UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
RECORD OF DECISION,
SUMMARY, AND
SUMMARY
FOR
FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
COMMENCEMENT BAY - SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL
TACOMA LANDFILL SITE
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
MARCH
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
COMMENCEMENT BAY - SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL
TACOMA LANDFILL
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site
Commencement Bay - South Tacoma Channel, Tacoma Landfill site - Tacoma,
Pierce County, Washington.
Purpose
This decision document presents the selected final remedial action for
the site, developed In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorlzatlon Act of 1986 (SARA), and consistent
with (where not precluded by SARA) the National Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR
Part 300). The State of Washington, In close consultation with EPA, has
developed and concurred with the selected remedy. A copy of the state
concurrence letter Is attached as Appendix D.
Basis for Decision
The decision 1s based upon the administrative record for the site, as
obtained from the files of the Washington State Department of Ecology and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This record Includes, but is not
limited to, the following documents:
o Remedial Investigation Report for the Tacoma Landfill, Tacoma,
Washington (December 1987)
o Feasibility Study of the Tacoma Landfill Site, Final Report
(December 1987)
-------
o Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
o Responsiveness Summary (attached as Appendix B)
o Staff summaries and documents—An index (Appendix C) identifies
other items which are Included in this administrative record.
Description
This record of decision (ROD) addresses source control of on-s1te
contaminants through capping of the landfill and extraction of methane gas.
Management of migration for off-site contaminants will be through a
groundwater extraction and treatment system.
The remedial action is designed to:
o reduce the production of leachate by placing constraints on further
site operations and by capping the landfill.
/
o eliminate off-site gas migration through the gas extraction system.
o prevent further migration of the contaminated plume via the
groundwater extraction-treatment system.
o further protect public health and the environment via monitoring of
groundwater, surface water, gas probes, and air emissions.
-------
o provide an alternate water supply (Tacoma municipal water) to any
residents deprived of their domestic supply due to demonstrated
contamination from the landfill or due to the action of the
extraction-treatment system.
Treatment will be sufficient to reduce contaminant levels in the
groundwater to or below cleanup standards. Performance levels for the
identified contaminants of concern are presented in Table 8. The methodology
to be used to develop performance levels for the other contaminants in the
groundwater is discussed in the Selected Remedial Alternative section of the
ROD. Treatment should be permanent, and should effectively reduce the
toxicity and mobility of the contaminants. Performance levels are not to be
exceeded during the operational life of the remedial action. Treated water
discharge shall at all times be consistent with federal laws and Washington
State laws. Any treatment system which will produce air emissions will be
designed to meet appropriate federal and state Air Toxics Guidelines and to
use Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on the effluent air stream.
Containment of the plume will be confirmed by installation and periodic
sampling of monitoring wells as well as continued, scheduled monitoring of
private and public wells. Extraction will continue until water quality at the
compliance boundary (defined by WAC 173-304 as the edge of the filled area)
consistently meets or exceeds drinking water standards, or previously
established and approved health-based criteria. In addition to meeting
health-based criteria, potential impacts to public and private water supplies,
and to Leach Creek must be considered in the decision to shut off the system.
-------
Those residents who are deprived of domestic drinking water, either
because their wells water quality shows demonstrated contamination from the
landfill or because the quantity available has been reduced by the action of
the extraction-treatment system, will be connected to city water supplies.
Source control measures are expected to reduce contaminant concentrations
in the groundwater system. Source control measures consist of constructing a
cap on the landfill and appropriate regrading to minimize infiltration and
maximize run-off, ultimately reducing leachate volume and toxicity. Unlined
areas of the landfill will be capped as soon as possible. WAC 173-304 defines
the minimum requirements for a cap on a municipal landfill. A more stringent
cap will be required unless further analysis of the cap, to be provided during
remedial design, shows that a significant reduction in leachate volume or
toxicity would not be achieved.
Increased run-off due to the construction of the cap will be routed off
the landfill to reduce infiltration. The run-off collected from the landfill
will be directed to the appropriate storm or sanitary sewers, consistent with
local storm drainage ordinances or pre-treatment regulations. The storm
drainage plan, prepared as part of the remedial design, will determine and
minimize any impacts on downstream increases in peak flow.
The city of Tacoma (Tacoma) will implement a closure plan for the
landfill consistent with Washington State Minimum Functional Standards for
Landfill Closure (WAC 173-304), and as appropriate, Washington State Dangerous
Waste Regulations (WAC 143-303).
-------
Institutional controls will be Implemented, consistent with the final
design, to assure that the remedial action will continue to protect health and
the environment. Tacoma, In cooperation with the town of Flrcrest and Pierce
County, will pursue the establishment of an ordinance, or other suitable
methodology, to restrict drilling of water supply wells 1n an area from Tyler
Street to Leach Creek, and from Center Street to approximately South 56th
Street.
-------
Declaration
Consistent with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the NCR, 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, mobility, or
volume. Finally, 1t is determined that this remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
Date Regional Adminis^wrfor
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA - Region 10
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
TACOMA LANDFILL
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
II SITE HISTORY a
A. Landfill History and Operations 3
B. Regulatory History - Previous Investigations 4
C. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 5
III SITE ENVIRONMENT »
IV NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM 9
A. Extent of Gas Migration 9
B. Contaminants Detected 13
C. Extent of Groundwater Contamination 14
D. Surface Water 16
E. Future Impacts 17
F. The Endangerment Assessment 19
V ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION - FEASIBILITY STUDY 27
VI SELECTED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 35
A. Description of the Selected Remedy 35
B. Statutory Determinations 43
VII ENFORCEMENT 49
VIII COMMUNITY RELATIONS »
APPENDICES
A. APPLICABLE AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
B. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
C. INDEX TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
D. STATE CONCURRENCE LETTER
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figures
Figure 4
Figures
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figures
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Summary of Organic Compounds Detected in Landfill Gas
Threshold Limit Values for Landfill Gas Components
Organic Waste Components Detected at the Landfill
Metals Detected at the Landfill
Travel Times to Reach Maximum and Threshold
Concentrations, Close-in and Distant Wells
Summary of Detailed Evaluation of
Remedial Alternatives
Section 121(b)(l)(A-G) Evaluation Factors
Performance Standards for Treatment System/Discharge
to Surface Water
LIST OF FIGURES
Site Location
Site Vicinity
Landfill Zoning
Leach Creek Drainage Basin
Landfill Site Cross Section and Lithology
Location of Private Wells/Extent of Contamination
Landfill Drainage Patterns
Landfill Gas Extraction System
Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater
Contaminant Distribution hi Groundwater (continued)
Current and Predicted Contamination
following
Page
11
12
14
14
24
32
32
37
1
1
1
6
7
8
8
9
15
15
18
111
-------
I. SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOTION
The Tacoma Landfill, operated by the City of Tacoma Refuse Utility, is
located In Sections 12 and 13 of Township 20 North, Range 2 East, Pierce
County, Washington. The landfill covers 190 acres and is bounded
approximately by South 31st Street on the north, Tyler Street on the east,
South 48th Street on the south, and Orchard Street on the west. Figures 1, 2
and 3 illustrate the location of the landfill, the vicinity surrounding the
landfill, and the site Itself. The landfill serves a population of
approximately 212,000. To date, approximately 4.0 million tons of refuse have
been deposited at the landfill since it opened in 1960. Currently about 600
tons per day of refuse are placed in the landfill.
The landfill does not accept hazardous wastes for disposal. However, the
landfill received wastes in the 1960s and 1970s that have since been
designated as hazardous substances under State and Federal law.
Figure 2 shows the general topography of the landfill and surrounding
area. Drumlins (low, long ridges) abound in the general area and display a
north-south axial configuration. Solid waste has been disposed of at the site
between five drumllns. The landfill's western boundary is approximately one
quarter mile from Leach Creek, but the landfill does not lie in the flood
plain of that creek. The landfill is surrounded primarily by residential
development and open land, with some commercial and Industrial development.
Land use for the area surrounding the landfill is shown on Figure 3. No use
of natural resources other than groundwater is noted on land use inventories.
Several utilities (sewer, water, and storm) pass through the site.
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
0 I 2
8
SCALE : I* = 4 MILES
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
TACOMA LANDFILL RI/FS
-------
•TACOMAV st.
)00' 1000' 0
2000' 4000'
FIGURE 2
SITE VICINITY
PRODUCTION WELL LOCATIONS
TACOMA LANDFILL RI/FS
-------
TACOMA
LANDFILL
LEGEND
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTAL
LIZ!
1000 2000
52=Si
SCALE I"5 2000'
4000
FIGURE 3
LANDFILL ZONING MAP
TACOMA LANDFILL RI/FS
-------
Apartments, undeveloped land, and commercial properties including a
bowling alley, offices, building supply and paint stores, and gas stations are
located north of the landfill. Immediately east of the landfill are apartment
complexes, single family residences, and undeveloped land. The area further
east between Tyler Street and South Tacoma Way is occupied by the Burlington
Northern Railroad, industrial/commercial development, and an open area known
as the South Tacoma Swamp. Between the west edge of the landfill and Orchard
Street there are several apartment buildings and commercial establishments.
West of Orchard Street and south of the landfill there is residential
development and undeveloped land.
The landfill lies in the central portion of the Tacoma/Fircrest upland
ground water system. A significant area for the central upland in the
vicinity of the landfill is Leach Creek.
-------
II. SITE HISTORY
A. Landfill History and Operations
The Tacoma Landfill began operations in 1960, and now serves a population
of approximately 212,000. The wastes received and disposed at the landfill
include garbage, rubbish, industrial wastes, construction and demolition
wastes, street refuse, litter, and bulky waste. To date, approximately 4.0
million tons of refuse have been deposited at the landfill. Filled areas vary
from 20 to 80 feet deep. Currently some 600 tons per day of refuse are placed
in the landfill.
Most of the site has already been filled. The next section of the site
to be filled is called the Central Area Pit. This section of the landfill
covers approximately 18 acres and was developed during the summer and fall of
1987. A flexible membrane liner and leachate collection system were installed
in the Central Area Pit. The liner and leachate collection system were
designed primarily to maximize volume for waste disposal. To date, there has
been no documentation received on the integrity of the liner.
Day to day operations of the landfill are regulated by the Tacoma-Pierce
County Health Department (TPCHD) with oversight by the Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology); the operating permit is issued annually by TPCHD.
At the current rate, the 190-acre site has a remaining life expectancy of
approximately four to five years if all the solid waste material is disposed
without a significant reduction in volume. Tacoma has indicated it intends to
implement programs to extend the life expectancy of the landfill.
-------
There are many large and small industries in the Tacoma/Pierce County
area which have disposed of wastes at the landfill. Memoranda reviewed during
the preparation of the Description of Current Situation report and the RI
indicate that some hazardous wastes were disposed of at the landfill.
Investigations concerning the volumes, the chemical composition of the wastes,
and the disposal locations are ongoing.
B. Regulatory History - Previous Investigations
In 1983 EPA conducted an investigation and detected hazardous compounds
in samples of ground water and soils near the landfill. This led EPA to
include the landfill on the National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites
as part of the South Tacoma Channel site. Through a cooperative agreement
with EPA, Ecology began an investigation into contamination at the site in
1984. On June 27, 1986, Tacoma assumed responsibility for conducting the
remedial investigation and feasibility study under a Response Order on Consent
issued by Ecology.
Since 1983 testing has been conducted at and around the Tacoma Landfill
by EPA, Ecology, TPCHD, Tacoma, and others. The testing revealed that three
private wells contained contaminants. The priority pollutant volatile organic
compounds which were detected in the ground water samples were primarily
chlorinated organics. Twenty-four volatile organic compounds were found in
groundwater contaminated by the landfill.
-------
Because of the concern about the public health effects of the
contaminants, particularly vinyl chloride, the TPCHD recommended that Tacoma
connect these affected residences to the Tacoma public water system. As a
precautionary measure, Tacoma also connected two additional residences whose
wells were near the area. Monitoring continues quarterly to ensure the clean
water supply for potentially affected residents while appropriate cleanup
actions are approved and carried out.
C. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The remedial investigation (RI). conducted by Tacoma's consultant, Black
and Veatch, was performed in two phases. Phase 1 activities (July 1986
through January 1987) consisted primarily of field investigations to
characterize both the hydrogeology .of the site and the contaminants present in
the various media at and surrounding the site. Phase 2, conducted from
January through November 1987, was designed to f 111 in data gaps identified at
the conclusion of Phase 1 and to provide the data necessary for the
endangerment assessment and'the feasibility study (FS).
Upon completion of the RI and and evaluation of the alternatives, the
City, through their consultants (Black and Veatch). submitted a draft RI and
FS report in September and October 1987 for agency review and approval. The
final RI/FS reports were published December 1987. Public comment on the
studies was completed in March 1988.
-------
III. SITE ENVIROiENT
The Tacoma Landfill site is located In the northern portion of the
Chambers/Clover Creek drainage basin (see Figure 4). This area is part of the
Puget Sound lowland. The study area is bounded by: the Tacoma channel to the
east; Center Street to the north; 56th Street to the south; and Leach Creek to
the west.
A moderate climate prevails. Winter temperatures are seldom below
freezing and summer temperatures are rarely above 80°F. Approximately
thirty-seven inches of rain fall in a normal year. Studies conducted in the
Puget Sound region have indicated that approximately 30% of rainfall becomes
groundwater.
The geology of the site consists of a series of glacial materials, mostly
sand and gravel laid down over older alluvial silts and sands. The
stratigraphic units (layers) described in the Remedial Investigation (Black
and Veatch, 1987) from youngest to oldest (top down) are:
A. Vashon Till (dense gray, gravelly, silty, sand) (Qvt)
B. Vashon Advance Outwash (sands/gravels) (Qva)
C. Colvos Sand (dense sand/some gravel) (Qc)
D. Older Gravel (dense sandy gravel) (Qog)
E. Older Till (dense silty, gravelly sand) (Qot)
F. Older Outwash (dense silty, gravelly sand) (Qoa)
G. Older Sand (dense fine/medium sand) (Qos)
H. Older Lacustrine (lake bottom silts) (Qol/Qk)
I. Undifferentiated Quaternary Sediments (Qu)
-------
COMMENCEMENT
LEACH CREEK
DRAINAGE
BASIN
FLETT CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN
LANDFILL
FIGURE ADAPTED FROM CLOVER/
CHAMBERS CREEK GEOHYDROLOGIC
STUDY
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 4
LEACH CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
TACOMA LANDFILL RI/FS
-------
The affected aquifer is located between the lower zones of the Colvos
Sand and the Older Lacustrine. The Older Lacustrine unit serves as the
regional aquitard in the landfill area. A cross section through the area
(Figure 5) shows the ridges, valleys, and the lithology (layers).
Water, infiltrating through the landfill, picks up various contaminants.
Where the Vashon Till is not present beneath the waste, contaminants move with
the water through the unsaturated zone and into the aquifer. It is also
possible for low solubility, pure phase fluids, called dense, non-aqueous
phase liquids (DNAPLs). such as chlorinated hydrocarbons to enter the
aquifer. Evidence of this has not been shown, nor has it been disproven. The
water table lies within the Colvos Sand unit, about 70 feet below the bottom
of the landfill.
The predominant flow direction of the water table aquifer is
southwesterly toward Leach Creek. However, during periods of heavy water use
by Tacoma city wells (summer and early fall), the groundwater flow direction
is reversed. Also, depending on local conditions, groundwater and contaminant
movement may be downward or'upward.
The Older Alluvium reportedly forms the confining layer. Leach Creek is
the closest discharge point of the aquifer. Additional information from
future activities will clarify the ground water flow conditions near the creek
and elsewhere around the site.
The aquifer is part of the Chambers/Clover Creek Ground Water Management
Area. The TPCHD is petitioning EPA for a Sole Source Aquifer designation for
-------
400 r
SOUTH
TACOMA
CHANNEL
-t 1—fir
1 ! 91999
100
Geologic contacts are based upon interpolation between outcrops and borings and
represent our interpretation ol subsurface conditions based on currently available data.
Figure prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc.
Notes: 1. Water table elevations are from 12/4/86. Potentials at lower levels are
calculated from average vertical gradients over seven (7) sets of
water level measurements (Table 4-2) and therefore represent
anticipated average conditions.
2. Flowlines are drawn qualitatively assuming a moderate degree of anisotropy.
CO
_) Well Number
Well Location
water Table
12/-4/B6
| Screen Section
I Equipotential Line
I
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0 400 800
Water Table
Elevation in Feet
Groundwater Flow
0 SO
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration x 8
100
FIGURE 5
SITE CROSS SECTION AND
LITHOLOGY
TACOMA LANDFILL RI/FS
-------
this aquifer. The Town of Fircrest and the City of Tacoma both operate wells
near the landfill (see Figure 2). In addition, the aquifer Is also used by
private Individuals for domestic water supply (see Figure 6).
Wetlands downstream of the landfill on Chambers Creek could potentially
be exposed to contaminants In the surface water and ground water. None of the
five endangered species Identified in the State of Washington 1s common to the
area surrounding the landfill.
The topographical lowpolnt 1n the landfill 1s currently at the north end
of the Central Area Pit. Some runoff from surrounding areas drains and
discharges to the sanitary sewer. Drainage from the north and along Mullen
Street is directed towards a pond situated between the bowling alley parking
lot and northern landfill property on Mullen Street. Drainage from the west
side of the site is directed toward a catch basin and discharges to the Leach
Creek retention basin. The south end of the site drains to the south and is
not collected. Drainage patterns are shown in Figure 7.
-------
LEGEND
STORM SEWER WITH
SEWER SIZE AND
FLOW DIRECTION
SANITARY SEWER WITH
SEWER SIZE AND
FLOW DIRECTION
LEACHATE LINES
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
FIGURE 7
LANDFILL DRAINAGE
PATTERNS
TACOMA LANDFILL RI/F5
-------
zS: ",v<';-. r-r-.-\ '''" "...
LEGEND
TL-I LANDFILL
MONITORING WELL
LOCATION
• EW-7 EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL WELL
FW-S FRCREST WELL
•UP-4 UNIVERSITY PLACE
50CK GROUND SURFACE
ELEVATION CONTOUR-
"~ TACOMA
ssswr'
APPROXIMATE
MAXIMUM AREA
POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED BY
GROUNOWATER
CONTAMINATION IN
THE FUTURE BASED
SOLELY ON
CONVECTION OF
CONTAMINANTS FROM
,1 THE LANDFILL
APPROXIMATE AREA
UPGRADIENT OF THE
LANDFILL
POTENTIALLY
IMPACTED BY
GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION DUE
TO GRADIENT
REVERSALS
NOTES
I. UP WELLS AND EW-23
ARE NOT CURRENTLY USED
AND WERE NOT CONSIDERED
IN SELECTING RECEPTOR
GROUPS.
2 EXTENT OF GROUNOWATER
CONTAMINATION DOES NOT
INCLUDE CONTAMINATION
DUE TO LANDFILL GAS
TRANSPORT
FIGURE 6
LOCATION OF PRIVATE WELL.'
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
TACOMA LANDFILL RI/FS
-------
IV. NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM
A. Extent of Gas Migration
In May 1986, accumulation of landfill gas In a utility vault at the Town
Concrete Pipe Company (located Immediately adjacent to and west of the
landfill) resulted In a small explosion. Tacoma had already hired a
consultant (Mandevllle Associates) to address problems of gas production and
migration at the landfill and was able to Immediately Initiate a field survey
to evaluate the extent of gas migration off-site. Based on this survey, the
consultant designed and constructed a gas extraction system to extract,
collect and combust the gas. The field survey showed the biggest problem to
be southwest of the site and this Initial effort concentrated on controlling
gas from migrating Into businesses 1n this area.
The current landfill gas system consists of 128 extraction wells,
collection piping, 77 gas probe locations, and the motor blower/flare station
where contaminants are Incinerated. The system layout 1s shown on Figure 8.
Tacoma has conducted a two-stage gas monitoring program to monitor the
effectiveness of the extraction system. Figure 8 shows the locations of 66
probes Installed around the landfill. Each of these probes consists of two
to five probes able to monitor gas at depths from 6 to 70 feet. These probes
are checked twice a week and seem to Indicate that the shallower gas Is being
controlled by the extraction system.
-------
LEGEND
O US MU.
FIGURE 8
LANDFILL GAS
EXTRACTION SYSTEF
TACOIU LAHDFXL m/FS
-------
The gas found deeper than about 35-40 feet is not being controlled as
well. As a result of this information, Tacoma is installing approximately 74
new, deep extraction wells around the landfill. This work began on
January 27, 1988.
The City has also been conducting an off-site monitoring program
beginning in May, 1986. From May 1986 until August 1987, this program focused
on businesses and apartments to the south and west of the site, where both
ambient and point source measurements were taken. Beginning in August 1987,
the current off-site monitoring system began. This consists of monitoring
utility vaults in residential areas (shown on Figure 8), and routine ambient
and point source monitoring in some businesses and vacant apartments. The
data from this effort shows that methane is still escaping the landfill and
finding its way to the surface in off-site locations. The utility vault data
shows several areas, around the landfill to be of particular concern.
The Minimum Function Standards require that the concentrations in
off-site structures be below 100 parts per million (ppm) by volume of
hydrocarbon in ambient air. ' From November 1986 through October 1987, the
readings of ambient air in off-site structures were below the limit; however,
some point sources monitored such as foundation cracks and closed vaults on
occasion have shown readings above 100 ppm. Readings above the limit were
found 1n the ambient air in one building west of the landfill near 40th
Street (Classic Auto) in November 1987. The City Installed four additional
gas extraction wells in this area in December 1987. No readings were detected
in the building after the first well was connected to the system on
December 15, 1987.
10
-------
Ecology has requested that additional gas probes be placed In the
neighborhoods of concern. The existing probes are well within the influence
of the gas extraction wells and do not represent ambient conditions further
off-site. Methane concentrations in utility vaults can also be misleading.
Gas concentrations fluctuate a great deal with changing atmospheric
conditions. Therefore, it is possible that landfill gas could be found in a
house without observing it in the vault. Additional gas probes are needed to
better determine the performance of the gas extraction system.
A total of 42 landfill gas samples were collected at 26 locations around
the landfill. The gas samples collected from gas wells and probes were
analyzed for priority pollutant volatile organic compounds (VOC). The
analytical results are summarized in Table 1. The methane concentration was
analyzed for five of the Phase 1 samples and was field measured for seven of
the Phase 2 samples. These results are presented below:
Sample No.
Methane (ppm)
Sample No.
Methane (ppm)
Phase 1
GS-001
GS-002
GS-002DUP
GS-003
GS-004
Phase 2
540,000
430,000
430,000
560,000
240,000
GS-213
GS-214
GS-215
GS-218
GS-219
GS-220
GS-221
370,000
480,000
610,000
560,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
11
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN LANDFILL GAS SAMPLES
Concentrations in ug/m3
Dat«
06/23/86
06/25/86
06/23/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
08/26/86
08/26/86
11/13/86
12/09/86
12/09/86
02/12/87
02/10/87
02/10/87
02/10/87
02/12/87
02/12/87
02/10/87
02/10/87
02/10/87
02/10/87
Bcnzen*
2600
700
3200
2400
2900
1800
1800
3000
1300
1800
2000
4800
35. 5U
2200
4800J
2100
1400
2600J
3400
840J
1200
2600
4800
2400
2600
2600
3200J
Chloro-
benzen*
-.600
500U
125U
980
950
1400
SOOU
1100
1600
500U
1200
800
710
25U
100U
100U
100U
1000U
500U
100U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
Chloro-
echan*
1400
1000U
300
250U
250U
1000U
6300
1000U
1000U
TR
TR
1400
35. SU
450
2300J
9300
1000
2000U
12000
200U
laooj
1200
2200
1300J
1800J
2000U
2000U
1,1-Dl-
chloro-
ethan*
TR
500U
125U
125U
125U
500U
500U
500U
500U
900
500U
3700
35. 5U
1600
3300J
2000
2200
1000U
1400B
10000
600J
1500B
1500
800J
1500
10000
1000U
1,2-Dl
chloro-
echana
5000
5000
1250
1250
1250
5000
5000
500U
500U
TR
5000
12000
35.50
250
1000
1600
1500
1000U
500U
10000
10000
10000
1900
10000
10000
10000
10000
1,1-Di-
chloro-
ethcn*
5000
5000
1250
1250
1250
SOOU
17000
5000
5000
TR
1000
TR
35.50
45
1000
100
100
1000U
5000
10000
10000
1000U
520J
10000
S80J
10000
10000
Trans -
1,2-Dl
chloro-
«th«n«
2500
TR
500
130
1250
700
12000
5000
5000
23000
16000
120000
35.50
1200
35000J
20000
19000
8600J
7700
600J
2600
3000
38000
9400
56000
4600
loootr
1,2-Di-
chloro-
Dcooana
SOOU
SOOU
125U
125U
125U
SOOU
SOOU
SOOU
SOOU
SOOU
SOOU
TR
35.50
250
2000J
100U
100U
1000U
200J
100U
10000
1000U
200J
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
TABLE 1 Ccont)
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN LANDFILL GAS SAMPLES
Concentrations in uc/m3
1.1,1-
Sample
Locations
GW-01
GP-28
GP-45
GP-32
GP-32
GP-33D
GP-33S
GP-25D
GP-2SS
GP-06D
GP-06S
FS-01
GP-13
GP-14
GP-TL-08A
FLARE
FLARE
GW-22
GW-12
GW-28 EAST
GH-28 SW
GW-64
GW-la
GW-6a
GW-6d
GW-45
GW-45(Dup)
Ethyl
Benzene
68000
4300
18000
8100
8000
39000
21700
30000
36000
50000
77000
28000
TRB
1200
37000J
18000*
19000*
880 OBJ
S600B
50000B
9000B
1SOOB
160000B
S7000B
59000B
12000B
12000BJ
Methy-
lene
Chloride '
1700B
2500B
TRB
200B
300B
TRB
73000
5000
TRB
2000B
2500B
33000B
250B
1600B
SOOU
30000*
50000*
100UJ
240000B
1000UJ
1000UJ
11000B
10000J
10000J
10000J
3600B
2800BJ
Tetra-
chloro-
ethene
1300
TR
300
TR
TR
TR
25000
TR
5000
20000
4700
24000
35. 5U
2000
3200J
10000
10000
600BJ
32000B
200J
600J
2200
12000
3200
8400
1000B
1400J
Toluene
6100
1600
11000
530
630
3300
89000
1400
5000
860000
210000
84000
130B
26000
110000J
97000*
10000*
9800BJ
5SOOOB
4600B
36000B
14000B
1SOOOOB
120000B
130000B
S600B
8400BJ
Trl-
chloro-
ethane
SOOU
SOOU
125U
125U
1250
SOOU
900
SOOU
SOOU
SOOU
SOOU
TR
35.50
900
1000
1400
1300
10000
5800
1000U
10000
560J
200J
10000
10000
1000U
1000U
Trl-
chloro-
ethene
1100
TR
1250
1250
125U
5000
3800
SOOU
SOOU
13000
5800
25000
35.SU
1100
6700J
10000
5800
600BJ
9300
200J
800J
2600B
12000
3400
8400
1000U
800J
Vinyl
Chlor-
ic*
52000
TR
26000
530
630
1800
39000
TR
2000
28000
47000
38000
71U
2900
13000J
12000
12000
20000J
20000
2000
4800
78000
124000
37000
,. 35000
16000
16000J
-------
The landfill gas contains significant concentrations of VOCs and has been
proposed as a possible migration pathway for these compounds to the
groundwater, particularly when groundwater contamination is found upgradient.
The American Congress of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has issued
threshold limit values (TLVs) on airborne concentrations of various
substances. These limits are intended as guidelines in the control of
potential health hazards. The time-weighted average (TWA) TLV concentration
for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek is the concentration which
nearly all workers might be exposed to without adverse effect. The compounds
detected 1n landfill gas samples that exceeded 15 percent of the TWA values
are given in Table 2. Two of the TWA's were exceeded (toluene and vinyl
chloride). The detected concentrations listed in Tables 1 and 2 are from
samples collected inside the respective gas well or probe and are not
representative of ambient air concentrations.
EPA's ISCST (Industrial Source Complex Short-Term) dispersion model was
used to predict the potential landfill air quality impacts. Toluene was
generally detected at higher* concentrations than other VOCs in the landfill
gas samples and had the highest mass flow rate both in and out of the flares
during the flare test; therefore, it was selected as the pollutant to be
assessed by the air quality analysis.
The worst case analysis predicted the highest toluene concentration
(using a one hour averaging time) to be slightly greater than 2 ppb. The
Draft New Source Guidelines for Toxic Air Contaminants (Sept. 1986) for the
State of Washington Indicate a 14 ppb toluene to be the acceptable ambient
12
-------
TABLE 2
THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES FOR LANDFILL GAS COMPOUNDS
Compound (CAS Numb«r) Sau?le No.
Benzene (71-43-2) CS-012, CS-217
1 , 1-Dlchloroethene GS-007
(75-35-4)
TranJ-l,2-Dlchloroethene GS-012
(540-59-0)
Ethylbenzene (100-41-4) GS-011
Methylene Chloride GS-007
(75-09-2)
Toluene (108-88-3) GS-010
Vinyl Chloride (75-01-4) GS-217
2-Hexanone (591-78-6) GS-011
Total Xylenes (1330-20-7) GS-011
1,2-Dlchloroethane (107-06-2) GS-012
- Time Weighted Average, Reference 34.
Highest
Value
Detected
ug/o3
4,800
17,000
120,000
77,000
73,000
860,000
124,000
8,200
170,000
12,000
ppm
10
5
200
100
100
100
5
5
100
10
ug/o>3
30,000
20,000
790,000
435,000
350,000
375,000
10,000
20,000
435,000
40,000
value of 160,000 ug/m3 was detected for ethylbenzene In sample GS-217i
however, ethylbenzene was also detected In the laboratory reagent blank.
-------
level; therefore, it would appear that as long as the current gas collection
system remains functional, ambient air concentrations of VOCs should remain
well below ambient air standards.
B. Contaminants Detected
Groundwater, surface water, leachate, sanitary sewer, subsurface soil,
sediment and landfill gas samples were collected during the RI sampling
program. The prevalent contaminants detected during the sampling program were
volatile organic compounds followed by semivolatile organic compounds and
metals.
Twenty-four volatile organic chemicals were found in the groundwater. Of
the twenty-four chemicals, the following seven indicator chemicals were
Identified in the Endangerment Assessment in the RI as being of most concern
because of their toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and primary targets (human
population):
o vinyl chloride
o benzene
o 1,2-dichloroethane
o methylene chloride
o 1,1-dichloroethane
o chloroethane
o toluene
13
-------
In addition, review of the Endangerment Assessment by EPA and Ecology resulted
in the Inclusion of three additional indicator chemicals listed below:
o xylenes
o 1,1,1-trichloroethane
o ethyl benzene.
The rationale for inclusion of these chemicals is discussed further in the
Endangerment Assessment section of this document.
Twenty three private drinking water wells were sampled during the
sampling program. For the three wells where contamination exceeded drinking
water standards, the City of Tacoma connected the residents to City water.
As the plume spreads, it is predicted more private wells would become
contaminated at levels above public health standards unless actions are taken
to restrict the movement of the plume.
A list of hazardous organic compounds (priority pollutant and hazardous
substance list compounds) detected in groundwater samples analyzed during the
RI is given in Table 3. Table 4 provides the 11st of priority pollutant
metals detected at the landfill.
C. Extent of Ground Water Contamination
The contaminant pathway of primary concern near the landfill is the
ground water. The town of Fircrest supplies water to its residents from six
wells located west of the landfill. Three of these wells are only
14
-------
TABLE 3
ORGANIC WASTE COMPONENTS DETECTED AT THE TACOMA LANDFILL
Waste Component
Volatile Organic Compounds
Tetrachloroethene
Trans-1,2-Olchloroetbene
Trlchloroethene
1.1-Dlchloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
1,1,1-TrIchloroethane
1,1-Dlchloroechane
1.2-Dichloroechane
Chloroethane
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
ChLorobenzene
Toluene
Xylene (Total)
2-Butanone
2-Bexanone
1,2,-Dlchloropropane
Trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene
Styrene
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Bromo-dlchloromethane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
4-Hethyl-2-pentanone
SemlVolatlle Organic Compoundsk
Hexachlorobenzene
PNAs
Phenol
Pthalate Esters
1.4-Dlchlorobenzene
M-Mltro-Sodl-
phenylamene
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzole Acid
4-Methy Phenol
Isophocone
Subsurface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cround-
vater
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Hater
X
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sanitary Sewer
and Leachate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sediment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
• Samples not analyzed for semlvolatlle compounds
b Only trace amounts of semlvolatlle compounds vere detected In ground water samples.
-------
TABLE 4
METALS DETECTED AT TACOMA LANDFILL
Subsurface Ground-
Sol 1 water
Arsenic
Cadml urn
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Iron
Aluminum
Manganese
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
X
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
San. Sewer Sediment
& leachate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gas
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA= not applicable
-------
approximately 0.2 mile from the edge of the landfill. The City of Tacoma
operates nine wells to the east of the landfill to supplement summer peak
demands on their surface water supply (see Figure 2). In addition, twenty-six
known domestic wells are located near the landfill (see Figure 6).
Volatile organic compounds have been detected in 20 monitoring wells
installed around the perimeter of the landfill during the RI and in six of the
private wells. The highest contaminant concentrations and greatest numbers of
compounds were generally found near the water table in the southern portion of
the landfill. Water samples from monitoring wells TL-4, TL-8a, TL-lla, and
TL-12 Illustrate this occurrence. However, the highest concentration of vinyl
chloride detected to date on the site was drawn from a deeper portion of the
aquifer at monitoring well TL-lOb.
. Contour maps included in the RI report show the projected distribution of
seven of the contaminants of concern in the aquifer associated with the Tacoma
Landfill Site:
Contaminant Maximum Concentration
a. Vinyl chloride 80 ug/1
b. Benzene 19ug/1
c. 1,2-dichloroethane (DCE) 20 ug/1
d. Methylene chloride 1300 ug/1
e. 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA) 42 ug/1
f. Chloroethane 55 ug/1
h. Toluene 60 ug/1
15
-------
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION IN GROUNDWATER
U-DICHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATION CONTOURS IN UO/L FIGURES
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTE
IN GROUNDWATER
-------
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION IN GROUNDWATER
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
CONCENTRATION CONTOURS IN UQ/L
TCE
FIGURE 10
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUT
IN GROUNDWATER (CONT'
-------
The contour maps are presented here as Figures 9 and 10 to show the general
pattern In which each contaminant has spread In the aquifer.
Priority pollutant semlvolatlle, base, neutral, and acid extractable
compounds were detected in trace amounts 1n a few of the ground water samples
collected at the site. Priority pollutant metals occasionally exceeded
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established pursuant to the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act.
1,1,l-tr1chloroethane was also found in measurable amounts in wells along
53rd Street West. Routine sampling of these wells has been on an annual basis
and it is possible that the landfill is not the only source of contamination.
This is in the process of being evaluated.
D. Surface Water
Surface water testing throughout the study area, in general, did not show
a significant problem which could be attributed directly to the landfill. At
this time most of the surface water is being controlled on-site. There are
three notable exceptions to surface water control:
1. The retention pond to the north has been contaminated with toluene.
This chemical has also been detected in nearby monitoring well TL-17.
2. Nearby off-site storm sewers receive runoff which discharges to
surface water (Leach and Flett Creeks) without retention or
pre-treatment.
16
-------
3. Storm water from the landfill Is being conducted to the sanitary
sewer.
Leachate was surfacing on the working face that now comprises the east
side of the Central Area. The leachate is now being conducted directly to the
sanitary sewer through a buried toe drain.
Sediment samples taken from nearby storm sewer outlets show elevated
values for metals. However the RI was inconclusive citing other potential
sources in addition to the landfill. Surface water (storm water runoff) will
be addressed as part of the selected remedy.
E. Future Impacts
As part of the RI/FS, modeling was performed to project future
contaminant migration. Contamination has been verified in private wells
southwest of the landfill in the direction of Leach Creek.
Tentative flow paths we're then plotted based on the mapping of ground
water levels over several months. Contaminant flow velocities and dispersion
ratios were then estimated and a simplified groundwater contaminant transport
model named Plume (Van der Heijde 1983) was run.
Receptor groups were assigned based on location of known contamination
and the assumed aquifer discharge. Wells closest to Orchard Street were
designated near. Wells downgradient from the near wells were called far.
Leach Creek was assumed to be the far boundary. The Fircrest wells were not
17
-------
Included In the model because the flow path analysis did not show them 1n the
line of contamination. However, the flow path analysis was based on current
usage rates and pumping conditions of both Flrcrest and the Tacoma wellfleld,
and did not take into account any future changes to these conditions. The
Feasibility Study
-------
FIGURE 11
CURRENT AND PREDICTED CONTAMINATION
TYLER ST.
LANDFILL SITE BOUNDARY
LIMIT OF
LANOFILLED
AREA
AREA OF KNOWN CONTAMINATION
BEYCNO LANDFILL BOUNDARIES
AREA OF POTENTIAL FUTLSE
CONTAMINATION IN IS -20 "EARS
IF NO REMEDIAL ACTIONS TAKEN
s
ci
TI
-------
F. Endangerment Assessment
An endangerment assessment was conducted at the Tacoma Landfill to
estimate the magnitude and probability of actual or potential harm to public
health or the environment caused by the threatened or actual release of
hazardous substances. The assessment presented in the RI addressed the
potential human health and environmental effects associated with the Tacoma
Landfill site in the absence of the any remedial action (i.e., the no action
alternative).
The no action alternative is the baseline where no corrective actions
take place under Superfund. In the case of the Tacoma Landfill, however,
certain corrective actions will take place regardless of the actions taken
pursuant to the Superfund site cleanup. These corrective actions must be
conducted to meet the requirements of the Washington State Minimum Functional
Standards for landfills (WAC 173-304). These actions include: developing an
operating and closure plan for the landfill, installation of a cap,
installation of a liner and leachate collection for ongoing disposal
activities, and installation, operation and maintenance of a methane gas
extraction system.
The future operation and maintenance of the landfill gas extraction
system and planned refuse processing operations will restrict development of
the landfill. Therefore, the endangerment assessment for the no action
alternative assumes site access will continue to be restricted in the future.
Although several pathways of exposure can be postulated for the site (surface
runoff, inhalation of vapors and entrained dust), the primary pathway of
concern for this site is groundwater. Since access to the site will be
19
-------
restricted, the Importance of the air pathway will be reduced. The methane
gas collection system will also act to minimize the inhalation exposure
route. The target receptors are the private and public well owners within the
path of contaminant plume. Also of concern is the possibility of heavy metals
and organics reaching Leach Creek, and ultimately Puget Sound, either by
surface or groundwater routes.
Health Evaluation
The public health evaluation identifies potential threats to human health
in the absence of remedial action at the site. This evaluation process
Includes a hazard assessment, dose/response assessment, exposure assessment
and risk characterization.
Twenty-four volatile organic chemicals were detected in the groundwater.
Of these, seven were selected as contaminants of concern in the Endangerment
Assessment of the RI due to their frequency of occurrence, concentrations
found, and primary targets (human population):
o vinyl chloride
o benzene
o 1,2-dlchloroethane
o methylene chloride
o 1,1-dichloroethane
o chloroethane
o toluene
20
-------
However, based on EPA and Ecology's review of the Endangerment
Assessment, the following three additional organic chemicals have been added
to the 11st of contaminants of concern:
o xylenes
o 1,1,1-trichloroethane
o ethyl benzene.
This new list of ten organic contaminants of concern were separated into
classes of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens. Vinyl chloride, benzene,
1,2-d1chloroethane, and methylene chloride were selected as indicator
potential carcinogens. Both vinyl chloride and benzene are classified as
human carcinogens by the EPA. Methylene chloride is a B2, probable human
carcinogen, based on inadequate data in humans and increased incidence in rats
and mice. It is present both on and off-site at considerably less frequencies
of occurrence.. 1,2-dichloroethane, despite being found even less frequently
than methylene chloride, is ranked as an EPA B2 carcinogen and is included for
that reason.
Chosen as noncarcinogen Indicator chemicals of concern were
1,1-dichloroethane, chloroethane, toluene, xylenes, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
ethyl benzene. The three chlorinated ethanes were encountered relatively
frequently in the samples, although 1,1-dichloroethane occurs much less
frequently than the others. In general, the toxicity and bioconcentration
potential of the chlorinated ethanes increases with increased concentration.
All but the 1,1,1-isomer are extremely soluble in water. Toxicity concerns
21
-------
from their ingestlon at significant levels in drinking water lie chiefly in
the areas of chronic liver damage and overall central nervous system
depression.
Toluene and xylenes were selected largely because of their high
frequencies of occurrence, chemical similarities, and potential ecological
risk. Toluene was the most commonly detected chemical in water samples
off-site, and was roughly equivalent to xylene as fourth most common on-site.
Ethyl benzene was Included as a chemical of concern because of its relatively
frequent occurrence among the more minor chemicals, Its leachabllity, and its
tendency to biodegrade relatively slowly in groundwater.
The Endangerment Assessment of the RI calculated the excess lifetime
cancer risks from ingestion of carcinogens in groundwater if no alternate
water supply is provided, and an estimate of risk if there is short term
exposure to the indicator chemicals. Because so many chemicals, both
carcinogens and noncarcinogens, are present in the groundwater, the
possibilities of additivity and synergism cannot be ignored. However, the
Endangerment Assessment of the RI was largely modeled on the concept of the
predominant risk being due to the ingestlon of water containing vinyl chloride,
The calculation of carcinogenic risk, assuming no alternate water supply
is provided, is based on a 70 kg adult consuming 2 liters of contaminated
groundwater for 70 years. The increased risk of cancer if a 70 kg adult
consumes 2 liters of vinyl chloride contaminated groundwater (at a
concentration of 70 ug/L) for 70 years is about 5 in one thousand.
22
-------
Carcinogenic risks have been calculated for the short term exposure
scenario, that a carcinogen migrates to a residential well the day after a
"carcinogen free" sample 1s collected. It Is estimated 1t will take
approximately four months from the start of exposure until contamination is
detected in the next quarterly sample and before an alternate water supply can
be provided. The short term concentration was estimated based on sampling
results for the residential wells in which contamination has been detected.
The average dally intake was then calculated to account for the four month
exposure. The estimated excess cancer risk associated with this short term
exposure is less than one in a million.
The population at risk within the predicted plume is divided into three
areas: the area within City boundaries, the area within the Town of Fircrest
boundaries, and the unincorporated area within Pierce County. Approximately
half of the predicted contaminant plume is east of Orchard Street within the
Tacoma City limits. There are approximately 26 residences within the
projected plume, if contamination continues to flow predominately toward the
southwest. Groundwater sampling and hydrogeological investigations conducted
during the RI indicate that the plume has reached the existing wells closest
to the landfill. Those with close-in wells in which contaminants have been
detected have been connected to City water.
There are still three close-in wells not hooked up to City water in which
contaminants have not been detected. No contaminants have been detected in
the distant wells, and based on the contaminant transport modeling, it will be
several years before the wells in this group will be impacted as a result of
contaminant migration from the landfill.
23
-------
Table 5 lists the estimated landfill source concentrations for the seven
indicator chemicals listed in the RI and the estimated times to reach maximum
concentrations at the close-in and distant wells. The close-in wells would be
expected to be maximally impacted by vinyl chloride beginning about 10 to 15
years from now while benzene would not be expected to peak until about 55 to
60 years hence. The distant wells would be expected to reach maximum benzene
concentrations in about 85 to 90 years.
There is a possibility that if water from Leach Creek was used in the
future as a drinking water supply, exposure to vinyl chloride and/or benzene
at levels exceeding their MCLs could occur. There are existing water rights
for domestic use of Leach Creek.
Some potential exists for human exposure to contaminants by using private
well water for livestock and to water vegetables, etc. However,, since the
contaminant concentrations of the groundwater being used to water livestock
and Irrigate crops would be the same as detected in the private wells, it
would be highly unlikely that a significant exposure would result from this
pathway.
Environmental Evaluation
The Endangerment Assessment in the RI did not compare the levels of
organlcs and metals in the groundwater to ambient Water Quality Criteria (WQC)
for the protection of aquatic life. Metals and organic compounds in the
groundwater which are above federal or state WQC are of environmental
concern. Maximum concentrations detected in either on-s1te or off-site
24
-------
TABLES
TRAVEL TIMES TO REACH MAXIMUM AND THRESHOLD
CONCENTRATIONS, CLOSE-IN AND DISTANT WELLS
Indicator Chemical
Vinyl Chloride(1)
Benzene(1)
1,2-Dlchloroethane(1)
Methylene Chloride(1)
1,l-Dichloroethane(2)
Chloroethane(2)
Toluene(2)
Maximum
Predicted
Offaite
Cone.
ug/L
60-70
8-10
4-5
150-160
80
30
30
Time from Present
to Approach Max.
Concentration. Yrs.
Close-in Distant
Wells Wells
10-15
55-60
45-50
5-10
35-40
5-10
55-60
25-30
85-90
75-80
20-30
65-70
20-25
85-90
Threshold
Cone.
ug/L
2
5
5
36, 5
271, 27
Time From
Present to
Back Below
Threshold
Yrs
>100
NA
NA, >100
(Very High) NA
2000
NA
NOTES:
(1) Maximum concentrations for carcinogens are maximum 70 years average.
(2) Maximum concentrations for noncarcinogens are maximum 90 days average.
-------
groundwater for cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc, all exceeded
ambient WQC for the protection of aquatic life. An overview of the VOCs which
were Identified as potentially harmful to the environment are listed In Table
3.
Flett and Leach Creeks support anadromous salmonld runs, which will be at
risk 1f toxic compounds are present 1n the creeks during critical phases
(e.g., smelting) 1n their growth cycles. Heavy metals, as well as certain of
the organlcs such as xylene may also pose problems for the health of the
downstream wetlands ecosystem as the Leach Creek drainage ultimately enters
Puget Sound. This would most markedly Impact highly vulnerable organisms such
as larval fishes, but parts of the commercially important benthos (shellfish)
could also become adversely affected.
Conclusions
Based on a review of the endangerment assessment and data presented in
the RI report, the following conclusions were made concerning risk to human
health and the environment from contaminants associated with the Tacoma
Landfill site:
o Concentrations of several Indicator chemicals frequently exceed MCLs
1n the groundwater. Drinking the water from contaminated wells
poses the most significant risk to human health, especially In terms
of chemicals in the aggregate.
25
-------
o Under the no action alternative, some contaminant concentrations In
the groundwater plume are predicted to exceed ambient WQC when the
plume discharges to Leach Creek. These levels could pose a risk to
aquatic biota, especially since the Leach and Flett Creeks wetland
area enters Puget Sound.
o Based on EPA and Ecology's review of the Endangerment Assessment In
the RI, the agencies agreed that It would be appropriate, for the
protection of public health, to establish health-based levels for a
larger number of compounds than the seven Indicator chemicals
selected during the risk assessment. Accordingly, xylenes,
1,1,1-trlchloroethane and ethyl benzene have been added to the list
of contaminants of concern.
o Depending on the discharge location, performance levels for the
selected remedy will be based on MCLs, Water Quality Criteria, or
pre-treatment standards. In the absence of established standards or
Water Quality Criteria, EPA Region 10 has conducted a risk
assessment of the'compounds. These are listed in Table 8 of the
Selected Remedy portion of this document. The most stringent number
will be used for the performance levels for the treatment system if
the cleaned water is discharged to surface water. For the other
volatile organic chemicals and metals found In the groundwater, EPA
and Ecology have identified a methodology for establishing
performance levels. This methodology is detailed in the Selected
Remedial Alternative section of this document (Section VI).
26
-------
V. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
A. Identification and Screening of Remedial Technologies
In order to develop a complete listing of potential remedial technolo-
gies, general response actions corresponding to each contaminant pathway were
identified.
The general response actions fall into the following seven primary
categories:
o No action
o Institutional controls
o Containment
o Removal
o On-site treatment/discharge
o Off-site treatment/disposal
o Other management options.
Forty potential remedial technologies for controlling contaminant
migration were screened. Thirty-one potential remedial technologies were
identified for the groundwater pathway and nine potential remedial
technologies were identified for the gas migration/air quality pathway. The
potential remedial technologies were categorized according to the appropriate
general response action. A screening process was applied to these to identify
unsatisfactory technologies. Screening criteria were effectiveness,
implementability, and cost.
27
-------
The technologies that were not screened out were assembled into
preliminary remedial action alternatives. These alternatives were designed to
meet the categories Identified by the National Contingency Plan (NCR) .
Screening criteria contained in the NCR and Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) were overlapped in this process. An
initial screening was performed on sixteen separate alternatives. The
preliminary remedial action alternatives were screened again in order to
eliminate alternatives that adversely impact public health and the
environment, or that are more expensive than other alternatives which provide
the same degree of remediation. This initial screening of remedial action
alternatives produced six remedial alternatives that were subjected to
detailed development and analysis.
For ease in presenting the alternatives to the public, alternatives 2, 4,
8, and 12 as numbered in the FS report (Black & Veatch 1987) were combined
since they represented just one technical category (i.e., pump, treat, and
discharge). The alternatives then became no action, alternative water
supply/landfill cap, and pump, treat, and discharge with landfill cap. Four
treatment options are included in the last alternative (see Table 6).
Information packages available to the public contained these three
alternatives, which were also presented at a public meeting on
February 11, 1988.
B. Methodology for Detailed Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
The detailed evaluation in the FS discusses cost-effectiveness of an
alternative in terms of technical, environmental and public health, and
28
-------
institutional concerns. Requirements of the NCR were met by evaluating each
alternative with respect to the following criteria:
o Technical Feasibility
o Public Health Impacts
o Environmental Impacts
o Institutional Requirements
o Cost Analysis.
This analysis facilitates the comparison of similar components among the
alternatives for the same criteria.
Technical Feasibility
The technical evaluation considered the performance, reliability,
implementabllity, and safety factors of the remedial actions. Performance of
each alternative was based on the alternative's expected effectiveness and its
useful life. Key considerations in evaluating reliability included operation
and maintenance (O&M) requirements and the demonstrated performance of the
technologies at similar sites. While SARA requirements do not include
demonstrated performance, the six final remedial alternatives evaluated
against this criteria were known technologies. For implementabllity, both the
constructablHty and the time required to achieve a given level of response
were considered. Constructability addresses whether the alternative can be
constructed on the site and the impact of external conditions on the
construction. The time it takes to implement an alternative and the time to
29
-------
achieve beneficial results that attain or exceed relevant or applicable
standards were also considered. The safety evaluation considers short-term
and long-term threats to the safety of nearby residents and to persons working
on-slte. Major risks to consider are exposure to hazardous substances, fire,
and explosion due to activities conducted during Implementation of the
remedial action.
Public Health Impacts
The public health evaluation of alternatives assesses the extent to which
each alternative mitigates long or short-term exposure to any residual
contamination and protects public health during and after completion of the
remedial action. In evaluating both long and short-term public health
Impacts, two primary areas were considered. Evaluation of short-term Impacts
considered health effects on workers during construction of the remedial
action and on the public for the Interim period prior to remedial action
implementation. Long-term impacts were judged based on chronic intake of the
contaminant over a lifetime.
Environmental Impacts
Each remedial alternative was evaluated for beneficial and adverse
environmental impacts for the long and short-term. Criteria for evaluating
beneficial effects were final environmental conditions, improvements in the
30
-------
biological environment, and Improvements In resources people use. Criteria
for evaluating adverse effects were the expected effect of the remedial action
and the measures taken in the event inevitable or irreversible effects occur.
Institutional Requirements
Institutional requirements are divided into three categories: community
concerns, conformance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs), and permitting requirements. Community concerns addresses the
public's acceptance of the selected remedial action alternatives. The
remedial action alternatives developed in the FS should address all legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, requirements, criteria, or
limitations to be consistent with SARA. Institutional constraints are those
mechanisms available to ensure administrative control over activities at the
site (zoning, permits, ordinances, etc.).
Cost Analysis
Detailed cost analysis of alternatives involves estimating the expendi-
tures required to complete each measure in terms of capital costs, and annual
operation and maintenance costs for a 30-year period. Once these values were
determined and a present worth calculated for each alternative, a comparative
evaluation was made. The cost estimates presented In the FS section were
based on conceptual designs prepared for the alternatives (I.e., without
detailed engineering data). These estimates were accurate between +50 percent
and -30 percent in 1987 dollars.
31
-------
Rating Alternatives
A rating system is used to evaluate alternatives, and the terms high,
moderate, and low are assigned to each. A high rating indicates that the
alternative promotes the intent of the criterion and/or meets or exceeds the
remedial objectives. A moderate rating indicates that the alternative only
partially promotes the intent of the criterion; 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.
An evaluation of each alternative is contained in Tables 6 and 7. These
evaluations are based on numerical ratings of each criterion contained in the
FS (Black & Veatch 1987). A criterion was subdivided into one or a few
factors, which were rated from 1 to 5. To establ' - the criterion numerical
rate, numerals assigned to each factor within the criterion were averaged.
For this report, ratings were assigned as follows:
Numerical Rating ' New Criterion Rating
<2.00 High
2.01-3.99 Moderate
>4.00 Low
32
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF DETAILED EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
No.
1
2
3
Cost
Alternative (No. in FS) Capital
No Action (1)
Alternative Water Supply/
Landfill Cap (3) 16,423
Pump, Treatment, and
Discharge with Landfill Cap
a. Off-site Treatment at
Sewage Treatment
Plant (2) 17,932
b. On-site Treatment (Air
Stripping and Carbon
Adsorption (4) 19,532
c. On- site Treatment
Carbon Adsorption (8) 19,266
d. On- site Treatment
(Air Stripping) (12) 18,971
($1,000)
Present Public
Worth Health Impacts
Low
18,376 High
23,418 High
22,717 High
23,417 High
21,015 High
Environmental
Impacts
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Criterion
Technical
Feasibility
N/A
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Institutional
Requirements
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Community
Concerns
Low
High
High
High
High
High
-------
TABLE 7
SECTION 121(b) (1) (A-6) FACTORS
Criterion 1
Compliance with ARARs Low
Reduction of Toxldty.
Mobility. Volume Low
Short-Term Effectiveness Low
Long-Term Effectiveness Low
Implementabmty N/A
Cost (See Table 6)
Community Acceptance Low
State Acceptance Low
2
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Alternative
3a
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
3b
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
3c
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
3d
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
High
-------
C. Results of Detailed Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
This section presents a summary of the detailed evaluation of the
remedial alternatives in terms of costs, public health impacts, environmental
Impacts, technical feasibility, institutional requirements, and community
concerns. A summary of these items Is presented in Table 6 according to 1985
RI/FS Guidance Factors (EPA 1985) and an evaluation of the remedial
alternatives according to the Section 121(b)O)(A-G) factors is shown in
Table 7.
Non-cost Evaluation
As shown in Table 6, Alternatives 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d all had four high
ratings and one moderate rating. Therefore, they would be judged comparable
alternatives under this system of rating criteria. However, evaluating
alternatives using guidance from Section 121 (b)(l XA-G) factors reveals some
differences (Table 7). The (A-G) factors are used to assess alternative
remedial actions for permanent solutions and to assess alternative treatment
technologies that yield a permanent and significant decrease in the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
Alternatives 3a, 3b, and 3c, have six high ratings and two moderate ratings.
Alternative 3d has five high ratings and three moderate ratings. Alternative
2 has only two high ratings and six moderate ratings. It is clear that
Alternatives 3a through 3c would be considered superior to to the other
alternatives.
33
-------
Cost Summary and Sensitivity Analysis
Cost estimates prepared for each alternative Involved approximation,
assumptions, estimations, Interpretations, and engineering judgment. To
provide some Indication of sensitivity of the costs to changes In key
parameters, a sensitivity analysis was performed.
The cost of closing the landfill is the major cost for all the
alternatives under consideration, and is the same for each. The treatment
process cost could be the most variable because alternatives would not yield
the same influent concentrations. To evaluate the impact that changes in
concentration would have on carbon adsorption treatment costs, concentrations
of two and three times the predicted value were analyzed. The carbon
adsorption unit cost was chosen for analysis on the basis of its potential
impact on overall treatment cost estimates of Alternatives 3b and 3c. When
the concentration of contaminants in the waste stream is doubled, the carbon
usage (cost) will increase by approximately 1.5 times. The total cost for
Alternative 3b would increase 3.8 percent while the total cost for Alternative
3c would increase 6.8 percent. For the case when the contaminant
concentrations are tripled, the carbon cost will approximately double. The
total cost for Alternative 3b would Increase 7.3 percent while the total cost
for Alternative 3c would increase 9.7 percent.
34
-------
VI. SELECTED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE ( No. 3)
A. Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy Includes a landfill cap and gas extraction system to
control the source, and a ground water extraction and treatment system to
control migration of the plume. All extracted water will be treated to
specific performance standards, monitored to ensure compliance and will be
properly discharged. The Tacoma water supply system will be expanded to
assure sufficient water is available should any water supply (public or
private) become contaminated from the landfill. The remedy also Includes a
closure schedule for operation of the landfill.
The remedy Is designed to:
o Prevent further migration of the plume via the ground water
extraction-treatment system.
o Reduce the production of leachate by placing constraints on site
operations and by properly grading and capping the landfill.
o Eliminate off-site gas migration through the gas extraction system.
o Further protect public health and the environment via monitoring of
groundwater, surface water, gas probes, air emissions, and
provision of alternate water supplies where necessary.
35
-------
Management of Migration
Migration control win be achieved through a ground water extraction and
treatment system, and a system or method to confirm performance. Activities
necessary to develop those systems shall be conducted during remedial design.
Wells for this system will be placed within and, if necessary, downgradient to
contain the plume. Containment is defined as controlling the plume and
preventing the spread of contamination. The goal of the containment system is
to prevent any further degradation of existing water quality beyond the
boundaries of the existing plume. The extraction wells should be designed to
achieve this objective. The existence of the gradient reversal due to pumping
by the city of Tacoma wellfield, local effects from pumping the Fircrest
wells, or monitoring results at the landfill may result in the need for
extraction wells at locations other than those identified in the feasibility
study. Minimum flows as required by WAC 173-512 shall be maintained in Leach
and Flett Creeks.
The treatment process shall be permanent and shall effectively reduce the
toxidty, mobility, and volume of contaminants. It shall also employ all
known, available, and reasonable methods to treat the contaminated ground
water, and to prevent the spread of contamination. Discharge of treated
ground water may be to either Leach Creek, Flett Creek, or the sanitary sewer.
If the discharge is to either Leach Creek or Flett Creek, the effluent
must meet or exceed maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) developed pursuant to
the Safe Drinking Water Act or meet the chronic fresh water criteria as set
forth in EPA's Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 (EPA 440/5-86-001), whichever
36
-------
is more stringent. Both of these creeks have existing water rights on them,
although they are closed to further appropriation by MAC 173-512. In
addition, both creeks support anadromous salmonid runs.
Most of the contaminants found at the Tacoma Landfill do not currently
have MCLs. For the VOCs listed in Table 3, and for metals in the groundwater,
which EPA and Ecology have not established treatment levels, a methodology for
determining the appropriate discharge limits has been established. If no MCL
has been established for a contaminant, the ambient water quality criteria
(WQC) for protection of human health for water and fish ingestion will be
used. If the value for protection of fish (the chronic fresh water criteria)
is lower than the value for protection of human health, the lower value will
be applied. If there are no WQC at all, then additional guidance documents,
such as Health Advisories from EPA's Office of Drinking Water or any
appropriate toxlcological profiles, will be used to develop treatment levels.
These treatment levels must be reviewed and approved by both Ecology and EPA
prior to their use. This methodology will be used to set performance levels
for any other contaminants identified in the groundwater and traceable to the
landfill.
For six of the volatile organic compounds listed in Table 8, appropriate
treatment levels have been identified. These are based on Safe Drinking Water
Act MCLs or ambient WQC. In the absence of an MCL or ambient WQC, EPA Region
10 conducted a risk assessment of the chemical and provided an appropriate
treatment goal for the protection of public health, welfare and the
environment. These goals are listed In column three of Table 8 and will be
used as performance goals for the treatment system. In addition, the effluent
37
-------
TABLE 8
PERFORMANCE LEVELS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM
DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
TACOMA LANDFILL
(ug/L>
Constituent
Benzene
Chloroethane
1 ,1-dlchloroethane
1 ,2-d1 chloroethane
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
1 ,1 ,1-tri chloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Safe
Drinking
Water Act
MCL
5
5
200
2
Water Qual
Water and(l)
Fish
0.66*
0.94*
1,400
14
18,400
ity Criteria
Chron1c(2)
Fresh water
53
20,000
320
175
EPA
Reg. 10
R1sk(3)
Assess.
20
20
5*
10
(1) EPA Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 EPA 440/5-86-001, for water and
fish Ingestlon by humans.
(2) Chronic fresh water criteria for protection of aquatic life.
Where no values for chronic exposure were available, the acute
values were divided by 100.
(3) Based on EPA Region 10 Risk Assessment.
* Values presented for carcinogens are at the 10~6 risk level.
-------
must meet water quality standards as set forth in 173-201 (Water Quality
Standards for Waters of the State of Washington).
If the option of discharge to the sanitary sewer is chosen, it must be
consistent with discharge limitations as defined by WAC 173-216 (State Waste
Discharge Program) and must meet pre-treatment regulations (City of Tacoma
Code, Chapter 12.08), as revised for operation of the secondary sewage
treatment plant.
Any treatment system which results in contaminant air emissions shall be
designed to address appropriate ambient air quality values as determined by
Ecology's Draft New Source Review Guidelines for Toxic Air Contaminants,
(September 1986, or as revised). In addition, the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Authority (PSAPCA) has made the determination that all new sources
shall use Best Available Control Technology (BACT). This also will be a
requirement of the treatment system design. BACT may involve a different
technology for different contaminants.
The extraction and treatment system can be shut off when water quality
within the plume, outside the compliance boundary (defined by WAC 173-304 as
the edge of the filled area), consistently meets or exceeds drinking water
standards, or previously established and approved health-based criteria. In
addition to meeting health-based criteria, potential impacts to public and
private water supplies and to Leach Creek must be considered in the decision
to shut off the system. Ecology and 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 cleanup of the groundwater.
38
-------
Source Control
Source control measures consist of constructing a cap on the landfill to
minimize Infiltration and maximize run-off. Unllned areas of the landfill
will be capped as soon as possible. WAC 173-304 defines the minimum
requirements for a cap on a municipal landfill. A more stringent cap will be
required unless further analysis of the cap, to be provided during remedial
design, shows that a significant reduction in leachate volume or toxicity
would not be achieved.
Increased run-off due to the construction of the cap will be routed off
the landfill to reduce infiltration. The slope of the cap and construction of
drainage structures will be consistent with WAC 173-304. The run-off collected
from the landfill will be directed to the appropriate storm or sanitary
sewers, consistent with local storm drainage ordinances or pre-treatment
regulations. The storm drainage plan, prepared as part of the remedial
design, will determine and minimize any downstream increases in peak flow.
The Minimum Functional'Standards (MFS) (WAC 173-304) prohibit filling in
unlined areas after November 1989. These standards contain specific liner
requirements which will apply to all municipal landfills by this date.
Compliance with Minimum Functional Standards is determined by TPCHD, in
accordance with Ecology review. Insufficient information has been received by
Ecology and TPCHD to evaluate compliance of the liner installation with
Minimum Functional Standard requirements. If the liner is determined not to
be in compliance, a variance will be required from TPCHD to operate the
Central Area Pit.
39
-------
In the Interim, the City has identified several unlined areas which need
to be filled to meet minimum slope requirements in WAC 173-304. Additional
filling 1n these areas will be kept to the minimum required to meet the final
grade requirements of the Minimum Functional Standards. The City plans to
develop an unfilled area of the landfill (North Borrow Pit) for future waste
disposal. Filling of this or other previously unused areas will require a
liner consistent with WAC 173-304.
Should a variance be needed and granted, the Central Area Pit will be
brought up to final grade in accordance with the Operations and Closure Plan
to minimize leachate production. Leachate head wells will be installed in the
waste In the Central Area to assure that the leachate head requirements of WAC
173-304 are being met. Ecology and EPA will Identify and approve of the
appropriate number of leachate head wells during the Remedial Design phase.
MFS requires operating landfills to submit an operating plan by October
1987. A schedule for closure of the landfill under WAC 173-304 is considered
part of the remedial action at this site. The schedule, developed as part of
the required Operations and Closure Plan, will address various waste reduction
measures and develop contingency plans if these measures do not produce the
expected results. The contingency plans will include specific dates for
beginning the process to site another municipal solid waste disposal facility
to serve the City of Tacoma. Waste reduction measures to be considered
Include, but are not limited to:
o increased recycling including a program to exclude hazardous waste
from the landfill
40
-------
o Incineration of the light fraction of shredded waste at the Tacoma
City Light Cogeneration plant
o pyrolysls of the heavy fraction of shredded waste at an on-site
facility
Several utilities pass through the site. The Operations and Closure Plan
win provide for rerouting these utilities around the site or developing a
testing and maintenance program that will ensure their long-term integrity
without Interfering with the selected remedy.
The production of methane gas at the landfill is being addressed through
the installation of a gas extraction system and is being monitored using a
series of gas probes installed around the landfill. The gas collected by the
extraction system Is burned by the combusters. which meet PSAPCA's BACT
requirements. Any future expansion of this system will be required to comply
with these requirements. Additional gas probes will be installed in the
surrounding neighborhoods to verify that the extraction system is preventing
off-site gas migration. If'significant concentrations of gas are found in the
soils off-site, further gas extraction wells may have to be installed to
collect and control these methane sources.
Because landfill gas is warmer than the ambient air, condensate collects
in the gas collection line. This condensate is currently allowed to drain
back into the landfill. Condensate from the flare station is collected and
discharged to the sanitary sewer. As part of the remedial design, the
41
-------
quantity and quality of these condensates will be determined. If significant
concentrations or volume of condensates are found, the condensate shall be
collected and treated appropriately. Source monitoring of the gas burners and
the treatment plant system will be required.
Monitoring
Ground water monitoring wells shall be installed in locations appropriate
for obtaining the following information:
o determine if the ground water extraction system is preventing the
spread of the contaminant plume
o determine the extent of plume migration to the east of the site
o identify any potential impacts to Leach Creek and the Fircrest well
system
o ensure there is no dense phase plume migrating away from the site in
the deepest zones of the aquifer.
Ecology and EPA will review and approve of the number and location of the
groundwater monitoring wells during the Remedial Design phase of the cleanup
program.
Leach Creek will be monitored for both water quality and quantity. Other
surface waters acting as receiving waters for either the groundwater
42
-------
extraction system or the surface drainage system will be monitored for water
quality. Effluent from the treatment system will also be monitored to assure
that discharge limitations are not exceeded. The nature and extent of the
monitoring program, including bioassays, will be developed during the Remedial
Design phase of the cleanup program.
At a minimum, the private wells in the path of the plume will continue to
be monitored on a quarterly basis. Fircrest wells will be sampled monthly.
Any well, public or private, which becomes contaminated due to the landfill
will be replaced and water will be supplied from existing City of Tacoma water
supply systems. If EPA and Ecology make a determination that any well is in
danger of exceeding an MCL, or a contaminant level based on an EPA risk
assessment, connection to Tacoma1s municipal water supply will be required.
Aesthetic quality will also be a consideration in making this determination.
Tacoma, in cooperation with the Town of Fircrest, and Pierce County, will
pursue the establishment of an ordinance, or other suitable methodology, to
restrict drilling of water supply wells in an area from Tyler Street to Leach
Creek; and from Center Street to approximately South 56th Street.
B. Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy meets all statutory requirements for the overall
protection of human health and the environment. The groundwater extraction
system will remove contaminated groundwater migrating from the landfill and
prevent contamination from spreading in the aquifer. The movement of
contamination to nearby Leach Creek should be prevented by groundwater
43
-------
pumping. Treatment of the extracted water will be designed to reduce the
toxldty, mobility and volume of contaminants and prevent them from returning
to the groundwater or surface water environment. Nearby residents affected by
contaminated groundwater, or by low water volume or flow as a result of the
operation of the extraction-treatment system, will be connected to Tacoma's
municipal water system.
The selected remedy must also meet all Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and should address those items listed in the
To Be Considered category. These are listed and their application is briefly
described in Attachment A.
The laws and regulations of concern include but are not limited to the
following:
1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 USC 6901), RCRA
regulations (40 CFR 261 to 280), Washington State Dangerous Waste
Regulations (WAC 173-303 and 70.105 RCW), and Washi—ton State
Minimal Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling (WAC 173-304
and 70.95 RCW).
Groundwater protection requirements of RCRA and Washington
State Dangerous Waste Regulations will be attained by
Installation of the landfill cap to minimize leachate
production, and operation of the groundwater extraction wells
to remove contaminated groundwater. The selected remedy
prevents further spread of groundwater contamination and
44
-------
constitutes a Corrective Action Program as specified in 40 CFR
264.100 and WAC 173-303-645(11). Closure of the Tacoma
Landfill to State Minimum Functional Standards will be
evaluated to ensure consistency with RCRA landfill closure
standards.
2. Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300), and Primary Drinking Water
Standards (40 CFR 141).
Groundwater will meet maximum contamination levels (MCLs) and
appropriate health-based standards as the contaminated plume is
removed and leachate generation Is minimized. The selected
remedy will prevent exposing the public to contaminated
drinking water by.monitoring residential wells for MCLs and
connecting the house to Tacoma's municipal water supply when
conditions require it. Any affected public water supplies also
will be connected to city water. Therefore, by monitoring,
providing an alternate drinking water supply, and restricting
groundwater use (until the aquifer no longer exceeds these
levels) in the area, the selected remedy will meet the
requirements of these regulations.
45
-------
3. Clean Air Act (72 USC 7401).
If an airstripping system 1s used, concentrations of
contaminants in the air stripper off-gases will be required to
meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The flares for the
methane gas extraction system must also meet the requirements
of the Clean Air Act.
4. Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251), National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES; 40 CFR 122), NPDES Permit Program (WAC
173-220), and Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90-48).
The selected remedy treats the extracted water to meet MCLs,
health-based standards, or Water Quality Criteria prior to
discharge. Therefore, there will be no adverse impact on
surface waters resulting from discharge of treated groundwater,
id the requirements of these regulations will be attained.
The landfill cap will reduce leachate generation and therefore
reduce the impact on groundwater. Storm drainage will be
collected and discharged either to existing storm sewers or to
surface waters. Contaminated storm water runoff will meet
pre-treatment regulations and will be discharged to the
sanitary sewer. Groundwater extraction and treatment will
further reduce the contaminant plume. Other substantive
aspects of the NPDES Permit System will be met during the
design phase, although no permit is actually required.
46
-------
Although on-slte remedial work does not require a permit, the
substantive requirements of any applicable permit will be met.
Federal, state, or local permits which are required for
off-site activities will be obtained.
5. Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health Regarding Public
Water Systems (WAC 248-54).
The selected remedy provides standards for connection to an
alternative drinking water supply for all residents who require
these supplies in conformance with these regulations.
6. Protection of Withdrawal Facilities Associated with Groundwater
Rights (WAC 173-150).
This regulation protects water rights both in terms of water
i
quality and quantity. Groundwater quality will reach levels
less than MCLs; therefore the selected remedy complies with
that portion of the regulation. The other portion of the
regulation requires that surrounding wells not be deprived of
their water supply due to other groundwater removal actions.
Alternative water supplies will be made available to all
residents affected by groundwater removal actions to meet the
requirements of this regulation.
47
-------
7. Minimum Functional Standards for Landfills (WAC 173-314 and 70.95
RCW).
The technology to be applied to remediate the landfill at a
minimum will meet the Washington state standards for ongoing
landfill operations, closure, capping, leachate containment,
and methane control.
8. Hazardous Waste Cleanup Act (70.105B RCW).
The selected remedy will be the cleanup standards established
by this act.
The selected remedy meets the SARA preference for permanent solutions to
the maximum extent practicable. Treatment technologies are used as a
principal element of the remedy and they will effectively reduce the toxlcity,
mobility, and volume of the contaminants permanently. Connection of
residents, as required, to the Tacoma municipal water water supply is also
considered a long-term solution.
The selected remedy meets all objectives of remedial action in that it
provides a safe water supply and therefore protects public health, provides a
permanent solution with moderately frequent maintenance, protects the
environment to the maximum extent practicable, and reduces toxlcity, mobility,
or volume as a principle element of treatment. The selected remedy meets the
requirement of cost-effectiveness.
48
-------
VII. ENFORCEHENT
On June 27, 1986, Tacoma assumed responsibility for conducting the RI/FS
under a Response Order on Consent issued by Ecology. The remedial action is
anticipated to be accomplished voluntarily by the responsible parties. EPA
and Ecology Intend to start a negotiation period after the signing of the
Record of Decision and will ensure that the remedial action proceeds.
Finally, EPA and Ecology ara still considering the possibility of identifying
additional parties who may be potentially responsible for conditions at the
site. Other than the June 27. 1986 Consent Order, there has never been any
enforcement action taken by the regulatory agencies (i.e., EPA or Ecology)
regarding the Tacoma Landfill site. If the responsible parties decline to
implement the selected remedy as described in the Record of Decision, however,
EPA and Ecology will seek, appropriate enforcement action.
49
-------
VIII COMHUNITY RELATIONS
Community relations activities conducted at the Tacoma Landfill site to
date include the following:
o In 1983, the Tacoma landfill was included as part of the South
Tacoma Channel site on the National Priorities List under
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
o In May 1985, Ecology and Black & Veatch began Remedial Investigation
(RI) Phase I.
o In December 1985, Ecology and Black & Veatch began implementing the
RI Project Work Plan and Sampling Plan Phase I.
o In 1985, a community relations plan was developed by Black & Veatch
and Hall and Associates for Ecology.
o From May 1985 to the present, the City of Tacoma maintained
correspondence with interested local residents and well owners by
providing notification of quarterly sampling and outlining
analytical results.
o In May 1986, the City of Tacoma issued a fact sheet discussing
management of methane gas at the landfill.
50
-------
o On May 13, 1986, U.S. EPA, In cooperation with the City of Tacoma
and Ecology, conducted a public meeting to discuss well water
quality of private wells surrounding the landfill.
o In July 1986, the City of Tacoma issued a press release and letter
to residents discussing background and scope of the RI.
o In July 1986, the City of Tacoma and Ecology signed a consent
agreement establishing guidelines for the RI/FS.
o In August 1986, the City of Tacoma began sampling 13 private wells
located near the landfill.
o In February 1987, the Phase I Sampling Plan, Phase II Sampling Plan
and. Phase I RI Report were completed and made available to the
public through Tacoma City and County libraries.
o On April 16, 1987, Ecology, in cooperation with the City of Tacoma
and EPA , conducted a public meeting and provided a fact sheet
discussing progress of the RI/FS.
o In January, 1988 a public notice was published in the Tacoma News
Tribune announcing the availability of the RI and FS Reports and a
public meeting to be held February 11, 1988.
51
-------
o On February 11,1988, Ecology, in cooperation with EPA and the City
of Tacoma, conducted a public meeting to discuss alternatives for
cleaning up the groundwater and controlling methane gas at the
landfill, including the agencies' preferred plan.
o From February 4 through March 4, 1988, public comments on the RI/FS
were accepted and documented.
o In February and March 1988 the the Responsiveness Summary and Record
of Decision were written.
52
-------
APPENDIX A
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
A. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 USC 6901),
Subtitle C:
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,
MAC 173-303]
o Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDW) (42 USC 300):
Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 141). Enforceable Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Which are relevant and appropriate
at this site. [NOTE: This is administered by the Department of
Social and Health Services under WAC 248-54-175 for public
water supplies]
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]
Water Quality Criteria (EPA440/5-86-001).
o Clean Air Act (CAA) (72 USC 7401):
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) [Note: NESHAPS Program is administered by Ecology
and Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency under WAC 173-403],
o OSHA 29 CFR 1910:
governs worker safety at hazardous waste sites
-------
B. WASHINGTON STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
o Dangerous Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303: established standards for
handling and disposal of hazardous waste.
o Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, 70.95 RCW and
WAC 173-304: requirements for operation and closure of solid waste
disposal facilities.
o Hazardous Waste Cleanup, Chapter 70.105B RCW: standards for the
cleanup of hazardous waste sites.
o Water Quality Standards for Waters of the State of Washington, WAC
173-201: Standards for discharge to Flett Creek, or Leach Creek, or
surface waters of the state.
o Submission of Plans and Reports for Construction of Wastewater
Facilities, WAC 173-240: standards for the design, operation and
maintenance of waste water treatment systems.
o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, WAC
173-220: Discharge limitations if treated water is discharged into
surface waters.
o Underground Injection Control Program, WAC 173-218: discharge
standards for reinjection of treated water into the ground.
-------
o State Waste Discharge Permit Program, MAC 173-216: Standards for
the discharge to the sanitary sewer or groundwater (except by
injection).
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, WAC 173-490.
o Instream Resources Protection Program - Chambers-Clover Creeks
Basin, WAC 173-512: governs minimum water flow and levels
requirements.
o Protection Associated with Groundwater Rights, WAC 173-150-100:
applicable to activities that would degrade water quality.
o Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Water Wells,
WAC 173-160: governs design of extraction and monitoring wells.
o Water Well Construction Act, RCW 18.104: provides for the
regulation of water well construction.
-------
o Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48: standards for the
protection of surface water and groundwater.
o Management of Waters of the State, RCW 90.54.020: provides for the
protection of state water quality.
-------
TO BE CONSIDERED
o Ecology New Source Review Guidelines for Toxic Air Contaminants 1n
the State of Washington, September 1986.
o EPA Policy Statement - Groundwater Protection Strategy.
o Washington Department of Ecology Final Cleanup Policy: (Technical
memorandum dated July 10, 1984) used for guidance in establishing
cleanup levels.
o State Water Code, RCW 90.03 and Water Rights, RCW 90.14: estab-
lishes water rights permits necessary for water withdrawals,
including groundwater extraction.
o State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), WAC 197-11: covers all
actions which may have significant environmental impact.
o State Protection of Upper Aquifer Zones, WAC 173-154: restricts
activities that would impair senior groundwater rights, including
water level lowering and water quality degradation.
o Protection of Withdrawal Facilities Associated with Groundwater
Rights, WAC 173-150: restricts activities that would impair senior
groundwater rights, including water levels lowering and water
quality degradation.
-------
o City of Tacoma Code, Chapter 12.08: pre-treatment regulations which
govern discharge to the sanitary sewer.
o Pierce County Storm Drainage Ordinance 86-60: provides guidelines
for the report criteria, analysis and design of public and private
storm drainage systems.
-------
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into the
following sections:
Section 1.0 Overview. This section reviews the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency s (EPA) preferred alternative for corrective
action, and likely public reaction to this alternative.
Section 2.0
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This section
provides a brief history of community interest and concerns
raised during remedial planning activities at the Tacoma
Landfill site.
Section 3.0
Summary of Major Comments Received During the Public Comment
Period and Agency 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 and Ecology should consider in conducting the
remedial design and remedial action at the Tacoma Landfill site.
Community relations activities conducted during remedial response
activities at the Tacoma Landfill site are listed in Attachment A to this
summary.
-------
1.0 OVERVIEW
The City of Tacoma, under a Response Order on Consent Issued by the
Washington State Department of Ecology, completed a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Tacoma Landfill site, located
south of Tacoma, Washington. From 1960 through the 1980s, the landfill has
received refuse and garbage from the city's collection service. Hazardous
materials were part of the refuse. Contaminants were discovered in nearby
drinking water wells at levels high enough to cause public health concerns.
The cleanup alternative recommended by Ecology to EPA, was to intercept the
advance of contaminants by extracting the contaminated water, treating it, and
discharging the cleaned water. This alternative is described in more detail
in the Feasibility Study (Chapter 4; Black & Veatch 1987) and in the Selected
Remedial Alternative section of the Record of Decision (Section VI).
In this summary, concerns of the local community about problems at the
site, the recommended cleanup alternative, and the study process itself are
described. Public comment also Indicates that residents hope the cleanup will
be as quick and thorough as possible, and not raise additional problems
through its Implementation. Only one potentially responsible party, the City
of Tacoma, has been Identified to date although an investigation to identify
others has been initiated. The identified responsible parties will share
cleanup costs. Residents are concerned about the funding to perform the
cleanup and any adverse impact upon refuse collection rates.
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Community Interest in the Tacoma Landfill began as early as 1968 when
local residents complained of poor water quality in their private wells. This
condition continued throughout the 1970s. The residents are currently
concerned about leachate from the landfill contaminating their private wells,
and methane gas entering their homes.
Early in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process
(1985), Hall and Associates interviewed local residents and government
officials and compiled a list of community concerns regarding the landfill.
The following is a compilation of community concerns in 1985:
o Lack of interest and unwillingness to prov.ide water testing by the
public health agency.
o Lack of candor by government officials, particularly relating to
contamination of wells in University Place during the late 1970s.
o Quality of drinking water.
o Health of small children in the neighborhood and recent miscarriages
o Cost of replacing private wells and connecting residences to the
city's water system.
-------
o Inconvenience associated with using bottled water
o Need to be kept informed of landfill related activities.
The City of Tacoma and Ecology developed a community relations plan in an
effort to keep the public informed of RI/FS activities. The City of Tacoma
has addressed public concerns by holding meetings with residents to discuss
RI/FS activities and public health concerns. Attachment A summarizes the
community relations activities conducted at the South Tacoma Landfill. The
following Is a record of those activities:
1) In 1968, the City of Tacoma Department of Public Works began
receiving complaints of contamination of the Home Builder's Association well,
located at South 40th and Orchard Streets.
Actions; The City of Tacoma conducted a chemical analysis of the well
water. Results revealed the water contained a high iron content, was
discolored, and had a slight odor. The city installed a leachate
collection system comprised of a gravel drain and dike. The dike
diverted leachate flow to the drain that discharged to a perforated
manhole connected to the city sewer system. An additional cover placed
over the fill promoted surface water drainage, inhibited infiltration of
water, and reduced leachate production. The Home Builder's Association
was eventually connected to the city's water system.
2) In the late 1970s, wells owned by the University Place Water Company
located west of the landfill, were found to contain elevated levels of iron
and manganese. Residents complained of unappealing water taste, color, and
odor.
-------
Actions; An Investigation conducted by Ecology Indicated that well
water contamination could have resulted from surface water or groundwater
from the landfill, or from water migration through material containing
high levels of iron and manganese. Residents served by these wells were
eventually connected to the city's water system and these wells have not
yet been abandoned in accordance with State requirements.
3) In 1985, prior to the RI, groundwater samples were collected from
wells near the landfill and analyzed for U.S. EPA priority pollutant volatile
organic compounds. Four private wells located in the vicinity of the landfill
were found to contain priority pollutant volatile organic compounds.
Actions; In June 1985, vinyl chloride was detected in the
Shaughnessy's well and they were connected to the city's water system.
Vinyl chloride was detected in the Donaldson's well and they were
connected to the city's water system in June 1986. Although vinyl
chloride was not detected in the remaining two wells (those of the
H1gg1ns/Knipher and Miller residences), the city supplied these
residences with bottled water for drinking. The Hlgglns/Knipher and
Miller residences were later connected to the city's water system in
October and December 1986, respectively. In 1987, the Meyer and Phillips
residences were connected to the city's water system because vinyl
chloride contaminated their wells.
-------
4) Early In 1986, local citizens were becoming concerned about the
quality of water from their private wells.
Actions; Ecology, in cooperation with the City of Tacoma and EPA,
conducted a public meeting on May 13, 1986 to discuss affects of
potential leachate migration to private wells. The meeting was open
exclusively to private well owners. Twenty citizens and ten city, state,
and federal representatives attended. At this time, Black & Veatch was
still acting as a consultant for Ecology. A description and history of
the site was outlined, the affects of methane gas migration were
discussed, and an agenda and fact sheet were distributed.
5) In May 1986, local residents voiced concern about lateral methane
gas migration at the City of Tacoma municipal landfill.
Actions; The city hired a consultant (Mandeville Associates) to
investigate gas production and the extent of off-site migration prior to
the release incident. The city conducted field surveys using portable
explosimeters and found methane gas had migrated beyond the landfill
boundaries. As a result of these findings, a gas extraction system
comprised of 128 gas extraction wells with gas probes at 66 locations was
installed. Initial efforts focused on controlling gas in businesses
located southwest of the site. A flare station with permanent flares was
installed in November 1986. The city implemented a gas monitoring
program for structures surrounding the landfill. Both ambient and point
sources were measured.
-------
6) As early as 1983, local residents were voicing concerns about
potential groundwater contamination from leachate migrating from the landfill.
Actions; In June 1986, the City of Tacoma, under the direction of
Ecology, assumed responsibility for conducting an RI/FS. Quarterly
groundwater monitoring activities were established to identify hazardous
contaminants. The city continued contact with specific residents by
notifying them of sampling dates and reporting analytical results.
Public involvement in landfill issues is maintained by Ecology conducting
public meetings and providing fact sheets on recent landfill activities
and studies.
7) As the RI progressed in 1987, local citizens continued to voice
concerns and questions.
Actions; Ecology, in cooperation with the City of Tacoma and EPA,
conducted a public meeting on April 16, 1987 to discuss the progress of
the RI/FS. Groundwater well monitoring procedures and analytic results
were addressed. At that time, three to four residences had been
connected to the city's water supply. Methane gas migration and
monitoring were discussed. Dr. Branchflower, a consultant to the City of
Tacoma, discussed risk assessment at the landfill site. Black & Veatch,
acting as consultants to the city, provided graphical representation of
well locations and migration pathways. An agenda and fact sheet were
distributed.
-------
8) After the RI/F^ was made public In February 1988, citizen',
concerns and unanswered question'..
Action*; On February II, 1988, Ecology, In cooperation with EPA
and the City of Tacoma, conducted a publU. meeting to dlcar.c
remedial alternatives for cleaning up leachate and methane g&'. at
the landfill. Questions relating to the RI/FS were answered and
public comments were recorded.
-------
3,0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS
The public comment period was open from February 4 through March 4,
1988. Ecology held a public meeting in Tacoma on February 11, 1988 to explain
the study and the remedial alternatives. Formal comments received at that
meeting concerned providing an alternate water supply, coordinating planning,
evaluating alternative design options, and implementing new landfill
operations including recycling and ash disposal. The last comment is
considered beyond the scope of the FS.
Comments from members of the public, primarily Tacoma area residents,
regarding the FS report are summarized below. Questions were addressed to
U.S. EPA, Ecology, the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD), and
City of Tacoma representatives and their consultants.
FORMAL COMMENTS
Four participants from the public presented formal comments during the
public hearing. Those comments are summarized below.
1) Provision of an alternative water supply for residents whose wells
have been contaminated regardless of the chosen alternative was a concern of
one participant.
-------
Response; The preferred alternative Includes provision of an
alternate, unthreatened water supply (municipal water) to any resident
whose water supply 1s adversely Impacted as further describes in the ROD
by contamination emanating from the landfill.
2) One comment addressed the need to incorporate long-term planning in
future studies. The speaker noted that seven years ago, many of today's
problems connected with the landfill were not known and not planned for.
Another comment addressed the need for more coordination 1n the planning
process between the consultants and agencies connected with landfill studies.
Response; Long term planning of the landfill operation is conducted at
the local level with assistance and review by the state. Selection of
the preferred alternative under CERCLA/SARA included analysis of
long-term needs. Long-term planning is part of the studies. Ecology and
EPA agree that more coordination is needed and have Incorporated this
into ongoing community relation activities.
3) Several design options were offered by one participant who felt that
they should have been considered during the evaluation of remedial
alternatives. These options are as follows:
o An aeration facility to remove volatile material from the groundwater.
o A system of wells completely encircling the landfill to Intercept and
retrieve contaminated groundwater.
-------
o Incorporation of removable pumps and sequencing pumping to optimize
groundwater retrieval.
o Discharge of treated groundwater to the Simpson pulp mill or other use
of treated groundwater as a water supply.
o Use of extracted methane to produce electricity.
Response; Ecology and EPA will take note of these suggestions and
they will be evaluated during the Remedial Design phase as
appropriate.
4) A comment was received concerning the potential threat to public
health caused by heat generation from spontaneous combustion of materials In
the proposed sealed landfill. Such conditions might lead to an explosion that
would endanger nearby apartments and their inhabitants, and taxpayers would be
obligated to pay for the damage.
Response; The landfill will be continuously monitored so that
spontaneous combustion problems should not occur. Should a problem
occur, the landfill has a contingency plan and an emergency response plan
in place.
-------
5) Several comments were received concerning the feasibility of a
recycling program and landfill operations.
Response; The subject of the public meeting was cleanup of the
landfill, not implementation of a recycling program or operation of the
landfill. However, landfill operations have been addressed 1n the
selected remedy. Tacoma will be required to submit an Operations and
Closure Plan pursuant to State Minimum Functional Standards for Landfills
(WAC 173-304) which will address waste reduction measures. These
measures include: increased recycling including a program to exclude
hazardous waste from the landfill; Incineration of the light fraction of
shredded waste at the Tacoma City Light Cogeneration plant and; pyrolysis
of the heavy fraction of shredded waste at an on-site facility.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Questions from the audience as a whole, and responses from the
appropriate government representative, are summarized below.
1) The efficacy of the cap was questioned because of the potential for
prolonging methane gas production. The source of material for the cap was
questioned. The discharge point for pumped water and the applicable discharge
standard was requested. Some participants were concerned that hazardous
material would remain in the landfill. The adequacy of the design because of
changing site hydraulic conditions (e.g., drought) and nearby pumping was
questioned.
-------
Response; State regulations require landfills to be capped to limit
leachate migration, and address any subsequent Increase In methane gas
migration. An appropriate material will be evaluated for technical merit
and feasibility and utilized for a cap. Water discharged Into the sewer,
should that treatment option be selected, will be treated before In
enters the sewer to a level consistent with pre-treatment requirements.
Water discharged to surface water will be treated to drinking water
standards, or Water Quality Criteria (for fresh water), whichever is more
stringent. For those contaminants for which no drinking water standard
or Water Quality Criteria exist, a methodology has been established in
the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Tacoma landfill to establish the
appropriate treatment levels. These levels will be reviewed and approved
by EPA and Ecology. The exact point of discharge (sewer or stream) will
be evaluated during the Remedial Design phase and has not yet been
determined. A technology to treat the hazardous material remaining in
the landfill has not been developed, although removal has been considered
but ruled out because of the large volume. The preferred alternative is
believed to be the most cost and technically effective means of dealing
with the problem. '
Changing hydraulic conditions may impact the configuration of the
contaminant plume. However, sufficient monitoring will be done to
evaluate such a change. The City of Tacoma will be required to contain
the plume regardless of its location.
-------
2) A number of questions concerned disposal and classification of ash
from the proposed Incinerator. If ash is classified as non-hazardous, it may
be placed 1n the landfill.
Response; No hazardous waste will go into the landfill. Disposal of
ash in the landfill would be contrary to the goal of maintaining the
landfill for as long as possible because ash would take up space and
reduce the expected operating life of the landfill. The state is
developing an ash regulation to determine 1f an ash should be classified
as hazardous or non-hazardous and is also determining the appropriate
requirements for disposal and monitoring.
3) Several questions and comments were made concerning operation of the
Refuse Derived Fuel Plant (RDF) and the incinerator.
Response; The purpose of the public meeting was cleanup of the
landfill. While questions and comments concerning the RDF plant are not
relevant to the meeting agenda, they are duly noted as a point of public
interest and concern and passed on to the appropriate agencies.
4) Methane production within the landfill was questioned by a number of
participants. Reuse of the southwestern area of the landfill was questioned
because it may aggravate the methane problem. Provisions for the continued
methane gas migration to depth should be made.
-------
Response; It 1s believed that the gas extraction system will suffi-
ciently control methane release throughout the landfill. Seventy-four
new wells to contain deep methane will be Installed by mid April. The
Selected Remedy has required the placement of off-site probes (shallow
and deep) to monitor the effectiveness of the system. There will be
adequate monitoring at the probes and in the neighborhood to ensure the
system is working appropriately.
5) Public health, monitoring procedures, and health standards were
addressed by several members of the audience. The need for expediency in the
cleanup was noted because of unhealthy conditions in the area. The confidence
associated with no adverse health effects from the methane gas and water
pollution was questioned. Development of apartments and houses for local
residents if methane was known to be a problem was also questioned. Onerous
odors have been noted in the morning near the landfill. The availability of
data from monitoring programs and the extent of the methane monitoring program
was questioned. One participant asked where her well water could analyzed for
chemicals. Another asked if any microbiological analysis was performed.
Response: In response to these concerns, the TPCHD responded in the
meeting with these perspectives:
Construction standards for recently completed apartments and regular
monitoring increase the confidence that there will be no adverse
health effects. Concentration of gas measured in houses has not
approached explosive levels anywhere. The odors come from
-------
by-products of the rotting garbage, not necessarily from methane
gas. No adverse health effects are caused by these by-products.
The health department monitors the Incidence of disease, and data do
not indicate that landfill gas is making people sick. All houses
around the landfill have been monitored in the past. Occupants of
the houses are given the instrument readings if they wish at least
once a year. The health department analyzes for all hazardous
organic compounds in wells downgradient of the landfill once a
year. Private laboratories can provide the same analyses. Only
total coliforms are analyzed for during microbiological monitoring.
Ecology and EPA perspectives:
The agencies recognize the need for expediency in implementing the
cleanup. However, the major exposure pathway is via groundwater
which is spreading contamination very slowly. With the addition of
the cap, and the completion of the gas extraction system, odor
problems should be substantially reduced. EPA and Ecology recognize
/
the need for further community education regarding the methane gas
collection system and monitoring program.
6) Provision of an alternate water supply for residents whose wells are
contaminated or become dry because of the groundwater extraction was a concern
of two people. One person questioned why discharged water was not being made
available to area residents.
Response; The preferred alternative contains provisions for an
unthreatened water supply (e.g., municipal water) for all residents whose
-------
wells are contaminated. Similar arrangements will be provided for any
resident whose water volume 1s affected by the operation of a groundwater
extraction system.
7) The cost of cleanup and the source of funding were addressed by a
number of people. Increases 1n refuse collection fees were also a concern.
Response: The estimated cost of the preferred alternative Is 24
million dollars. It is expected the customers of the refuse utility may
be paying for this expense. Refuse collection fees may be increased by
the City of Tacoma 8-16 percent to provide sufficient funds, or funding
may be available to offset costs to the City. There is a toxics control
account available through Ecology's Solid and Hazardous Waste Program.
8) Confidence placed on findings of the RI/FS and the need for contingency
plans were questioned. The comprehensiveness of the studies was also
questioned. If the preferred alternative fails, will action be taken?
Response; The studies were performed with oversight by Ecology and EPA
following guidelines provided by EPA (CERCLA). Although 100 percent
assurance is probably Impossible to attain, the consensus of opinion is
that problems at the site have been identified sufficiently that a
remedial action (preferred alternative) can be identified. Further work
needed for design will be completed during the Remedial Design phase.
Intensive groundwater monitoring and placement of additional wells and
gas probes will provide the necessary information to monitor the
-------
effectiveness of the selected remedy. Connection to city water (should a
problem immediately occur) is part of the selected remedy. The
Tacoma-Plerce County Health Department has an action plan for responding
to elevated methane gas levels (which includes evacuation, if necessary).
9) Several questions concerning the site conditions relative to geology
and hydrology were asked. These questions concerned permeability, thickness,
and depth of geologic units underlying the site.
Response; The requested information was provided at the meeting and is
contained in the transcript of the public meeting.
.10) There was a question on why sampling for inorganic constituents in
the groundwater was not performed. The effect of seasonal variations upon
sampling results was also questioned. The speaker noted that a previous study
had revealed a very dramatic seasonal change during low flow periods.
Response; Sampling for inorganic constituents (e.g., metals) has been
conducted. Monitoring wells near the landfill are monitored quarterly,
allowing for observation of seasonal variations in groundwater
chemistry. The data collected to date do not indicate such a seasonal
variation. Low flow periods are normally associated with surface water
conditions. The Remedial Investigation was not designed to evaluate
conditions and seasonal variation In Leach Creek.
-------
11) Written comments concerning a variety of subjects were received at
the public meeting from one Individual. The comments concerned alternative
design options, the operation of the groundwater extraction and treatment
system, use of discharged water as a water supply, public health, and
recycling of materials In refuse.
Response; The majority of these comments have been addressed in
previous responses since they were presented orally at the meeting.
Those comments concerning recycling of materials ordinarily disposed of
at the landfill are not within the scope of the RI/FS, and therefore are
not relevant to the final cleanup of the landfill.
12) Written comment was submitted during the designated comment period
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The comments
focused on concern that the freshwater environment of Leach Creek could be
impacted, and should be evaluated by bioassay and benthos sampling.
Response; Since there are existing water rights for domestic use of
Leach Creek, the selected remedy has set standards to minimize
degradation. Ecological effects via contamination of Leach Creek and its
downstream tidal wetlands is a recognized concern by both Ecology and
EPA. Sampling of Indicator benthos from the intertldal area would be
worthwhile, and bioassays of Leach Creek samples would also be advisable
at key intervals prior to and after cleanup efforts. It is further
-------
described 1n the selected remedy that the applicable EPA ambient Water
Quality Criteria (WQC) for either protection of human health, or aquatic
life, will be used, whichever 1s lower.
Evaluation of conditions, sediment contamination, seasonal variation in
Leach Creek, etc., was not the original intent of the Remedial
Investigation.
-------
4. REMAINING CONCERNS
The following issues have been discussed but have not yet been resolved:
o What will be the point of discharge for extracted groundwater?
o What process will be u^sed to bring extracted groundwater into
compliance with discharge standards or requirements?
o Will alternative uses of treated water be identified?
Response; The point of discharge will be decided during the Remedial
Design phase of the cleanup process. If the point of discharge is the
city sanitary sewer, the treated water must meet the city of Tacoma's
pre-treatment standards. If discharge is to surface water, the Record of
Decision identifies appropriate treatment levels for the identified
contaminants of concern, and establishes a methodology for identifying
/
treatment levels for the other volatile organic compounds and metals in
the grounclwater.
-------
Attachment A
Community relations activities conducted at the Tacoma Landfill site to
date Include the following:
o In 1983, the Tacoma landfill was Included as part of the South
Tacoma Channel site on the National Priorities List under
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
o In May 1985, Ecology and Black & Veatch began Remedial Investigation
(RI> Phase I.
o In December 1985, Ecology and Black & Veatch began implementing the
RI Project Work Plan and Sampling Plan Phase I.
o In 1985, a community relations plan was developed by Black & Veatch
and Hall and Associates for Ecology.
o From May 1985 to the present, the City of Tacoma maintained
correspondence with local residents and well owners by providing
notification of quarterly sampling and outlining analytical results.
o In May 1986, the City of Tacoma Issued a fact sheet discussing
management of methane gas at the landfill.
o On May 13, 1986, U.S. EPA, in cooperation with the City of Tacoma
and Ecology, conducted a public meeting to discuss well water
quality of private wells surrounding the landfill.
-------
o In July 1986, the City of Tacoma Issued a press release and letter
to residents discussing background and scope of the RI.
o In July 1986, the City of Tacoma and Ecology signed a consent
agreement establishing guidelines for the RI/FS.
o In August, 1986, the City of Tacoma began sampling 13 private wells
located near the landfill.
o In February 1987, the Phase I Sampling Plan, Phase II Sampling Plan
and Phase I RI Report were completed and made available to the
public through Tacoma City and County libraries.
o On April 16, 1987, Ecology, in cooperation with the City of Tacoma
and EPA , conducted a public meeting and provided a fact sheet
discussing progress of the RI/FS.
o In January 1988 a public notice was published in the Tacoma News
Tribune announcing the availability of the RI and FS Reports and a
public meeting to be held February 11, 1988.
o On February 11, 1988, Ecology, in cooperation with EPA and the City
of Tacoma, conducted a public meeting to discuss alternatives for
cleaning up the groundwater and controlling methane gas at the
landfill, including the agencies' preferred plan.
-------
o From February 4 through March 4, 1988, public comments on the RI/FS
were accepted and documented.
o In February and March 1988 the Responsiveness Summary and Record of
Decision were written.
-------
APPENDIX C
INDEX TO ADHINISTRATIVE RECORD
-------
INDEX TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR TACOMA LANDFILL
Doc. / File Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
Section 1.0 BACKGROUND
AR 1.1 000001 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000002 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000005 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000004 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 00000$ 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000006 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000007 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000008 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000009 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000010 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000011 1.1 General Information
Cover letter regarding attached 05/29/63 25
report to City of Tacoma Department
of Public Mom on Test Operation
Uell /20/2-13D1 and cover letter
regarding attached report to City of
Tacoma Department of Public Works on
Investigation Of Ground Mater Geology
Pollution And Potential Vicinity Of
Proposed Orchard Street Sanitary
Landfill Site Extension.
Groundwater Contamination South 40th 12/69 12
& Orchard Street Control and
Prevention Report.
Uater well report 10/2/70 22
Department of Ecology Inspection 6/6/75 1
Report
Solid Waste Management Statistical 12/31/75 31
and Cost Data. Refuse Utility
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7/16/76 69
for Operation of the City of Tacoma's
Solid Waste Disposal Site and
Resource Recovery System.
Memo regarding Environmental Impact 7/20/76 1
Statement Review
Memo regarding review of Draft 8/4/76 1
Environmental Impact Statement
Letter regarding EPA review of Draft 8/9/76 2
Environmental Impact Statement
Sanitary Landfill Site Engineering 9/14/76 33
Report
Telephone report regarding well 4/19/78 1
contamination from landfill
1
Byron I. Larsen
B.I. Larsen fc Associates
City of Tacoma, Department
of Public Works,
Engineering
Mr. Richardson
Richardson Uell Drilling
Company, Inc.
WDOE
City of Tacoma Public
Works Department
Refuse Utility Division
Walter 0. Jaspers, EPA
Tobias A. Hegdahl, EPA
Walter 0. Jaspers, EPA
City of Tacoma, Public
Works Department
Mr. Bourgalze
University Place Mater
Company
Mr. Gilbert Schuster
Mr. John Bronnow
Department of Public
Works, City of Tacoma
Department of Public
Works
Tobias A. Hegdahl, EPA
Walt Jaspers, EPA
Ronald M. Button,
Department of Public
Works
MDOE
WDOE
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date
/ Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 1.1 000012 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000017 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000014 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000015 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000016 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000017 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000018 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000019 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000020 1.1 General Information
Letter in response to concern
regarding the presence of phenol in
the water system with attached
distribution list
Cover letter attached to copy of
analytical results of water samples
collected from the water system and
attached distribution list.
7/25/78
7/27/78
Letter regarding assignation of water
rights to the City of Tacoma with
attached list of University Place
Mater Company water rights and
attached contract between the City
of Tacoma and the University Place
Water Company
Cover letter regarding attached Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
the South Tacoma Flood Control
Facilities on Flett Creek
1980 Annual Report Solid Uaste
Management
Cover letter regarding attached
Preliminary Geotechnical Site
Evaluation. Tacoma Landfill Site
State of Washington Public Mater
Supply System Listing of Pierce
County wells
Statement regarding Leach Creek
Survey with attached map of Leach
Creek holding basin and attached copy
of envelope
Draft Appendix C - General plan of
landfill operations (Part V.B-
Dlsposal Sites-Design and Operation
of Application Form)
2/26/79
4/9/79 126
12/31/80 61
9/24/82 14
11/5/82
unknown
Moe R. Batra
Department of Social and
Health Services
Moe R. Batra
Department of Social and
Health Services
John A. Roller
Department of Public
Utilities
Phillip M. Rlngrose
Department of Public Works
City of Tacoma
City of Tacoma Public Works
Department, Refuse
Utilities
Dennis R. Stettler. Hart-
Crowser & Assoc, Inc.
Department of Public
Utilities
Tacoma Pierce County
Health Dept
unknown
Ms. Delores Bennett
Ms. Barbara Simon
Mr. Don Grlndell
Ms. Joyce Wendlandt
R.G. Bourglaze,
University Place Water
Company
Ms. Delores Bennett
Ms. Barbara Simon
Mr. Don Grlndell
Ms. Joyce Wendlandt
R.G. Bourglaze,
University Place Water
Company
Mr. Pat Ewinq
Russ Hulet, Suburban
Times
Walt Bergstrom, MODE
EPA
Mr. Harry Berry
The Berry and Berry
Associates
Chuck Shenk, EPA
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 1.1 000021 1.1 General Information
AR 1.1 000022 1.1 General Information
AR 1.2 000001 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000002 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000003 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000004 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000005 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000006 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000007 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000008 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000009 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000010 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000011 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000012 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
Newspaper article entitled, 'Is The
Tacoma Landfill Ruining Our Mater?"
6/85
Application for disposal site permit 8/15/85 12
Chemical analysis summary for Pierce 4/72 3
County
Table 1 - records of selected wells 1929- 4
(contains some unverified) 1976
Report of analysis on well water 3/17/77
from University Place Water District
well X3-1
Priority pollutants data report 7/3/78 8
Water sample information for standard 4/23/73 3
complete chemical analysis
Analysis report regarding sample 6/30/78 1
/7104
Priority Pollutants Data Report 7/3/78 & 3
7/17/78
Field sample data sheets and general 7/17/78 3
purpose data sheet
Letter regarding attached transmlttal 7/26/78 2
of analytical results for water
samples collected from the University
Place Water Company
Transmlttal for Treatment Plants 8/4/78 3
Routing regarding sewage overflow
with attached memo regarding Leach
Creek water quality analysis
Olvmpia Laboratory data summary. 8/22/78 11
with attached handwritten note,
telephone report regarding well
contamination problem, request for
analysis and memo regarding
resampling of wells
Letter regarding analytical results 9/13/78 1
of water samples collected from the
University Place Water Company
Peter Andrews
Tacoma/Pierce County
Review
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
U.S. Geological Survey
Unknown
Bennetts Chemical
Laboratory, Inc.
Unknown
Hoe Batra
Department of Social and
Health Services
Michael J. Etchlngham
AT am test inc.
Unknown
J. Gedlund
Department of Social and
Health Services
William A. Mullen, EPA
Hufford.
Sewer Utility Division
UDOE
WDOE
University Place Water
Company
University Place Water
System
Charles B. Bennett
EPA
Bob Leaver
Department of Social and
Health Services
Dean Wood
William A Mullen, EPA
Moe Batra
Department of Social and
Health Services
-------
Doc. t
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization Location of Document
AR 1.2 000013
AR 1.2 000014
AR 1.2 000015
AR 1.2 000016
AR 1.2 000017
AR 1.2 000018
AR 1.2 000019
AR 1.2 000020
AR 1.2 000021
AR 1.2 000022
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000023 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000024 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
AR 1.2 000025 1.2 Site Evaluation
Sampling Data
Letter regarding Pierce County 10/27/78 2
University Place Mater System Uells
University /I1, X3-1. Flrcrest. and
Jones
Data summary for metals - sample Unknown 1
source, the Atlas Foundry, Tacoma
Landfill
Data summary for well at Purdy 5/23/80
Landfill in Pierce County
Table III-B, Water chemical analysis 9/3/81 1
for the town of Fircrest
Sample results for Inorganic and 1/12/83
organic analyses, Case /1477/SAS 373J
and attached memo regarding
additional sampling at Tacoma
Landfill with additional sampling
results
Organic and inorganic analyses for 1/12/8? 12
Tacoma Landfill Case 1477/SAS 373J
Organic and inorganic analyses for 4/26/83 9
Tacoma Landfill
Organic and inorganic analyses for 4/26/83 7
Tacoma Landfill
Metal Analysis Required - Mater 4/26/83 1
report form
Results of standard analyses with 4/26/83 18
attached tentatively identified
compounds and sample results for
inorganic and organic analyses
Metal data-AA-HGA 2100(water) and 4/27/83 28
Metal data-sedlments-vegetation-
tlssue; HGA 2100
EPA Region 10 Laboratory metal 6/13/83 8
analysis required-water report form,
attached results of standard analyses
and specifically identified compounds
Memo regarding review of Tacoma TCOO 9/20/83 1
contract data
Moe R. Batra
Department of Social and
Health Services
UDOE
G. Freeman, UDOE
Mater Management
Associates, Inc.
ChemTech
ChemTech
EPA Lab. Manchester
EPA Lab, Manchester
EPA Region 10 Laboratory
EPA Laboratory;
ChemTech
EPA
EPA Region 10 Laboratory
J. N. Blazevich, EPA
Dean Mood, UOOE
Unknown
J. Newland
Dr. Michael Matson
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
Section 2.0
AR 2.1 000001
AR 2.1 000002
AR 2.1 00000?
AR 2.1 000004
AR 2.1 00000?
AR 2.1 000006
AR 2.1 000007
AR 2.2 000001
AR 2.2 000002
AR 2.2 000003
AR 2.2 000004
AR 2.2 000009
SITE IDENTIFICATION
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
Report
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
Report
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
Report
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
Report
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
Report
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
Report
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
Report
2.2 Site Investigation
Report
2.2 Site Investigation
Report
2.2 Site Investigation
Report
2.2 Site Investigation
Report
2.2 Site Investigation
Report
Potential hazardous waste site log
regarding site identified by
•Eckhardf Report'11/27/79
Potential hazardous waste site log
regarding Center and Mullen Sanitary
Landfill
Potential hazardous waste site
identification and preliminary
assessment font re Tacoma Landfill
Potentital hazardous waste site
identification and preliminary
assessment fora re Tacoma Landfill
Potential hazardous waste site
identification and preliminary
assessment regarding Center and
Mullen sanitary landfill
Potential hazardous waste site final
strategy determination form regarding
Tacoma City Landfill
Hazardous waste sites evaluation of
section 311 clean-up requirements,
environmental emergency section, EPA-
Region 10
Potential hazardous waste site
inspection report
Memo regarding hazardous waste site
investigation with attached summary
report of the waste site
investigation
Proposed co-municipal landfill
reconnaissance study
Memo regarding request for ESD
support on Tacoma Municipal Landfill
preliminary field investigation
Preliminary field investigation plan,
Tacoma Municipal Landfill (refuse
utility), with attached list of
attendees at the 10/26/82 Tacoma
Landfill meeting
1 P.L.
Wheeler,
EPA
11/27/79 4 P.L. Uheeler. EPA
4/80 4 Phil Wong. EPA
4/80
4/80
6/80
6/2/80
Neil Thompson, EPA
Neil Thompson, EPA
Nell Thompson, EPA
E.E.S.
4/80 11 Phillip Wong, EPA
5/13/80 3 Phillip Wong. EPA
10/15/82 1 EPA
11/8/82 2 Chuck Shenk, EPA
11/12/82 4 EPA
Ben Eusbio
John Barrett
EPA
William B. Schmidt. EPA
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 2.2 000006 2.2 Site Investigation
Report
AR 2.2 000007 2.2 Site Investigation
Report
AR 2.2 000008 2.2 Site Investigation
Report
AR 2.2 000009 2.2 Site Investigation
Report
AR 2.? 000001 2.? Site Identification
AR 2.3 000002 2.3 Site Identification
AR 2.3 000003 2.3 Site Identification
AR 2.3 000004 2.3 Site Identification
AR 2.3 000005 2.3 Site Identification
AR 2.3 000006 2.3 Site Identification
AR 2.3 000007 2.3 Site Identification
AR 2.3 000008 2.3 Site Identification
Memo regarding development of a 1/7/83 5
Tacoma Landfill sampling plan with
attached city plans for Tacoma
Landfill grounoVater survey
Memo regarding additional sampling 4/14/83 1
at the Tacoma Landfill
Nemo regarding site Inspection and 6/12/85 3
orientation
Memo regarding site inspection and 6/12/85 8
orientation with attached figure of
site utilities and drainage and
photographs of university Place wells
Memorandum regarding request for 4/20/82 3
authorization to proceed with
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study at the Tacoma Municipal
Landfill - Action Memorandum
Letter regarding EPA water sampling unknown 2
studies with information regarding
sample location
Letter to citizen regarding 4/26/83 1
laboratory analyses and quality data
evaluation of domestic water
Letter regarding laboratory analyses 4/26/83 1
and quality data evaluation for the
town of Flrcrest water wells No. 2
and No. 8.
Letter regarding laboratory analyses 4/26/83 1
and quality data evaluation for the
golf course irrigation well.
Letter regarding laboratory analyses 4/26/83 1
and quality data evaluation of
analytical data for domestic well.
Letter regarding EPA Mater Sampling 4/29/83 2
Study at the City of Tacoma Landfill
and in the Immediate vicinity, with
information regarding sample
locations.
Letter regarding EPA Mater Sampling 4/29/83 2
Study at the City of Tacoma Landfill
and in the Immediate vicinity, with
information regarding sample
locations.
Roy R. Jones, EPA
Chuck Shenk
Donald Leske, UOOE
Donald Leske, UOOE
William N. Heedman
for Gene A. Lucero, EPA
John F. Newland, EPA
John F. Newland, EPA
John F. Newland, EPA
John F. Newland, EPA
John F. Newland, EPA
Chuck Shenk, EPA
Chuck Shenk, EPA
William A. Mullen, EPA
William Schmidt, EPA
File
File
Rita Lavelle, EPA
Robert Sparling
City of Tacoma,
Department of Public
Utilities
Raymond A. Levesque
Jim Valentine. Town of
Flrcrest
Mr. Keith Pegg. Flrcrest
Golf Club
Fred C. Holly
Doug Pierce, Tacoma
Pierce County Health
Department
Robert James, Department
of Social and Health
Services
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 2.3 000009 2.3 Site Identification
AR 2.3 000010 2.3 Site Identification
Letter regarding EPA Water Sampling 4/29/83
Study at the City of Tacoma Landfill
with information regarding sample
locations.
Letter regarding EPA second round of 9/2/83
water and sediment sampling in and
around the Tacoma Landfill with
information regarding sample
locations.
Chuck Shenk. EPA
Chuck Shenk, EPA
Frank Monahan. MODE
Robert Sparling, City of
Tacoma
Section 3.0 INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES
AR 3.1 000001 3.1 Well Owners -
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000002 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000003 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000004 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000005 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000006 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000007 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000008 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000009 3.1 Well Owners -
Correspondence
Letter regarding the results of tests 4/10/85 5
and analysis of water supply with
attached comments and sample results.
Letter regarding attached comments 4/10/85 5
and results of sample testing on
water supply.
Letter regarding attached comments 4/11/85 4
and sampling results from testing of
domestic water supply.
Letter regarding well sampling 4/11/85 2
activity with attached summary of
results for the inorganic analysis.
Letter regarding well sampling 4/11/85 2
activity as part of a groundwater
quality survey with attached inor-
ganic chemical test results.
Letter regarding preliminary test 6/21/85 1
data based upon domestic well water
sampling.
Letter regarding detection of 6/23/85 2
materials in water supply.
Letter regarding well sampling 10/3/86 2
activity conducted as part of
Landfill's remedial investigation.
Attached list of Tacoma Landfill
wells.
Letter regarding well water sampling 2/18/87 5
activity with attached testing
results for halognated volatile
organic compounds and description of
TOX method.
Derek I. Sandison,
Tacoma/Pierce County Health
Department
Derek I. Sandison,
Tacoma/Pierce County Health
Department
Derek I. Sandison,
Tacoma/Pierce County Health
Department
Derek I. Sandison, Pierce
County Health Department
Derek I. Sandison,
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
Derek I. Sandison,
Tacoma/Pierce County Health
Department
Derek I. Sandison,
Tacoma/Pierce County Health
Department
Phillip M. Ringrose,
City of Tacoma, Refuse
Utilities Division
Phillip M. Ringrose. City
of Tacoma, Refuse Utility
Division
Ken Miller
Bruce Higglns
John Donaldson
Ben Phillips
Vernon Owlngs
Mr. and Mrs. Shaunnessy
Mr. and Mrs. Shaunnessy
Mr. and Mrs. Ken Miller
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 3.1 000010 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000011 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000012 31. Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000013 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000014 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 00001? 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000016 3.1 Well Owners
Correspondence
AR 3.1 000017 3.1 Well Owners -
Correspondence
AR 3.2 000001 3.2 Mater Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000002 3.2 Water Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000003 3.2 Mater Supplied to
Residents
Letter regarding well water sampling
activity with attached laboratory
testing results for halognated
volatile organic compounds and
description of TOX method.
Letter regarding well water sampling
activity with attached laboratory
testing results for halognated
volatile organic compounds and
description of TOX method.
Letter regarding well water sampling
activity with attached laboratory
testing results for halognated
volatile organic compounds and
description of TOX method.
List of well owners who were sent the
attached letter regarding Total
Organic Halides or Tox analysis.
List of well owners with attached
letter regarding well water sampling
activity and Total Organic Halides
analysis.
Letter regarding well water sampling
activity with attached results for
Total Organic Halides analysis and
description of TOX method.
Letter regarding Black & Veatch's
quarterly conducting of sampling and
testing of wells with attached list
of well owners' addresses.
Letter regarding Black & Veatch's
conducting of quarterly sampling and
testing of wells.
Preliminary health assessment of
Tacoma wells.
Memo regarding drinking water data,
Tacoma Landfill Superfund site.
2/18/87 4 Phillip H. Ringrose, City
of Tacoma, Refuse Utility
Division
2/18/87 4 Phillip Ringrose, City of
Tacoma, Refuse Utility
Division
2/20/87
2/24/87
2/25/87
2/25/87
6/11/87
10/12/87
8/29/85
12/13/85 1
Memo regarding water samples, Tacoma 9/16/86
Landfill and proposed meeting.
Phillip M. Ringrose. City
of Tacoma, Refuse Utility
Division
Phillip M. Ringrose. City
of Tacoma, Refuse Utility
Division
Phillip M. Ringrose, City
of Tacoma, Refuse Utility
Division
Phillip M. Ringrose,
City of Tacoma, Refuse
Utility Division
Phillip M. Ringrose.
City of Tacoma, Refuse
Utility Division
Phillip M. Ringrose,
City of Tacoma, Refuse
Utility Division
Pat Storm, EPA
Agency for Toxic
Substances and
Disease Registry
(ATSDR)
Jane Hedges, Solid Waste
Program
Arnold Meyers
Ben Phillips
Mr. and Mrs. Bruce
Higgins
Well owners: Darwin
Rossburg, Ruth Rose,
Marlin Hedun, Roland
Fran, Charles Kelly,
John Ball, Vernon
Own ings, Roy Orlando,
Dayton Uetzell. Edwin
Fleck. Fred Holly
Rodney Bentley, Raymond
Levesque
Mr. and Mrs. Skupen
(see attached list)
Well Owner
Joel Mulder, EPA
Derek. Bob, Don, and Al
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 3.2 000004 3.2 Water Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000005 3.2 Water Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000006 3.2 Mater Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000007 3.2 Water Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000008 3.2 Water Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000009 3.2 Water Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000010 3.2 Mater Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000011 3.2 Mater Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000012 3.2 Mater Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.2 000013 3.2 Mater Supplied to
Residents
AR 3.3 000001 3.3 Methane Gas Danger
Letter regarding alternative water 9/26/86
supply for residences.
Letter regarding alternative water 10/10/86 2
service to the Donaldson residence.
Letter in response to request to 10/10/86 1
connect the Hlggens and Knifer
residences to city water.
Letter regarding UDOE position in 10/10/86 2
response to City of Tacoma decision
not to supply water to several
additional residences near Tacoma
Landfill.
Letter regarding water wells near 10/31/86 2
Tacoma Landfill and the steps taken
to protect public health
Memorandum regarding meeting with Dr. 10/31/86 2
Al Allen
Letter in response to Fred Gardner's 11/3/86 2
letter of 10/20/86 concerning
connection of the Miller and the
Higgens-Knlfer residences to city
water.
Letter regarding Tacoma Landfill 11/10/86 2
RI/FS progress report 9/27/86-
10/26/86
Letter requesting information and 12/29/86 1
agency assistance In researching the
health affects of exposure to vinyl
chloride
Tacoma drinking water wells health Unknown 1
assessment.
Letter regarding 10/17/8$ meeting 1/6/86 2
which discussed minimum functional
standards regarding geohydrologlcal
study and compliance with the new
regulations.
Fred Gardner. UDOE
Phillip M. Ringrose. City
of Tacoma, Refuse Utilities
Division
Fred A. Thompson
Tacoma Department of Public
Works
Fred Gardner, UOOE
Al Allen
Tacoma/Plerce County Health
Department
Patricia C. Storm. EPA
Fred A. Thompson
Tacoma Department of Public
Marks
Philip M. Ringrose
City of Tacoma, Refuse
Utility Division
Donald L. Oliver
Tacoma/Plerce County Health
Department
UDOE
Jane Hedges
Tacoma/Plerce County
Health Department
Fred Thompson, City of
Tacoma, Department of
Public Uorks
Fred Gardner. UOOE
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Fred Thompson, Tacoma
Department of Public
Uorks
Joe Stortlnl.
Tacoma/Plerce County
Board of Health
Doug Southerland,
Tacoma/Pierce County
Board of Health
File
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Ms. Pat Storm, EPA
U.J. Larson
Tacoma Refuse Utility
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 3.3 000002 3.3 Methane Gas Danger
Letter regarding excessive methane
gas levels from the landfill and
monitoring requirement.
5/14/86
Russell S. Post
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
Phil Ringrose
Refuse Utility Division.
City of Tacoma
Section 4.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION-
STATE LEAD/ECOLOGY
AR 4.1 000001 4.1 Correspondence
AR 4.1 000002. 4.1 Correspondence
AR 4.1 000003 4.1 Correspondence
AR 4.1 000004 4.1 Correspondence
AR 4.2 000001 4.2 Handwritten Notes
AR 4.3 000001 4.3 Work Plan
AR 4.3 000002 4.3 Uork Plan
AR 4.3 000003 4.3 Work Plan
AR 4.3 000004 4.3 Uork Plan
AR 4.3 000005 4.3 Work Plan
AR 4.4 000001 4.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans, Quality Assurance
Project Plans
AR 4.4 000002 4.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans, Quality Assurance
Project Plans
Letter regarding future UOOE 10/8/84
hazardous waste actions at the Tacoma
Landfill site.
Letter requesting EPA assistance in 3/4/85
the sampling of five domestic wells
on Orchard street.
Letter regarding domestic well 7/5/85
survey.
Letter regarding city counsel 6/17/86 1
approval on the consent order for the
city to do the remedial
investigation/feasibility study.
Handwritten notes regarding well 1/22/85 1
contamination.
Project Uork Plan for Remedial 11/21/84 20
Investigation/Phase I.
Project Uork Plan for Remedial 12/7/84 47
Investigation/Phase I.
Project Uork Plan for Remedial 4/10/85 37
Investigation/Phase II.
Project Work Plan for Conceptual- 12/10/85 18
Feasibility Studies.
Project Uork Plan for Remedial 12/12/85 19
Investigation/Phase II.
Quality Assurance Plan - Tacoma Unknown 5
Landfill Uell Mater Sampling
(Drinking Water) EPA/UDOE/TPSCH
Draft Quality Assurance Project Plan 7/26/85 129
Remedial Investigation B&V Project
/11889.201
Fred Gardner, UOOE
Jane A. Hedges
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
Jane Hedges
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
Fred Gardner, UOOE
Derek Sanderson
Paul D. McRoberts
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for UOOE
Paul D. McRoberts
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for WOOE
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for WOOE
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for UOOE
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for UDOE
EPA, Contract Laboratory
Program
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for WDOE
Mr. Gene Olive
Southeast Tacoma Neutral
Water Company
Roy Jones, EPA
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Bob Sparling
Public Utilities
Department
P. Kroet, UDOE
10
-------
Ooc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 4.4 000003
AR 4.4 000004
AR 4.4 000005
AR 4.5 000001
AR 4.5 000002
AR 4.5 000005
AR.4.5 000004
AR 4.5 000005
AR 4.5 000006
AR 4.5 000007
AR 4.5 000008
AR 4.5 000009
AR 4.5 000010
4.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans. Quality Assurance
Project Plans
4.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans. Quality Assurance
Project Plans
4.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans, Quality Assurance
Project Plans
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Draft Appendices for Quality
Assurance Project Plan B&V Project
/1 1889. 201.
Sampling Plan for Remedial
Investigation Phase II.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Remedial Investigation B&V Project
/1 1889. 201.
Table A-1 through A-7a water quality
analysis - Sample dates 1970-1985,
University Place Wells.
Letter regarding well water sampling
activities in the town-of Fircrest.
Uater samples in the vicinity of the
Tacoma Landfill
Uater bacteriological analysis.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
w-
Uater bacteriological analysis.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
8/50/85 172
12/20/85 50
5/21/86 256
Unknown 57
1/25/84 2
6/50/84- 5
8/12/84
7/22/84 1
7/24/84 1
8/12/84 1
1/24/85 1
£
1/51/85
1/24/85 1
&
1/28/85
1/24/85 1
1/24/85 1
&
4/17/85
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for UOOE
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for UDOE
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for WDOE
Unknown
Don Anderson
Uater Management
Associates, Inc.
Unknown
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
AR 4.5 000011 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Uater bacteriological analysis.
1/28/85
Department
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
Tim Kane
Town of Fircrest Uater
Department
Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department
11
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 4.5 000012 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000013 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000014 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000015 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000016 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000017 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000018 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000019 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000020 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000021 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000022 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 00002? 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000024 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Mater bacteriological analysis.
Field sampling data/chain of custody,
Orchard Street sampling.
Sampling data.
Residential sampling data.
Residential sampling data.
Residential sampling data and
attached preliminary health
assessment of Tacoma wells and
attached EPA Region 10 Lab Management
Systems sample project analysis
results. Sample dates - 1/28/85.
5/5/85. 6/18/85. and 6/19/85.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
Cover memo regarding attached PLU
student data on groundwater quality
near Tacoma Landfill.
Residential sampling data.
Interdepartmental communications memo
regarding Orchard Street well Mater
analysis with sampling results.
Cover letter regarding attached
report of analytical results for the
Orchard Street wells.
EPA Region 10 Lab Management System
sample/project analysis results for
well drinking water.
1/28/85 1
1/28/85 5
1/28/85 1
1/28/85 1
1/28/85 1
& 3/5/85
1/28/85 21
& 3/5/85
1/28/85 1
&
1/31/85
1/28/85 1
&
1/31/85
1/31/85 14
1/28/85
& 3/5/85
2/19/85
&
3/19/85
2/25/85
3/5/85
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
Sweet, Edwards &
Associates, Inc.
Brown & Caldwell,
Ueyerhauser
Unknown
Brown & Caldwell.
Weyerhaeuser, City
Laboratory
Unknown
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services.
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
Tom Rutherford
Brown & Caldwell,
Weyerhaeuser. City
Laboratory
Christopher L. Getchell
Waste Water Lab, City of
Tacoma
Molly Adolfson
Brown & Caldwell
Consulting Engineers
EPA Lab, Manchester
Fred Gardner. WOOE
William J. Larson
Refuse Utility. City of
Tacoma
Derek Sandlson
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
12
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 4.5 000025 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000026 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000027 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000028 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000029 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000070 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000031 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000072 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000077 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000074 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000075 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000076 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
General purpose data sheet,
determination S04.
EPA Region 10 Laboratory metal
analysis required-water.
EPA Region 10 Laboratory general
analysis required-water.
General purpose data sheets,
determination purgeables,
halocarbons-water, attached field
sample data and chain of custody
sheets.
Chain of custody record.
General purpose data sheets,
determination purgeables,
halocarbons-water, attached field
sample data and chain of custody
sheets.
General purpose data sheets,
determination purgeables,
halocarbons-vater.
General purpose data sheet
determination, purgeable halocarbons-
water, attached field sample data and
chain of custody sheets.
General purpose data sheet,
determination purgeable halocarbons-
Mater, attached field sample data and
chain of custody sheets.
General purpose data sheet,
determination chloride.
General purpose data sheet,
determination conductivity.
Uater bacteriological analysis.
7/12/85
3/5/85
3/5/85
7/8/85
7/5/85
7/5/85
7/17/85
7/7/85
7/8/85
7/12/85
7/6/85
7/5/85
4
4
4
1
1
1
AR 4.5 000037 4.5 Sampling and Analysis Mater bacteriological analysis.
Data
3/5/85
J. Beckner, EPA Lab Roy R. Jones
Roy R. Jones
Roy R. Jones
Roy R. Jones
Roy R. Jones EPA
EPA Lab Roy R. Jones
EPA Lab Region 10 Roy R. Jones
EPA Region 10 Laboratory Roy R. Jones
EPA Region 10 Laboratory Roy R. Jones
EPA Region 10 Laboratory Roy R. Jones
EPA Region 10 Laboratory Roy R. Jones
Uashington Department of
Social and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
Uashington Department of
Social and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
13
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date t Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 4.5 000038 4.5 Sampling and Analysis Mater bacteriological analysis.
Data
AR 4.5 000039 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000040 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000041 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000042 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000043 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000044 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000045 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000046 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000047 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000048 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000049 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 4.5 000050 4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Handwritten notes regarding sampling
data: attached general purpose data
sheet, determination for chloride,
S04, and conductivity.
Letter of transraittal regarding
attached scan for Orchard Street
wells and quantitatlon reports.
Handwritten note regarding attached
handwritten letter regarding quality
assurance and lab data.
Residential sampling data.
Water bacteriological analysis.
Cover letter regarding attached QA/QC
data for the Pierce County/Tacoma
groundwater analysis using EPA
methods 624, data Includes scan and
services quantitatlon report.
Region 10 Management System
sample/project analysis results.
Cover letter regarding attached
sample results for well water.
Cover letter regarding water system
analysis, attached water sample
information for inorganic chemcial
analyses.
Acid/Base/Neutral compounds sampling
data.
Typically identified compounds
sheets.
Tentatively identified compounds
sheets attached organic analysis data
sheets, sample X251575 through
251590.
7/5/85
3/12/85
3/13/85 29
4/5/85
1/28/85 12
1/28/85 1
&
5/16/85
5/13/85 28
6/18/85 3
7/5/85 5
7/1/85 15
8/12/85 11
8/14/85 2
8/14/85 21
Washington Department of
and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
EPA Region 10 Laboratory
Brown & Caldwell
Gerry Muth
Mike Watson
Donna S. Carter
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services,
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
James C. Hein
Brown & Caldwell
EPA Region 10 Lab
Jane Hedges
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
Cheryl L. Bergener
Washington Department of
Social and Health Services
J.N. Blazevich
Gerry Muth,
EPA Lab Region 10
Berry Huth,
EPA Region 10 Lab
Roy R. Jones
Patricia Storm. EPA
Bill Schmidt
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
Pat Storm, EPA
Fred Gardner, WOOE
Tacoma/Pierce County
Health Department
EPA Lab Region 10
14
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 4.5 000051
AR 4.5 000052
AR 4.5 000053
AR 4.5 000054
AR 4.5 000055
AR 4.5 000056
AR 4.5 000057
AR 4.6 000001
AR 4.7 000001
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
4.6 Remedial
Investigations-Phase I
Description of Current
Situation
4.7 Preliminary Health and
Safety Assessment
Transralttal sheet regarding attached
Tacoma Landfill data from 5/85 by EPA
Region 10 Lab Management System
sample/project analysis results.
9/18/85 9
EPA Sample/Project Analysis results
Site /I Sample numbers 85100650
through 85100654
EPA Sample/Project Analysis results
Site X2 Sample numbers 85100655
through 85100659
EPA Sample/Project Analysis results
Site X3 Sample numbers 85100660
through 85100664
EPA Sample/Project Analysis results
Site X4 Sample numbers 85100665
through 85100669
EPA Sample/Project Analysis results
Site /5 Sample numbers 85100670
through 85100674
EPA Sample/Project Analysis Results.
Sample number 85251575 through
85251590
Remedial Investigations-Phase I
3/5/85
3/5/85
3/5/85
3/5/85
3/5/85
3/5/85
5/29/85
4
4
4
4
4
4
78
Description of Current Situation.
Preliminary Health and Safety
Assessment of Tacoma Landfill
Remedial Investigation.
no date 17
Joyce Crosson, EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Mark 6. Snyder
Paul C. McRoberts
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for WDOE
Elizabeth A. Taylor
Phoenix Safety Associates,
Ltd., Prepared for Black &
Veatch on behalf of WDOE
Patricia Storm. EPA
Section 5.0
AR 5.1 000001
AR 5.1 000002
AR 5.1 000003
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE
PARTY LEAD. CITY OF TACOMA.
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5,1 Correspondence-General
Letter regarding responsibilities for 6/23/86
negotiations with PRP.
Memo regarding water samples, Tacoma 9/16/86
Landfill and proposed meeting.
Memo regarding site visit, Tacoma 10/6/86
Landfill
2 Patricia C. Storm, EPA
1 Jane Hedges
Solid Waste Program
1 Bill Myers, UDOE
Fred Gardner, UOOE
Derek, Bob, Don & Al
Fred Gardner, UOOE
15
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.1 000004 5.1 Correspondence-General
Memo regarding wells near Tacoma
Landfill.
AR 5.1 000005 5.1 Correspondence-General Memo regarding water wells near
Tacoma Landfill.
10/28/86 1
10/31/86
AR 5.1 000006 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000007
AR 5.1 000008
AR 5.1 000009
AR 5.1 000010
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000011 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000012
AR 5.1 000013
AR 5.1 000014
AR 5.1 000015
AR 5-1 000016
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
Letter regarding utility operation
and the Feasibility Study Report for
Tacoma Landfill.
Memorandum regarding Tacoma Landfill
site visit. January 28. 1987.
Memo regarding discharge of acqulfer
test Mater.
Memo regarding Inspection of work at
Tacoma Landfill.
Letter regarding Tacoma Landfill
Remedial Investigation Feasibility
Study.
Letter regarding discharges to the
sanitary sewer from Tacoma Landfill
pump testing.
Letter regarding approval to
discharge pump test water from the
City of Tacoma Landfill.
Memo regarding Tacoma Landfill
central area development design
report.
Letter regarding groundwater portion
of the Remedial Investigation of the
Tacoma Landfill.
Letter regarding groundwater portion
of the Remedial Investigation of the
Tacoma Landfill.
Cover letter regarding attached
specifications for the oil mat access
road at Tacoma Landfill.
1/27/87
Don Oliver
Director of Environmental
Health Tacoma/Plerce County
Health Department
Al Allen
Director of Health
Tacoma/Plerce County Health
Department
Fred Gardner. UOOE
Al Allen
Director of Health
Tacoma/Plerce County
Health Department
The Honorable Joe
Stortini, Tacoma/Pierce
County Board of Health
The Honorable Doug
Southerland,
Tacoma/Pierce County
Board of Health
Fred Thompson
City of Tacoma,
Department of Public
Works
1/30/87
1/30/87
2/2/87
4/9/87
4/15/87
4/20/87
4/23/87
5/15/87
5/15/87
5/19/87
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
Bill Myers. UDOE
Michael P. Price
City of Tacoma
Bill Myers. UOOE
Philip M. Rlngrose
City of Tacoma
Carol Kraege, UOOE
Michael P. Price
City of Tacoma
Carol Kraege. UDOE
Glenn Bruck. EPA
Glenn Bruck, EPA
Phillip M. Rlngrose
Fred Gardner, UOOE
Philip M. Rlngrose
City of Tacoma
Fred Gardner, UOOE
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Chan Odell
Central Treatment Plant,
Tacoma
Carol Kraege. UDOE
Jim Knudson, UOOE
Thair Jorgenson
City of Tacoma
Thair Jorgenson
City of Tacoma
Fred Gardner. UDOE
City of Tacoma
16
-------
Ooc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.1 000017 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000018
AR 5.1 000019
AR 5.1 000020
AR 5.1 000021
AR 5.1 000022
AR 5.1 000023
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000024 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000025
AR 5.1 000026
5.1 Correspondence-General
5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000027 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000028 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000029 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.1 000030 5.1 Correspondence-General
AR 5.2 000001 5.2 Handwritten Notes
AR 5.2 000002
AR 5.2 000003
5.2 Handwritten Notes
5.2 Handwritten Notes
Memo regarding additional site
characterization needs at Tacoma
Landfill.
Memo regarding evaluation of pumping
test results froa PU8A.
Nemo regarding deep exploration
boring at Tacoma Landfill.
Letter regarding deep exploration
boring, Tacoma Landfill.
Letter regarding deep exploration
boring, Tacoma Landfill.
Letter regarding new deliverable date
for Remedial Investigation Report.
Letter regarding ecology review and
comment on the Draft Remedial
Investigation Report for Tacoma
Landfill.
Responses to ecology comments on the
draft Remedial Investigation Report.
Schedule for Tacoma Landfill.
Ecology review and comment on the
Draft Feasibility Study Report for
Tacoma Landfill.
Letter regarding Tacoma Landfill
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study.
Letter regarding Tacoma comments to
ecology remedial Investigation
comments.
Letter regarding methane gas
monitoring program and Installation
of shallow gas probes.
Letter regarding methane gas
generation and migration and
Installation of shallow gas probes.
Inspection report for Tacoma
Landfill.
Inspection report for Tacoma Landfill
Memo regarding Tacoma Landfill
6/8/87
7/13/87
7/27/87
7/29/87
7/29/87
9/9/87
10/13/87
10/13/87
11/18/87
11/12/87
11/13/87
11/24/87
12/16/87
12/16/87
2/24/87
4/28/87
4/28/87
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
16
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
Bill Myers, UDOE
Bill Myers, UOOE
R.C. Prior
Hart Crowser
Bill Myers, UDOE
Bill Myers, UDOE
Glynls Stumpf, UDOE
Peter Kmet, UDOE
Glynis Stumpf, UOOE
Unknown
Unknown
Glynls A. Stumpf. UDOE
Thalr Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
Glynls A. Stumpf, UDOE
Peter Kmet. UDOE
Peter Kmet, UDOE
Bill Myers. UDOE
Bill Myers. UDOE
Carol Fleskes
Thalr Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
Tacoma Landfill File
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Bill Myers. UDOE
Thair Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
Thalr Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
Thalr Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
Thalr Jorgensen,
City of Tacoma
Unknown
Unknown
Thair Jorgensen,
City of Tacoma
Glynls Stumpf, UDOE
Thalr Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
Thair Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
Jody Snyder, Tacoma-
Pierce County Health
Department
Unknown
Unknown
Fred Gardner, UDOE
pumping procedure.
17
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization Location of Document
AR 5.2 000004 5.2 Handwritten Notes
AR 5.2 000005 5.2 Handwritten Notes
AR 5.3 000001 5.3 Work Plans
AR 5.3 000002 5.3 Work Plans
AR 5.3 000003 5.3 Work Plans
AR 5.3 000004 5.3 Work Plans
AR 5.4 000001 5.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans
AR 5.4 000002 5.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans
AR 5.4 000003 5.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans
AR 5.4 000004 5.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans
AR 5.4 000005 5.4 Sampling and Analysis
Plans
AR 5.5 000001 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Inspection report regarding Tacoma 5/1/87 1
LanSflll.
Memo regarding Tacoma Landfill 1987 2
drilling.
Attachment A Tacoma Landfill Remedial 6/1/86 13
Investigation/Feasibility Study Scope
of Work Phase I with attached map of
proposed sampling locations.
Cover letter attached RI/FS scope of 6/19/86 13
work Phase I.
Document outlining data management 9/26/86 10
plan for RI.
Attachment A to Amendment No. 3 to 1/27/87 22
the Agreement for Engineering
Serlvces between Black & Veatch.
Engineers-Architects and the City of
Tacoma for the Tacoma Landfill RI/FS
and Central Area Development Project.
Letter regarding attached memorandum, 11/19/86 26
modifications to sampling plan, and
draft groundwater quality monitoring
program, for private wells near
Tacoma Landfill.
Sampling plan regarding gorundwater 12/15/86 3
quality monitoring program for
existing wells near the Tacoma
Landfill and attached Table I re
Groundwater Sample Locations and
Analyses.
Sampling plan for Tacoma Landfill 1/30/87 35
Remedial Investigation Phase II.
Letter regarding deep exploration 7/29/87 1
boring at Tacoma Landfill.
Memo regarding attached revisions to 11/12/87 4
the sampling plan for Tacoma Landfill
Phase II Round III.
Appendix B including Hap with Well 5/29/85 8
locations, well data, groundwater
flow shallow aquifer, groundwater
flow deeper aquifer, geohydrologlc
section.
Bill Myers, UDOE
Fred Gardner, WDOE
Black & Veatch
Phillip Ringrose
City of Tacoma
USEPA
Black & Veatch
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Englneers/Archtitects for
the City of Tacoma
Bill Myers, WDOE
T.L. Ruthorford
Black & Veatch
for the City of Tacoma
Black & Veatch
unknown
Jerry Jewett
Fred Gardner. WDOE
Unknown
Unknown
Patricia Storm, USEPA
Uknown
Unknown
Thair Jorgensen
City of Tacoma
D. Yamamoto. EPA
Unknown
18
-------
Ooc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
Aft 5.5 000002 5.5 Sair Una and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000007 $.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000004 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000005 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000006 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000007 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000008 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000009 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000010 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
6/27/86 19 METRO
Landfill gas samples volatile organic 6/25/86 2 Unknown
compounds.
Description of Tacoma Landfill 6/25/86 3 Unknown
investigation landfill gas samples,
attached landfill gas sample, and
volatile organic compound data.
Sample report form, project code 877, 6/27/86 4
attached request for analysis.
Organic sample narrative, METRO 6/27/86 19
sample X268501 , attached GCMS organic
analysis data report for volatiles
scans, and quant Hat ion reports,
METRO A-B-N extraction scheme for
water, METRO pesticide extraction
scheme for water.
Organic sample narrative, METRO
sample X24850J, attached GCMS organic
analysis data report for volatiles
scans, and quantltation reports,
METRO A-B-N extraction scheme for
water, METRO pesticide extraction
scheme for water.
Organic sample narrative, METRO
sample S268502, attached GCMS organic
analysis data report for volatiles
scans, and quantltation reports,
METRO A-B-N extraction scheme for
water, METRO pesticide extraction
scheme for water.
Organic sampling narrative METRO 7/1/86 16
sample JMB86VII01, attached GCMS
organic analysis data report,
quantitatlon reports and scans.
GCMS organic analysis data reports, 7/9/86 16
sample /MB860701, attached scans and
quantitatlon reports.
Cover letter regarding attached 7/11/86 13
proposed schedule of sampling
activities, sample container
requirements, and sample
preservatives, a list of contract
laboratory program protection limits,
and a list of additional parameters
for analysis.
Unknown
Unknown
Merly McMall, WEOE
Jeff Bauman, METRO
METRO
Unknown
Unknown
6/27/66 19 METRO
Unknown
METRO
METRO
Michael L.R. Housley
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Unknown
Mr. Chrlstoph Getchell
City of Tacoma Public
Works
19
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.5 000011 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Letter regarding analytical results
on gas samples collected on 6/25/86
at Tacoma Landfill, attached letter
regarding time weighted average and
short-time exposure limits.
AR 5.5 000012 5.5 Sampling and Analysis Cover letter regarding attached
AR 5.5 000013 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000014
AR 5.5 000015
AR 5.5 000016
AR 5.5 000017
AR 5.5 000018
AR 5.5 000019
AR 5.5 000020
AR 5.5 000021
AR 5.5 000022
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
averages and short-term exposure
limits.
Letter regarding time weighted
averages and short-term exposure
limits, attached organic sample
narrative METRO sample /268500,
attached GCMS organic analysis data
report for volatlles, quantitation
reports, and scans.
Olympic Environmental Laboratory data
summary, Leach Creek, Tacoma.
GrounoVater samples, volatile organic
compounds
Groundwater samples, inorganic com-
pounds.
Subsurface soil samples, volatile.
Sediment samples, volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile organic
compounds.
List of sampling actlvles for Tacoma
Landfill wells.
Surface water leachate and sewer
samples, semivolatile organic
compounds.
Cover letter regarding attached
priority pollutant analysis results.
7/18/86 5
7/28/86 2
7/28/86 21
9/9/86
Cover memo regarding organic analysis 9/22/86 8
of Leach Creek water samples,
attached organic analysis data sheets
for semlvolatlle compounds and
volatile compounds.
T.L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Michael L.R. Housley
Black & Veatch
Michael L.R. Housley
Black & Veatch
Michael L.R. Housley
Black & Veatch
Dick Huntamer, WDOE
Phil Rlngrose
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
Phil Rlngrose
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
Phil Rlngrose
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
9/25/86
8/86 &
10/86
8/86,
10/86 &
11/86
8/86 &
9/86
7/86 &
8/86
8/86,
10/86 &
11/86
7/86-
10/86
1
4
2
1
4
1
2
UDOE
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Mr. Thair Jorgenson
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
Bill Myers, UDOE
20
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.5 000023 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000024 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000025 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000026 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000027 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000028 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000029 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000070 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000031 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000032 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000033 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000034 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000034a 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000035 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Cover memo regarding attached organic 9/22/86 14
analysis of Leach Creek, Tacome
Landfill water and soil samples.
Request for analysis, Manchester
Environmental Laboratories.
Request for analysis, Manchester
Environmental Laboratories.
Request for analysis, Manchester
Environmental Laboratories.
Summary of detected volatile
compounds, attached list of existing
well sampling locations and
analytical data for priority
pollutants, volatile and organic
compounds and inorganic compounds.
Letter regarding analytical results 10/2/86 2
of groundwater samples.
Letter regarding attached analytical 10/2/86 36
results for priority pollutant
volatile compounds, priority
pollutant metals, major ions and
drinking water parameters.
Olympia Environmental Laboratory data 11/4/86 1
summary.
Environmental Laboratory data summary 1/21/87 2
metals.
Organic sample narrative METRO sample 10/23/86 18
X437859, attached 6CM organic
analysis report for volatile*,
pesticide compounds quantitation
reports and scans.
Cover letter regarding attached 10/29/86 3
volatile organic analysis data sheet
and map of South Tacoma channel.
Letter regarding landfill groundwater 11/3/86 2
study and connection of residences to
city Mater.
Memo regarding Tacoma Landfill update 11/6/86 3
- related health department Issues.
Environmental Laboratory data 2/26/87 2
summary, metals.
Dick Huntamer, UDOE
Bill Myers, UDOE
9/24/86
9/24/86
9/26/86
8/86
2
2
2
31
Bill Myers, UDOE
Bill Myers, UDOE
Bill Myers, UDOE
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
UDOE
UDOE
METRO
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Fred A Thompson
City of Tacoma, Department
of Public Works
Fred Gardner, UDOE
UDOE
Thalr Jorgensen
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
Mr. Thair Jorgenson
City of Tacoma Refuse
ty
City of
Utility
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Patricia C. Storm, EPA
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Phil Johnson
Unknown
21
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.5 000036 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000037 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000038 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000039 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000040 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000041 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000042 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000043 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000044 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000045 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000046 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Olympia Environmental Laboratory data 12/5/86 1
summary.
Organic sample narrative METRO sample 11/21/86 28
/477062. attached GCMs organic
analysis data report, GCMs organic
data report for volatiles,
quantltatlon reports and scans.
Remedial Investigation Phase I Field 12/2/86 134
Investigation Data, Preliminary.
Letter regarding attached data sheets 1/30/87 15
for private well samples, revised
tables 1 and 2, 12/19/86 sampling
plan, summary table of the volatile
organic compounds detected in the
total organic halogen (TOX) values,
and tables listing volatile organic
compounds.
Landfill gas samples, volatile 2/87 & 9
organic compounds, grounoVater 3/87
samples, halogenated organic
compounds, metals analyses,
grounoVater samples, solid waste
regulations and treatment parameters.
Cover letter regarding attached data 4/8/87 24
sheets for volatile organic compounds
for private wells near the landfill.
Pumping test data, project TFS 5/2/87 10
hydrologlst: CTE, Job /1775.01.
Memo regarding attached samples 5/8/87 6
collected during Round 1 of Phase II
of the Tacoma Landfill's Remedial
Investigation.
Memo regarding quality assurance 5/13/87 17
report /3.
Letter regarding Tacoma Landfill 5/14/87 5
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study and attached lab results for
volatile organic compounds, priority
pollutants and hazardous substances.
Data sheets from 5/14/87 Technical 3/20/87 3
Progress Report regarding volatile
organic compounds, priority
pollutants, and hazardous substance
list.
UOOE
METRO
Black It Veatch. Hart-
Crowser & Associates, Inc.
Prepared for City of Tacoma
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Michael L.R. Housely
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Phillip M. Rlngrose
City of Tacoma Refuse
Division
Black & Veatch
Thair Jorgenson,
City of Tacoma, Refuse
Utility
Unknown
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
Unknown
City of Tacoma
City of Tacoma
Fred Gardner. UDOE
Unknown
22
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date t Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.5 000047 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000048 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000049 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000050 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000051 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000052 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000053 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000054 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000055 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000056 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000057 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000058 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Uater level data regarding South 6/1/87 1
Tacoma Swamp wells.
P.U.-8A production well constant rate 6/87 3
pumping test drawdown and recovery
data measured In TL-8A through 8C
observation wells.
Groundwater sample data sheets for 6/87 7
volatile organic compounds and for
halogenated organic compounds.
Table 3 solid waste regulation 6/87 1
parameters, Remedial Investigation
Phase II, Round 2 monitoring well
samples.
Surface water samples, halogenated 6/16/87 1
organic compounds.
Solid waste regulation parameters in 6/16/87 1
Remedial Investigation Phase II,
Round 2 surface water samples.
Leachate samples, volatile organic 6/17/87 1
compounds-EPA Method 624.
Table 4 solid waste regualtlon 6/87 1
parameters Remedial Investigation
Phase I, Round 2, private well
samples.
Solid waste regulation parameters 6/18/87 1
Remedial Investigation Phase II,
Round 2, leachate samples.
Landfill gas samples, volatile 2/87 & 9
organic compounds, halogenated 3/87
compounds, groundwater samples, solid
waste regulation and treatment
parameters.
Memo regarding quality assurance 5/13/87 8
report /5.
Memo regarding samples collected 5/8/87 6
during Round 1 of Phase II of the
Tacoma Landfill Remedial
Investigation, attached revised
tables o through 10 from the sampling
plan.
Hart-Crowser & Associates,
Inc.
Hart-Crowser & Associates,
Inc.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
City of Tacoma
City of Tacoma
23
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.5 000059 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000060 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000061 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000062 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 00006? 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 00064 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 00065
AR 5.5 00066
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
AR 5.5 000067 5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Letter report regarding information 6/18/87 22
collected during pumping test
performed at Tacoma Landfill on
5/2/87.
Table 5 regarding dissolved iron and 6/18/87 1
manganese concentrations for RI Phase &
II, Round 2, private well samples. 6/19/87
Memo regarding evaluation of pumping 7/14/87 1
test results from PW8A.
Environmental Laboratory data 10/16/87 1
summary, metals, Leach Creek, Tacoma.
Memo regarding Phase II. Round 2 7/30/87 2
surface water samples.
Memo regarding Phase II. Round 2 7/70/87 2
leachate samples.
Memo regarding Phase II. Round 2 8/4/87 1
groundwater samples.
Letter regarding attached analysis 8/6/87 41
sheets for private wells, volatile
organic compounds, priority
pollutants, halogenated organic
compounds, memo regarding Phase II.
Round 2 leachate samples, and memo
regarding Phase II, Round 2 surface
water samples.
Memo regarding Phase II, Round 2 8/16/87 1
groundwater samples.
Russell C. Prior
Charles T. Ellingson
Hart-Crowser, Inc.
Black & Veatch
Bill Myers, UDOE
WOOE
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Thalr Jorgenson
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility Division
Black & Veatch
Thomas Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Unknown
Thalr Jorgensen, City
of Tacoma Refuse Utility
Mark Snyder
Black & Veatch
Charles Ellingson
Hart-Crowser
Richard Branchflower
Thair Jorgensen, City
of Tacoma Refuse Utility
Mark Snyder
Black & Veatch
Charles Ellingson
Hart-Crowser
Richard Branchflower
Thalr Jorgensen. City
of Tacoma Refuse Utility
Mark Snyder
Black & Veatch
Charles Ellingson
Hart-Crowser
Glynis Stumpf, MDOE
Thalr Jorgensen, City
of Tacoma Refuse Utility
Mark Snyder
Black & Veatch
Charles Ellingson
Hart-Crowser
Richard Branchflower
24
-------
Doc. X
File
Type/Description
Date t Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.5 00068
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
Memo regarding Phase II, Round 2
leachate samples.
8/18/87 1 Black & Veatch
AR 5.5 00069 5.5 Sampling and Analysis Nemo regarding Phase II, Round 2
Data surface water samples.
8/17/87 1 Black & Veatch
AR 5.5 00070
AR 5.5 000071
AR 5.5 000072
AR 5.5 000073
AR 5.5 000074
AR 5.6 000001
AR 5.6 000002
AR 5.6 00000?
AR 5.6 000004
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Data
5.6 Remedial
Investigation/Draft Reports
and Comments
5.6 Remedial
Investigation/Draft Reports
and Comments
5.6 Remedial
Investigation/Draft Reports
and Comments
5.6 Remedial
Investigation/Draft Reports
and Comments
Letter regarding resampling of Holly 9/4/87
and Fircrest wells. Attached data
sheets regarding volatile organic
compounds.
Private well analyses Tacoma Landfill 11/17/87
Rl-Phase II, Round 3 Draft.
List of private wells. no date
Table 1, field paramters and total no date 2
organic carbon for groundweter
samples collected during Phase II,
Round 2 Tacoma Landfill RI.
Table 2 tentatively identified no date 1
compounds from the grounoVater
samples collected from landfill
monitoring wells during Phase II,
Round 2 of the Tacoma Landfill RI.
Draft Remedial Investigation Report, 9/1/87 209
Vol. 1.
Draft Remedial Investigation Report 9/1/87 598
Vol. 2, appendices.
Letter regarding EPA agency review of 9/14/87 1
Draft Remedial Investigation Reports.
Figures 4-20 through 4-23 regarding
groundwater contamination submitted
with city progress reports.
9/21/87 4
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for City of Tacoma
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for City of Tacoma
Phillip M. Ringrose
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility Division
City of Tacoma
Thalr Jorgensen, City
of Tacoma Refuse Utility
Mark Snyder
Black t Veatch
Charles Ellingson
Hart-Crowser
Richard Branchflower
Thalr Jorgensen, City
of Tacoma Refuse Utility
Nark Snyder
Black & Veatch
Charles Ellingson
Hart-Crowser
Richard Branchflower
Thair Jorgensen
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Black & Veatch
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Debbie Vamamoto, EPA
Unknown
25
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 5.6 000005 5.6 Remedial
Investigation/Draft Reports
and Comments
AR 5.6 000006 5.6 Remedial
Investigation/Draft Reports
and Comments
AR 5.6 000007 5.6 Remedial
Investigation/Draft Reports
and Comments
AR 5.7 000001 5.7 Remedial
Investigation/Final Report
AR 5.7 000002 5.7 Remedial
Investigation/Final Report
AR 5.7 000005 5.7 Remedial
Investigation/Final Report
Memo regarding Tacoma Landfill 11/16/87 4
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Risk Assessment, attached
calculation of risk from vinyl
chloride in groundwater.
Specific comments by Ecology, Tacoma no date 17
Landfill Remedial Investigation
report.
Specific comments to Tacoma Remedial no date 2
Investigation comments.
Remedial Investigation Final Report, 12/18/87 250
Vol. 1.
Remedial Investigation Final Report, 12/18/87 440
Vol. 2, Appendices
Remedial Investigation Final Report, 12/18/87 340
Vol. 3. Appendices
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
UOOE
UDOE
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for City of Tacoma
Black & Veatch, Prepared
for City of Tacoma
Black & Veatch
Prepared for the City
of Tacoma, Washington.
City of Tacoma
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Section 6.0
FEASIBILITY STUDY.
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE
PARTY LEAD
AR 6.1 000001 6.1 Preliminary Screening
of Remedial Technology
Alternatives
AR 6.1 000002 6.1 Preliminary
Screening of Remedial
Technology Alternatives
AR 6.2 000001 6.2 Feasibility Study,
Draft and Comments
AR 6.2 000002 6.2 Feasibility Study,
Draft and Comments
AR 6.2 000003 6.2 Feasibility Study,
Draft and Comments
AR 6.2 000004 6.2 Feasibility Study,
Draft and Comments
Cover letter regarding attached Draft 3/3/87 30
Preliminary Remedial Technology
Screening Report.
Cover letter regarding attached 6/11/87 99
Remedial Action Alternative
Development and Initial Screening
Report, Review draft.
Draft Feasibility Study Report. 9/26/87 234
Tacoma Landfill, Vol. 1, Including
cover letter.
Draft Feasibility Studv Report. 9/23/87 184
Tacoma Landfill, Vol. 2 Appendices.
Letter concerning copies of the 9/14/87 1
agency review draft of Tacoma
Landfill Remedial Investigation.
Letter regarding copies of the Agency 10/1/87 1
review draft of Feasibility Study
Report, Tacoma Landfill.
Black & Veatch
Engineers/Architects,
Prepared for the City
of Tacoma, Washington.
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch.
Engineers/Architects
Thomas L. Rutherford
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Engineers/Architects
Phillip M. Rlngrose,
Public Works Utility
Services, City of Tacoma
Phillip M. Rlngrose,
Public Works Utility
Services, City of Tacoma
Mr. Thalr Jorgenson
City of Tacoma Refuse
Utility
Us. Patricia C. Storm
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Ms. Blynis Stumpf. UOOE
Ms. Glynls Stumpf, UOOE
Debbie Yamamoto, EPA
Debbie Yamamoto, EPA
26
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 6.2 000009 6.2 Feasibility Study,
Draft and Comments
AR 6.3 000001
AR 6.3 000002
AR 6.4 000001
Section 7.0
AR 7.1 000001
6.3 Feasibility Study,
Final Reports
6.3 Feasibility Study,
Final Reports
Specific comments by Washington Unknown 6
Department of Ecology regarding
Tacoma Landfill Feasibility Study
Report.
Feasibility Study Final Report Vol. 1 12/22/87 256
Feasibility Study Final Report,
Tacoma Landfill, Vol. 2 Appendices.
6.4 Applicable Relevant and Letter concerning the Superfund
Appropriate Requirements Amendments and Reauthorizatlon Act
requirements regarding.the ARARs
specifically for the Tacoma Landfill
site Feasibility Study.
12/22/87 196
3/2/87
RECORD OF DECISION
7.1 Correspondence
AR 7.1 000002 7.1 Correspondence
AR 7.1 000003
AR 7.1 000004
AR 7.1 00000$
AR 7.1 000006
AR 7.1 000007
AR 7.2 000001
7.1 Correspondence
7.1 Correspondence
7.1 Correspondence
7.1 Correspondence
7.1 Correspondence
7.2 Review of Tacoma
Landfill Closure Plan
Memo re Review of ROD Table and
Health-Based numbers. Attached Table
re Perforneance Levels for Treatement
System/Discharge to Surface Water.
Memo re brief review of "ROP."
Tacoma Landfill, Black and Veatch.
Telephone Record re Central Cell
Timer.
Handwritten memo re attached handout
from a Geosynthetlc 87 Conference in
New Orleans, USA.
Telephone Record re possible methane
gas problems.
Routing slip re attached telephone
record concerning landfill cell
manholes.
Memo re recording barograph.
Cover letter re attached reviews of
Tacoma Landfill: Draft Operations
Plan and Draft Closure Plan and
appendix re proposed additional
monitoring wells and map re well
locations.
13
3/25/88
3/25/88
10/9/87
11/10/87
12/16/87 1
1/11//88 2
1/27/88 1
3/21/88 8
UOOE
Black & Veatch,
Engineers/Architects
Prepared for the City
of Tacoma, Washington
Black & Veatch,
Engineers/Architects.
Prepared for the City of
Tacoma, Washington
James L. Bradford,
Black & Veatch
Michael Watson, Regional
lexicologist U.S. EPA
Michael Watson, Regional
Toxicologist. U.S. EPA
Region X
Mark Synder. Black & Veatch
Pete Kmet, UOOE
Tom Henderson, Inpsector,
Tacoma Fire Department
Pete Kmet, WDOE
Jim Oberlander, HUCP, WDOE
Pete Kmet, WDOE
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Mr. Fred Gardner, WDOE
Deborah Yamamoto.
Superfund Program, U.S.
EPA Region X
Deborah Vamamoto,
Superfund Program, U.S.
EPA Region X
Jim Oberlander, WDOE
Carol Kraege, Glynls
Stumpf, Jim Oberlander;
WDOE
J. Oberlander, WDOE
Glynls Stumpf, WDOE
Darnel Weaver, Air
Programs, WDOE
Doug Pierce, Tacoma-
Pierce County Health
Department
27
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date X Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 7.3 000001
AR 7.3 000002
AR 7.3 000003
AR 7.3 000004
AR 7.3 00000?
AR 7.3 000006
AR 7.3 000007
AR 7.3 000008
AR 7.3 000009
AR 7.3 000010
AR 7.3 000011
AR 7.3 000012
AR 7.3 000013
AR 7.3 000014
AR 7.3 000015
AR 7.3 000016
AR 7.3 000017
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Reports
Inspection Report re New Cell and
Attached report re New Cell
Construction.
Inspection Report re New Cell
Construction.
Inspection Report re Central Pit Area
where geomenbrane was being
installed.
Inspection Report re liner and
leachate trench.
Inspection Reports re Central Cell
Construction.
Inspection Reports re New Central
Cell.
Inspection Report re New Cell.
Inspection Report re site visit.
Inspection Report re New Central
Lined Cell.
Inspection Report re New Cell.
Inspection Report re Central Cell.
Inspection Report re liner
installation.
Inspection Report re New Central
Cell.
Inspection Report re New Central
Cell.
Inspection Report re vacuum test.
Inspection Report re Central Cell
Project.
Inspection Report re liner area,
9/17/87
9/22/87
9/24/87
9/24/87
9/25/88
9/26/87
9/28/87
9/29/87
9/30/87
10/2/87
10/9/87
10/12/87
10/15/87
10/22/87
11/6/87
11/13/87
12/17/87
5
6
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
J. Oberlander, UDOE
J. Oberlander. UDOE
P. Kmet and J. Oberlander,
UDOE
C. Kraege, G. Stumpf, UOOE
J. Oberlander, UDOE
S. Milham, J. Oberlander,
UDOE
J. Oberlander, UDOE
Carol Kraege, UDOE
Boose, Oberlander, UOOE
Oberlander, UDOE
Brady, Oberlander, UDOE
P. Kmet and J. Oberlander,
UDOE
J. Knudson, J. Oberlander,
UDOE
J. Oberlander, UDOE
Cunnings, Kraege,
Oberlander ; UDOE
M. Duerr, J. Oberlander,
UDOE
John Coate. Jim Oberlander,
i Mwr
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
File
AR 7.3 000018 7.3 Inspection Reports
manhole. Attached map.
Inspection Report re Central Cell Toe
drain leachate flows. Attached
Table re ranges of variation in
leachate characteristics and photos
1/21/88
Sara Bralller. TPCHD;
Oberlander, UDOE
File
28
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 7.4 000001 7.4 Record of Decision
Transmittal memo re attached Record
of Decision, Remedial Alternative
Selection, Final Remedial Action,
Commencement Bay-South Tacoma
Channel, Tacoma Landfill. Attached
Appendices re: Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements, Responsiveness Summary,
Index to Administrative Record and
State Concurrence Letter.
3/30/88 151
Charles E. Flndley,
Director Hazardous Haste
Division, U.U. EPA Region X
Roble 6. Russell,
Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA Region X
Section 8.0
AR 8.1 000001
STATE COORDINATION
8.1 Correspondence
Letter re: State concurrence with
Record of Decision
3/30/88
Andrea Beatty Riniker,
Director UDOE
Roble Russell, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA
Region X
Section 9.0
AR 9.1 000001
ENFORCEMENT
9.1 Notice Letters and
Responses
AR 9.1 000002 9.1 Notice Letters and
Responses
AR 9.1 000003 9.1 Notice Letters and
Responses
AR 9.1 000004 9.1 Notice Letters and
Responses
AR 9.1 000005 9.1 Notice Letters and
Responses
AR 9.2 000001 9.2 Endangerment Assessment
AR 9.3 000001 9.3 Response Order by
Consent
Notice letter regarding potential 10/16/85
liability for federal actions at the
Tacoma Landfill site.
Notice letter regarding potential 1/10/86 2
liability for remedial activities
necessary at the Tacoma Landfill
site.
Notice letter regarding potential 1/10/86 2
liability for remedial activities
necessary at the Tacoma Landfill
site.
Notice letter regarding potential 1/10/86 2
liability for remedial activities
necessary at the Tacoma Landfill
site.
Notice letter regarding potential 1/10/86 2
liability for remedial activities
necessary at the Tacoma Landfill
site.
Cover letter regarding attached 4/3/87 4
Endangerment Assessment Report
Outline.
Response Order by Consent in the 6/27/86 35
matter of Tacoma Landfill.
29
Randall F. Smith for
Charles E. Findley,
Director Hazardous
Waste Division, U.S.
Environmental Pro-
tection Agency
Fred Gardner, WDOE
Fred Gardner, WDOE
Fred Gardner, WDOE
Fred Gardner, WDOE
Phillip M. Ringrose,
Refuse Utility Division,
City of Tacoma
WDOE
Erllng Mork. City
Manager, City of
Tacoma
Mr. Erling Mork,
City Manager. City
of Tacoma
Mr. William Larsen
Refuse Utility Division,
City of Tacoma
Mr. Bob Myrlck, Water
Division, City of Tacoma
Mr. Roger Sparling,
Solid Waste Utility
Manager, City of Tacoma
Fred Gardner, WDOE
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date I Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 9.3 000002 9.3 Response Order by
Consent
AR 9.4 000001 9.4 Potentially Responsible
Party Information, Waste
quantities, Types, etc.
AR 9.4 000002 9.4 Potentially Responsible
Party Information, Waste
Quantities, Types, etc.
AR 9.4 000003 9.4 Potentially Responsible
Party Information. Waste
Quantities, Types, etc.
AR 9.4 000004 9.4 Potentially Responsible
Party Information, Waste
Quantities, Types, etc.
AR 9.5 000001 9.5 Landfill Operating
Permit
Request for Resolution for the City 6/17/86
Council meeting of Tuesday, July 1,
1986 concerning the Remedial
Investigation at the Tacoma Landfill
site.
Notification of Hazardous Waste site 6/3/81
and a telephone use report regarding
sample information.
Nemo regarding landfill 9/8/82
reconnaissance strategy for
Commencement Bay, City of Tacoma.
Memorandum on research of waste 12/2/86 11
sources with attached table on
physical characteristics of potential
landfill contaminants and compounds
detected in landfill gas.
Technical Progress Report detailing 12/10/86 3
physical characteristics of potential
landfill contaminants and compounds
detected in landfill gas.
Letter outlining conditions regarding 5/14/87 4
the attached 1987 conditional
operating permit for City of Tacoma
Landfill:
R. D. Sparling, Refuse
Utility Public Works
Department, City of Tacoma
Ronald West. Chemical
Processors, Inc.
Robert A. Poss for
James M. Evert, Toxic
Substances Control Branch,
united States Environmental
Protection Agency
Thomas L. Rutherford,
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Jody L. Snyder, R.S.
Tacoma-Plerce County
Health Department
U.S. EPA
Hooker Chemical Co.,
Operations Division
W. J. Larsen, City of
Tacoma Public Works
Alexandra B. Smith,
Air and Waste Management
Division, U.S. EPA
Thair Jorgenson. City
of Tacoma Refuse Utility
Unknown
Phillip Ringrose.
Refuse Utility Division,
City of Tacoma
Section 10.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Section 11.0 NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
AR 11.1 000001 11.1 Correspondence
Cover letter re concern for salmon
habitat at Leach Creek and attached
comments on the Remedial
Investigation Report.
3/4/88
Lew Consiolierl, Coastal
Resource Coordinator, U.S.
Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and
Atomospherlc
Administration
Deborah Yamamoto, EPA
Region X
30
-------
Doc. X
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
CONGRESSIONAL
Section 12.0 HEARINGS/INQUIRIES
Section 15.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/STATE
LEAD
AR 15.1 000001 13.1 Comnunlty Relations
Plan
AR 13.2 000001 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000002 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000003 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000004 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000005 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000006 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000007 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
Community Relations Plan for the 5/6/85 42
Tacoma Landfill Preliminary
Investigation.
Letter regarding meeting concerning 10/21/82 1
reconnaissance level investigation of
the Tacoma Municipal Landfill portion
of the Commencement Bay Site.
General updated information regarding 7
Tacoma Landfill situation, well
location map, and selected and
monitoring well data.
Two letters regarding information 5/24/85 3
repositories established for the
Tacoma Landfill Remedial Action
Program.
Letter regarding information file on 6/5/85 3
the Department of Ecology's Tacoma
Landfill Remedial Investigation with
attached Information Repository Index
Two letters regarding information 6/5/85 5
file on the Department of Ecology's
Tacoma Landfill Remedial
Investigation, with attached
Information Repository Index.
Letter regarding information file on 6/5/85
the Department of Ecology's Tacoma
Landfill Remedial Investigation, with
attached Information Repository
Index.
Letter regarding information file on 6/5/85
the Department of Ecology's. Tacoma
Landfill Remedial Investigation with
attached Information Repository Index
and memo regarding Information
Repositories.
Susan Hall, Hall &
Associates
Robert A. Poss, EPA
UOOE
Laurie G. Robertson,
Hall & Associates
Mark G. Snyder,
Black & Veatch
Mark 6. Snyder,
Black ft Veatch
Mark G. Snyder,
Black & Veatch
Mark 6. Snyder,
Black & Veatch
Fred Gardner, MODE
Jim Valentine, Town
Administrator, Flrcrest,
Washington
Unknown
Fred Gardner. UDOE
Kenneth Harvey, Tacoma
Public Library
Ms. Pat Devlne. U.S. EPA
Regional Library
Mr. Derek Sandlson
Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department
Mr. Ullbur Larson,
City of Tacoma Department
of Public Works
Mr. Dean Hampton,
Pierce County Library
Mr. Kenneth Harvey,
Tacoma Public Library
31
-------
Doc. X
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization Location of Docunent
AR 13.2 000008 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000009 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000010 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
Nemo regarding Tacoma Landfill 4/10/86 7
Information Repository with attached
list of repositories, index form,
Initial correspondence to the
repository personnel, and draft
letter.
Letter regarding information file on 5/1/86 1
the Tacoma Landfill.
Agenda for Tacoma Landfill 5/15/86 1
informational meeting at Fircrest
Recreation Center.
Lawrie Robertson, Hall
& Associates
Claire Ryan, UDOE
UDOE
Claire Ryan, UDOE
Ms. Pat Divine. U.S. EPA
Regional Library
Unknown
AR 13.2 000011 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.2 000012 13.2 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 13.3 000001 13.3 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 13.3 000002 13.3 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 13.3 000003 13.3 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 13.3 000004 13.3 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 13.3 000005 13.3 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 13.3 000006 13.3 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
Attendance register from the Tacoma 5/13/86 2
Landfill informational meeting at
Fircrest Recreational Center.
Letter regarding packet Information 5/15/86 1
sent to residents near Tacoma
Landfill.
News release regarding funding and 9/28/84 2
study of Tacoma Landfill.
Fact sheet regarding preliminary test 6/25/85 2
results on drinking water well
contamination.
Well contamination fact sheet 4/15/85 5
Fact sheet regarding drinking water 6/25/85
well contamination.
Fact sheet regarding well 4/15/85 3
contamination, with attached map.
Press release regarding the Remedial 4/5/86 1
Investigation and Feasibility Study
for Tacoma Landfill.
AR 13.4 000001 13.4 Connents and Responses Letter re Public Meeting on February 2/20/88 4
11, 1988 and request for alternate
water supply for residents on 53rd
Street West.
AR 13.4 000002 13.4 Connents and Responses Letter re comments on proposed Tacoma 2/26/88 3
Landfill Cleaning and the Public
Meeting on February 11, 1988.
Attached newspaper article "The EPA
essens its fear of toxins.*
UDOE
Claire Ryan, UDOE
Kathy Davidson, U.S. EPA
Fred Gardner. UDOE
Derek Sandison, Tacoma-
Pierce County Health
Department
Fred Gardner, UDOE
UDOE
Fred Gardner, UDOE
Dave Frutiger and
Thalr Jorgenson, City
of Tacoma, Refuse Utility
Division
C.L. Kelly, Jr. Citizen of
Tacoma, Washington
Kenneth F. Olson, Tacoma
Public Utilities
Unknown
Peter Andrews, Tacoma
Press
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Ms. Glynls Stumpf, UDOE
Ms. Glynls Stumpf, UDOE
32
-------
Doc. S
File
Type/Description
Date X Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 13.4 000003
AR 13.5 000001
13.3 Comments and Responses Responsiveness Summary
13.5 Public Meeting
Transcripts
Transcript of Proceedings, Public
Meeting February 11. 1988
3/88 25 U.S. EPA Region 10. MODE
2/11/88 8? Carol Kraege. Glynlx
Stumpf. Bill dyers, UOOE;
Deborah Yamamoto, EPA
Region X
File
File
Section 14.0
AR 14.1 000001
AR 14.1 000002
AR 14.1 000003
AR 14.1 000004
AR 14.1 000005
AR 14.1 000006
AR 14.1 000007
AR 14.1 000008
AR 14.1 000009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -
POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE PARTY LEAD
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
Meeting Notices - General
Correspondence
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
Letter regarding Tacoma Landfill 6/19/86 2
general information with-attached
memo from the Office of the Governor.
Letter regarding Remedial 7/21/86 1
Investigation/Feasibility Study.
Letter to residents regarding general 7/28/86 1
information on Tacoma Landfill clean-
up.
Cover letter regarding hazardous 7/29/86 1
waste cleanup program's active files.
Letter regarding Department of 10/6/86 1
Ecology's information repository.
Letter regarding information 10/6/86 1
repository for grounoVater
contamination at Tacoma Landfill.
Letters regarding information 2/26/87 3
repository materials for Tacoma
Landfill.
Letter regarding Tacoma Landfill 4/10/87 2
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study, and upcoming meeting for
Tacoma area residents.
Agenda for well owners' meeting with 4/16/87 10
attached charts, maps and tables.
Andrea Beatty-Rinlker,
UDOE
Fred Gardner. WDOE
Claire Ryan. Hazardous
Haste Cleanup Program,
WDOE
Terese Neu Richmond.
Office of the Attorney
General
Miml Sheridan. Hall &
Associates
Miml Sheridan, Hall &
Associates
Phillip M. Ringrose,
City of Tacoma
Phillip M. Ringrose, City
of Tacoma
City of Tacoma. UDOE
Mr. Peter Andrews, Tacoma
Mr. Peter Andrews.
Tacoma
Residents near Tacoma
Landfill
Laura Murphy, Seattle
Fred Gardner, UOOE
Dean Hampton, Pierce
County Library
Dave Palmer, Tacoma
Public Library
Russell Post, Tacoma-
Plerce County Health
Department
Dean Hampton,
Pierce County Library
Residents near Tacoma
Landfill
Tacoma area well owners
53
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date
/ Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 14.1 000010 14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 14.1 000011 14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 14.1 000012 14.1 Meeting Notices -
General Correspondence
AR 14.2 000001 14.2 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 14.2 000002 14.2 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 14.2 000003 14.2 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
AR 14.2 000004 14.2 Press Releases/Fact
Sheets
Letter from resident regarding Unknown
specific health concerns due to well
contamination.
Listing of general information Unknown
repositories.
Meeting Notice for the Washington 2/11/88
Department of Ecology public meeting
on the Tacoma Landfill site.
Press release regarding seeping 5/20/86
methane gas in Tacoma.
Routing and transmittal slip with 7/7/86
attached draft news release regarding
Tacoma Landfill Investigation plans.
Press release regarding Remedial Unknown
Investigation/Feasibility Study for
Tacoma Landfill.
Fact sheet regarding the proposed 1988
Tacoma Landfill clean-up with figure
site map, landfill cross section, and
summary of detailed evaluation.
Linda Knipher-Hlggins,
Tacoaa
1 Unknown
1 UDOE
2 Joseph Turner, The
News Tribune, Tacoma
2 UDOE
Dave Frutlger,
Thair Jorgenson, Refuse
Utility, City of Tacoma
Glynis Stumpf. UDOE
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Pat Storm, EPA
Press
Unknown
15.0
AR 15.1 000001
AR 15.1 000002
TECHNICAL SOURCES AND
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
15.1 Technical Sources and
Guidance Documents
15.1 Technical Sources and
Guidance Documents
AR 15.1 000003 15.1 Technical Sources and
Guidance Documents
AR 15.1 000004 15.1 Technical Sources and
Guidance Documents
AR 15.1 000005
AR 15.1 000006
15.1 Technical Sources and
Guidance Documents
15.1 Technical Sources and
Guidance Documents
Report regarding chemical analysis of
public water supplies.
Cover letter with attached geological 3/19/85
survey concerning preliminary
evaluation of hydrology and water
quality near the Tacoma Landfill.
Memorandum regarding additional air 12/23/86 12
quality modeling.
11/72 37 Washington State Department
of Social and Health
Services
41 Philip J. Carpenter
United States Department of
Interior with UDOE
Summary regarding Chambers/Clover 6/87
Creek Aquifer Sole Source Petition
Reference Section from Remedial 12/87
Investigation Final Report Vol. 1
Reference Section from Feasibility 12/87
Study Final Report Vol. 1
Dan Nelson
Black & Veatch - Kansas
City
3 Deborah Yamamota. EPA
3 Black & Veatch
Prepared for the City of
Tacoma
1 Black & Veatch
Prepared for the City of
Tacoma
unknown
Mr. Chuck Shenk, EPA
Mark Snyder
Black ft Veatch - Seattle
File
Publicly Available
Publicly Available
34
-------
Doc. /
File
Type/Description
Date / Pages Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
AR 15.2 000001
19.1 Technical Sources and
Guidance Documents
15.2 Haps, Graphics,
Photos
AR 15.2 000002 15.2 Haps, Graphics,
Photos
AR 15.2 000003 15.2 Haps, Graphics,
Photos
AR 15.2 000004 15.2 Haps, Graphics.
Photos
Tacoma-Plerce County Health
Department Sole Source Aquifer
Petition Chambers/Clover Creek
Aquifer
Cover letter with attached water
level contours, and base nap.
Appendix D:
Landfill.
Support Drawings for
Haps of Leachate sample locations and
surface water sample locations.
List of Photos, Haps and Graphics.
Actual naps, graphics and photos
located at UDOE (Site) File
6/87
8/7/87
Unknown
Unknown
no date
Alfred H. Allen, Director
of Health, Tacona/Pierce
County Health Department
Bill Myers
Hazardous Waste Clean-up
Program, UDOE
Unknown
Unknown
Robie Russell Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA
Mr. Glenn Bruck. U.S. EPA
Unknown
Unknown
Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department
55
-------
INDEX TO
CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OF
Doc. / File
AR 4.5 000002 4.3 Work Plans
AR 4.3 000003 4.3 Work Plans
AR 4.3 000004 4.3 Work Plans
TACOMA LANDFILL ADMINISTRATIVE
Type/Description
Project Work Plan for RI Phase I -
Contract Pricing Proposal Tables,
Remedial Action Section Work
Assignment.
Project Work Plan for RI Phase II -
Table 6.1 Project Budget Summary,
Table 6.3-1 Direct Labor Hours
Project Work Plan for Conceptual
Feasibility Study, Table 4-1
Conceptual Cost Estimated, Table 6.3-
2 Direct Labor Hours, Table 6.3-3
Direct Labor Costs, Table 6.4-1 Other
Direct Costs. Table 6.4-2 Other
Direct Costs, Table 6.4-3 Other
Direct Costs. -
RECORD
Date / Pages
12/7/84 10
4/10/85 2
12/10/85
Author/Organization
Addressee/Organization
Location of Document
Black & Veatch
Prepared for MODE
Black & Veatch
Prepared for UDOE
Black & Veatch
Prepared for UDOE
36
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE CONCURRENCE LETTER
-------
ANDREA 8EATTY RINIKER
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV- II • Olympu. Washington W504-87I1 , (!<*>) 459-bOOO
March 30, 1988
Mr. Robie Russell
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Record of Decision (ROD) for the Tacoma Landfill Site,
Tacoma, Washington
Dear Mr. Russell:
The Washington State Department has completed its review of the Tacoma
Landfill ROD. Based on this review, the State concurs with the
selected remedy. The major elements the remedy provides for are:
1. Prevention of further groundwater contamination via a groundwater
extraction/treatment system.
2. Reducing the future production of leachate by constraints on site
operations and by proper grading and capping of the landfill.
3. Elimination of off-site gas migration through operation of an
existing gas control system and expansion of this system, if
necessary.
4. Further protection of public health and the environment via
monitoring of groundwater, surface water, gas and air emmissions,
and provision of alternate water supplies where necessary.
I know Ecology and EPA staff have been working long hours and in close
cooperation to complete this ROD in a timely manner. We look forward
to successful consent decree negotiations with the City of Tacoma to
implement the ROD.
Andrea 'Beatty Riniker.
Director
MC:sjm
cc: Mike Rundlett
------- |