United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Public Affairs
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
no
Illinois Indiana" ~ U U
Michigan Minnesota
Ohio Wisconsin
SERA Mid-State Disposal, Inc.
Superfund Site
Proposed Plan
July 1988
INTRODUCTION
kv The United States Environmental
/Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), in coopera-
tion with the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR), recently com-
pleted an evaluation of remedial alterna-
tives for containing and treating chemical
contamination at the Mid-State Disposal,
Inc. Superfund site in Cleveland Township,
Marathon County, Wisconsin, Based on
this evaluation, U,S. EPA has identified a
preferred remedial alternative.
Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (commonly referred to as
the Superfund law) requires that U.S. EPA
publish a proposed plan for addressing
contamination problems at Superfund sites.
This fact sheet presents U.S. EPA's pro-
ved plan for the Mid-State Disposal site
S^^ summarizes all the remedial alterna-
tives considered by U.S. EPA. Also includ-
ed is a description of the criteria used to
select U.S. EPA's preferred alternative.
A more detailed analysis of the remedial
alternatives is presented in the Mid-State
Disposal Feasibility Study Report, avail-
able for public review at the Stratford
Village Hall and Marathon County Public
Library, Stratford Branch (see "Opportu-
nities for Public Involvement" on the back
page). In addition, this proposed plan out-
lines opportunities for the community to
participate in US, EPA's remedy selection
process. Terms first appearing in bold are
defined in a glossary on page 7.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Mid-State Disposal site is located
four miles northeast of Stratford and 18
miles southwest of Wausau, Wisconsin (see
Figure 1). There are two landfills on the
160-acre site: the 25-acre "Old Mound"
and the five-acre "Interim Expansion" area
LEGEND:
residential Wails
(see Figure 2), each covered with soil and
vegetation. The site also contains a three-
acre sludge lagoon covered with soil and
vegetation, and an area where leachate for-
merly collected on the site. Over the years,
the soil and vegetation covers on the Old
Mound and Interim Expansion area land-
fills and sludge lagoon have not been prop-
erly maintained, causing portions of the
covers to be washed away by rainfall.
The site is surrounded by abandoned
railroad tracks on the west and north; two
off-site sludge disposal lagoons owned by
Weyerhaeuser, Inc. on the northeast; and
farm property on the east. Big Rapids
Road is along the southern border of the
site. Land near the site primarily is used
for dairy and cash crop farming, although a
1
Figure I
Site Location Map
few small businesses are scattered through-
out the area.
From 1970 to 1979, Mid-State Disposal,
Inc. operated virtually the only solid waste
disposal facility in north-central Wisconsin,
The Mid- State Disposal facility accepted
municipal, commercial, and industrial
waste that included paper-mill sludge,
asbestos dust, solvents, pesticides, paint
sludge, and metals. Waste materials were
initially disposed of in the Old Mound
landfill and later in the Interim Expansion
area landfill. Paper-mill sludge was dis-
posed of in the Old Mound landfill and the
sludge lagoon. The site was placed on the
Superfund National Priorities List in
September 1984. U.S. EPA conducted a
Remedial Investigation of the site from the
-------
summer of 1984 to the winter of 1988. A
more detailed chronology of related events
is presented in an April 1988 U.S. EPA fact
sheet, available for review at the informa-
tion repositories (see the back page).
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS
U.S. EPA conducted a Remedial
Investigation of the Mid-State Disposal site
to identify sources of contamination and
determine how humans or animals and
plants might be endangered by contami-
nants. The Remedial Investigation includ-
ed an Exposure Assessment to determine
the potential impact that exposure to con-
taminants may have on humans, animals, or
plants.
U.S. EPA's Remedial Investigation con-
cluded that leachate, ground water, on-
and off-site surface water, on-site sedi-
ment, and on-site soil are contaminated
with metals and organic compounds.
Some samples collected from surface water
and ground water contained metals and
organic compounds at concentrations above
federal water quality standards.
The Exposure Assessment concluded
that conditions at the site do not currently
pose a threat to human health or the envi-
ronment. However, the assessment indicat-
ed that contaminant releases from the site
may have posed a threat to human health in
the past, and potential releases from the site
may threaten human health or the environ-
ment in the future. U.S. EPA is concerned
about potential contaminant releases from
the site. These concerns include:
Ground-water Migration. Ground
water contaminated with metals or
organic compounds may flow to the
south or southeast toward residential
wells that are presently unaffected by
site-related contamination;
Future
above contaminated ground water may
be developed for residential use in the
future and those new homeowners may
drill wells into the contaminated ground
water;
Direct Contact. If the existing landfill
or sludge lagoon covers are completely
washed away by rainfall, trespassers
may come into direct skin contact with
or ingest contaminants in exposed
waste; and
Off-site Surface Water Flow. Aquatic
animals may be affected by site-related
contamination if rainfall runoff or
ground- water flow from the site causes
Rock Creek or its tributaries to become
contaminated.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
Based on information gathered during
the Remedial Investigation, U.S. EPA con-
ducted a Feasibility Study that involved
reviewing all possible remedial methods,
and identifying and evaluating several
remedial alternatives to address concerns
related to the Mid-State Disposal site.
In the Feasibility Study, U.S. EPA con-
sidered seven remedial alternatives. All the
remedial alternatives, except Alternative 1,
contain the same following components:
Imposing deed restrictions. Through
deed restrictions, future site owners
would be prohibited from building on or
excavating soil from the site to ensure
that future activity does not cause new
contaminant releases from the site.
Restrictions also would be placed on
large off-site ground-water withdrawals
to prevent interference with any pound-
water collection and treatment compo-
nents.
Constructing a fence around the site.
A fence would be installed around the
site to prevent trespassing on the site.
The fence would include signs warning
potential trespassers about contamina-
tion and threats to human health and the
environment at the site.
Weyerhaeuser,
Inc. Waste
Settling
Lagoons
Former
Leachaie
Pond Area
Unnamed
Tributary
to flock
Figure 2
Site Detail Map
-------
* Reconstructing on-site roads. About 800
feet of roads would be reconstructed on
the site, primarily near the sludge
lagoon, to accommodate truck traffic on
the site during the remedial action
cleanup.
Monitoring ground water and surface
water. Ten new off -site ground-water
monitoring wells would be installed
near the southeast and northwest borders
of the site. Samples from these wells
would be collected to assess the effec-
tiveness of the remedial action. In addi-
tion, several existing on-site monitoring
wells, and two residential wells along
Big Rapids Road also would be sam-
pled. Samples would be collected four
times during the first year of monitoring
and twice annually in subsequent years.
, To monitor surface water quality, sam-
ples from four locations would be col-
lected two on the unnamed tributary to
^ ^Rock Creek and two on Rock Creek.
The surface- water samples would be
collected on four occasions during the
first year of monitoring and twice annu-
ally in subsequent years. Samples col-
lected from the unnamed tributary to
Rock Creek would be compared with
those from Rock Creek to see if surface
water flow from the site is affecting
water quality in Rock Creek.
» Monitoring landfill gas. Ten landfill gas
monitoring wells would be installed
around the disposal areas and samples
from the wells would be collected four
times each year for several years to ana-
lyze gases contained in on-site soil. Gas
that may be released from the site to the
air would be monitored.
evaluated. The no action alternative serves
as a basis against which the other alterna-
tives can be compared.
major components of each alternative
are described below.
Remedial Alternative 1
Construct Fence
* Monitor Residential Wells
Remedial Alternative 1 would involve
constructing a fence around the waste dis-
posal portions of the site. Signs would be
posted on the fence warning trespassers
about contamination at the site. In addi-
tion, water samples would be collected
from two residential wells along Big
Rapids Road to continue monitoring water
quality in these residential wells. Samples
would be collected on two occasions dur-
ing the first year of monitoring and once a
year in four subsequent years. Based on
the results of residential well monitoring
during the initial five year period, the need
for continued monitoring would be evaluat-
ed, U.S. EPA considers Alternative 1 a "no
action" alternative, required by law to be
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
$180,000
Estimated Time
to Construct:
1 month
Remedial Alternative 2
Provide Alternate Water S upply
Repair Existing Landfill and Sludge
Lagoon Covers
Improve Surface Water Drainage
Treat Leachate Off-site
Remedial Alternative 2 includes provid-
ing new drinking water welts for four resi-
dences on Big Rapids Road whose wells
draw water from the aquifer that is threat-
ened by contamination. The new wells
would be drilled upgradient of the area
potentially threatened by contamination.
To prevent rainfall seepage into the Old
Mound and Interim Expansion area land-
fills and the sludge lagoon, areas where the
soil covers have washed away would be
replaced with clay and soil. The patched
areas would be graded to promote rainfall
runoff and vegetation would be planted to
strengthen the covers. These covers would
be maintained to ensure their continued
effectiveness. In addition, several ditches
and trenches would be constructed to direct
rainfall off the site. Directing rainfall off
the site will minimize seepage into soil and
help prevent surface water accumulation on
the site.
The Feasibility Study report shows that
up to 236,000 gallons of surface water con-
taining leachate may accumulate on the site
during spring rains. This alternative
includes collecting ponded surface water
and treating it at an off-site municipal or
industrial wastewater treatment plant to
remove contaminants. Leachate from the
leachate collection system installed under
the Interim Expansion area in 1980 would
be collected and treated off-site at a munic-
ipal or industrial wastewater treatment
plant.
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
$ 3.4 million
Estimated Time
to Construct:
6 months
Remedial Alternative 3
Provide Alternate Water Supply
Collect and Treat Ground Water On-
site
Repair Existing Landfill and Sludge
Lagoon Covers
Improve Surface Waier Drainage
Treat Leachate On-site
In addition to providing an alternate
water supply as described in Alternative 2,
Remedial Alternative 3 would involve col-
lecting contaminated ground water and
treating it on the site. Contaminated
ground water would be withdrawn from
along the southeast and northwest borders
of the site. A water treatment plant would
be constructed on the site to remove con-
taminants from the extracted water,
Leachate collected from the site also would
be treated in the treatment plant. Treated
water would meet state and federal water
quality standards before being discharged
to the unnamed tributary to Rock Creek.
Similar to Remedial Alternative 2,
Remedial Alternative 3 would include
repairing the existing landfill and sludge
lagoon covers and diverting rainfall off the
site.
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
$ 7.5 million
Estimated Time
to Construct:
6 months
Remedial Alternative 4
* Provide Alternate Water Supply
Collect and Treat Ground Water On-
site
Repair Existing Landfill Covers
* Improve Surface Water Drainage
Treat Leachate On-site
« Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
Remedial Alternative 4 is the same as
Remedial Alternative 3 except that sludge
in the sludge lagoon would be solidified to
the extent necessary to support the cap by
using materials such as ash and dust. This
material would absorb liquid, reducing
water content in the sludge. After the
sludge is solidified, the lagoon would be
covered with a new soil and clay cap. The
cap would consist of a two-foot compacted
clay layer directly covering the solidified
sludge, a liquid drainage layer, three feet of
clean soil, and six inches of top soil. The
cap will minimize rainfall seepage into the
lagoon, help to protect ground-water quali-
ty, and prevent direct contact with the
solidified sludge.
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
$ 12 million
Estimated Time
to Construct
1 year
Remedial Alternative 5
Provide Alternate Water Supply
Install New Soil/Clay Landfill Caps
Improve Surface Water Drainage
Treat Leachate Off-site
Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
-------
Like Alternative 2, Remedial Alternative 5
involves drilling new drinking water wells
for four residences along Big Rapids Road.
The new wells would be drilled upgradient
of the area threatened by contamination.
Remedial Alternative 5 also involves
installing a new soil and clay cap over the
Old Mound and Interim Expansion area
landfills. The caps would minimize rainfall
seepage into the landfills, reducing the
amount of leachate produced by an estimat-
ed 75 to 80 percent more than the existing
landfill covers. To prevent surface water
from accumulating on the site, drainage
trenches and ditches would be constructed
to carry rain water off the site. Leachate
would be collected from the site and treated
at an off-site municipal or industrial
wastewater treatment plant. Remedial
Alternative 5 also involves solidifying
sludge to the extent necessary to support
the cap and capping the sludge lagoon as
described in Remedial Alternative 4,
Estimated Total Cost:
{in present worth)
$ 19 million
Estimated Time
to Construct:
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
$ 16 million
Estimated Time
to Construct:
2 years
Remedial Alternative 6
Provide Alternate Water Supply
Collect and Treat Ground Water
On-site
Install New Soil/Clay Landfill
Caps
Improve Surface Water Drainage
Treat Leachate On-site
» Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
Remedial Alternative 6 combines the
ground-water collection and treatment
components of Remedial Alternative 3 with
the soil/clay cap and sludge solidification
components of Remedial Alternative 5,
With this remedial alternative, ground
water would be extracted from the south-
east and northwest perimeter of the site.
Contaminants would be removed from
extracted water by a treatment plant that
would be constructed on the site. Contam-
inants also would be removed from surface
water and Interim Expansion area leachate
by the on-site water treatment plant Once
treated, water would be discharged to the
unnamed tributary to Rock Creek. The Old
Mound and Interim Expansion area land-
fills would be covered with combination
soil and clay caps. A soil/clay cap also
would be used to cover the sludge lagoon
once liquid content in the sludge was
reduced by applying ash and dust to the
sludge. To promote rain-water runoff from
the site, several trenches and ditches would
be contracted on the site.
2 years
Remedial Alternative 7
Provide Alternate Water Supply
* Collect and Treat Ground Water
On-site
Install New Multi-layer Landfill
Caps
* Improve Surface Water Drainage
« Treat Leachate On-site
Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
Remedial Alternative 7 is the same as
Remedial Alternative 6 except that an
impermeable synthetic membrane layer
would be added to the soil/clay cap cover-
ing the slgdge lagoon, Old Mound landfill,
and Interim ExpahsIoWairea landfill, mak-
ing them multi-layer caps. The multi-layer
caps would reduce leachate production by
an estimated 99 percent over the existing
covers.
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
$ 22 million
Estimated Time
to Construct:
2 years
EVALUATING THE
ALTERNATIVES
U.S. EPA and WDNR evaluated each of
the remedial alternatives against the fol-
lowing criteria:
1) Overall protection of human health and
the environment, U.S, EPA measures
each alternative against how it protects
human health and the environment and
describes how threats are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treat-
ment, engineering methods (e.g., a soil
and clay cap), or institutional controls
(e.g., deed restrictions).
2) Compliance with state and federal reg-
ulations. The alternatives are evaluated
for compliance with those environmen-
tal regulations determined to be applica-
ble, or relevant and appropriate to the
site.
3) Cost. The benefits realized by imple-
menting a remedial alternative are
weighed against the cost of implementa-
tion.
4) Implementability. U.S. EPA considers
the technical (e.g., how difficult is the
alternative to construct and operate?)
and administrative (e.g., coordination
with other government agencies)
feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of goods and services.
5) Short-term effectiveness, Implementing
each alternative may take varying
lengths of time and present different
risks to human health and the environ-
ment during implementation (e,g., will
contaminated dust be produced during
soil excavation?).
6) Long-term effectiveness. Long-term
effectiveness relates to the remedy's
ability to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment over
time once it has been implemented.
7) Reduction of contaminant toxicity,
mobility, and volume. U.S. EPA evalu-
ates each alternative based on how it
reduces (1) potential threats to human
health and the environment, (2) the con-
taminant's ability to move, and (3) the
amount of contamination. ~~ --
8) State acceptance. After reviewing thdW^
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study reports, the state may concur
with, oppose, or have no comment on
U.S. EPA's proposed plan for cleaning
up a site.
9) Community response, U,S. EPA consid-
ers community response to the proposed
cleanup plan and the other remedial
alternatives when selecting the final
remedial action.
During the Feasibility Study, each
alternative was evaluated against the first
seven criteria. Table 1 on page 5 presents
the evaluation of remedial alternatives. A
complete description of the evaluation of
remedial alternatives can be found in the
Feasability S tudy report located at the \^s
Stratford Village Hall and the Marathon
Public Library, Stratford Branch.
Based on current information, U.S. EPA
has identified Remedial Alternative 5 as
the preferred remedial alternative for the
Mid-State Disposal site, Ttep|fer«d
alternative is described in the box on page
6. Community understanding of and
response to the preferred alternative will be
evaluated during the public comment peri-
od. Public comments will be summarized
and responses provided in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the
Record of Decision. The Record of
Decision is the document that presents U.S.
EPA's final selection for cleanup. Based on
new information or public comments, U.S.
EPA and WDNR may modify the preferred
alternative or select another of the response
actions presented in the proposed plan and
Feasibility Study report.
-------
TABLE1
EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
(Excluding state and
Criteria
Overall protection of
public health and the
environment.
Compliance with slate
and federal regula-
tions. (ARARs6)
Implementa&ility,
Short-term
Effectiveness^
Long-term
Effectiveness4*
Reduction of contami-
nant toxicity, mobi-
lity, and volume,
Present - Worth Cost
Alternative 1;
No Action
Least protective
of public health
and sKViKHimefit
Does not meet any
AKAEs,
Very easy to
implement
Not effective in
prelecting public
health and envi-
ronment. No work-
ers to protect
during irnplernen-
tation.
Not protective or
effective. Has the
greatest amount of
risk. Has no long-
term maintenance.
No reduction of
taxi city, mobility.
or volume.
SlSO.OOO
Alternative 2a:
Alternate Water
Supply and Cap Repairs
Protects haman health
through alternate wa-
ter supply InssittJdon-
al controls? and Enain-
tenance of caps. I*r0-
tects surface water by
controlling surface
run-off.
Does not meet WDNR
solid wa$te
regulations.
Easy to construct and
operate.
Greatly and reliably
redaccs future risk.
Most protective of
community and workers
daring implementation.
Alternative would be
ongoing.
Greatly and reliably re-
duces future risk. Re-
quires long-term moni-
toring and maintenance
of caps. Reliability of
institutional controls
is less than an extrac-
tion system.
See Alternative I .
53,400,000
Alternative 3*:
Ground- water Remediation
and Cap Repairs
Protects human health and
the environment through
source control actions
and ground- water extrac-
tion. Extraction is mote
reliable than institu-
tional controls for pro-
tecting new uses of the
aquifer
Complies with chemical
specific ARARs and dis-
charge limits. Does not
meet WDNR solid waste
regulations.
Easy to construct. Opera-
tion of |roi|mcri£ system
requires regular atten-
tion to many details for
a long time.
See Alternative 2
Greatly and reEably re-
duces future risk. Re-
quires maintenance of
treatment system.
Reduces volume of con-
taminated ground water.
$7,500,000
community acceptance)
Alternative 4a:
Sludge Solidification,
Ground-water Remedia-
tion, and Cap Repairs
See Alternative 3,
See Alternative 3,
Difficult to solidify
lagoon and operate
treatment system.
Sludge solidification
may produce odors dur-
ing implementation.
May involve some risk
to community and work-
ers during implementa-
tion.
Similar to Alterna-
tive 2, except greater
reliability that sludge
will no longer affect
the environment.
Reduces volume of con-
taminated ground water.
Solidification reduces
mobilization of poten-
tial contaminants in
Che sludge.
$12,000,000
Alternative 5a;
SoiyCky Caps,
Sludge Solidification,
and Alternate Water
Supply
Similar to Alter-
native 2. Cap
would reduce fu-
ture contamination
of aquifer even
ftuther than exist-
ing covers.
Complies with all
ARARs,
Difficult to con-
struct caps .but
easy to operate
because no ireal-
naent system is
involved.
Provides further
reduction in fti-
ture risk than Al-
ternatives 2-4
by inducing leach-
ste production by
75%, Potential
risk to community
and workers during
knplemenlation.
Provides improved
reliability of
source control
actions. Relia-
bility of institu-
tional controls is
less than an ex-
traction system.
Reduces mobility
of potential con-
taminants through
solidification.
Reduces leachate
production by 75%.
$16,000,000
Alternative 6s:
SoilClay Caps, Sludge
Solidilicalicm, and
Ground- water Remedia-
tion
Most protective of en-
vironment and public
health.
See Ahemalive 5.
MORE difficult to con-
struct and operate than
Alternatives 1-5,
Meets standards for
off-site ground water
in 1 0 - 20 years.
Reduces future risk.
Leachate production re-
duced by 75%. Potential
risk to workers.
Provides increased re-
liability and less
long-term management,
Similar to Alternatives
3 and 4, Also reduces
leachate production
by 75%.
$19,000,000
Alternative 7:
MuM-kyer Caps, Sludge
Solidification, and Ground-
water Remediation
See Alternative 6.
See Alternative S.
Most difficult alterna-
tive to construct because
of En^. Operation re-
quirements are similar to
Alternative 3.
Similar K> Alternative 4,
except more likely to
meet standards in time
estimate. Leachate product-
tiori reduced. Potential
risk to workers.
Similar to Alternative 6.
Long-term reliability of
multi-layer caps better
than soil/clay caps.
Similar to Alternatives
3 and 4. Reduces leaehate
production by 99%-
$22,000,000
a Alternatives 2 - 7 include an alternate watet supply, monitoring, and fencing.
b Institutional contiols refer to control over ground wale? well installation and access to the site,
c ARARs refer to Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
d Cleanup periods and percent of leaehate reduction are best estimates based on many simplifying assumptions and are presetted for comparative purposes only.
-------
U.S. ERA'S PREFERRED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
After completing the Mid-State Disposal;Feasibility^tudy, U.S. EPA Identified Remedial,
Alternative Tas the preferred remedial ,alte,mativeJ0r,the Mid-State site, U.S, EPA's preferred
alternative includes: . '."" t./ ;,
Imposing deed restrictions op the site t| je.risii re;thalfuture site owners do not cause rifew contami-
nant releasesjrprn the site by building:Qri or excavating soil from the site, Restrictions also would
be placed on farf e^ff-si'te ground-wati^ withdrawals frt the site vicinity to prevent possible with-
drawals from altering natural grourfd-water flow Directions and rates.
Constructing a fence around the sffe totprevent. potential trespassing on the site.- _.. ,;, ,
* Reconstructing on-site roads to accommodate truck traffic during the remedial actlonl
";-,.-. ' '? - ,',f ^"'.".-,-<.^y^ ,; :, ^Sj^f^^x^^^^l^^ * ,>,,^^:,S^".*'fK ~-: .,»,-, ^&%;:ri. ^
Monitoring ground water, surface wate'rf ahd relfderttial welt water to evaluate the e"ffec1fvlTi:iss of
the remedial action. |;;'.;."
Monitoring landfill gas to analyze gases contained ,|n soil and gases that may be released from the
site to the air. , , ° '- .'..,
Providing an alternate drinking water supply forlour residences along Big Rapids Road.
Installing new soil/clay landfill caps on the QW Mound and Interim Expansion area landfills to
reduceihe-amount of rainfall seeping into the landfills,
Improving on-slte surface water drainage to prevent water accumulation on the site.
">" T"' - ' **9" \ J * ' ' "' 0' ''" ' ~ ,','**'
Oolle^itlng .tndlreMlrjg |urface water ajdjeachiate off tfe site, , "
j \ -t, -"* _, ?-? jf "''"''' ' ' , ^ /^ r^,r * r r r ff f^ ifi i,l, fj J i""
* SoJFdilying sludge t& reduce water contlrtt in the sludgft and capping the siudgf lagoon to reduce
rainfall seepage into the sludge lagoon, ..*>."...' - ^ ; -.
U.S. EPA's preferred remedial alternative is estimated to cost $ 16 million, U.S. EPA esti-
mates that construction of its preferred remedial alternative will take two years.
«" ~ : *" '"-" -
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
Due to computer problems, U.S. EPA no longer has the most current mailing list for the Mid-State Disposal site. Even if you have
received mailings from U.S. EPA in the past, please fill out and mail this form to Susan Pastor to ensure that you will receive future
U.S. EPA mailings.
Susan Pastor SPA-14 Name:
Community Relations Coordinator Address:
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. EPA-Region 5 Telenhone-
230 South Dearborn Street telephone.
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Affiliation:
-------
GLOSSARY
Aquifer
Asbestos
Exposure
Assessment
Ground
Water
Leachate
National
'riorities
List(NPL)
Organic
Compounds
An underground rock or soil formation capable of
yielding water in usable quantities.
A fireproofing insulator used in brake linings,
gaskets, and electrical and heating devices. Some
types of asbestos can occur naturally. Unless
properly encased, asbestos can break into small
fibers. These fibers are easily inhaled and swal-
lowed. Inhalation of asbestos fibers over a long
period of time may cause lung cancer.
A site-specific study of the actual or potential
danger to human health or the environment posed
by the release or threatened release of contami-
nants from a Superfund site to the environment.
Water contained in rock, sand, soil, or gravel
beneath the earth's surface. Rain that does not
evaporate or immediately flow to streams and
rivers slowly seeps into the ground to form
ground-water reservoirs. Ground water flows at a
very slow rate, compared to surface water, along
routes that often lead to streams, rivers, and
lakes.
A liquid that accumulates contaminants as it seeps
through contaminated material (e.g., soil and
landfill waste).
A federal roster of uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites that actually or potentially threaten human
health or the environment and are eligible for
investigation and cleanup under the federal
Superfund program.
One of two classes of chemical compounds,
organic and inorganic. Organic compounds are
distinct from inorganic compounds because they
contain carbon. Petroleum, solvents, and pesti-
cides are examples of materials containing organ-
ic compounds.
Remedial A two-part study of a Superfund site that must be
Investigation/ completed before a cleanup can begin. The first
Feasibility part, the Remedial Investigation, determines the
Study nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund
(RI/FS) site. The second part, or Feasibility Study, evalu-
ates several alternative remedies to the problems
identified during the Remedial Investigation.
Sediment Sand, soil, gravel, and decomposing animals and
plants that settle to tlie bottom of a stream, lake,
river, or pond.
Sludge A highly-concentrated liquid byproduct of munic-
ipal or industrial wastewater treatment processes.
Solvent A chemical compound that is able to dissolve
another to form a solution.
Surface Standing or flowing water on the ground surface
Water such as streams, lakes, rivers, or ponds.
Superfund A common name for the federal program estab-
lished by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 as amended in 1986. U.S. EPA administers
the Superfund program to investigate and clean up
actual or threatened releases of hazardous sub-
stances from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Toxics Substances which can damage living tissues,
cause nervous disorders, birth defects, behavioral
problems, illness, or death when ingested, inhaled,
transferred to unborn babies, or absorbed through
skin. Overexposure to the sun can be toxic, for
example, resulting in sunburn; overexposure to
alcohol also can be toxic, resulting in vomiting
and headaches.
Upgradient A description for the ground-water equivalent of
"upstream" in river water flow.
Present An economic term used to describe today's cost
Worth for a Superfund cleanup that reflects the discount-
ed value of future costs, A present worth cost
estimate includes construction and future opera -
tion and maintenance costs. For the Mid-State
Disposal site, U.S. EPA used a discount rate of
five percent when estimating the present worth of
future costs for each remedial alternative.
-------
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public Comment Period and Public Meeting on the Feasibility Study
U.S. EPA would like to hear your comments before selecting a final remedial action for the site. U.S. EPA has established a public
comment period from July 25 through August 14,1988 to provide members of the community with an opportunity to send written
comments to U.S. EPA. In addition, community members are encouraged to attend a public meeting on the Feasibility Study. At
the meeting, U.S. EPA personnel will discuss results of the Feasibility Study, present the preferred alternative, accept comments on
all the remedial alternatives, and answer any questions.
Date: My 28,1988
Time: 8 P.M.
Location: Stratford Community Hall
300 East Larch Street
Stratford, WI 54484
Available Information
Anyone interested in learning more about the Mid-State Disposal site is encouraged to review the documents contained in the infor-
mation repositories. Copies of the applicable laws, Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports, and other relevant infor-
mation, are located at:
Marathon County Public Library
Stratford Branch
300 East Larch Street
Stratford, Wl 54484
(715)687-4420
Hours:
Tues.
9 A.M, to 5 P.M.
Wed., Thurs. 3 P.M. to 9 P.M.
Fri. 1 P.M. to 5 P.M.
Sat.-Mon. Closed
Stratford Village Hall
265 North Third Street
Stratford, Wl 54484
(715)687-4166
Hours:
Mon. - Fri. 8 A.M. to 12 P.M.
1P.M. to 4:30 P.M.
Sat.-Sun. Closed
The Administrative Record, which contains all the information U.S. EPA will use to make a final decision at the Mid-State Disposal
site, is located in the Marathon County Public Library, Stratford Branch.
For additional information on the Mid-State Disposal site, please contact the following U.S. EPA personnel:
Susan Pastor
Community Relations Coordinator
Office of Public Affairs
(312)353-1325
Mary Elaine Gustafson
Remedial Project Manager
Remedial and Enforcement
Response Branch
(312)886-6144
U.S. EPA - Region 5 230 South Dearborn Street * Chicago, Illinois 60604
Toll free number: 1-800-621-8431 (8:30 A.M. to4:30 P.M. Central Time)
U.S. EPA Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
v>EFA
------- |