redacted pela inc - ri statement of work (sow) · to the "statement of work for a remedial...
TRANSCRIPT
PIIL&05
STATEMENT OF WORK FORA REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE
DUNN LANDFILL(CITY DISPOSAL CORPORATION LANDFILL),
DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
(PELA File No. 450202)
Prepared for
Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc.N96 W13503 County Line Road
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051-1606
By
P. E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Inc.Consulting Hydrologists, Geologists
and Environmental ScientistsPost Office Box 2310
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35403
September 24, 1986
RELaMoreaux & Associates
The following revisions are referenced by Section and Page numberto the "Statement of Work for a Remedial Investigation at the DunnLandfill (City Disposal Corporation Landfill), Dane County, Wisconsin."
Section Page
2.1 11 Sentences 4 through 7 (inclusive) should be deleted infavor of language in the Administrative Order.
3.1 16 The last paragraph should be deleted as inappropriate.
3.2e. 23 The following should be inserted following the lastsentence of the Section (3.2e).
"As an aid in determining the type andextent of contamination at the site, sub-surface samples (e.g., split-spoon samples)
will be collected during the drilling andinstallation of leach ate wells (Section 3.5),nested wells, and water-table wells (Section
3.6). Samples collected will be described,subjected to field screening techniques, and
appropriate intervals will be analyzed basedon results of field determinations tosupplement soil sampling."
3.3 25 The first complete paragraph on the page is modifiedto read as follows:
"Samples of surface-water runoff from the
ditch traversing the site will be collectedconcurrently with soil samples from the ditch(Sections 3.2e.4 and 3.2e.5) and analyzed asdescribed in Section 3.8. Any surface seepsdetected will be sampled (samples of water
B36B/1 RELaMoreauxot Associates
Section Page
3.5 26
and sediment will be collected) and analyzedas described in Section 3.8. Appropriatefield screening techniques may be applied tomaximize the effectiveness of sampling ef-forts."
Section 3.5, Installation of Leach ate Wells, is modified
to read as follows:
"At least three (3) leach ate wells will beinstalled. One well will be located betweenexisting wells B-15 and B-18. Locations ofadditional wells will be based on results ofme geopnysicai survey. Known extent or
landfilling, cell design, and previous stud-ies. Sites for leach ate wells will be moni-
tored for organic vapors using an HnUphotoionizer during well drilling and in-
3.6
3.6
sta Nation."
28 The reference tochanged to Figure
Figure 1 in line2.
1 of the page is
28 The following should be added in continuation of thefirst paragraph:single monitoring
"At least four well nests and fivewells will be installed during Phase
III of the well installation program (Figure 2)."
3.7 30 The first full sentence on the pageas follows:
"Gamma logs will2- inch diametercessible, (B-6R,
be performed onmonitoring wells.
B-7R, B-9R,
——————————— Dft a
is modified to read
iexistingif ac-B-12R,
Mrvnai rv SL Acc/N/Mjtae ——B36B/2
Section Page
B-16R, and B-19R) and selected 4-inchdiameter monitoring wells (B-14 and B-17)."
3.8 30 Section 3.8, Monitoring and Analyses, is modified toread as follows:
The existing semi-annual monitoring proyram should continue
until completion of the RI. All newly installed monitoring
and leachate wel ls and selected existing monitoring wel ls and
four (4) nearby private wells will be sampled for analyses to
characterize the chemical character of groundwater and to
assess the movement of contaminants. The first round of
water samples collected from the wells given above will be
analyzed tor priority pollutants and parameters "listed below
that are not included in the priority pollutants list.
Water levels in the wells will be measuredprior to sampling. Wells will be evacuated of
sample collection. Samples will be collectedand analyzed in accordance with standardprocedures. Color, odor, and turbidity willbe recorded."
B36B/3 RE-LaMoreaux& Associates
Section Page
Indicator Parameters
AmmoniaBoronNitratepHPhenolSpecific conductanceTemperatureTotal dissolved solidsTotal Kjeldahl nitrogenTotal organic carbonVolatile organics
Water-Quality Parameters
BicarbonateCalciumCarbonateChlorideMagnesiumPotassiumSodiumSulfate
Primary Drinking-Water Parameters
ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumFluoride
LeadMercurySeleniumSilver
Secondary Drinking-Water Parameters
CopperIronManganeseZinc
Water samples will be collected from all newly installed monitoring andleachate we l l s and the fol lowiny sites (Fiyure 2):
Existing WellsB-6R B-9A B-12R B-15 B-17B-7R B-9R B-14 B-16R B-18
Private Wells
"Ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) have been added to
the indicator parameters to aid in the evaluation of potential
sources of ground-water contamination. The Piper Trilinear
Method will be used to categorize and correlate the water-quality
parameters."
B36B/4 RE.LaMoreaux& Associates
Section Page
"The collection and analysis of water sam-ples, as described above, will be completedonce as a basis for future recommendationsregarding potential items such as:
• well abandonment or replacement;• sites for continued monitoring;• frequency of continued monitoring; and• off-site ground-water sampling."
"Based on the results of the first round ofsampling, an alternate sample analysis plan,using selected parameters, for subsequentsamples will be submitted to U.S. EPA forapproval."
B36B/5 RELaMoreaux & Associates
STATEMENT OF WORK FORA REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE
DUNN LANDFILL(CITY DISPOSAL CORPORATION LANDFILL),
DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
(PELA File No. 450202)
Prepared for
Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc.N96 W13503 County Line Road
Menomonee Fails, Wisconsin 53051-1606
By
P. E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Inc.Consulting Hydrologists, Geologists
and Environmental ScientistsPost Office Box 2310
Tusc»ioosa, Alabama 35403
August 28, 1986
-—RE LaMoreaux & Associates
IP11L4:CONTENTS
I. Introduction —————————————— —————————————— 1
1.1 Remedial Investigation———————————————— 1
1.1.1 Objectives—————————————————— 11.1.2 Scope——————————————————.-—— 2
II. Task 1 — Description of Current Situation ———————— 3
1.1 Introduction—————————————————————— 31.2 Site background———————————————————— 31.3 Hydrologic setting—————————————————— 51.4 Additional description of
current situation ——————————————————— 81.4.1 Site background —————— ————————————— 81.4.2 Nature and extent of problem—————-———— 81.4.3 History of response actions———————————— 91/4.4 Define boundary conditions———————————— 91.4.5 Site map —————————————————————————10
III. Task 2 — Plans and Management——————————————11
2.1 Introduction——————————————————•—————112.2 Quality assurance and
sampling plans ——————————— ——————————122.3 Health and safety plan ———————————————122.4 Community relations ———— ————— — — —— —13
IV. Task 3 -- Site Investigation————————————————————14
3.1 Introduction ——————————————————————143.2 Soil sampling ——————————————————————203.3 Surface-water monitoring —- — ———— — — ----233.4 Geophysical survey- ——————————— —— - — -—253.5 Installation of leachate wells— ————————— -263.6 Installation of piezometers, nested
wells and water-table wells -- — — — ----- — ---273.7 Downhole geophysics --- — --- — - — -- — -------293.8 Monitoring and analyses ------ — -- —— — -- — --303.9 Air sampling -- ———— --- —— -- — ————— —— -32
V. Task 4 -- Analysis of Data—————————————————————33
VI. Task 5 -- Reports -——————————————————————————34
RELaMoreaux& Associates —
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1. Cell design plan and location oflandfilled area—————————————————————————— 4
2. Location of data collection sites atthe City Disposal Corporation Landfill,Dane County, Wisconsin ——————————————•—24
—————— R ELaMoreaux & Associates
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR CONDUCTINGA REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AT
DUNN LANDFILL(CITY DISPOSAL CORPORATION LANDFILL),
DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Remedial Investigation (Rl) is to determine
the nature and extent of contamination at the City Disposal Corporation
Landfill site in Dane County, Wisconsin. The purpose of the Feasibility
Study (FS) is to determine an appropriate remedial action, if required,
based on the Rl data and report. All personnel, materials and services
required to perform the RI/FS will be provided by the Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRP).
1.1 Remedial Investigation
1.1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the Remedial Investigation are to:
1. Determine the characteristics and extent of contaminants
that may be present at the site.
2. Define the pathways of migration if contamination is de-
tected .
3. Define physical features that could affect contaminant
migration, containment or remediation.
VS21/*4—————————————————————REUMoreauxa Associates—
4. Quantify risks, if'any, to human health and the environ-
ment.
5. Compile information necessary to support the Feasibility
Study.
1.1.2 Scope•
The remedial investigation consists of five tasks:
Task 1 -- Description of Current Situation
Task 2 — Plans and Management
Task 3 -- Site Investigation
Task 4 — Site Investigation Analysis
Task 5 — Remedial Investigation Report
i ij VS21/#5————————————————————————————— RELaMoreaux& Associates—
II. TASK 1 — DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SITUATION
1.1 Introduction
The following sections provide a historical perspective and
brief hydrologic description of the site. A complete description
of the current situation will be developed during .the site inves-
tigation which will provide the information specified in Section
1.4.
1.2 Site Background
The Ounn Landfill (City Disposal Landfill) is located on
approximately "3B acres 'in tne sou'tnern 'nair or Section "3D, "Town-
ship 6 North, Range 10 East in Dane County, Wisconsin.
The site was first utilized in 1966 and -closed in January
1977. The site was operated in compliance with NR 151 and
licensed throughout the operational period in accord with current
regulations. The site was subdivided into twelve cells (Figure
1) of which cells 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 were filled or partially
filled. The cell plan is based on engineering plans completed by
Soil Testing Services of Wisconsin, Inc. Cells 1 and 12 were
utilized from initial disposal until 1974. Cells 2, 3, 4, and 6
were filled or partially filled from 1974 until closure in 1977. An
area designated for industrial waste disposal (a portion of cell
12) was located in the eastern portion of the site. Industrial
wastes were disposed in cell 12 from 1966 through March 1975.
VS21/02/#6 RELaMoreaux & Associates
IMP tOUflce; MODIFIED FROM t/SOS T.I MINUTi OUAOHAMaLES. KU11AHO, VH3COHSIH. !»•».
FIGURE 1. CELL DESIGNPLAN AND LOCATION OFLANDFILLED AREA.
EXPLANATION
I B I CELL LOCATION AND NUMBERL _ J
LANOFILLED AREA PRIORTO 1975
LANDFILLED AREA, 1075-1977
tCALI IN FItT
Ptmpmtmd fey:P.E. LAMOREAUX * ASSOCIATES. INC.
Interpretation of aerial photography indicates agricultural
usage at the site in September, 1962. Only cell 1 was in use in
May of 1968. By October, 1975, ceil 2, a part of cell 3, the
southeastern one-fourth of cell 4, the southern one-half of cell 6
and a part of cell 12 were being utilized. Cells 1 and 12 (ex-
cept for that in use) were covered and graded. By September,
1976, cells 2 and 6 and the eastern parts of ceils-3 and 4 were
active. Vegetative cover was present on the eastern part of cell
1, but was absent near cell 12.
There were no activities at the site in June, 1978. The fill
area was graded and cells 2 and 6 and parts of cells 3 and 4
were barren. The vegetative cover at cells 1 and 12 was similar
to that recorded by the September, 1976 aerial photographs.
The entire fill area was reclaimed by August, 1978. This
reclamation was confirmed in subsequent aerial photographs.
1.3 Hydrologic Setting
Surfictal geology at the site is typical of that which occurs
in other glaciated areas. The site is situated on an end moraine
which, because of its proximity to the glacier, is characterized
by poorly sorted and stratified materials. The depth to bedrock
at the site is estimated to be from 50 to 150 feet beiow the land
surface. The lack of site-specific data precludes the delineation
of the top of bedrock.
VS21/02/#8 PE.LaMof8aux & Associates
The principal lithologies at the site are sand, silty sand,
and a mixture of sand and gravel. These materials are generally
overlain by a discontinuous layer of silty clay which has a
maximum thickness of about 20 feet.
There was limited data available from drillers' logs for
domestic wells or from published reports. The drillers logs do
not provide sufficient information for detailed correlation of
geologic units at the site. A review of logs does indicate that
the unconsolidated deposits at the site are underlain by a sand-
stone. A thick dolomite underlies this sandstone.
Two surface-water systems, Badfish Creek and Grass Lake,
are near the landfill. Badfish Creek is approximately 400 feet
east of the landfill. Grass Lake is approximately 850 feet north-
east of the landfill. Grass Lake, with an area of about 30
acres, receives runoff from about 230 acres to the east of Bad-
fish Creek. The Lake is a perched surface-water body that is
underlain by 5 to 20 feet of impermeable cJayey sediments.
Drilling data from investigations made at Grass Lake by
Warzyn Engineering, Inc. and drilling at the site indicate that
Badfish Creek is underlain by clay and silt. The clay and silt
are approximately 15 feet thick adjacent to Grass Lake and thin
to the south.
Badfish Creek, a man-made channel, intercepts runoff west
of Grass Lake. The Madison sewage treatment plan discharges
treated effluent into Badfish Creek. Treated effluent.
VS21/02/»9_________________________ 0_. ..__ ., . .————————————————————————— R ELaMoreaux & Assooates
discharged at the rate of 24 to 52 million gallons per day, con-
stitutes the majority of flow in Badfish Creek (Warzyn, 1981).
Interpretations of water levels in Badfish Creek, and from
local monitoring wells indicate potential recharge of the ground-
water system by the surface-water bodies. However, although
data adjacent to the landfill are sparse, the water level in a
monitor well is generally above the water level in -Badfish Creek,
thus indicating Badfish Creek may be a gaining stream.
Ground water occurs within both the unconsoiidated glacial
and alluvial deposits and bedrock units underlying the site.
Ground-water flow between the sand and gravel deposits and the
bedrock is unrestricted except in areas where silt and clay occur
between the two units. Regional data indicates that the units
may be separate but "leaky" aquifers.
Ground water occurs under water-table, semi-confined, or
confined conditions because of the variable permeability of the
silt and clay that locally overlie the bedrock. Water-table condi-
tions occur within the shallow unconsoiidated deposits in the
immediate area of the landfill. This same shallow aquifer is
confined or semi-confined immediately northeast of the landfill
where Badfish Creek is adjacent to Grass Lake.
Water-table maps prepared from monitoring data at the
landfill and at Grass Lake for March and September 1983 conform
to regional piezometric maps with the slope of the hydraulic
gradient to the northeast. Interpretation of the limited water-
level data indicates a ground-water mound beneath the landfill.
VS21/02/*10 RELaMoreaux & Associates
8
This mound is attributed to downward percolation of fluids from
the landfill into the underlying ground-water system. There
also appears to be a ground-water high northeast of the landfill.
The cause of this high will be investigated as part of the Reme-
dial Investigations (Task 3).
1.4 Additional Description of Current Situation
With the foregoing referenced studies as a database, addi-
tional information will be collected during the Task 3 investi-
gation. These data will be collated and formalized to provide the
following:
1.4.1 Site Background
A summary will be prepared of the regional location, per-
tinent area boundary features, and general site physiography,
hydrology, and geology. The general nature of the problem will
be defined, including pertinent history relative to the use of the
site for hazardous-waste disposal.
1.4.2 Nature and Extent of Problem
A summary of the known actual and potential health and
environmental effects will be prepared. This may include, but is
not limited to, the types, physical states, affected media and
VS21/02/*m________________________ ««-.,.——————————————————————————— RE. La MoreauxA Associates—
pathways of exposure; contaminated releases such as leach ate or
runoff; and any human and/or environmental exposure. Empha-
sis will be placed on describing the threat or potential threat to
human health and the environment.
1.4.3 History of Response Actions
A summary of any previous response actions performed by
local, state, federal, or private parties, will be presented. This
summary will address any enforcement activities undertaken to
identify responsible parties, compel private cleanup, and recover
costs. A list of reference documents and their location will be
included.
1.4.4 Define Boundary Conditions
Site boundary conditions have been established to limit the
areas of on-site investigations. The boundary conditions have
been set so that the Task 3 investigation will provide sufficient
information on the contaminated media to define pathways of
contaminant migration and to support following activities (e.g.,
the feasibility study). The boundary conditions will also be
used to identify boundaries for site access control and site
security.
VS21/02/#12________________________ „.-,,. « . •_,_———————————————————————— RE.LsMoreaux& Associates
10
1.4.5 Site Map
An accurate topographic map of appropriate working scale
has been prepared for Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc.
(WMWI). The base map, with a scale of 1 inch to 100 feet (1n =
100') and 2-foot contour intervals, was prepared by Aero-Metric(
Engineering using April 1983 aerial photography. 'Surveying willfbe required to establish horizontal and vertical controls for sites
of the work. Surveying will be provided by WMWI.
A legal description of the WMWI property and area covered
by agreement between WMWI and Mr. and Mrs. Glenn E. Blatter-
man was prepared by O'Onofrio, Kottick and Associates, Inc. in
1981.
In May 1981 Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. entered
an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Glenn E. Blatterman for pur-
chase of 37.676 acres of the Blatterman property and an ease-
ment for access. The purchased property encompasses the area
of landfill. Legal agreement limits work to monitoring of and
work on wells in existence at the Blatterman property, therefore
it will be necessary to seek concurrence with Blatterman prior to
initiation of work.
VS21/02/#13 RELaMoreaux& Associates—
111. TASK 2 — PLANS AND MANAGEMENT
2.1 Introduction
Plans for the site investigation are established and present-
ed in Task 3 of this document. Personnel requirements, sched-
ules, Program for Quality Assurance (QAPP) and Health and
Safety Plan (HASP) will be developed prior to initiation of the
RI/FS. All plans will be submitted to U.S. EPA (EPA) and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) for review
and comment. Revised plans will be submitted to EPA and WDNR
within 30 calendar days of receipt of EPA and WDNR comments.
TbA €J? A, HtW, -wstafy, w* 'wViYrrs , t£ Tte ^pprova'i i/r ^e revised
plans. In the event of any disapproval, EPA will specify, in
writing, both deficiencies and recommended modifications. Plans
will be amended and resubmitted to EPA within two weeks of
receipt of the notice of deficiencies. Upon approval by EPA
these plans will be incorporated into the approved work plan.
Actions specified in the Rl work plan will be in accordance
with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
Federal, State or local permits required for performance of the
Rl will be obtained.
VS21/02/#14 R ELLaMoreaux & Associates
12
2.2 Quality Assurance and Sampling Plans
A sampling plan will be prepared that addresses all field
activities necessary to obtain additional data (specified in Task
3). The plan will contain a statement of sampling objectives,
equipment specifications, parameters to be analyzed, preservation
of samples, sample location, frequency and schedule. The plan
will use field screening techniques to eliminate samples that
require no off-site laboratory analysis. The Quality Assurance
Plan (QAP) will contain other elements as required in the Admin-
istrative Order and by EPA guidance.
2.3 Health and Safety Plan
A Health and Safety Plan will be prepared and submitted
prior to initiation of the Rl. The plan will address potential
hazards to which the investigation team and the surrounding
community may be exposed. The plan will address applicable
regulatory requirements, describe personnel responsibilities,
need for protective equipment, procedures, protocols, decon-
tamination, training and medical surveillance. Procedures for
protecting third parties will be provided. The plan will be con-
sistent with EPA Standard Operating Safety Guides.
VS21/02/#15 RELaMoreauxoi Associates —
2.4 Community Relations
Community relations activities will be performed as specified
in the Administrative Order.
VS21/02/316 R ELaMoreaux & Associates
14
IV. TASK 3 — SITE INVESTIGATION
3.1 Introduction
The site investigation will be based on, and supplement the
database for the site. Hydrogeologic, water-quality, and waste-
characterization data have been collected at the site since 1976.
Reports and collected data concerning the site are listed chron-
ologically as follows:
1. "Preliminary Feasibility Study with Regard to Expan-
sion of the Existing City Disposal Company Sanitary
Landfill at the Glenn Blatterman Property on Sand Hill
Road South of Madison, Wisconsin;" by Soil Testing
Services of Wisconsin, Inc., 1973.
2. "City Disposal Company, Solid Waste Disposal Expan-
sion in the Town of Dunn, Wisconsin," by Soil Testing
Services of Wisconsin, Inc., 1974--a and b.
3. "Grass Lake Investigation, Madison Metropolitan Sew-
erage District, Town of Dunn, Dane County, Wiscon-
sin," by Warzyn Engineering, Inc., 1981.
4. "Town of Dunn Landfill, Site Evaluation of Water
Quality Monitoring" by Warzyn Engineering, Inc.,
1983.
5. "Grass Lake Investigation; Evaluation of Remedial
Measures," by Warzyn Engineering, Inc., 1984.
15
6. "Summary Report of Existing Data, Town of Dunn
Landfill—City Disposal, Dane County, Wisconsin," by
P. E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Inc., 1984.
The 1974 report by Soil Testing Services of Wisconsin, Inc.
was prepared to evaluate subsurface conditions and to design
future landfill operations in conformance with requirements
(Chapter NR-151) of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources. The report provided information regarding the popula-
tion served, types of material to be disposed, land use, geology,
topography, and drainage patterns. Specific aspects of the
investigation included:
1. The installation of 16 soil borings;
2. The installation of PVC well points;
3. Soils descriptions;
4. Potential for leachate movement;
5. Interpretation of local hydrology;
6. Landfill design criteria.
The 1981 investigation of Grass Lake by Warzyn Engineer-
ing,̂ Inc. provided the results of a study of tbA o.o_ta.o.tiaJ. b.y-
drauiic connection between the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD) sewage effluent ditch and Grass Lake. In the
site investigation, Warzyn:
1. Completed six shallow auger borings in the dike which
separated the effluent ditch from Grass Lake:
2. Collected soil samples by split-spoon techniques;
VS21/02/«18 — PE LaMoreaux A Associates
Yb_
3. Performed field bail-down tests to determine the per-
meabilities of subsoil horizons;
4. Analyzed representative soil samples;
5. Installed PVC pipe and screen in the borings;
6. Installed galvanized pipe and well points.
Warzyn analyzed the data and provided recommendations
regarding the need to monitor water levels and water quality,
initiate a weed-cutting program, review other phases of investi-
gations of Grass Lake, and to perform a cost-benefit analysis of
remedial measures to mitigate flow through the dike.
Warzyn, in a 1983 letter report:
1. Evaluated the methodology of DNR sample collection on
September 12, 1983;
2. Evaluated DNR analytical procedures;
3. Provided a hydrogeologic/water-quality evaluation at
the site;
4. Evaluated whether the site had a water-quality impact
on Badfish Creek.
As the result of a Dane County Circuit Court decision in
September, 1982, Warzyn Engineering, Inc. (1984) evaluated
engineering alternatives primarily regarding the prevention of
potential muskrat damage to the dike which separated MMSD's
effluent ditch and Grass Lake. Warzyn concluded that installa-
tion of metal muskrat barriers in conjunction with an annual
weed-cutting program would be the most reasonable and cost-
effective measure.
VS21/02/S19____________________________., ._ . .-—————————————————————————R£LaMoreaux& Associates—
17
In 1984, P. E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Inc. (PELA) pre-
pared a summary report of existing data for the site. The
objectives of the study were to obtain and evaluate available
data, prepare a summary assessment of site conditions, identify
areas where additional information was needed, itemize additional
work required to define the hydrogeology at the landfill and
assess the potential impact of the landfill on water quality. ;
The following conclusions were included in the July 1984
study report.
1. No volatile organics were detected in the private wellwater samples.
2. Interpretation of aerial photography and review of dataand records on site chronology indicate that the maxi-mum area of disposal of industrial wastes is limited tothe extent of works shown on October 2, 1975, photo-graphy.
3. Site specific geologic information is generally consistentwith the available regional data. However, maximumdepth of any boring or well on the site is 50 feet.The site specific data collected to date are inadequateto characterize fully the lithology of the glacial depos-its or to delineate configuration of the top of bedrockat the landfill site.
4. Publicly available data indicate that the depth to thebedrock surface ranges from approximately 50 to 150feet below land surface at the Dunn Landfill site.
5. Available data indicate that the uppermost bedrockbeneath the landfill site is a sandstone unit underlainby a thick sequence of dolomite.
6. Water-table conditions exist in the immediate area ofthe landfill, within the shallow unconsoiidated deposits.Site specific water-table maps prepared show conform-ity with regional piezometnc maps, with the hydraulicgradient to the northeast.
7. The amount of data available to evaluate the water-table configuration is limited. However, two anomalousfeatures are noted:
VS21/02/#20 RELaMoreaux& Associates —
18
a. The apparent ground-water high that occursbelow the landfill area, and
b. The ground-water high to the northeast towardwells B-14 and B-17 which could be caused bythe thickening of the surficial silt and clay.
Data indicate that the ground-water high ormound is less than 4 feet in height.
8. Data available from reports and engineering plans pre-pared by Soil Testing Services indicate that the baselevel of the landfill (approximately 937 feet MSL) isabove the water table.
9. Grass Lake is underlain by a sequence of clayeysediments of varying thickness. The surface-waterelevation of Grass Lake is higher than the elevationsof the ground-water system. Analysis of availabledata indicates no direct hydraulic connection betweenthe two systems.
Badfish Creek is both an influent and effluent stream.This interrelationship of the ground-water system andBadfish Creek is dependent on the nature of thelithology underlying the creek and seasonal hydrologicconditions. Data available are not sufficient to ad-dress this interrelationship in detail.
10. Data are not sufficient to assess the hydrology of thedeeper, glacial, water-bearing zones or the relation-ship of the ground water in the glacial material andwater in the bedrock aquifer(s).
Only one nest of monitoring wells has been establishedat the landfill site. Both of the wells are completed inthe glacial deposits -- 30 feet and 50.5 feet below landsurface. The higher water-level elevation in theshallower well may indicate that ground water has thepotential for downward leakance from the shallow zoneto the deeper zone. Water levels indicate that thewater-bearing zones penetrated by the two wells arenot in direct hydraulic communication at that location.
11. Analyses of water samples from monitoring wells indi-cate elevated concentrations for some parameters in theimmediate area of the landfill.
12. A review of water quality data indicates inconsistentand erratic values (pH, specific conductance, totalhardness, iron, sulfate, and chloride) occurringrandomly throughout the period of record (1974 -1983). The highest concentrations of the parameters
VS21/02/#21 RELaMoreaux& Associates —
19
analyzed and lowest pH values measured occur fromwater in wells B-15 and B-18. Refuse material waspenetrated during the drilling of B-15. The well isscreened approximately 8 feet below the base of therefuse material. For the purpose of evaluation ofground-water quality, well B-15 should be considereda leachate well.
13. On the basis of one sampling effort and analyses ofground-water samples for volatile organic compounds,the highest concentrations occur near the area ofdocumented industrial waste disposal near monitoringwells B-15 and B-18. Lower levels of organic com-pounds were detected in water from other monitoringwells.
The distribution of organic compounds is not consistentwith distribution of indicator parameters. Factorswhich could contribute to the detection of these or-ganic compounds include:
1. Well construction,2. Ambient conditions,3. Sample collection techniques,4. Laboratory techniques,5. Industrial waste disposal,6. Chemicals disposed with domestic solid waste,7. Unknown sources.
Current ground-water monitoring at the site consists of:
1. Water-sample collection and analyses for metals since
1976 on a quarterly basis.
2. Quarterly sample collection and analyses for VOC's
since 1982 (new monitor wells were included and in-
stalled).
Additional remedial investigations will be performed to
characterize the impact, if any, on the environment and human
health. The results of the site investigation will be used to
assess preliminary remedial alternatives and to evaluate alter-
natives during the feasibility study.
VS21/02/S22 P. ELaMoreaux & Associates
20
The proposed field investigation at the site will fulfill the
goals of the Rl as stated by EPA. Specific aspects of the field
investigation are:
1. To assess the hydraulic relationship between the
surface- and ground-water systems;
2. To assess the composition, integrity, thickness, po-
tential for leachate generation, and potential infil-
tration characteristics of the existing soil cover;
3. To determine the thickness and correlation of glacial
deposits, hydrology of deeper water-bearing zones in
the glacial deposits, and the relationships between
ground water in the glacial deposits, and bedrock;
4. To delineate extent of contaminated soils and ground
water;
5. To assess risk to human health and the environment.
The additional investigations to be carried out during this
site investigation will consist of installation of additional moni-
toring wells, collection and analysis of additional ground-water
samples, and collection and analysis of additional soil samples.
The following sections provide details on the location and meth-
ods of data collection necessary to characterize the site.
3.2 Soil Sampling
To assess the composition, integrity, and thickness of the
existing soil cover a soil survey will be performed. Information
VS21/02/#23 -—RELoMoreaux& Associates
IP1UA-21
obtained from the soil cover survey will also be used in develop-
ing a water budget for the site. Soil samples will be collected at
selected sites and analyzed to determine if contamination is
present.
Specific work items for the soil survey are:
a. A 100-foot grid system will be established on the
landfill surface. Surveying of horizontal or vertical
controls required will be provided by WMWI.
b. A field reconnaissance will be completed to map condi-
tions of visual cover, for example: vegetative stress,
erosion, exposed waste materials, leach ate seeps, etc.
c. A boring will be completed, by hand or power auger,
at each node on the 100-foot grid, to provide docu-
mentation of the thickness and lithology of the soil
cover.
d. To evaluate the permeability of the soil/cover material:
(1) Samples will be collected from at least 20 percent
(201) of the borings for analysis of grain size
distribution (including hydrometer).
(2) Bulk samples will be collected from five (5)
borings and analyzed to develop compaction test
curves. In addition, laboratory tests will be
completed to determine permeability under a range
of compaction. A relationship between compaction
and permeability will be established.
VS21/02/#24 R ELaMoreaux & Associates
(3)
22
Samples will be collected from at least 20 percent
(20%) of the borings and analyzed for moisture
content.
(4) Field density measurements will be completed for
at least 20 percent (201) of the borings - same
locations as Item (3) above. Using the density
measurement, results from compaction tests and
permeability curves, permeability will be deter-
mined for each location.
e. Soil samples will be collected from six (6) locations and
analyzed for priority pollutants. Samples will be
collected by means of push tubes to a maximum depth
of two (2) feet.
Sample locations are described as follows:
(1) Bottom of slope in vicinity of well B-15.
(2) Bottom of slope in vicinity of well B-18.
(3) Mid-way between wells B-15 and B-18.
(4) and (5) At two (2) locations along drainage ditch
east of well B-12R.
(6) Approximately mid-way between wells B-7R and
B-14.
These sampling sites have been selected on the basis
of landfill topography, surface drainage patterns.
VS21/02/S25 — P. ELaMoreaux & Associates —
23
known locations of buried industrial waste, and pro-
visions for a control sample (Sample 6).
f. Air monitoring will be performed during the augering
and sampling in accord with the health and safety
plan. The purpose of monitoring is two-fold: (1)
personal safety monitoring; and (2) qualitative mon-
itoring of site conditions. The results of the mon-
itoring will be tabulated and incorporated with data
interpretation.
3.3 Surface-Water Monitoring
Surface-water stations will be installed at locations on
Badfish Creek and Grass Lake to assess the hydraulic relation-
ship between the surface-water and ground-water systems. If
possible, staff gages located on Badfish Creek and owned by the
Madison "Metropolitan Sewerage "District IMM5D") will be used.
Proposed locations are shown on Figure 2 (actual locations are
subject to field conditions and MMSD locations). All stations will
be equipped with staff gages. Surveying of locations and eleva-
tions will be completed by WMWI to provide controls needed for
data interpretation. Staff gage readings and water-level mea-
surements in all wells (existing and newly installed) will be
obtained at least twice weekly during field work and quarterly
thereafter for the duration of Rl activities. Stream discharge
VS21/02/*26 RELaMoreauxA Associates ——
,t
EXPLANATION
B-«REXISTING MONITORINQ WELL
PROPOSED SURFACE WATERSITE AND NUMBER
> "• ac POSSIBLE WELL NEST SITELOCATION AND NUMBER
POSSIBLE SHALLOW WELL SITELOCATION AND NUMBER
PROPOSED SHALLOWPIEZOMETER LOCATIONS
LIMITS OF FILL
FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF DATA COLLECTION SITES AT THE CITY DISPOSALCORPORATION LANDFILL, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN.
•CAM IN rttf
25
will be measured at the three (3) sites on Badfish Creek syn-
chronously with staff gage readings.
Samples of surface-water runoff from the ditch traversing
the site will be collected and analyzed as described in Section
3.8. Any surface seeps detected will be sampled and analyzed
as described in Section 3.8. Appropriate field screening tech-
niques may be applied to maximize the effectiveness of sampling
efforts.
3.4. Geophysical Survey
An electromagnetic survey will be performed to obtain
information on subsurface and near surface conditions. A mag-
netometer survey will not be completed because the limits of the
site are well defined through previous mapping and aerial pho-
tography and, because the site was used for co-disposal, metals
identified could not be defined specifically as drums.
The grid system, established for soil sampling (3.2), will
be used for orientation and spacing of profiles. A survey
around the periphery of the landfill will aid in delineating areas
where the landfi l l may be impacting the ground water. The
survey across the landf i l l w i l l aid in defining any areas of
leach ate generation and any areas of downward infiltration into
the ground-water system.
Electromagnetic (EM) surveying is a method by which lateral
variations in the electrical conductivity of subsurface soil, rock
VS21/02/#2S— RE.LaMoreaux& Associates
26
and ground water can be rapidly detected. Subsurface con-
ductivity variations may be caused by changes in soil moisture
content, specific conductance of ground water, soTl depth and
thickness, as well as structural features such as voids or frac-
tures. Electromagnetic measurements will be obtained from the
periphery of the landfill area and at selected profiles across the
landfill. Additional EM measurements will be made- to define the
configuration of any contaminant plume that may be detected in
the landfill or around the periphery of the landfill. The survey
will use profiling techniques (fixed-depth measurements along a
traverse line) and sounding techniques (measurements to various
depths at a given location). Steps to be taken in the reduction
and interpretation of data will be as follows:
1. Selected traverses will be plotted as conductivity profiles;
2. Contour maps of subsurface conductivity will be construct-
ed;
3. Spatial changes in measured values of conductivity will be
•evaluated to determine conductivity anomalies and compared
with other data (geologic, hydrologic, and historic) for the
site.
3.5 Installation of Leachate Wells
At least three (3) leachate wells will be installed. Well
locations will be based on results of the geophysical survey,
known extent of landfilling, cell design, and previous studies.
VS21702/329R ELaMoreaux & Associates
27
3.6 Installation of Piezometers, Nested Wells and Water-Table Wells
To determine the thickness of glacial deposits, hydrology of
deep water-bearing zones in the glacial deposits, and the rela-
tionships between ground-water, surface-water, glacial deposits,
and bedrock, wells will be installed in a three (3)-phased ap-
proach. The phased approach to well installation will facilitate
use of information obtained from initial well installation to es-
tablish locations for additional wells, intervals to be screened,
number of wells required for • each well nest and appropriate
drilling techniques.
Shallow piezometers will be installed to establish 300-foot
triangular grids in Phase I of the well installation program
(Figure 2). The triangular grid pattern will be used to provide
a geometric network for computing ground-water gradient andV
flow direction. Piezometers will be constructed of 3/4 inch-ID
galvanized pipe and well points. If necessary, the grid pattern
can be expanded in any direction.
Phase II of the well installation program will consist of the
drilling of a bedrock monitoring well upgradient of the site.
The evaluation of data obtained from the drilling of this bedrock
well, which would include lithologies and hydroiogic units pene-
trated, will be used to determine the number of wells in each
well nest and the interval to be screened in each well.
Remaining wells will be installed in Phase III of the well
installation program. Probable locations for well nests and
VS21/02/«30-—RE.LaMoreaux& Associates
28
shallow monitoring wells are shown on Figure 1. The number of
wells and their locations will be based on information obtained
from Phases I and II of the well installation program.
Split-spoon samples (or an alternate method of obtaining
"undisturbed" samples) will be taken at 5-foot intervals or more
frequently where a change in lithology occurs during Phase II
and Phase III drilling. Representative samples will be retained
of each interval. An experienced PELA geologist will be present
•dcirimg TfrYiYmg *» supervise drifting operations, coTlect samples,
and prepare field descriptions of the samples and a strip chart
of the lithology penetrated during drilling. Drill penetration
rates, blow counts, and observations on top of moisture or zones
of saturation will be recorded. Descriptions of samples will be
prepared using a sand grain chart, rock color chart, and hand
lens. The geologist will also be responsible for proper labeling
of samples and documentation of sample collection. Grain-size
distribution analysis (including hydrometer) will be performed on
samples from the important hydrogeoiogic units.
The data obtained from sample descriptions and analyses
will aid in determining the hydrogeology at the site. The data
will also serve as a control for the evaluation of geophysical logs
and lithologic correlation of data from new and existing wells.
Monitoring wells will be constructed of screw-joint PVC well
screen and casing. Screened intervals will be selected by
evaluating information collected during drilling and geophysical
logging. A sand pack will extend above the top of the screen.
VS2T/02/*31R ELaMoreaux & Associates
29
and the annular space around the casing will be sealed to the
surface with a bentonite slurry. Wells will be developed by
bailing, backflushing, surging, or pumping. Water levels and
volume(s) of water1 removed during development will be recorded.
Water samples will be collected during development and field
determinations will be made for pH, temperature, and specific
conductance.
The locations and elevations of wells will be surveyed by
WMWI. Bail-down or slug tests will be performed on selected
wells to determine the hydraulic characteristics of the various
performed after Phase III well installation. However, limited
testing may be required in Phase II to define/ refine the actual
number of wells required and their location.
Water-level measurements will be performed at all new and
existing wells (per the schedule in Section 3.3). These data will
be used to prepare water-table/potentiometric surface maps.
3.7 Downhoie Geophysics
Downhole geophysical logging will be completed to aid in
selection of screen settings for wells installed under Section 3.6
and for use in correlation of lithologies penetrated in previously
drilled wells. Spontaneous potential, resistivity, and gamma logs
wilt be performed in each well (piezometers will not be logged)
installed in Section 3.S (drilling technique may preclude certain
VS21/02/S32-— RELLaMoreauxA Associates —
30
loys ) Gamma loys need to be completed only for the deepest well of eachof the well nests. Uamma loys wi l l be performed on JxUtiny £-inchdiameter monitoriny wells, If accessible, (B-bR, B-7R, B-9R, B-1<W, B-16.and B-19R) and selected 4-inch diameter monitoriny wells (B-14 and B-17).
The gamma logs from the existing wells will be compared
with drillers' logs prepared by previous investigators and cor-
related with gamma logs and sample descriptions from the new
wells to provide detailed stratigraphic correlation between all
borings around the site.
3.8 Monitoring and Analyses
The existing semi-annual monitoring program should con-
tinue until completion of the Rl. All selected existing monitoring
wells and four (4) nearby private wells will be sampled to char-
acterize the chemical character of ground water and to assess
the movement of contaminants. The water collected from all
monitoring wells and the four nearby private wells will be ana-
lyzed for the selected indicator parameters, water quality param-
eters, and primary and secondary drinking-water standards
enumerated below. Water levels in the wells will be measured
prior to sampling. Wells will be evacuated of water and allowed
to recharge prior to sample collection. Samples will be collected
and analyzed in accordance with standard procedures. Color,
odor, and turbidity will be recorded. The specific parameters
for analysis are:
VS21/02/#33— RE.LaMoreaux& Associates
31
Indicator Parameters
AmmoniaBoronNitratePHPhenolSpecific conductanceTemperatureTotal dissolved solidsTotal Kjeidahl nitrogenTotal organic carbonVolatile organics
Water-Quality Parameters
BicarbonateCalciumCarbonateChlorideMagnesiumPotassiumSodiumSulfate
Primary Drinking-Water Parameters
ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumFluoride
LeadMercurySeleniumSilver
Secondary Drinking-Water Parameters
CopperIronManganese 'Zinc
Water samples will be collected from the following sites (Fig-
ure 1):
8-6RB-7R
Wells
B-9A B-12RB-9R B-14
Private Wells
B-15B-16R
B-17B-18
Ammonia and total Kjoldahl nitrogen (TKN) have been added
to the indicator parameters to a«d in the evaluation of 9at&n.txaJ.
sources of ground-water contamination. The Piper Trilinear
Method will be used to categorize and correlate the water-quality
parameters.
VS21/02/#34 RELaMoreaux&Assooates —
32
The collection and analysis of water samples, as described
above, should be completed once as a basis for future recom-
mendations regarding potential items such as:
• well abandonment or replacement;
• sites for continued monitoring;
• parameters for continued monitoring;
• frequency of continued monitoring; and
• off-site ground-water sampling.
3.9 Air Sampling
Air sampling will be performed during site activities as a
part of the health and safety plan. The information will be used
to assess the need for personal protection and also will be evalu-
ated from the technical standpoint. Air monitoring will be
performed during the cover survey and soil sampling (Section
3.2), installation of leachate wells (Section 3.5), installation of
nested wells (Section 3.6), and monitoring and analyses (Section
3.8). Air monitoring will be performed with an HNU-photoionizer
meter or other appropriate field instrumentation.
VS2T/02/S35 ~ RE.LaMoreaux& Associates —
33
V. TASK 4 — ANALYSIS OF DATA
An analysis of all data collected during this investigation
will be made to assure that the quality (e.g. QA/QC procedures
have been followed) and quantity of the data adequately support
the feasibility study- A summary of tbua. vtjthfVA «K'.U. bo. vik,-
mitted to U.S. EPA and Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources (WDNR) as the preliminary data transmittal. The an-
alysis will be transmitted within three weeks of completion of the
analytical work. The QA/QC evaluation would determine whether
the data met the requirements of the QAPP and would include an
analysis such as that for organics in EPA's Laboratory Data
Validation Functional Guidelines (R-582-5-5-01).
The results of the site investigations will be organized and
presented in a report. The data from the investigation will be
used to develop a summary of the type and extent of on-site
contamination. An Endangerment Assessment will describe the
specific chemicals at the site and ambient levels at the site, the
number, locations, and types of populations, and migration
pathways that may result in an actual or potential threat to
human health, welfare or the environment. Actual or potential
risks will be quantified whenever possible.
VS21/027*36______________________——————————— p ̂ LaMoreaux & Associates —
34
VI. TASK 5 - REPORTS
Regular progress reports will be prepared that:
1. Describe the actions taken toward compliance with the
Consent Order; v
2. Describe site activities and the results of sampling and
tests or data produced during the month;
3. Describe actual or potential problems associated with the
site investigation;
4. Describe plans for work during the next reporting period.
These reports are to be submitted to EPA and WDNR by the
10th day of each month following the effective date of the
Consent Order.
During the investigation, the EPA will be provided with
preliminary field data to inform its personnel of major project
milestones. This data transmittal would consist of providing
preliminary copies of boring logs, diagrams of monitor well
construction, notice of sampling completion, sample identification,
results, and other pertinent data.
A technical report with supporting graphics, maps, and
tables will be prepared. Basic data such as detailed lithologic
descriptions, methods and procedures, and quality assurance will
be included in appendices. The report will identify, if appro-
priate, the nature, extent, and pathways of contaminant
VS21/02/S37___________ «•-•,. . . •_.————————————————————————— RELsMoreaux & Assooates —
PiilA35
migration. Included in the report, as necessary, will be a
detailed description of recommendations for further investigation
and continued activities. The report will be submitted in draft
form for review and comment. Upon receipt of comments, a final
report will be completed.
VS21/02/338RE.LaMoreaux& Associates
STATEMENT OF WORK
FOR CONDUCTING FEASIBILITY STUDIES
for City Dispos-al Corporation Landfill
PURPOSE
The purpose of this feasibility study is to developand evaluate remedial alternatives for City Disposal Corp-poration Landfill. The Engineer wilLfurnish the necessarypersonnel, materials, and services necessary to prepare theremedial action feasibility study, except as otherwisespecified. . .
SCOPE
The feasibility study consists of seven tasks:
Task 6 - Description of Proposed ResponseTask 7 - Preliminary Remedial TechnologiesTask 8 - Development of AlternativesTask 9 - Initial Screening of AlternativesTask 10 - Evaluation of the AlternativesTask 11 - Preliminary ReportTask 12 - Final Report
A work plan that includes a detailed technicalapproach, a budget, personnel requirements, and scheduleswill be submitted for the proposed feasibility study.
TASK 6 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESPONSE
Information on the site background, the nature andextent of the problem, and previous response activitiespresented in Task 1 of the remedial investigation will beincorporated by reference.
Following this summary of the current situation, asite-specific statement of purpose for the response, basedon the results of the remedial investigation, should bepresented. The statement of purpose should identify theactual or potential exposure pathways that should beaddressed by remedial alternatives.
TASK 7 - PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Based on the site-specific problems and statement ofpurpose identified in Task 6, develop a master list ofpotentially feasible technologies. These technologieswill include both on-site and off-site remedies, dependingon site problems. The master list will be screened based
on site conditions, waste characteristics, and technicalrequirements, as well as applicable criteria found inERA Interim Policy: "Procedures for Planning and Implement-ing Off-Site Response Actions" (50 Federal Register 45933November 5, 1985) to eliminate or modify those technologiesthat may prove extremely difficult to implement, will requireunreasonable time periods, or will rely on insufficientlydeveloped technology.
TASK 8 - DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the remedial investigation andconsideration of preliminary remedial technologies(Task 7), develop a limited number of alternatives forsource control or off-site remedial actions, or both, onthe basis of objectives established for the response.
a. Establishment of Remedial Response Objectives
Establish site-specific objectives for theresponse. These objectives will be based onpublic health and environmental concerns, thedescription of the current situation (fromTask 1), information gathered during the remedialinvestigation, section 300.68 of the NationalContingency Plan (NCP), EPA's interim guidance,and the requirements of any other applicable EPA,Federal, and State environmental standards,guidance, and advisories as defined under EPA'sCERCLA compliance policy. (See "Revised CERCLAEnforcement Policy Compendium", of flay 9, 1985)Objectives for source control measures shouldbe developed to prevent or significantly minimizemigration of contamination from the site. Objec-tives for management of migration measures shouldprevent or minimize impacts of contamination thathas migrated from the site.
b. Identification of Remedial Alternatives
Develop alternatives to incorporate remedialtechnologies (from Task 7), response objectives,and other appropriate considerations into acomprehensive, site-specific approach.Alternatives developed should include thefollowing (as appropriate):
Alternatives for off-site treatment ordisposal, as appropriate
Alternatives which attain applicableand/or relevant Federal public healthor environmental standards
Alternatives which exceed applicableand/or relevant public health orenvironmental standards
Alternatives which do not attainapplicable and/or relevant publichealth or environmental standards butwill reduce the likelihood of presentor future threat from the hazardoussubstances. This must include analternative which closely approachesthe level of protection provided by theapplicable or relevant standardsNo action.
There may be overlap among the alternativesdeveloped. Further, alternatives outside ofthese categories may also be.'developed, such asnon-cleanup alternative (e.g., alternative watersupply, relocation). The alternatives shall bedeveloped in close consultation with ERA and theState. Document the rationale for excluding anytechnologies identified in Task 7 in thedevelopment of alternatives.
TASK 9 - INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives developed in Task 8 will be screenedby the Engineer to eliminate those that are clearlyinfeasible or inappropriate, prior to undertaking detailedevaluations of the remaining alternatives.
Considerations to be Used in Initial Screening
Three broad considerations must be used as a basis forthe initial screening: cost, public health, and theenvironment. More specifically, the following factorsmust be considered:
1. Environmental Protection. Only thosealternatives that satisfy the response objectivesand contribute substantially to the protection ofpublic health, welfare, or the environment willbe consideced turt'ner. "Source coTftrtfialternatives will achieve adequate control ofsource materials. Management of migrationalternatives will minimize or mitigate the threatof harm to public health, welfare, or theenvi ronment.
2. Environmental Effects. Alternatives posingsignificant adverse environmental effects will beexcluded.
3. Technical Feasibility. Technologies that mayprove extremely difficult to implement, will notachieve the remedial objectives in a reasonabletime period, or will rely upon unproventechnology should be modified or eliminated.
4. Cost. An alternative whose cost far exceeds thatof other alternatives will usually be eliminatedunless other significant benefits may also berealized. Total costs will include the cost ofimplementing the alternatives and the cost ofoperation and maintenance.
The cost screening will be cpnducted only afterthe environmental and public health screeningshave been performed.
TASK 10 - EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternativeremedies that pass through the initial screening inTask 9. Alternative evaluation will be preceded bydetailed development of the remaining alternatives.
a. Technical Analysis
The Techn'ica'l Analysis w'lTi, as a m'ln'imum:
1. Describe appropriate treatment, storage, anddisposal technologies.
2. Discuss how the alternative does (or doesnot) comply with specific requirements ofot̂ ft.r wxi.corimfi.ri.'ta.'i. lyracyrams.^ When. a.n.alternative does not comply, discuss how thealternative prevents or minimizes themigration of wastes and public health orenvironmental impacts and describe specialdesign needs that could be implemented toachieve compliance.
3. Outline operation, maintenance, andmonitoring requirements of the remedy.
4. Identify and review potential off-sitefacilities to ensure compliance withapplicable RCRA and other ERA environmentalprogram requirements, both current andproposed. Potential disposal facilitiesshould be evaluated to determine whetheroff-site management of site wastes couldresult in a potential for a future releasefrom the disposal facility.
5. Identify temporary storage requirements,off-site disposal needs, and transportationplans.
6. Describe whether the alternative results inpermanent treatment or destruction of thewastes, and, if not, the potential forfuture release to the environment.
7. Outline safety requirements for remedialimplementation (including both on-site andoff-site health and safety considerations).
8. Describe how the alternative could be phasedinto individual operable-units. Thedescription should include a discussion ofhow various operable units of the totalremedy could be implemented individually orin groups, resulting in a significantimprovement to the environment or savings incost.
9. Describe how the alternative could besegmented into areas to allow implementa-tion in differing phases.
10. Describe special engineering requirements ofthe remedy or site preparationconsiderations.
b. Environmental Analysis
Perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) for eachalternative. The EA should focus on the siteproblems and pathways of contamination actuallyaddressed by each alternative. The EA for eachalternative will include, at a minimum, anevaluation of beneficial effects of the response/adverse effects of the response, and an analysisof measures to mitigate adverse effects. Theno-action alternative will be fully evaluated todescribe the current site situation andanticipated environmental conditions if noactions are taken. The no-action alternativewill serve as the baseline for the analysis.
c. Public Health Analysis
Each alternative will be assessed in terms of theextent to which it mitigates long-term exposureto any residual contamination and protects publichealth both during and after completion of theremedial action. The assessment will describethe levels and characterizations of contaminants
on-site, potential exposure routes, and•ptftwititfiYy tff^vc'itti •popo'i'a'i'itffi. Trit"no action" should be described in terms ofshort-term effects (e.g., lagoon failure),1i1/?R,-Vfc77t, tVf/VsWfc to *}&i.V;'i/ytK, '•JJteJlVtfJl*,,resulting public health impacts. Each remedialalternative will be evaluated to determine thelevel of exposure to contaminants and thereduction over time. The relative reduction inpublic health impacts for each alternative willbe compared to the no-action level. Formanagement of migration measures, the relativereduction in impact will be determined bycomparing residual levels of each alternativewith existing criteria, standards, or guidelinesacceptable to ERA. For source control measuresor when criteria, standards, or guidelines arenot available, the comparison should be based onthe relative effectiveness of technologies. Theno-action alternative will serve as the baselinefor the analysis.
d. Institutional Analysis
Each alternative will be evaluated based onrelevant institutional needs. Specifically,regulatory requirements, permits, communityrelations, and participating agency coordinationwill be assessed.
e. Cost Analysis
Evaluate the cost of each feasible remedialaction alternative (and for each phase or segmentof the alternative). The cost will be presentedas a present worth cost and will include thetotal cost of implementing the alternative andthe annual operating and maintenance costs. Bothmonetary costs and associated non-monetary costswill be included. A distribution of costs overtime will be provided.
f. Evaluation of Cost-Effective Alternatives
Alternatives will be compared using technical,environmental, and economic criteria. At aminimum, the following areas will be used tocompare alternatives:
1. Present Worth of Total Costs. The netpresent value of capital and operating andmaintenance costs also must be presented.
2. Health Information. For the no-actionalternative, EPA prefers a quantitative
statement including a range estimate ofmaximum individual risks. Wherequantification is not possible, aqualitative analysis may suffice. Forsource control options, a quantitative riskassessment Is not rea,uired^ For managementof migration measures, present aquantitative risk assessment including arange estimate of maximum individual risks. '
3. Environmental Effects. Only the mostimportant effects or impacts should besummarised. Reference.can be made tosupplemental information arrayed in aseparate table, if necessary.
4. Technical Aspects of the RemedialAlternatives. The technical aspects of eachremedial alternative relative to the othersshould be clearly delineated. Suchinformation generally will be based on theprofessional opinion of the Engineerregarding the site and the technologiescomprising the remedial alternative.
5. Information on the Extent to Which Remedial"Alternatives Fleet the Technical Requirementsand Environmental Standards of ApplicableEnvironmental Regulations.- This informationshould be arrayed so that differences in howremedial alternatives satisfy such standardsare readily apparent. The general types ofstandards that may be applicable at the siteinclude:
a. RCRA design and operating standards; and
b. Drinking water standards and criteria.
5. Information on Community Effects. The typeof information that should be provided isthe extent to which implementation of aremedial alternative disrupts the community(e.g., traffic, temporary health risks, andrelocation).
1. Other Factors. This category of informationwould include such things as institutionalfactors that may inhibit implementing aremedial alternative and any othersite-specific factors identified in thecourse of the detailed analysis that mayinfluence which alternative is eventuallyselected.
TASK 11 - PRELIMINARY REPORT
Prepare a preliminary report presenting the results ofTasks 6 through 10. Submit five (5) copies of the preliminaryreport to EPA and five (5) copies to the Wisconsin Departmentof Natural Resources. (Note: EPA and the State will reviewand EPA will select a remedial alternative.)
TASK 12 - FINAL REPORT
Prepare a final report for submission to EPA and theState. The report will include the results of Tasks 6through 11, and should include any'supplemental informationin appendices. Submit five (5) copies to EPA and five (5)copies to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.