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
------- |