PB95-964107
EPA/ROD/R05-95/279
February 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfill Site, Williamstown, WI
9/6/1995
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FINAL REMEDY
LAND AND GAS RECLAMATION LANDFILL
Sits Name End Locution
Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill
(Listed on the National Priorities List as the Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill)
Located in the Town of Williamstown, Dodge County, Wisconsin (approximately 3.5 miles
east of the City of Horicon and approximately 2 miles south of the City of Mayville)
Statements of Basis and Purpose
This document presents the decision of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) on the final source control and groundwater remedy that is necessary at the Land and
Gas Reclamation Landfill site in the Town of Williamstown, Dodge County, Wisconsin. This
remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfiind Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The attached Decision Summary identifies the information
contained in the administrative record for this site upon which this decision is based.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The final remedial action for this site consists of the existing NR 504 Wis. Adm. Code clay
cap and, if necessary, an expansion of the current operating gas extraction system. The details
of the proposed action are contained in Section VII. The cap and gas extraction system
installed in 1992 as an interim source control measure form the backbone of the final remedial
action. The additional actions proposed in this Record of Decision (ROD) will increase the
landfill gas extraction rate. The increased gas extraction rate will be accomplished either by
adding additional gas extraction wells in the waste or by increasing the gas flow rate through
the existing well system. The intent will be to, as rapidly as possible, reduce the volatile
organic chemical (VOC) concentration in the landfill wastes and consequently reduce the VOC
loading from the landfill to groundwater. This reduced loading, in conjunction with the
natural contaminant attenuation processes already occurring in groundwater, should reduce the
existing groundwater contamination levels at a satisfactory rate.
-------
Groundwater monitoring will be required to track irrorovement in water quality. The WDNR
may require additional active remedial measures in me future if water quality does not improve
at an acceptable rate. Specific goals for the rate and extent of expected water quality
improvements are detailed in this ROD.
Declaration Statement
The WDNR has determined that the landfill waste and groundwater contaminants pose a
limited current and potential threat to human health or the environment. Exposure to waste
and contaminated soil has been eliminated and the potential release of contaminants from the
landfill waste to the groundwater has been minimized with the installation of the improved
landfill cap and gas extraction system. This potential for release to groundwater will be
further reduced by the measures described in this ROD. Potential exposure to methane and
volatile organic compounds in the landfill gas has been eliminated with the installation of the
active gas collection and incineration system. The remedy selected in this ROD constitutes the
final remedy for this site. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, attains state and federal regulations and is cost effective. The remedy uses
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the extent practical for this site. Because
hazardous substances remain on site, a review will be conducted within five years after the
implementation of the final remedy to ensure that the implemented actions continue to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
George B^Meyer, Secretary /
isin Department of Natural Re;
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
-------
- 3 -
DECISION SUMMARY
FINAL REMEDY
LAND AND GAS RECLAMATION LANDFILL
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in March of 1989. The site, now
known as the Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill (LGRL), does not include the active
landfill ("the new Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill") which is located immediately to the
north of the closed Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill. The new landfill meets current
state design and operation requirements and is licensed to accept only nonhazardous
waste. The site does not include a licensed demolition debris landfill directly west of
the Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill.
The Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill site is located in a rural area in the Town of
Williamstown, approximately 2 miles south of the City of Mayville, and approximately
3.5 miles east of the City of Horicon, Wisconsin (See Figure A). This 24.3 acre
closed landfill is located in the east one-half of the southwest quarter of Section 35,
Township 12 North, Range 16 East, Town of Williamstown, Dodge County,
Wisconsin. This site is unfenced and access is not controlled.
The area surrounding the site is primarily agricultural land with low density residential
development. Horicon Wildlife Area, a major migratory bird habitat, is approximately
2.5 miles west of the site.
The dominant landform in the area is drumlins, long narrow glacially formed hills,
with the water table at or near the land surface between the hills.
n. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill was a licensed landfill, operated by the City of
Mayville from 1959 to 1970 and then privately operated from 1970 to October 1986
when it ceased accepting waste. The Mayville landfill was a small open dump that now
is pan of the northern end of the closed landfill (see Figure B). A variety of waste
disposal activities occurred at the Mayville site including open burning, battery
-------
-4 -
recycling operations and solvent disposal. It appears these past activities are a
significant contributor to the current groundwater problems as the highest groundwater
contamination levels are directly down gradient and adjacent to the old dump site.
Beginning in 1970 the site was operated by George Hechimovich and the site was then
called the Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill. The Mayville site was sold to and became
part of the Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill in 1971. In March 1984 site ownership and
operations were transferred to Land and Gas Reclamation, Inc. and the site name was
subsequently changed to LGRL in July 1985. The site was closed in October 1986.
During part of the 1970-1986 time period, the site was licensed to accept hazardous
waste. Paint sludges and cutting oils from local industries, possibly containing lead,
chromium and solvents, were disposed of in several lagoons on-site. It is estimated by
USEPA that 53,000 gallons of liquid hazardous waste were disposed of at this site. In
addition, the site accepted approximately one million cubic yards of nonhazardous
household and commercial wastes. The landfill does not have a liner. An initial cover,
consisting of two to 4 feet of local till soils and 6 inches of topsoil, was placed in 1987.
A system of groundwater and surface water monitoring locations were included in a
monitoring program required by the WDNR at site closure.
In July 1987, the Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill site was the subject of a WDNR
state enforcement action, resulting in a Stipulation and Order signed by the Dodge
County Circuit Court, which directed George Hechimovich, Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfill, Inc., and Land and Gas Reclamation, Inc. to undertake certain actions at the
landfill, including the installation of a clay cap and a gas collection system. The court
ordered clay cap was installed, under WDNR supervision and approval, in 1991 and
1992. To date the cap has been satisfactorily installed and maintained. In addition,
since March 1992 the active gas extraction system has been operating according to
design specifications. The installation and operation of these measures were
documented and approved as a source control interim action in a January 1994 Record
of Decision signed by WDNR and concurred with by USEPA. The enhancement of
this gas extraction system is the main activity in the final remedy for the site.
The WDNR nominated the Land and Gas Reclamation site for listing on the NPL in
1988. The site was listed on the NPL, as the Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill, in March
1989. Based on the information obtained from landfill records in the possession of
Daniel and George Hechimovich, the WDNR issued special notice letters to fourteen
potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") on August 15, 1990 and special notice letters
to two additional PRPs on September 20, 1990.
-------
- 5 -
The potentially responsible parties entered into an environmental repair contract with
the WDNR, which became effective on September 28, 1990, to perform a remedial
investigation/feasibility study ("RI/FS") pursuant to s. 144.442, Wisconsin Statutes.
After the environmental repair contract was signed, the WDNR decided that, due to the
timing of the remedial actions, remediation at the site should be divided into two
operable units; a source control (landfill closure) operable unit and a groundwater
operable unit. The January 1994 Record of Decision documented successful
completion of the source control operable unit. This Record of Decision establishes the
final remedy for the site and includes both source control and groundwater remedial
measures.
IU. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
An Administrative Record has been established at the Mayville Public Library, 111
North Main Street, Mayville, Wisconsin.
In September 1991, a Superfund Fact Sheet on the Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill
was issued by the WDNR. On September 25, 1991, representatives of WDNR,
USEPA, and the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services held a public
information meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Center located at 330 N. Walnut Street
in Mayville, Wisconsin, and discussed the Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill and the
landfill closure and groundwater investigation work that was being conducted at this
site. Approximately 50 residents of the area attended the public meeting.
A proposed source control ROD which selected the source control for the Land and
Gas Reclamation Landfill was made available for public comment from December 3,
1992 through January 6, 1993. Based on public comments a new proposed ROD was
made available for public comment, from October 15, 1993 to November 15, 1993.
Comments received during both public comment periods and WDNR's responses to
those comments were included in a Responsiveness Summary, which was a part of the
source control interim action ROD. A notice announcing the availability of the new
proposed ROD and the start of the second public comment period was published in the
Mayville News on October 21, 1993. The source control ROD was signed by the
WDNR in January 1994.
The public participation requirements of s. 144.442(6)(f), Wisconsin Statutes, and the
community relations requirements of Sections 117 and 113(k)(2)(B)(I-v) of CERCLA
were met in the source control interim remedy selection process.
-------
- 6 -
The Proposed Plan for the final remedy at this site was available for public comment
from February 16, 1994, to March 17, 1994. A public meeting to present and discuss
the plan was held at the Mayville Senior Center on February 16, 1994. Approximately
30 people attended. During the public comment period one written comment was
received. The state and federal public participation requirements were also met in this
final remedy selection process.
-------
- 7 -
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The response action for this site, described in detail in Section VII, is an expansion or
modification of the current landfill gas extraction system. The sysiem will include
operation and maintenance of the landfill cap and gas control system, groundwater
monitoring, deed restrictions as appropriate, continued natural breakdown of
groundwater contaminants and enhancement of the gas extraction system. The
enhancement will be either through the addition of new extraction wells or an increase
in the air flow through parts of the existing extraction system. Results of the Remedial
Investigation show that the northern portion of the site appears to be the most
significant contributor of VOCs to the groundwater. This is the location of the old
Mayville Dump. If necessary, additional extraction wells, screened through the entire
waste thickness, will be placed in this area to accelerate the decrease in VOC
concentration in the waste mass. It is possible that a similar concentration reduction
could be achieved by increasing the air flow through the current gas system. With
either approach the reduction in contaminant mass will reduce the VOC loading to
groundwater and will consequently reduce down gradient groundwater contaminant
concentrations. This will reduce groundwater concentrations to acceptable limits
consistent with state and federal guidelines within an acceptable time frame.
Monitoring the groundwater at well nests one and three will be the primary means of
evaluating the performance of the remedial action. Improvements in groundwater
quality should reasonably follow the concentration decreases shown in Table 4. If the
concentration changes do not follow the expected trend, additional remedial measures
may be necessary. It is most likely that some form of active remedial measures would
be installed on the north edge of the landfill.
V. STTE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Topography
The Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill site occupies the northern portion of a
drumiin (a glacial landform consisting of a long, narrow hill) in a drumlin field.
There are two wetland areas adjacent to the Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill
site, one west and one north and east of the site.
-------
- 8 -
B. Geology/Hydrogeology
The unconsolidated material in the area of the site consists of five distinct units.
Some of these units were glacially deposited while others are of more recent
origin. The five units and their distribution are:
1) Peat - This organic material is of recent origin and exists southwest, east
and north of the site. The peat lies at the land surface and together with
underlying silts and clay is up to 45 feet thick. Where the peat is present
the water table lies within it. The peat, because of its high organic matter
content, significantly retards groundwater contaminant migration through
it. Consequently, the peat is not a significant migration pathway of
concern and contamination in the peat is restricted to an area close to the
north edge of the waste fill.
2) Organic Silt and Clay - This material is almost only present where the
peat is and underlies the peat. It is of recent origin. Because of its low
hydraulic conductivity it provides a limited migration pathway potential
for groundwater contaminants based on the groundwater results from the
site.
3) Brown Till - This material was identified in discontinuous layers to the
north, west and south of the waste fill. Its thickness varies from 10-20
feet and it is of medium density. Because of its discontinuous nature the
unit is not a groundwater contaminant migration pathway of concern.
4) Silty Gray Sand - Where present north of the site this unit is the primary
groundwater contaminant migration pathway. It directly underlies the
refuse and varies from 2-27 feet in thickness.
5) Sandy Gray Till - This is the lowest glacially deposited unit and consists
of a very dense till that extends to the top of bedrock at most locations. It
underlies much of the fill area. Because of its dense nature, it offers
limited contaminant migration , ntial.
The bedrock underlying the entire site is Maquoketa Shale. The shale is
massive and very impermeable. It provides a "bottom layer" through which
contaminant migration is restricted.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FINAL REMEDY
LAND AND GAS RECLAMATION LANDFILL
Sits Name End Locution
Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill
(Listed on the National Priorities List as the4lechimovich Sanitary Landfill)
Located in the Town of Williamstown, Dodge County, Wisconsin (approximately 3.5 miles
east of the City of Horicon and approximately 2 miles south of the City of Mayville)
Statements of Basis and Purpose
This document presents the decision of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) on the final source control and groundwater remedy that is necessary at the Land and
Gas Reclamation Landfill site in the Town of Williamstown, Dodge County, Wisconsin. This
remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfiind Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The attached Decision Summary identifies the information
contained in the administrative record for this site upon which this decision is based.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The final remedial action for this site consists of the existing NR 504 Wis. Adm. Code clay
cap and, if necessary, an expansion of the current operating gas extraction system. The details
of the proposed action are contained in Section VII. The cap and gas extraction system
installed in 1992 as an interim source control measure form the backbone of the final remedial
action. The additional actions proposed in this Record of Decision (ROD) will increase the
landfill gas extraction rate. The increased gas extraction rate will be accomplished either by
adding additional gas extraction wells in the waste or by increasing the gas flow rate through
the existing well system. The intent will be to, as rapidly as possible, reduce the volatile
organic chemical (VOC) concentration in the landfill wastes and consequently reduce the VOC
loading from the landfill to groundwater. This reduced loading, in conjunction with the
natural contaminant attenuation processes already occurring in groundwater, should reduce the
existing groundwater contamination levels at a satisfactory rate.
-------
- 10-
showed detectable concentrations. These results were not a factor in evaluating
the remedial options at the site.
The primary groundw: ;r contaminants at the site are VOC's. (See Tables 1
and 2) Heavy metals and semi-volatile compounds are not compounds of
concern. Limited migration of these materials was found at the site and they
were not considered when choosing a remedial action.
2. Surface Water, Sediment, Soil and Drinking Water
In addition to groundwater sampling; surface water, sediment, soil and nearby
residential wells were tested for the same contaminants as were tested for in
groundwater. Surface waters, soils and sediment were not found to be
contaminated at levels of concern. However, the baseline risk assessment did
indicate a potential for environmental impacts to surface waters from
groundwater discharge of vinyl chloride to the wetlands. These impacts are
addressed by the proposed remedial actions. The gas extraction system is
removing vinyl chloride and other VOCs from the waste mass. This reduction
will decrease the rate vinyl chloride enters groundwater and consequently the
surface water concentrations will decrease.
As part of the Remedial Investigation, eleven nearby private water supply wells
were tested. Only one well contained detectable levels of contamination. A
single water supply well approximately 1200 feet northeast of the site did
contain 1-2 parts per billion of 1,2-dichloroethene. These levels are below
health standards and are not believed to be related to the site. The affected well
is believed to be hydraulically side gradient of the site and has well casing into
the Maquoketa Shale. As stated, the shale retards contaminant migration
downward and makes it very unlikely that contaminants could move from the
site to this well. The source of the private well contamination appears to be
from a source other than the landfill.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the site investigation, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to assess the
current and potential risks posed by the site. The risk assessment determines whether
contamination at the site could pose an unacceptable health or environmental risk.
Potential threats are estimated by making assumptions about the manner, frequency and
-------
-11 -
length of time a person or the pans of the environment could be exposed to site related
contaminants.
A baseline risk assessment conducted by a consultant under contract to the WDNR was
completed in July 1993. The assessment found that under the no action alternative, the
human health risks from the site are not in excess of acceptable levels set by the
USEPA. The analysis of potential ecological effects suggests a potential for limited
environmental impacts. However, this potential was evaluated through a qualitative
screening analysis only. The following discussions summarize the chemicals of
concern and the risk levels they present.
A. Chemicals of Potential Concern
The primary chemicals of potential concern identified in the risk assessment
based on frequency of occurrence and concentration were vinyl chloride,
trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and
benzene. A complete listing of all potential chemicals of concern is shown in
Table 3.
B. Human Health and Environmental Risk Characterization
The exposure assessment, developed as pan of the human health and
environmental risk assessment, developed a conceptual model for the LGRL site
based on general site characteristics. The conceptual model (Figure C)
describes ways by which chemicals from the LGRL site might contact potential
receptors. This exposure pathway analysis identified four potential mechanisms
for exposure:
• direct contact with exposed waste;
• release of waste constituents to the ambient air via volatilization or wind-
driven erosion, followed by airborne migration to receptor locations;
• contaminant release to groundwater followed by migration through
groundwater to water supply wells;
• contaminant release to groundwater followed by migration through
groundwater to surface water or wetlands.
-------
- 12 -
Based on these mechanisms, a list of potential exposure pathways were
developed and evaluated for viability (i.e., the potential to be complete) based
on site-specific information (e.g., analysis of groundwater flow, contaminant
distribution, location of potential receptors).
Contaminant release to groundwater, followed by groundwater migration and
discharge to the nearby wetlands and ditches west and north of the site was
determined to be the only viable migration pathway which might lead to
exposure. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife could be exposed to site-related
chemicals released to the ditches and wetlands. Similarly, people walking
through the wetlands and ditches could also be exposed to site-related
chemicals. Site monitoring data did identify surface water contamination from
constituents found in groundwater. Consequently, this was determined to be a
completed exposure pathway.
The direct contact and the air pathways were not considered viable due to
engineering controls from the source control operable unit. Contaminant
migration to existing water supply wells was also not considered viable because
analysis of groundwater flow indicates the site is not hydraulically connected to
the aquifers in which water supply wells are screened. The presence of the
Maquoketa Shale, an aquitard restricts groundwater contamination from
migrating deeper to the depths that the water supply wells are drilled to.
Physical characteristics of the site (e.g., potential for landfill subsidence), the
nature of the adjacent land (wetlands not readily developable), limited
population growth pressures, and Wisconsin regulations (e.g., prohibition of
development on former landfills) severely limit the potential for site
development, and thereby also preclude the exposure to contaminated
groundwater from installation of water supply wells within the zone of
contaminated groundwater.
The human health risk characterization evaluated exposure of "site visitors" to
chemicals released to the ditches and wetlands. Potential site visitors were
assumed to include hunters, hikers, or children from nearby homes trespassing
onto the site and adjacent areas.
There are no reports of people routinely visiting the site or adjacent wetlands.
Although there are no physical barriers limiting access, the general remoteness
of the site from large developments or major roadways reduces the ready access
of the site to people. There are approximately 14 homes within one-half of the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FINAL REMEDY
LAND AND GAS RECLAMATION LANDFILL
Sits Name End Locution
Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill
(Listed on the National Priorities List as the Heehimovich Sanitary Landfill)
Located in the Town of Williamstown, Dodge County, Wisconsin (approximately 3.5 miles
east of the City of Horicon and approximately 2 miles south of the City of Mayville)
Statements of Basis and Purpose
This document presents the decision of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) on the final source control and groundwater remedy that is necessary at the Land and
Gas Reclamation Landfill site in the Town of Williamstown, Dodge County, Wisconsin. This
remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfiind Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The attached Decision Summary identifies the information
contained in the administrative record for this site upon which this decision is based.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The final remedial action for this site consists of the existing NR 504 Wis. Adm. Code clay
cap and, if necessary, an expansion of the current operating gas extraction system. The details
of the proposed action are contained in Section VII. The cap and gas extraction system
installed in 1992 as an interim source control measure form the backbone of the final remedial
action. The additional actions proposed in this Record of Decision (ROD) will increase the
landfill gas extraction rate. The increased gas extraction rate will be accomplished either by
adding additional gas extraction wells in the waste or by increasing the gas flow rate through
the existing well system. The intent will be to, as rapidly as possible, reduce the volatile
organic chemical (VOC) concentration in the landfill wastes and consequently reduce the VOC
loading from the landfill to groundwater. This reduced loading, in conjunction with the
natural contaminant attenuation processes already occurring in groundwater, should reduce the
existing groundwater contamination levels at a satisfactory rate.
-------
- 14 -
risk characterization indicate that potential fish and wildlife habitat adjacent to
the LGRL may be potentially exposed to contaminants migrating from the
landfill. The fish and wildlife habitat consists primarily of a wetland complex
with associated ditches lying east and north of the landfill. The exposure
pathways analysis and results of the RI indicate that this wetland complex is the
discharge point for contaminated groundwater migrating from the landfill.
These exposures were based on hypothetical future conditions. This potential
concern did not alter the selection of the preferred remedy.
An ecological survey of the area was conducted and no significant adverse
ecological effects of landfill contamination were observed. There was evidence
to suggest that the wetlands have been disturbed as a result of encroachment by
landfill activities and the construction of ditches. Ditches within the wetlands
were shown to have a poor quality community of aquatic organisms and
minnows. It does not appear that the ditches are capable of supporting a
sustainable population of aquatic organisms due to frequent drying out of the
ditches.
In summary, the baseline risk assessment indicates that there may be potential
for ecological effects under the no-action alternative. The ecological evaluation,
however, was only a preliminary screening level analysis. The baseline risk
assessment farther indicates that human health risks do not appear to be outside
USEPA's range of protectiveness.
Vn. SCOPE OF REMEDIAL ACTION
The planned remedial action will be a continuation and expansion of the current source
control measures. The current clay cap will be maintained. The existing gas
extraction system will continue to operate. The expansion of the existing gas extraction
system will involve accelerating the gas extraction rate. Either by adding additional
extraction wells or by increasing the air flow rate through the existing well system, the
system will remove the VOCs in the landfill waste quicker. This will reduce the
potential VOC loadings to the groundwater. Consequently, there should be
improvements in groundwater quality at an acceptable rate.
The expansion of the gas system will likely be targeted toward the northwest portion of
the site. It appears, based on the groundwater quality data and site history, that the
area around gas well 14 is the most significant VOC source in the waste fill.
Increasing the VOC removal rate in this area should be the most productive in terms of
-------
groundwater quality improvement. Currently the gas system is operating at an average
of 200 cfm and in 1993 removed approximately 7000 pounds of VOCs from the
landfill. By placing additional gas extraction wells, in a closely spaced grid, additional
volatile contaminants will be removed from the waste fill before they can migrate to
groundwater. There are no specific estimates of what the increased air flow or
subsequent increased VOC removal rate will be. These specifics will be defined in the
Remedial Design phase. The extracted wastes will then be burned in the already
operating flare system.
It is also possible that the current gas system could be used to accelerate the VOC
removal from the waste. By closing off the air flow through other portions of the
landfill it may be possible to increase the vacuum and air flow through the area around
gas well 14. This would have the same effect of increasing the VOC removal rate and
decreasing the contaminant mass moving to groundwater.
Groundwater monitoring at the site will be continued to document improvements in
water quality. The groundwater quality improvements north of the site will be used to
evaluate the success of the remedial system. Monitoring well nests 1, 3, 210 and 214
will be the best indicators of environmental improvement. Table 4 shows the
improvements expected at well nest 1 over the next several years. If the expected
improvements are seen at this nest, then the remediation system will be working and
improvement will be seen in the nests further downgradient from the site. Because
well nest 1 is right next to the site it should be the first to show water quality
improvement.
The values in Table 4 were developed taking existing water quality data from the site
and then predicting future concentrations using a simple statistical model. Since
models are not very precise tools confidence intervals were placed around each
predicted concentration to account for some of the variability in contaminant migration
rates. Predicting contaminant migration is not a highly developed science so the
potential responsible parties were given some flexibility in meeting water quality
improvement goals. Also, it is expected that as additional water quality data are
generated through long term monitoring at the site, there will be refinements in the
predicted water quality improvements.
Groundwater evaluations will be done annually for the first five years to closely
monitor site conditions. If water quality does not improve as predicted in Table 4.
active remedial measures would likely be necessary. The decision to implement an
-------
- 16-
active groundwater remedial system could be done, at a minimum, any time in the first
five years of operation.
vm. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial action objectives were developed for this site to provide for long-term
protection of human health and the environment, and to meet ARARs.
ARARs are any federal or state standard, requirement, criteria or limitation that
are determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the site
cleanup. The final remedial action objectives for this site are:
• Reduce groundwater contamination concentrations to levels below the
Preventive Action Limits established in NR 140 Wis. Adm. Code at the landfill
waste edge.
• Maintain human exposure levels to contaminants below state and federal
guidelines. These are primarily the state and federal groundwater and drinking
water standards. The federal standards are Maximum Contaminant Levels set
in the Safe Drinking Water Act and the state drinking water standards are set in
NR 809 Wis. Adm. Code.
• Maintain ecological exposure levels to contaminants below potential levels of
concern based on state and federal criteria such as the federal surface water
quality criteria.
B. Development of Alternatives
The remedial action objectives for this site involve eliminating or reducing
human and ecological t tnosure levels and reducing groundwater contaminant
concentrations to acceptar . _>vels.
The remedial alternatives were assembled from applicable remedial technology
options. Some of the alternatives incorporate the source control measures
already installed at the site during the source control work. These measures
include primarily the landfill cap and gas extraction system. The alternatives
-------
- 17 -
surviving the initial screening in the Feasibility Study document were evaluated
and compared with respect to the nine criteria set forth in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). In addition to the remedial action alternatives, the
NCP requires that a no-action alternative also be considered for the site. The
no-action alternative serves primarily as a point of comparison for other
alternatives.
C. Alternatives
1. Alternative 1 - No Further Action - Because some source control actions,
installation of the clay cap and gas extraction system, have already been
completed, a no-action alternative cannot be defined for this site. In this
case, a no further action option has been defined as only the physical
installation of the clay cap and gas system. It does not include operation,
maintenance or monitoring of either component. Groundwater
monitoring and institutional controls on land use are also not included.
2. Alternative 2 - Natural Degradation/Institutional Controls - This option
consists of the following actions:
• Operating, maintaining and monitoring the source control measures
(clay cap and gas extraction).
• Implementing deed restrictions to prevent residential development
in the area of groundwater contamination.
• Conducting groundwater monitoring.
• Relying on natural attenuation processes to help achieve compliance
with groundwater standards.
This alternative relies heavily on the natural breakdown of VOCs already
in the groundwater to achieve compliance with groundwater standards.
The anaerobic groundwater environment down gradient of the landfill
allows microbiological dechlorination of the organic contaminants. Past
research has shown that under such conditions naturally occurring
microbes can break down some chlorinated compounds. This process is
likely already occurring to some extent in the groundwater on site. Based
on experience at other sites, the existing condition at this site probably
-------
- 18 -
provides for some biological breakdown. It is proposed, under this
option, that the natural degradation rate (in conjunction with source
control) will bring groundwater concentrations down to acceptable levels
in a reasonable period of time generally defined as less than 30 years if no
current nearby wells are impacted. Groundwater monitoring, especially
on the near down gradient edge of the fill, will be required to track water
quality improvements. Site reviews would be conducted annually to track
site progress. The rate of groundwater quality improvement should
follow that shown in Table 4. If improvement did not occur at a
satisfactory rate, active groundwater treatment would be required.
3. Alternative 3 - Enhanced Source Control - This alternative includes
additional source control measures and also relies on the natural
degradation process discussed previously. Increased gas extraction would
be accomplished either by increasing the number of extraction wells or
the air flow rate through the existing well system. This will be
determined in the Remedial Design phase. This is the selected remedy
for the site and is discussed in more detail earlier in this document.
A continpncy for further action if remediation goals are not met as
expected is included, and would be some form of active remediation.
4. Alternative 4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment and Discharge - This
alternative involves pumping the most contaminated groundwater north of
site, treating the water through an air stripper and discharging it to one of
the existing drainage ditches. Groundwater extraction would be
accomplished either using wells or trenches immediately down gradient of
the landfill. Treatment would be done with an air stripping tower to
remove the VOC's. Discharge of contaminants to the air and drainage
ditches would be regulated under WDNR administrative rules.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
- 19 -
A. Introduction
USEPA has established in the NCP nine criteria that balance health, technical,
and cost considerations to determine the most appropriate remedial alternative.
The criteria are designed to select a remedy that will be protective of human
health and the environment, attain ARARs, utilize permanent solutions and
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and be cost-effective.
The relative performance of each of the remedial alternatives listed above has
been evaluated using the nine criteria set forth in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.430(e)(9)(iii) as the basis of comparison. These nine criteria are
summarized as follows:
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
A remedy must provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment and describe how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs).
The remedy must meet all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of federal/state environmental laws. If not, a waiver may
apply.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Once cleanup goals have been met, this criterion refers to expected
residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment over time.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
The purpose of this criterion is to anticipate the performance of the
treatment technologies that may be employed.
-------
- 20 -
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion refers to how fast a remedy achieves protection. Also, it
weighs potential adverse impacts on human health and the environment
during the construction and implementation period.
6. Impiementability
This criterion requires consideration of the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including whether material and services are
available.
7. Cost
Capital, operation and maintenance, and 30-year present worth costs are
addressed through this criterion.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
8. State Acceptance
This criterion evaluates the state's acceptance of the proposed action.
9. Community Acceptance
This criterion summarizes the public's response to the alternative
remedies after the public comment period. The comments from the public
will be addressed in the Responsiveness Summary attached to this ROD.
B. Remedial Alternatives for Final Remedial Action
The nine criteria evaluation is as follows:
1. Threshold Criteria
The threshold criteria are CERCLA statutory requirements that must be
satisfied by any alternative in order for it to be eligible for selection as a
CERCLA-quality remedy. These two criteria are discussed below.
-------
- 21 -
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 (modified no action) does not provide adequate
protection of the environment. Under this scenario there would not
be a long-term significant reduction in VOC loadings to the
groundwater. By not maintaining the existing cap, eventual soil
erosion will increase the amount of water infiltrating through the
waste. This will, in time, increase contaminant movement to the
groundwater. Also, by not operating the gas extraction system,
contaminants will not be removed from the waste. These
contaminants, under this alternative, would likely migrate to
groundwater causing additional contamination. Groundwater
standards-would not be met under this option.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all meet this threshold criteria by reducing
the mass of contaminants in the landfill available for leaching to the
groundwater. The difference between each option is the rate of
reduction. These differences are evaluated under the upcoming
criteria.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
Alternatives 3 and 4 meet the ARARs pertaining to this site. Both
options satisfy the key provisions of NR 140 Wis. Adm. Code of
reducing groundwater contamination levels within a reasonable
period of time. Only the rate at which the reduction would occur
separates these choices.
NR 140 Wis. Adm. Code requires active remediation measures
when groundwater enforcement standards are exceeded at a point of
standards applications. Because this is an NPL site, the point of
standards application is the waste fill boundary. As discussed
previously, there are a number of health-based enforcement
standards exceeded at the fill edge. The active measures proposed
for this site under Alternatives 3 and 4 should reduce groundwater
concentrations at an acceptable rate. These measures meet the
requirement to take an active response.
-------
- 22 -
Because Alternative 4 employs pump and treat, it would reduce
groundwater contamination levels the fastest. However, as is
discussed later there are site specific concerns that would likely
limit the success of a pump and treat system.
Alternative 2, with its heavy reliance on natural attenuation, likely
will not meet NR 140 requirements. It is not clear that natural
attenuation with the existing source control measures would reduce
groundwater contamination at an acceptable rate. It is the WDNR's
opinion that Alternative 2 likely does not meet NR 140 and
therefore fails this threshold criteria test. However, since the field
data are not conclusive in this matter, Alternative 2 is reviewed by
the following balancing and modifying criteria to determine its
value.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 do meet the solid waste closure
requirements in NR 500-520 Wis. Adm. Codes. Most importantly
the provisions regulating the clay cap and gas extraction systems are
met. Also, the applicable air requirements in NR 445 are met.
2. Primary Balancing Criteria
Alternatives which satisfy the two threshold criteria are then evaluated
according to the five primary balancing criteria. Because Alternative 1
does not satisfy the threshold criteria, it will not be evaluated any further.
a. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
All three remaining choices fulfill this criteria. Alternative 4, pump
and treat, likely would decrease groundwater concentrations the
fastest, while Alternative 2, natural degradation, would be the
slowest. Alternative 3 would fall somewhere in between.
All three possibilities are seen as permanent solutions because they
ultimately reduce and destroy the contaminant through treatment of
some kind. The residual risk to human health or the environment
remaining after completion of any of the three approaches would be
low.
-------
With all three options it will take a period of years to reduce
groundwater contamination to acceptable levels. During this
interim, public health will be additionally protected through the use
of deed restrictions and state solid waste regulations preventing
private well development in the area of groundwater contamination.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility and Volume Through Treatment
All three remaining alternatives provide waste treatment and
consequently reduce contaminant mobility. Alternative 2 uses the
existing gas extraction system to draw VOC's from the landfill
waste and incinerate it. However, there are concerns that the
existing system is not reducing VOC contaminant levels in the
waste fast enough. Based on site studies it appears that the
northwest corner of the landfill, the old Mayville dump area, is the
greatest contaminant source. It does not appear that the current gas
system adequately addresses this area. Consequently, the waste
treatment provided under this option is not acceptable.
Alternative 3 provides for an enhanced gas extraction system in the
area of the old Mayville Dump. Consequently, this choice provides
a more acceptable level of waste treatment and is an improvement
over Alternative 2. It reduces at a faster rate the mass of
contamination available to migrate to the groundwater.
Alternative 4 includes both the existing waste treatment features,
while adding treatment of groundwater contamination. This makes
this option superior to either of the previous choices. However,
there are limits to the effectiveness of this option. Because of the
fine nature of much of the unconsolidated materials northwest of the
site groundwater extraction rates may be limited. This limitation
applies whether a trench or extraction well system is used to pump
groundwater. The resulting low pumping rate would make a pump
and treat system less effective. The area of influence and the
volume of water treated under this scenario appears to be too
limited to practically remediate the contaminated groundwater. In
addition, the pumping may reduce the water levels in the wetlands
north of the site adversely effecting their functions. Consequently,
even though Alternative 4 provides the opportunity for accelerated
-------
- 24 -
remediation, the site geology appears to severely limit the
effectiveness of the groundwater extraction effort while causing
possible additional undesirable impacts on the surrounding
wetlands.
Short-Term Effectiveness
All remaining options can be implemented relatively quickly.
Alternative 2 is essentially already in place. The enhanced gas
extraction system of Alternative 3 can be implemented in 1-2 years
time with no significant threats to public health, the environment or
site workers during construction. A similar time frame could be
achieved with Alternative 4, again with little or no threats to the
environment, public health or site workers during construction.
There appears to be significant differences in the time required for
each alternative to achieve groundwater standards. Alternative 2 is
the lowest because of its reliance on natural degradation.
Alternative 4 is the fastest because it entails groundwater pumping
and Alternative 3 is somewhere in between with its enhanced gas
extraction system.
Implementability
All remaining alternatives use existing, well established,
technologies. Consequently there are no foreseeable technical
obstacles to implementation. Also, none of these choices face any
major administrative or agency approval problems. These types of
remediation systems are routinely reviewed and approved by both
state and federal agencies.
Cost
Table 5 summarizes the estimated costs of each remedial action.
For Alternatives 2 and 3, costs are not a deciding factor.
However, for Alternative 4, the costs associated with the
groundwater system are difficult to justify. As stated, the nature of
the unconsolidated material and the presence of on-site wetlands
both work to reduce the rate at which groundwater could be
-------
- 25 -
extracted. The low pumping rate would likely make a pump and
treat system ineffective at containing the existing plume.
Consequently, the additional costs do not appear to be warranted.
3. Modifying Criteria
a. State Acceptance
The WDNR is the agency proposing this solution. USEPA
concurrence is expected based on comments received on the
Proposed Plan.
b. Community Acceptance .
There appears to be community support for this proposal. At the
public meeting presenting the Proposed Plan no opposition was
voiced. Also, there were no written comments provided opposing
the plan. The strong community concerns are that the site cleanup
move ahead quickly and that surrounding water supplies remain free
of contamination. The WDNR believes the chosen remedial option
will meet these concerns.
4. Summary
Based on the comparisons made above, the WDNR believes Alternative
3, Enhanced Source Control, presents the most balanced approach for
achieving acceptable environmental cleanup at a reasonable cost. The
chosen remedial action achieves the remedial objectives for this site in an
acceptable time frame and at a reasonable cost.
Conclusions of Law
The implementation of an enhanced gas control system, in conjunction with the proposed deed
restrictions and environmental monitoring will protect human health and the environment from
the exposure pathways identified in the Baseline Risk Assessment for this site, complies with
all legally applicable relevant and appropriate requirements, and is cost-effective. This action
is designed to be final; it represents the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to pertinent
criteria, given the scope of the remedial actions. CERCLA's preference for treatment is
satisfied with the action.
-------
- 26 -
Statutory Determinations
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy provides adequate protection by reducing contaminant loadings
from the landfill. Current and future water supplies will be protected. The reduced
contaminant loadings will protect future groundwater and surface water quality and will
over time remediate the already contaminated groundwater near the site.
B. Attainment of ARARs
The selected remedy will be designed to meet all applicable, or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) under federal and more stringent state
environmental laws. All permits and approvals required to implement the remedy will
be obtained. The primary ARARs that will be achieved by the selected alternatives
are:
1. Action Specific ARARs
Wis. Adm. Codes NR 500-520 regulate the installation, operation and
maintenance of the landfill cap and gas extraction system. Some of the more
important specific codes are:
NR 504 Landfill cap design and construction
NR 508 Landfill groundwater and gas monitoring
2. Chemical Specific ARARs
Wis. Adm. Code NR 140 regulates the responses taken to groundwater
contamination, determines when those responses should be taken and when
those responses are completed. The selected action will over time result in
compliance with NR 140 Groundwater Quality Preventive Action Limits at the
waste boundary.
Wis. Adm. Code NR 445 regulates air emissions from the landfill gas extraction
system. This code establishes specific emission rates for VOCs from the
landfill gas extraction system.
C. Cost Effectiveness
-------
The selected remedy provides overall cost-effectiveness. The long-term human health
and environmental benefits of the selected alternative justify the cost.
D. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
The remedy is believed to be a permanent solution and satisfies the preference for
treatment.
E. Preference for Treatment As a Principal Element
Treatment of the waste fill in the landfill through gas extraction to remove the VOC
contaminant mass is the principal pan of the remedial action.
Decision - The Selected Remedy
Based on evaluation of the alternatives, the WDNR believes that enhancement of the landfill
gas extraction system with contingencies for additional remedial measures if necessary will be
protective of human health, comply with ARARs, be cost-effective, and will utilize permanent
solutions.
The components of the selected remedy are:
• Operation, maintenance and monitoring of landfill cap and gas system
• Groundwater monitoring using existing wells
• Deed restrictions, as appropriate
• Restriction on new water supply well construction
• Use of existing natural contaminant breakdown
• New gas extraction wells and enhanced extraction from areas of high
contamination
• Connection of piping from new gas extraction well(s) to existing gas flare
system
-------
• Specific goals and deadlines set for contaminant breakdown, if not met,
additional work may be necessary
The WDNR has determined that the selected remedy will achieve the remedial action
objectives for this site.
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
(Index and Documents)
for the
HECHIMOVICH GROUNDWATER
OPERABLE UNIT
HORICON, WISCONSIN
MARCH 1992
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
-------
INTRODUCTION
These documents comprise the Administrative Record for the Hechicovich
Groundwater Operable Unit. An index of the documents in the Administrative
Record is located at the front of the first volume along with an acronym index
and an index of guidance documents used by EPA Agency Staff in selecting a
response action at the site.
The Administrative Record is also available for public review at Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources' Office, 3911 Fish Hatchery Road, Fitchburg,
WI 53711. Questions concerning the Administrative Record should be addressed
to the EPA Administrative Record Coordinator.
The Administrative Record is required by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
-------
HECHIMOVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
HORICON, WISCONSIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
Corresp/Memo/Others
Docs. 1-15
VOLUME 2
Corresp/Memo/Others
Docs. 16-51
VOLUME 3
Enforcement Document
Docs. 52-56
VOLUME k
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 57
VOLUME 5
Tech/Report/Studies
Docs. 58-65
VOLUME 6
Tech/Report/Studies
Docs. 66-70
VOLUME 7
Tech/Report/Studies
Docs. 71-76
VOLUME 8
Tech/Report/S tudies
Docs. 72-77
VOLUME 8(a)
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 77 cont.
VOLUME 8(b)
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 77 cont.
VOLUME 9
Tech/Report/Studies
Docs. 78-82
VOLUME 9(a)
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 82 cont.
VOLUME 9(b)
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 82 cont.
VOLUME 10
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 83
VOLUME 11
Tech/Report/Studies
Docs. 84-87
VOLUME 12
Tech/Report/Studies
Docs. 88-89
VOLUME 13
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 90
VOLUME 14
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 91
VOLUME 15
Corresp/Memo/Others
Docs. 92-105
VOLUME 16
Corresp/Memo/Others
Docs. 106 -125
VOLUME 17
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 126
VOLUME 18
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 127
VOLUME 19
Tech/Report/Studies
Doc. 128
VOLUME 20
Tech/Report/Studies
Docs. 129-130
-------
3/3C/92
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECH1HOV1CH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
HOfl'CON, WISCONSIN
I CHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE DOCNUHBER
3 72/09/02 Letter re: George Hechimovich UDNR Corresp/Memo/Others 1
Information regarding
hazardous and
toxic wastes disposed
at landfill site
1 74/10/11
Memorandm re:
District Review -
Hechimovich Landfill
Plans
Richard Hayes
John Reinhardt Correso/Hemo/Others 2
1 83/03/10
Letter re:
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfill, Inc.
Wendell Uojner
Hechimovich Landfill Corresp/Memo/Others 3
Fi le
4 35/04/10
HemorandLm re:
Comnents on the
Hechimovich Landfill
Site Inspection Report
James Crawford,
IANR
Hechimovich Landfill Corresp/Memc/Others 4
File
13 85/06/04 Letter re: Dennis Iverson,
Supplemental Information UARZYN
Proposed Hechimovich
Sanitary Landfill
James Birkett-Bauer, Corresp/Memo/Others 5
UDNR
34/09/29 Memorandun re:
September 22, 19B6
Site Inspection
J im 6 i rkett-Sauer
LandSGas Reclgmaticn Corresp/Kemc/Gthcrs 6
File
14 87/C1/29
Letter re:
Modification to the
Plan Approval, Land
and Gas Reclamation
landfi11
Richard Schuff,
UDNR
George Hechimovich Corresp/Meroc/Others 7
23 37/03/05
Letter re:
Facility Construction
Documentation Approval
letter of 1/2B/B7
Ken Braatz,
Hechimovich Sanitary
Laridf ill, Inc.
Richard Schuff Corresp/Hemo/Others S
23 S7/C4/29
Letter re:
Issues and allegations
raised in the UDNR's
February 26, 1987
memorandum to the
Lana and Gas Reclamation
Lancfill file
Dennis Iverson,
UARZTH
David Stewart
Corresp/Hemo/Others 9
-------
^age No.
03/30/92
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD !NDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIMOVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER CPERABLE -NI
HOUICON, WISCONSIN
.-ICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCNUNBER
3 87/06/29
Letter re:
Response to Preliminary
In-field Conditions
Report
Richard Schuff,
UDNR
George Hechimovich Corresp/Memo/Others 10
3 89/02/22
Letter re:
Draft Approval
Modification letter
Dennis Iverson,
WARZTN
Lakshmi Sridharan, Corresp/Hemo/Others 11
UDNR
11 89/03/22
Letter re:
Review of Uarzyn
Engineering Inc.'s
December 24, 1987
In-f ield Conditions
Report and Modification
to the Plan Approval,
Land and Gas Reclamation,
Inc. Landfill
Lakshmi Sridharan &
Mark Ciesfeldt,
UDNR
Lanb&Gas Reclamation Corresp/Memo/Others '2
Inc.
11 89/03/22 Letter re: Lakshmi Sridharan i Land&Gas Reclamation Corresp/Hemo/Others 13
Review of Uarzyn Mark Giesfeldt, Inc.
Engineering, Inc.'s W)NR
December 24, 1987,
In-Field Conditions
Report and Modification
to the Plan Approval,
Land and Gas Reclamation,
Inc. Landfill
4 89/04/21
Letter re:
Leachate Collection
David Hechimovich,
Heehimovich Sanitary
Landfill, Inc.
Robert Grefe, UDNR Corresp/Memo/Cthers 14
59 89/05/19
General and Special
Notices
UDNR
Var i ous
Corresp/Memo/Others '.5
3 39/05/23
Letter re:
Air monitoring
requirements as stated
in the 4/24/89 letter
from ^NR to Mr.
Hecnimovich
Jan Kucher 2
Steven Uittmann,
UARZYN
Julian Chazin, UDNR Corresp/Memo/Cthers 16
14 89/11/C6 Letter re: Valeri Ranguette & Robert Grefe, V®NR Corresp/Mero/Others 1,
-------
;age No.
33/30/92
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIMCVICH LANDFILL SROUNDUATER OPERABLE UN11
¦40R I CON , WISCONSIN
FI CHE/:RAHE PACES DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
OOCNUHBER
Supplemental Information Joel Schittone,
August 1989 Plan UARZYN
Modification, Land &
Gas Reclamation, Inc.
Landfi11
18 89/11/21
Letter re:
Construction
Documentation and Plan
Modification Approval;
Interim Cover and Final
Cover forthe Land &
Gas Reclamation Landfill
Lakshim Sridharan,
UDNR
George Hechimovich Corresp/Memo/Others 18
90/01/22 Letter re:
January 8, 1990
M3NR Approval Letter
Phase II, Module
1 Construction
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landf i11
Joel Schittone,
UARZYN
Robert Grefe, W)NR Corresp/Memo/Others 19
90/04/18 Memorandun re:
Response to
March 7, 1990
Preconstruct ion Meeting
Erosion Control and
Repair Methods Land
& Gas Reclamation,
Inc. Landfill
Joel Schittone,
UARZYN
Robert Grefe, UDNR Corresp/Memo/Others 20
90/07/11 Letter re:
Continuation of
cap restoration hork
being done at the
Land & Gas Reclamation
Landfi11
Hank Hechimovich,
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfill, Inc.
Robert Grefe, UDNR Corresp/Memo/Others 21
90/07/11 Memorandun re: Robert Grefe,
Field Observations 1®NR
Hechimovich Landfill Corresp/Memo/Others 22
File
50/07/12 Letter re:
Amcnctnent to the
Wisconsin Enforcement
Agreement for the
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfill Superfurtd
Norman Niedergang,
USEPA
Paul Didier, UDNR Corresp/Hemc/Others 23
-------
3age Ho.
03/30/92
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIMOVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
40RICCN, WISCONSIN
r!CHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
Si te
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
OOCNUM8ER
90/00/14 Letter re:
Plan Modification
Approval; Gas
Extraction System
Plans for the
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfi11
Lakshmi Sri
-------
=agc No.
03/3C/92
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIMOVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
K0RIC3N, WISCONSIN
F i CHE/F 3AHE PAGES DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCNUMBER
Phase II, Module 1
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfi11
90/12/17 Letter re:
Review of the Site
Evaluation Report
for the Land and
Gas Reclamation
Landfill dated
November 1990
Mike Schmoller,
UDNR
Hank Hechimovich Corresp/Hemo/Others 31
2 50/12/20
Letter re:
Land and Gas
Reclamation Landfill
Eric Gredell,
RMT
Hike Schmoller, 1®NR Corresp/Memo/Others 32
4 50/12/21
Letter re: ,
Draft Plan Modification
Gas Collection System
Design Land & Gas
Reclamation, Inc.
Landfi11
Brian McVean &
Joel Schittone,
UARZYN
Robert Grefe, W5NR Corresp/Memo/Others 33
2 90/12/27
Letter re:
Land & Gas Reclamation,
Inc. Site a/k/a
Old Hechimovich
Sanitary Landfill
Michael Ohm,
Bel I,Boyd & Lloyd
Hark Giesfeldt, UCNR Corresp/Memo/Others 34
91/01/03 Letter re:
Land and Gas
Reclamation Landfill
Site
Eric G r ede 11,
RMT
Mike Schmoller, U3MR Corresp/Hemo/Others 35
91/01/OA Letter re:
UJNR's granting of
extension to submit
draft RI/FS workplan
for the Land and Gas
Reclamation, Inc.
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
Eric Gredell, RMT,
Inc.
Corresp/Memo/Others 36
91/01/04 Letter re: Dennis Mack,
Acknowledgement of UDNR
Receipt
George Hechimovich CorresD/M.emo/Others 37
91/01/14
Letter re: Sobert Grefe,
Draft Plan Modification; W)NR
Gas Collection System
George Hechimovicn Corresp/Mefno/Others 3E
-------
Page No.
03/30/92
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIMOVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
HORICON, WISCONSIN
FICHE/FRAME PACES BATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
COCNUHBER
Design; Land & Gas
Reclamation Landfill
6 9'./01/28 Memorandum re: RMT Various Corresp/Memo/Others 39
Meeting notes to
discuss the relationship
between landfill
closure requirements
under the UDNR's solid
waste and air quality
regualtions, and the
CERCLA remedial response
action
7 51/02/07 Meeting Notes re: RMT Various Corresp/Memo/Others £0
Discussion of
preliminary comnents
on the RI/FS Uorlcplan
Revision 0 for the
Land and Gas
Reclamation Landfill
Si te
*0 91/02/11 Conment on the RI/FS Mike Schmoller, Robert Grefe, W3NR Corresp/Memo/Others 4"
Uorlcplan; Land & IANR
Gas Reclamation
Landfi11
14 91/02/28 Letter re: Charles Uilk, Mike Schmoller, 1®NR Ccrresp/H.emc/Others 42
Comments from review USEPA
of RI/FS Uorlcplan
dated 1/25/91 for
the Land and Gas
Reclamation Landfill
Site
4 91/03/07 Memorandum re: Kausnal Khanna, Chuck Uilk, USEPA C=rresp/He
-------
Page ho.
2J/30/52
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIHOVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
hcricon, u; scons in
•ICHE/FRA^E FACES DATE
i ITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
:xnuh3e;
RI/FS Uorkplan
Review Comnents
91/03/08 Letter re:
NR 506.08(6) Compliance
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfi11, Land and
Gas Reclamation, Inc.
Landfi11
Joel Schittone,
UONR
Lakshmi Sridharan, Corresp/Memo/Others 45
UONR
51/04/01 Letter re: Eric Grendell,
Land and Gas Reclamation RMT
Landfi11
Michael Schmoller, Corresp/Memo/Others 46
UONR
91/04/09 Memorandum re:
Update on RMT
Laboratories approval,
process with USEPA
Region V
M. Uirtz,
RMT
E. Gredell, RMT Corresp/Hemo/Others 47
2 91/05/17
Letter re:
Plan Modification
Gas Collection System
Design, Land and Gas
Reclamation Inc.
Landfi11
Joel Schittone,
UARZYN
Robert Grefe, L&NR Corresp/Memo/Others 48
91/05/20 Letter re:
Review of Revision 1
of Land and Gas
Reclamation Landfill
RI/FS Study Uorkplan
April 30, 1991
Michael Schmoller,
WDNR
Michael Chm
CorresD/Memo/Others 49
91/06/20 Letter re:
Record of Decision
for a Source Control
Operable Unit at the
Land and Gas Reclamation,
Inc. Landfill
Hike Schmoller,
UONR
Michael Chrci
CcrresD/Mena/Othcrs 50
91/06/28 Letter re: Land and Eric Grendell,
Gas Reclamation RMT
L and f i 11
Michael Schmoller,
UDNR
Corresp/Memo/Others 51
S6/1C/C1
State o' Wisconsin
vs. George Hechimovich
and Hechimovich Sanitary
State of Wisconsin
Circuit Court
Enforcement
Document
-------
Page No.
03/30/92
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIMOVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
HOR1CON. WISCONSIN
FiCHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCNUKBER
landfill. Inc. and
Land & Gas Reclamation
Inc.
22 37/07/23 State vs. George
Hechimovich, et al
Law Offices
DeWitt, Porter,
Huggett, Schumacher,
Morgan, S.C.
Charles Leveque,
UDNR
Enforcement
Document
53
90/10/01 Letter re: Ervin Ooepke, Charles Leveque, Enforcement 54
State of Wisconsin Law office of '«*3NR Docunent
vs Hechimovich Doepke, Harman & Elbert
2 91/03/18
Letter re:
State vs. Hechimovich,
et al.
Steven Wickland,
Wisconsin Department
of Justice
Ervin Doepke
Enforcement
Docinwnt
55
1 91/03/22
Letter re:
State of Wisconsin
vs Hechimovich
Ervin Doepke,
Law office Doepke,
Harrvan & Elbert
Steven Wickland,
WJOJ
Enforcement
Docunent
56
265 00/00/00
Generator Profile
Davis & Kuellhau
Law
Tech/Report/Studies 57
39 75/C6/16 Correspondence re: Ronald Palmquist,
Hechimovich Landfill Wisconsin Testing
Township of Williamstown Laboratories
copies of the report
of a subsurface
investigation performed
at the site
Hechimovicn Landfill Tech/Report/Studies 58
14 80/03/17
Letter re:
Annual quantity and
concentrations of
waste disposed of
through the Hechimovich
Sanitary Landfill before
January 25, 1980
Hike Cbert,
Hohn Deere Horicon
Works
Debbie Neunan( WCfcR Tech/Report/Studies 59
1 33/01/17
Potential Hazardous
Waste Site - Site
Inspection Report
USEPA
«GNR
Tech/Repcrt/Studies 60
14 S4/08/20
Potential Hazardous
Waste Site - Site
USEPA
UCNR
Tech./Report/Studies 6'
-------
Page No. 9
G3/30/9Z
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL ACTION
HECHIMQVICH LANDFILL GROUNDWATER OPERABLE UNIT
HORI CON, WISCONSIN
r!CHE/?RAME PACES DATE
TITLE
Inspection Report
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
DOCHUH8ES
1 84/09/25
Review of Region V
CLP Data
Curtis Ross,
USEPA
FIT
Tech/Report/Studies 62
1 84/10/11
Review of Region V
CLP Data
Curtis Ross,
USEPA
UONR
Tech/Report/Studies 63
80 85/05/10
Hechimovich Landfill
Survey Surmary
Daniel Carey
Tech/Report/Studies 64
18 87/04/00
Groundwater
Investigation Land
and Gas Reclamation, Inc.
with cover letter
UARZYN
Richard Schuff, i£)NR Tech/Report/Studies 65
13 87/04/13
Letter re:
Information relating
to the testing of
the groundwater
monitoring wells
Ken Braatz,
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfill, Inc.
Nichol Hanoiou
Tech/Report/Studies 66
9 57/07/20
Letter re:
Water Table Evaluation
Modules 1 and 2
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landf i11
Alan Schmidt &
Dennis Iverson,
UARZYN
Richard Schuff, WNR Tech/Report/Studi es 67
Ken Braatz, Nichol Mamolcu Tech/Report/Studies 68
Hechimovich Sanitary
Landfill, Inc.
monitoring well
measurements and leachate
tank volumes at the
landf i11
8 87/07/23 Letter re:
Information related
to the testing of
groundwater monitoring
wells, leachate head
112 37/C9/13 Technical Memorandum Dennis Iverson & James Birkett-Bauer, Tech/Report/Studies 69
Land ana Gas Reclamation, Larry Uehrheim, UDNR
Inc. Landfill Phase I UARZYN
Inves t i gat i on
26 87/12/00
In-Field Conditions UARZYN
Land and Gas Reclamation
Landf ill Inc.
IDNR
Tech/Report/Studies 70
-------
-age n;.
:3/30/
-------
l irilF/KHAMK, PACKS
DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
Assurance Project
Plan Region V
Office of Supcrfund
Office of RCRA
21 91/02/22
Copy of State
Enviroiunental Repair
Contract for the
Land & Gas Reclamation
Landfill
Linda Meyer,
WDNR
433 91/04/30
RI/FS Uorkplan for the
Land & Gas Reclamation
Land fi. 11 Site
Revision 1
Dale Razabek
Stephen -
.lohannsen &
Eric Gredell
RMT
149 91/06/00
Hod if Lea Lion of
Closure Plan
Gas Collection System
Dos ign
Warzyn
14 91/07/03
Review of April 1991
RMT, Inc RI/FS
Uorkplan for the I.and
fx (las Reclamation
Landfill Site with
cover letter
Je ffc ry
Sepesi, Barr
Engineering,
Co.
32 91/0 //22
Land &. Gas Reclamation
Landfill Super fund Site
Community Relations Plan
UDNR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT DOC ft
TYPE
Chuck Wilk,
USEPA
Tech/Report/
S tudies
81
WDNR
Tech/Report/
Studies
Land & Gas
Reelamation,
Inc .
Tech/Report/
Studies
82
A3
Michae1
Schmoller
Tech/Report/
SLvidl es
84
Land fit Gas Ter.h/Keport/
Reclamation Studies
Inc. 8') - 81>
-------
MCHK/KKAYIh PACIuS
DATE
TTTLF,
11
91/0 7/24 WDNR Summary/
Exceedance Reporl
92/3/13 Revision 3 Rl/FS
Workplan
91/8/20 Revision 2 Rl/FS
Workplan
91/4/30 Revision 0 Rl/FS
Workplan
92/4/15 Tech Memo 1.
RI Phase I & II
92/4/8 USEPA Workplan
Concurrence.
91/11/8 Workplan Approval.
91/9/13 Workplan Changes
91/8/28 Workplan Changes
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT
TYPE
»OC Ui
WDNR
Tech/Report;/
Studies 87
RMT
WDNR
Tech/Report./
Studies 88
RMT
WDNR
Tech/Report/
Studies 89
RMT
WDNR
Tech/Report/
Studies 90
RMT
WDNR
Tech/Report/
Studies 91
Mike
Schmoller, WDNR
Michael Ohm
Corresp/Memo/
Other 92
Mike
Schmoller, WDNR
Michael Ohm
Corresp/Memo/
Other 9 3
Mi chael
Schmoller, WDNR
Fi le
Corresp/Memo/
Other 94
Dale Rezabek Mike Schmoller Corresp/Memo/
RMT WDNR Other 9b
-------
1 II IIK/I UAMK l'A>;i-S
DATE
TITLE
91///2 9 Revision I
Workplnn
Concurrence
91///24 IJSEl'A Workplan
Concurrence
91/5/20 Respunses to
Workplan Comments
91/2/15 Closure Policy
Letter
90/3/26 ATSDR Preliminary
Health Assessment
(Draft)
90/3/19 Enforcement
Agreement
Amendment
89/6/13 June 7, 1989
Meeting Notes, W1)NR
88/4/3 Preliminary
Health Assessment
92/5/1 Tech Memo RI
Phases I 6c TI Review
92/5/11. Tech Memo RI
Phase I & II
92/5/22 May 18, 1992
Meeting Notes
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT
TYPE
DOCtf
Mike Michael Ohm Corresp/Meino/'
Schmoller, Other
WDNR 96
Chuck Wi.lk Mike Schmoller Corresp/Memo/
USEPA WDNR Other 97
RMT
Mike Sclimoller
WDNR
Corresp/Mcino/
Other 98
Mike
Schmoller, WDNR
Michael Ohm
Corresp/Memo/
Other 99
Chester
Tate, DHHS
Norm
Ne idergang,
USEPA
Corresp/Memo/
Other
100
Dav I d
Ullrich,
USEPA
Paul Didier,
WDNR
Corresp/Meino /
Other
101
Christine
Dlebels
File
Corresp/Memo
Other 102
Wisconsin
Division Health
Corresp/Memo
Other 103
Chuck Wilk
USEPA
Mike Schmoller
WDNR
Corresp/Memo/
Other 104
Mike
Schmoller, WDNR
Michael Ohm
Corresp/Memo/
Other 105
Warzyn
Engineering
Hank
Hech i movi.ch
Corresp/Memo/
Other 106
-------
I K'lll'/KHAMI' PA
-------
I ICIIK/I KAMK TACKS DATE
TITLE
93/9/20
93/9/28
Alternative Array
Revi ew
RI Comment
Responses
93/10/1 RI Approval
93/10/115 Alternative Array
Review
93/11/10 Focused FS
Approval
94/1/13 FS Review
94/1/24 FS Review
92/8
93/4
93/4
9 3/9
9 3/11
MS:ps swm\lgri.idx
Construction Report
Baseline Risk
Asses sinent
Remedial
Investigation Report
Al tentative
Array
Feasibility
Study
AUTHOR
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
RECIPIENT
Mike Schmoldt,
RMT
DOCUMENT DOC//
TYPE
Corresp/Memo/
Other 119
Mike Schmoldt,
RMT
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
Corresp/Memo/
Other
120
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
Mike Schmoldt,
RMT
Corresp/Memo/
Other
1.21
Tom Poy,
USEPA
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
Corresp/Memo/
Other
122
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
Mike Ohm
Corresp/Memo/
Other
123
Tom Poy,
USEPA
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
Corresp/Memo/
Other
124
Mike Schmoller,
WDNR
Mike Ohm
Corresp/Memo/
Other
125
Warzyn
Engineer ing
WDNR
Tech/Reports/
Studies
126
Barr
WDNR
Tech/Reports/
Studies
12/
RMT
WDNR
Tech/Reports/
Studi es
128
RMT
WDNR
Tech/Reports/
Studies
129
RMT
WDNR
Tech/Reports/
Studies 130
-------
WISCONSIN
State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Southern District Headquarters
Fitchburg, Wisconsin 53711
TELEPHONE 608-275-3266
TELEFAX 608-275-3338
DEFT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
George E. Meyer
Secretary
Sectember 13, 1995
IN REPLY REFER TO: Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill
TcmPoy 5HS-11
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Enforcement Branch
77 W. Jackson Diva
Chicago, IL 60604
S! IB. r.,CT: Record of Decision Concurrence
Dear Mr. Poy:
Attached is the signed Record oi Decisipn for the Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill site. This is being
submitted for USEPA's concurrence. As we have discussed the key component of the final remedy for
the site :s a continuation and possible expansion of the existing gas extraction system. It appears this
remedy will reduce groundwater contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels within a reasonable
period oi time.
'A you have additional questions about this site please contact rne directly.
Mx-hael Scnmo.ler
Hydrogeologist
608 275-33C3
Printed '.in
R,v\Hfd
Paper
-------
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT LEVELS NORTH OF THE SITE
PARAMETER
HV-1A
MW-1RR
KV-3AR
MV-210A
MV-214A
NR 140
ENFORCEMENT
STD
Vinyl Chloride
2,800
4,300
1,000
200
ND
.2
Trichloroethene
100
2,800
78
180
ND
5
1,2-Dichloroethene
7,000
19,000
1,700
ND
ND
o
o
LI concentrations in parts per billion, all readings from May, 1992.
ov i: RMT Draft-Final Remedial Investigation, September, 1993.
-------
TABLE 2
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT LEVELS WEST OF THE SITE
•TELLS
NR 140
ENFORCEMENT
STD
parameters
MV-5R
KV-5A.R
P-4RR
MV-205A
Vinyl Chloride
19
8
14
3
. 2
Trichloroethene
29
6
59
3
5
1,2-Dichloroethene
72
10
53
3
100
All concentrations in parrs per billion, all readings from May, 1992.
Scree: RMT Draft-Fir.al Remedial Investigation, September, 1993.
-------
TABLE 3
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LAND AND GAS RECLAMATION LANDFILL SITE
VOLATILE ORGANICS
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
METALS
INORGANICS
Benzene
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Aluminum
Alkalinity
Carbon disulfide
Diethylphthalaie'
Arsenic
Ammonia as N
Chloroberuene
2.4-Dimethy (phenol6
Barium
Chloride
Chloroethane
Di-n-butylphthalate
Calcium
Nitrate* Nitrite
Chioromethane
Naphthalene5
Chromium
Sulfate
1.4-Dichlorobenzene"
Phenol"
Copper
i. l-Dichloroethane
Iron
1.2-Dichloroeihane
I^ead
1, 1-Dichloroethene
Magnesium
1,2-Dichloroethene
Manganese
Dichlorofluorome thane'
Nickel
1,2-Dichloropropane
Potassium
Ethylbenzcne
Selenium
Ethyl ether*
Sodium
4 -Methy i-2 -pentanoneb
Vanadium
Svreneb
Zinc
Tetrachloride thene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
1 Tentatively identified compound.
" Detected only in leachate wells.
Source: Barr Engineering Baseline Risk Assessment. 1993
-------
¦— ¦ ¦ — ¦ — ! • •— • - — ¦ ¦ ¦ - y
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED VOC CONCENTRATIONS AND 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS
Well
Parameter
199G
1996
199?
1998
1999
1 R}%
Irr».f
tttlmatrd
(lortc • n 11 a f kyt
l*pp«r 95%
Conf*d«nc»
limit
Low*/
Confidence
Limit
Eitimaird
Concentfston
UpfMtr 85%
Conf«fanca
Llmll
low*,
Confidence
lunil
Eflimaled
Corc*nlrallon
UpfW P5*
CorWkltrce
Lwnil
lovrf* W*
Conl>der>c«
Limit
Gone enU« lion
Upper BOX
Cofl'<(lcnc«
Limit
I ti»f! 8JX
Co^'hJb'k*
Llrriil
Fi*h»n»(«d
Cor>c tnliation
Upp*» 05%
ConWuKe
Lwwil
MW-irin
MW-1AH
OCE
10
245
3,361
5
70
9G3
1.4
19
262
0.4
5 5
75
0 1
1,7
24
TCfc
0 07
6
545
0.01
1
95
2 x 10 3
0.2
10
A K 10 4
0.03
3
7 x 10 5
0.01
0.58
Vinyl
cltloiiiJn
uct
4 « tO-1
1.901
0.37
5,432
3,752
3 x 10°
0.03
300
2 x 10 '
2 x 10 3
17
1 x 10"
1 x 10*
1.3
11.499
8 * 10
1.274
Bx 10"
3.641
0.09
15.522
1.720
4,315
14,045
1,556
4,447
12,708
1,408
4,024
10,405
ICE
4.9
12
30
2.7
6.7
16.6
1.4
3.5
0 7
0.B
1.9
4 0
0 4
1
2 5
Vinyl
chlotid*
550
992
1,790
407
735
1,326
302
545
962
217
392
706
162
293
520
NOTC:
All concanlralions aia in parts per billion (ppb).
-------
TABLE 5 - Clean-up Alternatives Components and Costs
Land & Gas Reclamation Landfill Super fund Site
Alternative Description
Capital
Cost'
i l
Annual
O&M"
Alternative I
N'o Additional
Action
• No Action
$0
$0
Alternative 2
Natural
Breakdown of
Contamination
• Operation, maintenance and monitoring of landfill cap
and gas system
• Groundwater monitoring using existing wells
• Deed restrictions, as appropriate
• Restriction on new water supply well construction
• Use of existing natural contaminant breakdown
$0
$0
Alternative 3
Enhanced
Source Control
with Natural
Breakdown of
Contamination
• Operation, maintenance and monitoring of landfill cap and
gas system
• Groundwater monitoring using existing wells
• Deed restrictions, as appropriate
• Restriction on new water supply well construction
• Use of existing natural contaminant breakdown
• New gas extraction wells and enhanced extraction from areas
of high contamination
• Connection of piping from new gas extraction well(s) to
existing gas flare system
• Specific goals and deadlines set for contaminant breakdown,
if not met, additional work necessary
$107,000
$11,000
Alternative 4
Groundwater
Extraction.
Treatment and
Discharge
• Operation, maintenance and monitoring of landfill cap and
gas system
• Groundwater monitoring using existing wells
• Deed restrictions, as appropriate
• Restriction on new water supply well construction
• Use of existing natural contaminant breakdown
• Interceptor/collection trench and sumps at north end of
landfill
• Air stripping treatment system with exhaust air discharge to
atmosphere
• Discharge of treated groundwater to existing drainage
ditches
• Monitoring of treatment system
$706,000
$104,000
The capital cost of $2.140.000 has already been spent to construct the final landfill cap and gas extraction and
flare system. These costs are not shown in this table.
An annual operation and maintenance cost of $79,000 is necessary to operate the existing system. This cost is also
not shown in the table.
Source: WDNR Proposed Plan, 1994
-------
..V-r-4
: • \ TOWN
«Buc.n 411 ;.°h\
% J: "uvl
\ ! ' { :;4v •
1 i .. f... "...C? :
I iOl-XCON M 1
A!?F.A;
S3)" "
\
LQRL
r
Hold (ig
oricon k*'*'
inrlr
imcflu
\
[APJ \
(HHu! !sbt
Iron
: Kit!
r avr
WoccJlonc!
ClIn.iiLiforxI :
: VjiyDIc
NccrthO
2E&
uCIvrqnn
>C J1 i : .* ^
2 MILES
4 MILEs
SCALE; 1-2 WILES
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
LAND AND GAS RECLAMATION LANDFILL
DODGE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
mr
OWN. ST: EAS
AWCVO ST:
D*t NCYEMSEH. 1992
pmj f 1727,59
rts / 1 72759C3
-------
Oijii h //«' i l!!ir\ i
FI.GURE B
/; / /
' / •' / !
LEGEND ;.v
FOpyEfl fA AT"Y( LLE LANOf ILL AND
/(-// \:>ji .4^, //¦¦,
V \r-:-Z--'¦ V /" ¦, "Jlily ; A [/-..a ; -
¦d!
,-i y?
r • • i' / / i
:;A\ r \C/v<
- Ci^ L s | !
' / f \ v \ : :
\ ii
\/
. i
/ •//! •
' v. 1
r
/...
f
-Lb . ' ,A •'/ i > !•
[ c" / /\', ^ /r ' : / *• ) ! L' /; /,v/.v' I'H i
L$lT-.r\ / ;phliA/l> . /%fn /^W|/n:inhv.
— • f / ¦-¦ i' : \ v ! » • I I: f '! ' / ; • : '//\Vi '
... / k /' -.uV-- \\ N> *cl, / / / /////" ;•"/i /1 1 j '-'\.
L||lVJi&\WiilMn1 h C
! 11 • v'"-!v ':/// ¦ !. Sis .¦¦'-J-rr^y.Vr, -<^\ \ \ y> i '/ //«///.•/ v// /
•' I • I I 'f "IF^" / ' ' ' y t I • ( ; : 1 J ] 0^> \ ! ^ ' 1 ' ; I ' ( " ^ / I > ' '
'¦¦ ] ¦¦ . I / • J/ / ' ' f: i S f / i ? /' /' / - / ;/
• ' : '• ••••'•- v./,v// /. •• / r<^\ ; • * // nil! ^;v/ r .• ; «.
; : : : ; 0/> «
y-'/ilimm iTi-
, •' S//¦•¦. i!
¦ ¦
iiM.
:!r'!/-/ i ¦ is///.!//u%
• / ft''} ¦ l-y » / ' . 'jr / ! i i J; k.vv ! :j i ' /
i ; /. / / •/,'//,• • 0\i i C5.V • !
i/ • ; - TVV - • ' /' ;i //',V ; " ^ { /;i / i ..
" / J '/ * \ !{' f ' '"»*¦" I V;' ; (* | ' * / W I . ^ •' ¦ ^ ' i*
/ 1-1^ ifii I 5 \s
j j . j . f// / /' ¦ . ''i// f~ ^-4br- • :V ' •- \\ \ \ * v I j
! h i ff/! - M ;V! \ \\«\K v t
I >
i
' ; > - / h / > ; fry ¦•
\ 11 i f !if / . j. J— i.J\
^ : 11 i!:\ . - ' /;
\K \\ 1 \ N-v
\\\1\k V \
djjj
\,
si
i:
_ - ., T /i_^-FQRWHRrMAY'VILLE LAWDFJLU
! i-li V = -/ iAN^.CURfiENT CITY LIMII$f
v/; ^1.1 . ! '' ; \ /y0
' ' ' ' • • ^VG| Pjfv^^ppv. ,..*n\v ..;'/ Miff I
/' / K
/
V /
iii /
>
' \ V^. V;V <>' ' • t-i*! / > ' ^ v f.
• '-.i :• V: v- •
\ *. » \ • • J *• '• ~' •' »
5'I \ ; //¦ WM
~ ^ ^ - rwv- .• LGRL RHOPERTVY b^/fn
"S \ / Xf.l ¦ BOUNDARY ///!(!
»•¦*;;•;v:V . .
'j j*'/j:r/;. (•
¦ ){{; r;.! ^SCH?>l'rLfi?A
SfTE LOCATION PLAN
1000
2000
LAND AND OAS RECLAMATION LANDRLL
DODGE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
SCALE: 1"-1C00'
C*H. BY: EXS
mr
APPSCVGD ST;
a*rc- NOVEMBER, 1S9^
1727.59
nx f ',7275902
-------
MECHANISM MECHAf ~M
poirsrr
MED"
ROUTE
RECEPTOR
Landfllled
Wastes
Volatilization |X
Erosion |X!
©
Wind
©
Onsite
Air (Dust) | J*
Alt (Vapor) | [
Inhalation
Offsite
Air (Dust)
Air (Vapor)
Inhalation
Direct Contact
With
Waste/Soli
-x—*
Onsite j-*-
Surface Soil
Ingestion.
Dermal
Absorption
Excavation
Exposing the Subsurface
(Direct Contact)
^ i-
bsurface |
^2 I
® ,
-x—^
Onsite
Subsurface
Soil
Ingestion,
Dermal
Absorption
Leaching/
DesorpHon
Groundwater Ix-1
Flow '*1©
X- Indicates Pathway Blocked/Incomplete
I - Blocked By Gas Collection System/Flares
2- Blocked By Landfill Cap
3- Blocked By NR506 Restrictions
A- Incomplete - Not Hydraullcally Connected To Site
5- Blocked By NE811 Restrictions
Offsite Well
Groundwater/
Drinking
Water
Ingestion.
Dermal
Absoiptlon,
Inhalation
(Volatiles)
Site Visitors
Nearby Residents |
r
Silo Visitors |
Terrestrial Wildlife^j
Site Visitors.
Future
Occupants
Terresiilal
Wildlife
Offsite Well
Users
Future Onsite
Groundwater/
(Or Adjacent
—~
Drinking
~
to Site) Well
Water
Ingestion,
Dermal
Absorption.
Inhalation
{
Future
Resident
Discharge To
Surface Water
Ditches/
Wetlands
y
Figure c
Conceptual Site Model - Exposure Pathways
Water/
Sediments
Ingestion,
Bloaccumulatlon,
Bloconcentratlon
Aquatic
Organisms
Water/
Sediments
Ingestion
Terrestrial
-Wildlife .
Water/
Sediments
Ingestion,
Dermal
Absorption
Site Visitor
-------
= 15^3.64 f0\Y~2365.7060 J
s
> V '1
/ °AtwMW^io"' • -. ^
MW-ZIOB
3?8.1
W 3R
W 3AR
11A ,
DOWNGRADIENT MONITOniNG WELLS
NORTH OF THE LANDFILL
LAND AND OAS
RECLAMATION LANDFILL
?00
SCAlEi l' = lOO
mm
OWN. BT. J EH
-VTROVID BY:
IMTC: SEPTEMOER, 1004
/WW./ 1727.65
r»C § IGRL7
FIGURE D
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared Co meet the requirements of
Sections 113 (k) (2) (B) (iv) and 117(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendaents and Reauthorization Ace of 1986, which requires the United States
Environmental Protection Agency or the state on state lead sites to respond ".
. . Co each of the significant comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in
writcen or oral presentations" on a proposed plan or draft Record of Decision
(ROD) for remedial action. The Responsiveness Summary addresses concerns
expressed by the public and potentially responsible parties in the writcen and
oral coamenCs received by the State regarding the final remedy for the Land
and Gas Reclamation Landfill.
A. OVERVIEW
I. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
An Administrative Record has been established at the Mayville
Public Library, 111 North Main Street, Mayville, Wisconsin.
I The Proposed Plan for the final remedy was available for public
j comment from February 16, 1994, to March 17, 1994. A public
meeting to present and discuss the plan was held at the Mayville
Senior Center on February 16, 1994. Approximately 30 people
attended. During the public comment period one written comment
was received.
B- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Public interest regarding the site has been low. The community
generally seems to favor the remedial actions chosen in the ROD.
C. SUMMARY 0? SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY COMMENTS
Comment 1
At the February public meeting concern was raised by several individuals
about the rate of groundwater cleanup. There were concerns why the WDNR
was not proposing a pump and treat option.
Response
Ic was explained why the DNR believes that pump and treat was of limited
value at the site and why it was believed the proposed actions would
clean up the groundwater at an acceptable rate. It was also stated that
groundwater monitoring would be conducted to crack the rate of
1 improvement in water quality. If improvements do not occur, additional
' remedial actions would be required.
-------
-2-
Comaent: 2
The WDNR received a single written comment: concerning the need to keep
the local residents informed on clean up progress at the site.
Response
The WDNR agrees and efforts will be made to keep all residents informed
on actions at the site.
MS: ps
svm\hechuch.mrs
-------
;C *£-
REMEDIAL RESPONSE BRANCH
CORRESPONDENCE SIGN-OFF SHEET
SITE:
ITEM:
ICH LANDFII
(WISCONSIN^
Notice Letter [ ]
Administrative Order [ ]
Control Correspondence [ ]
Special Notice Letter [ ]
Information Request [ ]
Other ROD Concurrence [X]
MUST BE MAILED BY:
SIGN-OFF: (Names not required are scratched)
RRB Date
Section Chief
T. Poy
tip
! coticuRKeNT Si&bJ-orF
PRC '
Staff Counsel
AT. Berman
Section Chief
C. Puckalski
Branch Chief
L. Kyte
< 1
Date
7 - >
/
Regional Counsel . ) '. / / '-7/? /
G. Ginsberg-
* if ORC concurrence not required [ ]
** if consultation has occurred [ ]
Division Director
W. Muno
Others:
Deputy Regional Administrator
O. Ullrich
Regional Administrator
V. Adamkus
Return to: T. Poy , for mailing
Phone Number 6-5991 Date Returned for mailing
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
SUBJECT: Reauest for Concurrence on the Record or ^eci.s ion for
the Hechimovich Landfill Site in Williamstown Township,
Wisconsin
TO: Valdas V. A.damkus
Regional Administrator
We are recommending that you concur with the remedy selected for
the Hechirr.cvich Landfill Site, as presented in the Record of
Decision 'ROD) prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources !WDNR), by signing the enclosed letter of concurrence.
WDNR is the lead Agency for this site in accordance with the
Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA) between U.S. SPA and
WDNR. Hechimovich Landfill is a non-Fund financed State-lead
enforcement site. Under 40 CFR 3GC.515(e) (2) (i) and H.i; of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Flan,
U.S. SPA may concur with the remedy selected by WDNR.
J Because the risk assessment that indicates no unacceptable human
health risks and limited potential ecological risk, WDNR has
selected a final remedy for the Hechimovich Landfill site which
utilizes natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination
with monitoring. Contaminant target levels have been established
for the groundwater over the next 5 years. If tnese target
levels are not met, a decision will be made on the implementation
of a more active pump and treat remedy. To aid the natural
attenuation process and to address the potential impact to the
wetlands, the existing gas extraction system wi. L ! he enhanced in
areas of high contamination (i.e., the northern part of the
landfill;. This will reduce the VOC leading to the groundwater
and xiL help prevent further migration of the plume. In
addition, institutional controls will be implemented as
FROM: William Muno
Associate Director for Superfund
Gail Ginsberg
Regional Counsel
/
-------
As we believe that: concurrence with the remedy is a proper
exercise of your delegated authority. Please teei tree to
contact either of us if you have any questions.
cc: D. Ullrich
M. Jordan
Enclosures
-------
Carney
Kyze
Puchalsk
Eerrr.an
-------
A
2*!7?
y.r . George H. Meyer
^ 0 C IT5=1 tl 3. IT V
Wisconsin Department cf Natural Resources
101 South Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 537C7
~ e - >- \* v- _ M £ y r- v- :
^ ~ "" r- i. -3 cl stst 65 ErvirorT*TtaI ^ """ c- ti o c z. o n A. 3 011 c v ''U.S. H ^ Ax-
heruoy concurs with the selected remedy as identified in the
-i:cjo~ed Record of Oecisicn 'ROD'> completed by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources iWDNRS for the Hechimovich
Lanariii Site. Our concurrence is m accordance with 40 CFR
§300.515 (e) (2) (i) and (ii£ and is based on the administrative
record.
Because there is no unacceptable risk to human health, we agree
that, the best course of action is to allow the contaminated
groundwater at the sice to naturally attenuate while reducing the
volatile organic compound loading by enhancing gas extraction.
If the groundwater contaminant targets, as established in the
ROD, are net met, we agree that the remedy will need to be
reevaluated and that a mere active groundwater remedy may be
needed.
, As the Jt'inal remedy for the site, we also agree with WDNR '.hat
,y the exrhing landfill cap and gas collection system need to be
./operated, maintained, gart?»a and where appropriate,
.i.nsr.icur: icnai controls should be : mplemented to restrict exposi
to sice rent am : riant..- .
We lock forward to cur continuing : revolvement on the liechimovic
bandf 111 Site as ..:.. r.uves inrcuu.n r.s Kentetiidi. Desicn/Hesseoicti
.v vcurs,
\3 \
Vaidas \
Regional
«oar..
-------
N'ur.o
rCV
Carney
Ky-e
Pucha1sk i
Ser^an
------- |