, all of the deep well extraction, treatment,
and disposal alternatives were evaluated either moderate or high with
respect to all of the 1985 RI/FS Guidance Factors and the A-G Factors.
Any of these technologies is acceptable, as long as the performance
standards in Table 5 are met.

Alternatives that did not employ deep well extraction were rated low
with respect to one or more evaluation criteria.  As a result, none of
these is considered acceptable.
7331a
                                  45

-------
                          VI.   SELECTED  REMEDY

DESCRIPTION

There are contamination problems in the southern, western, and eastern
areas of the site.  This interim final remedial action addresses
management of the migration of contaminants using a groundwater
interception system in the south and west areas, and attempts source
control in the east area through extraction of groundwater with the
highest contaminant concentrations.  All extracted water will be
treated to specified Performance Standards, monitored to assure
compliance,  and will  be properly discharged.   The water supply system
in the area will be improved to assure sufficient supplies for all
residents who require it.

The remedy is designed to:

    o    prevent further spread of contaminated groundwater (in the
         south and west) in two aquifers by installing and operating
         interception wells and treating the extracted groundwater,

    o    remove contaminated materials (in the  east)  which have entered
         the aquifers and are contributing to  the contaminant plume, by
         installing and operating extraction wells in the area where
         the plumes originate and treating the  effluent, and

    o    provide an alternate water supply system to  any residents who
         are deprived of their domestic  supply  by demonstrated
         contamination from the landfill or due to the action of the
         extraction systems.

For interception of the contaminant plume in the upper aquifer
(southern area), a line of wells will  be required downgradient of the
plume at the time of implementation.   Placement of the wells and
extraction rates-will  be sufficient to prevent  any significant amount
7331a
                                  46

-------
of the contamination from proceeding beyond this line of wells.  One
possible configuration, based on the location of the plume as
determined at the time of the Remedial Investigation (December 1985)
and developed for the evaluated alternatives S-4, S-5, and S-6 of the
Feasibility Study, is shown in Figure 10.  In this arrangement, about
eight wells, each approximately 100 feet deep, would be used, with each
pumping 20 to 30 gallons per minute (gpm).  To confirm successful
interception as well as limiting spreading of the plume, several other
wells will be sampled and analyzed, including in this scenario 24
private wells and three new monitoring wells.

In  the western area, a configuration similar to that analyzed in the
Feasibility Study for'alternatives W-4, W-5, W-6, and W-7 will be
necessary to prevent future westward migration of this contamination as
shown in Figure 11.  In this suggested arrangement ten extraction wells
may be necessary, each pumping approximately 130 gpm.  Monitoring would
involve 33 private wells and four new monitoring wells.  Note that
these extraction/monitoring well field concepts are .not required for
the selected alternative but are rather merely illustrative
suggestions; such details will instead be chosen in the design phase of
the remedial action, with EPA and state review to assure conformance
with  the objectives of the selected remedial alternative.

Treatment for both areas will be sufficient  to reduce contaminant
levels  in the aquifers and in the wastewater effluent to or below the
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs, 40 CFR  141.61) or similar
health-based criteria  (a 10"  risk  level  for carcinogenic
constituents).  Numeric performance standards have been presented in
Table 6.  Treatment should be permanent,  and should effectively  reduce
the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants.  Possible
methods of treatment which were analyzed  in  the Feasibility Study
include carbon absorption, air stripping, and chemical oxidation using
ultraviolet  (UY)  light and either ozone or hydrogen peroxide.  Any
treatment system  which may result in contaminant air emissions will be
designed to meet  appropri.^e state Air Toxics Guidelines and will
 7331a
                                   47

-------
                                                APPROXIMATE
                                                PRESENT EXTENT
                                                OF CONTAMINATION
                                                IN UPPER AQUIFER
                                            TREATMENT
                                            FACILITY
           INTERCEPTOR WELL
           SYSTEM
              1000
                   2000
                         3000
                               4000 Feel
                                                       INTERCEPTOR WELL

                                                   X   NEW MONITOR WELL

                                                   A   UPPER SAND AQUIFER WELL

                                                   D   PERIODICALLY SAMPLED WELLS
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION
FOR SOUTHERN AREA (CONCEPTUAL DESIGN)
SOURCE: GOLDER AND ENVIROSPHERE 1987
                                     48
FIGURE 10

-------
                                         APPROXIMATE
                                         PRESENT EXTENT
                                         OF CONTAMINATION
                                         IN LOWER AQUIFER
1000
      2000
            3000
                  4OOO Feel
 POSSIBLE REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION
 FOR  WESTERN AREA (CONCEPTUAL DESIGN)

 SOURCE. COLDER AND ENVEROSPHERE 1987

	   49
•<>• UNKNOWN
* UPPER SAND

« LOWER SAND
» MULTIPLE
  COMPLETION

• WEATHERD BASALT/LATAH
O LATAH
0 GRANITE
                                                    
-------
incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT).  Periodic
sampling of the effluent water stream will be required to assure
adherence to the performance standards, and monitoring of air emissions
will verify compliance in that regard.

Discharge of the treated water may be accomplished in any of a number
of ways.  The treatment alternatives recommended in the Feasibility
Study included discharge of clean water to surface water streams,
namely Little Deep Creek in the south and the Little Spokane River in
the west.  Because the treated water is a valuable resource, other
options should be considered such as recharge of the aquifers via
drainfield which may enhance interception through gradient reversal in
the southern area.  Release to the public is possible for some other
beneficial use, such as irrigation, which would  not threaten public
health if the treatment system temporarily did not achieve performance
standards.

In the plume origin (east)  area,  extraction will  be carried out for the
purposes of source control  rather than management of migration.   A
possible configuration of the extraction and monitoring wells is
presented in Figure 12 as it was  evaluated for Alternatives E-4, E-5,
E-6, and E-7 in the Feasibility Study.  In this  arrangement twelve
wells, approximately 180 feet deep and pumping 40 to 50 gpm each, would
be used for extraction of the most highly contaminated groundwater in
order to reduce the strength of the sources as quickly as possible.  In
addition, this suggested design shows 32 private wells which would be
monitored, most of them already included in the  monitoring
configuration shown in Figure 11.   No new monitoring wells are proposed
for the plume origin area in this scenario.  Treatment and discharge in
this area will  be similar and meet the same criteria as described above
for the interception systems.

Extraction in the plume origin area will continue until the wells being
monitored in that area show that  the constituents have been permanently
reduced below the health-based performance standard maximum levels.  It
7331a
                                  50

-------
                                 ATMENT
                              FACILpTYfgP
                                                        APPROXIMATE
                                                      ^ PRESENT EXTENT
                                                        OF CONTAMINATION
                                                        IN LOWER AQUIFER
                                              EXTRACTION
                                              WELL SYSTEM
                1000
                      2000
                            3000
                                  4000 Feel
          ^___^^^^^___^^^^       «>- UNKNOWN
                                          * UPPER SANO
                                          « LOWER SAND
                                          « MULTIPLE
                                            COMPLETION
                                          » WEATHERO BASALT/LATAH
                                          a LATAH

POSSIBLE  REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION  a QRANrrE
FOR EASTERN AREA (CONCEPTUAL DESIGN)
                                                                  (?) EAST EXTRACTOR
                                                                  ^ WELLS

                                                                  f~] PERIODICALLY
                                                                     SAMPLED WELLS
SOURCE: COLDER AND ENVTROSPHERE 1987
                                                                         RGURE12
                                         51

-------
is anticipated that this may require decades of pumpage and treatment
before the performance standards are reliably attained throughout the
area of contamination.  The treatment in the other areas, where further
migration of the contaminant plume is being controlled, will also be
based on the permanent reduction of contamination levels below the same
health-based performance standards.  This will  probably require a
longer period to account for the time of transport from the source
areas to the downgradient extent of contamination where the extraction
systems are located.  In any case, the EPA will  reevaluate the
implemented system every five years to assure that it is working
properly and to propose any modifications that  could facilitate the
remediation.

Those residents who are deprived of water,  either because their well
water quality shows demonstrated contamination  from the landfill  or due
to the action of the extraction systems, will be connected to the
alternate water supply system.   Adequate and appropriate monitoring
will be performed to demonstrate water quality  is maintained.  The
present community water system serving the  area, the Colbert Extension
of the Whitworth Water District No. 2,  may  be upgraded to assure
adequate supplies to all  residents who may  require alternate water.
Enhancements will be designed to meet state public water system
standards.   Institutional  controls will  be  developed consistent with
the final design to assure the effectiveness of  the remedial  action.

Colbert Landfill  will  be closed in accordance with the State Minimum
Functional  Standards (WAC 173-304)  for landfill  closure,  including
capping, regrading, groundwater and gas  monitoring, and post-closure
maintenance.  The state landfill closure regulations are consistent
with EPA Guidelines for the land disposal  of solid waste.  The closure
of the landfill under the State Minimum  Functional Standards will  need
to be evaluated to ensure consistency with  RCRA  Hazardous Waste
Regulations and will be addressed in  the final  ROD for this site.
7331a
                                  52

-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected alternative meets all  statutory requirements, particularly
those of CERCLA, as amended by SARA.  The highest priority in this
regard is that the selected remedy  (extraction, treatment, and
discharge) is protective of human health and the environment; this can
be demonstrated according  to  each of  the potential threats.  The
containment of the contaminant migration to the south and west will be
designed to reduce the  mobility  of  the  contaminants and prevent
additional wells from becoming significantly contaminated, exposing
residents in those areas to the  contaminants through their drinking
water.  The .containment will  also prevent significant contamination
from  reaching surface water,  mainly the Little Spokane River, thereby
exposing recreational users of the  river as well as fish and other
aquatic life.  Treating the extracted water will be designed to reduce
the toxicity and volume of the contaminants and prevent them from
returning to the environment.

The selected remedy  will also meet  all  substantive laws and regulations
of other Applicable  or  Relevant  and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
These are listed and their application  is briefly described in Appendix
B.  The laws and regulations  of  concern include:

    o   Resource  Conservation and  Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 USC 6901);
         'RCRA regulations  (40 CFR 261 to 280); Washington State
         Dangerous Waste Regulations  (WAC 173-303); Minimum Functional
         Standards for  Solid  Waste  Handling  (WAC 173-304).

         The  selected remedy  prevents further  spread of groundwater
         contamination  and constitutes  a Corrective Action Program as
         specified in 40 CFR  264.100  and WAC  173-303-645(11).  Closure
         of Colbert  Landfill  to  State Minimum  Functional Standards will
         be evaluated to ensure  consistency with RCRA  landfill closure
         standards.
 7331a
                                   53

-------
         Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 USC 300); Primary Drinking
         Water Standards (40 CFR 141).

         The selected remedy prevents exposing the public to drinking
         water which exceeds the Maximum Concentration Levels.

         Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1251); National  Pollution
         Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, 40 CFR 122); NPDES Permit
         Program (WAC 173-220).

         The selected remedy treats the extracted water before
         discharge to surface water.   Other, mainly procedural, aspects
         of the NPDES Permit system will  be met during the design
         phase, although no permit is actually required.

         Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health Regarding
         Public Water Systems (WAC 248-54).

         Enhancements  to the alternate water supply system,  in order
         to supply all  residents who  may require these supplies, will
         be in conformance with these regulations.
EPA review of the remedial  design will  assure that these,  and all  other
requirements, will be met by the design which is  ultimately implemented.

Finally, the selected remedy meets the  requirements of
cost-effectiveness and use of permanent solutions to the maximum extent
practicable.  The cost-effectiveness can be demonstrated by the fact
that extraction treatment and discharge technologies are available that
will meet the performance standards and have a lower cost  than merely
providing alternate water supply (See Table 6).   The total  (present
worth) cost for the alternate water supply (Alternatives S-2, W-2, and
E-2) is estimated to be almost 224 million; the cost of ozone/UV
oxidation for all three areas (Alternatives S-6a, W-7a, E-7a) is
7331a
                                  54

-------
estimated to be approximately 816.5 million, not talcing into account
any cost savings associated with the treatment of two or,more areas at
a single facility (estimated to be 21.6 million, see Section 6.2.1 of
the Feasibility Study).  It is possible that an a-ir stripping treatment
system, combined with vapor-phase carbon absorption, would be even more
cost effective, as it should meet the performance standards at a
present worth cost of approximately £12.8 million (see Section 6.2.4 of
the Feasibility Study).

The selected remedy meets the SARA preference to permanent solutions to
the maximum extent practicable.  Resource recovery is, however, not
practicable as there is no market for the off-specification solvent
mixture which could be recovered from the groundwater.  Nevertheless,
treatment technologies are used as a principal element of the remedy
and they will effectively reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
the contaminants permanently.
7331 a
                                  55

-------
                            VII.  REFERENCES

CH2M Hill.  1983.  Remedial Action Master Plan, Colbert Landfill,
    Colbert, Washington.  A report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Remedial Planning/Field Investigation Team,
    Zone II (Contract No. 68-01-6692).  Washington, D.C.  124 pp.

Cook, T.D.  1985.  Applications and Limitations of Earth Resistivity as
    a Technique for Monitoring Leachate Near the Colbert Landfill,
    Spokane County, Washington [unpublished masters thesis (Civil
    Engineering)].  Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology).   1984a.  Focused
    Feasibility Study for Initial  Remedial  Measure at Colbert
    Landfill.  Prepared by C.R. Thompson,  Hazardous Waste Remedial
    Action Section, Remedial Action Division,  Olympia, Washington.
    26 pp.

Ecology.  1984b.  Community Relations Plan for Initial Remedial  Measure
    at Colbert Landfill.  Prepared  by C.R.  Thompson,  Hazardous Waste
    Remedial Action Section, Remedial Action Division, Olympia,
    Washington.  10 pp.

EPA (U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency).   1986.   Guidelines for
    Ground Water Classification Under the  EPA  Ground  Water Protection
    Strategy.  Final  Draft.  Office of Ground  Water Protection.
    Washington, D.C.   December 1986.

EPA.  1985.  Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.  EPA
    Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,  Office of Research
    and Development.   Cincinnati,  Ohio.  EPA 540/6-85/003.  June 1985.
7331a
                                  56

-------
Maddox (George Maddox and Associates, Incorporated).   1981.   A
    Preliminary Report on the Geohydrology of the Colbert Landfill,
    Spokane County, Washington-Phase I.  Prepared for Spokane County
    Utilities Department, Spokane, Washington.  19 pp.

Maddox.  1982.  Geohydrologic Investigations of Colbert Landfill,
    Phase II.  Prepared for Spokane County Utilities Department,
    Spokane, Washington.  65 pp.

Marrin, D.L.  1985.  Shallow Soil Gas Investigation in the Vicinity of
    the Colbert Landfill, Spokane County, Washington (Draft).  Prepared
    for U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
    Las Vegas, Nevada.  December 1986.

Golder  (Golder Associates, Inc.).  1984.  Data Review and
    Recommendations for Remedial Investigations at the Colbert
    Landfill.  Prepared for State of Washington,.Department of Ecology,
    Olympia, Washington.  59 pp.

Golder.  1987.  Remedial Investigation Report for the Colbert Landfill,
    Spokane, Washington.  Prepared for State of Washington Department
    of Ecology, Volumes I and II.  May 1987.

Golder and Envirosphere.  1987.  Feasibility Study Report for the
    Colbert Landfill, Spokane, Washington.  Prepared for State of
    Washington, Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.  Volumes I
    and II.  May 1987.

Griggs, A.8.  1973.  Geologic Map of the Spokane Quandrangle,
    Washington, Idaho, and Montana (1:250,000).  U.S. Geological Survey
    Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations, Map  1-768.
 7331a
                                   57

-------
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).   1985.  Summary
    of Day-First Order TD3210, Entire Period of Record Through 1985 for
    Spokane, Washington.  U.S. Department of Commerce, National  Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, National  Environmental  Satellite
    Data and Information Service, National  Climatic Data Center,
    Asheville, North Carolina.

PEC (Pacific Environmental Consultants).   1986.  Water System Plan
    Update Systems 8 and 9 .(Preliminary Draft).  Prepared for Whitworth
    Water District No. 2.  March 1986.

Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation.   1986.   Results  of continued
    Studies at Colbert Landfill, Colbert, Washington,  by George  Maddox
    and Associates.  Personal Communications with  Bruce  Austin (Spokane
    County and Key Tronic, Incorporated), Spokane, Washington.

Williams, J.R. and H.E. Pearson.  1985.  Streamflow Statistics and
    Drainage Basin Characteristics for the Southwestern  and Eastern
    Regions, Washington:  Volume II.   Eastern Washington.  United
    States Geologic Survey open file  report 84-145-B,  Tacoma,
    Washington.
7331a
                                   58

-------
      APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUWARY

-------
                 COLBERT LANDFILL, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
                         RESPONSIVENESS  SUWARY

This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into the
following sections:

Section 1.0  Overview.  This section discusses the U.S. Environmental
             Protection Agency's (EPA) preferred alternative for
             corrective action, and likely public reaction to tnis
             alternative.

Section 2.0  Background on Conmunity Involvement and Concerns.  This
             section provides a brief history of community interest and
             concerns raised during remedial  planning activities at the
             Colbert Landfill site.

Section 3.0  Summary of Major Comments Received  during the Public
             Comment Period and EPA's Responses  to the Comments.  Both
             written and oral comments are categorized by relevant
             topics.  EPA's responses to these major comments are also
             provided.

Section 4.0  Remaining Concerns.  This section describes remaining
             community concerns that EPA should  take into consideration
             in conducting the remedial  design and remedial  action at
             the Colbert Landfill  site.

Conmunity relations activities conducted during  remedial  response
activities at the Colbert Landfill  site  are listed in an attachment to
this appendix.
7653a
                                  A-l

-------
                             1.0  OVERVIEW

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as lead agency
under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), carried out the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study for the Colbert Landfill site north of Spokane.  During the
1970s, the landfill had received industrial solvents and disposed of
them in a way that allowed the chemicals to penetrate the underlying
aquifer.  These chemicals began to show up in nearby drinking water
wells at levels high enough to cause puolic health concerns.  The
cleanup alternative which was recommended by Ecology's consultants, and
in turn by Ecology to EPA, was to intercept the advance of the
contaminants by extracting the contaminated water, treating it, and
discharging the cleaned water.  The cleaned water would meet
health-based drinking water standards.  This alternative is described
in more detail in Chapter 4 of the Feasibility Study and in the Record
of Decision.

This Responsiveness Summary describes concerns which the community has
expressed in regard to the problems at the site, the recommended
cleanup alternative, and the study process itself.  The most severely
impacted individuals, the nearby residents, have long complained that
their welfare has not received proper attention from local and state
agencies.  These residents hope that the cleanup will be as quick and
as thorough as possible and not raise additional problems through its
implementation.  On the other hand, two of the named responsible
parties at the site, Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation, are
concerned that there was insufficient time for public review and that
the cleanup would be too .expensive.  They asked Ecology or EPA to
search out other potentially responsible parties to share the cleanup
costs; EPA is now doing this.
7653a
                                  A-2

-------
Because of the scarcity of water and the reliance on ground water
supplies in this area, clean water is a particularly important
concern.  Some citizens desire clean drinking water, but do not feel  it
is necessary to go to the additional time and expense to clean the
aquifer.

Other concerns for some people include potential  drying up of wells due
to pumping, and possible flooding and erosion from river discharge.
7653a
                                  A-3

-------
         2.0  BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS

Community interest in the Colbert Landfill  contamination problem dates
from 1980 when local residents complained to Ecology and the Spokane
County Utilities Department that hazardous materials were being
disposed of at the landfill.  Community concern and involvement have
remained strong since that time.  Three key individuals, Mr. Floyd
Wakefield, Ms. Grace Garrison, and Mr. Craig Costello, have been
especially active in coordinating community meetings, increasing
community awareness, and voicing area residents' concerns to the
Utilities Department, Ecology, and EPA.  They have been successful in
getting attention from these agencies as well as in attracting media
attention to the site.  The major citizen concerns expressed about the
Colbert Landfill contamination problems and how agencies have addressed
these concerns are described below:

1)  In October 1980, a resident near the landfill complained to Ecology
    and the Utilities Department that hazardous materials were being
    disposed of at the landfill.

    Actions: Ecology investigations revealed that Key Tronic
    Corporation had disposed of solvents at the landfill and that
    several private wells were contaminated.  Spokane County also began
    studying the extent of groundwater contamination, niring George
    Maddox and Associates, Inc., to study the hydrogeology of the
    landfill site.

2)  In the winter of 1981, citizens called the Utilities Department
    with questions on the Colbert site.  The citizens had questions and
    concerns about:   what the project status was; how the study was
    being conducted; now residents could get their water tested; where
    the contamination plume was heading; what the results were to date;
    what the study actions would show; what the County Commissioners
    were going to do; how contaminated water would effect health,
    children, and property values; whether the water was safe to drink;
7653a
                                  A-4

-------
    whether it was carcinogenic; why there were fluctuations in the
    tests; how will it be tested for parts per billion; and what
    everyone else was doing?

    Actions:  Spokane County organized and implemented a community
    relations plan in conjunction with the Maddox Study.  As part of
    the plan, the County maintained a record of citizens who called and
    developed a mailing list from the tax assessor's records.   The
    Utilities Department held seven public meetings, beginning in May,
    1981, to explain the intent of the Maddox study and to discuss
    study progress and the results of the water quality sampling
    program.  The Utilities Department sent each homeowner in  the well
    sampling program a copy of their test results and also posted water
    sampling results at the Colbert Water District Office.

3)  Citizens'  concerns from public meetings held by the Utilities
    Department in 1982 and 1983 included  whether their water was safe
    to use, what the health impacts could be,  and how the contamination
    would impact their property values.   Citizens thought that a new
    water supply was needed immediately.

    Actions:  In February 1983, the Spokane County Health District
    advised residents with significantly  contaminated wells  to use
    bottled water.  Spokane County and Key Tronic began supplying
    bottled water to some homes.

    In March 1983, the Spokane County Tax Assessor discussed
    reassessing the homes affected by the ground water contamination.
    The county tax assessor established a plan for estimating  the
    reduced value on homes within the 3/4-mile study area established
    by George Maddox and Associates,  Inc.

4)  Homeowners became frustrated  by the absence of an immediate plan
    for an alternative water system and met with several  water
    districts interested in serving tne Colbert Landfill  area.
7653a
                                  A-5

-------
    Actions:   In June  1984 Ecology documented tne need for an
    alternative water  supply to residents  living near Colbert
    Landfill.   The County approved a new water system and began
    construction in tne fall of 1984.   Tne system was completed in the
    winter of 1985.  This new system,  funded by Spokane County, Key
    Tronic, and state  referendum money, served as an alternate water
    supply and as an Initial Remedial  Measure for the Colbert Landfill
    Site.
                                                     t
5)  In August 1985, EPA contractors alarmed three area families by
    telling one family that their well water was probably unsafe to
    drink.  The family was afraid to use their water, contacted an
    attorney, and appeared on the evening  news.  They also boarded
    their 30 thoroughbred horses elsewhere.  This incident caused the
    three area families to question who was in charge and who they
    should believe.

    Actions:  Spokane County and Key Tronic felt that the EPA
    contractor's mistakes had hampered an  already fragile community
    relations effort.   They worked with Ecology to encourage the EPA
    contractors to apologize to the family, to get an expert opinion,
    to retract their statements, and to admit that their employees had
    only rendered an opinion.  Key Tronic  supplied tne family unlimited
    bottled water, and in September 1985 the family was hooked up to
    the Whitworth Water District.

6)  Because of concerns that the public was not getting adequate
    information about the site, two area residents organized the
    Colbert Landfill Contaminate Area  Committee in the fall of 1985.
    This committee was to gather information and make it available to
    everyone.  The committee presented seven recommendations to the
    Spokane County Commissioners in December 1985.
7653a
                                  A-6

-------
    The recommendations were:

         a)   Free hookup for any household within the proposed area,
              the known contaminated area, and any future contaminated
              area regardless of the level of contamination of the
              household well at the time.

         b)   Monthly water fees, maintenance, and any other associated
              fees to be borne by the known source of contamination,
              including Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation, for
              a period of twenty (20) years.

         c)   Property values in the area  to  be re-assessed due to tne
              devaluation of property.

         d)   Existing wells be utilized for  outdoor  irrigation with
              the installation of a stationary frost-proof yard hydrant
              to be installed free of charge  to the property owner.

         e)   Testing of wells in the area should  continue at the
              existing schedule for a period  of twenty (20) years  at
              the expense of Spokane County and Key Tronic Corporation
              or longer if contamination stays at  current levels or
              increases.

         f)   Contaminant-related health problems  may be  pursued on  a
              individual basis for an indefinite time, including future
              generations of the present residents.

         g)   Any property owner who has previously accepted settlement
              and/or monies from Spokane County and Key Tronic
              Corporation were excluded  from  this  proposal.
7653a
                                  A-7

-------
    Actions:   The Commissioners drafted a response in January 1986 tnat
    included specific conditions under which water would be?supplied to
    the affected residents.  Because of the restrictive conditions,
    citizen frustration increased.

7)  EPA and Ecology released the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
    Study report in May 1987, and held a public meeting to obtain
    comments.  Citizens and Key Tronic complained that the three-week
    comment period was too short.

    Actions:  EPA extended the comment period by three weeks.

8}  A newspaper editorial  criticized EPA and Ecology for not using
    their investigatory and enforcement powers more fully, and for the
    shortness of the comment period.  Key Tronic employees purchased a
    full-page newspaper ad supporting the editorial.  They expressed
    the concern that Key Tronic was being treated unfairly and that
    other users of Colbert Landfill should share in the cleanup
    expenses.

    Actions:  As previously noted in No. 7 above, EPA extended the
    comment period.  Ecology and EPA have notified Fairchild Air Force
    Base that it is a potentially responsible party-  EPA is now
    searching for additional parties who may share responsibility.

9)  During the public comment period, citizens expressed concern about
    wells drying up and the Little Spokane River flooding due to
    pumping and treating contaminated water and discharging the cleaned
    water.  They also expressed concerns about emissions from the air
    stripping towers.

    Actions:   Ecology held two public meetings on September 9, 1987, to
    answer these questions.
7653a
                                  A-8

-------
                 3.0  SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED
                     DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
                     AND AGENCY RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS

Comments from members of the public, primarily Colbert area residents,
regarding the feasibility study report are summarized below.  Similar
comments are grouped under the following headings:   general, public
participation process, contamination levels, and cleanup alternatives.
Each comment is  followed by a response from EPA.

The public comment period originally ran from May 15 to June 5, 1987,
but was later extended to June 30, 1987, for a total of over six
weeks.  Ecology  held a public meeting in Colbert on May 28, 1987,  to
explain the study and the alternatives.   The consultants'  selected
alternative (Extraction-Treatment-Discharge-Expanded Water Supply)
recommended air  stripping for the treatment option  and a river outfall
for the discharge option.  Many comments focused on this alternative
and the various  treatment and discharge  options.

Detailed comment forms were distributed  to all  meeting attendees.
Ecology received 29 completed forms and  six letters by the June 30
deadline, primarily from Colbert area residents.

Meeting attendees were asked to rank the four cleanup alternatives on
the comment form.  The selected alternative (Extraction-Treatment-
Discharge-Expanded Water Supply) was preferred by 26 of the 33 who
expressed a preference.   Six people preferred Alternate Water  Supply.
One person proposed a fifth alternative  consisting  of removal  and
treatment of the landfill waste.

Among the treatment technologies,  air stripping received majority
support.  However, twelve people supported either carbon adsorption or
chemical oxidation, primarily because of the potential  air pollution
from the air stripping process.   The recommended  option of discharging
7653a
                                  A-9

-------
tne treated water into the river also received strong support.
However, ten respondents favored recharge wells or drainfields  because
of fears of lowering the water table or flooding.

GENERAL

1)  Identification of additional potentially responsible parties was a
    major concern, both at the public meeting and in subsequent written
    comments.  Key Tronic and its employees were especially concerned
    about the equity of the company apparently being held largely
    responsible for the contamination and cleanup; they pointed out
    that the company has not been associated with all of the identified
    contaminants.

    Agency Response:  EPA and Ecology have identified three potentially
    responsible parties:  the landfill owner (Spokane County) and two
    major disposers of hazardous substances, Key Tronic Corporation and
                     *
    Fairchild Air Force Base.  EPA is searching to identify other
    potentially responsible parties.

2)  The cost of cleanup concerned several residents.  Some felt that
    the proposed program may be too costly.  One resident felt that the
    health risks had been overstated and that the funds could be better
    spent elsewhere in the county.  Others felt that no expense should
    be spared to clean the aquifer.  The most common response,  however,
    was that the most cost-effective alternative be selected.  This was
    mentioned frequently in support of the air stripping treatment
    option, which is less expensive than the other treatment
    technologies studied.  The public was also concerned about the
    source and reliability of the cost estimates and wno would pay the
    cost of the cleanup.
7653a
                                 A-10

-------
    Agency Response:  The cost information is based on data from
    equipment suppliers and costs of similar projects.  Present
    knowledge does not indicate how long the contaminated ground water
    at the site will nave to be treated, so 30 years was selected as a
    reasonable length of time for planning.  Costs were estimated based
    on current pricing and technologies, then totalled over the 30-year
    period.  The Superfund law stipulates that responsible parties pay
    the bill  for cleanup whenever possible.  Following the formal
    selection of the cleanup alternative at the Colbert Landfill  site,
    EPA and Ecology will  direct the responsible party or parties  to
    undertake the cleanup as specified.   If the responsible parties
    fail  to comply with the request, EPA or Ecology will  do the cleanup
    and sue to recover the cost.   Tne responsible  parties will  also be
    requested to pay operations and maintenance costs for the  cleanup
    measures.

    Tne actual  costs may be from 30 percent less than the estimates to
    50 percent more.  More accurate cost estimates will  be made when
    .tne detailed project design is done.

    Federal regulations specify that a  less-effective cleanup  action
    cannot be chosen simply because it  is  cheaper.  However, if several
    alternatives are considered to be equally effective,  EPA may  select
    the least costly.

3)   Property  values have been  a continuing issue witn residents since
    contamination was first detected.   Potential impacts  of cleanup
    measures  such as noise,  odor,  appearance,  and  air pollution on
    property  values were a concern to several  residents.   A major
    corporate owner of undeveloped property expressed concern  about tne
    reduced value of the property  if water were not available  for
    future development.
7653a
                                 A-11

-------
    Agency Response:   Noise and air pollution  generated by the remedial
    system will  be within local, state,  and federal  regulatory
    standards.   Similar facilities in other communities nave operated
    successfully without problems or complaints related to noise and
    air pollution.  The issues of future development and property
    values will  be resolved consistent with implementation of the
    remedial action.

4)  Immediate availability of clean, low-cost water has also been a
    continuing concern since the beginning of the project.  The
    residents'  highest priority is having an assured, convenient supply
    of clean drinking water.  The citizens' committee has requested
    tnat clean water be .supplied to everyone in the contaminated area.
    One resident suggested that, without this, property owners should
    not have to pay taxes because their land is unsaleable.  At the
    same time,  another person was concerned that expanding the
    Whitworth Water District supply lines to accommodate the long-term
    growth needs of the district would be unfair.  Key Tronic and
    Spokane County also see it as unfair to charge them for these costs
    which would have been encountered even without the contamination
    problem.

    Agency Response:   The selected alternative requires that everyone
    affected by the contamination or the cleanup process be assured of
    a safe and adequate drinking water supply.  Maintaining and
    improving the Whitworth Water District System will provide adequate
    domestic water supplies for present and future population in the
    area.

    The Whitworth Water District water system may be adequate for
    in-home water use only.  The risk assessment, Appendix A of the
    Feasibility Study, indicated that there should be no adverse nealtn
    consequences from use of the contaminated ground water for outside
    purposes such as  irrigation.  It should be possible to continue to
    use existing wells for these high-consumption purposes as long as
    these lines are adequately isolated from tn  -lomestic supply
    systems.
7653a
                                  A-12

-------
5)  The need for continued long-term monitoring of botn drinking water
    and monitoring wells was emphasized.

    Agency Response:  The recommended cleanup alternative provides
    continued monitoring of drinking water and monitoring wells.  EPA
    or Ecology will supervise and manage the monitoring to ensure that
    it is done properly.  Two kinds of monitoring would be conducted.
    The system monitoring program would frequently assess how well  the
    ground water extraction and treatment system is working.  The other
    monitoring program would track the spread of contaminants in the
    ground water.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

1)  Residents, particularly those who had been most involved in the
    process, sought assurance that their involvement would continue
    through the cleanup design  process.   A large corporate property
    owner also expressed the desire to be contacted during the design
    phase.  One meeting participant, not a resident of tne affected
    area, questioned tne extent of citizen involvement and review up to
    this point.

    Agency Response:  EPA and Ecology have appreciated and encouraged
    the level  of public involvement experienced at Colbert Landfill  in
    the process of selecting a  cleanup alternative.   The  agencies will
    continue to work with the community  and local  residents  to ensure
    public participation through the design and cleanup phases.
    Ecology will  revise the Community Relations Plan before  the design
    process begins.

2)  Residents  and one agency representative asked  about regulatory
    controls or permit requirements relating to the treatment and
    discharge  options.  Specifically, they wanted  to know if air and
    water discharges would be subject to state or  federal  law.
7653a
                                 A-13

-------
    Agency  Response:   Cleanup  actions  at  Colbert  Landfill  do  not
    require permits  because  of tne  Federal  Superfund  law.   However,  the
    actions must comply with tne  intent and purpose of  any regulations
    tnat would normally apply. Such applicable regulations would
    include National  Pollution Discharge  Elimination  System provisions
    of the  Clean Water Act,  local air  quality  standards, and  others.
    Monitoring of air and water discharges  will assure  compliance  witn
    these standards.

CONTAMINATION LEVELS

1)  Several questions were asked  to clarify the remedial investigation
    findings.  One person asked if  tne contamination  levels in  various
    parts of the aquifers had  changed  over  time in  relation to  the EPA
    standards.  Another person asked why  the report seemed to indicate
    that 90 percent of the pollutants  disposed of in  the landfill  had
    not been accounted for in  the ground  water.

    Agency  Response:   Some wells  have  shown constant  contamination
    levels.  In other wells, the  concentrations have  been  decreasing.
    In still others, the levels have fluctuated.   The wells that are
    showing fairly constant concentrations  appear to  be near  "pools" of
    contamination in the aquifers.   These pools have  remained at high
    levels  for several years.   This suggests that these pools are  still
    in place and still releasing  contaminants. It  is likely  that  much
    of tne  90 percent referenced  above is in these  pools and  the other
    10 percent lost to evaporation  at  the time of disposal  (see the
    Remedial Investigation Report,  Section  5.4.1, pp. 76-77 for more
    information).  In the upper aquifer,  contamination  appears  to  be
    decreasing.
7653a
                                 A-14

-------
2)  A long-time resident of the area asked if capping tne landfill in
    1980 would have prevented the spread of the contaminants in tne
    ground water.

    Agency Response:  By 1980 contaminants had already been documented
    in wells northeast of the landfill,  so capping would have been too
    late and not particularly useful.  Colbert Landfill  was operated
    until late 1986; capping a working landfill  would be a  difficult
    task, particularly for a landfill as large and as active as tnis
    one.  Pure solvents travel  through the ground  easily; they were
    dumped into the landfill in such large quantities that  it is likely
    that even with capping they would have reached the ground water on
    their own accord.  From the time they reached  the ground water,
    probably well  before 1980,  the contaminants  have  continued to
    migrate away from the landfill  area  due to the natural  flow in the
    aqui fers.

REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Extraction Options

1 )  There were major concerns  about lowering  the ground  water levels
    and possibly drying up existing wells  through  the  extraction of
    large amounts  of ground water  for treatment.   Many wells  in  the
    area already have low water levels during  the  summer.   Water is
    needed for irrigation even  if  another  water  supply is available for
    domestic use.   A related concern was  that  lowering the  water table
    would increase the flow of  contaminants,  including iron,  into  the
    aquifers.

    Agency Response:   The wells  will  be  designed to intercept the
    contaminant plume to remove  the  contaminated water.  The  water
    which is extracted is obviously  not  available  for  other uses.
    Clean water is, however, also  being  carried  along  around  the edges
    of the plume.   Current information on  the  upper aquifer,  which is
    more likely to* be depleted,  indicates  that the  proposed system
7653a
                                 A-15

-------
    would  only  reduce  water  levels  by  about two  feet  near  the
    extraction  wells.   Over  100  feet away,  tne  reduction would  be
    insignificant.   Tnus,  tne  extraction  systems snould not  violate tne
    existing water  rignts  in the area.   The impacts on people who use
    more than their water  rights allow is not known at this  time.   The
    design of the wells will be  refined tnrough  additional testing
    during the  design  phase  to ensure  that adverse  impacts are
    minimized.

    Tne extraction  system  would  not cause high  iron concentrations and
    other problems  associated  with  the deep aquifer to spread to  more
    shallow aquifers because water  will  not be  drawn  from  these deeper
    zones.

2)  One person  suggested that  the existing monitoring wells  be
    incorporated into  the  extraction well  system.

    Agency Response:  Most existing monitoring  wells  are two inches in
    diameter, too small to extract  the necessary amount of water.   In
    addition, the monitoring wells, with  their  known  history of
    contamination levels,  will be needed  to observe  the changes that
    occur during the cleanup process.

Treatment Options

1}  The public questioned  tne  effectiveness of  the  alternatives
    studied, wanting assurance that the recommended technologies  nad
    been used successfully elsewhere.   They also wanted the  process to
    clean both  aquifers effectively, completely, and  in a  reasonable
    time period.

    The alternative which  has  been  selected by  the  EPA, ground  water
    extraction  and  treatment,  nas been employed successfully at many
    sites around the country,  using a  variety of treatment
    technologies.  Treatment similar to that proposed for  the site has
7653a
                                 A-16

-------
    been successfully used at otner sites In Washington and sites
    across the country.  EPA fully expects tnat it will be just as
    effective at the Colbert Landfill  site and will  eliminate the
    hazards posed by the ground water contamination.  The spread of
    contamination will be controlled within two to three months
    following installation of the system.  It may require a longer time
    to deplete the sources totally.   The length of time the complete
    cleanup will take is still  uncertain, but 30 years is being assumed
    for planning purposes.

2)  The consultant-recommended  treatment option, air stripping,
    provoked numerous comments.   The greatest concern was about
    potential  air pollution caused by  the release of the contaminants
    taken out of the water.  Residents and an agency representative
    questioned whether any health risk assessment had been done and how
    consultants knew that the contaminants would present no health
    risk.  There was also concern about its  effectiveness, especially
    in removing methylene chloride.  Some respondents suggested  that
    treatment options be combined to take advantage  of the strong
    points of each and minimize  the  weaknesses.   One suggested  tne use
    of carbon  adsorption as well  as  air stripping to alleviate  the air
    pollution  problem.

    Agency Response:   EPA has chosen not to  specify  a treatment
    technology for its selected  cleanup alternative,  but rather  let the
    PRPs (or EPA or Ecology,  if  either does  the cleanup)  have the
    widest latitude for designing a  treatment system which will  meet
    the cleanup needs of the  site.   Air pollution  issues  will be
    studied throughout in the design process.   The option selected will
    be tne best for cleaning  the water to drinking water  standards and
    safeguarding air quality. The option eventually selected may be a
    combination of technologies  such as air  strippers with carbon
    filters.   In any  case,  it will meet Air  Toxic  Guidelines and will
    use Best Available control Technologies  (BACT).
7653a
                                 A-17

-------
    The  possibility  of  combining  technologies was  evaluated  in  tne
    Feasibility  Study;.  Alternatives  W-6  and  E-6. discuss  combining
    carbon adsorption and air stripping.  These  were  found to be less
    cost-effective in cleaning the water.  Using carbon  filters in  tne
    air  stripping towers to clean the air emissions may  be considered
    as a possible design; it is described in Section  6.2.4 of the
    Feasibility  Study.   Carbon filters would capture  the contaminants
    so that they can be destroyed as part of their treatment.

    Methylene chloride  is the most difficult of  the contaminants to
    remove through air  stripping. Nevertheless, a treatment system can
    be specifically designed to remove tnis  and  other contaminants  to
    concentrations below drinking water  standards.

3)  Other concerns were raised that  tne  moisture emitted by  air
    stripping towers could cause ice and heavy  fogs on nearby roads.

    Agency Response:  Similar systems with air  strippers have been
    successfully used throughout the country,  including  Michigan and
    Wisconsin which have more severe winter  climates  than this  area.
    Devices are  included in the air  strippers  to reduce  moisture
    emissions.  References do not indicate problems on nearby
    hignways.  No matter wnat treatment  system  is  used,  if problems
    develop, the configuration will  be modified  to assure that  such
    problems are resolved.

4)  Other potential  impacts also received comment, including possible
    noise, odors, and the appearance of  air  stripping towers.

    Agency Response: All of tnese factors will  be considered
    extensively  in designing the project.  Noise,  odors, and appearance
    have been considered at other sites  and  resolved  satisfactorily to
    adjacent residents.  Odors, in particular,  would  not be  discernable
    even directly in the exnaust.
7653a
                                 A-18

-------
5)  Disposal of the contaminated carbon used for the caroon adsorption
    process was a concern for one person.

    Agency Response:  Tne contaminated carbon would be disposed of
    tnrougn incineration at a facility in Yakima.  Hazards associated
    with transporting it there are minor; even in the event of a
    complete spill of tne carbon, few adverse impacts are likely
    because the contaminants would remain in tne carbon itself.

6)  One resident asked how bacteria growth in the treatment equipment
    would be controlled to maintain water quality.

    Agency Response:  Bacterial  growth has been  successfully controlled
    at similar facilities.  We are presently envisioning the occasional
    use of chlorination to control  bacterial  growth.

Discharge Options

1 )  One of the concerns expressed most frequently was that discharging
    large quantities of water into  the Little Spokane River would  cause
    flooding and erosion.   One resident requested that a contingency
    plan be discussed in the event  that flooding and  low well  water
    levels do occur.  It was urged  that the river outfall  be
    constructed to eliminate hazards  to both  humans and animals,  since
    the river is heavily used for swimming.

    Agency Response:  The discharge  from tne  recommended alternative is
    only about 4 cubic feet  per  second (cfs), which is  31  gallons  per
    second.  This is only  about  2 percent  of  the mean flow in  the
    Little Spokane River which is 236  cfs.   Such a  small  addition  is
    not likely to be discernible in  its flooding potential.  The  ground
    water extracted, treated, and discharged  to  the Little Spokane
    River would have been  discharged  to it naturally  anyway.   Thus,  tne
    difference in flows in the river  will  oe  small  over the long  run.
7653a
                                 A-19

-------
    Higher  flows  will  occur  for  a  few  months  when  the  treated water  is
    first introduced  and  while the natural  recharge  is still
    occurring.   Even  during  this transition time,  the  impact will  oe
    small.

    It is possible to safely shut down the treatment system temporarily
    to avoid increasing the  flood flows at all.   Both  this and  the
    Little  Deep Creek outfall will  be  dealt with  in  more  detail  during
    the design  phase  of the  project.

    The river outfall will be constructed  to  eliminate hazards  to
    people  (especially children) and animals.  Normally the  flows  will
    be relatively constant,  so the chance  of  anyone  being caught
    unaware by  a sudden increase in flow is unlikely.

2)  The public  wanted assurance  that the water discharged into  surface
    streams would be  effectively treated so it would be safe  for
    humans, fish, and animals.   They also  requested  safeguards  to
    prevent accidental  discharge of contaminated  water in case  of
    treatment equipment failure.

    Agency  Response:   The discharge water  will  be analyzed frequently
    to assure that the water is  suitably clean.   Detection systems may
    be included to snut down the equipment in the event of a  failure.
    Even if a failure occurred,  the effect would  be  temporary and  would
    not have environmental or public health effects.

3)  Other potential  uses  for the cleaned water provoked considerable
    comment.  Some residents considered the discharge  into the  river to
    be a waste  of a resource.  They suggested such options as using  it
    for irrigation, for the  Whitworth  Water District,  or  for  a  new
    recreational  reservoir.
7653a
                                 A-20

-------
    Agency Response:  No alternate uses of the discharge water were
    discussed in the Feasibility Study because no other use is likely
    to be able to absorb all the water that must be discharged,
    especially during the winter months.  Ecology studied the option of
    the Whitworth Water District using the water.   However, the system
    would produce more than the District could handle.   It is possible
    that alternate uses could be developed when the design is
    prepared.  One important point of contention remaining is who
    should pay for any additional  facilities required.

4)  One of the other discharge options studied, discharge into a
    drainfield, also provoked several  comments.   One was  that it  would
    cause a build-up of water, resulting in swamps,  ice,  and pests.
    Another person was concerned that this option  would cause water  to
    carry more contaminants down to tne aquifer.   However,  several
    people favored recharge wells  or drainfields  to maintain the  level
    of the aquifer and prevent drying up of existing wells.

    Agency Response:   Given the very permeable  soils in the  area,  it is
    unlikely that swamps  could develop.   Instead,  tne water  would  seep
    very readily into the upper aquifer.   It is  unlikely  that these
    flows could carry contaminants  into the aquifers unless  the
    treatment system breaks down.   A potential  advantage  of  tne
    drainfield option is  that the  water would be  directly returned to
    the aquifer and be available for additional  use downstream.
    However, this would involve some of tne water  being treated again
    and result in higher  treatment  costs.   These  issues will  be
    considered in project design.

5)  One resident questioned whether the private ownership of the bed of
    the Little Spokane River had been  considered  in the planning
    phase.  She also asked what action would be taken if  owners refused
    to grant easements for discharge facilities.
7653a
                                 A-21

-------
    Agency Response:   EPA  recognizes  tne  private  ownersnip of  the
    riverbed.   The  water within  the Little  Spokane  River  belongs to  tne
    state, but the  bedlands  of the river  are  in private ownership.   EPA
    believes that the likelihood of contaminating the  river  bed is low.

    EPA will work with landowners to  make arrangements for putting in
    towers or excavating to  put  in pipes  or river outfalls.  However,
    if arrangements cannot be made, EPA will  pursue other means to
    obtain easements.  The government has a responsibility to  maintain
    the public health and  safety of its citizens.
7653a
                                 A-22

-------
                        4.0  REMAINING CONCERNS

Several issues have been discussed extensively, but have not yet been
totally resolved.  These issues include:

    o    Will  alternative uses of the cleaned  water be identified?
    o    How will the issue of property values be  addressed?
    o    How will the extent and cost of improvements  to the Wnitworth
         District be determined?
    o    How will Colbert residents who have not declared legal  rights
         to the irrigation water they are currently using be affected
         by the potentially decreased water levels?
 76533                             A-23

-------
                              ATTACHMENT

               COMMUNITY  RELATIONS  ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
                     AT THE COLBERT LANDFILL SITE

Community relations activities conducted at the Colbert Landfill site
to date include:

    o    Spokane County developed a community relations plan for the
         Colbert Landfill  site (April 1981).

    o    Spokane County held a public meeting to discuss the monitoring
         and water quality sampling program (May 1931).

    o    A press release was issued by Spokane County to announce
         public meetings scheduled  for December 1 and 3 (November 1981 ).

    o    Spokane County held two public meetings to discuss the results
         of the first phase of the  study (December 1981).

    o    Spokane County had a public meeting to discuss the intent of
         the second phase of the study (February 1982).

    o    Spokane County held a public meeting to discuss study activity
         (October  1982).

    o    Spokane County established an information repository at tne
         Colbert Water District Building (1982).

    o    Spokane County Health District met with residents to discuss
         further results of the study (February 1983).

    o    Fact sheets on the well sample test results were sent to the
         well owners (1983).
7653a
                                  A-24

-------
    o    Affected residents began receiving bottled water  from  Key
         Tronic Corporation and Spokane County  (Marcn 1983).

    o    Spokane County held a public meeting to present the intent of
         the third phase of the study (March 1983).

    o    Remedial  Action Master Plan (RAMP) was published  (August 1983),

    o    EPA designated Colbert Landfill  a National Priorities List
         (NPL) site (August 1983).

    o    A press release was issued by Spokane County on the
         alternative water system selected (November 1983).

    o    A letter  on the chosen water system alternative was sent by
         Spokane County to concerned citizens  (November  1983).

    o    Public comments on the alternative water  supply were addressed
         by Spokane County at public meetings  (May  - November 1983).

    o    Ecology prepared a Focused Feasibility  Study for Initial
         Remedial  Measures (June 1984).

    o    An alternate water supply was constructed  as  an initial
         remedial  measure (1984-1985).

    o    EPA authorized soil,  gas, and earth resistivity tests  (August
         1985).

    o    Ecology met frequently witn citizens, County  officials,  and
         Key Tronic  Corporation representatives  (1985-1987).

    o    Ecology held a public  meeting to  discuss the  results of tne
         Remedial  Investigation and  plans  for  the Feasibility Study
         (May 1986).
7653a
                                 A-25

-------
    o    Ecology released the Feasibility Study (FS)  for public review
         and comment and  neld a  public  meeting (May  1987).

    o    Public comments  on tne  FS were accepted (May 18 -  June 30,
         1987).

    o    Public meetings  were held (September 9, 1987)  to discuss
         citizen concerns.

    o    Responsiveness Summary  finalized (September  1987).

    o    Record of Decision written (September 1987).
7653a
                                 A-26

-------
                               APPENDIX B

                      APPLICABLE, OR RELEVANT AND
                        APPROPRIATE  REQUIREMENTS
7527a

-------
                               APPENDIX B

          Applicable,  or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

 Federal Laws and Regulations

    o     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA) (42 USC 6901),
          Subtitle C:
            v
              protection of groundwater (40 CFR 264, Subpart F)
              closure and post-closure of landfills (40 CFR 264,
              Subpart G)
              [Note:  These are administered by Ecology under Dangerous
              Waste Regulations,  WAC 173-303.]

    o     Safe Drinking Water Act  (SDWA) (42 USC 300):
              Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 141),  including both
              enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)  and
              recommended maximum contaminant levels (RMCLs).

              Contaminant                      RMCL (ug/1)   MCL Ug/1)

              1,1,1-Trichloroethane  (TCA)       200             200
              Trichloroethylene (TCE)             0               5
              1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)          7               7
              Underground Injection  Control  (UIC)  standards  (40 CFR  146)
              [Note:   UIC standards  are administered by Ecology under
              WAC  173-218.J
7527a
                                 B-l

-------
    o    Clean  Water Act (CWA)  (33  USC  1251):
              National  Pollutant Discharge  Elimination  System (NPDES)
              (40 CFR 122)
              [Note:  NPDES  program is  administered by  Ecology under
              WAC 173-220.]

    o    Clean Air Act (CAA)  (72 USC 7401):
              National  Emission Standards  for  Hazardous Air Pollutants
              (NESHAPS)
              [Note:  NESHAPS Program is administered by Ecology and
              Spokane County Air Pollution  Control  Agency under WAC
              173-403.]

Washington State Laws and Regulations

    o    Dangerous Waste Regulations, WAC  173-303.   Applicable for
         handling contaminated groundwater  which  could  be considered a
         dangerous waste.

    o    Minimum Functional  Standards for  Solid Waste Handling, WAC
         173-304.  Requirements for closure of solid waster disposal
         facilities such as  Colbert Landfill.

    o    Washington Department of Ecology  Final Cleanup Policy.  Used
         for guidance in establishing cleanup  levels.

    o    Water Quality Standards for Waters of the  State of Washington,
         WAC 173-201.  Applicable in determining  acceptable contaminant
         levels in Little Spokane River or  Little Deep  Creek if treated
         water is discharged into them.

    o    Submission of Plans and Reports for Construction of Wastewater
         Facilities, WAC 173-240.  Applies  to  the treatment system
         designed to meet performance standards.
7527a
                                  B-2

-------
    o    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
         Program, WAC 173-220.  Applicable if treated water is
         discharged through an outfall into surface waters.

    o    Underground Injection Control Program, WAC 173-218.
         Applicable if treated water is reinjected into the ground for
         contaminant migration control.

    o    State Waste Discharge Permit Program, WAC 173-216.  A permit
         is required for the disposal of treated water via drainfields.

    o    Washington Clear Air Act, RCW 70.94.   Applicable for
         discharging pollutants into the atmosphere from a new source.

    o    General  Regulations for Air Pollution Sources,  WAC 173-400.

    o    Implementation of Regulations for  Air Contaminant  Sources,
         WAC 173-403.

    o    Emission Standards and Controls  for Sources  Emitting  Volatile
         Organic  Compounds (VOC),  WAC 173-490.

    o    Water Code,  RCW  90.03 and Water  Rights,  RCW  90.14.
         Establishes  water rights  permits necessary for water
         withdrawals,  including groundwater extraction.

    o    Protection of  Withdrawal  Facilities associated with Ground
         Water Rights,  WAC 173-150.   Restricts activities which would
         impair senior  groundwater rights,  including water  level
         lowering and water quality degradation.

    o    Protection of  Upper Aquifer Zones, WAC 173-154.  Also
         restricts activities  which  would impair  senior groundwater
         rights,  including water level lowering and water quality
         degradation.
7527a
                                 B-3

-------
    o    Minimum 'Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Water
         Wells, WAC173-160.  Governs design of extraction and recharge
         wells.

    o    Water Well Construction Act, RCW 18.104.

    o    State Environmental  Policy Act (SEPA), WAC 197-11.

    o    Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48.  Authorizes the use of
         water quality regulations at hazardous waste sites.

    o    Washington Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201.
7527a
                                  B-4

-------
                              APPENDIX  C





                     STATE CONCURRENCE WITH REMEDY
7527a

-------
ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER
    Director
                                      STATE OF WASHINGTON
SEP 29B87
                                DEPARTMENT  OF ECOLOGY                Sup(irluruJ Branr„
                     Mail Slop PV-11 •  Olympia, Washington 98501-87 7 /  •  (20(>) 459-6000

                                     September 23, 1987
           Mr. Robie G. Russell
           Regional Administrator
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Region 10
           1200 Sixth Avenue
           Seattle, Washington  98101

           Dear Mr. Russell:

                          Interim Final Record of Decision (ROD) for
                          Colbert Landfill Site. Colbert. Washington

           The Washington Department of  Ecology has reviewed the Interim  Final
           ROD for  the Colbert Landfill  site  and  concurs  with the  selected
           performance- based remedies as  the  final remedial action.   We agree
           that in this situation prescribing  performance standards for a  pump
           and treat  system is better than  dictating a  specific  technology.
           There are  several  suitable technologies  which will  remediate  the
           groundwater contamination associated with the  Colbert Landfill.  The
           alternate water supply system  is also  an important component of  the
           remedial action.

           We look forward  to  the upcoming consent decree negotiation sessions
           with  the potential  responsible  parties.  The  outlook  for  a
           satisfactory settlement,  especially with our unified  effort,  is very
           promising.

                                         Sincerely,
                                         Andrea Beatty Riniker
                                         Director      •/
                                                       (.'
           ABR:MB:md

-------
                               APPENDIX D






                   INDEX TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
7527a

-------
INDEX TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD OF COLBERT LANDFILL

Doc*   	File	      	Type/Description
                                                                                   Date    * P.iges
00000001. Preliminary assessment


00000002. Prplimtnary assessment

00000003. Preliminary assessment



0000000. Stcfanl

Unknown
C. WlIson, EPA

Hussein Aldls, EPA


Donald Moos, WDOE


Donald Moos WDOE


Donald Moos, WDOE


EPA


Crlstlna Griffin, EPA


Nell Thompson, EPA


John Littler, WDOE


Charles Findley, EPA
                                                  Unknown

                                                  Unknown
Unknown

Unknown


Ernest a Barnes, EPA
                                                                                                                                         Frederick
                                                                                                                                         Meadows, EPA

                                                                                                                                         Ernesta Barnes, EPA
                                                                                                                                         WDOE
                                                                                                                                         Phil Ml 11am, EPA
                                                                                                                                         Oddvar Aurdal, EPA
                                                  Ernesta Barnes, El'A
                                                                                                                                         Phillip Johnson, WOOF.

-------
Doc*
             File
     Type/Description
                                                                                   Date    I Pages
Author/Organization      Addreaaee/OrganIza 11on
00000015. State cooperative agreements
00000016. State cooperative agreement a
00000017. State cooperative agreements
00000016. State cooperative agreement*
00000019. State cooperative agreements
00000020. State cooperative agreements
00000021. State cooperative agreements
00000022. County-EPA cooperative
          agreements

00000023. County-EPA cooperative
          agreements
00000024. County-EPA cooperative
          agreements

00000025. County-EPA cooperative
          agreements

00000026. County-EPA cooperative
          agreements

00000027. County-EPA cooperative
          Agreements

00000028. County-EPA cooperative
          agreements
Memo/letter re (extension of cooperative
agreement

Letter re project and budget extension for
Colbert

Memo re Extension of project ,-ittd budget
periods for Colbert coopi-rat Ive nur
Utter re time extension for f c.istbl 1 1 1 y
study re Colbert

Letter re project and budget extension for
Colbert

Memo re extension of ending date for Colbert
cooperative agreement

Assistance amendment to extend project and
budget period for Colbert

Memo re proposed cooperative agreement
with Spokane County for Colbert

Colbert landfill cooperative agreement-
proposal.  Attachments:  Federal Assistance
Application, A-95 Review Letter, statement
of work, community relations plan

Notification of assistance award action-
nonconst ruction re Colbert 8I/FS

Letter/assistance agreement- amendment
Commitment notice/grant funding order
Letter re extension of project completion
date for Colbert grant
B/13/B6     2


8/I5/H6     1


12/Jl/Hh    I


l;'/?9/H6    I


2/27/87     1


2/26/87     I


1/6/87      1


9/24/81     9


9/15/81    28





9/24/81     1


10/19/81    5


9/24/81     2


2/2/82      1
  Nell Thompson, EPA
  Oddvar Aurdal,  EPA
  Ne11  Thompson,  EPA
  Fred Gardner, WDOE
  Oddvar Aurdal, EPA
  Neil Thompson, EPA
  Oddval Aurdal, EPA
  Sam Morekas, EPA
Assistance amendment re extension of budget   3/29/82
and project
  EPA
  Will lam Dobratz, Spokane
  County

  Barbara Barras,  EPA
  Nell  Thompson,  EPA
  Frederick Meadows,
  EPA
Oddvar Aurdal, EPA
John Littler, WDOE
Oddvar Aurdal, F.PA
Kflthy Davidson, F.PA
Phillip Johnson, WIK)E
Oddvar Aurdal, EPA
Phillip Johnson, WDOE
Fred Meadows, EPA
  William Dobratz, Spokane      EPA
  County
                                Spokane County
Nell Thompson, F.PA
Spokane County
William Dobratz,
Spokane County

William Dobratz,
Spokane County

-------
Doc*
             File
     Type/Description
Date    « Pages
Author/Organ 1zat ton      Addreasee/Organlzation
00000029.
00000030.
00000031.
00000032.
00000033.
00000031i.
00000035.
00000036.
00000037.
00000036.
00000039.
00000040.
00000041.
County -EPA cooperative
agreements
County -EPA cooperative
agreements
State cooperative
agreements
*
Work plans
Work plans
Work plans
Work plans
Work plans
Work plans
Croundwater Investigation
and report
Croundwater investigation
and report
Groundwater Investigation
and report
Croundwater Investigation
Letter re extension of project completion
date
Assistance agreement -iimendmenl re Colbert
disposal site
Letter re extension of ilatr of Colbert
cooperative agreement
Memo re Colbert landfill transfer .igreemenl ;
transfer agreement
Site management plnn for Colbert landfill
Memo/attachments re work plan for geophysical
bore hole logging, cost estimate, QA/QC plan,
statement re conflict of interest
Work plans for remedial investigation of
Colbert landfill
Work plan for feasibility study at Colbert
landfill site
Work plan Colbert landfill site
Letter/request for proposals re hydro-
geological report and monitoring wells
for Spokane County operated landfills
Letter/agency response forms re hydro-
geological and monitoring wells project
A description of tasks and subtasks used for
estimating the cost of Phase i
Agreement between owner/client and George
5/77/82
9/74/fll
10/7/86
7/18/84
10/1/84
1/9/85
1/29/85
2/86
No date
2/6/81
2/26/81
4/10/81
4/21/81
1
4
1
4
3
7
49
38
4
8
12
3
37
Will inn Dobratz,
Spokane County
Frederick Meadows, EPA
Fred Gardner, WDOE
Don Dubois, WDOE
Unknown
Bruce An Id, Ceo/Resource
Consultants
Colder Assoc.
Colder Assoc. and
tnvlrosphere
Unknown
William Dobratz
Martha, Shannon, Spokane
Regional Planning Conf.
Unknown
George Haddox & Assoc.
Nell Thcmpson, EPA
Spokane
County
Kathy Davidson, F.PA
l.ynda Brothers
Unknown
Douglas Morrel 1
WDOE
WDOE
Unknown
WDOE
Damon Tanra,
Spokane County
Tech. Operations
Section
Spokane County
          and report
00000042. Groundwater investigation
          and report
Miiddox & Associates, for professional
services

Letter/attachments re proposed budget for     8/31/81
Phase II of Colbert/Mica landfill Investigation
               11
                        George Haddox & Assoc.
                                Damon Taam,  Spokdim
                                County

-------
Doc*
File
00000043. Groundwater Investigation
          and report
00000044. Groundwater Investigation
          and report


00000045. Groundwater Investigation
          and report

00000046. Groundwater Investigation
          and report
00000047. Groundwater investigation
          and report
00000048. Groundwater Investigation
          and report

00000049. Groundwater Investigation
          and report

00000050. Groundwater investigation
          and report
00000051. Groundwater investigation
          and report
00000052. Groundwater Investigation
          and report
00000053. Groundwater Investigation
          and report
     Type/DescrlptIon
                                                                                   Date
Resolution Nn. HI 1046 of Spokane County
Board of Commissioners re liydrogeo logic
report Including well In.itul Lit. Ion ami
monitoring at Colbert and Mien/attachments

Preliminary report on a geohydrology of HIP
Colbert land! Ill --Spokane County, WA.
these I (document located at W1HIK)

Letter/Phase  II progress report
Letter/Phase II progress report re
geohydrologlc study of Colbert and Mica
landfill sites

Letter/attachments re technical, property,
financial status and summary reports re
grant CA 809777-01

Letter/attachments re resistivity data
collection, proposed budget, graphs
                                                                          II/f)/81
                                                                          2/76/H2
                                              5/74/62
                                                                          12/15/82
                                                                          7/7/8.1
Cover letter/final report re Colbert landfill 3/73/84
groundwnter monitoring program

Report:  Geophysical Borehole Logging--       2/86
Colbert landfill (Document located
at WDOE)

Colbert landfill background Information,      Unknown
progress report Phase 1, work plnn Info
and budget for Chase II
                                                                                     14
                                                                                    119
                                                                                                  19
                            Report:   Geohydrologlc Investigations of      Unknown   205
                            Colbert  landfill -  Phase II
                            Request for proposals re hydrogeologlc        2/3/81
                            report and monitoring wells for Spokane
                            County operated landfills
                                                                                            Author/Organization
                                                                                              Spokane County
                                                                                              Hoard of Commissioners
                                                                                         Addressee/Organization


                                                                                                Unknown
George Maildox & As noes,
Jame.K Montgomery,
Consulting Lngrs.

Dnmon Taam, Spokane
County

George Maddox, George
M'iddox & As sous.
                                                                  Damon Tanm, Spokane
                                                                  County
Tim Cook, George
Maddox Assocs.

George Maddox, George
M.iddox & Assocs.

Ceo/Resource Consultants
                                                                                              Unknown
                                                                  George Maddox & Assocs.,
                                                                  James Montgomery
                                                                  Consulting Engrs.

                                                                  Unknown
                                                                                                Spokane County
                                                                                                Utilities Dept.
                                                                                                Nell Th-ttpson, EPA
                                                                                                                            William Dohratz,
                                                                                                                            Spokane County
                              Betty Gordon, EPA
Damon Taam, Spokane
County Utilities Dept.

William Dobratz,
Spokane County

Colder Assocs.
                                                                                                Unknown
                                                                                                Spokane County
                                                                                                Utilities Dept.
                                                                                                Unknown

-------
Doc*
             File
     Type/Description
Date    * Pages
00000054.
0000005 5.
00000056.
00000057.
00000058.
00000059.
00000060.
00000061.
00000062.
00000063.
Remedial action management
plan (RAMP)
RAMP
RAMP
Initial Remedial Measure
(IRM)
1RM
IRM
IRM
IRM
IRM
IRM
Memo re review of Colbert landfill draft
RAMP
Letter re review of Colbert landfill draft
RAMP
Draft RAMP for Colbert landfill
Letter/aunnary report re Colbert landfill
water supply and Inter local cooperation
agreement between Spokane County nnd
Whit worth Water District No. 2
Report: Focused Feasibility Study
for IRM at Colbert Landfill
Record of decision re IRM alternative
selection for Colbert Landfill/Summary
of Interim Remedial Alternatives
Selection
Decision memo re IRM for Colbert landfill
Memo re Colbert landfill advance match
provisions/Assistance Funding Order
Briefing for the regional administrator,
record of decision, Colbert landfill
Report: Responsiveness Summary
R/29/83
B/29/H3
7/29/8.1
3/23/84
6/8*.
8/24/84
8/24/84
8/29/84
Unknown
Unknown
2
2
174
22
78
18
3
2
1
15
Rene Fuentea,
John Aniccttt,
County Health
Unknown
F.PA
Spokane
Dept.

James begat, Spokane
County
Carol Thompson
F.rnesta Barnes
, WDOE

diaries Flndley, EPA
Russell Wyer,
Unknown
Carol Thompson
EPA

i, WDOE
00000064. Remedial Investigation (Rl)
          Report

00000065. Rl Report
00000066. Rl Report
                                         for IRM at Colbert Landfill
Potential hazardous waste site log            2/26/80
Report:  Evaluation of a Temporary            9/25/85    17
Groundwater Extraction Measure for
Colbert Landfill

Report:  Remedial investigation Report        5/87      122
for the Colbert Landfill, Spokane,
WA, Vol. 1
Author/Organization      Addressee/Organization


                                Nell Thompson, EPA


                                Nell Thompson, EPA


                                F.PA

                                Bob Goodman, WDOE




                                Unknown


                                Unknown
                                                                                                                                         Ernesta  Barnes,  FPA

                                                                                                                                         Chuck Ftndley,  EPA


                                                                                                                                         Unknown


                                                                                                                                         Unknown
                        J. W. Fey
                        Colder Assoc.
                        Colder Assoc.
                                Unknown


                                Unknown



                                WDOE

-------
Doc*
             File
00000067. Rl Report



00000068. Feasibility Study (FS)


00000069. Feasibility Study (FS)


00000070. Correspondence, Rl/FS


00000071. Correspondence, Rl/FS


00000073. Correspondence, Rl/FS


00000074. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000075. Correspondence Rl/FS

00000076. Correspondence Rl/FS



00000077. Correspondence Rl/FS



00000078. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000079. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000080. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000081. Correspondence Rl/FS
     Type/Description
Dntp    * Pages
Report;  Remedial Investigation Report
for (he Cnlhi-rt l.nndl I II, Spokane, WA,
Vol. 2

Report;  Feasibility Study, Colbert
Landfill, Spokiinc, WA  Vol. 1

Report:  Feasibility Study, Colbert
Landfill, Spokane, WA, Vol. 1

Letter re work plan for County-KI'A
cooperative agreement

Memo re summary report of Colbert
alternatives

Letter re State cooperative agreement
for Rl/FS at Colbert landfill

Letter with attachment re proposed field
Investigation at Colbert Inndfll!

Letter re Increased costs of Rl/FS

Letter re amendment to State cooperative
agreement for performance ol Kl/KS tasks
at Colbert landfill

Letter re commencement of Rl and requesting
deferral of commencement date of Rl study
phase

Letter re review of Rl and delay of
start of FS

Letter re request for delay of FS
Letter re Key Tronic's wish to assume
responsibility for Investigation and
remedial action at Colbert landfill
Utter re response to Halght's letter of
7/16/87
5/B7
5/B7
5/H7
8/76/81
4/5/84
6/15/84
4/2/85
1/14/86
3/15/86
ng 4/16/86
4/17/86
5/5/86
7/16/86
8/27/86
25'/ C
360 (,
?.>»> C
1 .1
? B
1 C
5 J
2 C
1 C
2 S
C
2 L
2 C
2 C
4 F
Author/Organization      Addressee/Organisation
                        Golder Assoc.



                        lioldrr Assoc.


                        Colder Assoc.


                        .loanne Fujtta  Asaba, EPA


                        Bob Goodman, WDOE


                        Charles Flndley, FT A


                        Jeff Van'he, EPA


                        Carol Kraege,  WDOE

                        Charles Flndley, EPA
                        Spokane County Board of
                        Conn Issloners
                                WDOE
                                WIXJE
                                WDOE
                                Damon Taara, Spokane
                                County Utilities

                                .Inmes Legalt, Spokane
                                County Utilities

                                Lynda Brothers, WDOE
                                Carol Kraege, WDOE


                                Nell Thompson, EI'A

                                John Littler, WDOE



                                Carol Kraege, WDOE
                        Lewis C.  Zlrkle, Key Tronic   Carol Kraege, WPOE
                        Carol Kraege, WDOE


                        Gary Halght, Key Tronic


                        Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                Spokane County Board
                                of Commissioners

                                Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                Gary Halght, Key Tronlcs

-------
Doc*
             File
     Type/Description
Date    f Pages
Author/Organ1tat Ion      Addressee/Organization
00000082. Correspondence Rl/FS


0000008'*. Correspondence Rl/FS



00000085. Correspondency Rl/FS

00000086. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000087. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000088. Correspondence Rl/FS




00000089. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000090. Correspondency; Rl/FS


00000091. Correspondence Rl/FS


00000092. Correspondence Rl/FS
Letter re projected schedules for Colbert     8/25/86
and NorthsIde

Letter re Pounder's ExcnvntIon's availability 7/10/87
for services re decontaminate (lolbe.rt
landfill

Letter re lime extension for FS

Letter re effects ol SANA on Spoknne County   3/17/B7
Memo re selection of final remedial measure
for Colbert landfill

Letter re response to letter of 2/10/87
suggesting Pounder's availability of
services re decontamination of Colbert
landfill

Letter re Colbert landfill Rl/FS information
requests

Letter re Colbert landfill extraction/
treatment system

Letter re response to questions on Colbert
landfill Rl/FS

Letter re response to questions on Colbert
landfill Rl/FS
                        Nell Thompson, EPA
                                Fred Gardner, WDOE
                        Bill Mann, Pounder's Excav.   EPA
7/18/87
3/17/B7
3/16/87
W20/87
5/20/87
5/27/87
6/10/87
6/17/87
7
4
2
\
2
2
7
2
                        I'red Gardner, WDOE

                        Fred Gardner, WDOE


                        Carol Kraege, UUOE


                        Nell Thompson, EPA
                        Paul Agld, Dames & Moore
                        Leo Hutchtns, Whltwortn
                        Water District No. 2

                        Anthony Burges, Colder
                        Assoc.

                        Colder Assoc.
                                Kathy Davidson, EPA

                                Jerry Neal, Luklns &
                                Annls

                                Colbert Landfill
                                file

                                Bill M.inn, Pounder's
                                Excavation
                                Doug MorelI, Colder
                                Assoc.

                                Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                Fred Gardner,  WDOE
00000093. Correspondence Rl/FS


OOOOOCW. Correspondence Rl/FS



00000095. Correspondence Rl/FS
Letter re extension of public comments for    6/19/87
Colbert landfill FS

Letter re Colbert landfill FS and southern    6/25/87
area of WMtworth Water District water system
Letter re Colbert landf111-RI/FS reports
and attached resolution of Whitworth
Water District No. 7 re drilling of wells
                                                                                       6/26/87
                        Roble Russell, EPA
                        Leo Hutchlns, Whitworth
                        Water District No.  2
                        Leo Hutchlns, Whitworth
                        Water District No.  2
                                A. Pardlnl,  Spokane
                                Office of  Sen.  Dan Evans

                                Pat Mumney,  John
                                McBrlde, Keith
                                Shepard
                                                                                                                                         Fred Gardner, WDOE

-------
Doc*
             Kile
     Type/Description
Date    « Pages
Author/Organization      Addressee/Organization
00000096. Memos RI/FS
00000097. Hemos RI/FS
00000098. Hemos RI/FS
00000099. Meraos RI/FS
00000100. Memos RI/FS
00000101. Memos RI/FS
00000102. Memos RI/FS
00000103. Memos RI/FS
0000010*.. Memos RI/FS
00000105. Correspondence
Memo/attachments re  Information on Caron       12/79/80
Chemical ami Colbert l.aiulllll sites

Memo re Super fund engineering feasibility      5/72/81
design funds

Letter re Supcifund Conper.it IVP Agreement      H/26/R1
Guidance

Memo re Super fund Cooperative Agreeim-nt for    fl/28/BI
Colbert landfill
Decision memo re Colbert Landfill
Cooperative Agreement Proposal

Memo re Colbert Landfill Cooperative
Agreement Fact Sheet

Memo re Colbert Landfill Cooperative
Agreement

Memo re Colbert landfill contamination-
substituting for versus cleaning up an
unusable aquifer

Memo re Colbert landfill groundwaler
contamination, review corrective proposals
by CH2M1I111, Maddox Associates and other
alternatives

Letter re additional El'A funding under
current RAP
9/18/81
9/25/81
10/1/81
11/3/83
2
3
2
5
    12/15/83    8
    12/29/83
                        Don Itubols, EPA
                        Charles Flndley, EPA
                        Joanne Fujlta Asaba, EPA
                        Joanne Fujlta Aaaba, F.PA
                        John Spencer, EPA
                        Joanne Fujlta Aaaba, EPA
                        Charles Flndley, EPA
                        Michael Ruef, WDOE
  Michael Ruef, WDOE
  John Littler, WDOE
                                Michael Cook, EPA
                                Michael Cook, EPA
                                Tom Cook, WDOE
                                Ed Coate, Alex
                                Smith, Chuck Flndley,
                                Ken Feigner, John
                                Barlch, Nell
                                Thompson, Lloyd
                                Reed, Clark
                                Gauldlng, Gary
                                O'Neal, Cheryl
                                Koahuta

                                Michael Cook, EPA
                                Mary Nellson, EPA
                                Bob Jacobson, EPA

                                John Spencer, EPA
                                Linda Brother, WDOE
                                Earl Tower, EPA
John Littler, WDOE
Phil Ml 11am, EPA

-------
Doc*
File
Type/pescrlpt ton
                                                                                   Date
# Pages
Author/Organization
Addreaaec/OrganlzntIon
00000106. Correspondence
00000107. Quality Assurance Project
          Plans (QAPP)
00000108. QAPP
                            Letter re advance match funds at Colbert
                            site
                            Report:  Quality Assurance Pr
                            Plan for Remedial Invest lg;»t Ions at the
                            Colbert Land! ill (document located 
-------
Doc*
             File
Type/Description
Date
                                                                                           * Pages
00000109.
00000110.
00000111.
00000112.
00000113.
00000114.
00000115.
00000116.
00000117.
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Public Comment
Responsiveness
Summary
Letter re: activities at the Colbert
Landfill
Letter regarding earlier letter dated
4/17/87 to "Concerned (Mllxens"
Letters on Colbert Landfill; fenslblllty
study report and comment period
Letter re: extension of public comment
period
Letter regarding Colbert Landfill
feasibility study comments
Letter re Colbert Landfill remedial
investigation and feasibility study
Letter regarding Colbert Landfill
feasibility study comment
Letter re feasibility study
Letter regarding Spokane County Air
Pollution Control Authority review
of Colbert Landfill feasibility study
12/fl/fU.
A/24/H/
5/21/B7
6/17/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
6/30/87
	 	 H
1
3
71
1
3
2
3
1
2
                      Author/Organization
Ad dregs ee /Organlzatlon
                                                                                                       Andrea  Realty Rlnlfcer,  WDOE   Members of Colbert  Landfill
                                                                                                                                     Contaminate Area Committee
                                                                                                       Grace  Garrison,  Resident       Andrea  B.T.  Rlnlker,
                                                                                                       Key Tronic  employees,
                                                                                                       Key Tronic  supporters.
                                                                                                       County  commissioner,
                                                                                                       legislator, citizens of
                                                                                                       Colbert area & other areas

                                                                                                       Robbie  Russell, El'A
                                                                                                       Key Tronic  Corp.
                                                                                                       Craig Costello,  Colbert
                                                                                                       Landfill  Contaminate  Area
                                                                                                       Committee

                                                                                                       Patricia  A.  Muraney, John R.
                                                                                                       McBrlde,  Board of
                                                                                                       Commissioners of Spokane
                                                                                                       County

                                                                                                       Rhys  A. Sterling,  Spokane
                                                                                                       County Health District
                                                                                                      Christopher McEnnay,
                                                                                                      Spokane County Air
                                                                                                      Pollution Control Authority
                                                                                       Andrea Realty Rlnlker,  WDOE





                                                                                       Andrea Beatty Rlnlker,  W|X)E



                                                                                       Fred Gardner, WDOE



                                                                                       Fred Gardner, WDOE



                                                                                       Fred Gardner, WDOE




                                                                                       Fred Gardner, WDOE



                                                                                       Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                                                                                                                                       10

-------
Doc*
File
         Type/Description
Date    * Pagen
Author/Organization      Addressee/Organization
00000118.



00000119.



00000120.



00000121.



00000122.




00000123.


00000124.


00000125.


00000126.


00000128.



00000129.
 Public Connient
 Responsiveness
 Summary

 Permit! and/or
 applications--
 8tate/Fcdernl

 Permit and/or
 appllcatlons-
 atate/Federal
Colbert Landfill remedial Investigation/      6/30/87    It
feasibility study comments for submission
to WDOE

Industrial/commercial wnste dlxcli.irKf         4/17/78     3
permit application form
Hazardous wnste permit application;           6/1/69
Notification of Hazurdoiis Wnste
activity
                    Dames & Moore, Key Tronic     WDOF.
                    Corp.
 Reference materials    Guidances for administrative record
 or listing of          (Actual guidances located at El'A Regional Office)
 guidance documents used
 Community Relations
 {• News Releases
 Community Relations
 & News Releases

 Community Relations
 & News Releases

 Community Relations
 & News Releases

 Community Relations
 & News Releases

 Community Relations
 & News Releases
 Community Relations
 & News Releases
Cover letter with attachments regarding       11/12/81   28
cooperative agreement for EPA grant
on Colbert disposal si to; revised work
statement; community relations plan

News release re Federal grant for             10/21/81    1
groundwater contamination at Colbert

Memo regarding immediate news release         11/24/61    1


Phase II Community Relations scheduling       11/24/81    2
Letter re agenda of Informal public           11/25/81    1
meeting

Community relations plan for remedial         No date    20
Investigation of feasibility study
with appendices

Colbert Landfill Community Meeting            2/20/85     8
Notice with attachments
                    Key Tronic Corp.
                            WDOE
                    Lewis <;. Zlrkle, Key Tronic   EPA
                    Corp.
                                                                  Nell Thompson, EPA
                    William R. Dobratz, Damon     Nell Thompson, EPA
                    Taam, Spokane County Office
                    of County Utilities
                    EPA
                    Unknown
                    Unknown.
                    William R. Dobratz, Spokane
                    County

                    Carol RushIn Thompson, WDOE
                    Unknown
00000130.     Community Relations    Colbert Landfill update
              & News Releases
                                                                      7/85
                                                                  WDOE
                                                                                                                                                        1 1

-------
Doc*
00000131 .
00000132.
00000133.
00000134.
00000135.
00000136.
00000137.
00000138.
00000139.
00000140.
00000141.
00000142.
00000143.
File
Community Relations
(• News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
                                              Type/DcscriptIon
                                                                     Date    f Pages
                                                                    Author/Organ Izat ton
                                               Addressee/Organization
000001'.'..
                News Releases
Community Relations
ft News Releases
                                     Colbert Landfill update
                                     News release re clean water Tor Spokane
                                     families with polluted wollr,

                                     News release:  Colbert Landfill mooting
                                     announced

                                     Colbert Landfill update
                                     Memo & minutes of county commissioners'
                                     meeting held January 6, 1986;  Colbert
                                     Landfill Contaminate Area Citizens
                                     Proposals

                                     Notice of public meeting re RI
Memo re progress of Colbert Landfill
Contaminate Area Committee

Letter re:  current and future cleanup
activities

Memo with attached Colbert mailing
list

Newsletter—Colbert property owners'
update

Public meeting notification and
affidavit of publication

Fact sheet re:  proposed Colbert
landfill cleanup

For Immediate Release:  Ground-
water cleanup views sought (News
Release)

Agenda for Colbert Landfill meeting
fl/85
7/2/85
10/23/85
10/85
1/10/86
4/22/86
7/27/86
8/5/86
8/26/86
8/86
5/14/87
5/14/87
5/21/87
1
1
1
1
(«
1
1
3
24
1
3
8
2
                                                                                         WDOE
                                                                                         WDOE
                                                                                         WDOE
                                                                                         WDOE
                                                                                         Robin Swanson
                                                                                         WDOE
5/22/87
                                                                                                       Colbert  Landfill
                                                                                                       Contaminate Area  Committee

                                                                                                       Fred  Gardner,  WDOE
                                                                                                      Janet  Rhodes,  DOC
                                                                                                       Spokane  County—Key  Tronic
                                                                                                       Corp.

                                                                                                       Jerry Jewell, WDOE
                                                                                                      WDOE
                                                                                                      WDOE
                                                                                                      WDOE
                                                                                                                       Residents  of
                                                                                                                       Colbert

                                                                                                                       Residents
                                                                                                                       Nell  Thompson,  EPA
                                                                                                                                                        12

-------
Type/Description
Date    f Pages
Author/Organization
00000145.
00000146.
00000 14 7.
00000148.
00000149.
00000150.
00000151.
00000152.
00000153.
00000154.
00000155.
00000156.
00000157.
00000158.
00000159.
00000160.
Coimninlty Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Community Relations
& News Releases
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Letter re extension of public commrnt
period
Colbert Landfill public meeting transcript
Air water pollution report Around
The States
Cleaning up the Colbert Landfill (general
information)
Chemical Cleanup money may go to Colbert
Landfill
County is expecting report early in '82
on aquifer's quality
Households near landfill demand end to
pollution
13 Waste sites proposed for cleanup
priority list
2 years later water near landfill
troubling
Contaminated Colbert Landfill gets
second nomination to EPA's cleanup list
Water woes need curing
County officials get ready for second
landfill session
County, company appeal pollution award
Family of seven quitting polluted water
area home
Incident brings tighter county landfill
controls
Hazardous waste barrels burled at landfill
5/28/87
6/9/87
6/15/87

1/09/81
12/11/81
11/17/82
11/18/82
11/18/82
11/24/82
3/3/83
3/19/83
4/8/83
4/23/83
7/12/83
7/13/83
1
1IH
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Andrea Beatty Rlnlker, WDOE
Jeanne Bui Its, Reiter ft
Assocs.
Unknown
Unknown
Jeff Sher, Spokesman-Review
Kin Crorapton, Spokane
WA Weekly Chronicle
Kim Crompton, Chronicle
Creg Darby, Spokesman-Review
Creg Darby, Spokesman-Review
Tri -County Tribune
Spokane Chronicle
John Craig, Spokane Chronicle
Ken Sands, Spokane Chronicle
Tim Hanson, Spokane Chronicle
Ken Sands, Spokane Chronicle
Ken Sands, Spokesman Review
Addressee/Organization
                                                                                                          13

-------
Pocf
File
Type/Description
                                                                     Date
                                                                                          * Pages
Author/Organization
00000161.
00000162.
00000163.
0000016«».
00000165.
00000166.
00000167.
00000168.
00000169.
00000170.
00000171.
00000172.
00000173.
0000017'..
00000175.
00000176.
00000177.
00000176.
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Two more residents sue over polluted wells
Colbert water decision promised wltliln two
weeks
Contracts place Colbert closer to water
system
Feasibility of cleaning up Colbert Site
to be studies
Pollution spreading In aquifers
Key Tronic adds firms to law.su) t
Key Tronic wants others to share dumping
blame
Colbert area well ban asked
Key Tronic, County liable for pollution
Landfill decision left intact
Key Tronic, county still liable for
dumping
Well water woes worth $<*2,360
Key Tronic layoffs 'n.iy backfire1
Colbert cleanup costs could climb to
$17.5 million
Troubles blamed on water district
Developer wins Colbert lawsuit for
SI. 8 million
Key Tronic reduces its work force
Work won't lower wells, experts say
7/77/83
7/10/83
\lklw*
ft/27/85
11/B/B5
5/30/86
5/30/86
6/25/86
6/28/86
8/8/86
8/9/86
10/21/86
11/22/86
1/20/87
1/30/87
2/11/87
2/13/87
6/1/87
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Rlchnrd wagoner, Spokesman Review
Ken Snnds , Spokesman Review
Ken Sands, Spokane Chronicle
Krn Sands, Spokesman Review
Jeff Slier, Spokesman-Review
Kim Crompton, Spokane Dally
Chronicle
Kim Crompton, Spokesman-Review
Tri-County Tribune
Kim Crompton, Spokesman-Review
Kim Crompton, Spokesman-Review
Kim Crompton, Spokesman -Rev lew
Kin Crompton, Spokesman-Review
Bill Sallqulst, Spokesman- Rev lew
Jeff Sher, Spokesman-Review
Kim Crompton, Spokesman-Review
Kim Crompton, Spokesman-Review
Bill Sallqulst, Spokesman -Re view
Jim Caraden, Spokesman-Review
                                                                                                                    Addressee/Organization
                                                                                                                                                      14

-------
Doc*
             File
Type/Description
Date
          Pages
Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
00000179.
00000182.
00000183.
00000185.
00000186.
00000188.
00000189.
00000190.
00000191.
00000192.
00000193.
00000194.
00000195.
00000196.
00000197.
00000198.
00000199.
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper ^articles
Newspaper" articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Newspaper articles
Lab reports/raw data
tab reports /raw data
Lab reports/raw data
Lab reports/raw data
Lab reports /raw data
Lab reports /raw data
Lab reports/raw data
Lab reports /raw data
Lab reports/raw data
Lab reports/raw data
More comment tine wanted on Colbert plan
Work won't lower wells, experts say
Colbert cleanup plan has hasty approach
The Issue is fairness; Colbert cleanup
Around the States - Washington
Colbert residents file suits
County to run landfill cleanup
Memo/attachments re organic analysis
of aqueous samples/water well records/
water quality reports
Table re water quality at selected
wells near Colbert Landfill
Memo w/attachoients re well water
samp lings /maps
Letter re Colbert Landfill data analysis
Letter w/ar tachments re water quality
tests at Colbert
Well water sampling results
Field sample data sheet
Metal data-AA-llGA 2100 (Water), Santora
Base/neutral compounds
Inspection report and memo with
5/2«./87
5/29/87
5/31/87
6/7/87
6/15/87
3/13/86
No date
1/1W80
2/10-11/81
W2I./81
6/19/81
8/31/81
1/28/82
8/4/62
well 8/4/82
3/25/82
6/7/86
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
13
1
7
5
it
5
1
14
8
8
Jeff Sher, Spokesman -Rev lew
Spokane Chronicle
Jim Canxlen, Spokesman-Review
Spokesman- Review
Key Tronic, The Spokesman-Review
Spokane Chronicle
Air/water Pollution Report
Kim Crompton, Spokane Dally
Chronicle
Jeff Sher, Spokesman-Review
Alexandra Smith, EPA Gary O'Neal, EPA
EPA
Ben Euseblo, EPA Chuck Findley, EPA
James Malm, WUOE Carolyn Wilson, EPA
William Dobratz, Spokane Joanne Fujlta Asaba, EPA
County Utilities
Unknown
Tim Cook, George Haddock R. R. Jones
& Assocs.
EPA Roy Jones
Jim Blasethlck, EPA
Schlender, WDOE Carol Kraege, Fred
                                     sample results
                                                                                       Gardner, WfWE
                                                                                                                                                        IT)

-------
Docf
             File
                                Type/Deacrlption
                                              Date
                                                                                             Pages
  Author/Organization
00000200.
00000201.
00000202.
00000203.
0000020*..
Lab reports/raw data
l.ab reports/raw data
Lab reports/rav data
Lab report s /raw data
Lab report s /raw data
Memo re continued sampling (if
Colbert monitoring wells
Sampling results
Shallow Soil Gas Invest Ignt Inn In the
Vicinity of the Colbert Landfill /Fie Id
Data
Sample results, Ub No. 2895-87
Colbert Testing Results (Appendix A
H/19/H6
2/77/H7
12/86
4/8/87
19BO-?/B7
"
1
1
SO
5

Carol Kraege, WDOE
Unknown
Don Flmeren, Tracer
Research Corp.
ABC Labs, Inc.
Key Tronic -Spokane County
00000205.
                                                                                             Addressee/Organization
                                                                                                                                    Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                                                                                                                    EPA
                                                                                                                                    Key Tronic Corp.
Lab reports/raw data
00000206.
00000207.
00000208.
00000209.
00000210.
00000211.
00000212.
00000213.
00000214.
00000215.
Lab reports/rat
Lab reports/rai
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
updated through April, 1987).  (Document
located at WDOE file.)

April 27, 1987, testing/sampling results,     5/10/87     1
Lab. No. 2981-87

Sampling results, Lab No. 30191-87            5/26/87     1

Table 1 re water well records reviewed        No date     7
to develop conceptual model of the
geohydrology

Letter re proposed sampling plan              2/4/81

Letter regarding WA future solid waste        5/14/81     1
grant 4266310104

Letter regarding postponing of drilling       3/30/82     2
at Mica Landfill site

Letter re potential health Impact of          10/23/85    1
volatile organlcs

Letter re potential health Impact of          10/14/85
volatile organlcs

Letter re announcement of site                3/4/87      2
manager and formation of action committee

Letter re extension of public comnent         5/29/87     2
period with attached news article

Letter regarding Superfund proposal           6/17/87     2
cleanup of Colbert Landfill
Unknown


Unknown

Unknown



James L. Main, WDOE

Peter R. Hasklns, WDOE
                                                                                                      George E. Maddox, George E.
                                                                                                      Maddox & Assocs.

                                                                                                      Carl Sagerser, Dept. of
                                                                                                      Social & Health Services

                                                                                                      Carol Kraege, WDOE
                                                                                                                      Carolyn B. Wilson, EPA

                                                                                                                      William R. Dobratz, Spokane
                                                                                                                      County Utilities Dept.

                                                                                                                      Damon Taara, Spokane County
                                                                                                                      Utilities Dept.

                                                                                                                      Carol Kraege, WDOE
                                                                                                                      Bill Llchte, Dept. of Social
                                                                                                                      & Health Services
                                                                                                      Lewis G. Klrkle, Key tronlc   Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                                                                                      A. J. "Bud" Pardinl, U.S.     Robbie Russell, EPA
                                                                                                      Senate
                                                                                                      Jane T. King, resident
                                                                                                                      Fred Gardner, WDOE
                                                                                                                                                       16

-------
             File
         Type/Description
Date
Autlior/Org.inization
00000216.
00000217.
00000218.
00000219.
00000220.
00000221.
00000223.
00000224.
00000225.
00000226.
00000227.
Correspondence
Memoranda, Misc.
Memoranda, Misc.
Notices
Notices
State Cooperative
Agreement
Maps
Maps
Maps
Maps ,
Maps
Memo re request for technical assistance
Memo re revision of work request ESD-82-025
Memo (handwritten) re observation of
electrical resistivity field work
Notice re Colbert Landfill comment period
Notice of public review period for the
focus feasibility study for the initial
remedial measure at Colbert Landfill.
No date
2/25/82
5/1/85
6/2/87
7/17/84
Memo re deviation from 40CFR.30.308 for 8/29/84
the Colbert Landfill site, Washington (CV000282)
Exhibit 12 (Alternatives). (Map at EPA
Regional (Site) file.)
Exhibit 13 (Gleneden Plan). (Map at EPA
Regional (Site) file.)
Duplicate of Document # 00000223 (above:
Exhibit 12)
Colbert Landfill, Aquifer
Preliminary General Geologic map. (Map at
No date
No date

12/86
No date
•)
1
3
3
1
2
1
1

1
1
Bob Courson, EPA
Neil Thompson, EPA
Mike Gallagher, WDOE
WDOE
WDOE
Sam Morekas, EPA
Unknown
Unknown

Colder Associates
Allen Griggs Map 1-464,
Addressee/Organization


   Jeff VanEe, EMSL

   Bill Schmidt, EPA

   Carol Kraege, UDOE
00000228.     Maps
00000229.     Maps
00000230.     Maps
                                     EPA  Regional  (Site) file)
Preliminary locations map of proposed         No date
Phase II drilling and water sampling
points.  (Map at EPA Regional (Site) file.)

Preliminary cell map.  (Map at EPA Regional    No date
(Site) file.)

Preliminary relation of hydraulic gradient    No date
and width of unit square areas
                    USGS, M.M. Maddox Assocs./
                    Montgomery Engineers

                    Spokane County Utilities
                    Department
                    Spokane County Utilities
                    Department

                    M.H. Maddox Assocs./
                    Montgomery Engineers
                                                                                                                                    Harvey G. Pippin, IPA

-------
Doc*
00000231.
00000232.
00000233.
00000234.
00000235.
00000236.
00000237.
File
Haps
Maps
Haps
Maps
Maps
Haps
Haps
                                              Type/Description
00000238.


00000239.



00000240.



00000241.



00000242.
Maps


Maps



Haps



Maps



Haps
                                                                     Date
                                                                                   No date
                                                                                   No date
                                                                                   No dnlc
Preliminary relations of water level,
elevation and unit square arras

Groundwater flow net, middle sand aquifer.
(Hap located at EPA Regional file.)

Preliminary detailed potentlometrlr surface
map, Middle Sand Aquifer.  (M.ip at EPA
(Site) file.)
Preliminary general potent lometrlc surface    No date
map, Middle Sand Aquifer.  (Map at KPA Regional
(Site) file.)

Preliminary detailed potent lometrlc surface   No date
map, Middle Sand Aquifer.  (Map at F.PA
Regional (Site) file.)

Preliminary detailed Isopach map, Upper       No date
Clay Unit.  (Map at EPA Regional (site)
file.)

Preliminary general potent toroetrlc surface    No date
map, Upper Sand Aquifer (map at F.PA regional
(site) file).

Preliminary general Isopach map, Upper Clay   No date
Unit.  (Map at EPA regional (site) file.)

Preliminary Detailed Structure Contour nap.   No date
top of Upper Clay.  (Map at EPA regional
(site) file.)

Preliminary General Structure Contour map,    No date
top of Middle Sand.  (Map at EPA regional
(site) file.)

Preliminary Detailed Structure Contour map,   No date
top of Middle Sand.  (Map at EPA regional
(site) file.)

Preliminary General Structure Contour map,    No date
top of Upper Clay Unit.  (Map at EPA
regional (site) file.)
                                                                    Author/OrganItatlon
                                                                                         M.M. Maddox Assocs./
                                                                                         Montgomery Engineers

                                                                                         M.M. Maddox Assocs./
                                                                                         Montgomery Engineers

                                                                                         Spokane County Utilities
                                                                                         Depot tment
                                                                                                       Spokane County Utilities
                                                                                                       Department
                                                                                                       Spokane County Utilities
                                                                                                       Department
                                                                                                       Spokane County Utilities
                                                                                                       Department •
                                                                                                       Spokane County Utilities
                                                                                                       Department
Spokane County Utilities
Department

Spokane County Utilities
Department
Spokane County Utilities
Department
Spokane County Utilities
Department
Spokane County Utilities
Department
                           Addressee/Organization
                                                                                                                                                        18

-------
Doct
             File
                                Type/DeacrlptIon
                                              Date
           Author/Organization
                           Addressee/Organt/atIon
00000243.     Maps
00000244.     Maps
00000245.



00000246.


00000247.



00000248.


00000249.
Maps



Maps


Maps
NPL Listing &
Comments

NFL Listing &
Comments ,
                       Geologic Cross Section C-C.  (Map at EPA      No date
                       regional (site) flip.)
                       Geologic Cross Section R-B.  (Map at F.I'A      No date
                       regional (site) file.)
Geologic Cross Section A-A.  (Map at F.I'A      No date
regional (site) (lie.)
Preliminary Location map, existing water      No date
wells.  (Map at EPA regional (site) (lie.)

Location map of proposed drilling and         7/30/81
water sampling site.  (Map at EPA regional
(site) file.)

Federal Register, Vol 47., No. 251,           12/3/82
pp. 58470-84, NPL proposed rules

Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 175,           9/8/83
pp. 40658-40673.  Final Rule, National
Priorities List
 9


17
         Spokane County Utilities
         Department.   M.  M.  Maddox
         Assocs./Montgomery  Engineers

         Spokane County Utilities
         Department.   M.  M.  Maddox
         ASRIH-H. /Montgomery  Engineers

         Spokane County Utilities
         Department.   M.  M.  Maddox
         Assocs./Montgomery  Engineers

         Spokane County Utilities
         Department.

         George Maddox & Assocs., Inc.
EPA
         EPA
                                                                                                                                                         19

-------
Doc*
File
Type/Description
                                                                      Date
Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
DOCUMENTS DELETED FROM COLBERT LANDFILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
DOC. NO.
00000127.
00000180.
00000181.
00000184.
00000187.
00000222,
 TITLE/DESCRIPTION
 Community Relations Plan for Rl/FS
 Newspaper article, Spokane Chronicle, 5/24/87
 Newspaper article, Spokane Chronicle, 5/29/87
 Newspaper article, Spokesman Review, 6/1/87
 Newspaper article, Spokesman Review
 Public Health Assessment:  Memo re health
 assessment:  Colbert Landfill (SJ 87-089 NPL)
                                     REASON REMOVED
                                     Duplicate of Doc. No. 00000128 .
                                     Duplicate of Doc. No. 00000179
                                     Duplicate of Doc. No. 00000182
                                     Duplicate of Doc. No. 00000183
                                     Duplicate of Doc. No. 00000182
                                     Final version will supercede draft

-------